User talk:Bodnotbod/Feb2010

Huggle
Hi there, Please see the download page for the new release of huggle. It should work and should be the only version to work. Thank X  clamation point  and if you have any questions please get to me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. -- ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message and good to know it is working :)  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stroop
I have tried to clarify the description of the tasks and experiments of the original article. Would you take a look and point me at anything not yet clear? Bests regards. --Garrondo (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have received several times a stroop test in my email, so propably you have also... I am looking forward to you trying to improve my wording (it was me who rewrotte the article; since it had several mistakes on the original article); as you say it is difficult to explain the fact that 3 different stimuli are used in two different experiments. Additionally as I am spanish my wording many times is not as good as it should be. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For the CE of 12th SS Panzer Division, I have gone over and tried to clarify where reqd --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eliza Doolittle
A tag has been placed on Eliza Doolittle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Muse
You may or may not be interested to know that our conversation the other day inspired me to throw this article together on a whim... Steve T • C 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done dear boy. Very good article. I hadn't actually realised how much credit they had earned and deserved for what they'd achieved. I'd tended to assume that events just kind of caught up with them organically. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And no, I didn't realise either until I started trawling for sources. And I still half suspect you're right, that maybe new technologies were the "major driving forces" we should be crediting. But in this case, all we can go with is what the sources say (even if The Register isn't always the best for a NPOV). Steve  T • C 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Let it not be said that I stint on my favours. Done and done. All the best, Steve  T • C 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot
Don't threaten me on my talk page, the ClueBot is an antisemitic and I was countering his racial epitaphs with good humor. I am going to sue you if you continue to defend ClueBots racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.81.45 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Transylvania at WP:THIRD, some hints for you
-- B@xter 9 07:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

poole pottery
Hi, I just added a link to an extensive forum thread covering Poole pottery and including over a hundred examples of Poole pottery in picture form, the link has been removed and the reason given is it was spam! I'm trying to understand as this is my first time on Wikipedia but the fact that there is a link to some guy's 2nd rate poole collection that has no merit whatsoever makes me wonder 'why me'?

Sorry to be a pain but if you can explain where I went wrong then at least I'll know next time. Ta very much, Dan

here's the link that was deemed to be spam?

http://fatlava.forummotion.com/british-pottery-f9/poole-pottery-t85.htm#192 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriginaldantheman (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.152.72.228) I appreciated it. (TurnOfAFairlyContentCard 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurnOfAFairlyContentCard (talk • contribs)

Wiki-PiiIiz
Why are you welcoming users with sockpuppet tags on their user page and open sockpuppeting investigations?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a huge general issue, and nothing to kick up a big fuss about. I just ask for a bit more caution. Scanning the user page is a good idea, and the talk page did have this discussion on it as well. I understand and support the idea of welcoming users, but puppetmasters deserve a unanimous cold shoulder.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

hotlinked images on Rassilon
I think you're right, should be under external links if at all. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

163.153.74.216
HI. Thank you for reverting the recent mal-edits made by 163.153.74.216. The district has identified where this originated and is taking corrective action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Black people example reliable sources
The following article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/we-should-not-stereotype-new-guidelines-for-producers-provide-the-following-advice-on-how-to-portray-women-the-disabled-homosexuals-and-other-groups-1504798.html seems quite helpful as it specifically states that BBC programmes should "Use the term 'black people' rather than 'blacks'". This is dated 1993, I suspect that the guidance concerned is still in a BBC publication somewhere. I have sent a note to the BBC News standard contact asking if their current editorial policy has something equivalent but a response is not guaranteed.

There is also this African human rights group: http://www.ligali.org/terminology/mediaguidelines.htm which details potentially offensive terms and their alternatives for the media. This includes "Blacks" as a potentially offensive term. Unfortunately it counts "Black person" as offensive too, consequently I have my doubts for using it as a source.

Perhaps such sources should be added as supporting material to the article at some point as well as the RFC in progress.—Ash (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Nope, I hadn't received a Signpost barnstar before.--ragesoss (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Herald of Gloom
Yep, you might just be deep in trouble I'm affraid. Your quiet laboriousness and straight talk have called my attention, and now here am I to request your attention to my infamous proposal: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Divide_Wikipedia. There are many things wrong with it, begining with the title, but I would value your unalloyed opinion. Regards, -- Thamus joyfulnoise  07:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know when people ask you for a straight, honest opinion you ought to fetch asap for hipocrisy and shamelessness and praise away? Now you just got yourself even higher in my consideration, and therefore deeper into trouble, as I am likely to recur to our judgement now and again...

Now seriously, I really want to thank you for taking the time to look at the proposal and let you know that however short, your commentary is very useful to me (wouldn't be the case if you had followed the jocous advice above - which I knew you wouldn't). You see, I tried to come up with a proposal aimed at letting both tendencies develop in a way beneficial for Wikipedia as a whole. But instead of pleasing both parties, it pleases nobody. What I now need to determine is if this is due to the way I present my ideas, or to the ideas themselves, or even plain old human nature.

Finally, I am thinking you might like to know that in spite of my compromising position on the proposal, in real life my stance is much more like yours, a large part of my motivation to move to Panama, where you may still limit somewhat the impositions of society. All the best, -- Thamus joyfulnoise  18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

igloo
Hi Bodnotbod, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:
 * The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
 * igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
 * When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
 * The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! A le_Jrb talk 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bodnotbod!

Very belatedely to thank you for all the time and patience you dedicated already to reading and discussing a proposal you didn't even like. One think you don't need to be affraid of is to be dragged into a sterile, purposeless discussion. You have already helped me to realise important failures in my way of presenting ideas, and while I am not yet convinced of the wrongness of those ideas, you have presented me with solid arguments that may eventually lead to that conclusion, as opposed to just complaining that "it is confusing". If you don't mind, I'll knock your door one final time on this subject tomorrow (can't go on now). 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamus (talk • contribs)

Thanks!
Hi Bodnotbod!

Very belatedely to thank you for all the time and patience you dedicated already to reading and discussing a proposal you didn't even like. One think you don't need to be affraid of is to be dragged into a sterile, purposeless discussion. You have already helped me to realise important failures in my way of presenting ideas, and while I am not yet convinced of the wrongness of those ideas, you have presented me with solid arguments that may eventually lead to that conclusion, as opposed to just complaining that "it is confusing". If you don't mind, I'll knock your door one final time on this subject tomorrow (can't go on now). Thamus joyfulnoise  04:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry, I didn't keep my word. I've been through some strife lately at pt:wp and in real life, but I DO mean to follow through with the proposal, and largely thanks to you I have a better idea about how to rewrite it. It may be, however, that I must leave wp altogether, which would be sad indeed for me. -- Thamus joyfulnoise  22:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Early music of the British Isles timeline
Please see Talk:Early music of the British Isles. Thanks. -- Klein zach  01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bodnotbod! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) David Quantick -

FA review of Sydney Newman
nominated Sydney Newman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)