User talk:Logical2u/ArchiveJune2007

'''Replies may be here or on your talk page, hopefully on both. BTW, your talk page is here.'''

re: WP:DRV subpage name
While the header that was visible on the page was inconsistent, the subpage name actually is consistent with the naming convention that's been in use for as far back as I checked - at least for all of November and longer if I remember correctly. I think that the intent was to make the archive pages easier to navigate if/when we ever needed to find a particular one. I know that I'd rather not have to scan through a list sorted 1 Nov 2003, 1 Nov 2004, 1 Nov 2005, 1 Nov 2006, 2 Nov 2003, 2 Nov 2004, ...

Rossami (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. Also, this was probably not the best place to leave it (As I am on enforced wikibreak). I didn't have time to check the other pages, but since the header was inconsistent I assumed the page name was also inconsistent... 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on Enforced Wikibreak01:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Oopsie
Thanks for fixing that... I noticed it redirected to vandal so I was wondering, "How on earth did I make a redirect?!?" Heh, I'm a little slow today... -WarthogDemon 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

i emailed the writer
Hey I contacted the writer through email and he was more than happy to have it on wikipedia. So how is going to work. Does he need to make the article or do i give a copy of the email? Sayeed212 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page and telling me about it on my talk page :-). StoptheDatabaseState 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Pie
Your recent edit to Pie (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that was unexpected. The diff is the bot re-vandalizing the page. User:Logical2uTalk 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... well, it happened to me, too. Look. Maybe it's because you're faster than the bot.

Bye. FrancoGG ( talk ) 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ... odd ...
In response to your note, yes, we posted the warnings at the same time (although I didn't get an actual "error conflict" message). You must have reverted about one millisecond before me, as your "rvv" rather than mine shows up on the history, not that it matters. I was going to revert my duplicative warning, but decided not to bother; let him know that two people are watching. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Canada
I just checked using Firefox and I don't seem to be experiencing those problems. This is also the first I've heard of this problem so far. The fact that the calendar is over expanding out of its section puzzles me. Each section, such as information, is in essence is its own page. The pages are transposed onto the main page as sections. I don't see how the content can be larger than the page section. I recommend we leave at the original settings as those are the same measurements as the other current events pages and since no one has reported similar problems, we also have to look at the possibility that it could just be your version of firefox. Let me know if you think of anything. Mkdw talk 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I slightly adjusted the sizing to frame the section box 2px evenly around the Information Calendar. Before it was right justified. Did it help? Mkdw talk 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam Airlines crash
The discovery of the wreckage and 12 survivors is "old news" and was later found false, as stated in the article. Someone will revert your edits unless you provide a reliable source, or a source that does not require signup/subscription to confirm the discovery of the wreckage. Acdx 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It didn't require a subscription. It was blatantly free on my Google News page, and it continues to appear on a random basis (Interspersed, as I have noticed now, with "Crash Not Actually Found")
 * 2) The article I used did not have a timestamp, as such it makes it difficult to determine the which article is the most recent.
 * 3) You can remove the dispute tag as I have removed the sourced statements I added, unless you have something more accurate to state.
 * 4) Instead of making this angry sounding post on my talk page, I'd like it better if you reverted me, THEN warned me. That seems to be a better use of time.
 * 5) The LA Times isn't reliable?
 * User:Logical2uTalk 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies if my message sounded angry, didn't intend for it to. When I opened the LA times link, a login screen came up. But apparently everything's cleared up now, I'll take the tag away. Acdx 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it Acdx 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, apologies if I sound angry... I'm doing some work in the background while being easily distracted by Wikipedia... When I came back here, I reread what I wrote, and I thought "Ogod, I'm banned for Personal Attacks now". At least it's over... User:Logical2uTalk 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: ER....
Um they are not protected they just have those signs. if they bother you please letme know. --Darkest Hour $ $ $ $ 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the quick revert of the vandalism to my user page. I do appreciate it. --JFreeman (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

:-)
Ok, I see your point. Fair enough. In fact I put an enormous ammount of time to improve and create many new threads in Korn article, and keep it updated, hence (without knowing about semi-protection) I put semi-protection just to avoid random people making annoying and not documented statements or changes. Thank you for the heads-up Broken soul 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: wp:defcon
Defcon 0 is exactly as the description says. Unknown. The defcon is never 1, so I set it to 0 so that someone who knows would set it to what it should be. Pilotguy later changed it to 3. ZsinjTalk 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: aol guy
Maybe....He should definitely consider changing his name too...bad idea to use your email address, haha. Viperphantom 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Thanks for reverting that stuff for me and having that guy blocked! CanbekEsen 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Zorpia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Zorpia, has been listed by me at Articles for deletion/Zorpia. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC) --A. B. (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:False flag In english please
It was not the sources it was the new text. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

afd whateverness
Thanks for the tip! ' Wii  Willie  Wiki  →''(Talk) (Contrib) 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was polite about it.
I did say 'please' after all. Wiki deals in facts, not opinions. He may think 'wiki doesn't need this', but it's not his place or business to delete articles. And as for the troll, hey, a guy gets bored constantly reverting, y'know? They're only here to stir up shit anyway, so sometimes I have a bit of fun with it. HalfShadow 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Scottydude 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Note
Hi. Thanks for telling me about soft redirects. Is there a page on it? Also, when you said, "that will work", did you mean "that won't work"? Also, I was just experimenting in the sandbox, even though I'm not a newbie. I was testing to see if the redirects work, and to what extent. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm vague; I guess what I meant to say is that a cross-name space redirect won't work (yet). Soft-redirects are weird, here's the guide page on'em : Soft redirect. Hope it explains it better than I can. Logical2uTalk 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for showing me the link to soft redirects. Soft redirects are kind of weird, they're more of cross-website redirects, I've only seen them once or twice, and they actually tell you they're a redirect in large font (compared to the "redirected from..." things with most redirects). I've found that cross-namespace redirects, do in fact work, although they're usually discouraged and often deleted. A stroHur ricane  00 1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't know that. You learn something new everyday. Thanks! Logical2uTalk 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The other "Andy Porter"
I included him mostly because when one googles for "Andy Porter" he seemed to be the third most common result I got that I could identify. -- Orange Mike 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Khairuddin Mohamed Yusof

 * Logical2u, Professor Khairuddin Mohamed Yusof is someone I very much personally knows including his home address, family vice versa. I know his background more than what is written in his shareholding company.I have no idea about the published article, and how identical it is to the one that I have (I got the detail from his possession; probably he wrote that for the company). After reading about the university in wikipedia, I thought it would be good to add his profile and a bit background about him using his profile that I have.Now that I know it was published, I will do changes on his profile as soon as I could. I am against plagiarism / copyrights and I know it is not right – One of the lessons I learn from him personally. Thanks for the message. - Jay 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan! Thanks for the reply! Logical2uReview me! 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm
You kind of reverted over a revert, which lead to your edit being vandalism. Just so you know. Logical2uReview me! 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed it. When I wanted to revert the revert, you beat me to it. Stupid timing error. Thanks though ;- JackSparrow Ninja 19:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago
I have removed the prod on Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago. Although I agree that it desperately needs sources, I don't follow why that makes it non-notable. Guettarda 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only references I found to it during a Google search were from a CIA report on government elements in Trinidad and Tobaga, with this group listed under the "Communist" section. Taken from WP:ORG, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Individual chapters of national organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. So basically, it's not notable unless it has sources, according to the notability guidelines...Logical2uReview me! 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Individual chapters of national organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article - how does this statement apply to this article? Also Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable - that might be the case, but this is a national-level organisation.  Guettarda 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I might have read the page (and cited it in my argument) too fast. I apologize. It is a national party, but it still has to follow the general criteria: An organization or group is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works. If it doesn't meet something along those lines (Frankly, I'd be happy if there was a citation of their placement in any election), stuff needs to be done. This then opens up a new can of worms when we get into all the other political groups, especially in Canada, which has at least a dozen... The more specific organization criteria also necessitates independent sources. The remedy for failing to meet these criteria is supposed to be cleanup, then if all else fails, deletion (the type of deletion depends on which page you look at) for groups that don't meet it. Logical2uReview me! 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion
Thanks for reverting the blanking of my User page. Always nice to have someone keeping an eye on my back!! --The.Q | Talk to me 17:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Falsified summary
What part of the summary of the Kyanka and the SA page are untrue? Please let me know and I will correct the errors. The current pages do not follow Attribution policy and reliable sources guideline.
 * As pointed out by, not the blocked user with the bone to pick against the forums. JuJube 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia.com
Wikipedia has deleted Zorpia from their database. Wikipedia claims dat zorpia is some kinda drug related spam site which have got connections with pharmaceuticals. wikipedia even doubts the number of members zorpia houses. i have been a member of Zorpia.com since Oct 15, 2006 and they have really got these many members and its a genuine social networking website. how can u believe this? by joining zorpia and seeing it for ur self. All we know the reasons zorpia was got deleted off wikipedias database was due to lack of verifiable sources to assert its notability. i have got some sources for you and so please go through these sources and please make the other admins notifiable of these sources as well. Here are some sources that proves the notability of Zorpia:

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-02-29-photoshare_x.htm

TechAddress: http://techaddress.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/interview-with-jeffrey-ng-ceo-from-zorpia/

DMasia: http://www.digitalmediaasia.com/default.asp?ArticleID=19073 (Canada's largest independent record label would not work with a fake drug site!)

Pulse 2: http://pulse2.com/category/nettwerk-music-group/ (Note quotes from Nettwerk Records Marketing Director)

Please look into this matter and give Zorpia.com its honour and glory back. I absolutely love zorpia and i know how lovely this site is.

-Abhishek aka Aby aka Real eyes.

Iamlucifer 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet
I'm trying to find an error that appears in a script, if you notice I did most of the writing on this and I wouldn't vandalize it. I'll use a sandboxRlevse 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did indeed notice that you were doing most of the last edits (I figured either A: you were messing around, testing other people's reactions, or B: testing stuff) Good luck (Hope it's not simply an unclosed ref tag) Logical2uReview me! 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I'm not sure I understand
What exactly do I need to put for the bouncing wiki image? Do I copy/paste what you put, or do I copy/paste the source of what you wrote? Also, what do I put for (Image URL). I put http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Bouncywikilogo.gif but nothing happens. Thanks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I got it to bounce! Thanks!!! -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Feral Cats
Remove away, no problems. If you could remove all that would be good too, is there a code that will stop all category's showing up? Cheers, Dfrg.msc 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your marking of Sputnik browser for deletion
Your rationale for deleting the article says "it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" but this is not the case. Sputnik browser is a web-browser. Please remove that banner or come up with one that applies. DanielM 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page that "All subjects must assert notability. It's best to read it as Unremarkable content." You linked to a *proposed* guideline/policy that may or may not apply. Please refer us to an existing guideline/policy that applies. I think it's notable on its face, but please cite your assertion that "all subjects must assert notability" and we can look at that rule (if there is one) and decide if it applies. DanielM 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to back up your assertion but you just reasserted it instead: "The article needs to assert notability, and relatively verifiable notability." Can you point to an existing policy or guideline that says this? I think it's notable, but I would rather answer to a policy or guideline than to your personal assertion. DanielM 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The basic rules on notability are here: Notability. The details are subject to constant discussion, but these are the rules that apply to your assertion of notability. -- Orange Mike 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike, I was too busy to cross post here as well (its on his talk page, too.) Logical2uReview me! 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your user page
I'm going to stick with the current page, and please do NOT remove the categories. I will list you on WP:AN/I. Thanks. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting categories
Hi Logical2u. When redirect categories, could you make sure to add a colon to the category link, like I did here? Thanks. Picaroon 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shockwavemod
Can't seem to get on the forum. Can you? AllStarZ 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just times out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllStarZ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).