User talk:Yellowdesk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
  Yellowdesk — User talk —  Contributions  — Email  


To leave me a message on a new topic, click here. Please sign your message with ~~~~
I prefer to reply on my own talk page to discussions started here. Tell me if that doesn't work for you.



Archive #1 September 26, 2006 - April 2, 2008

[edit] Aloha Airlines

To some extent the 60 days might be excessive. However it does not apply to established editors. I suspect from what I have seen that the problem is with new and anon editors. The anon editors can not be easily communicated with via comments on the talk page. So the protection is the only way for avoiding the revert wars. If at some point you want to unprotect this before the 60 days and see what happens, drop me a note. Once this is out of the news I suspect that the problem will go away. Also over time, the article will be rewritten to show its cargo only status, further reducing the problem. Today we can not say when this will all change and everything quiets down. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for cleaning up my edit a bit on the Wikileaks page. I ended up slapping current-events on there, and I guess I'd forgotten what it meant (Man, not editing seriously for 6+ months messes up your memory of templates). I'm assuming though, that there's an "ongoing" template of some sort. Not sure but it seems like something like that might be better, since Wikileaks keeps pumping out more documents, turning their threat of document-based retaliation into reality.

So basically, thanks! Now, however, I need to go template hunting :P. Logical2u (talk)

I always like to hear some feedback and opinions, even though I was more used to seeing massive amounts of tags than none-at-all (Although that may be because I did a lot of vandalism reversion). (Must, resist, urge, to use, Current, tag! Just joking, I think you have the right idea when you say the dates will give people the point of it's "currentness".) Logical2u (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore spaceport

It is future project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the article already explains as much. The template {{tl{future}} is superfluous.
The purpose of the template is to use in articles which describe future events. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That does not change the obvious needlessness of the use of the template. The text of the article indicates the futurity. Need there be banner to restate the text? To what extent does the presence of the {{future}} template further inform the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no "obvious needlessness". The template has been created with this purpose only. There is another template which describe a person is recently died. Now the reader can understand this only by reading the article. As per your own logic, if an article does not have any reference, there is no necessity to add "unreferenced" tag as the reader will understand viewing the article that it lack reference. The purpose of the template is to describe the article, to tell the reader about the article before (s)he starts reading. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious needlessness is the redundancy of the template, restating the indication that the topic is future activity, obviously contingent to the reader. Those words being: proposed, spaceport and The estimated completion date of the spaceport in 2009. What aspect of all of those phrases are not redundant in relation to a banner restating the same to the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season 2007-08 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The 'Current sport' template is needed at the moment. crassic![talk] 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a couple years and ten thousand edits late on the welcome. Your assessment is erroneous. You'll eventually learn how to communicate effectively with fellow editors.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "current" templates

Hi Yellowdesk. FYI, you've tagged {{current motor sport}} for deletion, but haven't listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Conversely, you've listed {{Current PW}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21, but haven't tagged the template. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acting AG boxen

Thanks for the heads up about this. I totally forgot about the 24hr delay between Clement and Keisler! Everything is now fixed! - Thanks, Hoshie 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No offense

I don't want you to think I was picking on you. If you don't date a cite tag, a bot will come along and do it. So I was simply getting it out of the way. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert the last few of your edits to the Electoral College (United States) article in order to return footnotes 44-61 to normal. For some reason, one of your most recent edits to that article had caused those footnotes to be merged into footnote 43. Feel free to again make the reverted edits, as long as the footnotes aren't destabilized again. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Senators from Massachusetts

Thanks for attempting to clarify Ted Kennedy's beginning of term. Can you correct an error you left on the table? The 110th Congress got left on a wrong line. Thanks. —Markles 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

done -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Help desk searches

I see you have some reference links and templates on your user page. You may (or may not) be interested in {{Help desk searches}} which I recently made. --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request comment

fwiw.....I'm canvassing for general expertise regarding a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles and would be delighted to get, if possible,

[edit] thanks, re: semi protection, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. - Yellowdesk (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how it gets on in a couple of days. If he comes back straight away just buzz me and I'll prot. for a week. Thanks for your message, friend! ScarianCall me Pat! 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Would you please revert the edit to the summary submission for 12:40, 9 June 2008 75.207.232.31 opposed to the one added later by Bdushaw. Bdushaw's summarization is a poorer version compared to the previous submission. A common reader will now not be able to understand how this issue is related to the US Attorney firings, which it is.

Also, is there some way to prevent Bdushaw from constantly removing others' submissions to the page. For the past three weeks, he/she has constantly reverted others submission without providing valid reasons. Now, he appears to have locked out other users from the page and is continuing to remove others submissions.

Lastly, the user did not vandalize the page. If you review the submission, he/she simply summarized the original submission since it was already linked to a separate page.

  • It's odd that a user with one edit (at the time of your inquiry) has such detailed concerns about another editor's activity. I see that the edit you are interested was an automated bot reverting an IP editor's change: by 75.207.232.31
    I have to guess you were the IP editor in question. In any case, the Cyril H. Wecht summary there at this moment succinctly makes the connection you desire, and has a link to the voluminous details at the Cyril H. Wecht article.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the edit currently on the page does not do that and overlooks key points that should be in a summary related to the dismissed U.S. Attorneys controversy. No, I am concerning the summary that was first changed by a bot, then reverted back, then changed by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.238.20 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)