User talk:MLRoach/Archive 3

External links

Hi;

re: links

Sorry if I have violated protocol here. There seems to be inconsistency in the Wikipedia as to whether these types of links are desirable. For example, look at the page on *Dow Jones. Is there a definitive policy on this across the Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance Mike

Yeah, it's all good - the http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/companysnapshot/1004842 link really doesn't add anything unless you pay, and so we try to avoid links to sites that just want you to pay for content. Cheers, --Matt 18:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Mlaroche

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Mlaroche--Matt 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Southwest Trivia

You all didn't actually discuss that particular trivia about Kohntopp on the discussion page. I thought that any Southwest pilot notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article should be mentioned in the Southwest article. If others don't agree, that's fine, but I hope they'll record their reasoning on the discussion page. Cla68 15:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I didn't discuss particular ones, but I was trying for a first rough cut. Instead of making edit summary comments, you could have given your reasoning in a place that's more visible and persistent - the Talk page. We're not doing this to slight you. --Matt 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spirit Fleet

Hey! How come you changed the wording of the article, from a neutral toned "Spirit prides itself as having the youngest fleet in the Americas", to "Spirit has the youngest fleet in the Americas" and then adding a citation tag to it? The former wording only stated that Spirit itself claimed this, which they do all over their advertisment, and only emphasized that the airline claimed this, not that it was necessarily 100% true, this new wording just makes it seem as if it's an unsourced comment by a random user, when it's actually expressed often by the airline itself. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact isn't cited, so it really does need a source. And "pride" makes it sound like POV advertisement. So really, it still is an unsourced comment until you add a source, and it really doesn't need "the airline prides itself" - way too wordy. --Matt 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add that but I think putting that way makes it sound like a lie. LOL, when actually isn't not, the older A319 is only a year old, and the oldest 321 is 4 years old and it's leased until brand news ones are delivered... the airline claims it all over it's ads, but you can't seem to link them directly, any outside links just default to the homepage. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you should know that citation needed tags are merely that - requests for citation - and not necessarily an implication that the sentence is false. In fact, I believe the statement, it just needs to be cited. And I still maintain that "Spirit prides itself" is wordy and non neutral. --Matt 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know, I'm not saying the tag does, I'm saying the and the tag do together. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing then... do you think that "prides itself" is NPOV? Do you think it's incorrect that a citation is appropriate there? --Matt 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the wording, I'm saying that that particular wording and the tag together makes it sound like a lie, when it's not, I just restored it cause I didn't know how else to word it. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think then it's a different personal interpretation of citation needed. --Matt 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Oh well. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has 2 citations, which seems very low for an article of that length. When to cite sources says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." A statement saying that an airline has the youngest fleet age in the Americas is, in my opinion, likely to be challenged. That means it needs a citation. Since I don't have a citation for that, I put in {{cn}}. That's not to imply that it's a lie - as you can tell from my edit history, I'm a real, honest to goodness, wikipedia editor with an extensive edit history, which I hope shows no bias at all (other than a disdain for vandals). I'm not going to go against you and revert, but I still stand by my original edit. --Matt 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, man, I'm not saying it's you, I'm saying I agree with you, I just think it makes the comment look like a lie, that's what it struck me, like, if i had been a regular reader I'd see that citation tag and it felt as if the comment was just some inaccurate boasting by an employee or something. I don't think you've done anything wrong, and I didn't mean to sound that way, it's fine how you put it, this is why I came to you to discuss it and see your reasoning and didn't just change it back and stayed quiet. I thought it sounded off, so I came here to see how you felt and you're right it's better with the tag. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool - happy editing! --Matt 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromises

Delete this if you want, I just want to ask you why I would compromise on something thats wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.63.196.223 (talk • contribs).

You shouldn't - wikipedia isn't a democracy and the truth should be in the articles. But if two editors disagree, it's not vandalism - it's a content dispute. Accusing the other editor of vandalism isn't going to make him want to see it your way. I'm pretty sure he means well. --Matt 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Audi

Thanks for that - the revert function seemed to be failing and I couldn't get back to the last good copy! EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's cool - I saw you trying to do it and was about to leave a message on your page. I cannot live without Popups. --Matt 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: transatlantic and transpacific aren't capitalized or CamelCase. Cheers --Matt 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but that ain't my IP address!! Sometimes I think you're following me 'round the Net ... a little creepy. --Inetpup 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

diff - not referring to your IP ;) --Matt 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Delta Destinations

Why'd you take out the planned PDX-JFK route? It was even cited I saw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfrk (talk • contribs).

Delta flies hundreds of routes, the addition of one new one is not notable. --Matt 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

UAL post

Hi! That was my first post and I guess I thought I was following what was on the Edit Page format. It makes sense that if people want to see who made the post, they can look in the history. I am learning as I go. Thanks Jujeanne 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, welcome! Good luck, and enjoy! --Matt 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

About the year of the Steelers winning the Super Bowl, they in fact did win it in 2005. Even though the game was played in 2006, it was during the 2005 season. Best,Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird, thanks for the note! --Matt 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Oops.....sorry, I didn't know recent stuff goes on the bottom, not the top. (You commented about Delta Air Lines) You can delete this after you read it. TL500 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I just posted on your user page and in the edit summary about new topics going on the bottom enough I was surprised you hadn't noticed. Cheers! --Matt 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Any relationship to Lyndon LaRouche?

I realize that his name's spelled differently, but is he part of the same family tree? --Inetpup 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. --Matt 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be happy or upset if you were? --Inetpup 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume your non-response means you won't confirm or deny that ... ;)= --Inetpup 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

USAA edits

In the USAA entry you changed "Property & Casualty and Life Insurance" to "Property, casualty, and life insurance". I like the way it reads, but do the Wikipedia rules say anything about proper grammar? If they do then wiki is doomed to constant turmoil and unecessary conflict. I think that if you look around you will see that "Property & Casualty" has become a widely used phrase in business, and especially in the insurance industry. So, if it is a phrase, is "Property & Casualty and Life Insurance" still a grammar error?

Hillcountrygrump 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Have you checked out WP:MOSHEAD at all? That doesn't answer the specific question, but it does set guidelines for capitalization in headings. Most of the results I see at first in Google show Property and Casualty capitalized in a company name or where every word is capitalized. I don't see any reason to capitalize it - it seems like we'd be following someone else's bad grammar. Cheers --Matt 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out a search on Google for site:en.wikipedia.org property casualty - it looks like most of these aren't capitalized, so we should be fine. Cheers --Matt 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read Moshead and it doesn't add any clarity, at all! I also did a Google search on "property & casualty" and found lots of hits that counteract the position you are taking. I'm not going to pursue it any further. I think the way you worded it reads better. I'm just not conviced that it was wrong. I'll ask my mother (former English teacher). You wouldn't happen to be English by any chance - this isn't an American/English thing is it?Hillcountrygrump 13:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the first 30 hits on google for property casualty, any time I see "Property & Casualty" capitalized is when it's in the name of a company, so I still stand by this being the right thing to do. And nope, I'm American. --Matt 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)