User talk:A Train/Archive I

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this:. Four tildes ( ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!&rarr; Jarlaxle Artemis   07:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
I can revert pretty quickly because I'm an admin, and I have a one-click "rollback" button that automatically reverts an article to the last version before the current vandalous editor got his mitts on it. If you aren't an administrator, there are still ways to revert vandalism that are easier than the way you described. For example, go to the Burger King history. See the evil edit by user:70.18.105.229? Just click on the version of the article just before that (the version edited by SDC), hit the edit button, and save it. That automatically saves the last "good" edit. You'll get a warning box that says you're about to edit an out-of-date version, but that's OK. It's what you want to do.

A slightly different approach, if you're looking at the page with editing difs, is just to click the link that says "earlier edit" and back up until you get to a clean version, then hit "edit" and "save," like I mentioned above. Does any of this make sense? Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Categories
Hello, Fernando! I fixed the category for you. To add a category, use double square brackets, and don't put the colon in front. Go check it out. I enjoy helping, by the way, so don't worry that you're bothering me. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 02:12 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the flower; you're very kind. While I'm thinking of it, there is a time when you do want to put the colon in front of the category link.  If I wanted to link to a particular category, without putting your talk page in it, I'd do it like this....   Category:1946 births    Joyous  (talk) July 4, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Košice attack
Thanks for corrections here; however replacing Slovak State with Czechoslovakia was incorrect as these were two different political entities. The red link is there as no one wrote an article, not because Slovak State didn't exist. Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

Tobacco BY-2
Hi Fernando!

Thank you very much for your trust. :o)) I will try to support it further, but I am forced now to state here, that during this summer I will have very litle ocassions for any other cotributions. (I will be not in touch with Internet). So, I can only look forward for cooperation in future.
 * Could you have a look on that page again? I tried to rewrite one little passage to change little the meaning, but I am not sure how accessible it is. You will have surely better sensitivity for clear expressions.(You know, I am not a native speaker, so I try double, to make me sure about this) The change was there because these cells are not good model because they are well known, (regardless of it), they are important because they are perfect tool for biologists. (And then because of it they are well known :)) So to say, they behave as one man. If you will give them auxin for example, the increase of auxin acumulation inside the cell will be in every cell absolutely (or almost absolutelly) the same. If you would do it to the tissue of intact plant, then the cells have to deal with each other about this substance, they share it in uneven rate. In these closer to the surface, where you applied it, would be the concentration the highest and these under surface are depending how manny molecules will the neighbours give them. And that is unpredictable. And so on..


 * And yet, there would I like to ask you, for help in formulating, of some another element. The sentence: makes it very difficult to investigate the some problems in biochemistry is perfectly correct reformulation of sentence what I have writen. I only bit doubt about accuracy of it, what I have written. Then the inaccuracy by rewording could be even a bit more increasing. The key is, that biochemists have no problem that could be solved by BY-2 :), that are we - plant scientists (cytologists) who have a problems :) - and we can view them from more biochemical point of view, but still they are cytological. But just to write: problems in plant cytology wouldn´t be informative enaugh. I tried to express somehow, that this are some biochemical aspects of plant cytology. ( Uff, tireing :))) I only hope, that for you not as much :) ).Could you make same text synthesis of these features?
 * Yet again I thank you very much

--Reo On 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)


 * Hello, hello! I am a partly here. :) Thanks a lot. I think, that that formulations perfectly match the content, only I had to move one sentence (which shows good understanding of BY-2´s significance, but assumes that this characteristics is stated by termin cultivar and in fact it should be aiming to the meaning of cell suspension...) But, well I think, that now it is really allright.  Yet about me.. Now I am just joining this symposium -->  I am quite happy to be involved in it(It is absolutelly not automatic for such begginers and in fact yet nobodys like me), so I appology to you that I have such enigmatic reappearances here :)) when I have stated, that I will have to leave. But I in fact never know, how much time I will be able to save from being there, for anything else (So I, just for sure, am saing that I am not accessible). It (ACPD) will be finished tomorow, after that I will yet a day be staying here in Prague  and yet again I will return to the PC the next week and after THAT week I will be in touch with wikipedia (perhaps) not until the autumn. .. Maybe, I would like to ask you for yet another collaborations, like for example on the topic of auxin itself (my research area). I would wish very much for that, be in fruitfull contact with you. That site could be extended really very much, because of the significance of that plant hormone ... but I would like to be abble to keep it as ease for understanding as possible...
 * So I will enjoy the collaboration as well, and only I wish, you will exculpate my offten not being here... :o), so thank you and have a good time, hi. --Reo On 21:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Talbot (dog)
It is indeed an extinct breed of dog; I've put links to it (before the article was created) myself. Thanks for checking, though. Elf | Talk 7 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Historical Jesus
If you wish that the article be completely re-written, could you vote delete and start from scratch or similar, so that the entire content of the current article is wiped, and cannot be reverted to? 17:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation
With regard to William Connolley, etc.: British English uses a full stop to indicate that a word has been abbreviated by being broken off in the middle, not otherwise: thus "street" becomes "st.", but "saint" becomes "st". Similarly, "Dr", Mr", Mrs", "jr", etc., don't take the full stop. American English seems to have followed the German and French method of using the full stop after all abbreviations, hence the difference between the two branches of the language. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Like all grammatical rules, of course, people often get it wrong here (just as I expect Americans often miss the full stop from abbreviations) &mdash; but I find it useful if only to disambiguate otherwise identical abbreviations (like the "St./St" example). --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Auxin
Tahnks.

There will be lot of work. (auxin is my branch - and object of my research)

Let me apologize, that my contributions will be heavilly irregular. I am working lot more then 8 houres a day, and I started to contribute to the czech version. But as usually, I am looking forward to the cooperation. :o) Have a great time!--Reo On 23:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Glacier proposal
Thanks for giving me the heads up. I have proposed a solution here. Please give input as to whether or not this is a viable solution. — J3ff 01:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gee! Thanks!
Wow my first Barnstar! I'm chuffed I can tell you! Thanks alot, I actually got a tangible rush when I booted up my user page and saw it there. I just hope it wasn't a mistake and now you want it back...my precious...my precious...see you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 11:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
I didn't ignore your message because you put it in the wrong place; I'd just gone offline and didn't get back until things had already settled down. WP:ViP is a great place to mention vandalism in progress, but I don't mind direct messages. Probably most users would be ok with a message on their talk pages. So, in short, you did just fine. Joyous (talk) 03:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Clayton's
Hi Fernando - you wrote: ''I'm sitting idle here at my job, and I've been on new page patrol for a bit now. Your Clayton's article is very interesting and broke of the monotony of nominating things for speedies and adding stub tags. Glad to see you didn't quit after all.''
 * Thanks for that. No, consider it a "Clayton's resignation" :) I've cut back on my wiki work by about 75%, and I haven't done anything in the admin/policy area for a while. I think I'll probably be back fully sometime in the next few days, though. I was a little worried that the new article might be more wiktionary than wikipedia, BTW, but hopefully it will survive as an article. Grutness...  wha?  04:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

thank
Thank for the advices, i new at this kind of stuff, I not a expert at japanese weapons, and have little reference to the subject. I will try to add more later today, if i can find more informantion that is, And again thank. unsigned comment by Loveman at 13:02, 28 July 2005

MARINE TEAM 6
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS FOR FINDING THINGS EVEN IF THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF INFO. MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST DELETE ALL THE SMALL ARTICLES ON THIS SITE!!JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT FIND IT ON GOOGLE DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT REAL ALMOST LIKE IF YOU CANT FIND IT ON WIKIPEDIA IT DOESNT MEAN ITS NOT REAL THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY AND BE UPDATED OVER TIME.THE REASON I CREATED THE PAGE ON MARINE TEAM 6 IS BECAUSE A FAMILY MEMBER OF MINE IS IN IT!!!IT IS A BRAND NEW UNIT WITH HIGHLY SPECIALIZED OPERATORS.MAYBE YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER??THANKS AGAIN unsigned comment by 24.51.203.176 at 13:49, 28 July 2005

marine team 6
ok i'm sorry i may have been out of hand with the 'name calling' but i still believe you should keep the article or allow it to be recreated if more info surface's also i believe you should keep the names of the articles that were copyrighted on the u.s. special operations forces page even if you keep them blank(for example for the phoenix raven tab just erase the copyrighted page but keep the word phoenix raven on the list and if anyone wants to write a page in their own words on them they are able to.) but one thing i dont understand is why under the tab 'other' you deleted the blackwater usa  mobile sect'y teams they are real and can be found on blackwater usa's website thanks anyway! unsigned comment by 24.51.203.176 at 19:26, 28 July 2005

Republic
I rewrote the first paragraph of that article. I'm seriously thinking of doing the whole peice. Its way to rambling. Thanks for the heads up! Hamster Sandwich 21:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that thing is pretty nasty. I had only given it a cursory once-over to justify my vote to delete the big wall-o-text article that needed translating over at VfD. Your rewrite of the first para is good. If you want a hand with that monster, let me know. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm all fot it. I did the first paragraph, so you get the second one. We'll make a little project. I'm going to go read the damn thing and get a plan of attack. Good Luck! Hamster Sandwich 20:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

protocols
So you consider leaving an deliberate inaccurate incomplete account as the article does not bias? the text is not mine and a link was given the views were those of the author and the Appeal Court unsigned comment by 84.9.109.190 at 17:32, 29 July 2005

protocols
So you start with a 'loaded' point of view, and state I have a bent, have you read them? I did about ten years ago and I found myself checking the publishing date several times as it read like a history of the 20th Century, I don't know who wrote them, I do know that various groups on both sides continue to put subjective selectively edited accounts out like the 'neutral' article in question, the fact that you think its reasonable to allow the impression that there has been a final Court judgement as presented speaks volumes for your editorial policy. The other links added were one from a (live) Jew who also happens to hold a Phd and who 'believes'them to be true (I have several dead Jew accounts) and other from a 'drop-out' potential priest who does a very good compartitive study between the Jolly texts and others with the protocols and apart from that has very interesting essay's on other religious histories which given his antecedents he is probably well qualified to write, the third link was to the text of the protocols in a easier translation then the Marsden translations which I assume your link leads to. and no I have wish to debate it I came across the wki article whilst searching to find a 'document' which I've never seen linked to the protocols but I believe contains similar text in relationship to the financial/banking parts which was called a something like a US bankers charter/protocols whatever and was dated Circa 1880. I was just under the misapprehension that being netural meant giving all the facts and whist the Henry Ford issue is also incomplete libeling a dead man not as bad twisting a legal case, a deception I took as genuine for several years due to a similarly edited article. I could also have pointed out the change in the Times ownership just prior to the 'debunking' and several other points, that said there is material in the article I wasn't aware of, but given the discrepancies I am aware of, will be treating it as 'suspect' till I find corroborating sources. unsigned comment by 84.9.109.190 at 19:43, 29 July 2005
 * I'm not interested in debating the relative merits of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with you; the only thing I do for that article is try to keep the peace and make spelling, grammar, or style edits. I was merely informing you of Wikipedia policies and trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. If you want to discuss the validity of the book, please do so on the article's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of them like this: ~ Fernando Rizo T/C 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't make me pull this car over My Dad. Hamster Sandwich 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

consensus
The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were
 * Delete - 21 (58%)
 * Keep - 11 (31%)
 * Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ! ? * 09:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No Ril, I won't vote on that VfD again. If I'm not mistaken, this is the third VfD for that article in two weeks. Leave it alone, it's becoming a witch hunt. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Its the third in 3 weeks.     ( ! | ? | * ) 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)