User talk:Bluap

Hello Bluap and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Trinity Great Court

Hi Bluap,

Sorry not to get back to you sooner. Just wanted to say thanks for your reply to my question at Talk:Trinity Great Court. So it looks like I was told a mixture of truth and fiction, which is par for the course.

Do you know why the clock strikes twice? -- Solipsist 08:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nebula class

Sorry. Just realised I hadn't replied to your questions on Talk:Nebula class starship. AlistairMcMillan 02:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Alistair

This might interest you some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Klingon_starships#Wanton_Deletion_of_Canon_Facts_as_Well_by_AM Alyeska 08:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Which ones are you talking about? Bluemoose 1 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Sorry, it was because i was deleting the blue links and must have got confused. Bluemoose 1 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

White Snakeroot

Thanks for helping, i changed it so it says Ageratina altissima or Eupatorium rugosum, britannica and encarta call it Eupatorium rugosum, but i guess they aren't always on top of things, i hope that makes it more accurate! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Support

Bluap ~ Not sure if you have been following, but please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts. An anon has been persisting in deleting a statement he just does not like (and will not correct it if it is wrong; I think you were invoved in correcting it one time). When I advise him (on anon talk pages) that he cannot just delete facts that were true becuse of a POV, he has attacked me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem increasingly irrational. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am some kind of typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, etc.). I finally blocked him after warnings, but his/her abusive responses to discussing why he cannot do what he wants to seem a little over the wall. To do an RfC more than one editor has to be involved, which is fine with me as I really am only trying to uphold the civility of our rules and really have no stake in EU politics of carrot jam. - Marshman 23:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charon

Hi Bluap,

The moon Charon is pronounced as Sharon. The mythological pronunciation is given as a variant in the Charon (moon) article, but is dispreferred. See the talk page for more.

kwami 00:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different types of deletion

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. R., I think maybe I should explain my vote. Just so you know, the deletion processes are different for redirects compared with articles. For redirects, you should follow the procedures described at Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion. So all I mean by "invalid nomination" is that you took it to the wrong place - it isn't a criticism of your decision to nominate it or anything.

I will say that it's quite rare for redirects to actually be deleted unless there's a strong consensus that they're actually worse than useless. For example, a redirect from an insulting title will often be deleted, but one that's just from a misspelling or an unusual variant of a name will normally be kept. If you think that T.R. is ambiguous, then the preferred thing to do is often to create a disambiguation page instead, that links to all the possible options that people might expect to find from those initials: you don't need a vote for that, you can just go ahead and do it.

(For completeness, I'll mention that there are also Wikipedia:Images and media for Deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion, too; AfD really is just for articles and lists.)

— Haeleth Talk 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TeenScreen

I could not find any discussion of the NPOV on the talk page. Is it somewhere else? Eiler7 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Journals --> list of journals

You may be right. At least until someone writes a paragraph about each one, and perhaps even then. Short is usually better than long isn't it? Midgley 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely reasonable point. Will you crosslink them, please, if you think that is suitable? Midgley 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Taylor (

Thanks for clearing that one up for me. You got there quick, as I was just about to recomend it for afd. Spyrides 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox ranks

The justification for the WP:TX advice is twofold:

Avoid pages like Large Emerald where the technical classification overwhelms the article.
Minor ranks are often more unstable than major ranks: for example, Large Emerald uses "Metazoa", but few modern classifications use this term. This kind of technical detail is best presented in the articles for which it is relevant (i.e. Animalia), not in articles like Large Emerald where it is basically irrelevant.

Gdr 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move from scientific name to common name

Hi, Would you please tell me why you would move a scientific article from its scientific name to its common name. I do know that we could just redirect the scientific name to the newly created common name but why do it in the first place?? scientific names are universal. My point is that if an article exists with the scientific name dont change it. Ofcourse if it exists with a common name then just redirect the scientific name to it. --Viren 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a college guide that I would buy at Barnes and Noble.

It has been well established that such personal bias does not belong in an encyclopedia. Courier new 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

How is it that you could possibly know my gender? Gender bias? Courier new 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe it is only in reference to theoretical persons. Courier new 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aplology

I know wikipedia is not meant for eulogies, I was not thinking at the time --Leopold Samsonite