User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome message on my talk page! :) Julie22193 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're here; let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 12:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits by 80.230.176.45

I see a bunch of constructive edits by this user and was just about to put up a welcome message. Which edits are you referring to? --Jeremyb 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what he is up to. This edit first attacted my attention; there was a bit of other vandalism mixed in. --TeaDrinker 12:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that right after I posted to your talk. --Jeremyb 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like User:Escobillo was reverting unsourced insertion of content conflicting with existing sourced content by 80.230.176.45. (see his edit summaries) --Jeremyb 12:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks that way, although I don't see the history of an edit war. It is curious. I'm not terribly inclined to assume good faith when several other edits are clear vandalism. I will go ahead and revert the changes, since it seems quite reasonable to be removing unsourced material. --TeaDrinker 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MRV Communications

You placed a cleanup tag on MRV Communications more than a year ago. It has seen some light editing since then. Is there anything specific you think still needs cleaning up? Otherwise, it looks good to me, and I'm going to remove the tag. --ssd 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! The page was more or less created by User:MRV Communications, and at least to my eye, is still an ad for the company. There are some portions of the article of dubious encyclopedic value, and some MOS cleanup needed as well. I will try to do some cleanup or discuss it on the talk page soon. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome you posted on my talk page. I think the idea of welcoming people to Wikipedia is great and I can see it making people much more likely to contribute constructively to the wiki. Thanks for the comments.

Whoops, forgot to sing that comment. That was writen by me, sometime yesterday I think. --DFRussia 07:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have been on and off wiki for the past few days. I'm glad you're here and your work is great. Let me know if there is anything I can help with! --TeaDrinker 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

beat me to the NPA template, thanks. Dureo 06:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help; I had just checked back on the user (the type of vandalism, in my experience, tends to continue). It looks like you beat me to some reverts! Keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
waiting for round 2 it seems, warned again so maybe that'll stick.Dureo 06:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he has finally been blocked. Probably for the best. --TeaDrinker 06:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas, Lord of Coucy

Just curious: why did you do it that way? Carlossuarez46 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean adding a speedy tag as copyvio or adding the link in the edit summary? I believe the page is legit (see for instance Lords of Coucy), so my only real concern was the copyright violation. The copyvio, however, was from a spam-blacklisted site, so it could not be added to the page (even as part of a template). Adding the link to the edit summary seemed like an easy alternative at the time. In retrospect, I could have just dropped the http: and it should have gone through ok as well. Live and learn, I suppose. Was this what you were getting at? Best, -TeaDrinker 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming on Mars

Are you the one deleting this chunk that I've added to the Global Warming article?

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, [1] which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence. In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C02 in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

I find nothing oppinionated about this entry, and it is cited by a reputable source (National Geographic), and it portrays a valid point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HillChris1234 (talk • contribs)

Lets move this to the articles talk page where it can be adressed for all to see. I will copy this there.Brusegadi 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict Thanks for the note. You can check the history of who has edited an article by clicking the History tab at the top of the screen. Your edits to the Global warming article have been removed by four editors, including myself, and you are distinctly in violation of the three revert rule. I and many others are happy to discuss the issues you bring up, but it is inappropriate to continue to add it to the article when it is controversial. Please understand that Global warming is not only a contentious topic, but also a featured article (representing the very best of Wikipedia), so most substantive changes (and often even minor ones) are heavily discussed by many editors. Let me know if you have further questions. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

I see you're not an admin. We need more admins, especially knowledgeable and even-tempered ones. Would you accept a nom? Raymond Arritt 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am flattered! Let me think about it. --TeaDrinker 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You support nazi's and you know it

Need I go on? Besides, some punk named android79 deleted my page! No one is speaking to me about it like a human being. Thedistinctroom 20:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that someone deleted the page you created--this happens all the time on Wikipedia (since not all material submitted is consistent with an encyclopedic goal). Regardless how you feel about that deletion, it is not a good reason to vandalize other articles. Also be aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; I can assure you that I am not a supporter of the Nazi ideology. To move in a more positive direction, what is it about the deletion you would like clarified? --TeaDrinker 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR?

I saw you do this, and I disagree -- this is not a content dispute, but a user trying to disprove the fact that .999... = 1. The user is placing a request/argument on the article, not the talk page, and was repeatedly warned it was vandalism. This is a difficult concept, but the user's arguments were misplaced, and so it wasn't so much a content dispute as it was commentary where it didn't belong -- and if the user had changed the page to reflect his or her own views of whether or not the two are equal, and did so in a way that made a proper wiki page, it would still be vandalism, as math is not based on POV, but facts and proof. Just explaining -- don't want to come off as too harsh. Gscshoyru 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! While I agree the content had no place in the article, my concern was that the appearance of a content dispute may have resulted in a block (my experience is that admins are pretty narrow in their reading of "pure vandalism"). I apologize if it came off as some kind of stern warning; that was not the intent. --TeaDrinker 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... it seems it's actually a bit confusing, even to the admins, but the admin understood what what going on. See this discussion. Gscshoyru 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I am glad it seems to have worked out. --TeaDrinker 06:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's interesting! Is there a valid proof that .999~ = 1 ? I understand 1/3 x 3 = 1 and 1/3 = .333~ but this doesn't explicitly mean 3/3 = .999~ .. isn't calling it a fact a bit of stretch? seems like a theory. If you as an avid mathematician have some time to discuss your views on the topic I'm all ears.. this is the first time I've tried to wrap my head around the idea. My first natural instinct is there's some infinitesimally small difference, even if it's just an imaginary number it's still something. Sorry in advance if this comment is off topic.. 99.229.239.0 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(responding for him) See the 0.999... page, it has tons of valid proofs there. It is, in fact, a fact. If you don't understand still, don't hesitate to ask me. Gscshoyru 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My own qualifications as a mathematician are only a Bachelors in math and work in a heavily quantitative field. I would certainly be happy to answer any questions you have about the proofs (to the best of my ability) but you may have better luck and faster responses at the reference desk (although it may be wise to read through the proofs already in the article, and ask questions about those, if they don't convince you). Thanks for the note! --TeaDrinker 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sup?

Thanx for welcoming, i appreciate that, homie;) Glock18

Glad you're here, let me know if there is anything I can help with! --TeaDrinker 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Atencio

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as J Atencio. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; that is the wonkiest bug I think I have yet seen. I was deleting a page for a7. It appears the page was deleted (by CambridgeBayWeather here after I clicked to nominated it for speedy; no idea why it created the page with the bit about the page not created. I am new to using Twinkle, but this seems rather odd. Thanks, in any event, for letting me know, I'll send the bug to WP:TW. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 06:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thankyou!

thanks for your welcome on my page! (LemonLemonLemons 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your work! I'm glad you're here, let me know if there is anything I can help with! --TeaDrinker 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd nom

I did it by WP:TW - the program must have messed up.--Rambutan (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks makes sense... I ran into my own strange Twinkle bug the other day. Thanks for the note. --TeaDrinker 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Kraakker

A tag has been placed on Kraakker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. TeaDrinker 19:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's funny. --TeaDrinker 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up An Article

Hello TeaDrinker, i was wondering if you could help me with regard to the article New Found Glory, the article has barely an sources and has album art in the discography which i believe was not allowed anymore. So is there any sort of guide line for going through it and removing Non-Wikipedia style infomation, or shall i just go clean anything that i think does not belong there? Thank You (LemonLemonLemons 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

actually don't worry i reed up on what to do and cleaned the article with help from another user who was working on it. (LemonLemonLemons 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The page looks very nice. The image was released under creative commons 2.5 license, so it is certainly legit to use on the article (although such a release is a bit uncommon among professional photographers, and I wasn't able to find documentation of it. I will look into it further.). Keep up the great work and let me know if there is anything else I can help with. --TeaDrinker 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yawn halp

ZOMG thanks! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews Interview with John Vanderslice

You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for fixing those pages. I would have myself, but they're all semi protected and I'm newly registered. Sorry for my retaliation vandalism, but people like that piss me off. If it weren't for vandals, this source could be alot more trustworthy. My teachers all refuse to let anyone in any of my classes cite Wikipedia for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyprioth657 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism! Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Luna Lovegood From Indigo Children

Harry Potter books are full of different characters. One stands out more than any other character. Luna Lovegood stands out. She stated her believes on page 863 in Chapter 38 in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Hermione stated that hearing voices isn't a good sign even in the Wizarding world. No wizards or witches have any capacity to telecommunicate with each other. Indigo Children does have the ability to communicate telepathically to other Indigo Children. On page 863 Luna admits "In that room with the archway. They were just lurking out of sight, that all. You heard them." Here is the closes thing to telepathic communication with the spirit world. Yes their are ghost at Hogwarts, But everyone there can see them. But not all the dead become ghost. Wizards believe that death is a final state and they fear death greatly. They are so frighten of Voldemort they can't say his name. To them he is death on the move. But Luna is far more spiritual than her peers. Her peers don't understand Luna and her crazy beliefs. They call her loony behind her back. Most early Indigo Children from the 60's and seventies were persecuted in a similar fashion. Why I know this? I am an Indigo Adult! I went through same persecutions in my life and able to telecommunicate with other spirits or other people. So what can I do to do to keep Luna Lovegood in the Indigo Article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A5of20borg (talk • contribs)

I don't see how it could be, unless there is a published source which indicates this is a common or notable interpretation of the character. Otherwise, regardless of what evidence there might be for the view, it is original research, which is prohibited under Wikipedia policy (see no original research). Thanks, --TeaDrinker 15:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Need your help!

Hello teadrinker, you seem the kind of guy that might be able to help in halting the vandalism that is occuring to a certain article, it is called New English School (Jordan). some people have been filling that article with non sense, and i would appreciate if you can help me as to block them from editting that article, or make the article "unedittable".

Thank you! auawise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auawise (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! It does look like there has been some vandalism to the article, although probably not enough to warrant page protection. I will keep an eye on the page as well. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you TeaDrinker!! -AuaWise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auawise (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great!

I just want to pop by and thank you for that great study of yours! Phgao 03:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the data available on how Wikipedia operates is a goldmine waiting to be analyzed. Alas I have to spend most of my research time on my master's project, so I haven't had a chance to continue work along that line. But the topic is ever appealing. Thanks again! --TeaDrinker 04:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hijack??

The indications are that your account has been hijacked or that you are now vandalising?? Please confirm that you are in control of this account / have changed the password. Thanks, Ian Cairns 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

{{unblock|It would appear that, in the fog of vandalism cleanup, my account was mistaken for causing the vandalism I was correcting. I was moving pages back to their correct names over redirects.}}

My apologies - it was my fault - I do apologise. Ian Cairns 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries, tracking who moved what where is a bit tricky. It looks like all the vandalized pages have been fixed. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.--TeaDrinker 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also sent by email: I need to apologise personally - I mistook your recent edits for vandalism. I couldn't believe that you were responsible and thought your account had been hijacked / compromised. I have since unblocked. I'm very sorry about this - please use this email anyway you need to. Apologies again, Ian Cairns 01:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, it could have happened to anyone. It is good to know you're looking out for hijacked accounts; I was once blocked by a hijacked account. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Economy

Dear TeaDrinker, did you erase the weblinks in the article economy? This was no vandalism. They were part of my work on the article. I will try to reconstruct them and ask you to tell me why they were eliminated. Thank you, your--Jörg Sutter 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy and thanks for the note. I believe the links were removed here by User:Calliopejen1. They had been previously tagged here as needing cleanup to conform to policy on external links. I believe the removal was probably an attempt to improve the article and neither vandalism or the cleanup of vandalism. It may be a good idea to discuss the removal on Talk:Economy. Let me know if you have any other questions or if I can help with anything. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 16:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thank you for sending me that message. I would like you to know, however, that I DO have a userpage here, User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares. There I times when I forget to log in, however. Sometimes I also do this just for fun. Please redirect any further comments towards my userpage should you contact me. Thank you. 71.31.80.49 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I will keep that in mind. --TeaDrinker 23:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TeaDrinker/Archive5

This editor is a Veteran Editor, and is entitled to display this Iron Editor Star.
This editor is a Veteran Editor, and is entitled to display this Iron Editor Star.


Sandahl 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --TeaDrinker 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Template:Image copyright request

Whops! My bad, fixed now, thanks for the heads up. --Sherool (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for the work. --TeaDrinker 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] corporations and advertising on wikipedia

hi. I'm a newly registered person, and I felt strange to receive a message telling me that I may be guilty of advertising. It seems funny. I wonder if this is because I added the site cruise junkie dot com to the Carnival Cruise Line website? I can tell you that I don't have any affiliation with cruise junkie (or with Carnival), but Ross Klein, who edits the site also has published several books, critically well-received, about the cruise industry and carnival in particular. As far as I know, cruise junkie does not sell any product or take any money. It is not a pay-to-view site. I added Ross Klein's site because it is informative, and it does contain information that is relevant to Carnival and cruise ships in general. I thought that Klein's site is also somewhat in the middle on the controversy concerning Carnival. There is also a site from the British Charity War on Want who has a sweat ships campaign....I did not add this because I thought that Carnival itself would probably erase any negative contribution like that from "it's" site, but the British Charity, and Ross Klein, and Kristoffer Garin, a writer for Harper's and New York journalist, and John Bowe who wrote a book called Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy have all named Carnival in particular for its use of debt peonage labor, or people who have gone into debt for thousands of dollars in order to procure a job on Carnival, so they cannot quit without financially ruining their families beyond what anyone in the first world can imagine. Anyway, these all very credible sources allege that Carnival uses this, so-to-speak, slave labor to power its ships. So I don't quite know, as an average person, why this controversy shouldn't be included on their website. Is a corporate website protected by Wikipedia in ways I don't quite understand? I guess I am interested in the editing process and whether a corporation should be exempt from controversy, unlike, say, an individual on Wikipedia. (There are many controversies sited under the names of people on Wikipedia.)

thank-you, Doloresflower 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize if my message seemed accusatory; new users who begin by adding external links are often promoting their own site. A few things caught my attention with that link in particular: adding it to the top of the list, the site was run by one person, and it was not narrowly tailored to the Carnival Cruise Line specifically. Perhaps I was working too fast and missed the value of the site. Certainly Wikipedia does not forbid coverage of controversies which might cast the subject in a negative light. In fact, so long as the controversy is well sourced, notable, and reported on (rather than taking a side), such information is strongly encouraged to be included in the article itself, not just relegated to external links. Carnival, ideally, should not be editing its own article (per conflict of interest guidline), and certainly has no official say in how it is presented (so long as the criticism is well sourced and neutrally written).
I'm afraid the controversy is a new one to me, but I would be happy to help integrating something into the article itself with regard to this controversy. I will go ahead and restore the link, but let me know if there is more I can do. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

thank-you TeaDrinker. I see your point now. I might try to add something to the site about the controversy, but I'm going to think about how to write it fairly first. I appreciate your help and I guess I was paranoid thinking that Carnival "personally" deleted my entry. To be fair I should add Cruise Junkie to Royal Caribbean since he reports on their ships as well. thank-you again for your help! I might return later if I need support. Doloresflower 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question...

Hey, I'm new to Wikipedia and I just wanted to know where I should start...

Is it hard to make articles?

I'm really excited about editing, but I just want to make sure that I don't mess up anything.

Thanks in advance

172.129.36.142 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to start by checking out welcome to Wikipedia. There are numerous tasks which you may be interested in, but check out things there and see what you might like. You can also experiment at the sandbox. You may want to also consider registering and account (it is free and requires no personal information). Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for taking care of all of that vandalism! You are awesome --DerRichter 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --TeaDrinker 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenberry

I am sorry for misinterpretting your edit as vandalism. I feel there may be a middle way with regards to the article and have commented on the talk page. [[Guest9999 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Thanks for the note, I'll check out the talk page. --TeaDrinker 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Zodiac Problem

Just a note to say that I replied to your concern about the zodiac articles at Talk:Aries (astrology). I thought I had better mention it here since there is no centralized discussion area for all twelve articles. I don't have a solution to the problem (in fact I think the problem is greater than you at first suggest) but I am interested in helping to find one. CIreland 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and the help! I was thinking about creating a template to be put on the talk page, directing everyone to the centralized discussion. It is a bit of work and I am a bit swamped at the moment, but I think it would be a good idea. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Gscshoyru 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. He's off at WP:AIV now, probably to be blocked soon. Keep up the good work! --TeaDrinker 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King's College Bibliography

Hi, I am writing to discuss the issue of adding a link of our Global warming collection to wikipedia. Firstly, I apologise for the seeming stubborness but it is nothing like that, I didn't know someone was editing that quick, I thought my changes weren't saved, hence the repeated additions. But in all honesty, this link is to let people worldwide know of our comprehensive global warming collection that is free for anyone to read. King's college library is free and not for profit. Besides, there is no exhaustive literature search that includes and categorizes all the books about global warming such as our collection, which is still work in progress and growing. So we would greatly appreciate if you would re-post our link to the Global Warming page, with many thanks, Kings College Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Global warming and related articles are some of the most closely watched on all of Wikipedia. I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Global warming#King's College Bibliography to generate further discussion. To my mind, the two questions are (i) should there be a traditional bibliography link and (ii) is this one in particular the best available. I am more or less ambivalent towards the first, however the second one is key. The list seems to be a hodge-podge of popular and academic books, tangentially related texts, and is entirely focused on books. I tend to think that without annotations or better organization, the list adds very little. --TeaDrinker 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

[edit] Re:Rainforest Animals

I don't mind the redirect; all I did was report the nonsense originally written. The person that should have been notified, however, was the original author, but then, she got my message. Oh, well... --Blanchardb 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did get a note over to the author as well, however it was more a warning about creating inappropriate pages. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 19:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Someones got an email :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and Question

Thank you for the welcome and the very helpful links. Sometimes it's good just to clean something up.

I do have a question about how to handle an obsolete article. Can you point me to the right "Help" area to learn about this? I have poked around several different help pages but just haven't found it yet. (Specifically, Exploris has merged and no longer exists as such. Someone removed the temporary note about this from the top of the article, so I assume that's not a correct way to handle it. As a newbie, I'm reluctant to wade in with a big pair of scissors.) Jackollie 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a good question. I think it might be good to move the article to the new name (Marbles Kids Museum) and perhaps add a bit to the article explaining the name-change and merger. It looks like there is no article for Playspace, so no need to worry about it needing updates. The page Exploris will still be in Wikipedia as a redirect to the new page. I wouldn't worry about messing up too much; virtually everything on Wikipedia is reversible. So be bold and give it a try. If you're really not sure, I would be happy to check it over. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A bold snip snip. It's done; I'd appreciate it if you gave it a check at your convenience. Thanks! Jackollie 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, keep up the good work! --TeaDrinker 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarship

Hi, TeaDrinker. I understand your reasons for removing this link, but I ask you to consider the reasons I exposed in the summary of my edit. I have done a little research on online scholarship databases, and that one was the only one that did't require a registration to search the database. Maybe there are others, but I didn't find any. I believe that's a good reason to keep it in the links section. See also Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. Thanks, Waldir 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My concern is that it is a bit outside of Wikipedia's purpose to link to sites to find scholarships. There are a great many such sites, and sorting through them to find the ones which are legitimate or useful is a bit challenging, would and moreover unnecessary since people are not likely to look in an encyclopedia for guidance on where to find scholarships. See Wikipedia is not a collection of links. My own view presently that search tools are outside of the scope of Wikipedia's project and should not be linked (a view which has evolved in the year and a half of watching the page; my views on talk were a bit different in times past). If this does not address your concern, perhaps we could move the discussion to the article talk page to allow for broader participation. --TeaDrinker 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not sure about how I am supposed to reply, since this discussion is now on both of our user talk pages. Anyway, I understand your arguments, but since from those many scholarship databases you mentioned, only one (as far as I could find) didn't require a registration, I thought it wouldn't harm much to list it in the (then empty -- the other one was added by me too) external links section of the article. It could indeed be useful, (actually I kinda came to this article to search for relevant links on the subject, and then couldnt resist adding my two cents by organizing the talk page, restoring a large section that has been removed, and, evidently, adding the most relevant links I've found during my search). Of course, if more directly-accesssible (as in no registration required) scholarship databases appear, I'd support their removal from the article. Since you've been watching the page for a while, you might be able to tell me if there are more of such. In case there is, I wont touch this subject again :) But in case there isn't, I'd ask you to consider opening an exception in this case. Waldir 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As for replying, there is no set standard on Wikipedia. I normally reply on my own talk page (if it started there), and generally try to keep a discussion centralized. But if I think it is possible the recipient won't see it if it is just on my talk page, I copy it to theirs as well. Either place works to reply, at least in the short term.
As far as the article goes, as you have no doubt found, there are many sites which do require registration, and most often these are the sites added to the page. Some sites do not require registration: A few minutes of searching finds adventures in education, US Career InfoNet, United Negro College Fund and Jason (Australia). You're quite right that the links could be useful, however everything which is useful does not find its way into Wikipedia.
The talk page is somewhat interesting; it archives a discussion among some of the founders (Jimbo and Larry) of Wikipedia, in the very early days of the project. I believe that even signatures (~~~~) were not available at the time. It is certainly interesting reading (and notably, talk page guidelines now frown on that sort of discussion). Times have changed a bit... Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I just looked at your userpage; somehow I had the idea that you were a new user... Not sure where that came from. My apologies if the above reply seemed, well, like I was talking to a new user. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, my message does sound like a newbie's =P partially, I guess, cause English is not my first language. But I'm just speculating here.
Ok, you convinced me. I actually found dozens of scholarship databases in my (small, I see now) search, but the one I added was the only one that didnt request a registration. Since you mentioned 3 in a bunch (and I'm sure there's more) in you reply, I have to agree that all these can't stay in the article despite their usefulness and easier accessibility.
I just would like if there was somewhere I could compile these free-of-registration scholarchip DBs, so to make easier to people who want a quick overview on what's available, or whatever -- who nows what inventive uses people find when the source material is available :) I tried once helping the dmoz, but it was too closed. If you know of some place that can be useful for this purpose, let me know :) Waldir 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You're English is probably better than mine; I think I was just confusing you with another user... Thanks again and let me know if there are any other issues to discuss. Best, --TeaDrinker 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Fire

Can you explain this edit to me? Why is "applyed" preferred to "applied"? →Wordbuilder 03:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

*Smacks head* I meant to remove the whole sentence (as unencyclopedic, and as my edit summary suggested, unnecessary). I must be slipping. Fixed; thanks for the note! --TeaDrinker 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I read your edit summary several times and couldn't figure it out. Now it makes sense. Thanks for replying and for the fix. →Wordbuilder 14:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting it! --TeaDrinker 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macuser77 WP:ICA

Thanks for your message regarding the 'Condom' article. I respect your decision and will certainly not add the links back. I'm aware of the nofollow tags and never added the links with the intention of manipulating pagerank, I was just adding references to whatever content I had added to the site.

I would ask that you please take a hard look into the civility issues regarding Macuser77. As a quick background, the user was initially user "JohnnyTampa" and was changing links on the Condom article page, and other articles, to links to his own commercial sites. When I removed those, he became hostile and eventually got banned for his behavior. He's now back as user Macuser77 and has also called and emailed me several times making threats. I'd ask that he's immediately taken off the wikipedia site and not allowed to return. Please let me know, thanks. Superkevbo 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, I should state up front that I am not an admin, but have been on Wikipedia for a while and would be happy to help you find the right resource if need be. I did take a look at Macuser77's edits, although I can't find evidence that Johnnytampa (talk · contribs) and Macuser77 (talk · contribs) are the same person. Regardless, Johnnytampa seemed to be adding spam, for which he was blocked. Macuser77 seems to be removing it, and while there are some questions of civility, if they are the same person he has reformed. I sent Macuser77 a message about keeping cool and watching what is said regarding legal issues. Hopefully that will take care of it. Of course, Wikipedia has no control over what he does off-wiki; you may have to consult your local law enforcement if someone is harassing you via telephone. I hope this helps, and by all means feel free to contact me if there are more problems.

[edit] Safe Sex

Please take a look at this article and the links I had added to this article. Quite obviously these are solid refences which I gathered information from in order to write the content that I did on this article. Is it still spam? In my opinion, no. But I will hold off on re-adding the links until I hear from you. Thanks Superkevbo 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think there are probably better sources out there for these. The condomman site seems to primarly be a vehicle for selling condoms; neither link is properly a reference, since it does not back up the facts of the statement. I am entirely unclear as to what the first link is intending to support; the second may be useful, but there are many other sites which have the same information in them. It is a reasonable question whether an encyclopedia should have usage instructions (per not an instruction manual), but if is there, a site like this probably provides a better resource. Again I would stress that you should not add links to sites you are affiliated with, especially commercial sites. Thanks and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the clarification. I will remove the content I added to the pages then.Superkevbo 04:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I do hope you stay around and continue to contribute. Much of your work looks pretty good. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How a bill becomes law" images

Yes, I made a mistake there. The images were from a federal website and hence PD - somehow I overlooked that. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I wish I had spotted it a bit sooner. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dodnt delete

Nick king is a fictional charecter in a book of short stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic-k-ing (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be wise to explain that in the article (noting what stories he is in and by whom). As it reads now, it seems to border on the nonsensical. --TeaDrinker 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)