User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bkonrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Coinage Act of 1792
"The Coinage Act of 1792 has never formally been repealed and thus is theoretically in conflict with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913."
BKONRAD: Please provide evidence that the Coinage Act of 1792 has been repealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.67.7.244 (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Au contraire. It is incumbent on you to provide evidence for the speculative claim that the coinage act is theoretically in conflict with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. older ≠ wiser 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
BKONRAD: The claim is not speculative. If you look in the text of the Federal Reserve Act, there is no language that indicates that the 1792 act is now null and void. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of reverting your edit. Please do not change it further without further evidence to back up YOUR claim as I will simply change it back until you can prove the act was repealed by Congress. I have no compunctions about wasting your time going back and forth over this and will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.70.102.188 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you apparently do not understand what speculative means or what it means to provide a citation. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
BKONRAD: Neither do you. And stop being such a pompous ass. Your nose is so high, that when it rains you'd probably drown.
BTW, are you enjoying this? I can go back and forth like this forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.67.111.188 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course I don't enjoy reverting your nonsense edits. I will continue to remove your addition until such time as you provide a citation to a reliable source to substantiate the claim that it is theoretically in conflict with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Bill, you're just an asshole. Stay to things you know, which doesn't include economics.
- Such brilliant invective. That's just so convincing. How about if you find a reliable source for that tidbit of deductive reasoning. Surely if this is something that you actually know about (as opposed to merely insulting others about what other you surmise they do not know about), then surely you should be able to find a source to support and contextualize that assertion. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Go
Re the ref to WP:ACCESS on your edit of Go, according to WP:ACCESS#Lead section, last paragraph in the dropdown box, shouldn't the floating TOC go at the end of the lead section, right before the first heading? Otherwise, screen readers "will ... miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." Station1 (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true. I wasn't paying attention, as disambiguation pages typically don't have text between the intro line and the first section heading (where they have heading at all). I'll fix it. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Unanswered inquiry
I'm guessing you missed this? And I read the exchange you had with Station1 above, yet that still doesn't say much to me. Response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- No I didn't miss it. I wasn't sure what you were asking about and considering that previousl attempts at discussion with you frequently quickly devolve, I chose not to follow up on it. Now is there some specific question in all this that needs to be addressed? older ≠ wiser 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind [1] ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
hatnotes
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I see what you mean about the editor with unexaminable preconceptions. Don't worry, I had no intention of edit warring. I did put some comments at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote about depreciating the {{Distinguish}} template. (I probably put them in the wrong place and should have started a new section, oh well. Smile.) I also left a comment at Template talk:Distinguish#Rationale for this template high up in the discussion, so it will probably go unnoticed (not my intention, Smile.). David Göthberg did say in October 2008 that the {{Distinguish}} template was used on about 4400 pages. So if I stay away from articles about comic books and games, I should be okay. (I try to anyway. Smile.) Any further thoughts would be appreciated. --Bejnar (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
EOR Shawnee
We have a situation where we have a group calling itself "East of the River Shawnee", supposedly and unrecognized Shawnee group in Ohio. Though I am able to find ample chatter on the internet about them, I am not able to find any official listing from a recognized, reputable Native American groups, nor have I been successful in finding them mentioned in a official notice (State or Federal government sources). On Wikipedia, the Shawnee article update as of 21:47, 8 April 2007, is where they first appear. Now the second instance appears at List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. On the second article, I have tagged them. Maybe due to the bad chest-cold that I have not been able to shake off the past month, I seem to not have enough patience to further check them out. Could you look into them a bit closer? If you find something, please add in the citation, otherwise, please delete both instances from Wikipedia. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've no special familiarity with the Shawnee. I'm aware there is some controversy over the Ohio groups and some time ago tried to make the references of United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation more neutral and better referenced. But I'm afraid I don't really have the expertise to evaluate the claims made by a site like http://www.eorshawnee.com/ -- or understand the implications for registered tribes of such claims. older ≠ wiser 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Empire disambig
As I noted in both my change note and the comment I made on this issue back in 2007, the information I added regarding the three unrelated computer games called "empire" is necessary for most people to figure out which article they want. Is that not the point of a disambiguation page? I carefully considered everything I placed there, for at least the third time, as I have been through this exact same sequence of events before, as evidenced by the 2007 discuss comment on the page and the previous existence of the "empire (computer game)" disambig page. I appreciate that many more words are required than on most disambiguation entries on most disambiguation pages, but unfortunately the reality is that it is a terribly confusing situation; the page as it stands now simply doesn't disambiguate such that most users will be able to do anything other than read all three articles in the hopes of finding the one they want. I'd like to revert the revert of my change. -- Akb4 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well. This edit is just too much information and goes far afield from anything suggested by the manual of style for disambiguation pages. If you can pare down the info to a single statement for each line, that would be fine, but I see no compelling reason to unnecessarily expand the descriptions. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to WP:ACCESS re position of TOC - I hadn't come across that before, and it explains why TOCs sometimes appear oddly low on the page! There's always more to learn about this WP lark. PamD (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Owen (name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Owen. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by 03:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)
Corn
Are you reading User talk:Rmhermen#Is this your preferred method of improving the encyclopedia?? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on it. I can understand his objections re surnames, but so long as there is no ongoing disruption, I don't see any benefit to ganging up on him. He is in general a very responsible editor. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Sterling Heights
Why did you undo the "In 1997, there was a spotting of an alleged liger, a lion/tiger hybrid, but it was never caught. Police claim from video surveilance that it was just a large house cat." post? It was a legitimate story from the Macomb Daily.
- Two reasons. the factoid was unsourced, but more significantly, it is unencyclopedic. older ≠ wiser 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
2007 Census? I'm not a population maven (the #s seem plausible), but I have my doubts. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
Orion edit
Regarding your edit at Orion,
Why did you remove:
- Orion Platinum - which was linking to an article
For the below, what is your definition of a "meaningful" mention?
- Orion Health
- Operational Response and Investigative Online Network
- Orion, a cat in the film Men in Black
- Orion, a fictional Space Shuttle in the novel Shadow Watch
- Orion, a star system in the turn-based strategy game Master of Orion, and its sequels
For the red link, why did you remove:
- Orion Application Server - which had other articles linking to it
Jay (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Orion Platinum was a mistake. I intended to remove the line below that one, Orion EDMS.
- As for meaningful mention, any mention at all would be a useful start. There is no mention whatsoever of "Orion Health" in the linked article, New Zealand. Similarly, there is no mention of either "Operational Response and Investigative Online Network" or any form of "orion" on the FBI page. Same for Orion the purported cat in Men in Black, Orion the purported space shuttle in Shadow Watch. Master of Orion was already mentioned elsewhere on the page and the usage as a star system did not seem particularly notable enough to warrant a separate mention. The Orion Application Server is linked from two articles, neither of which provide any meaningful context to warrant a mention. The primary purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers identify existing articles that might share the same name or could be reasonably confused. Disambiguation pages are not directories of any possible use of a term. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links for more information. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I now get what you meant by a meaningful mention. I guess policy was not clear enough. All that the policy said was "... unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description." I thought having any blue link in the description was sufficient. Please let me know if you'll be updating policy page to make this clear.
- Your argument about contextual incoming links is debatable. What policy says is "... (A red link) should only be included ... when an article ... also includes that red link." It doesn't talk about the article having a meaningful context for the red link. Please explain what you meant by having a context. Jay (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- From MOSDAB, the sentence immediately following the one you mention: There is no need to create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. As for context, Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. If there is no additional information to be found on the subject in other articles and there is little prospect for an encyclopedic article to be written on the subject, there is little point to including it on a disambiguation page. Also, on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page style, this is stated more explicitly: Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the policy page more specific. If the entry is part of a list in its subject article, then there cannot be a reasonable description in the subject article. The context here would be the "entry is one from the list of subject entries". I have re-inserted 2 such entries after modifying the subject entries.
- What is the reason you removed the 5th item above (Orion star system)?
- Jay (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Many regulars on the disambiguation project will remove items that are only mentioned in lists. I'm not going to bother about this, but if Orion were to be tagged with {{disambig-cleanup}}, chances are good that those entries would again be removed. Disambiguation pages are not directories -- that is the criteria for inclusion in a list is not necessarily sufficient to warrant inclusion on a disambiguation page.
- As for #5, as I already explained, Master of Orion is already mentioned on the page and it's usage as a star system did not seem to merit duplication. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the explanation for Master of Orion you gave earlier. I've added the red links argument on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) where a similar discussion was in progress. Jay (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
dab pages
Thanks. My brain isn't switched on properly this morning :) Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. Not quite sure what the editor is trying to do, but he seems to be an enthusiastic editor of 96.4 The Wave, so perhaps hopes to make that the Primary Usage! PamD (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the move; I was editing Wikipedia:Requested moves when I found it was already moved :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. The page is on my watchlist and I noticed that you made an edit to Pāṇini and then shortly afterwards to Talk:Panini (grammarian), which seemed a little odd -- which, as it turns out, it was. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
SOAP and other disambiguations
I was of the impression that the standard way to handle acronyms that spell out common words is to make the all-caps version a disambiguation page and give the meanings of that acronym pages with other titles. This would seem to be confirmed by pages such as LEAF, LEAP, LOVE, and so on. There are many exceptions, such as LOOP, HOME, and so on, but these seem to be things for which the acronym can mean only one thing. Whereas SOAP can stand for various things. See also the discussion here where I made the decision to make SOAP a redirect page. Soap Talk/Contributions 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no one standard way to handle such things. WP:DABNAME indicates that lower case (with initial capital) is preferred over all caps, but that guidance is inconsistently followed in practice. My sense is that the software protocol is the primary topic for the all caps form, in that the overwhelming majority of links to SOAP are for the protocol. I could be mistaken though, so you are welcome to propose moving SOAP back to SOAP (protocol) at WP:RM to engage broader participation in the discussion. older ≠ wiser 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"When linking to a disambig page, etc."
I wasn't going to create six disambig redirects just to link to them. The links were redlinks before I cleaned up the page--your efforts at that point would have been much more beneficial. Propaniac (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to have someone read this to you
It is from the AfD template. "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Daniel Mulhern. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." I think it is pretty clear. A message was left on the talk page. Please follow Wikipedia Policy when editing. 75.1.7.70 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar for Grass Lake, Michigan
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Thanks for helping me out with undoing the vandalism to the Grass Lake, Michigan page. With one disruptive edit after another, it seems as if I accidentally replaced a case of newer vandalism with a case of older vandalism. My apologies, and I'd like to award you with this Barnstar for finding my error and fixing it so quickly. Ericdn (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
- And now I need to learn how to spell! Heaven help me! :) --Ericdn (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Plants disambig
Hi, I was wondering what we should do about the {{Disambig-plants}} thing (and now the corresponding parameter in {{disambig}}). Are you happy with it adding dab pages to Category:Plant common names, analogously to the surname and given name categories, or should there be a different category, like Category:Plant disambiguation pages, analogously to places, airports, numbers etc.? I remember we had a similar discussion about what to do with pages that included names of snakes; someone wanted to include dab pages in snake categories.--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose there is no harm in having the template add the plant common names category analogous to how surnames and given names are handled. However, the plant category is not a disambiguation category and {{Disambig-plants}} is incorrectly and misleadingly named. Neither the surname nor given name templates are mentioned on Template:Disambig/doc and I don't think the misnamed plant template should be either. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Did you mean “not everything?” The article says “Littorinidae is a taxonomic family . . . commonly known as periwinkles.” And anyway, a link buried in the middle of the long line may be missed by the reader, so wouldn't it be better to start it with the link, like 99% of other lines in DAB pages? Regards. —Michael Z. 2009-02-13 19:47 z
- Yes, I did mean "not", but no I think the context is actually clearer and more helpful with the link for the family in the description. The family itself is not known as "periwinkle" -- species within the family are. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Um, so the article literally says the family is “known as periwinkles”, that is, the periwinkle family, and the subject of the article includes every species called a periwinkle. I'm not suggesting removing the link for the family from the description at all, just putting it properly at the beginning of the line:
- Littorinidae, a family of gastropod molluscs
- Or, if you prefer:
- Littorinidae, a family of gastropod molluscs that includes periwinkles
- The problem with starting the line with Littorinidae is that it does not correspond to the term periwinkle. Typically on dab pages, lines begin with a variant title of the term being disambiguated and forms where the linked term does not match the term being disambiguated are usually placed in the description.
- But then perhaps Periwinkle (mollusc) should be made to redirect to Littorinidae rather than to common periwinkle as it does now. It seems the name applies quite more generally than to that specific species. In that case, the line could read:
- Periwinkle (mollusc), a common name for species of gastropod molluscs in the family Littorinidae
- While I'd prefer keeping the trailing "including:" to introduce the sublist (as well as to suggest it's incomplete nature), I'm not adamant about that. older ≠ wiser 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- But the family is called “the periwinkles” here, here, and here, and even its own parent clade Littorinimorpha is called “periwinkles” in the article Littorinidae itself. How can you say that it doesn't correspond to the term? The superfamily, the family, and as far as I can tell, possibly all of its members are periwinkles.
- My dictionary (NOAD) also says periwinkle (2) = winkle, and defines winkle in part as “Family Littorinidae”, although others define periwinkle as “especially Littorina littorea” or “genus Littorina.”[2]
- There's no justification to say that Littorinidae are never called periwinkles, nor to insist on reinforcing this by putting the link anywhere but at the beginning of the line as MOSDAB requires.
- I don't know enough to say which is the one and only article that Periwinkle (mollusc) should redirect to; the term might be used differently in zoological and culinary contexts for instance, and without some clear rationale, I wouldn't propose changing it from what I presume to be consensus. —Michael Z. 2009-02-13 21:50 z
- How can you say that it doesn't correspond to the term? I quite agree that Littorinidae are known as periwinkles. But the title Littorinidae is not an obvious variant of periwinkle. In such cases where the linked term does not match the term being disambiguated, it is more common to place the link in the description. older ≠ wiser 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we're making progress: from “The family itself is not known as "periwinkle"” to “Littorinidae are known as periwinkles”.
- But you're wrong about the term being linked “in the description”. MOSDAB is pretty unambiguous: “The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry”. There's nil about “not matching” the term. Hundreds of disambiguation pages have items which are diverse variations and synonyms, all appearing in the correct place. The only exception is “If a topic does not have an article of its own”. —Michael Z. 2009-02-15 07:11 z
- I stand corrected about the family being known as periwinkle. Sorry if that change in my thought wasn't clear. However I continue to disagree about the term appearing at the beginning of the line. This has been the subject of considerable discussion, some fairly recently, although you are correct that WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB at present do not clearly indicate this. In my experience editing dab pages, it is far more common to place linked terms that are not variants of the term being disambiguated in the description. However, it is entirely possible that current practice has evolved without my noticing. I suggest we bring this up on WT:MOSDAB for other opinions. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've raised this question at WT:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the name, when there is a closely-related article about a different thing, or of a different scope, then the term still appears at the beginning, and the linked article follows within the description (links to sections in broader articles are included in this). A long disambiguation page typically has a range of items, starting from the precise disambiguated term, sometimes ranging to completely different names. But in this case, periwinkle(s) can refer to several species, genera, as well as their families and superfamilies (the common periwinkle, the other periwinkles, the periwinkle family). Littorinidae is another synonym for periwinkles, not an article about a different thing. —Michael Z. 2009-02-15 17:44 z
- Perhaps, but I still think the context is clearer when the non-variant term is linked from the description. older ≠ wiser 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for Welcome.
Thanks for the welcome. Substance of page Tom Athans was either inaccurate or incomplete. References to follow text shortly. Thanks for the tips. Will definitely message you again for help when needed.
Daniel Mulhern
How was the AfD improperly closed? The article was nominated on the 9th, five day closure on the 14th. As to improper closure, read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators; in short, this isn't a head count, and I found the nominator's rationale more compelling and grounded in policy. "Probably notable" is not a useful opinion; fails GNG and BIO is. If you disagree, take this to WP:DRV rather than reverting. Thank you, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, it's a WP:COI for you to restore as you were involved in editing; I suggest talking to uninvolved admins first in the future. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
BK, whole bunch of edits that look unsourced and odd (esp. pop. figures). I know you would probably find them on your own, but . . . 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan
- User Calebrod3294 is trashing a whole lot of articles. His figures are ludicrous. He needs to be warned and stopped. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan
Pop figures are totally screwed up. Because he's being so cute, could not undo all of his mischief. I did undo them in the other articles (to this moment), but he will press on regardless. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Commenting Out
Thanks for your heads up on my talk page, Bkonrad. How do I edit something out? I've seen the tags on pages but I can't remember what they look like. T@nn (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Use <!-- to begin the comment and --> to close the comment. Everything in between those characters will be hidden. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Your Edits to the Tanith wikipedia page
I see you removed the listing Tanith Carey from the Tanit wikipedia page. Did you research this first?
- Research what? Disambiguation pages are for navigating between articles, not a directory of anyone and everything. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I remind you of the following.
Revert wars are usually considered harmful, for the following reasons:
1. They cause ill-will between users, negatively destabilize articles and make other editors wary of contributing. 2. They waste space in the database, make the page history less useful and flood the recent changes and watchlists. 3. Some editors may be sensitive and to them, a revert is "a bit like a slap in the face"; for example: "I worked hard on those edits and someone just rolled it all back". 4. They often produce inconsistencies in an article's content, because the editors involved focus only on one part of the article without considering other sections or articles that depend on it.
- Good advice. Please try to follow it. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Townships in two counties
Could you please pay attention to {{Lenawee County, Michigan}}? Someone keeps thinking that a Lenawee County township is also located in Hillsdale County; I don't want to get into 3RR over an absurd idea like this. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. It is on my watchlist already. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)