User talk:EchetusXe/Archive 2008

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, EchetusXe! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Teetotalers
Thanks for adding an entry to List of teetotalers. All entries there should have a reliable source proving the claim. Could you please provide one? Otherwise, your addition will need to be removed. (If you have any concerns about this, please ask on my talk page.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue resolved --EchetusXe --(talk) 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

-

I noticed you changed the List of teetotalers entry for Prince (musician) from "Prince, American Musician" to "Prince Rogers Nelson, American Musician". I think that should probably be changed back. --74.208.16.17 (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's his name, everyone else is listed by surname. --EchetusXe (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, everyone else is listed by their "best known" name - for artists, usually their stage name. Note that the article name is Prince (musician), and that Prince Rogers Nelson is a redirect; listing the latter is unhelpful as it's very clearly not the name he's best known by (or even fairly well known by). If everyone were to be listed by their "real" name, David Bowie needs to be listed as David Robert Jones, and Elton John needs to be listed as Reginald Kenneth Dwight - but for the same reasons, that would also be very unhelpful. --74.208.16.17 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok you win. --EchetusXe (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstartrek

 * thnx, my first award! --EchetusXe (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Hiya mate. Yep, I'll (try to remember to ;-) ) let you know if I find anything for MS. I'm sure he is, too, from innumerable comments... but he doesn't seem to have actually said his (dis-)beliefs in so many words. That's the trouble with satirists; their own views can be hard to pin down!

And thanks for your work on these lists. If you've not seen the Talk:Lists_of_atheists page, I'm in the process of transferring all the entries into a table format, default-sorted by surname, and spread over several pages (has to be, at last count there was 850 people in total listed). Do take a look at the first bit List of atheists (surnames A to B) and let me know what you think. (I think the protocol is to have these chats on one page or the other; if you reply here I'll find it.) Cheers,  Simon --Oolon (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey that's great work, a real improvement. --EchetusXe (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: You added the category of "English atheists" to the page for Roger Waters (musician), which was reverted by another user. I notice that in the same edit you removed 3 other valid tags for no apparent reason, and there was no edit summary explaining what you are changing. I looked at the list you are working on, and it appears that Waters' atheism is adequately documented. But with no mention of the project you are working on in the edit summary, your change was apparently taken for vandalism. Please remember to use edit summaries whenever you make edits for a project, and it's best to point explicitly to the particular task you are working on. If you make it difficult for others to assess what you are trying to do, they are likely to revert your changes. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thnx for the heads up. --EchetusXe (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you're doing; the categories and templates you removed are replaced by the "Lifetime" template which inserts "DEFAULTSORT" and affects the article's sort in all lists, not just the 2 that are handled by the template. Not what I would have expected it to do, but it checks out.  I'm not sure if your comment "Get used to it" was directed at myself or the other editor, but it was unnecessary.  Nobody is contesting your insertion of "atheism"; the issue was the apparent removal of other templates and lists, which looked like vandalism when you neglected to explain it.  I never said you needed to add content to the article itself, but now that you have, it looks okay to me. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The one who removed it. Other templates weren't removed, anyway you realize that now. --EchetusXe (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came here after seeing your similar edit at James Randi all ready to revert and ask what the heck you're doing. I think it would be much better to use edit summaries when you delete cats and insert that template. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * k--EchetusXe (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just found a huge list of potential atheists: http://ffrf.org/day/daybytopic.php quotes and sources are provided. Want to help me go through them and add the ones that are confirmed atheists? :)--Squoups (talk 10:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, that'd be great. Remember to add them to the surnames one because the otherlists are getting deleted after the surnames are finished.--EchetusXe (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I should probably bring this up in the actual 'List of atheists' discussion section, but since the basic topic has been noted above, and since you're one of the few working prominently on these lists, I might as well bring it up here :)

Once we've established all the alphabetical atheist lists, and gotten them close to (or actually at) featured status, we should collect all the newly added persons and add them back to the occupation lists. Both approaches have their uses and advantages, imho. Alphabetical is efficient and simple, whilst the occupation ones are specific and, more interesting, maybe... And w/e main occupation is chosen for the A-Z lists, should dictate which occupation list the person is added to. The main occupation is selected simple for which the person is most famous for (as is the case w/ the a-z lists). And since most comedians are actually involved in (and famous for) television, then the comedians misc. list should be reserved for stand-ups and whatnot. Plus, the occupation lists are simply more aesthetically pleasing. Thoughts?--Squoups (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh, go for it.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards
Whoops - sorry about that. Should have read the whole article before I made that edit. I was clearly out of date! I was about to put it back when I saw you'd got there first! Mrh30 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.--EchetusXe (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader
Hi, I saw you added a lot of Talkheader templates to talk pages. It is not necessary to do that for every article though, only when it is needed. See also this discussion. Garion96 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ok.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the talkheader is discouraged except on pages where it is really needed. I mention it because you added it to Talk:John Burnside (inventor) when that talk page was nearly empty - not a place a notice about active talk pages really needs to go :) You might want to read the template's description for more information about when it is best to use it.  Thanks, by the way, for your help on Burnside's page!  I've got a couple recent sources of obits I'm going to add to that article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeh no problem.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflist vs. Refs
I just noticed that you changed Reflist to in Dina Cocea. This is so very minor that I hesitated to bring it up, but you do realize that Refs is a redirect to Reflist, which is the main template? I just thought you might not know and might want to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, don't suppose it makes any difference to anything?--EchetusXe (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very little difference. It does slow the servers down a very small amount because it accesses the Reflist template through a redirect rather than directly. But when you made the change you must have thought Refs was different or better than Reflist so that's why I stopped by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh, ah ok, thanks for the explanation. Thought I was saving a slight amount of effort for the servers rather than making them work a tiny bit harder. Will stick to 'Reflist' from now on, thank you.!--EchetusXe (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ordinal suffixes are not superscripted
See Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Ordinal numbers such as 33rd are not superscripted as 33rd. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oh!--EchetusXe (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emmanuel
I moved the Miscellaneous text on Rahm Emmanuel back into its own section. Some of the text (like the origin of his name) seemed a little too trivial to be that high up in the article, and the other information seemed to work better on its own. Still, let me know what you think. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 12:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Youngsters aren't on loan anymore
Heya, I was going by the Stoke City official website, where they're listed in the profiles part. It has a few players there out on loan (the guys at Sheffield Wednesday and Tranmere, for example) but none of those ones are listed as being on loan. Perhaps because they're only youngsters so they don't feel a need to put it? They're not listed on loan at Soccerbase either but that's notoriously bad with non-league stuff. If you heard about them playing yesterday though then I guess they are on loan after all. -- Doberman Pharaoh (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh, the site doesn't bother with the youngsters. And people say Wikipedia is inaccurate!--EchetusXe (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

David Howland
Hi, just to say I've restored DEFAULTSORT to David Howland again in place of lifetime, thought I'd say why. The main reason is that I think DEFAULTSORT is clearer for the beginner to understand. Having a different system for bio and non-bio articles just adds an extra level of confusion for the sake of not having to type a few extra characters. Additionally, although we're not really supposed to worry particularly about performance, executing a template to implement cat-sorting uses more resources than the magic word DEFAULTSORT which the Mediawiki software uses directly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What have beginners got to do with anything? As long as he doesn't die any time soon there is no reason to worry about the lifetime template. If these beginners see the template around then they get an idea of what it is pretty quickly. I don't really see the line of reasoning there but have it your way and use defaultsort.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Double spacing, etc.
Hello, echetusXe, I noticed that you've removed the double spacing at today's (tomorrow's) Featured Article. Last night I saw that you did the same for yesterday's (today's). In case you are not aware, the WP:MOS states that there is no preference between double or single spacing. Because the browser automatically displays the text as having a single space after punctuation, regardless of how it is written in the edit box, the choice is up to the preference of the primary writer/contributor. What is important is that it is uniform throughout. As the primary editor at Robert Sterling Yard, I reverted a majority of your edit -- including the double-to-single change -- because of my own personal preference for the French spacing style. It may be the case that the main contributors at Thespis (opera) also prefer double spacing. I merely wanted to alert you of this, as I'm sure you spent a great deal of time on your edits. Just something to keep in mind for the future! :) María ( habla con migo ) 02:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * thnx.--EchetusXe (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)