User talk:Matchups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pineapple is an 18th century welcome symbol
The pineapple is an 18th century welcome symbol

Hello Matchups, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the place and decide to stick around.

Here are some useful tips for newcomers:

Flowerparty■ 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] oberwiki

Hi there, you mentioned you're an Oberlin alum. I don't know if you've come across this but a little while ago I started a wiki site for Oberlin. The next time you're bored, visit http://oberwiki.net/ -- any contributions you feel like making would be greatly appreciated. —alxndr (t) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yeah, Quine was my grandfather. —alxndr (t) 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oberlin notable alumni list

I replied to your message regarding the above topic on my talk page. -- backburner001 18:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your request for feedback on Oberlin alumni. I say split the list to a separate page, shorten the list on the main page, with a "more..." link to the separate page. As I said on Oberlin's talk page, just do it. It can be improved later. dfrankow 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{bridge-game-stub}}

Hello; I noticed you created {{bridge-game-stub}} but I'm affraid that stubs don't work "the normal" way here at WP (don't worry, not much damage; I did that also once). The bottom line is, folks at WP:WSS are in charge for approval of new stubs, and the minimal number for a new category is around 60; bridge-stubs so don't qualify. Please don't continue to add the template for the time being, and I'll see with them what to do about it. Sorry for inconvenience. Duja 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am interested; however, several stubs I created (particularly in Category:Bridge players) never got past being stubs (so I stopped adding them), and I and few other editors expanded several others (so, there are less bridge stubs than it used to be). If you create few dozen more... :-). Duja 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for amending the list. I see you added Cross-IMPs and Butler IMPs to the list of suggested articles. I'd like to discuss it with you before you start, just to make sure that we understand each other.
The material already exists at Duplicate bridge#Scoring. It is not very thorough though, so larger articles can be extracted as {{tl:main}}. But then, you also have to add a thorough article about Matchpoint scoring, (which can get fairly complicated with Neuberg formula etc). So, they're not exactly red links. Duja 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

My apologies - mixed you up with another user. Keep up the good work.

[edit] Ghostbusters

Hello. I am interested in reading a copy of your article "Ghostbusters", but I cannot seem to find it anywhere. if you can please send me an email at avi.lipton@senecac.on.ca it would be much appreciated.

[edit] John Wray

Hi. Re your edit, please note that our policy on disambiguation pages is not to "prettify" links but to show them as they are. -- Necrothesp 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. No problem with removing redundancy. As to Paul Russell, I've edited the page to show what I think is the best way to do it without piping. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugrats help from the Help Desk

Thanks for your advice over on the Help Desk regarding Rugrats episodes; I think I'll choose your model and simply say that I'll be listing the rest for deletion if the debate succeeds. Case precedent, as they say in court. ^_^ CNash 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPL category

I like the NPL category. I noticed that some (not all) of the names on the category page were alphabetized by first name (all but Will); I added a few more by hand but alph'ed them by last name. I can't figure out how to change the info on the Emily/Eric/Francis pages because the category isn't showing up on the edit page (maybe this is a feature of the template; I don't know how those work). Could you re-alph them by last name? Thanks! Qaqaq 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I replied to your question at the help desk. ---J.S (T/C) 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

From my talk page:

I noticed that you had moved a couple of {{sections}} tags from article pages to talk pages. Editorial suggestion templates normally go on the main article page, and the discussion page for that template specifically notes this as proper practice. I've moved a couple back, and more importantly am starting to address the backlog and actually add section headers. Matchups 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree this sort of cruft should go on the talk page. If the editorial notice is also information that a reader would find useful (for example {{unreferenced}}) then fine it can go on the article page. But talk pages are there for a reason and issues which are only editorial should go there. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FutharkRed Reply

Thanks for the earlier message, and a happy new year to yourself. 2007 will hit here (NYC) in another 15 minutes or so.
I'm new to editing here (3 days?) as well as to bridge itself. In trying to learn the game, I came across the 'Contract bridge glossary' here, and was frustrated when using the internal links. Having some experience at web page coding, I therefore redid them so they would point directly to their target terms (rather than initial letters only). Unfortunately, I did all this in XHTML, not realizing that Wikipedia has its own methods.
Having learned a bit of Wiki-editing now, I've gone through most of the article, specifying internal links as well as emboldening (?) (making bold) those which lead to other articles. This has required editing the article as a whole, naturally, given the interconnection of the links. I use NoteTab Pro, which speeds up the process considerably. Also, since my internet connection won't go to DSL for a few days, it's faster to edit a copy of the text offline, and then replace as a whole.
The only content change, as yet, other than rewording the explanation of 'bold links-->external pages', is an added one-sentence definition for Blackwood convention, with link to that article. It's the only convention I know yet by name, and was surprisingly absent (though mentioned often in the text)!
Aside from being more convenient for the users, I think this linking method may obviate the need to break up the article, whose size we're reminded of (156 KBs?) every time we sign in to edit it. It certainly should end the notion of a separate page for each letter (is that really how the The Bridge World does it?) It's bad enough doing that within a page, let alone between dozens of them, for brief definitions. And while I may be zooming along in broadband this coming year, I don't forget my roots in dialup, which many readers stiil use.
I'd like to continue with this project, more with such work as this than with matters of content. (My main value there is that of anyone ignorant, useful for measuring clarity of explanation.) I have a degree in English, for what that may be worth, and some skill at this sort of encoding. I've also got some basic knowledge of some 5 or 6 other languages, which might (again in this limited capacity) make it possible to help with other parts of this project.
And I'm bound to learn something about bridge along the way!
I hope to finish this work on the glossary in the next day or two, without leaving too many dangling participles and links, and would be glad to hear of any such work you'd like to get done.
Also, as I'm sure is evident, I have no idea on the most basic things, including whether this is even the way to 'leave a message on your page', as per your note to me. Where should we put our thoughts on the bridge project in general, the glossary in particular, and so forth ... and how do we do it? (The glossary 'Discussion' was last used about 9 weeks ago.) Any help you can give me with that sort of thing will be greatly appreciated.
This is certainly long enough for now, I'll save any half-baked notions on the project until I've actually looked and thought a good bit more. Though, as in Mark Twain's The Awful German Language, that may not be too long!

FutharkRed 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your remarks.. OttomanReference 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion tag on Callum Hurley

hey, just an FYI, it's possible to use {{db-attack}} instead of {{db|personal attack}}, I fixed it for you :) -Painezor 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NUC

Thank you for letting me know that you removed the bold typeface from the two entries I left at NUC. In my defense, the no-need-to-emphasize-disambiguating-entries policy was only added five months after I began editing, and was probably still not in common practice when I changed NUC from a redirect, as I probably took the form of the disambiguation page from another TLA page, such as LEP (disambiguation).

By the way, please sign your entries, and please tell victims of your corrections exactly what their offense was; I had to study the disambiguation style guide and my own diff for fifteen minutes in order to determine the reason you singled me out and that you were not flame-worthy. Note that none of the points you mentioned in particular apply to my diff.

↪ (AllanBz ✍) 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix

_ _ What i expected, & what i find with my Firefox browser, is that the lower-casing (of at least the second word) prevents the section name in the URL from being recognized as matching that on the page, with the result that following the lk puts the top of the page at the top of the main pane of the browser window, with the "Felix" names off-screen and scrolling or use of the ToC needed to view them. But with the upper-casing, the appropriate heading is recognized & is positioned at the top of the pane, and since the section has been kept shorter than my main-pane height (via subdivision as needed), the Felix names are on screen (for typical font sizes and tool-bar complements).
_ _ BTW, lks into the LoPbN tree are not "set and forget", but subject to maintenance: if your interest in the page is long-term, you may want to watch for further subdivision of that section. When enuf Fela... to Feli... entries show up, that section will cease to exist and those names may be in a section headed "Feld - Feli", "Fele - Feli", or "Feli" -- or with re-subdivision, possibly something like "Fele - Felo", with the same expected effect as the lower-casing. And of course (tho unlikely in the immediate future) the List of people by name: Fe page could conceivably be subdivided, so that the page lk'd becomes devoid of entries, the Felixes move to List of people by name: Fel, or to List of people by name: Fea-Feq or the like, and the user has to lk to a different page after following the lk.
--Jerzy•t 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stern Fan Network

I thought fan sites were not allowed on Wikipedia per the rules. But you questioned my removal of the article for Stern Fan Network a fan site. Can you please help me with the deletion of that article as I am not familiar with the process and you seem to be more knowledgable. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobdavis4 (talk • contribs) 21:42, April 4, 2007.

[edit] Comment about edit to Paul Byrd page

FYI ... I made a comment about your addition to the Paul Byrd article on the talk page (how do you wikilink to a talk page?). --Sanfranman59 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about linking to a talk page. I thought I'd tried that syntax, but I guess not. I added another comment the the Byrd talk page. --Sanfranman59 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user

Hello. Thanks for your query about the revert I made. This is a long an complicated story, so I'll try and keep it short. Light current (talk · contribs) is a banned user who trolls the Ref Desk on a daily basis from different non-static IPs in the 88.100.* to 88.112.* range. Those familiar with his MO can spot his edits pretty easily, as they are usually puns or jokes and are in concert with his "friends" (other editors who humour him). On the rare occasion when the comment is actually constructive, it can be more difficult to be sure it is him and not some other user from the same ISP. Those I tend to leave alone. The one you mentioned was easy as it starts, "As the person who originally proposed having... some guidelines for the reference desks...". Light current was involved in the early stages of the proposal. Rockpocket 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to a previous deletion

Matchups,
A while ago, (March) you put up a speedy deletion tag on an article (Raketu, currently not an article) that I made. I was a little flustered, so I never responded. Of course, I realize now why the article didn't make the cut, and I wanted to thank you for being bold and doing the right thing.
Thanks again, Gak Blimby 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just wondering if my site was alright now.I worked really hard on it,to be honest I'm not a big computer person, so the BAM site took me like three hours. If you have any suggestions, PLEASE let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneatmidnight (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ERRORS

Try WP:ERRORS. --74.14.22.104 15:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2

I could be grasping at straws here, but there is an anonymous user on that page that signed as you. Since you haven't participated in an RfA since April, I've been wondering if that is really you, or if it's somebody impersonating you? Please reply on my talk page or the RfA. east.718 at 02:10, 11/2/2007

No problem. I was just worried that somebody might have been trying to pass themselves off as you. east.718 at 03:21, 11/3/2007

[edit] Silliness

I blocked him for a peculiar time because... well, he was user:W.X.Y.Z, and I blocked him for W days, X hours, Y minutes, and Z seconds. I blocked him because he deserved it, and I blocked him for that amount of time because I felt like it.

Good enough? DS (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting biographies

Aak. You're right. I don't have any 3rd party sources for Romapada. But I am trying to find one- I am getting a book soon that may provide this information. So please give me some mercy! David G Brault (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hangman

Agreed, that is a pretty bad disambiguation line. It doesn't hurt to link to the hangman disambiguation page, though, so I've just changed it to a simple main-disambiguation link. --McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV, etc.

Hi! Just explaining my reasoning for removing your AIV report here. Basically, that editor is using a dynamic IP address; these kinds of addresses change hands frequently, and so any previous warnings are likely to not reach the intended ears. I removed the report because the IP hadn't been warned sufficiently. Hope that makes sense, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PROD for "The Little Cars"

1. It's on Amazon 2. The Brazilian Government feared possible lawsuits regarding this 3. I bet I can find it on Yahoo! movies too Sorry, but ripoff movies are also notable WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

However I do NOT mind merging The Little Cars in the Great Race into The Little Cars... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it on the New York Times - As I said, the Brazilian Government feared that it could bring lawsuits. I am sure I can find more information. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep, found it on NYT, and a writer for The Portland Mercury criticized the series for being a ripoff of Cars. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll post inquiries at the Brazil Wikiproject about this - Even though I feel like I have enough now for the articles to stand, I want MORE discussion in newspapers etc. noted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Gifts

Thanks for the COI heads-up on this one. You may wish to comment on the AfD [1] Qworty (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Yeah, that's a bug with AWB. How it works is that it shows you a preview diff before it commits it, and you can cancel any changes before posting... but it still puts the cancelled changes in the edit summary. So, like in this case, it wanted to replace every instance of "Millon" with "Million", which is normally the right thing to do, but obviously on that article "Millon" was correct. So I cancelled all those proposed edits but it still claimed to do them. Hope that makes sense. I should probably bug the AWB guys about this, but I imagine they already know.—Chowbok ☠ 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Turns out it is indeed a known bug.—Chowbok ☠ 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brandon Moss

Hello, Matchups. You have new messages at Camanda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Camanda (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Muffin Man

I am baffled as to why you reverted The Muffin Man after my recent edits. Your edit summary was "Rv good faith efforts which, IMHO, do not improve the accuracy and encyclopedic content of the article." My edits consisted of

  • reverting joke vandalism that had somehow been overlooked by six editors
  • consolidating a verbatim account of the Shrek scene into a descriptive paragraph
  • moving a statement about the original rhyme from the popular culture section and incorporating it into a more appropriate part of the article.

According to Wikipedia policy, where possible it is better to manually edit an article than to revert it to an older version. This is a prime example. By undoing my edits, you put vandalism back in place. Even when you removed the most obvious paragraph of it, you left inaccuracies in quoted, sourced material. The revert also put the sentence about the Essex lyrics back in the popular culture section and brought back an instance of awkward punctuation. Also, I had properly formatted the rhyme itself; now all the lines are scrunched into one with extra space below.

Given these concerns, I hope you do not mind my reverting the page back to my last edits. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)