User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2010/July

Inadvertent omission?
Re: ya, good add. I was debating whether to add one at the bottom, or one after every section or what, and then forgot to do either. Do you think one after every section is needed? MastCell responded below his section. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that one response area makes the discussion more compact. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's the plus. But messier. That may be the minus. Dunno. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU - Thank you
Thank you for adding my suggested text and giving a serious effort at neutrality. Highly needed and appreciated!91.153.115.15 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and maybe an apology? Someone pointed out I misrepresented the source by saying not all emails were read but it actually says so in the paragraph I paraphrased.

Here is the original:

"The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored. "

The key point for me was the last sentence as the criminal investigation is covered elsewhere in the lead. That is I interpreted that the selection of the email by a criminal was less of interest than what the inquiries had done with them. Sorry, no harm intended.91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's not a major thing, and the language was murky. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
I noticed your edits here, someone removed the ‘east harlem’ because they claimed the source did not say that. I was wondering if you could definitely say it is true. On the article as a whole I am of the opinion that it could definitely be improved to meet at least GA status. I have listed it for a review and was wondering how you thought the article could be improved on. I was thinking that Pacino's stage career could be separated from the main body of consecutive years into its own section. Or maybe just tidy what is already there. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I added back in the reference to his being born in East Harlem, and added in a citation from his recent biography. I'll look at the article. I'm a fan, but not familiar with his career. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually just reviewing the edits and noticed it was yourself. Sorry. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing page titles
When you moved First Avenue to First Avenue (nightclub), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page you apparently neglected to check the other articles containing links to "First Avenue". As this guideline suggests, when you change the page that an existing title links to, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title". Now there are over 100 other articles that incorrectly link to the disambiguation page, and each of these links needs to be checked and revised to take readers to the correct article. Your assistance in doing this would be appreciated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was an oversight. There seems to be one article remaining that has a link to the bare bones "First Avenue," and I've fixed that. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)