Archives

/Archive1

Hey, I saw your revert on my e-meter edit. I though that the sentence I removed was extraneous and poorly worded.. Daler (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Basically because it sounds informal, which is the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. See The Wikipedia Manual of Style. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem on the other project. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into it. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs)

Hi there, I just reverted the worst of it, but you might want to double check to make sure its clean. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. He was a bit touchy about his article being deleted, apparently. Quite mature. He was also on a vandalising spree this morning so I reported him and he's been blocked indef. Good to weed out the vandal only accounts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the tags you placed on this article. {{introrewrite}}, {{cleanup}}, and {{expand}} are not really appropriate for stubs. Please reconsider using these tags on stubs in the future are they are really in-actionable for stubs and simply bloat the maintenance categories until someone removes them.--BirgitteSB 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove that long section. I added to it, much of what you removed was already there; had been for a long time. As it happens, I am still working on it at this precise moment. If you challenge anything, please tell me which bits, or leave tags on the parts where you would like to see sources and I will do what I can to improve it. Right now, I am still tidying the page and putting some touches to it so please observe this. Thank you. Evlekis (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still here, I accept that finding sources is a little difficult, but what I am now going to do is go back over the entire section and remove anything which appears POV or written as though to promote certain sentiment. Looking back at what I wrote, I accept that there are a few remarks which I should have checked before I submitted, human instict caused me to save first. You are very welcome to assert yourself or question anything if you are not happy with it, I am happy to cooperate. Evlekis (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah why bother? You aren't about to listen anyway. (Mind meal (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (2nd nomination) seems to be the third nomination. cygnis insignis 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was named is my guess, 2nd and second. The template on the article also has a bug that causes the listing to redlink. You might need to get some help from someone who knows about these things, I have never looked into it. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus, I would suggest you keep the nomination open a little while longer. I really don't see how the article doesn't violate original research policies, and it'd probably be better to see if the wider community agrees... especially given the precedent set by the deletion of the other two "Historical persecution by X" articles. Regards, ITAQALLAH 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for reverting my good faith request for references? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is with asking an editor to provide the references before jumping to AfD. Can you be more clear? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly new articles (mostly not BLPs) and I think there are refs out there. Do you believe the articles are better left untagged, and the only appropriate process is AfD? Is it improper to use the "unreferenced" tag in these cases? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I will probably restore those tags you reverted when I have time (or you can). I generally speedy or prod articles and only AfD as the last resort because it is so involved. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be uploaded under Fair Use if you want. Reply on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me! I apologise for my forgetfulness. Jump Guru (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I reverted your revert on White Eagle Aviation - just to explain my position a user is adding flags to all the airline infoboxes without any concensus, I have brought up the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for guidance. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have left a note at User talk:Tobibln and invited him to join the discussion at project level, although he appears to be going at great speed adding flags to notice! MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find most information particularly on the smaller settlements will only be in French unfortunately -this is why it is so important that more people are willing to translate on wikipedia. Statistical references are from INSEE -try googling that but it is only a statistical website unfortunately. Many of the communes have their own websites. Perhaps you could try looking at them and try to uinderstand the information given there -or use babel fish to get a rough translation perhaps . I'm gradually working through Yvelines but as I say it will be a gradual thing and not my only area of concentration ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renaming the categories to prepare for growth in the near future, ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was just wondering why you had reverted my edits to Ranmoor House and Katy Fox? In the Ranmoor case, the information removed was of no importance - in the Katy Fox case, I removed future spoiler information. In future, please use an edit summary when reverting edits, explaining why you feel it is necessary. Thanks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary is not a good place to talk with you. You asked why I was replacing night picture with daytime one in that article.

I understand it is not true that a daytime picture is always better than a night picture, but in this case, I believe the new one, the daytime picture, is better than the previous one, the night picture because it better represents original color of the subject under the daylight. In addition, for this short article, two images are excessive so that I replaced the picture instead of adding one. This is the reason why I tried to replace the picture. I don't want an edit war, so please give your concent or comment to my opinion before I make further edit to that article. --Sushiya (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled back your massive deletion on this article. I believe that the better and customary procedure for an older WP article which has undisputed but undocumented content which need to be improved is to place a WP:sources template, which I have done. This is one of many articles in the scope of WikiProject:Virginia which we are gradually upgrading. I know of nothing in it which is not accurate, we just need to cite sources using the newer WP methods. If you have any specific items you wish to challenge as incorrect, please do so and cite your source, of course. Please contact me on my User Page if you disagree, rather than engaging in an edit war with the article. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any article on the persecution of Religion A by Religion B, provided that it is adequately sourced and is significant. Such persecution certainly occured on a substantial scale during the BJP govenment and I hear examples of it continuing. It appears usually to take the form of trying to force Christians to reconvert to Hinduism, and can be extremely violent. Christians are prosecuted for "forced conversions" when conversion is in fact voluntary, whereas Hindus never seem to be prosecuted for attemopting forceably to converty Christians. I refer to India, of course. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i'm sure you are aware that when you patrol recent changes you should mark them as patrolled. You seem to have forgot on Shift (video games). This saves editors time patrolling articles which have been patrolled already thanks. BigDunc (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really fed up with User: Schmidty211‎ or did WP:TW have a hiccup? Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The b-class milhist criteria are here, if you think I have made a mistake then please seek a third opinion, thanks. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the controversial edit I did? User:Odikuas 19:33 11 March 2008
• The fact that the University of Piraeus was called Higher School for Industrial Studies is included in the relevant Wikipedia article. All the other information can be found in the external links I list at the end of the page. User:Odikuas 19:37 11 March 2008

I think that a thumbnail size image for this subject Silver line is too small, and I enlarged it slightly. The caption is detailed and there are no other pictures in the article. Before I revert it again, I want you to justify how it is that you are reverting my edit instantly and automatically (twice so far). Looks like an edit war by robot could ensue. Who are you, the Terminator? Weird. Please explain here. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ships' pages are handled differently, and the lead depiction is never a thumbnail. See HMS Queen Mary, RMS Queen Elizabeth, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, RMS Mauretania (1906), etc. & etc. And, BTW, can you keep subject discussion on the same page, so we can all see the thread? To have question and answers on separate pages leads to obscurity, don't you agree? I see you started your contributions just 4 days ago, Otolemur crassicaudatus, and already have made maybe a hundred edits. I respectfully suggest you hang back a bit, and familiarize yourself with the site. And I'm reverting once again, and please stay off my talk page on this subject. JohnClarknew (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon, I was wrong, I see that you had archived the past since you signed on last September. JohnClarknew (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just want to point out that you warned User:Noelaurie twice for little more than uploading an image without thinking about copyright tags. Which, lets face it, is an easy mistake for any newbie to make! Maybe you should assume good faith when dealing with newbies in the future :-) Thanks and have a great day! TheProf | Talk 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page on Russia.--Miyokan (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Creamy3 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind holding off a bit, I'm in the middle of a major cleanup. Cheers. NathanLee (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just trying not to chop so much out of it as to have nothing left. Take a look at the pre-major chop and you'll see what a mess it was. Trying to find if there are any links for any of the stuff. But main thing was to get it looking semi-respectable first. :) NathanLee (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for your life, I've done as much digging to try and get references as I can.. Take a look and see what you think. Very poor number of references out there that aren't just chatter on forums. NathanLee (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to list this on the main checkuser page [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.187.94 (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd care to inform me why this article would not fit in Category:Islam in Uganda. That's the one I added it to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the TALK PAGE and lay out your reasoning rather than just reverting. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the warnings on my talk page. I know that it is good form to provide an edit summary, but I've been replacing {{WikiProject Ballet}} with {{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=yes|nested=yes}} and marking this as a minor edit, which it is. In some cases I have added the latter when the former was not present and in a few rare instances created the talk page where there was none. The other minor edits your Twinkle script has been flagging are equally minor formatting changes, not a word of text. I know it's a bad habit, a wicked thing, to make edits without providing an edit summary, but there's so much work to do and so little time to do it. Thank you again for making your script clever enough to know an incorrigible sinner when it sees one! Robert Greer (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus, Good Morning. Hope you are fine. Please have an eye on the voting page. Please don’t let anyone to disrupt the voting process. Thank you. --Harjk talk 05:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to opt out of the script you're running, so that I don't get a warning when I forget to put an edit summary on a TALK PAGE? Justin talk 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I appreciate that you may feel a warning is necessary when I forget to add an edit summary. However, I don't feel that I need you to warn me, every time I forget. To be honest I found it a little irritating and a little bit like having a primary school teacher looking over my shoulder waiting for me to make a mistake. So I am politely asking you to stop. Justin talk 08:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buddy. Like my Ljubljana series? I created thet template yesterday and have lost count on how many I've started!!! I love baroque and art noveau architecture. I noticed you started Dragon Bridge -thanks -this series looks cool now I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but why all of a sudden have you become interested? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I said it looks better with the image ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it but shrunk it a bit. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting too -just think how many other cities out there that could be developed in the same way!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have unsourced materials. There are references listed on the bottom to verify everything I have done. You should restore the article as I consider this vandalism on your part. Maple Leaf (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is inline citation?

I do not understand what you are referring to. What is inline citation? I have put a lot of work into this article and have reputable sources and have no interest in having this article lost. I feel that you should have discussed the matter with me first before having all my work disappear. Maple Leaf (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Otolemur, Maple Leaf came to me asking for some help in this situation. After looking it over I have a few comments I feel need to be said. First, yes the letter of the policy says that unverified content can be removed, but it does not say that not properly formatting references are grounds for removal of content. Remember that deleting content rarely ever helps build an encyclopedia. Also, please be careful with giving regular editors generic warning templates, as it usually doesnt help the situation. A simple note on his talk page saying that you feel that the article needs to be improved to meet WP:V (or simply being bold and doing yourself) is way, way better than sending a generic template to a user that has done a lot of work here. Also, remember that most articles on Wikipedia have no real references, so complaining about an article that has references, just not inline citations, is kinda harsh and unless you feel like doing this for every article out there, a little overboard. Lastly, please remember that spending time fixing an article is better than spending a little time complaining about an article. I hope you understand what I am saying, I dont want to sound mean or anything, but I know that if I worked hard on an article and someone just removed all my work (its happened to me before) and then sent me a generic warning template that really isnt meant for this situation wouldnt make me terribly happy. Thanks and if you have any questions, feel free to ask! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus, I request you to participate well in the discussion going on here and here. Thanks. --Harjk talk 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also tagged harmony. Please participate in the discussion. Also replied on Relata refero's talk pg. --Harjk talk 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]