User talk:33rogers/Archive

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! — Snigbrook 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Deprod of Bill C-27 article
I have removed the prod tag from Bill C-27, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Snigbrook 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk/Mathematics
I have answered your question at Reference desk/Mathematics. Cheers, -- PS T  08:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Methylphenidate/archive1
In the future, the primary contributors should be the ones nominating an article to FA status. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Federal subjects of Russia by unemployment rate
Thanks. Regarding the list, there is a great number of ways in which it can be improved. First off, I don't really see the value of the list showing the rate only for one incomplete year. Year-by-year trending would be far more valuable. If there are sources with the trends analysis, they'd be a great addition, too. Secondly, the list could use some formatting: for example, we don't use the overly ambiguous term "regions" when referring to the federal subjects of Russia, there is no need to list the names of the federal subjects in both English and Russian (instead, the English names should be linked to appropriate articles), citations need to be made explicit (rather than being an in-text mention of the source from which the numbers came), and the words "unemployment rate" in the title should not be capitalized. There's probably more, but these were immediately obvious upon the very first look.

If you need help with fixing any of these, please let me know. I probably won't be able to help you with the sources and trending (the subject of the list just doesn't interest me all that much), but I'll be happy to help with the technical side of the matters. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 13:14 (UTC)

Wrong Screws = Laptop failure?
I have had another look at the documentation and diagrams and added a few suggestions to the Ref desk. Please see WP:RD/C Good Luck! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2011
You may have a beef with my moving detail out of the lead, but there is no reason at all for you to revert my other non-controversial, mostly clean up edits. Be more careful and considerate in future. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And on top of it you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act." And then you reverted without seeing on the talk page what was controversial? --33rogers (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an excuse for reverting all my edits. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All your edits were controversial. It is called the Conservative government by the media. Just like previously it was called the Liberal government by the media. --33rogers (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you joking when you say copyediting to remove repetition and punctuation and grammatical errors is controversial? If so, it isn't funny. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see your talk page for response. --33rogers (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no response related to the above at my talk. Apart from the lack of explanation for why you insist on keeping irrelevant content in the article and other content in the wrong place, there is no justification for your reverting of my grammatical edits. --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! I respect your edits, but I do not agree with them. Please continue this discussion on the Talk page of Canadian federal election, 2011. Thank you.

16 April poll
Hi, My reasoning for removing your section about the Angus Reid poll is that I can see no reason why that poll warrants prominence of sole inclusion in the main article over all the others (including the other on the same day. Am I missing something? You also query the need for summaries of polls. It's relevant, aids the casual reader, and stops the section looking empty. Rsloch (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded on the Talk page of the article. --33rogers (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper link mislabeled as "spam"
33rogers, you mislabeled a perfectly valid link as "spam", which it is not. See this edit by Ground Zero, Revision as of 20:29, 23 March 2011. He was working up the infobox for the upcoming election, and before the Elections Canada website had the final list, he was using Election Prediction Project as a reference. In fact, Ground Zero had included that reference in the edit I mentioned. I would not belittle all the work that Ground Zero has done and call his addition of a valid link as "spam." You should be more careful in your choice of words. "Update link" would have been more appropriate in this case. I just wanted to point that out, in case you missed the history of that link. --Skol fir (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. --33rogers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you removed the copy of this section from my talk page. I had a thought that it would have been polite of me to reply to your apology. I am doing that now. I appreciate your apology, and I realize that you did not mean anything by the "spam" label, and that it was purely accidental, as you were not aware at the time that someone could have been using the link for a useful purpose. No problem.


 * I have also made a rush judgment on occasion, and I understand your attempts to clean up an article, when it looks like someone is adding nonsense (which may actually be sense to someone else)! Sorry for not replying to your apology right away, but I actually was not the one to apologize to, it was Ground Zero. I see you also took care of that by leaving him the same apology. You have nothing to worry about, and we appreciate your valuable contributions here at Wikipedia. --Skol fir (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You just made my day much happier. :) --33rogers (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad that I was able to do that. I am not sure what transpired with your edits recently, but rest assured that sometimes Wikipedia is a bit like "organized anarchy." I have been here long enough to know that ego-bruising can occur, and I have had to bounce back from a knock-down or two. I was happy to find the section Be bold because it allows editors to take chances with their editing. You have to be prepared sometimes for the backlash, and some of it can be brutal. Have a nice day! --Skol fir (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Please read Hatnote, we only put hatnotes on titles that may be confused with others. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to keep it there for 1 week. As most people who would come from search engines may also be interested in reading the Elections article. *need sleep* --33rogers (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh common now? You couldn't wait for 1 week before CSD'ing or changing all my redirects :(
 * I wonder if some of my redirects were SD'ed while I was not looking.... --33rogers (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have only looked at your contributions, and redirects to the main article, now. 117Avenue (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your monitoring of the Wikipedia page Canadian federal election, 2011. And thank you for keeping consistent dates in the references there. And thank you for fixing my grammatical errors there. And thank you for keeping archiving the talk page there...Thank you for all your contributions at Canadian federal election, 2011 and other political articles. --33rogers (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, your welcome, now I feel bad for leaving a nasty message on your talk. 117Avenue (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Canadian federal election, 2011
For all you are talking about others not "reading policy", you are very clearly engaging in an edit war on this article. Of note, pay attention to the three revert rule on that policy. You have made at least five reverts today, and several more in the past few days. This is not constructive behaviour, and it needs to stop, or you will be blocked. Consider this a final warning.

I think it would behoove you to be a lot more open minded about the suggestions of others on how to construct and present this article. And at this point, you would be wise to spend more time on the talk page discussing that which you disagree with and a lot less warring on the article itself to retain your preferred formatting and presentation. Resolute 01:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)