User talk:LouriePieterse/Archive 3

Joining accounts in different languages of wikipedia
Can I join my account in russian and english wikipedia ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.113.54 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi IP user, unfortunately not. But one thing you can do is to use you unified account over all the Wiki's. I would suggest to use your account with the most edits at the other Wiki's as well. Please take a look at the following link for more information. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly excessive tagging
The next time you WP:TAGBOMB an article like you did with Missa Solemnis (Bruckner), please leave an explanation on the talk page so people can tell you actually read the article and weren't just putting down every random tag that popped into your head (not everyone will assume good faith, e.g., assume that you did read the article before tagging it). If you're not sure what to say on the talk page to explain the tags, you can consult WP:RESPTAG for guidance; that page covers many tags.

Also, I noticed that you did the tagbombing with the Friendly script. May I remind you of the warning: "Be advised that even when using these scripts, you take full responsibility for any action done using them. You must understand the Wikipedia policies and use this tool within that policy, or risk being blocked for its misuse." Incarnatus (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Incarnatus. Ive added the correct tags to the article. The following tags were removed from my last edit — the one were I've added the tags:
 * Clean up
 * Primary sources
 * Copyedit
 * Expand
 * I am going to go trough each of these points. Looking at number one, Clean up is the following: Cleanup issues that this project covers may include wikification, spelling, grammar, tone, and sourcing. It is a tag that indicates the article should have attention on various fields, not just a certain field. I can't see why James removed the tag. When one looks at the revision where I've added the tag, it is clear that the article needs clean up. Please refer to the Manual of Style for more information.


 * Secondly, the primary sources tag: A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. There is a lot of sources, but I can't verify one of them via the internet. Take a look at this source and this source. I've found them with Google and it can be useful as a references. Please refer to the Use of primary sources in Wikipedia and Reliable sources for more information.


 * Thirdly the copy editing: Copy editing is the work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style, and accuracy (but not content) of a manuscript. Copy refers to written or typewritten text for typesetting, printing, or publication. The article did need copy editing, such as:
 * Titles of works of art, literature, etc., should be italicized.
 * Spelling such as premiered that should be premièred.
 * Please refer to the How to copy-edit for more information.


 * Last, the expand tag. There is a major difference between expand and expert. Anyone can expand an article, but only a expert on the particular field can make the important decisions regarding what information is important, what information is lacking, ect. I am NOT taking you on in any manner, I am someone who tries to be as friendly as possible. All I am saying is, please dont accuse me of something I did not do. One thing to remember is, if you assume good faith, then the other party would do the same. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe every one of the tags you put on does apply. But when you don't leave an explanation on the article talk page, it becomes hard for people to assume good faith. James was able to do it, but it was a little harder for Hegvald and very hard for me. Also, applying every tag that can be justified a little bit kind of defeats the purpose of tags, which is to clearly identify problems so other people can fix them, not be confused. I don't like the automated tagging tools because they foster the "check-all-that-apply" mentality (I'm not the first to say this). Tags are like salt. The more you use, the less effective it is.

The clean up tag is so vague that it's worthless. There are much better tags that say what you want to say. Did the article have problems of wikification, spelling or grammar? No, it did not. People read what you just quoted me and they're confused when they don't find mispellings or bad grammar. Aside from all the Latin, the text should pass a Word spellcheck with flying colors.

In regards to the primary sources tag, you quote that a primary source is "a source very close to the situation you are writing about." I don't see how James, Hegvald or I can be very close to a composer who died more than a hundred years ago. Haas and Nowak are both dead too, though I suppose it's possible James or Hegvald was close to one of them. I know I'm not.

Copyediting: if you see the article is missing one accent, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just add that accent? Same goes for italics, there's only one instance in the article where a title of a work of art, literature, etc. was not italicized. It seems to me that in this particular case, you could have saved everyone a lot of confusion by adding just 5 or 6 bytes to the article (4 apostrophes to italicize, and 1 or 2 bytes for an accented e).

Expand: there is a lot more to say about this mass, but much of it would be bait either for an original research tag or complaints that Wikipedia is not a musicological journal. The expert tag was left on, even though Hegvald was left wondering why this article needs it any more than any other Wikipedia article. Incarnatus (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Incarnatus. Thanks for your explanation. I didn't see till today that you have replied. I understand what you are trying to say. Sorry if I took the wrong steps. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  08:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I too go through these periods myself that I'm constantly on Wikipedia and then I just completely forget about it.
 * I think both Hegvald and James would appreciate it if you tried to explain what you found confusing about the article in the article's talk page. It might help them take concrete steps to clear up the confusion. Incarnatus (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

rfa
Ive responded on your rfa. Please understand that im just trying to give you constructive feedback. I think you will one day make a great admin. keep it up! :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I really appreciate it for posting on my talk page. Thank you very much for responding to my RfA. I have no problem with your feedback, I actually take it very positively. The RfA is quite a disappointment to me. Some users don't see that one learns from your mistakes, such as my history with the Speedy tags. I did make the mistake, but from that day I didn't make it again. My main idea is to assume good faith, I just wish some others would also be more gentle. But I'll survive it, and I'll just try even harder. King regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullo again Lourie, sorry about the way which the RfA seems to be going. I myself just had my own RfA fail, so I know how you feel. Hopefully you won't let any of the opposes put you off, and will return (presuming it fails) at a later date, with more experience. If you keep going the way you are at the moment I can guarantee you will become a valuable asset to Wikipedia. I also thought I should let you know that you can withdraw your self-nomination, should you feel inclined to (see how to withdraw at Guide_to_requests_for_adminship). Happy editing - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingpin. Yes, I feel sad, but I am already busy editing again so I feel happy again! LOL! I will certainly try again in two months time or more. I am not going to close the RfA, one should sometimes face the facts. I can only learn from this experience, and I am planning to make the most of it. One should just stand strong against criticism. Thanks for posting me this message. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you. You may also want to know that there is a discussion up at Wikipedia talk:RFA concerning your RfA, which half prompted me to leave the above note. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would have never know it if you haven't told me. Thanks Kingpin! LouriePieterse (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

←Just a thought. Try not to take any of the oppose items personally. I know it's difficult at times when editors are concise to the point of being blunt, but styles of writing differ greatly. I admire your enthusiasm, and your strength; and I suspect that a successful RfA is not too awfully distant in the future. I think you're doing some great work, and I thank you for your efforts here - welcome to the family. Cheers. — Ched : ?  17:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ched. In the beginning I took the comments a little personally, because there were almost no form of positive feedback. Later I've seen that some people do appreciate my contributions, so I've lifted my chin and continued editing. Thank you very much for the warm welcome, I really does appreciate it! Kind regards, Slapsnot (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you signed in with your old account. Feel free to remove this comment if you change about the sig :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, yes I've seen! What happen was, my username is still the same on all the other projects, so when I posted on the Wikimania project about a scholarship, I needed to log in. At the same time I worked here and forgot that the cookies were overwritten! LouriePieterse (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Db-t3
Thank you for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. However, to help make the process go more smoothly, I encourage you to review the criteria for speedy deletion carefully. Many of the templates you marked with do not meet the specific requirements for that template (specifically, that there be another existing template that can be used for the same purpose). In some cases, another template such as or  would have been more appropriate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Russ. I've added that tag because there is only two tags for templates. Can I add an article tag to a template? LouriePieterse (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but you can add any of the db-gX series if they are appropriate. Also note that  doesn't fall within the general db-XX naming convention, but can be useful for unused templates.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Russ. Will tag them in the future this way. King regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nice person
Hey Lourie, that was really kind of you! Thank you for the lovely offer. I'm always happy to make a new WikiFriend, :-) How are you finding ACC?  I noticed a few days ago that you were a new user there.  I found it quite confusing when I first started, I was worried that I would mess up.  But practice makes perfect!  Ok, well, maybe not perfect, ;-)

Thank you again for the very nice message. P.S. I like your new signature!  Mae din \talk 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it okay, I also first found it confusing, but I luckily learned it quickly. Thanks! I actualy took the two different blues from the header of the ACC interface... :|  Lourie Pieterse  13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

6 Account Limit (ACC)
Hi There, I'm Promethean and I'm an ACC Developer, I noticed you hit the 6 account per day limit during the course of your duties and I have organised for an admin to remove that restriction from your account. You can now make as many accounts per day as required without having to pass them to other ACC users. Cheers,  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Brett. Thanks, I really appreciate it! I wondered what happened, so I asked another ACC user. Luckily you quickly responded here. Enjoy your day! Oh and by the way, nice userpage. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning vandals
Hi, noticed your warnings to the editors on Adebayo Akinfenwa. I think perhaps where there are only a couple of edits each of pretty minor vandalism, that you might consider assuming good faith and starting with a level 1 warning, perhaps uw-test1, rather than going straight in at level 3. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Struway. I completely understand your point. I warn vandals usually in the correct order. But take a look at this edit of Greekskii. That is pure vandalism, not minor vandalism. This user shouldn't be handled with good faith. Just after Mastershevchenko vandalised the page, Greekskii vandalised the page again. That's double vandalism. I really don't want to be rude with you or anything. I am just trying to show my point that; users who is out for only vandalism doesn't deserve good faith. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of interpretation: I viewed it as a couple of schoolkids messing about. You have every right to disagree with my interpretation :-) happy editing, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am sorry if I made a fuss. I'll keep your interpretation in mind in the future. You have a way lot more edits than me! I respect other Wikipedians' opinions. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we were both right: they do seem to be schoolkids messing about, but they also seem to be bigger pains in the backside than I initially gave them credit for :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to see what the Wikipedia community thinks is appropriate and take your actions based on that. 83.70.110.50 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Mann (lawyer)
I see how this was a mess, and would have deleted it, but I did some quick research, and now recall have heard of him (I am an attorney). I will add some cites. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearian. Thanks for going trough the trouble! Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mai from Katomancom
Hi Katomancom. I don't reply on emails from users whom I don't know personally. I quote your email below:

''forgive me I am not have a complete understanding of Wikipedia, but when I see something that is incorrect about the Green Hornet I try to correct it. You have warned me twice, yet I dont understand. My forum is the reconized and approved my the holders of the copyright of the Green Hornet as the offically forum. My network is www.katoman.ning.com. There is no spam and absoulutly nothing there for sale. It is a forum for the Green Hornet and the only authorized one. 2nd my website is also the offically website for the Black Beauty which I own. The other website has been under construction for years and there is nothing there, but a webpage. He also owns the number 2 Black Beauty so when his site is up, use it also, but the information you are suppose to provide is not there. I would appreciate a response so I can beeter understand your reasoning for this agrressive and rude behavior JR Goodman''

I left four warnings on your talk page. I'll tell you why I left each of of them. Here is my comment:


 * 1) The first time I warned you, I were referring to this edit. You replaced both the Official Black Beauty site and the Green Hornet Discussion forum links with your links. You can't just replace links with your links, even if these websites don't have content — acurding to you. I've checked both of them, and both this and this website has content. Both of those links link to a website. You could have added your website to the bottom of the list, but as soon as you replace other website's links it is seen as promoting your website. You also state that you own the Official Black Beauty site, but I've checked the Whois records. The Official Black Beauty site belongs to Karl Kirchner, and your website belong to J.R. Goodman.
 * 2) I warned you the second time because of this edit. After I have reverted your edit, you did the same again. You could have contacted me first and asked my why I reverted your edit.
 * 3) I wared you a third time because your username doesn't comply with the username policy. The policy states clearly that: Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive. Domain names and e-mail addresses are likewise prohibited for new users.
 * 4) I warned you a forth and last time, because the only data your userpage contained were a link to your website. The userpage policy states that: Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links).

I wish you could now better understand my aggressive and rude behaviour, as you call my respone to the above. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

your rfa
I just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Consensus was not reached. I imagine if you address the concerns of the opposition (specifically, knowledge of policies, guidelines and criteria for speedy deletion) you will fair better next time.

You are a valued member of this community, and I hope you continue to work hard on the Wikipedia project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page or via email. Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs)

Don't replace
No, don't replace the warnings. Any users can remove what they like from their talk pages (I've known some admins to remove my warnings ;D), so just allow them to be removed, if it's you who ends up reporting to AIV then feel free to mention that they removed warnings. But it shouldn't matter so long as they have had enough vandalism (the admin will probably check the talk page history). Regards - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, okay. I thought it could fall under removal of templates. Thanks!  Lourie Pieterse  15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, too true :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Baffled by your revert
True I did not sign in because it was to remove two duplicated words in the Radio Caroline reference section. For some strange reason you did not spot this and identified it as vandalism and then reinserted what is obviously a mere typographical error. I will leave it to you to figure out what I did and what you did and if logic and reason be the guide, you will revert your revert. We all make mistakes = lol.
 * Hi IP user. Yes, we all make mistakes. It's correct now. Thanks for showing me my error! King regards,  Lourie Pieterse  14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Old review
Thank you for your gracious note. As a matter of interest, what was the article I reviewed? Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure! The article about PUTCO. It still needs a major amount of work. I started to work on it again today.  Lourie Pieterse  16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

re: RfA thanks
Hey there Lourie. No problem, it's shame that it was such a failure, and it's good that you're not letting it put you off. Hopefully at a future RfA things will be different. Keep seeing you around since then, you're doing good work :). P.S. About Julian's talk page, I think we got a bit tangled up, but I've tried to fix it now, please check it's okay. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of knew, the second day that it would be a failure, but decided to make use of this bad experience. I'll try again on 6000 edits, or maybe 3 months time. Thanks, I am trying now harder than ever before to do good work. I am busy with my first try for a GA, so wish me luck! The last few weeks its hard for me to contribute so much to Wikipedia, because I am working very hard on a patent. Its a new way to store radioactive waste, and I should do a presentation for NECSA, so I am pretty stressed. Editing is my stress reliever! LOL! Thanks for helping out on Julians talk page. Oh, I wanted to ask you, do you have IRC?  Lourie Pieterse  10:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I stay about as far away from that place as possible ;). Luck wished - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thought we could chat some time. Thanks.  Lourie Pieterse  11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username/Proof of ownership
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Slapsnot.  Lourie Pieterse  15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Two New Awards
Hi Srinivas. Thanks for the arwards! :) I am glad that you like my userpage! Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  07:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe
Hi Chzz. Thank you very much! :) I'll try my best. Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Images & Infoboxes
I'm still learning about tamplates and such but for some reason I cannot create infoboxes. Also, if you could tell me how to create (or upload) images, that would be a huge help. Thanks!! (please respond on my talk page). --Bismarck43 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bismarck. I am sorry that I took so long to reply! I am currently on holiday, and just pops in to check on stuff. You could just add a template on your talkpage, then someone will help you. When I am back, Ill help you if you still have trouble. Kind regards,  Lourie  Pieterse  07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)