User talk:Fudoreaper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Fudoreaper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 01:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Joel Bakan[edit]

It's the same information, yes, but the actual wording isn't particularly close to the IMDB bio (which I've never seen). The limited resemblance that does exist is almost entirely due to the fact that there really aren't that many ways to structure that kind of information. If you want to rewrite it, go right ahead (especially if you're able to expand it further! *grin*), but it's not actually a copyright issue. Copyright applies to the exact sequence of words, not to the general structure or to the information itself. Bearcat 28 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)

User Categorisation[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Manitoba. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Manitoba for instructions.--Rmky87 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "don't get crazy"[edit]

If there were one true, correct spelling[1], there wouldn't be a huge section on the issue in the Manual of Style. ;) Regardless, I'm happy with the article as it is after your latest edit. —HorsePunchKid 22:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, calling it "crazy" was unduly harsh. However, it is true that: A) meter is a disambig page, showing that you didn't actually verify that your changes were for the better; and B) metre is the correct international spelling, and only in the USA is it called 'meter'. I have a poor reaction to the americanization of metre, which you guys don't even use, anyhow! :P
Anyway, thanks for reacting with civility. Also, i agree that the page as it is now, after my couple edits, is more coherent, standard, and better than previously. And hey, if you hadn't have made your edits, i wouldn't have made mine. So in the end, we could consider that we provoked each other to create an improved wikipedia, which is, of course, the ultimate goal.
So upon additional reading, i have discovered a couple things. A) metre is not consistent across languages; just look at the interwiki links on that page. B) So what's important then, is how it's spelled in english. It seems that most english folk took the original french word mètre and spelled it metre; but the Americans changed it to 'meter'. Thus, the issue is not so black-and-white as i had made it seem. — Fudoreaper 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Crystalcherry[edit]

Crystalcherry has been recreated, I believe it lacks notability as per the previous AfD. I got involved in this when User:Cherryrain went "Opps", twice on Avril Lavigne and then requested my assistance after I reverted. I suspect this user has been biten/slighted by the AfD, and is not acting entirely in good faith. Cherryrain mentioned User:Drini's agreement for a rewrite; I'm not optimistic that will be sufficient to satisfy all users involved in this issue. (suggest replies/discussion should be directed to Talk:Crystalcherry) (CC'd to multiple users) - RoyBoy 800 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada[edit]

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there! -- user:zanimum

Galeão - Antônio Carlos Jobim International Airport[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I updated your User:Fudoreaper/Cities to avoid a redirect. Sorry if you preferred it in the previous version. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your hard work and dedication to improving Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about you[edit]

Shall we sing?

Happy birthday, Fudoreaper! This is, what?, the 25th? Time to update the user page, right? Anyhow, hope it's a good one! --Dvortygirl 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation Newsletter delivery[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 777[edit]

You did a great job. Thanks. eh! But just so you know, no regular 300 has been ordered since 300ER entered service. --Bangabalunga 06:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, i realize now. I misunderstood as 'since the 300 entered service, all ordered models have been 300ERs', which is clearly incorrect as the article itself mentions sales for the -300. I will go back and update the article accordingly. —Fudoreaper 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How to keep Wikipedia neutral[edit]

Do not add unproven claims.

Do not edit attempts to show the other side of a controversial statements unless you verified the statements of both sides.

If you cannot create a balanced text, remove all controversial sections.

Do not use Wikipedia to advertize for projects with commercial background from within articles for free software. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.190.253.172 (talk) 07:24, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

List of bicycle manufacturing companies[edit]

Hey Fudoreaper, thanks for the question. Per my "zealous" editing of List of bicycle manufacturing companies, my reference to the WP:MOSLIST guideline is to the following quote: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" - that may be cuircular reasoning, but that's the guideline. If we allow lists to be linkfarms of weblinks, I think we risk violating WP:NOT and the article is much less useful: should we really include every manufacturer with a website? See list of social networking websites for a list that is mcuh more useful for being only blue links. All that said, if you feel there is a notable article link that I removed in error, please re-add it. UnitedStatesian 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing redirects[edit]

Hey, I've seen your fixing redirects on two articles, and wanted to let you know that redirects that are not broken are okay. Please only fix links if they are broken or if they point to a disambiguation page. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I'm just letting you know that fixing perfectly fine redirects is discouraged. Thanks, 哦,是吗?(O-person) 03:20, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

Expanding on that a little: links in article text should always use the best name for the concept being referred to in that context as long as that link works. It doesn't matter if the actual article has some other name. It's fine for the link to get there through a redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization[edit]

A subtle point regarding this edit: I agree with you that the capital S should have been lower case, but I do not agree about the capital L ("See Luminous efficacy for..."). In this case, the text is not referring to the concept of luminous efficacy, but instead it is referring to the article on luminous efficacy explicitly, by name. Titles of articles are capitalized, so it is perfectly correct (and preferable) as it was. For the same reason, article titles are typically capitalized in dablinks at the top of pages, and in the See also section. --Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting argument, Srleffler, about the capital belonging on the Luminous efficacy article. I think you're right though, because the sentence is referencing the article directly, rather than using that term as a part of the sentence. As you say, when you use "See X", then you capitalize it. The sentence is a bit awkward, then, because it contains no information on its own, just a reference to another article. That type of 'see also' reference is usually separated from the main prose of the article. Could we use a sentence like: "Luminous efficacy refers to the portion of emitted light usable for human vision."?
P.S. What's the proper etiquette, should i respond on your talk page, or on my own, below your comment? — Fudoreaper (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't change the sentence the way you propose, because the purpose of the sentence is not just to link to the article on luminous efficacy, but rather is to tell the user that a specific piece of information (the "specific efficiency of various types of electric light sources") can be found in that Wikipedia article. I can't offhand see a way to do that without referring to the Wikipedia article by name. Note that the specific piece of information being referred to is not the primary subject of the linked article.
Usually it's best to keep discussion of an issue on one page, rather than breaking between two talk pages. It's good you left a note on my page, though, because I didn't add your page to my watchlist and probably would not have remembered to check back here. When I leave a comment for a user, I typically "watch" the user's page for a while in case there is a reply.--Srleffler (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Section order?[edit]

I reverted one of your section re-order edits after verifying that a bunch of linked articles used the other order. What is your source for the order you are changing things to? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Layout explicitly specifies that References comes after See also.--Srleffler (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
F, please review your recent changes and restore the proper order on any that haven't already been fixed. Thanks. And thanks, srleffler, for finding the policy page. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I didn't login to Wikipedia for a while. It appears my memory was faulty, I really did think references, then see also, then external links. However, Srleffler mentions the right source for layout information, and I will follow that. I will track down all the changes i made and revert to WP:LAYOUT. Cheers, and thanks for your feedback, Dicklyon. —Fudoreaper (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:DeHavilland Single Otter Harbour Air.jpg[edit]

Hi

Sorry to contact you here but it seems this is the only place I can. I would like to point out that the above image is being used uncredited and with no reference to the licenses you use here. I am going to let you deal with this. Help can be found [[2]]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Swedish interwiki[edit]

The Swedish link has no specificity to the English article, and serves absolutely no meaningful purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Restaurant Cars[edit]

Since you ask, please look at this:

Tabletop (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tabletop, thanks for the reply. While i understand that restaurant cars are perhaps the most challenging cars to arrange with limited dimensions, the point of loading gauge is that all cars are limited, and must work within the limits imposed by the particular railway. Perhaps you could add a section on the difficulty of restaurant cars within a limited a restrictive loading gauge.
I'm not opposed to talking about restaurant cars with regards to loading gauge, i just thought it strange to add it as a see also. Couldn't we have every type of car listed, including locomotives, etc, since they are all affected? That would seem like too much, to me. —fudoreaper (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Silk[edit]

Thanks for your support. would you like to chose one (or two) images and add it to the article? Would be fun to se your choice..

Cheers Warrington (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

U+0027 to U+2019[edit]

Hi there. About the question you left on my talk page - the original version was showing u in my browser as a bunch of random symbols rather than an apostrophe so I thought it was best to change it in case others saw it that way. Mind you, the fault could just be with my own browser but that was my reasoning anyway. Keresaspa (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurostar[edit]

For the record, Bhtpbank is talking about this edit.

Removing a single space from the article, and calling it a copy-edit is fainlty ridiculous. Edits like this simply add more volume to Wikipedia than it saves. Your edit-summary alone wasted more spcae than the saving of a single space. Please consider your edits more seriously in the future. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does the 'waste' end? By posting a message on my user page? By using made-up words like 'fainlty'? Frankly, i am suprised that you are so annoyed at a small, harmless edit. I add edit summaries to all my edits as a courtesy to other editors, though i didn't mark the edit as minor, which i should have. I called it a copy-edit because nothing meaningful was changed, just formatting, which is consistent with the definition of copy-edit. Finally, to suggest that small changes should not be made because it 'wastes space' is to misunderstand how Wikipedia operates. Storing edits, and dealing with many edits, is how Wikipedia operates. Over 300,000,000 edits have already been made, and in a few years we the edits will be numbered in the billions. A single edit here or there is not significant. If you wanna talk about wasted edits, why don't you go after vandalism, which 'wastes space' to a much greater degree than helpful formatting fixes. In short, i did consider my edit seriously, and find no reason to change in the future. —fudoreaper (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass transition[edit]

Have you checked this out ? -- logger9 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but i will now. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved![edit]

Trophy.png

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Masi Bicycles[edit]

Thanks for your encouragement. I appreciate it. Icd (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has been taken over by deletionists! Never mind, we battle on .. Icd (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of Canada[edit]

Hey man, good call on the re-ordering of those paragraphs. Something about it never quite sat right with me, but I was unsure of what it was.. You nailed it! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling war[edit]

Do you have a link to the rules about regional spelling on Wikipedia? (i.e. "neighbor" vs. "neighbour") Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway line#Merger[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion here. Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Thalys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn DPL bot, you're totally right! I went and fixed my link. I should have checked the link, but forgot. Thanks again! —fudoreaper (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High-speed rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SNC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're so smart, DPL bot! —fudoreaper (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hostnames[edit]

Andrewcrawford is referring to this edit which I made to hostname.

Im not goign to revert your edit as it correct as well, but hostnames can be seen on the internet in the form of replacement www.domainname for example forum.domainname will be specific host on the domain network and www is another. tht might nto be the best example but i hope you get the idea i am trying tpo put across similar like ww2. ww3. ww4. etcAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. Thanks for your feedback. I notice your examples are all WWW sites, just ones with different names. www for the main website, forum for the forum website, and so on. My point was that DNS hostnames are used with applications like WWW, SSH, email, and so on. These applications run on top of the internet, which, at a protocol level, does not use DNS. The internet just uses internet addresses, which are numbers, rather than names. That is, the internet nodes, which are machines, use internet addresses, not DNS names, to communicate with each other. I hope that makes sense, and explains why I reverted your edit. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Secure Digital[edit]

Your technique addresses my concern; and thank you for the explanation in the Change Summary. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, glad you liked the solution too. I was sure there was a way to resolve both our goals. The main thing about the Table of Contents is that it's used for more than just a web browser on a big display. Especially i think of accessibility, and how a blind person would navigate the page. For them, having the section markers is a big help, since they can't just scan visually to the bold parts--in fact, the bold means nothing to them. So for a reason like that, changing from actual headings to bolding is not a good solution. So, we can just suppress the heading depth displayed for folks like us, and let the various anchors still exist. —fudoreaper (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

But, you know, starting a line with a semicolon does not merely specify boldfacing but is called an "unnumbered head." So it is possible that accessibility software and alternate devices might treat it properly. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a link where they discuss about this? I wonder about it... —fudoreaper (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. Unnumbered head is its name; the implications are mere speculation on my part. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

HSR[edit]

Please see talk section of HSR I posted the cumulative stats reply there. Doseiai2 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited .ca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CIRA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This bot is annoying, because it points out my mistakes. It's helpful for the same reason. —fudoreaper (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Registered memory revert[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Registered memory: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thanks!

Edit: Registered_memory:535213925

Zenexer [talk] 04:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zenexer. Are you aware that i was reverting an edit from an anonymous user? I don't feel that putting a message on an IP addresses talk page would be very effective in reaching a real human being. Do you think it would be? —fudoreaper (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of .kiwi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article .kiwi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.kiwi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Be..anyone (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)