User talk:LonelyMarble
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just registered this account so feel free to drop me a line if you see me around Wikipedia. --LonelyMarble 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Seinfeld WikiProject Invite
Hey there. I couldn't help noticing your recent edits to Seinfeld-related articles. Just so you know, a Seinfeld WikiProject has been set up here. Feel free to join anytime! Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] House characters
Thanks for bringing the Thirteen/Remy Hadley issue to Talk:House (TV series). FYI, it's not that I was the "only one advocating" my case; it's that the dispute only existed between myself and one other user. He was the only one advocating his case as well. Also, the arguments I laid forth on my talk page were not written clearly enough, I feel. I have laid out my case on the talk page. Again, thanks for taking the initiative in determining what the community's consensus is. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a discussion to the talkpage regarding your wish to have three unrelated T.V. shows included in a "See Also" section. Bellwether BC 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gangster
I am not sure that there was a discussion but I saw the {{R from merge}} template and thought it was discussed Alexfusco5 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know I just found it when I was RC Patrolling and thought there was a discussion because of the template Alexfusco5 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback permission
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. —dgiestc 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Priština / Prishtina
Histories fixed. —Kurykh 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Football (word)
Stop pushing your American agenda by vandalising the article to give your own personal world view. This is about the use of the word in the English language world, this is en.wikipedia.org not us.wikipedia.org. Promote your sport elsewhere. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Constitution of Belarus
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bugs Bunny
I'd just like to say thank you for your contributions to the Bugs Bunny page. You're truly appreciated, so keep up the good work! :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] :-)=)
You really are quite philosophical, seeing the world as on little, lonely marble in space. I like it! :-)--Editor510 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
PS feel free to explore my userpage and reply!
[edit] DYK for Berton Roueché
 |
On 10 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berton Roueché, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BencherliteTalk 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent changes
Your recent changes to Template:Infobox Writer broke all the other articles using this template. Out of 3700+ articles your change for one article caused all others to break. Testing should be done in the sandbox Template:Infobox Writer/sandbox. Your comment "the problem with making notable works always in italics is that if you want to include the year after the title like, Book (2008), you don't want the year in italics too". Well then don't enter the year of the book. The majority of articles that use this template now do not have notable works displaying properly. Please reply here. --pete 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why did my change that simply reverted the template back to its state that it had been for a long time break articles while the change that was made to italicize it, that was only made 3 days ago not break any articles? The change that italicized was only made 3 days ago, I don't see why my reversion broke articles while that change didn't? Also, if a writer's notable work is a short poem or story or something it would require quotations and not be italicized, another good reason to not italicize this parameter. I'd suspect your change probably made a lot of articles not display properly because the already italicized titles now have been made bold, so I think either way there would be things to clean up. (Also, ignore my other edits, I was just testing why the template was not updating properly, but the only thing I did was remove the italics.) LonelyMarble (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Earth: See also
A long time ago we used to have a "See also" section for the Earth article. That was subsumed by the "Earth-related topics" infobox at the bottom, which was then moved to the end. Now I noticed that you are re-establishing the "See also" section. I would ask that you put your additions into the infobox and remove that section. Otherwise we may as well move the entire infobox contents back under the "See also". Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Earth changes
Hey, where is the consensus to have that creation myth link in the top dablink? I looked at the discussion archives and found nothing about it. So I looked through the article history and it seemed it was put there because of one user who was causing trouble and that no one agreed with. If this was talked about on the discussion page could you link me to the discussion and if it wasn't I really think it should be deleted. It does not help for navigation purposes at all and it also does not help to clarify anything, which is all the top dablink should do. It basically just gives undue weight to creation myth, which is already mentioned and linked in a section of the article. So I really think this should be taken off.
- We have had many discussions pertaining to the Creationism topic. For example: Talk:Earth/Archive_8#About.com_link_removed. So no, I don't think it should be taken off, in part because it reduces the need to keep endlessly debating the topic. If you don't like it there, I suggest you raise the topic on the talk page first.—RJH (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I read the whole archived section above that one you just linked earlier but I didn't think the hatnote would be mentioned in the section below. Anyway, I was right about what happened though, one user was making trouble so one user just decided to add that into the hatnote. There wasn't really any big discussion or consensus on it. In fact another user deleted that addition to the hatnote in just the same way I did a couple days after it was added. The user complaining was just asking for the religious beliefs to be mentioned in the article some way and they certainly are, in their own section. Adding that creation myth link to the top is not an appropriate response, dablinks at the top are for navigation and clarity, not to settle disputes. I think it should just be deleted right now but I'll copy this text into the Talk:Earth page in a new section if you want me to. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Marsupial Lion
A recent edit war concerning a page you recently edited (but may not have been involved with the war) is being resolved via a poll. If you have an opinion, please voice it now by voting at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I did take it personal as you only put it on my page when I was going against what you were saying. A warning template was left long before the numerous reversions by both me and Uther to stop edit warring but because he didn't and because I did all I felt I could do, I felt I had no choice. You did not care about Uther as I saw the comments left on his page, you only cared about me because you were offended by me (even though I made it quite clear that no offence was intended) and as you mentioned on his talkpage you wanted me blocked. Please be honest and sincere and people will respond better. Cazique (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
