User talk:Recognizance/Archive

Shinee c/e
Thanks for copy editing. I left a response on Shinee's talk page. I really appreciate you doing this. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos C/E
Hi Recognizance! I'm currently doing some work on this article, but I noticed on Bamse's talkpage that you recently expressed an interest in doing so. I'm working from the top down - if you still want to work on it, you could start at the bottom and meet me in the middle? Faerie Queene (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny you bring it up - I'd forgotten about the article because I added bamse's talk page to my watch list and was going to work on it once he got back to me. There were previously entries in the to-do list dating from September 2008 that had been taken care of long ago. His was the earliest one I couldn't verify had been addressed. I'd be happy to help out if you think it still needs work. Recognizance (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my User Page.

Live to Tell
Thanks for your review, I will work on the article in the upcoming days. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for getting my back. I love it when my vandalism patrol results in my talk page getting vandalized. I consider it a compliment on a job well done. ;^) --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Free Collars Kingdom
Hello! Thanks for copy editing Free Collars Kingdom; it was a great help! I was wondering, though, if you would mind copy editing some new content that was added since the last. Namely, the plot section, the second paragraph in the lede, and the last reception paragraph. All those sections were expanded upon, and need a last copy edit before the article can become a GAN. If you can't or don't have time, that's fine, too, though! Thanks again, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Smokey The Bear / Smokey Bear
If you're not smart enough to see that spending millions of dollars every year to tell the public that the name is "Smokey Bear" and not "Smokey the Bear" (*) is not a waste of tax dollars, then you're not smart enough to be editing Wikipedia, either.

(*) (as if the precise name of a government mascot is important, but forest fire prevention ads aren't nearly as important) 76.243.106.37 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How you or I feel is irrelevant. You can't simply insert your personal opinion into an article. Recognizance (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese pronouns
You made a request at Reference desk/Computing for help with a wikitable similar to the one found here. Help:Table gives a quite long rundown on how to use tables, and you can play around with the markup in your user space to get a hang of it.

I am providing a table here in wiki-markup that has the same structure as that example you gave (including a citation to the example). You just need to copy this where you want it in the Chinese pronouns article, and add the content. I suggest you don't copy the Google book example exactly, since that might be (?) copyright violation.

Briefly, some of the symbols are:

Generally you don't put a table within a table like I have done here. But in this case, it is the best way to handle the "Singular" and "Plural" columns splitting into 2 then into 3 cells wide. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assistance, you and Tncv probably saved me a lot of frustration. S/he noted it's not exactly a simple table to replicate particularly for a newcomer. The symbol cheatsheet is useful as well.
 * As for copyrights, the way particular information is expressed (but not the information itself) can be subject to copyright, but is subject to what degree it can be considered original. The short answer is no, especially when attributing the source. I didn't want to make a verbatim copy anyway. Recognizance (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese pronoun table
Are you still looking for help on the Chinese pronouns table? I'm not familiar with the conversion tools, but have worked quite a bit with tables. The table you references as a source is tricky and will require extensive use of rowspans and colspans (equivalent to merged cells in Excel), but I can put put together the basic layout if you like, and you can fill in the content. -- Tcncv (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an example using rowspans and colspans for comparison. The markup is harder to read and would be harder to maintain, but the presentation is cleaner.  There may be a way to eliminate the horizontal and vertical gaps in the nested table format above, but I don't know offhand what it would take to do this.


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"

! width="150px"| Person !!colspan="4" width="300px"| singular !!colspan="4" width="300px"| Plural !rowspan="2"| First person aaa aaa ||colspan="2"| bbb ||colspan="2"| ccc ddd ddd ||colspan="2"| eee eee eee !rowspan="2"| Second person hhh hhh iii iii ||colspan="2"| jjj jjj jjj !rowspan="2"| Third person rrr rrr || sss sss sss || ttt ttt ttt ||colspan="2"| uuu uuu uuu || vvv vvv vvv
 * rowspan="2" colspan="4" valign="bottom"| aaa
 * colspan="2"| ddd
 * colspan="2"| ddd
 * colspan="2"| fff ||colspan="2"| ggg ||rowspan="2" colspan="4" valign="bottom"| hhh
 * colspan="2"| iii
 * colspan="2"| iii
 * kkk ||colspan="2"| lll || mmm || nnn ||colspan="2"| ooo || ppp
 * qqq ||colspan="2"| rrr
 * qqq ||colspan="2"| rrr
 * }
 * -- Tcncv (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. I'll integrate your and Twas Now's ideas later on when I work on the article some more. I'm glad I asked for help rather than banging my head against the wall trying to get it right. (Hopefully you didn't do too much banging on my behalf. :P) Recognizance (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This table has a cleaner presentation than my example. I initially tried this approach, but the code became messy. I thought it would be more helpful for inexperienced editors to work with cleaner code. There are a couple ways to make my example remove the gaps, but that just adds to the code clutter. Elegance, I say! Elegance! (But it's pretty easy to separate the "code" and "content" from either of our examples, making them easy for anyone to edit.)
 * I recommend using em rather than px for your column widths. The em scales the table relative to the font size being used. If your browser has zoom, zoom in and out on both tables, and you can see what I mean particularly in the "Singular/First Person" and "Plural/Second Person" cell. Using px, the space beside the letters becomes tight when you zoom in, and wide when you zoom out, but stays proportionately spaced using em. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, thanks again for all the help. I added a table to the page based on the suggestions on this page. Recognizance (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Twas Now ‎and I (Tcncv) tweaked the table a bit to achieve more consistent column widths. This was done by adding an empty zero height row that explicitly defined all of the widths.  I also reduced the "singular" column group from four to three, since you no longer need to split the middle.  The bollom alignment was removed from the 1st person singular and 2nd person plural blocks, but yu can add these back if you prefer.  Twas Now also changed the roman alphabet representations of the Chinese to italic and reformatted the source for readability maintainability.  This version contains the both the old and tables together for easy comparison.


 * I have two remaining suggestions, that I'll leave up to you. (1) I don't think the single quotes around the English pronouns are needed.  You might consider removing them.  (2) The link to the term "y'all" seems a bit of a distraction.  A plain text "You (all)" seems pretty clear by itself.  -- Tcncv (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it looks great in its current state formatting-wise. I had been thinking the same thing about the quotation marks but didn't feel strongly one way or the other; as for 'you all' I'm not sure why I linked to y'all. It does seem silly now that I look at it. I picked up the 'you all' thing from a Spanish teacher who always said that to differentiate it when talking about the ustedes and vosotros (you plural) forms. Recognizance (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Second-round simplified Chinese character
Only one of the images on the Chinese wiki is in commons, so I added link and caption for it. The other images are screenshots of various publications that are under fair use rules, so I can't move those over. I'll check out some of the other source materials and see if something else an be added. --Vina (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! Like I said on your zh talk page, even having one image improves the article significantly. Hopefully someone will eventually come along who can translate the information that accompanies the tables. One of the table images had previously been put on the en page but I moved it to the talk page because there was no accompanying explanation. Recognizance (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cantonese people
It was because that is not the Pinyin tranliteraction. The correct tranliteration is "ben di ren". Colipon+(T) 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
I'd also be willing to help once you think it's ready.. Can you take another look at the article, then? igordebraga ≠ 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do a review in the next day or two. I'm currently buried in monographs and trying to sift through them. Recognizance (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I just want to thank you for reverting the edits of an IP to my user page. Much appreciated, thanks again and happy editing, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant comment
Just have to say you really put a smile on my face with the insightful commentary at the plagiarism RfC. Durova Charge! 03:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. As a relatively new user - I guess it's been a while by now, but I still consider myself new - I was expecting a hundred-kilobyte-long debate when I read the headline. I personally think the stuff about civility is unnecessary though. That there's special stigma attached to accusations of plagiarism is true, but the statements about academic dishonesty they make professors circulate never say "NB, cheaters have feelings too." The digital nature makes (dis)proving accusations extremely easy anyway. Recognizance (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. It's much appreciated!

 Ic sea tur tles  ★ 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Joan Rivers
With all due respect, Joan Rivers had a very public meltdown that the article edits really don't capture. There's no-one I know who would call my edits anything other than a neutral statement of the facts. Joan in fact went well beyond good taste and expected adult behavior. If you don't understand that, you probably didn't watch the actual episode in question. Comparing anyone to Hitler and calling them white trash is bizarre and unprofessional in anyone's book. Any publicly elected official or company employee who made such a statement would have resigned or been fired by now. And flop flopping between hating someone one week, hurling insults at them then loving them the next is erratic.

Please go back and write something that you find acceptable that captures Joan and Mellisa River's bizzare and childish behavior and Joan River's unprofessional exit from what you consider to be a neutral point of view, rather than keeping reverting to an entry which tries to put an mild spin on her behavior. That entry you made as as non NPOV as they come.

After all this is an encyclopedia and a Neutral Point Of View does not mean watering down what is recorded to suit your preferences or biases, it means accurately recording historical events. Please stop interfering with that process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.41.129 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
For the reverts on my user and talk pages. I'm not sure what I've done to upset this person, but "the cat jumped on my keyboard" message back in April looked awfully suspicious... Katr67 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gran Colombia
I added page number to the Ediciones de la Presidencia reference, but I wanted to compliment your work on the article other than that oversight. Keep it up. Recognizance (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the pages. I was working from memory, which the Spanish-language article had refreshed. I managed to get a copy of the volume.TriniMuñoz (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright. I had decided to leave you a message because I know how much I hate having to track down old references like that for page numbers or other minor details. Guess it was too late to save you the trouble. :) Again, great job with the article. Recognizance (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Second round of simplified Chinese characters
Hey, I will be glad to help, but I am unfamiliar with the topic. While I am a simplified Chinese characters user, I had no experience of dealing with second round characters (save for 歺, which is still commonly used where I live as a shorthand for 餐).

P/S: Your subject title on my talk page let me think of something connected to Mas Selamat; he is limp on one leg.

Cheers, Joshua  Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 10:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Hey thanks, much appreciated. Kind of embarrassing to see the edit summary about looking through my contribs though. I trust you saw my edit war with myself over the "pymgies" image. Oh well - I figured out what was going on eventually! Recognizance (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Metric system
Please be careful not to revert legitimate edits. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP was just inserting information (probably from a school lecture) that's already covered later in the article and is grammatically incorrect anyway. But you're right - using Huggle there was inappropriate. I mistakenly took it to be pure vandalism since they added the identical tidbit to systems of measurement. My apologies. Recognizance (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Benga
Hope we didn't get off to a bad start with the talk page. No, I'm not one of those people. But I became fascinated by the story and am reading The Pygmy in the Zoo. I made User:Recognizance/sandbox where I could scribble notes down. I'm at the part where the St Louis business stops, hence I just put "gap" in there. Feel free to edit/critique (I might be taking a wiki-break soon, which was another motivation to the sandbox). Recognizance (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not at all! Sorry if my comment came across as terse. I'm glad you're not one of those people. I am also not one of those people, but I may be one of those other people. How fascinating it would be to have a campfire chat with those Raw Dealers, like William James Sidis (the reason I ordered the book, I think) and Ota Benga. Much preferable to the precooked people in our prepared culture, all talking about the same things. (See, I editorialize everything, I can't help it.) In the cases above we are quite lucky to have one biography apiece. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much has changed in some respects. There are definitely certain ones I'd be happy never to hear about again though. But that's a relief. Btw, do you think there's enough yet in the legacy section (my userspace version) to need a subsection? Recognizance (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you dealt with Featured Article Candidates before? It's always a shame when an (apparently) uninvolved editor beats you to the punch. The forthcoming "reviews" are likely to be disconcerting. Personally, I'd never bother with FAC, as I find it disconcerting in any state of the world. You really can't have a reasonable discussion when most "reviewers" are more interested in meta-tagging every "fact" with a numbered citation than in engaging in an article qua article. Us gruff grumps call it citation-counting and consider it a replacement for thoughtful analysis. Anyway, I'm beating my own dead horse, sounding unavoidably elitist in the process, but I can start over with you, right? :) Good job with the article, by the way, and sorry I never did provide feedback on your sandbox version. Outriggr (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry about the feedback. I mainly copied it over from the sandbox because I wanted other people to benefit from as well as improve upon the changes I'd made. What I wasn't expecting was a new(?) user to nominate it at FAC, which to answer the question, I'd never even visited before. But the IRC folks expressed similar sentiments towards the process.

I did nominate my first article for peer review and got some helpful feedback from that. That's the one that presently took Benga's place in my sandbox. I have no idea what your wikipolitical leanings are, but I considered Giano both helpful and amusing for the short time I knew him. So I'm not judgemental. :P Recognizance (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed from the above conversations, I have become a wiki-deity, so it is more correct to say that in Riggrland, politics lean for me. :-P (Careful admitting you're on IRC--there's some wikipolitics in that!) Outriggr (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mikado
I'm probably the 287th user who's brought this to your attention:


 * Taken from the county jail
 * By a set of curious chances
 * Liberated then on bail
 * On my own recognizances...

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're the first to mention it! Thanks for making me smile. :) Recognizance (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Here's a youtube of an amateur recording of possibly also an amateur production of The Mikado. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, nice. I've actually never seen it, but now I want to. I came up with my name (as uninteresting a story as it makes) because I was watching something on TV at the time I registered for Wikipedia and the word recognizance sounded good. So I threw it in and it wasn't taken. Recognizance (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, inspired by something on TV. Just as well you weren't watching an ad for Depends or something like that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing about G & S is that they strived (or strove) to write proper English grammar (My object all sublime / I shall achieve in time... / His object all sublime / He will achieve in time...) but then twisted the pronunciation to make it fit the crime, er, the rhyme. One of my favorite examples is from Iolanthe, condensed here to 6 lines, and which is sung to make the other lines rhyme exactly with "gal" and "alive":


 * I often think it's comical
 * How Nature always does contrive
 * That every boy and every gal
 * That's born into the world alive
 * Is either a little Liberal
 * Or else a little Conservative

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally majored in English before I got bored with it. It's a shame that things once considered essential to any self-respecting artist are given so little credence in modern art, right down to Metre (poetry). I once had a professor who argued "experimental" or "novel" and simply "bad" got lost somewhere and it all went downhill from there. Then again, people from Sousa's generation didn't consider jazz art, so maybe I'm just getting too old too fast. Recognizance (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure rap will someday be looked upon as just another classic, in the tradition of Bach and Beethoven. And if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has its merits from a sociological and, yes, even artistic perspective. But no, I don't think Snoop Dogg will be the new Bach. Unless Idiocracy turns out to be more prophetic than parodic. Recognizance (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With any luck, we'll be gone (and hopefully from natural causes) before it devolves to that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, maybe someone could stage a version of The Mikado in rap. I can just hear Ko-Ko adding various urban irritants to his "little list". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, has anyone ever told you you're quite cultured for a 13 1/2 year old? Recognizance (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

how in the world
did you manage to find, process and revert my change to the zoophilia article, within literally 5 seconds? i think i need more time than that to even click the appropriate buttons. let me know, all mischief aside, im actually curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.80.88 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Different is fine.
Random article referencing sounds exciting, dun' it? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Para ti
Un artículo que voy a presentar para un DYK. Hotel Woodland. I got un-lazy (but I'm going to sleep now, and will nom the DYK tomorrow...) :-p Killiondude (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know how I missed this earlier. Yeah, I was just giving you a hard time. But it is good to see you getting back to work. :P Recognizance (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

William Henry Sheppard
Hello Recognizance,

I am sorry to say that I uploaded the only photo that I had of this fellow. Poor copy at that. All the best on the expansion work. Cheers!Brian0324 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. Progress
I saw your edits to the article; I've got a bot set up that updates me on articles I've selected, and that just happens to be one of them.

Well, don't get too bored with it. I have dreams, goals, and aspirations for Mr. Sheppard. :P A bit of boredom is fine. I wouldn't expect you to be 100% focused on it. Hell, I'm not even that dedicated. I would, however, like to make this bit of work I've put into worth a bit, so eventually this will have to go in article-space. (I forgot the word for it; the encyclopedia?)

Congrats on the GA! ...Sheppard could probably get GA as well, with some work. **cough** maybe FA with lots of work **cough**

I don't know your thoughts on how to carry this sort of conversation. Whether you want me to respond on your talk page or mine, I can't tell. Whatever works. Personally, I have no objection to cross-page conversations. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Things to work towards
Wallace seems excellent to me - I think there's likely to be more material. Any idea when the race starts up? Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweak around User talk:Recognizance/Editnotice to work something out. My library at uni should have some good stuff, although I won't have that until October unfortunately. Other than that I have access to various biographical dictionaries, that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia
Hello, Recognizance. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, and. 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Main templates
Hi, Recognizance. Please have a look at WP:LAYOUT, WP:SS and the instructions at for the correct usage of main templates. The main template is used when one article summarizes another; in this case, the term is more correctly linked in the text-- one article does not summarize the other. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. Recognizance (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Hi, I've reviewed your GAN, Ostend Manifesto, and placed it on hold. The review can be found here. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Recognizance (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Recog. Ostend Manifesto looks pretty impressive. (I say "looks" for a reason.) It did however spur me finally to ask a grammar-nerd question on the language ref desk that I've long wanted to see someone discuss. As to you waiting for me: I haven't forgotten. Outriggr (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge it's a purely stylistic matter. In Spanish, you'd always put que (the equivalent of 'that') in the sentence, but nothing is set in stone with English. Maybe there's one of those super-subtle distinctions that no one follows in practice though. Recognizance (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi Recon, a reminder, you were going to take a look at German Unification for me when you had a chance. I'd like another opinion on it, please. I realize it's long -- big subject -- but whatever you can tell me would be much appreciated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been trying to get around to that. Haven't had much time for Wikipedia in the past few days, but I was going to look over it tomorrow. Keep an eye out. Recognizance (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your input! I appreciate it. So what do you think, should I plunge ahead on FAN? Your comments--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it - it's a great article. I'd love to hear what other people think. Make sure you double check that no silly situations arise like the obviously public Pierre Soule wood carving. Recognizance (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fair use rationale for the non-free images are on the talk page, so I think I'm set. I'll be away this weekend, but back next Monday, so I'll wait until then.  did your article make it?  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno, still waiting to see what other people say. No one has voted on it other than the image issue that was addressed. Recognizance (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh. But it is okay to nominate your own article?  Or not?  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. In fact, if anything, the guidelines say not to nominate someone else's work without consulting them first. Go for it! Recognizance (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!
Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-)  and  --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Erick's Bakery
The word "product" in the original page has 2 t's. If that is unproductive, then you have no place editing Wikipedia pages, and you dishonor my friend Erick. Think about it. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd, the page name isn't familiar. Sorry about that edit - I've removed the warning from your talk page. I mention on my userpage that mistakes do happen - it was nothing personal. Recognizance (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just business. I know.  I've encountered this elsewhere.  But in Erick's case, he's special.  Don't sweat it.  143.232.210.38 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia
Before you go and completely whitewash an article's existence, it would be good if you discussed it first. I've undone your redirect of the article, as well as your removals of content elsewhere regarding the article on the project. Go to Talk:Simple English Wikipedia or Talk:English Wikipedia before you repeat your edits.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoopeee!
Congrats, Recon, nice work on the article. Very nice. :) I'm going through the process now with Unification. Got the images worked out, now we're debating text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've been so busy I didn't even notice it. I'll try to take another look at the Unification article this weekend when/if you nominate it (if you didn't already). Been trying to get a chance to finish what i started with Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1964 so I haven't had time for much else. Recognizance (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nominated, in assessment/review phase now. We finished the image problems, now it's just "text"  -- it's getting longer and longer. :)  Take a look at this one Cologne War when you have a chance-- it's still under construction-- the GA reviewer thought it wasn't "full" enough. He's probably right.;)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. (Obviously FAC is a breeze for you.) We hope there will be more! Outriggr (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I looked -- what is with the edit history on WH Sheppard? (I liked the caption "Not a nice guy.") Also, when I looked at the article by chance before you pointed it out, I noticed a lot of overlap with Benga's time & place & circumstances. Just coincidence? Are you FACking WHS? Outriggr (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit history is because it was originally my personal sandbox until I started collaborating with another user there. I got interested in Sheppard while reading the Benga biography. There's a chapter or so about his activities. The Sheppard biographies also give a nod to Verner since they shared a boat at one point. We'll see about FAC - my partner probably wants to take it all the way, but I'm on to the Pullman Strike soon. Recognizance (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lecompton Constitution. Also, Sheppard personally asked me to take his article to FA. I can't help but oblige. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow
Holy crap, you have only been here since March? I just saw a post of yours in an old discussion on Talk:Origin of hangul saying you're "new to wiki culture", so I had to look.... I have been seeing you here and there lately and I always had the impression that you'd been here for ages! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've actually gotten that from a few people - this is my first account though. I think people I've met on IRC can especially testify to that considering some of the silly things I've said/done. :) Recognizance (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add...
... per IRC. ;) Lara  20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review / infobox
Sorry not to have replied until now - while I can understand the desire to have the infoboxes be uniform for primaries, this is such a complicated situation (only 16 primaries, LBJ not officially running for much of the time, favorite sons as stand-ins, etc). If there is some way to show more of the subtleties in the infobox? If not, then I would be in favor of the simpler version originally there. Do you want me to say this on the PR page? If so, let me know, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: In case you're up for it
Heh, I appreciate the comment but it's really not my area of expertise. That era of the South is one of my weakest areas of history. I wouldn't know where to begin; to me they seem like separate concepts anyway. =) Powers T 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
wikiweirdness. Unification of Germany talk page DOES exist. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems talkback automatically appended the "User talk:" prefix rather than "Talk:" - so it linked to User talk:Unification of Germany. I'll see you at Talk:Unification of Germany. :) Recognizance (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire
Thank you so much for copyediting the article ! The lead is much more easier to read now. warrior 4321  23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I planned to take a look at the rest of the article but didn't have time. Perhaps in the near future. It looks like a thoroughly researched article from what I've seen so far. Recognizance (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. It'd be great to see the rest of the article copyedited in the same way. Although it may seem thoroughly researched, a lot of is OR. { warrior  4321  00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed at least one section was tagged as needing references, and come to think of it, there are a lot of violations of the "one citation per paragraph" rule of thumb. I left a question on the talk page of the article earlier if you're able to help out there. It's less that I didn't (personally) know what it was talking about, than that it's confusing to the reader. I just didn't know how exactly to word it. Recognizance (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Werner Moelders FAC
Mr. President, could you take a look at this article Werner Mölders and see if you can support it? I think it's a good article. It's undergone a lot of review and tweaking since it hit the FAC list -- the editor was not a native English speaker, and you know how hard it is under those conditions to get past the details. I think it's in good shape. It only has 2 supports, at least no opposes....!!! Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One can only hope the wikicup is everything you've dreamed of and more. Killiondude (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!
Hi ! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers!  iMatthew  talk  at 14:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010: Future days turn up as "blanks" on this page
Hi, since you are creating future Current Events Portal date boxes, be advised: the pages might be deleted for cosmetic reasons. The January 2010 page should be self-explanatory. Careful swimming in the deep end of Wikipedia, okay? - - - Schweiwikist (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I'd created the pages through 9 January is that Portal:Current events shows a red link at the start of a new UTC day. I didn't realise this would cause problems elsewhere. Perhaps a bot could create the pages for the new days automatically. Recognizance (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

schweiwikist replies, in some depth
Hi and thanks. The red link you mention, while unsightly, acts as a "prod" to an editor to track down some news content (appropriately from the far east, where the new day is well under way), and hopefully create a non-blank portal subpage (and a bot would defeat this purpose). The following is clipped from "commented" code inside the Current Events Portal page itself:

NOTE: If you see a red link for the new (UTC) date,  click on it to create the new (blank)  date page and paste the following line:

side of the box to access a special annotated edit page with further instructions/guidelines on  adding news items.
 * without** a news item, and click "Save page". Then the regular box should appear.  Immediately click the "edit" link on the right

Note the new template that's used. The "DateHeader2" template was obsoleted recently, without dissent. You’ll need to look up the implementation of the "subst:" function elsewhere, it would take up a lot of space here.

But here’s an even easier way to create a new portal subpage, once 00:00:00 UTC has arrived (this was pasted from here):

Creating a new day header
If it’s not already created (see below), use the following box to create a new day  at Portal:Current events. Follow the instructions in the editing pane to create a new day under the Suggestions header.

Hope this helps. - - -Schweiwikist (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Potter Palmer and Find a Grave
Dear Recognizance, I don't make policy. You could be right. I certainly am not trying ot make a final determination of reliability. The criticism of F.A.G. is one that has been made of Wikipedia. I was only trying to put in a source (which frankly has a good collection of pictures of the grave site) where none existed. As to photos of grave sites, Find a Grave is almost a unique resource. Obviously, if you have a better source we could put it in. But having a photo is in many respects better than the best narrative. IMHO I Am not wedded to this as a source, can see the argument to put it as an external link, etc. But having a not ultimately reliable source (in the abstract) seems to me to be better than having no source at all. I thought it was an improvement, and that is my only goal. As a low level WP:WikiGnome, I have no special drag here. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Stan

Pitchforks
Nice :-) Guy (Help!) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was coming to say the exact same thing :) Never has there been a better description of that particular noticeboard. Trusilver  06:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CDA RfC
With three strategically misspelled words, you made your point, as well as any editor has. I laughed when I first read it. And several times since. Bravo! David in DC (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
♠  TomasBat  23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sort of gotten too used to adding the tildes at every message I send, even if the message already aknowledges me as the one who sent it (also, I get a chance to use my custom sig  ). And by the way, in response to your "Thanks for the welcome", you're welcome (lol, just realized→ notice the ambiguity: "you're welcome" as in response to "thank-you" and "you're welcome" as in the fact that you are actually literally welcome to Wikipedia because I sent you a welcome message   ). Happy editing, ♠  TomasBat   00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, let me add my thanks for actually replying to this welcome (most users never do  ). ♠  TomasBat   01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unification of Saudi Arabia
Actually I'm User:Sobreira not logged. I'm usually interested in desert and Muslim culture, (nowadays composing an article about Libyan placenames), but this time I was just adding some links as I've just read the book Saud el leopardo ("Saud, the Cheetah") by Alberto Vázquez-Figueroa and clearing some events and places appearing in the book. As you say, maybe in the future. 213.60.79.246 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I started a thread about User:Xanderliptak's recent edits at WP:ANI, and specifically did not revert his removals in order to ensure that the topic would not get derailed. Your choice to make the edits of course, but it might not have been the best move in the interests of maintaining clarity. → ROUX   ₪  05:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought twice before I hit the rollback button, but it seemed fairly clear-cut that the user released the images under a licence and doesn't maintain the right to revoke that licence. I wasn't aware of the thread you created though, as I try to stay away from that area of the wiki. I do apologise in advance if it caused any trouble or confusion. Recognizance (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, just letting you know. → ROUX   ₪  06:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of 2010 United States tomato shortage
Hi, you prodded 2010 United States tomato shortage but have not provided a reason for doing so. Would you consider adding the reason you nominated the article for deletion? Jarkeld (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose WP:NOTNEWS is the most obvious reason. It seemed uncontroversial enough not to need a formal AfD. Recognizance (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial enough. It's getting some attention because it's been mentioned here. Jarkeld (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hmm. I had no idea he was running again; I tagged it at 00:53, and the RfA was created at 13:19. Someone had linked the article on IRC a few days ago and I said at the time I thought it should be deleted. Not that you were suggesting any conspiracy, but I like things to be transparent. Thanks for letting me know. Recognizance (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've contested this PROD and explained why in the edit summary - I don't think it is a clear enough case to be dealt with by PROD. Smartse (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? At best it should be redirected to 2010 in the United States. Recognizance (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * per WP:PROD it should only be for uncontroversial nominations that don't meet WP:CSD criteria. It's not like there was a 2009 United States tomato shortage (or AFAIK ever one before) so that's partly why I think this meets WP:EVENT. I'd imagine that because of this the growers will have changed things for next year, creating lasting significance, but obviously we can't tell that yet. Smartse (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's a difference of opinion and re-prodding was inappropriate. I have added an AfD on the page so people can sort it out there. :-) Recognizance (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (As the nominator you need to explain why you think it should be deleted at the AfD, quoting policies and guidelines.) Smartse (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IJUSTDONTTHINKITSHOULDBEANARTICLE. Recognizance (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But why? That isn't a reason and sounds like you just don't like it. Smartse (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the intended joke, yes. I was in a grumpy mood and didn't feel like arguing. Recognizance (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I kinda figured it was a joke, but seriously you can't nominate articles for deletion without explaining why it should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on confederate history month
I undid all of them since you undid some other language I had there as well as undid language I removed in response. I realy dont want an edita war but this particular page has has several through the last 6 months and it had become nicely quiet. I removed this comment specifically in response to your edits because it is was a biggoted comment designed to be 100% misleading: The declaration is considered controversial because in addition to celebrating the history of the Confederacy, it can be offensive for those who believe that the South's only position in the Civil War to have been based on defending the practice of slavery. "When the state starts getting in the business of honoring the Confederacy, whose goal was African-American enslavement, we feel that has no place in the public domain," said King Salim A. Khalfani, executive director of the state of Virginia's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "It brings to light the cause of the Confederacy ..."[3]

You can see in his comment he says " whose goal was African-American enslavement " clearly he has it in his mind to try to convince people that the only goal of the Confederacy was slavery - which is clearly a huge partial truth. If we want to have all the reasons they are clearly available in historical documents - slavery was one of them for sure but not "the only goal". This wiki post is not the right place for it any way and has too many biggoted southern heritage bashers trying to thread poop on it. So lets please not go there and lets leave it alone. thanks 1kn0wtruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC).


 * This is in reference to my edit undoing the removal of the politics/controversy section of the Confederate History Month article. The article was (and remains) rightly tagged as needing to be fixed, which is why I had pruned some of the most egregious stuff a few hours before the section was blanked. I do agree that the section as it was still needed work, including the language about 'the only goal'. However, I stand by my position that ignoring something can be equally egregious. We do need to have something. In the interest of not reinserting factual errors, I'll leave it as is - including the neutrality tag - but expect the section to reappear in some form in the future. Thanks. Recognizance (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misunderstood what you were doing. When you said 'leave it alone' and 'The wiki post is not the right place for it' I thought you had re-removed the section. I didn't realise you were re-inserting the apologist line, which in addition to its inaccuracy is violating original research guidelines by citing Wikipedia articles. No, I'm going to revert you on that. Sorry. Recognizance (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to have you remove what you call an apologist line - which it is not - it is a factual accuracy and cites many source - I can make sure it will have more and more research and quotes along these lines if you want to go there - all to the letter and spend some time expanding the article. I am assuming you are not from the southeastern states? This is not an article about a bunch of peoples opinions on the war or the cause and I get so tired of those that want to simply try to bash with their one minded sentiments to erroneously categorize something through partial and half truths. You also open the field to posting many of those same sentiments from the other side of the coin which are equally half truthed yet certainly follow the guidelines. I think it would serve everyone best if most of the sections were deleted and it was left as a strictly factual simple clean article. I suspect that no one will want to do that though and both sides of the issue will ensue in another 3 month edit war and the article will get locked again and then it will ensue again when it is unlocked. rinse and repeat. Its unfortunate but neither side of this is going to allow unanswered half truths on this article including me. Let me know if you are agreeable to removing all of the politics section and leaving this as a factual simple article. I think all of us would be best served that way. Please advise. 1kn0wtruth (talk)


 * I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this in a calm, reasonable manner. My personal background isn't relevant, but I understand your point of view and hope we can find a mutually agreeable narrative in the end. I also agree that the page should not be a soapbox for either side and should focus on the the holiday, not the war. To some extent, you can't escape discussing the war because that's what the holiday and controversy are about, but discussion should be limited to what people have said about the war in relation to the holiday.


 * Regarding the deletion of the controversy section, that's a horrible idea. When I mistakenly thought you had re-removed it (I was in a hurry), I said I would refrain from re-adding it for now because it needed to be introduced in a better way than the line about people thinking slavery was the only cause. However, I also linked to an image from an episode of The Simpsons in which they visit China and a plaque reads 'Tiananmen Square: On this site, in 1989, nothing happened'. That's what the Wikipedia article on this topic would be like if we simply didn't have a politics/controversy section.


 * I will be busy for the next few days, but I'll try to spend some time on the article after that. Recognizance (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed my section as well as the stephens section. I am perfectly happy with the article the way it is now. Its simple and factual with a small amount of politics. I am going to move on - have an awesome week! 1kn0wtruth (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PITCHFORKS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)