User talk:Tagishsimon/C5


 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

thanks for the help. why don't you adopt me. I think I do have a snowballs chance it's a great quote and my friends like it. Can you please have it fixed and posted on wiki by 9pm. thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer2 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but it's not nonsense. Think about it. You can pick up on a person's personality and persona and their true nature in a conversation when you can tell they don't want to say something, but when they do say something the way, the manner and the few words they choose shows the emotion, the character, the mood, the mindset of that individual. That's their essence. I'm an expert on reading people. This quote is original and very in depth. Thanks for your time and help. Tracer2 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer2 (talk • contribs)

Church Virus Protection
Understandable wikipedia is not a how to guide, but rather an online encyclopedia. With that underatstanding I believe this article is in accordance with the definition of what an encyclopedia is. According to dictionary.com an encyclopedia is a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. This is a branch of knowledge in accordance to this day in ages digital world. Protecting your computer is a knowledge that is intended to inform internet users on the most common methods used by most individual pretecting themselves from viruses and spyware.

If this information is not considered knowledge, but a how to list then a host of other topics that have been allowed in this encyclopedia under this precedent must as well fall into this category and will have to be deleted as well. As a matter of fact simple science experiments and chemical reactions use knowledge to explain how to combine chemicals and elements to achieve a certain outcome. Likewise is the information provided in this post intended for others to attain knowledge in order to apply this knowledge to attain a certain outcome which is virus protection.

Also, the ability and remove information will allow users with further input to expand this information into a well documented category of information which virus protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveadder (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Charles I of England
Hi and thanks for the message - I hope this is the correct way to reply to you! When I read the article I felt it was misleading for anyone who did not realise that Charles I of England was also Charles I of Scotland - no harm intended! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death
I've only heard "put to sleep" used with that meaning when referring to pets or animals, but I agree it could remind a reader of that connotation, so I've changed it back. Thanks. Clarityfiend 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry Cooke (minister)
It just seems to me that more than a single source is needed for an article of this length. The tag should remain until other references are added. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added templates and cats. He should attract the attention of some quality editors before too long. -- SECisek 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More citations would be good, but I've removed the tag. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John Pordage
A divine is a religious thinker & a mystic is still just that - a Christian mystic. He is an odd fellow. I cat-ed him, tagged, portaled and will see if he attracts any buisness. -- SECisek 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Preston is quite interesting to me. Work will continue. -- SECisek 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes on the Linear Pertial Information
Thanks Taggy for rectifying my article. Your English language as well as the knowledge of the Wikipedial instruments is obviously enormous. Thanks for you complements. I was very much involved in the subject since it it involves my father. Cheers! Krzysiulek 10:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE
No offence mate, but this, your next post to the same page and the AIV report are all a bit BITEy to an inexperienced user.

I can't see any maliciousness, just a newbie fumbling about trying to upload images - and managing to overwrite a grossly misnamed image that is crying out for renaming (I'll do that next). It's easy to see vandalism where there's just idiocy - we've all done it, myself included lots of times! But we were all new once (I was particularly clueless in my first few months!). ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, now I look at it, you jumped straight in with a level 3 warning. Don't do that - especially not on an inexperienced user. Ta. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem problem
I note your post on User talk:Frendraught about copyvio in Edwin John James. I have to say I'm really alarmed that you're handing out such injunctions without understanding the difference between copyrighted and public domain text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're really alarmed? How about you lighten up a little. It was a mistake, OK? Shit happens ... WWGB 09:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alaska green
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to sound critical. I think your post was entirely proper, I was reacting to a rather trying debate on the refdesk talk page. I should have made that clear. Once again - my apologies. Best wishes, DuncanHill 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Puzzling initials
I think these mean
 * IMO
 * AFAIK
 * "in my opinion"
 * "As far as I know"

Am I correct

TYFPOMRE (That you for pointing out my referencing error) Bashereyre 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Pigsonthewing
Putting my question on his user page was a slip-up on my part, anyway his User talk, for whatever reason, failed to open. Cheerio, Peter Horn 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
 * What I meant was that I was unable to post anything on his talk page, the syatem would not allow me or, to put it another way, I was blocked from so doing. Peter Horn 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dynamics (music) cartoon - Punch - Project Gutenberg eText 17397.png
I have marked this as a Copyvio on the Commons as it is a UK image that is only PD-US. --Simon Speed 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have changed the copyvio tagging to a deletion request so other editors can say what they think. Simon Speed (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Divines
By all means, if you are able send them to me...or stick Anglicanismproject with no paramaters on the talk page and I will find them when I clear out our unclassifed articles, which I do almost every day. -- SECisek 09:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot thank you enough, keep tagging them! -- SECisek (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Purple
They are all like that going back to Augustine. Wanna play with the template: Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury. -- SECisek 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Archbishop of York and Canterbury have their own boxes. Wilson and all other sees have the generic bishop box. I can switch the purples if you think it make a difference. -- SECisek 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Special, yeah, they are already on about 200 pages between the two of them. That is what special about them. -- SECisek 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take it to the project page and see if anyone else feels strongly either way. We also share the Y/C templates with the Roman Catholics on the pre-Reformation bishops, so somebody there might have a strong opinion one way or the other.  Lemme see what consesus says before I make any changes - always wise. -- SECisek 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Tell me about it. I was tagged right after creating a stub for having no refs on it. It was three sentences long. When I pointed this out the editor retagged the article as "not notable". I added a cite from Time magaizne and was told I would need a second cite. The editor re-tagged it with "Lacks citations". I politely told him to get bent. He found another, albiet unhelpful cite, added it, and disappeared. If editors are so concerned about citations, (which I am) they should add them instead of those blasted tags (which I do).

BTW: Thanks again for the new articles, almost all are start class or better when I am through with them. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DNB/ODNB
Oh cool! I hadn't noticed that before, it will be fantastically useful to me, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean it's OK to copy the DNB tect directly to Wikipedia (providing I say that that is where it came from?) DuncanHill (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff, really amazingly useful. I've seen some of Friendraught's articles, some of them come into my areas of interest and have blued some links for me. DuncanHill (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Brown dog
Hi TS, thanks for your note. I take your point about riots/affair. The reason I moved it to riots is that the 100th anniversary is almost upon us (December 10, 1907), and I was thinking it's the kind of thing that would make a good, short, featured article for the main page on that date. That's why I wanted to emphasize the riots aspect. However, what I thought I'd do is just start filling the article out, then once that's done, if it seems more appropriate to call it Brown Dog affair, it can always be moved back and the lead rewritten. There may not be time between now and December 10 to get it written, nominated, and fixed up, but I thought I'd give it a try. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was thinking of full FA, so we can get it on the main page (as the main article) on December 10. There probably isn't time, but it's the kind of well-contained item that people might find interesting and readable, so long as we keep it shortish and sweet. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive.org
What an amazing site! I've added it to my "useful things" list. Thanks again for all your help, it really makes a great difference. DuncanHill (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you discovered the Oxford Digital Library yet? http://www.odl.ox.ac.uk/ It has some great stuff there. DuncanHill (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

John Mawe
Hi, thought you would like to know that John Mawe has been nominated for DYK - you can see the nomination here -Template_talk:Did_you_know. Thank you for all your help and improvements to the article, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYKnow that sarah is mentioned too

 * ...that James Tennant took over from Sarah Mawe as "Mineralogist to Her Majesty" and he supervised the recutting of the Koh-i-Noor diamond? by User:Tagishsimon

There are so few women that I couldnt resist adding her to your hook. Could you add a ref for her to your article? and a infobox/picture would be nice? Hope this is OK? cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MoS malarky
Thanks - wan't sure how to disambiguate the name, having seen so many different ways! DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Google booklinks - thanks, that does look better. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes it more consistent with the way Oxford Digital Library and Archive.org links work too. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Online resources
Hi again, just to let you know you can access my google books library and my archive.org bookmarks from my resources page at Cornwall Resources. Most of the items in them will relate to Cornwall or to geology. If I find more good online sources for public domain books, I'll add them to that page. DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Brown Dog affair
I've gone ahead and nominated it. We can still add some details from the Mason book if we need to, but I thought we should give ourselves lots of time for the nomination, because if there are serious objections, we need time to fix them, and it would be nice to have it all sewn up with a few days to spare before the 10th. A Wikipedian in London has offered to take a photograph of the new statue for us, by the way, as the online ones seem to be of uncertain copyright. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

huh?
i did not say that i took the picture myself... i said that the school made it available to anyone. If i did put some kind of tag on there that says that then i appologize, but i dont entirely understand that process... and the school does allow the image to be used... Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

well i didnt mean to put that tag... and i asked a teacher at clarendon if it would be ok to use it and she said yes... Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if she was the copyright holder, but she was the IT teacher... and yes, but the school is in loads of different bits, and you cant get a picture as good as that unless you inside the school, which I cant, as I'm only there in one of the buildings for a couple of subjects. As i mentioned, i wasnt aware that i had done this self tagging thing to the photo... I am under the adoption process thing atm, so im still learning stuff... and ohhhh... does it have to get deleted? the article will look ugly and bare without it...Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Tagishsimon. Thank you for your contributions to the article Asclepiodotus of Alexandria. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

]p[-
220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. FiggyBee (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He will be back, just gone for a pee perhaps.--88.110.17.80 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I say the answer he's after is ;P Steewi (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * something to do with trr?Cryo921 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

this is on the RD and it makes no sense. please dont pick on certain people. the juggreserection (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, i apologize. the juggreserection (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well thank you. truth is though, i play bass guitar because i cant play regular guitar. o well.the juggreserection (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The solo of "Freedom" by RATM seems to have the bass slightly distorted. the juggreserection (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blooper
Thanks for adding the FA template on Andrew Browne Cunningham. The reason it was missing was through pure ineptiude. It is up to the article nominator usually to add the template once it has been passed. I must have just forgotten or assumed someone else had done it. Thanks for fixing it. :) Woodym555 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that picture, thanks for taking and uploading it!! Now, the rewards for steering it through FAC, 24 hours of vandalism with a couple of good edits thrown in for good measure! Happy editing, or should I say creating looking at your User page. You can use (FAstar) or [[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|15px]] if you want. Woodym555 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thich Quang Duc - Self Immolation.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thich Quang Duc - Self Immolation.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Web H amster  22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Front page
Hey, we're on the front page! I hope you're around today to see it before it disappears. :-)  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * No problem! I've spent some time myself adding the project banner to talk pages and I know it often seems like a thankless task. Though not on this occation - thanks!.... toast, now there's a thought! thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reindeer_Section.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reindeer_Section.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You style is aggressive, sir
Therefore I don't like you. ELLIOT PRIOR (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
 * ELLIOT PRIOR is a vandal. Like I care what his opinion is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, Monsieur, you spelt Headingley wrong (DUH!) and my dear friend ELLIOT is no vandal. He is an innocent man as shown by his tremendous work on Maynard and the verdict on his talk page. He may be quite a big chap but I think saying he uses "up every single inch of latitude available" is just out of order. Please save your anti-obese rants and fantasy accusations for somewhere where you are appreciated.
 * Yours, Elliot's private ninja-solicitor, Harris Morgan 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Yeah... shame on you. ELLIOT PRIOR (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

RD snafu FYI
Thanks. --Lambiam 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OP
I've replied in my talk page. --Taraborn (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied again. --Taraborn (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pissy" (good word) comments on the RD
If you have a problem, we can talk, but, please, don't carry out these kind of actions. They are considered, at the very least, impolite and, certainly, aren't very intelligent. I really do not understand why you are so nervous and mad at me and why you don't want me to reply back, are you afraid of my argumentative skills or something? I really doubt that guesswork does any good to the Reference Desk, much on the contrary, they serve to make the questioner feel insulted and poison the atmosphere there. When I simply don't have a clue about something, I just shut up and let somebody who actually knows more than me answer. Sounds logical, isn't it? Perhaps telling them to stop doing so will improve our experience at the RD, don't you think? Now, please, be a little bit more polite and calm down, okay? --Taraborn (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't in bad faith. Why would I want to annoy people gratuitously? I just wanted everyone to know that guesswork = bad by chastising a guessworker, not only because it's useless but because it's bad for the community as a whole. Now, and again, calm down. Don't reply that fast and think before you reply if you are intending to do so, your nervousness makes you make way too much typos. --Taraborn (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of quote
There are various forms of the quote floating around from various incoherent anti-war sources from about the time of the Republican National Convention of '88. Without some explicit, provable context to the extremely broad quote it's irrelevant to the article. John Nevard (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the 'context' is taken from various anti-war sites. Given the extremely broad statement, it looks like something that is quite likely misattributed as being a reference by Bush to Iran-Air. John Nevard (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Just wanted to apologise if I annoyed you. Making mistakes is a way to learn. --Taraborn (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Taraborn
I almost never have strong feelings about Wiki users (Except SteveBaker who is my ideal for RD behavior), and have only responded to Taraborn's comments once (when she/he was calling someone an idiot on the RD while him-/herself using a fallacious argument), but seriously, everytime I see a comment that Taraborn has left on the RD it makes me cringe alittle. I saw that you got caught up in a recent fray. Despite the fact that I am against censorship and am generally anarchistic by nature, which prohibits me from suggesting a ban, I just wanted to give you my moral support in your recent interaction with this person. I honestly do not remember seeing Taraborn ever actually answer a question; I've only seen her/him attack people for their apparent inferiority relative to his/her sparkling wit, superior intelligence, flawless reasoning, etc. These are the signs of a really insecure person but it is still annoying. Oh well, just venting. Sorry for the annoying gender/ing but I haven't started using Spivak pronouns yet... Sauda d e 7  16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== Happy xmas

Don Juan (Byron)
Thanks for fixing up that pronunciation. Robert K S (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

sandwich thread.

Sorry - s'Kitty! I'm using my mobile and the interface is crap + I don't think I've used this site before! Rendez vous usual place! -Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.227 (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord, Kitty. You deserve a medal for posting here from a mobile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see a Croydon thread...--Tagishsimon (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friends of yours?
They go to my school. I've told them to use my talk page (or better yet, email me) but either they don't listen or are really forgetful. Boredom is a killer. -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OOPS Guess What I decided to leave Wikipedia
Guess what Mrs. Tell people what to do with their username I decided to leave wikipedia so but dson't worry theres millions of people you can harass about their usernames chao--JW24666666666666 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Debbiesvoucher
I am quite bemused at your comments regarding the Karyn Kupcinet article. Have you actually gone through all the archived talk and the talk page of user Dooyar? As I said, there is no doubt that the two editors are the same person, as is the editor Nyannrunning, and after the first of the week, we will be initiating a sock puppet investigation. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying, quite cordially, to encourage and help Dooyar in making good contributions, most all of which were rebuffed and belittled. I am not the only editor whom this user has berated, talked down to and made personal attacks against. Pinkadelica and I finally asked for dispute resolution for the Karyn Kupcinet article because of the problems from this user. Prior to that, Dooyar was blocked twice for his/her behavior and comments toward me. When Dooyar was blocked, the username Debbiesvoucher was registered and came in making the exact same edits and rollbacks and introduced identical material as Dooyar.

While there have been some heated discussions, never have I cast aspersions on his character, made comments about his mental health, or other numbers of uncivil and rude comments which he made to me. Apparently what you didn't notice about Kupcinet edits was that while the editor would write a seemingly innocuous edit summary, he would rollback the entire article over 20 or more intermediate edits to a nearly identical version of his own, removing even spelling, grammar, source additions and other uncontroversial edits.

Another editor approached me and asked if I would look at the Front Page Challenge article. I'm not entirely sure what is inappropriate about the edit diff that you showed about this page. The editor stated that the article was non-POV and sourced, when it absolutely was not sourced, and tags were added regarding that. Tagging for sources isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, it's asking for verification. Since when is it acceptable for an editor to put in an edit summary "Leave it alone" or for an editor to state that someone "needs help"? (The comment about interlibrary loans wasn't about the Front Page article, it was a comment about a discussion in the Kupcinet dispute resolution discussion made by Dooyar, and in which Debbiesvoucher wasn't involved.) How is a personal attack an appropriate response to trying to resolve a policy violation or problems with sources and POV? Asking for an adminstrator to at least leave a note regarding civility and no personal attacks is trying to avoid a "pissing contest," which is what would occur if I had been the one to leave a note regarding that myself.

I'm quite sorry if you see my request to go through what I thought were the proper channels to follow for a situation like this as trying to drag an administrator into a dispute. I thought that part of an administrator's job was to assist in situations like this. But apparently, I'm wrong. All I can say is that I try to follow policy and guidelines, but it's obvious not everyone does, although that doesn't seem to matter. I have quite good relationships with other editors on Wikipedia, and have worked well with them on many articles. I find your final comment offensive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RD Deletion
Ah, was going to, then got distracted by msn convo. thanks for reminding me. - mattbuck 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO Pixes
Can you place these on the Stephenville, Texas article, where the UFO incident is mentioned ? 65.163.113.170 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Berwick upon Tweed
Not sure why you mean POV- "myth" implies it's false, and I think it's a "legend"- alleged but unproved. Even so, you've restored "curious" which is POV, isn't it? Having emailed the curator of the museum there, his reply suggests that sources for this exist, but are buried deep in the FCO, and say that it is indeed false, but we can't say this with certainty. Also, unhelpfully, the article on series 3 of QI episodes doesn't refer to this, although the QI message board does, and the transcript here. Can we use this as a reference? --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing we should use QI for the truth either way of the Berwick/Russia issue, but as evidence of the fact that it had been mentioned on QI- which fairly often gets things wrong, but we can use for the actual broadcast since we have it's broadcast date & I can check it from the DVD. Absent an authoritative answer I would suggest that we say in the article that it's apocryphal but undecided BUT has been mentioned....etc. How's that? --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Screengrab - Microsoft Project 9.0.2000.0224 - (simple Gantt chart) .png
Thanks for uploading Image:Screengrab - Microsoft Project 9.0.2000.0224 - (simple Gantt chart) .png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

VPT - Browser errors
In IE6/7, you can look at the HTML source of the page by picking View->Source. This opens Notepad and shows the underlying HTML. Within the ... section you will see a series of <script...>... statements, in these are src="xxx" tags. The "xxx" is the name of a Javascript file - one of these will have an error and that is what causes the "Error on page" message you see. One of my src's was MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js and that's where I (eventually) found the problem.

Figuring out where the error is can get pretty complicated, you have to copy the .js files to your local system and play around with them to find where the error is. In my case, it took an hour or so. Sometimes it's easy and it's obvious what the problem is, hopefully that is the case for you.

I don't use Twinkle, I think my error was from popups, in any case I tracked it down and the MediaWiki page is now fixed for everyone. If you can't solve your problem, pick a small wiki page, use the View Source procedure above and email me the resulting file, the name of the page, and the exact error message you're getting. I'll also need the exact time (and timezone) in case someone is already working on a fix. I can't promise anything, as I say, I don't use Twinkle. You could also bring your problem to the Twinkle project pages, wherever they might be. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those Firefox snobs, probably Mac users too! No sympathy for those of us with feet of clay. Multi-browser capability is truly difficult, I completely understand any single-platform decision. Glad I could (not) help, take care! Franamax (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

French communes
Yep don't blame me, blame the French! ALl I am doing is copying the infobox. I dislike decimal coordinates anyway <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">♦ King of Baldness ♦      <font size="-4"><font color="Black">$1,000,000? 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Gerald Abrahams"
Sorry you did not find my answer helpful, it's been removed--Johnluckie (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry
i was just showing a fried how wiki can be edited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polishballer16 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Iris Habib Elmasry
In this edit you say that she "went to the London Gallery to obtain further materials and documents". Do you know which Gallery the sentence refers to? Is it the National Gallery, London? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In this reference zoominfo it only says Between 1952 and 1954 she pursued her research at Dropsie College, Philadelphia, and in 1955, she went to the London Gallery to obtain further materials and documents.

As you said it might be National Gallery, London

Many thanks

--Ghaly (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

i was serious
plz lemme ask taht question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed at Village pump (technical)/Archive 63 that you said that you are using Internet Explorer version 6. While we try to accommodate old browsers as best we can, IE6 in particular has many bugs and deficiencies that can cause erratic behavior. In order to avoid these problems, I suggest that you upgrade to Internet Explorer 7 or use a different browser such as Firefox or Opera.

Happy editing! —Remember the dot (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian Wikipedia

 * I suppose it is my mistake; however, I have had speedy tags removed before on that basis because of the use of the "db-bio" redirect. JuJube (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag was removed from the article and i nominated for deletion the Articles for deletion/Hawaiian Wikipedia. -- MisterWiki   do ya want to speak me?, come there!  - 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country
Just an FYI I responded to your comments at Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country and I would appreciate it if you could close the comments that have been addressed or further comment on the ones that have not been addressed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the map is updated. I spent the time to learn how to do it and did it myself :) I have to thank you for pushing me in that direction because now I don't need a cartographer anymore, heh. I'm also adding in other countries on the list that are not yet on the map, so give it about an hour before commenting on missing countries. Gary King (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of unrecognized countries has been nominated as a WP:FLC
I have just nominated List of unrecognized countries as a WP:FLC at Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries/archive1 and would appreciate it if you could vote in it, criticize it, and hopefully eventually fall in love with the article. Also, feel free to edit the article if you feel that a minor edit is needed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your concerns at Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries/archive1. Please close items that have been resolved. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

omg!
Didn't you see the in use tag before you just listed it for CSD? Calm down with it next time. Mike H. Fierce! 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...Tagging a new page while an established member of the community is working on it (and tagged it as such), and then telling them to "read the fucking manual," is very rude and discourteous. Please show more courtesy when patrolling new pages.  krimpet ✽  02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: RTFM
The following post from you has been copied from User talk:Mike Halterman: In use does not stop a CSD tag being put onto the page, when the content is & always will be NN. You are involved in editing the page: on this basis you should not remove the CSD, but PROD it. I expect you to revert you edit, or re-instate the CSD tag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a little FYI for ya. Perhaps instead of telling administrators to read the fucking manual, you may want to consider following proper procedures when doing NPP. That would include checking who's working on the article. It's pretty much a standard here that admins and other established, long-term contributors know what they're doing. Obviously the article is notable. Was that obvious when you tagged it? No. However, it was tagged as under construction by a long-term contributor who has gained the trust of the community to be an administrator and thus can be trusted to create articles up to our standards, for which he has created hundreds. Hopefully this brings you clarity. Lara  _Love <font color="FF1493"> Talk  05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The fact that you inappropriately tagged the page made it completely acceptable for him to remove it. You also stated in your sweet little message "when the content is & always will be nn". Well, if you'd Googled the topic, you'd have known to tag it for sources rather than speedy for being non-notable, as the article isn't "always" nn, which is obvious now. You also told him to PROD his own article... who does that? Absolutely no one ever. Misuse of TW could result in you losing it, by the way. And continuing to tell others to read the fucking manual probably isn't the best idea either, particularly when you're making inappropriate taggings. Is that redundant? Ya, I guess. Hopefully you get it now, though. Lara  _Love <font color="FF1493"> Talk  15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one PRODs their own article while they are working on it. That doesn't even begin to make teh sense. In reading over the manual, you'll see that hangon would be the preferred step. However, for the reasons stated above, as Jay has pointed out below your reply, WP:IAR-removal of the inappropriate tag was a good move. This has been a fun dance, but I've got to go to work now. Hope we've cleared this up now. Lara  _Love <font color="FF1493"> Talk  20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of autonomous areas by country is now a Featured List - thanks for your support!
Thanks to your support, List of autonomous areas by country is now a Featured List! This is my first FL, and I hope to have many more in the future. Thanks for supporting the nomination! Gary King (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re blank line
Thanks Tagishsimon – didn't understand the fuss when it's standard and increasing white space makes it harder to read n more scrolling etc. Breaks maybe, but not additional whole lines. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I used Secure server
You ask on User_talk:Julia_Rossi why I logged on with the secure server. Simple: because it is suggested on the login page as being a good idea. Is it, in your opinion? I presume it costs Wikimedia more CPU cycles and runs marginally slower, but can't think of any other disadvantages. PJTraill (talk) 19:14:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (Just noticed I forgot to sign, done by hand PJTraill (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

British History Online
Hi, glad you've found British History Online useful. The huge amount of detail that is captured on this site is amazing. You may find some of the links below useful as well:

Zoomable Maps: General info: regards. --DavidCane (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * British Museum: The Crace Collection of Maps
 * Greenwood's Map of London, 1827
 * John Snow's Map of London, 1859
 * mappalondon.com. Stanford Map of London 1862
 * Mapco - multiple maps of London and the UK
 * Old OS Maps - 1920s/1940s maps of UK
 * Vision of Britain through time - has a maps zoomable map section.
 * London Gazette Online - the public gazette in which all notices of private bills were published such as bills to establish turnpikes. use the template to add references to this.

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities
I rolled back a perfectly good edit of yours recently, and then undid it. That was the second mistake in a row I made, and I apologise if you had to go back and wonder what the hell I was up to! BananaFiend (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Respond to Tagishsimon
List of countries by formation dates is one, long, ugly looking page right now. I'll see what I can do, but I have not worked on an article that includes every country. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion is interesting and I will involve myself with it. I'm curious to know why you brought this up, though? I noticed that you do not have any edits on the pages you linked me to... Gary King (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Brave Combo
Thanks for all your work at disambiguation. I just wanted to say that "DAB cha-cha-cha" is the funniest edit summary I've ever see on the Brave Combo article. - Dravecky (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LoC
Thanks for admitting it was a ploy. I've deleted it again. The RD is not a stone on which to grind your axe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the truth is that it was 75% ploy and 25% actual question, because I really don't know if it is true! I wrote to the LoC and no one wrote me back. I find things on blogs and I got that note from a History list-serve. So 75% thought it might be true and wanted to warn people and 25% of me wasn't sure if it was true and wanted to find out if it was some early April Fools thing. But since the way I phrased it upset so many people I guess I will just let it go. I might go at least say that it was moved to the talk page since that might be a compromise we all can live with. Thanks. (user:Saudade7) 70.143.85.241 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Battersea Powerstation - Across Thames - London - 020504.jpg
Your photo of Battersea Power Station has been posted to Flickr as her own by this account holder http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/501521336/ in contravention of Flickr's own guidelines.

To complain about this licence violation please see http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A trainee vandal enquires:
Hey you illiterate motherfucker! Why are you stalking me and my edits? JeanLatore (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us have style, and some don't
Phew! Thank goodness. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one having trouble with Ed Fitzgerald. But what an odd subspecies of Wikipedius Editoris, eh? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd indeed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

London Meetups
Hey Tagishsimon, I know you've seen this, but just in case you thought you were not invited... :-)

London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 is happening Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm) in Holborn. Come along!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We're hoping to make it a regular thing. The next one is on May 11th Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Serge Voronoff
It isn't about it being an unbelievable claim or not. It's about human integrity, and educating newbs. I'm getting tired of people asking a question where an answer is "just see the __ article, and it clearly says." This is why I mentioned that in the 1st sentence, it clearly answers his question. If the answer was somewhere in the middle of a big fat sentence, then I could teach him Ctrl F. If there is no article on the subject or the article doesn't mention the question asked, then I obviously won't direct them to a non-existant article or an article that doesn't answer their question.

But of course, you probably want people to answer the question by looking into the article themselves, rather than direct people to the article themselves. I'm really willing to copy and paste from the Wikipedia articles in order to answer there question. But I don't find it necessary we are a desk that helps people with Google search (or in this particular case, Wikipedia). Neal (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

As for your 2nd sentence, that would certainly be true if we had a way of knowing that the reader read the article, and thus decided to ask us. Clearly that user could ask the doubt regarding that, and we can try to check if the article was not vandalized or not. But until we know the user read the article, I still find it relevant to educate people on looking the article up 1st before asking.

You know, as for the biting, do you see a pattern that a lot of questions regarding sex, masterbation, and now testicles, are IP addresses? And not Wikipedians? As well as IPs with unsigned comments? I obviously don't think I was biting, I'd tell you to assume good faith in my text, but I have less respect for people posting those questions under IPs. It's very hard to say I'm biting, much harder to show how. Neal (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Re: Okay so I see you're shifting the burden or proof on me, asking me to disprove something, and that's a bad tactic. You know, if I was being uncivil, the more logical thing to do would be to report it, I presume, but I certainly would be interested in a rational conversation with these IP addresses. I was asking honest questions, believe it or not. Neal (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

Here's why I thought the user might be trolling. Besides the fact that he was asking about monkey testicles, most people know about the function of Wikipedia articles before knowing about the Wikipedia reference desk. By that assumption, I assume the person knew how to look up a person on Wikipedia before asking in the reference desk. Neal (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

re:Press
No, not at all. I was not sure if we were required to list every article that was quoted, or just summarize it. MrPrada (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

is not subject to major discontinuity
'Thank you for pointing out my omission. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Foundations edit war
Hi Tagishsimon,

I've been watching the ridiculous spat at The Foundations for a few weeks and thought you might have been making some headway with your questions and attempt at mediation around April 1 and 2. Are you planning to return to the article to try to achieve a balance that would be satisfactory to both parties? Huffman should be content with an acknowledgment of his more recent involvement in what passes for the band; the other Wiki users involved in the edit war ought to accept that his involvement should be noted.

I think discussion about whether the "current" Foundations are notable or not, or even legitimate or not, is beside the point: the band obviously split into several strands, and they each deserve a mention in a Wiki article that would be largely concerned with the original band's popularity and chart success.

There must be other examples of this issue on Wikipedia: The Searchers and 10cc both still tour with only minimal connection between current and original lineups, but their Wiki articles haven't degenerated into legal threats as The Foundations one has.

So anyway ... are you up for it again? Grimhim (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ATT Tagishsimon & Grimhim Hello Tagishsimon & Grimhim, I do hope that this can be sorted out. I have no problem with Mr Huffman having his band promoted on Wikipedia and we all know that this works by default in some minor way or another with other people involved in the entertainment industry. Why can't he have his own page to do his thing on and leave that one alone ? But anyway, how can Huffmans involvment be noted when he has never been able to substansiate any of his claims ?

Who are the current Foundations ? The answer would be found first of all in this question, What has Clem Curtis been doing for the last 36 or so years ? And similar for Alan Warner.

You said "the band obviously split into several strands", OK then why not contact Clem Curtis via his website http://www.clemcurtis.com/ and get the answer from the expert about what is and what isn't ?

Please when you get a chance check the Foundations talk page, section Vandalism of a Wikipedia article and abuse and read my reply to Grimhim 's post (Reply to unsigned comment above): 04:34, 19 April 2008 and see what my concerns actually are. BTW: Huffman has now been deleting and editing certain things on the talk page. Pat Pending and myself are not the only members peeved and frustrated with this carry on (George-Archer (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Ed Fitzgerald RfC
Since User:Ed Fitzgerald has continued to ignore the style guidelines, I have started an WP:RfC here. I'd appreciate your support/comments. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to provide evidence of an disputed behaviour, please do so by adding it to the 'evidence' section as you are an editor certifying the basis for the dispute. I have left a note for the above editor who filed the Rfc that currently, there are some problems with the way the Rfc has been set out by the complaining party, including yourself - you may wish to make the necessary changes, and provide evidence in the form of diffs. Please also note - when providing evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, diffs are expected to be provided - entire talk pages are not accepted as evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

signing warnings
Hi. Thanks for the vandal patrolling. It is really helpful to admins like myself when following up on WP:AIV reports if when folks leave u3, u4, and u4im messages like you did on User talk:24.229.181.231 that there be a signature ( ~ ) after the warning so we can easily see when the last warning was left. This is especially important on IP editors. Otherwise we have to match the warning to the history and compare that to the last edit, with is about twice as complex. That being said, thanks for the warnings being issued. Please keep up the great work. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald
I note your outside view. Two problems I have with it: 1) we have had very long discussions with Ed, and there has not been an inch of compromise, which is why it has now arrived at RFC and 2) it is a relatively small matter, but it has led to edit wars and by now a considerable amount of rancour and bad feeling - not least engendered by Ed on the one hand demanding his own way, and on the other hand - as you have - dismissing it as a small matter, about which further discussion would be - in his words - lame. If it is such a small matter, why is he unwilling to to do other than demand his right to do whatever the hell he thinks is best. He & you cannot have it both ways. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the RfC is up and running I have certified there is a reason for the comment, however I do agree with Baseball Bugs that this is a small matter to bring to the RfC forum, and I would have liked to have seen more attempt at discussion take place first. And it is important to note that he is not an unreasonable man, and that he has reverted himself as a gesture of good faith while discussion takes place. It can sometimes seem that when you are in disagreement with someone that they are much blacker than they are. Ed is idiosyncratic and firm in his belief, but I see no evidence of him being a bad person. Far from it.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ed is a bad person, and in general do not have a problem with him. What little I know about his contributions shows him to be a positive force for good. My view, fwiw, is that we ran into a brick wall in discussions with him about this format issue. The RfC arises from the observation that he is firm in his belief to the point of being immovable, which does not work in a collaborative environment, even if the format issue is relatively trivial. I'm concerned that your intervention, and that of BB, reinforces his view that he can continue to be immovable, and expect the rest of us to accommodate his idiosyncracies. That would not be a reasonable outcome. I'd urge you to consider if there is any more that you could do to impress on him that there is an issue here (his immovability in the face of objections) to which he should answer with words other than the stock extended essay which can be boiled down to "I'll do this becuase I want to do this". --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My approach would be to do what I have done. To provide evidence that I have spoken with him on this matter, and that he has chosen to go his own way. To support, now that it is up and running, that the RfC should take place so people can give their views on his behaviour. And then to support and endorse those views that I agree with. I am not happy with this particular discussion taking place away from the RfC. A forum has been set up - I feel that this debate should take place in that forum. I am not saying that you are inappropriate in having a discussion with me about this matter - far from it; I am always willing and happy to look at evidence and to have a logical discussion, and I do change my views based on what I see and think - but I would feel more comfortable in sharing this conversation in the arena that has been set out. Is that fair?  SilkTork  *YES! 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's penis size
I'm afraid being the bald scheming villain I am I hijacked that page from my evil henchman and scientist User:Tompw  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A Helping Hand
Dear Tagishsimon,

I couldn't help but over-read your request for help from Clio the Muse in regards to Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument. I have access to the article in question and the brief introduction states:
 * The claim has been made that functional differences between the two hemispheres of the human brain have practical implications for management and training practices. This paper reviews research on hemispheric differences and finds that such claims represent a "hemisphere mythology" thatis contradicted by research on the nature of the differences between hemispheres.

Hope I didn't intrude and I hope this helps. If you need any more of the article let me know. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth I read the article and it's all a little over my head (my speciality is in the arts!). From the notes I've taken it appears that Herrmann bases his HBDI 'program on the assumption that the left brain is logical and the right brain is intuitive, insightful, and creative.' (p.603) As a result Herrmann claims to be able to enhance creativity through special training of the right hemisphere. Herrmann claims that test is both reliable and valid but the article states that there is no idependent 'published material to substaniate the claims' (p.604). I've added some facts to the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument but I don't really know how to add the rest of this information, i'll leave that to you! If you want me to send you the whole article I'm fine with that, although we probably will have to endure eternity in copyright hell! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've sent them both across to you now. I'll read the articles myself and try to lend a hand. Apparently Allinson & Hayes are lecturers at my unversity. Perhaps I can grill them for answers (it looks to me like Herrmann made it all up for some quick and easy money selling the secrets of 'unlocking the true potential of the mind' - utter rubbish!) Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I don't know much about HBDI but when I worked for Ciena Corporation our division's entire management team went through it and I had some experience of the testing and result to our organization from that. In that training, we merely used the taxonomy of thinking styles, not any creative improvement approach nor was any right/left brain dominance nor brain model presented. Just having a simple taxonomy proved useful, and it was more useful than MBTI because the taxonomy was smaller and easier to remember. Perhaps the brain dominance 'woo woo' was just a fad of that time, and a shame that he associated with it, but that doesn't mean the taxonomy itself isn't useful. It was quite useful to us at least. I'll see if I can make more of a distinction like that in the article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm quite familiar with the Hawthorne effect, as I'm an interaction designer. This is becoming super interesting to research, especially as it relates to the left brain / right brain lateralisation theory of Robert E. Ornstein. I'll add my notes to the talk page on the article instead of going further here. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wessex Institute of Technology
Hi,

If you remember a while back you helped clean up the Wessex Institute of Technology page and bring it in line with similar academic pages. We archived a good consensus and things were fine. Well someone has registered an account (with a clear singular purpose rule breach one) and is trying to post the same old inappropriate material we all agreed to get rid of (against consensus, thats rule breach two), without discussion (3) and repeatedly posting the material despite my calls to leave the page as it is and seek discussion before making edits and last night went past R3R (4).

So this person is clearly showing no regards for the rules breaking them in rapid succession I wondered if you would be kind enough to help me keep this page in line with the consensus.

Thanks --Curuxz (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help with the WIT page, im sorry I do not understand what you mean by mounting the check user report. I would do if I knew what it was! :)


 * Regarding your change relating to the UoW, it is my understanding that they are very specific on the wording, saying the correct form of words to be used should be Institution X, Associated with the University of Wales (and not, for example, Institution X, an Associated College, Institution of the University of Wales).

It for this reason that I wrote Associated with UoW, but I think in the interest of avoiding arguments I think your revisions are OK for now, we will just have to see if anyone from UoW complains about the way you have worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curuxz (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree! What did you mean by mount on the sockpuppet issue? (btw sorry for forgetting to sign) --Curuxz (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ah rite sorry I was not aware how you start that process! (hence asking for your help!) --Curuxz (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently it was a mistake and some piece of information did not get passed on to the relevant authority. There was not any reason why WIT should have been omitted from the list and if you look at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/recognisedukdegrees/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.view&NewsCategoryID=2&NewsID=9&Archived=0 it says that they will be updating the list later in the year with WIT included. It was just a simple clerical error. --Curuxz (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your help, I would be grateful if you could add more references as your time allows! By the by, the research report has been up dated there is now a 2007 one up there. I'll look to expand the page at a later date, maybe with something about the 3000 open access papers they now have in the E-library and the drive for more open access material. Thanks again :) --Curuxz (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems this person really is intent on getting banned! I'll key my eye on the page hourly, lets just hope he gets bored of vandalism and goes away! :) --Curuxz (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ARG!!! 3RR, I apologise i am dyslexic and forever mistyping acronyms :) Still lets hope he makes his 4th mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curuxz (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news!!! I hope this deters them, thank you for all you have done :) --Curuxz (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

HBDI etc.
Good work on the HBDI article, it looks as good as new! If you need any more articles, I can't think of a more appropriate use of my tutition fees! And sorry for ingesting your old School - apparently its new premises are quite something though! And, yes you'll be glad to know the Faversham still exists - it's pretty "trendy" now though! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald
Thanks for the heads up. I've made some comments. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates
Hello. Thank you for your comment. I deleted this entry because I started this entry and its content is not relevant anymore. What is the excact policy about deleting my own entries? Joos23 (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

chip on one's shoulder
What if I find 1-2 errors and report it. Someone else finds 1-2 errors by the same editor. Only someone who is out to fry the editor will look up all the person's edits.

But I give up and you win. I thought it was a good idea because you could report errors and not worry about trying to kill the editor. If several others found 1-2 errors, there would be reason to act. If there were no coordination, nobody would know about that sneaky editor/vandal.

But again, I give up. You win. BVande (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chip on one's shoulder doesn't refer to you. It refers to a person who is out to get another editor then keeps searching their edits. BVande (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

4th Hussars Crest
Thank you for your help with the 4th Hussars Crest. It was very kind of you to assist another, less experienced editor.GDD1000 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

John Rennie
Hi Simon,

I am confused by your reversion of my edits on John Rennie the Younger and John Rennie the Elder. You stated that John Rennie redirects to these pages; it certainly cannot do so to both. Are you perhaps thinking that they are both linked on the disambiguation page? That would be a true statement, but in this case, the hatnotes are in violation of the guideline to which I linked in my edits. Do you disagree with the guideline? If so, I would recommend starting a discussion on the guideline talk page.

Neelix (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon,


 * My understanding of the policy is that only the article to which one would be directed when typing a name into the search bar should list, or link to a list of, multiple possible meanings. If we were to disregard this policy, we would end up with an endless number of superfluous and unhelpful hatnotes.  For example, the John Joseph Smith article could have a hatnote for each of John Smith, Joseph Smith (disambiguation), John, Joseph, John Joseph, and Smith.  In the case you suggested (when searching using Google), if a user was directed to John Joseph Smith when that user was looking for John Smith (clockmaker), the first sight of "Joseph" in the title (or the first line stating that he was a politician and judge) would indicate to the user that this was not the correct article and the user would type "John Smith" into the search bar, find the list, and select the clockmaker.  There is no case in which a person looking for the clockmaker, whose middle name is not Joseph, would type "John Joseph Smith" into the search bar.  Does this make sense?  If it doesn't, please explain your concerns.  This is one of the guidelines I cite most frequently, so I would want to know if other editors have objections to its use.


 * Neelix (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
I've posted a question for you at the Administrators' noticeboard...


 * I would suggest you outline your proposed changes in the talk page first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you suggest that? The Transhumanist 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(please post any replies to WP:AN)

Wikistory
Let me tell you a story. Once a upon a time I was wiki-surfing, and stumbled upon found poetry, and thought "Wow! This article needs some work!" Then I looked at the history, and realized you had done some editing on it a long, long time ago. You determine the ending of this story. Please improve it, or put on my talkpage (or on the articles talkpage) ways to improve it. Thank you. --Justpassin (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Milliot
eww....that vandalism thing was wrong. it was intended to be a roll back. mea culpa on that. however, with regard to the links, though the sources may indeed be valid, it was inline linking and weird formatting that were the target. i, and others, have had several sessions and conversations with milliot about how he tends to leave articles in shambles over and over. copyvios, link farming, random links, quote farming, edits with horribly batter english and grammar, inexpicable article name changes, etcc, etc. he's a nice guy, i'm sure, but it is very frustrating when he continues to cause the same problems because he either doesn't read or doesn't understand policy. that, and no one to tends wants to deal with him, just giving up trying to help in exasperation. --emerson7 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Emerson7
interesting choice of words Emerson7. I believe it was you who kept reverting back Nagyvary to a Stradivari article. Which really had no place of being there since it was about his experiments, which have been rebuked by experts in the field. And now you are waging war on relevant information which I have contributed to (in other articles), which you keep deleting. Shame on you. There is no reason for this, as most people here are really trying to make wiki a better source of information. Deleting valuable information, after it has been added is really not nice.Milliot (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tagishsimon for your input.Milliot (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comment on Quick Thanks
I'm sorry you feel that way. That is part of me and I won't get rid of it. I will do once if it that makes you happy. I will answer on question with my signature once on one question of course. If I go to another then you are going to get my signature.Cardinal Raven (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Move bike parts
Hi, well I didn't know whether the move the whole thing including the suggestion, or re post it as a question, so if it's better, I'll move the whole thing from humanities. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't hear the clank of the cuffs for laughing, ;)  Julia Rossi (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

re: AN/I request in January
Sorry to bother you, and I know that you won't remember this, but I would just like to let you know this in order to clear up a very old misperception about things that went on. I posted an AN/I request in January and you responded to me here. I probably did a very poor job of clarifying what all was going on but I did want to show you this to explain what I didn't explain very well then. One sock would make unfounded and outrageous additions, and when it was broached, other socks would come in to bait the situation and back up the original sock. It had been an ongoing sock puppet problem that became quite severe and I probably lost my cool with the deception from time to time. I just wanted to show you this to let you know I'm really not a tenditious person. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your Comment on Welcome Back
Ugh! If its not one person its another. I've never congratulated myself for answering the question. Okay I had added I that I had answer the question correctly, but that was for a different reason. I answered partly correct. Maybe I should add that instead. I didn't know how to phrase "Woman we viewed as property." properly so I put that down instead. Its far more complex then that, but I am not going to put eighty five million words down. Also if you think about the view on woman maybe not in sports, but thought of sports being a mans thing kind does come from history.Because back then politics was a mans thing, war was a mans thing. So at least I answered it correctly maybe not fully correctly, but correctly enough to give him some information. Don't disregard what I did. And if you think about if you paste the little links OH MY GOD! They take you to a sight that may answer your question. So once again at least I answered the question correctly. I don't have internet. I can only go to .edus and .govs. Wikipedia is the only organization sight I can go to. Because my roommate is an idiot and instead of controlling his spam he decided to block all .coms, .nets, and .orgs. So I can't put down a link properly either so don't bitch at me. You're putting right back into the mood I didn't want to be in. This why I left Wikipedia the last time. Because I was angry and you are making me angry again. I am trying my best to answer with the limits on my computer. I don't have an internet like the rest do, my television is just a television I don't have Tivo so I can't record my programs to remember them, I have old magazines and the newer ones I can't help you with because I don't have the internet I can't go to the sights of the magazine. I am trying to give information with limited resources, what I remember, and what I have on my desk. You obviously haven't had a problem like this one. Personally, I think I did well on the reference desk when I first came here when I was modest. Its only been lately that I have been sliding. You obviously haven't had a problem like that either.Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)