User talk:Xenophon777

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Be bold 2 Reverting tips 3 Xanten 4 Dangers of marshmallow-roasting 5 Krefeld 6 Lorem ipsum 7 Dealipedia 8 Dealipedia 9 Hi 10 Please don't delete the redlink dabs

[edit] Welcome!

Joe I 04:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting tips

Hey! Glad I caught the problem you were concerned with. When you're dealing with a vandal who's done multiple changes, the 'undo' function doesn't really work - it only clears the last change. What you do, is go to the page's 'history' tab, where you'll see a list of the changes made to the article. You can click on the 'diff' (or difference) next to the version that looks like it's the one where the editor started messing around, and then on the previous version (the one on the left side of the screen) click 'edit'. You'll get a notice that you're editing a previous version of the article, but that's okay; just add an edit summary saying you're reverting and why, and click save. WP:REVERT gives you what's probably a better explanation. Keep up the good work! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xanten

Would you be so kind and answer the question on the discussion page of the Wikipedia article of Xanten. I am - still learning English to get better- very curious about your answer. I´d be rather thankful. Greetings,--172.173.226.138 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you missunderstood me. I wrote "Beneath other school..." not "Under other schools" (see discussion page"). Can you tell me why you corrected this in "Among other schools...". Thank you for answering: --172.174.35.174 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Beneath" would mean the same thing as "under" other schools. Did you in fact mean "Unter anderen Schulen..."? That would translate, in English, into neither "under other schools" nor "beneath other schools," but "among other schools." By the way, let me encourage you to set up your own Wikipedia account so that you can have a talk page. Xenophon777 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers of marshmallow-roasting

If I were to procure a source on that information, would you not remove it as vandalism? 65.190.89.154 06:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC), Esq.

As vandalism? I suppose that "vandalism" is like pornography. It's hard to define, but, to paraphrase a certain Supreme Court justice, we know it when we see it. Or we think that we do. It depends on what you said, how you said it, whether what you said in fact flowed from the source, whether the source were viable and verifiable... If you had a verifiable and credible source which listed statistics on annual treatment of kids for minor burns due to trying to slurp down just-toasted marshmallows, or on bags of sugary marshmallows catching fire because they were left too close to a campfire, and you had a paragraph or reference fairly making use of this source, in a way which made sense within the context of the existing article, then that's something that I suspect most editors would leave in, or possible edit only in minor respects. If you want to put up something to show that anything to do with campfires is a wildly dangerous activity that no one should ever engage in, you'll probably have a hard time fairly connecting that point to a verifiable and credible source. If your concern is mostly about campfires, then perhaps that concern should be directed to an article on general campfire safety. If you have had a bad experience--personally, among family, or among friends--relating to marshmallows and campfires, then I'm genuinely sorry and sympathetic, but that would not justify an out-of-context or unfairly sourced section condemning the practice of roasting marshmallows. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is not an advice column, nor a how-to. It describes the real world out there. BTW, I'm not, of course, the only editor out there, and am also not the only editor watching the marshmallow article. What reaction you may encounter from the other editors I do not know. BTW, why not either get a regular account (rather than signing on with your number), or, if you already have one, use it? Xenophon777 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krefeld

Sorry for the late answer. I've chosen the word "territory" to make the difference between "Stadtteile" and "Stadtbezirke". The listed "districts" are "Stadtbezirke" in German Wikipedia. The "Stadtteile" are smaller and there are 19. I've found an Article in English Wikipedia called "Stadtbezirk" explaining exactly the "districts" about which we're talking. Isn't it the best solution to simply change it into "Stadtbezirk"? --Washio (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. We know that translation is an imprecise art in any event. "Territory" didn't seem like something we normally associate (in English) with municipalities. There are "districts," "wards," "neighborhoods," and the like. To be both honest and candid, I'm not sure I know the difference between a "Stadtteil" and a "Stadtbezirk." For that matter, I'm not sure I know the difference, in my native English, between a "city district" and a "city ward," either. Xenophon777 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it would be more significant to discuss about it at talk:Krefeld. So, I've added the section there. Thanks.--Demoeconomist (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)(I've changed my name)

[edit] Lorem ipsum

Just so you know, the text you see at http://www.dealipedia.com/tos.php is not real Latin but widely used placeholder text - see lorem ipsum. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. My Latin prof from college (had just one semester...) would cringe that I didn't know. One learns something new every day Xenophon777 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealipedia

[edit] Dealipedia

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dealipedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dealipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, I just saw your comments on the extant of Kafiristan in the talk page for the article. I would like to know the issue of National Geographic Magazine that had the article on Kafiristan.-Ravichandar 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to find that issue; as soon as I do, I'll post that information here. Xenophon777 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't delete the redlink dabs

There is a big project to create articles on all the towns and villages, and dabs are needed so that we know where to put places with the same name. I am part of that project, and you can be too. See the discussion on my talk page and on the talk pages of the others involved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. I understand what a redlink is. But a "redlink dab"? If you could point out an example--including where you feel that I've deleted one of these--I'd appreciate it. (I did not see an explanation of the foregoing on your page...) Xenophon777 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Syunik, redlink dab is a disambiguation link to a redlink page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)