User talk:Styrofoam1994/Archive 12

Template:Seattle neighborhoods
I believe your recent edit somehow broke Template:Seattle neighborhoods. Take a look at the bottom of South Lake Union, Seattle, Washington. There is a stray that appears to be because of this template. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now appears fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/96.235.179.193
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Anthøny 12:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Speedy Tagging
Don't you think adding a tag to a new users first article in the same minute might not be a little, well bitey? (see C3R)--Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with that now, but if he/she were to make an article he should have put an underconstruction tag or maybe make the whole article first, then save. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that as a brand new user he possibly didn't actually know how to do that or that it was necessary. Now we have pages marked as patrolled we can afford to give new users time to develop their content because we won't miss it later. Perhaps even help them. The danger is that templated warnings telling new users their content is not welcome will, well, drive them away when they might have turned into decent long term contributors. Something to think about? Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. Maybe when somebody makes a new account, we should install some software to put all of them through a mandatory tutorial on doing things. Where does one make new proposals to the site? contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your somewhat speedy editing of the page I just created (Moston, Congleton, Cheshire.) I was in the middle of editing it, and so hadn't even had time to put in an "under construction" tag on it, but I was actually held up by an edit conflict brought about by your editing. DDStretch   (talk)  23:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Here's a good tip for editing: to prevent losing all your data, select all the stuff and copy, and if there's an edit conflict, you can just replace the new version with your unsaved version. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I knew that tip. An equally good tip would be to advise people doing extremely speedy editing of a newly created article by a well-established editor to wait for longer than 3 minutes after its creation before editing it themselves!  DDStretch    (talk)  23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll wait 3 minutes from now on when somebody creates and article. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I said longer than 3 minutes. This is especially the case when the article is clearly not contentious and contains no material that should be deleted on sight because of its content. In some cases, 10 minutes at least would be a sensible amount of time. Not only are you running the risk of alienating and possibly driving away new editors, but of annoying and irritating old established editors. DDStretch   (talk)  23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, I got your message. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alaskozetes antarcticus
Thanks for fixing my grammatical mistake with that article, however, there is no reason to be rude in the edit history. We all make mistakes, especially after spending 20 minutes on the monotonous task of adding a Taxobox.  Justin  chat 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually, when I make one of those infoboxes, I just copy another article's and then just paste it, then alter the blanks to fit the article. Sorry for being rude, I just wanted to let others know when and why it's and its are used. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete
I've written "Next generation entrepreneur" and I understand that you think it's not a wikipedia material. Maybe I've phrased it in a way that is not encyclopedia-like, but i have edited the wording. I think that it's a topic that many people often don't pay attention to and next generation entrepreneur is a fact. Many people could benefit from this article and perhaps link it to the "family business" entry. It is not merely an opinion or a how-to advice, but it is a business related subject that is crucial for the world economy. Please reconsider. Thank you.

Asyera (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What, if any, is the difference between?
In case you wonder, I tracked you down thru a Wiki search on polysterene and User talk:Delmarvahunter. Peter Horn 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * polystyrene
 * polysterene
 * Oh, I think I made a typo. I'll fix it right away. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Civil Securities Force'
The CIA may say that, but the Library of Congress Country Studies, globalsecurity.org, and the Federation of American Scientists do not. The best expert on the NK armed forces, Joseph Bernandez, in his book - referred to on the KPA page - also does not mention them, and instead say the State Security Department is the actual organisation, which is not part of the armed forces. See User talk:Nick Dowling for the discussion that led to the change. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll see the actual line says 'North Korean Army; North Korean Air Force; North Korean Navy (or some such); civil security forces - plural, and lower case. The way I read that is that it does not refer to a specific organisation, just the multitude of secret police agencies etc. No source - including the CIA - makes any reference to a 'Civil Securities Force'. There's no information on a 'Civil Securities Force' anywhere on the internet. I believe that if the CIA doesn't make reference to a 'Civil Securities Force', wikipedia shouldn't also. Also, please see the note Nick left on my talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bermudez's excellent book, which I believe is that standard work on the North Korean security forces, makes no mention of anything called the 'civil security forces'. However, I note that the CIA dates this as '2005' while Bermudez's book was published in 2001 and he noted that the organisation and designations of the security services were highly secretive and subject to change, so this could be a reform. The CIA might not be the best source - it's entry on Australia states that Special Operations Command is a fourth service, when this isn't correct (SOC is an operational command made up of units from each of the services). --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

French towns
I think they're plenty notable - they're places, after all. And policy has established that villages and towns are notable. What Blofeld and I are doing is laying groundwork so that other users can then come in and edit these things; they're already in other Wikipedias, too - French and Dutch, for a start.

Do other countries have such in-depth coverage? Perhaps not. But who's to say that they shouldn't? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree they're all notable and can be in-depth as anybody wants, but I was just getting kind of annoyed when I was looking at the Special:Newpages. The whole page had French articles. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the sooner we're done, the sooner that will cease. We're just doing 'em in bunches to get the job done. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What's with the French towns?
I noticed that you and User:Blofeld of SPECTRE are both creating so many stubs about French towns. Meanwhile, other countries don't have that many articles about those small average towns. I'm not criticizing your work here, but I just wanted to know if we really need all these things. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need 2,235,000 articles styrofoam? Thats not the point. We are here to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia imaginable and to try to make "the sum of all knowledge" a reality. In answer to above. Yes many, many countries on wikipedia already have full articles on small towns. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Italy, UK, US etc etc etc some of them are even on hamlets which are more detailed than anything we've got for France at present. Eventually there's no reason why any place in any country of the world can't have some sort of coverage. For sure there is a lot that could be written encyclopedically about the vast majority of places  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Geez why are you all ganging up on me? All I was trying to say was that I was abit annoyed contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth should you be annoyed by the efforts of people trying to increase the scope of wikipedia? You don't have to look at the new pages da ya? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I got your point. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album)
Just a friendly heads up on Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album). I had to remove your speedy deletion request because A7 does not apply to albums. I've prodded the article instead. Cheers! --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a general speedy deletion criteria pertaining to anything super-non-notable? contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. Prod or AfD are the only ways to go on albums. The prod got contested, so I've taken it to AfD. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, Speedy Deletion
I read your message of 12 Feb on my user talk page, and I wish I could remember what the page was I was experimenting with. I did publish an article, but I don't see the deletion note at the top of that, so I'm relieved it's not the article marked for deletion (Ryan Allen)! Something so long ago, a week, you don't happen to recall, do you? Thanks. Voiceperson (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're trying to ask me. Or are you just commenting? contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)