User talk:Repku/Archives/ThuAMGMTE Rthth

Naruto
give a reason for adding the template before actually adding it. It helps no one when you just tag it. Also, don't hit the Enter key seven times before doing it. It just puts an ugly whitespace where it shouldn't be. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut and Paste move
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EHarmony
Repku: Just a quick check in regarding this article that your edits have been correct. When I merged the criticisms section back into the main article, the "lack of" term copied over. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think I was disagreeing or reverting this part on you, but rather making some much larger corrections which resulted in some of your minor (but accurate) corrections being lost. Tiggerjay 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

XXXenophile
Hey, I'm not familiar with this work but noticed that some of the stuff you marked as needing improvement can be sourceable from the external link nearby. If you've ever heard of it and believe that you can keep your expression straight while doing so, can you try to fix the article? --Kiz o r  17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)
Please list your specific concerns on the Talk page so we know what needs to be fixed. For An Angel (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween
It was careless of me to word my statement in the article's lead so vaguely; I was drawing upon the already-sourced Religious Perspectives section and should have been more thorough. However, it gave me the opportunity to find an editor that appears to care about this article being accurate and encyclopedic. WP:BOO has made the elevation of Halloween to a good, and hopefully featured, article by Halloween in 2009 a top priority. You are cordially invited to both join the project and earnestly improve the article. I hope you do one, the other, or both!--otherlleftNo, really, other way. .. 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What do do with the "proteans" article?
So, I've noticed you have some doubts about Proteans (body language). This is an oldie but a goodie. It's from the days when WP was more of a "Hitchhiker's Guide" ( revision history goes through a disambig page ), and has been pretty quiet since then. I think something more could be done with it; here's what I think:
 * No, it's not unsourced original research. The inline cites are right there, and even the idea that males will follow with a premature chat-up attempt is written in the news articles.
 * 1) The article sourced to the Daily Times of Pakistan appears to be from the London Times Online.  The London Times doesn't host the article on their website anymore, but an excerpt appears on SIRC's "in the news" page that's an external link in the article.  Perhaps both should be cited.
 * So, this isn't some POV concept that is only popular in Pakistan. The organization that conducted the study, and most of the papers that reported on it, were in Britain.
 * 1) And no, it isn't sexist.  Men and women are different.  That's the way it is.
 * 2) Most likely the Sunday Times article was chosen because it appeared to be the first one.  It's too bad the primary source doesn't appear on SIRC's site.  Ideally the facts would be sourced to the study itself, and the different news articles would be cited for phrasing and opinions and to show notability.  The other news articles looked pretty similar, and likely they are all pretty faithful to the original press release.
 * 3) Other than a number of articles that came out over the next few days, the idea of "protean" body language hasn't appeared in many other places.  Other than the inevitable blogs, it did show up in some lifestyle magazine-type sites, but that's about it.
 * 4) Perhaps it should be merged to the main article on flirting.  It could become simply a densely-sourced paragraph on a particular study, following Mead's studies in cultural differences and Watzlawick's thirty steps.  In addition, the SIRC is unusual in being a think tank that often studies flirting and it could be used to flesh out other parts of the article.
 * 5) My hopes for the flirting article would be that the "densely sourced paragraph" section would eventually absorb the "list" section.  There are a few of us who watch the article to keep the list free of nonsense, but it is a difficult topic to keep an article on.  Just like with music genres, everybody knows a little bit about the subject, and being something that everybody knows a little bit about, there's some truth to most of the good-faith edits.  But it's not easy to do an academic-quality overview of the entire subject. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Magical girlfriend
Hi there, I noticed that you've participated at Talk:Magical girlfriend for the assessment of this article, where you ranked it as having high importance. Currently, it is under discussion (that I've started) over at Articles for deletion/Magical girlfriend. Any feedback would be appreciated. —Tokek (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome
Sorry if my long-winded comment about that article got under your skin. Asperger syndrome often gets comments and edits like that (right now, 3 of the 4 threads in Talk:Asperger syndrome are about validity of the diagnosis) and I'm afraid I can't easily distinguish honest mistakes from editors who simply disagree with what the reliable sources say. I did not intend any personal commentary (and my talk-page comment didn't mention your user name, if that helps...). Eubulides (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed, however, that many of your recent edit summaries appear to contain hostile wording and language. We all have bad days, certainly, but I am concerned by the fact that this pattern of verbal hostility is consistent across several weeks' worth of edits. Please keep in mind that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and that the use of overtly hostile language&mdash;even in a context as relatively "behind the scenes" as an edit summary&mdash;is inconsistent with that fundamental principle. I appreciate the fact that most cases appear not to involve any personal attacks directed toward other editors, but some, such as "Who the fuck wrote that? "Specific name"? Mental retardation much?" do cross that line; and in any case, please understand that summaries such as "Fucking non-neutral bullshit." and "This article is shit. Shit. Utter, complete and total shit." are non-constructive, unnecessary, and potentially repellent to other editors. I urge you to practice greater moderation in your language to help keep Wikipedia a welcoming, collaborative, and&mdash;above all&mdash;civil environment. Thank you for your kind attention. &mdash;Bill Price(notyourbroom) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;Bill Price(notyourbroom) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;Bill Price(notyourbroom) 17:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to the above ANI report, the derogatory language and combative attitude you've displayed in your edit summaries is completely unacceptable. Because this is the first time it's been raised with you I'll not block your account, but if edit summaries like those above (and visible in your contribution history) continue, you can expect to be blocked without further warning. Please review the civility and site policy links in Bill Price's first post, and try to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with our editor conduct policies in future. EyeSerene talk 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Obviously "crap" (HTML5, Egg timer) is less offensive than "fuck", but maybe you could still be a bit more careful. Using inappropriate language when self-deprecating too indicates it's your style but probably wouldn't be seen as a good excuse! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)