User talk:Abtract

• /archive 1 1 May - 31 October 2006
• /archive 2 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007
• /archive 3 1 May - 31 October 2007 (includes the time I was blocked for overenthusiasm)

If you talk to me on this page, I will reply here. Abtract 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Abtract! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. Abtract (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Discussion transferred to GIF talk page where it has more relevance. Abtract 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome...

.. to the WPSI project. Hopefully it is all self-explanatory, but if you'd like any assistance please let me know. Good wishes, and hope to meet you on a wiki-island soon. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Prophets of Islam

I removed Adam from the category Category:Prophets in Islam because there is already an article called Islamic view of Adam, that is part of the category Category:Prophets in Islam--Java7837 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for telling me but I don't understand your rationale since adam was a prophet of islam. Abtract 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to a suggestion from way back

Hi damian111 here sorry about the late reply, my userbox was inacurate and should have been west wales. For reference on this please read the dangerous book for boys. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian111 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment at WikiProject Cornwall

Hi, usually I would agree with you about removing other editors' comments - but in this case I had asked Woody to remove it if he felt appropriate. I am in a difficult situation with another editor, and Woody is familiar with the dispute, and trying to help me and the other person resolve our problems. My post was related to the difficulty, so I am happy for Woody to have removed it. Good to know the page is noticed though! Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem although I would never give another editor permission to do that ... I would prefer to remove it myself but, hey, we are all different. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally, but am feeling rather stressed and didn't want to revert myself and then spoil it by leaving an intemperate edit summary! DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK mate ... I have a suggestion for you as one who has had problems on here before ... my suggestion is "Apologise and move on". I know you don't understand any of why you should apologise and frankly neither do I having only skimmed through your 'problem' but believe me it is best. I sense that you enjoy wikipedia and do not want to leave but you are talking yourself into a corner. Assume 'they' are trying to be helpful and genuinely do not understand your problem ... a quick "I am sorry, not quite sure what for but I want us all to work together to make this a great encyclopedia so I am going to move on and not pester you again on this misunderstanding" and then move on to another area of wp. It worked for me and it will work for you ... in time you will look back on this as the time when you matured as an editor. Whatever you decide, good luck. :) Abtract (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, probably quite good advice too, but when I read this[1] just after reading it I thought - "Why bother?". Hopefully he will ignore me from now on, I shall do my best to ignore him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

mmmm doesn't make good reading but my advice still stands ... swallow your pride, apologise and look good ... or fight on, look bad and lose. Your choice. Abtract (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

snarky edit sumary

It's much more constructive and polite to actually take a look at talk page before making unfounded, already-discussed, and frankly rude comments in edit summaries, as you did on Ybor City. You're welcome to join the discussion... if you leave that attitude behind. Zeng8r (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't realise you owned the article or that you were writing a book on the same subject after extensive research ... however you might bear in mind the rules about OR and NPOV before reacting to a simple edit so aggresively. Abtract (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You wiped out most of the lead of an article for no reason and added an inflamatory edit summary for good measure. After you were informed that the article is already being discussed on its talk page and invited to join the conversation, you ignored the discussion and hacked away at the entire article, removing much important information in the process since you obviously know nothing about the topic.

Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Should I wikilink the relevant policies for you? Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink what you like mate, it won't change my view (and that of several other editors) that this is a badly written article containing many unsupported statements like "he thought ... " and "he said ... ", travelogue details about who went where and by which means of transport, many POV comments and, judging by the complete absence of citations, a great deal of OR (presumably by someone about to write a book on the subject). I have read all the talk page (as I do as a matter of routine before editing any article) and it is full of critisism, similar to mine, by several editors which you have reacted to with very lengthy and erudite responses but so far you have not taken heed of any view but your own. You are completely missing the point ... this is not your article and any "knowledge" you may have gleaned in preparation for your book is only relevant if you can give citations to other publications. It, like all articles, should be written in encyclopedic/measured tone ... keep your skill as an author for your book where you can get away with flowery phrases and colourful asides. Abtract (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ieuan

Hi Abtract, I notice you've tagged Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr as a possible hoax. If you're interested, I've left my views on the Discussion page. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comments especially since you seem to have investigated the topic. Abtract (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so considerate. I should make it clear that I myself want to see more positive clarification and shall try to find out more on this (I have contacts in Welsh acdemia). I spend a considerable amount of time checking Wales-related articles for hoaxes and have been instrumental in deleting a few things in my time here, but I am convinced that James Frankcom is genuine and not a hoaxer. I have seen the copies of Bartrum's notes and am sure they are genuine as well; it still needs a more specific reference though. Thanks again for agreeing to give it some time. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City

Thanks for your help / backup on he Ybor City article! I'm a n00b but appreciate the help nonetheless. BrickMcLargeHuge 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I simply played it how I saw it. Abtract 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha!!!!

WP:ROUGE WP:CABAL WP:SPIDER!!!!! >Radiant< 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that and of course you are right ... I can get up myself occasionally when I have nothing better to do. Thanks for taking the time to point it out and tidy up after me; feel free to do it again as you see the need. Having said that I am hopeful that the frequency of need will decline to a muted "No but ... " occasionally. :) Abtract 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Penwith Wikiproject & Cornwall Wikiproject

Hi, I see you are a member of the Cornwall Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge the Penwith Wikiproject into it. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Rather obviously, you know about this already - I've just messaged everyone who is in either of the two projects so that hopefully we can generate som econsensus and movement. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... nice to see I was ahead of you. :) Abtract (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

re: disclosure

[2] Sorry for not replying earlier, I simply hadn't noticed your post in the talk subpage (now redirected to my main talk). You (and anyone else who will ever read that page) are most welcome. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:55, December 8, 2007

Unilever

If Unilever competes against Kraft Foods & Mars Inc., Why does Oreo, M&Ms and Snickers all use Breyers for their Ice Cream?

Minor co-operations between competitors is not uncommon. I am going to move this section to the unilever article where it has more relevance. Abtract (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City, Tampa, Florida

Hi, I tried to cleanup Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and removed the tag. I see that you hae been involved in the merge and rewrites; I would value your feedback on my progress. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be moving in the right direction and looking more like an encyclopedia. :) Abtract (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Yes, I know for sure the 3RR rule, which is how I can tell that you have violated it -- you have reapplied your edits more than 3 times, in violation of 3RR and WP:BRD. You make a bold edit, it gets reverted, and then you're supposed to discuss to get consensus, not start an edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

mmm it seems to me that you have clearly not read my points on the talk page which were in place before your latest (third) revert and which you have not addressed ... I want to improve that page, what are your objectives? Abtract (talk) 23

59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MS disambiguation page

Abtract, I'd like to offer some feedback about the process here. You have not asked me for any, so if I am being unhelpful, or if you find that I am crossing the line of violating "Comment on content, not on the contributor", I have no problem with you removing this comment from your talk page.

In all honesty, I do believe you when you say that your intention is to improve the MS page. You are not intending to be disruptive but I think the impact you are having is disruptive. I think this is happening because of your persistence combined with you not being quite careful enough. You have not been quite careful enough in reviewing MOS:DAB—other editors have had to refer you back to specifics in those guidelines a number of times. You were not sufficiently careful in reviewing JHunterJ's actions—you accused him of reverting without discussion or rationale when he had in fact discussed the reasons in edit summaries. On occasion you have not been quite careful enough even in reviewing some of your own edits. As I said, this combination of your persistence and of not being careful enough is not evidence that you are meaning to be disruptive, but I think it is having the effect of disrupting the process at that page.

JHunterJ is as close to an expert disambiguator as they come on Wikipedia. His contributions in cleaning up disambig pages are astounding, I find. One of the reasons he was nominated for adminship was his work with disambig pages. I point this out only to emphasize that he knows these guidelines very well, and, I suppose, with the hope that you might assume some good faith a little more with him.

Thanks for your attention; thanks for your passion for Wikipedia --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

... perhaps all a moot point now, what with SlackerMom's helpful comment. :) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment, I genuinely appreciate it. Of course it must be clear from my general record that I do love wikipedia but also that I can be a little aggressive in making my point. This is normally the fruits of frustration (no excuse I know) rather than a desire to be disruptive; I am afraid I have a tendency to think the rest of the world is out of step some times.

On this particular occasion it was the fact that JHunterJ is an admin that really got my goat. I thought that admins had a duty to help editors with full explanations rather than simple reverts and that they were discouraged from using their powers on articles that they were personally involved with. However good he is as an editor, he surely slipped up on those two points. I promise to be more consensus driven in future (until the next time anyway) and I have taken the advice and started work on other dab pages ... maybe in the future I will rival JHunterJ in this slightly more constructive way.Abtract (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the role of admins. Admins are janitors, not educators (although I'm sure some admins are good at both) -- they get a mop to help further improve Wikipedia (for instance, by protecting articles from edit wars). The WP:HELPDESK is separate from the adminship. You also missed my explanations in my edit summaries and in the guidelines I provided links to. It is not the job of admins to regurgitate the Wikipedia policies in full when any editor demands. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. Abtract (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have been working on MA. If either of you would care to look at it and improve it ... or even remove the cleanup tag, I would appreciate it. Look on it as a couple of hours community service. :) Abtract (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, I actually agree with JHunterJ's comment here. As per my comment above, all that reverting is having a disruptive effect. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good for you but, had you taken the trouble to look closely, you would have seen that I have not made any reverts in the dab arena since the problems above unlike hunter who reverted me with an unhelpful edit summary ... I then tried to improve that same line again but in a quite different way. I did this because an edit summary "mistaken" helped me not; I dare say the link was intended to be helpful but my experience of admins (and editors) I admire is that they normally explain briefly why an edit was mistaken. JHunterJ has already explained to me that "Admins are janitors, not educators" so, though each time I hope for more, I expect little from him. I have worked quite diligently on dabcleanup since the troubles above and this is the first less than helpful response I have had.Abtract (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time, so your most recent edits were reverts. My "mistaken" edit summary was an answer to your "I might be mistaken" edit summary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy now I have heard it all ... I quote from Help:Reverting "A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time." I did not do that ... and, "However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." I did not do that ... but you did when I accused you of breaking the 3rv rule; oh how I wish I had that quote available when the ruling was made letting you off on the technicality that one of your reverts was not entirely to the identical previous version. Listen mate ... you are an admin ... grow up and act like one. Abtract (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your response to me above: I had not looked carefully enough and I had assumed that this was a complete revert. I guess it goes to show that I can be somewhat careless myself, especially when there is frustration in the air. :) Anyway, on another note—and I had meant to say this sooner—good work on the MA dab page. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I know you won't believe this but I also have been known to make mistakes and get frustrated :) I am trying hard to achieve something on dab pages and have done half a dozen or so ... you will have to tag some more pretty soon or I will run out of work. Abtract (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear disambiguation page cleanup

Per many examples in MOS:DP (also called MOS:DAB), in an entry for something that doesn't have a dedicated article and thus doesn't begin with a bluelink, it's actually proper to begin the entry with "A" or "the". Propaniac (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though a simple edit summary would have done the trick ... just out of interest could you lead me to the specific guidepoint you are making. I am taking quite an interest in dab cleanup and want to get it right after my adventures above. Abtract (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any place where it states this explicitly, but you can see it in the example used for linking to an anchor on another article (although that example isn't the clearest, either, since two of the entries begin with "Part"). It's also used in the first example on the page, disambiguating "school" ("A swarm of fish").

I know the MOS is really long and tricky and often not as clear as it should be; I've been working on dab page cleanup for several months, and over that time I've often realized that I did the wrong thing when cleaning up a page earlier, because I had missed some rule in the MOS (and, on at least one occasion, got quite irate towards someone else about their revision even though I later realized they were right and I was wrong). It's a pretty thankless task. But in most cases, the page will still look a hundred times better than it did before you cleaned it up even if you do make a few trivial errors, and 99.9% of Wikipedians would never notice any problem with the cleaned-up page. Propaniac (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to tell me all that. Abtract (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab cleanups

Before I go around reverting you all over the place... :) ...may I ask, why are you doing things like removing valid interwiki links as you did here? --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My rationale was that, since these were dab pages and by definition had several meanings within one page, there could be no such links. If this is incorrect, pls point me to the relevant style page and I will corect them all myself. Abtract (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct, I have reinstated them all I believe ... and reinstated a couple of wiktionary lionks I wiped. As I said above I was thinking that dab pages could not be linked in either of these ways by the nature of disambiguation; thanks for the tip. Abtract (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are disambiguation pages on other wikis, and those should be interwiki-linked. If you want to click through each one and see that it's a dab page and not an article, you could, but I usually just take them at their word. Yes, the leading {{wiktionary}} templates should definitely remain, although if there are multiple ones (such as on there used to be Rus), they could be combined into a single {{wiktionarypar}} template -- although I agree with the removal of the Cyrillic-alphabet one there instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Christmas to all my readers. Abtract (talk)

All the best for Boxing Day too!  :) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abtract and all the best for the new year. There are a few unresolved things about the Rus dab page for your attention when you return. It has to do with items you have removed. Rus, Jaén should not have been removed because it is linked at List of municipalities in Jaén. Rus, Sălaj should not have been removed because it is linked at Sălaj County. Let me know if you need further explanation. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Back (obviously) ... correct any that you are confident of by all means but I thought dab pages were only for articles that existed rahter than ones that might (tho I have a nasty feeling I may have read to the contrary sonmewhere). Abtract (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you probably read it at the style guidelines for dab pages. :) Welcome back! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maria

Hey there, Abtract. I was wondering when you'd be back. Hope you had a nice break. Thanks for your note on Talk:Maria. There's a discussion here regarding the use of TOC right, which you might find interesting. It's just a matter of preference. I tend to prefer it on longer pages, just because it shortens the list. I've noticed that you have been working hard to learn the ways of the dab page - I'm so glad! Style issues will get easier with time. I agree with the comment above about MA - it looks really good. The most disagreement tends to be over which entries should be included on each page, and sometimes those get crazily heated. Any voice of common sense is always welcome! SlackerMom (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr

Hello there, I responded to your request for intervention at the above article, and I think that this should help settle the matter. I wanted to pass you a friendly reminder, too; I realize that it may get stressful sometimes when other editors don't see your way. However, please avoid from saying that another editor "blathers" on or making other uncivil remarks, as this isn't helpful in terms of solving a dispute. Remember, keep a cool head when the editing gets hot! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... point taken and I have removed the blather. I thought I was being restrained but on re-reading I see it was a tad provocative. Abtract (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pa

I noticed your work on Pa. Commendable effort. FYI, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations. ENeville (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read them both and I have done quite a few recently, although I am still learning the art of cleaning dab pages. I sense from your advice (and from your edit to Pa) that you feel I was wrong to pick "father" as the primary definition. I believe this is a very contentious issue which I have raised before on other pages ... who decides which entry(ies) is the primary one? To me "father" is clearly the most common usage but presumably to you it is not. So who decides? The pages you suggest I read do not help. For my money I would rather have no primary uses except perhaps a definition of the word but in this case I used father for consistency with MA mother (and another primary usage). Look at MS to see what I mean ... I have had several conversations about which should be the primary usages aqnd frankly the current list looks odd to say the least but I have exhausted politeness in trying to reduce thee list so I have moved on to other dab pages (it was MS that got me started). Anyway life's too short to worry but I do think the principle (or who decides etc) needs attention. Abtract (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

European Pollen Database

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of European Pollen Database, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.europeanpollendatabase.net/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

only one link per line?

[3] Are you sure? There's lots and lots of names of unknown stuff from Ancient Greece and it benefits the reader to have links to them all. William Ortiz (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am sure ... look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. :) Abtract (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Burj (word)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Burj (word), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Burj (word). WebHamster 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Burj (word)

I have nominated Burj (word), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burj (word). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Abtract (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HAH???

You reverten a link made by me on the clear dezambiguation page, stating that there is a maximum of one link per dezambig page. Since when? Is there a wikipedia policy on this? I`m a bit confused.... AdrianCo (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. Abtract (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, kinda strange...but ok! Thanks anyway! AdrianCo (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wait a sec`, do you suppose that every person that searches for "Clear" in the Scientology sense knows what an "engram", as defined by the Scientology/ER Hubbard/Whatever-created-it , knows what it is?! Well... look on the bottom of the page! Please do take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they won't but they will discover it when they go to the target article, which is where the info should be ... remember a dab page is only for navigation. This is not an occasion to break the rules or every dab entry would have several links. Abtract (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

But the counter-exameple on the link that you gave me implied a song , the definition of the song and the genre of the band as, in this case , an "engram" is in itself a vague notion, so that`s why I wanted the link, not for personal credit or anything... AdrianCo (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realise you are operating entirely in good faith but you need to learn the "rules" on dab pages. Put simply, they are designed to help readers find the article they want (navigation) when they don't know the precise title of the article but they know a key word that might be the title (for example "clear"). The idea is that they type in "clear" and arrive at the dab page which they scan to find the article they wanted and then go straight there without hanging around to read up on extra explanations or visiting linked articles. When they get to the target article they spend as long as they want looking at the info and visiting links. Hopefully you see the point now; the dab page gets them where they want to be but gives them no information other than is necessary to get them there. Abtract (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok then.... AdrianCo (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL don't feel too bad about it, there is much to learn as I know to my cost (look at some of my history!). Abtract (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Willie Nelson

Hi,
Thanks for sorting my screw up on the talk page for Willie.
I'd like to do a bit of re-writing on that article. But I'm not very sure about the editing rules. I've been a Willie fan since 1978, met him personally, and have a collection of about 120 cd's, over 30 videos/dvd's, and also met my present partner through his fan website,(Willie actually sent us a signed copy of his "Valentine" CD because of that). So perhaps I am more qualified than most to add information to this page. So can you advise me what is, or is not allowed. ???
Robbiework (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NP - you will see that I have put a welcome on your page; this contains lots of useful places to look for "rules". I am no expert and get it wrong often. In particular you might look at wp:or because it sounds to me as though you have access to unpublished primary sources that would count as original research. It is important that info on living persons is supported by a citation. Anyway, have fun and enjoy editing. Abtract (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall, England, UK

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline and the discussion linked therefrom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MMM you have better eyes than I do (I see lots of debate but no consensus) ... could you lead me to the specific place where a consesus was reached pls. Abtract (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it's been archived, have tracked it down now - [[4]]. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see a consensus there (mention of one in the past maybe) indeed I entered that debate but thought it just fizzled out. Abtract (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MS dab page – part 2

Hi Abtract. Sorry to keep bugging you about dab style guidelines, especially when you've been doing some great cleanups. But I think this edit mis-characterizes what the guidelines actually say. They do not say that all the items in the list need to be divided among the sections. There are strong advantages to having the most likely dab targets listed early, even if it means not appropriately categorizing them. You can see the example of Aurora. My view was that MS provided easier navigation before your latest edit. ...My two cents, anyway. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't apologise I am trying to learn as I go and I appreciate constructive comments - and this means that some of my edits are based on "common sense" (as I see it of course). This page has bothered me for some time, mainly because it has (had) 6 items in the supposedly "most common usage" slot at the beginning. In looking at the mos I spotted the section I referred to - Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Longer lists which is clearly written with all entries sectionalised. As to Aurora, it is quoted for another reason entirely (two levels of sectioning) and you will note it starts with "Aurora most commonly refers to:" which could certainly not be applied to ".ms, the Internet country code top-level domain for Montserrat", as an example. Common sense tells me that with long lists everything should be in a section unless it sticks out like a sore thumb as being the most common usage, otherwise we come back to the perennial "who decides?". My sections may not be the best but I have tried to make them meaningful and containing a reasonable number of terms. Let's see what others think. :) Abtract (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing when new people start working on dab pages and question some of the guidelines, because it typically leads us to make sure that the guidelines are indeed useful and based on the best "common sense". I'm basing my comments largely on what I have seen other more experienced dab-project members do: I do not think that the example at Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Longer lists was truly intended to be prescribing that all the entries should be sectionalised. Still, I think you make a good point about the Montserrat country code, and I am happy to see what others think. :) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Surname pages

Hi again. :) Surname pages are not dab pages, so they do not need to follow dab style guidelines; see MOS:DAB#Given names or surnames. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. You are right and thanks for pointing it out but (you knew that was coming didn't you?) I just don't see it. I can see no other purpose in this list except disambiguation. Why is the list there? Answer (surely) to assist readers find the right article ... this sounds a bit like dab to me. Anyway I have completed my "clean" so once again I am in the "Let's see what happens" phase. I really am trying to improve wp but it is hard work. :) Abtract (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, often these surname or given-name articles begin by essentially just being a list that helps to disambiguate. But eventually other things get added and they become an article about the name—see Smith (surname) or (one that I worked on) Monica (given name). WikiProject Disambiguation tries to keep these things distinct—dab pages are not articles—and there is another project altogether, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, that looks after articles (and, I suppose, lists) about names. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think you did some great cleanup work at Berg (surname), and here is just one minor nitpicky thing: when you are writing a year range, the MoS says to write it as year, then endash, then year. For example: 1885–1935. You were using spaced hyphens. Very minor point, I know. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of jail and prison museums

Consolidation complete on the List of jail and prison museums & the situation is resolved. Thanks for adding to the discussion. FieldMarine (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I enjoy such debates. Abtract (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages

Why don't you use redirects in disambiguation pages per MOS:DAB? The user JHunterJ does, look at what he did to Goki for example. Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He did so here as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "redirects" in this context. Abtract (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesse

Sorry, I missed that the Jesse (disambiguation) page had been seperated into two pages and assumed that most of it had been deleted due to vandalism. Jesse K. (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I thought it might have been something like that. I find the subject of lists v dab pages a difficult one as you will see if you have looked at any of the debates, so I am feeling my way a little. Abtract (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

M&S

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Norns move

Hey, good call on moving the article to Norns -- that's exactly where it should be. An update of a link to the new Norn redirect, though, isn't necessary -- if it's going to appear on the screen just the same and lead you to the same eventual page, links to redirects needn't be replaced with direct links. (WP:R2D). Now that it's done, however, there's also no need to undo it either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We aim to please. Abtract (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth

Hello... I had reverted your change to Earth (adding "we") because Wikipedia generally avoids the use of that phrasing. However, RJHall was kind enough to point out that there are some limited occasions when it is felt to be acceptable. With that in mind, any thoughts about how we might rework the line to include "we" and yet make it a bit more formal? (Another reason why I removed it was because I felt "we know life exists" was too casual.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure I do. As I said in my edit summary, it was a bit nitpicking of me and I fully expectd it to be reverted. If I come up with anything, I will take it to the earth talk page. Thanks for taking the time to tell me. Abtract (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

long comment

Several of us patrol the short pages, looking for vandalism or test pages, when something has been reviewed, we add a long comment to the article so that it won't show up in the shortest pages any more and won't keep being checked, re-checked, etc. So when I added that to the article you noticed, it was that I reviewed it and didn't need others to review it again in its current state. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... I guessed it would make sense. At what point is it removed? Abtract (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddha quasi-dab page

Hi Abtract - just wanted to thank you for your recent comment to Talk:Buddha. I've added a follow-up, suggesting that the opening prose paragraphs be reverted to the bulleted style of this page's pre-01/25/08 style[5]. If you have additional thoughts or feel my follow-up still misses the point, etc., I'd welcome your further suggestions. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem ... it is a mess at the moment, neither fish nor fowl. Your follow up is useful but the page you directed to is still in need of a clean and the cleanup tag will attract several other editors. I have no doubt we will get to somewhere close to my version of Buddha (disambiguation). Thanks for your input. Abtract (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi from me, too, and thanks for your interest, work, and goodwill. LR drew my attention to the progress that IMO you-all have made in recent hours, and it seemed like a good idea to acknowledge you both for that and endorse this direction. I looked only in a very impressionistic way at either what you started from or your approach, so i'll only note that you do seem to be paying attention to the applicable guidelines, and may well have all the nuances of this particular case nailed down.
As i said to him, i think i'll lurk only on the outskirts for now. Keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Abtract (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some reorg and reformatting on Buddha (disambiguation), then got my attention briefly drawn (perhaps by something that included a sig by or lk to you) to the current discussion re WP:MOSDAB#Piping, in which you are participating. I may, after all, have something to learn from you abt the (for me) confusing piping/rdr discussion. I'll compare (but not tonite) the diffs from my edit against that MOSDAB section, and may then do some self-undoing, dive into studying the MOSDAB talk page sections, and/or have some questions for you.
One quick question, tho: did you notice if the change in the "rdr to avoid piping" example was noted in that MOSDAB discussion? Apparently the Delta Quadrant Rdr was upgraded from Galactic quadrant to Galactic quadrant#Delta Quadrant (for all i can recall, perhaps when sector addressing in Rdrs became effective) and the bare fact reflected on MOSDAB, but perhaps w/o consideration of whether it was still a good example of the applicability of the piping/rdr language.
My head is spinning, and i fear it may still be, in this regard, after sleeping.
--Jerzy•t 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaito changes

Can you explain your recent edits to the page? Reason why I used Kaitou Kid instead of Kaito Kid is because the article says "Kaitou Kid". And why did you remove the different variations of "Kaito"? Please respond below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB discourages multiple variants in the lead, and the dab page is about Kaito not Kaitou ... I created a redirect to solve problem, a method you are aware of because you have used it yourself. Abtract (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You may want to look at Goki and Son Goku if what you say is true. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have corrected them. Abtract (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

strange?

Letting you know now since you're known to do "strange edits", please do not revert the edit I just did to Ichigo. Let us discuss that as well on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I did revert because it was adding surplus words not needed for dab purposes. I know you like to "shorten" dab lines because you have done it several times to pages that I have just cleaned ... incidentally you give every impression of following behind me to tweak pages I have cleaned rather than getting on cleaning pages that need it more; That would be even "stranger" than some of my edits so I presume it is just an impression rather than reality. Abtract (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate. You were told to discuss the edit and not revert. And no, I'm not "stalking" you, it just so happens that most of these dab pages are on my watchlist. I am still contesting your edit to Ichigo and would like to reach an agreement here. Please stop reverting. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple: I made an edit to "shorten" (a word you have used several times and which I applaud presuming you mean taking out words not necessary for the dab process) the dab page and you reverted it with no proper explanation; I took the unecessary words out again; you reverted me; you TOLD me not to take them out again but that is not the wp way ... if you disagree with my edit, discuss it, tell me why and maybe I will agree ... do not TELL me what to do or not do. I await your reasons for not liking my shortening. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, are you trying to test the patience of others? For example, I obviously wanted to make it 100% clear to the viewer that the character is fictional, as there is a difference between fictional character and just character. I took off little words like "a", "the" and "is" between JHunterJ mentioned (to me) that these were unnecessary. And I apologize if you thought I was stalking. Convinced about my actions now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK to be nice I won't fight you over character tho imho " a character in film/book/series etc" can only be fictional - how could it be non-fiction? As to your point about "a" "the" etc and JHunterJ's advice to you, if you read it carefully it says (and I quote) "It's only on dab entries that are people, and normally just on {{hndis}} dab pages, that you should remove the articles "a", "an", or "the" at the start of a dab entry description." Do you see that he is actually saying "do not remove those small words on normal dab pages"? He goes on to say "These were probably okay." meaning they were OK before you removed the small words. The nuances of the English language are difficult so I hope this helps. I am truly glad you are not stalking me and of course I take you at your word. I have a suggestion for you ... if I clean a page, you leave it; if you clean one, I will do likewise. (I'm talking about cleans not little edits). This will free our energies for the main task of cleaning (and there are plenty to go round) and should prevent unecessary conflict. Let's try this for a few months untill we both cool down. Abtract (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought you were the one stalking me. And I believe you're misinterpreting JHunterJ's words, badly. If you read between the lines, he says that the little words are usually removed in {{hndis}} pages. It's ok if they're taken off dabs because the guideline doesn't specify this. Not sure if the strategy you're proposing will work. I'm trying to follow MOS:DAB seriously and it'd be appreciated if you would do the same. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I make clear of fiction now? Appears this is the only compromise we've reached. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I see it all ... you don't actually clean DABs yourself do you? I have looked through your recent contributions and your entire oputput for the last three days is on talk pages with a couple of minor excursions ... and some questions for JHunterJ ... say no more, I understand now. I eagerly await your first (?) real clean. Abtract (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT are you doing here, here and here? The Goki and Son Goku changes, fine, but you're going once again against MOS:DP guidelines and doing drastic changes without consensus. You were warned about disambig formats before. Explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have learned quite a lot in the time I have been away, congratulations. You have also appreciated the correct interpretation of JHunterJ's words ... well done. I look forward to seeing some genuine first cleans (rather than tweaking) from you. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that sarcasm? Well, FYI, I do perform major cleaning on disambiguations every now and then but generally prefer tweaking. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, tweaking is an honorable wp function one I am not averse to myself. Now you haved learned how to do it, I look forward eagerly to your constructive tweaks. Abtract (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, friends? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) Abtract (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Baba Disambiguration Naming

Why are all the non-European people named Baba listed under folklore? David Plum (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your question. Abtract (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WPSI Collaboration

Template:IslandCOTM Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Surname dab articles

Did you see this edit? Same goes for Starks. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw it but you don't explain why it is right ... does it better conform to MOS, if so which bit? Thanks. Abtract (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno where in the vast MoS. Just look at the number of "people with ..." articles compared to the hundreds of "... (surname)" articles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Au

Please respond on the article's discussion page, so that User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and other rc patrollers can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

London Borough of Redbridge

Why did you get rid of my edit? I added more information, and I know more because I go to a school in london borough of redbridge and i also live in redbridge. I reverted it back to my correct edit Agent007ravi (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned and indeed blocked before for disruptive edits and for introducing original research; please don't go down that route again. I think you know very well that unsupported statements like "The Most Popular and active school in the borough" are unencyclopedic. I see you have been reverted by two more editors since you wrote these comments so I hope you will now appreciate what I say. I lived in Redbridge myself many years ago so I am sympathetic but please, if you want to play in this park, learn the etiquette. Have fun but follow the rules ... and there are many as I have discovered that hard way. :) Abtract (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Destination (series)#Recurring elements

I really don't like this section. I've removed three lines from here this path month. Two were POVish and one I'm pretty darn sure wasn't accurate. I've been thinking of tagging this section with something, but I'm not sure what. {{npov}}? {{weasel}}? -WarthogDemon 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yum cha. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you nothing beter to do than pester me? In fact you reverted my quite reasonable insertions of dab info as you have many times in recent weeks. I have been as civil as I can even giving you your way with space pen and space toilet where JHunterJ advised us both that either way was OK, but you just had to come back and alter one letter (incorrectly) to a capital . What is your problem?

Abtract (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I should be asking you the same questions. I have no "problem". I'm just bothered by some of your edits. Example, your readdition of extraneous hatnotes on Yamucha and Yum cha, despite being told of WP:NAMB and to discuss your changes, which you almost never seem to do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, gentlebeings, but there is another hatnote that could be considered for Yum cha: {{distinguish|Yamucha}}, which yields:

Not to be confused with Yamucha.

as used on French Guinea and French Guiana -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Abtract (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Think I get what you mean. Why not try {{distinguish2|Yamucha, as used in French Guinea and French Guiana}}, which demonstrates:

Template:Distinguish2

as the hat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, don't link to French Guinea in Yum cha -- {{distinguish|Yamucha}} is all that should appear there (unless there's a risk readers looking for "French Guinea" would enter "Yum cha" in the search box). :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Would you place it so I can see for myself? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cribbage

Is "whilst" big in England perhaps? We Americans would never use the word. I apologize if i was rude, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.180.207 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pefectly good word which suits the context. Abtract (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Abtract, thanks for your welcome and for your advice. I did not choose to ignore your advice, I only saw it after I had completed my edits. I am new in town and am (very) slowly learning how things work here. Do please provide further advice in the future as it is most welcome. Apologies for crossed wires. Thanks once again. Yorksaints (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for stopping by. Abtract (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Caisson (western architecture)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Caisson (western architecture), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Caisson (western architecture). Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Caisson (western architecture)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Caisson (western architecture), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Caisson (western architecture). Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the template (as I am encouraged to do if I object) because this page is needed for dab purposes ... see Caisson. Abtract (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Is this page really necessary?

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Anthony Rupert (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Deep six (slang)

A tag has been placed on Deep six (slang) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From-cary (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brothers

Since I recently cleaned up the dab page The Brothers myself, I was wondering why it was tagged for clean up. What do you feel is wrong with it? (Aside from the extra link in the entry for the 1947 film; the main link just went blue 5 days ago, before which the writer's name had been the only blue one.) Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across it while doing related (scuse the pun) dab pages and it looked to have several non-links so I tagged it for someone to look at later. If you are happy it is ok after you tweak it, then remove the tag please. Thanks for stopping by. :) Abtract (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My only comment on it now you have tweaked it is that is has too many sections which has the effect of stringing it out down the page and makes it slightly harder to find what you want. I will edit it the way I think it should be later but rv it if you like, I don't feel that strongly about it. Abtract (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I like it now. :) Abtract (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those tweaks you refer to weren't mine. Marchije made those improvements, including creating stubs for several red links. (The red links were legitimate, by the way: They were all linked in the blue-linked secondary articles.) For the most part I don't have a problem with fewer sections--I understand your reasoning--but I still think music & literature should be separated, so I did. I'm glad you approve. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not for me to approve or otherwise, I just say it how I see it ... but it is good to work with cooperative editors. :) Abtract (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Gladiator

I've reverted your change of this ship disambiguation page into a redirect. As you could see, three ships of the Royal Navy bore that name. Only one had an article as it stood, but that really isn't any reason to change it to a redirect. I've created one of the other ships as an example as to how easily one of the red links can become blue. We are creating new ship articles all the time, but since there have been over 13,000 commissioned warships in the Royal Navy it is obviously taking a while. The ship dab pages are a bit more than the normal dab pages, as they are useful tools in themselves to users, looking for when particular ships are active, especially if that ship doesn't yet have an article. Feel free to ask me any questions, or raise them at WP:SHIPS, but hopefully you won't see the the ship dab pages to redirects any more. Benea (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. The rules for dab pages are quite clear, they are for assisting with navigation to existing articles, not for giving information about articles that may be written. My suggestion is to create a stub article before putting new ships into dab pages, that will prevent editors who specialise in dab cleanups from removing them or (worse still from your viewpoint) changing the page to a redirect - which is the correct thing to do when there is only one article. Now that you have created another article, there is no problem in having a dab page but you will see I have made some changes to bring it in line with {{MOS:DAB]]]. Happy shipping . Abtract (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Titles of works in dabs

Hi, Abtract -- thanks for cleaning up the dabs in need of cleaning. I've sometimes come across cleaned dab pages that need a few more tweaks to format the titles of works, usually using pipe links to add italics or quotation marks to the base title. Examples: [6] and [7]. Keep an eye out for those too. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I know you are right and I do them properly sometimes but I have to confess my heart isn't really in it ... it seems overly pedantic. Also, I like to leave some minor stuff for User:Sesshomaru (bless) to "tweak" while he learns how to do a full job. One thing that has puzzled me on this subject is: when do we use name and when "name"? MOS:DAB#Piping mentions both but isn't clear about the difference. Thanks for your comments. Abtract (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, you really don't have to leave anything for me. If I ever wanted to do a full disambig style repair, I would have been part of the same WikiProject that J is long ago. Just do all of your edits, and I'll double check em. Get the job done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely understand the pedantry -- but in that case, you might clean them up otherwise and leave the cleanup tag in place so some other pedant can format the titles. WP:MOSTITLE has the style guidelines for when to use italics and when to use quotation marks, but in dab pages, song titles and episode titles get quotation marks; if you put any other title in italics, you'll be right 99.9% of the time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Górki

Talk:Gorki#Russia may be of interest to you -- jnestorius^(talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was. Abtract (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-written disambig; please don't disrupt it by redirecting it or citation spamming it. As Polish Wikipedia disambig shows, it is a relevant disambig, and all of those villages do indeed exist. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am copying your comments to the relevant talk page and will continue there. Abtract (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Contract bridge - notable players

I don't have any particular brief for the player whom you removed from the list, but surely the lack of a Wikipedia article does not in itself prove that he is not notable. All it shows is that no-one has got around to writing an article about him yet. If every person currently without a Wiki article is non-notable, then there's no need for any more new biographical articles and we can all take it easy. :) JH (talk page) 20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I don't disagree with you but IMHO the place to start is with an article on the guy to demonstrate his notability. Without an article it is simply a matter of personal opinion. :) Abtract (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's logical. I'm happy with that. JH (talk page) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

gypsies

Dom poeple are the old gypsies! in year 500 Sasanied empire forced them to come to Iran.They were the most importent musicians thos days.Guitar that it's real name is Citar or sitar was thir favorite playing instrument.

after mohammad defeated Persian-empire they becam slaves in Omaye-empire and when moslems defeat spania ,some of them moved to there....As they find thierseleves free they made spania their place to be.This story explain why Spanish music is like Indian music or persian-arabic music and how spanish Gypsies use guitar and why they dance like indian and arab people. please be carful when you cut and edit! it is not importent for me! I am not a gypsy or a Dom either.But if you spend some time you will know about Dom people that they are old gysies...It's enough.. I do not like to write any but my mother language!... and do not reply to me...What I wrote just was a joke! It is not ipmortent to me if you know a new thing by my writing... It's better for me that you do not know anything more!.... So It's good that you cut the article I wrote!

I cut Dom people from the Gypsy dab page because the word gypsy does not appear in the target article. If you believe the Doms are also called gypsies, then I can only suggest that you make a well referenced edit to the lead of that article. Please try not to take offense at edits made contrary to your way of thinking. :) Abtract (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Hush. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do not assume good faith where you are concerned. You have proved to be the single most awkward, boring and up yourself editor that it has been my displeasure to meet in my time on wp. Apart from your cutting remarks every now and then concerning whether I left something deliberately undone or not, you have a very annoying habit of putting a cleanup tag on a page, waiting until I clean it and then pouncing to make some extremely minor "corrections". You change things that no other dab editor would bother with. How on earth JHunterJ puts up with your constant barrage of inane questions and demands I do not know. Why the hell don't you put your talents to work making constructive edits instead of pestering me; there are plenty of pages needing cleaning - go to work on them. I am sick and tired of you and have no desire to ever converse with you again ... if this gets me blocked for life, I frankly couldn't give a flying f..k Abtract (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Go away. Abtract (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Abstract, but you will be more polite, or you will extraordinarily unhappy with the consequences. You deal with your fellow editors with the assumption of good faith or you take it to dispute resolution. The third option is that you simply stop commenting on his posts, and the fourth option is to find somewhere else to edit. The result of moving along this path of rudeness is going to result in a hefty block for incivility. Now calm down, or I'll file the complaint myself. Capisce? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing; do you have an incivility meter? Abtract (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's called experience. Any other flip comments, or are you calmed down now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am always calm; my father taught me never to insult a peson accidentally. However I remain intrigued: how did you know what was happening and why did you choose to interfere?? Abtract (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How is as unimportant as why in this instance. What is important that whether you insult a person accidentally or on purpose, the damage is inflicted. Please be more polite and professional, or there will be negative repercussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"you will be more polite" excuse me while I laugh for a moment. oh Abtract, be careful these negative repercussions sound pretty scary to me, for making witty insults on your own talk page, you might get a 5 minute block from editing - and from your responses, I can tell that a block would be like a cold dagger in the heart for you. Anyway, excuse me for rambling on your talk page, I was just amused by Arcayne and wondering if he talks like that in real life. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for joining in too but is that a mafia hitman asking you to be civil, Capisce. BigDunc (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Fine. Don't listen. However, I am betting that these two fine gentlemen won't be throwing themselves under the bus when you fail to heed policy and get blocked for incivility. You'll probably find them to be oddly silent. Do what you will. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne maybe this editor was being incivil not for me to decide but it was your tone that I found amusing thats all. BigDunc (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think Abtract is entitled to know that there is a thread opened by Sesshomaru on ANI.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, just to annoy you, I will personally volunteer to take any block for incivility on Abtract's behalf, especially if that block is related to insulting you in an amusing manner. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I am humbled guys. My faith in human nature has been restored at a stroke. I promise never to make another uncivil rmark again, though I cannot promise to refrain from the occasional burst of irony if pressed. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Irony is fine, cleverness even more so. Meanness isn't. Go forth as the new person you undoubtedly are now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Friend or FOE?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Friend or FOE?. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kari (given name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kari (given name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://allrss.com/wikipedia.php?title=Kari. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only warning

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what's up?

Could you let me in on what's really going on between you and Sesshomaru? It's spilling out across at least two certain articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is sheer stupidity but I don't know how to stop it. Look at the talk page of Friend or FOE? as an example. IMHO he is a petty little nothing of an editor whose only delight seems to be to "tweak", revert and get the last word. I cannot simply walk away from him everytime we are in contact because it happens over and over. I really do need help with this one. Abtract (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you make a concerted effort to not address his edits for a while. I have been where you are - exactly where you are about another article with another editor. I and this other editor still bump heads every once in a while, but for the most part, we tend to avoid each other, as it keeps both of us from getting blocked for editorially trying to pound each other into oatmeal. If you cannot find common ground, find different ground. If this isn't an option, trying being super-polite to the other. At first, this will seem like a game of 'Who Blinks First?' in that each of you will be waiting for the other to be uncivil, at which time the one who kept their cool reports the other and watches while they get blocked for incivility. After a while, both parties find that being polite is just an easier way to get along. It ceases to be a game, and turns into a way to deal with (and I say this tongue-in-cheek) "difficult" editors.

To be sure, responding rudely - expecting someone to be awed by your command of the language and irony - is pretty much ineffective, and paints you as a addle-pated feltch -monkey (figuratively-speaking). So clearly, thinking you are smarter than the next guy is the wrong way to approach this. Let your common sense edits do the talking for you. The other person will reveal themselves as Einsteins or chuckleheads in due course.

That's my advice. Take it or leave it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that this is good advice and I will follow it. Abtract (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to this, Abtract, I'll be more than happy to leave you alone, except let me tell you right now that if we were to discuss every single edit we disagreed with, progress would be extremely slow. It is best to be bold and do the change under the circumstances, cite the guideline in the edit summary, or just cite WP:BRD. If you would only cease with the warring, (including personal attacks and utter arrogance) then I'd have no reason to talk to you. BTW, I did these changes and was wondering if I should have italisised the disambiguation links as well, save for the parenthetical writing. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am speechless. Abtract (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I know why or are you too speechless to answer? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still speechless, sorry. When I have stopped laughing I may reply, sorry again. Abtract (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't see anything funny here. Is this a joke to you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, what part of 'walk away' was unclear? Sesshomaru, he posted an apology to you, and you came back with an argument. Why else do you think this normally talkative editor would be speechless? Maybe you guys just need to stay the hell away from each others' edits until you get some perspective. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stay away then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambig on war horse

I'll maybe let you figure out how to do this, as you are the disambiguation MOS expert here, but when people are looking for literal war horses, they usually are looking for knight's horses, so how SHALL we direct them to the two most significant articles on the topic, which are horses in warfare and horses in the Middle Ages, both of which, by the way, are listed as Good articles? If the war horse redirect is OK, fine, but how to put in a link to the other? (The Destrier and Courser articles are smaller breakaways from the more substantial middle ages article, there are also articles on Rounceys and some other war horse types too...). I'd be glad to make the edits, but I seem to not have the MOS issues down well enough to to them correctly. Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. Handling dab pages is relatively simple but fraught with difficulties and sometimes emotion (see above lol). In this case my thoughts are: First, Horses in warfare is arrived at by virtue of the pre-exiting redirect from War horse (as you spotted already); second, I left in Courser (horse) and Destrier because both these articles specifically mention "warhorse", as a synonym, very early in the intro, thus justifying their inclusion in the dab page; third, Horses in the Middle Ages makes only passing mention of "warhorse" as one of several catgories so I excluded it. In other words, the articles on "Courser" and "Destrier" are about warhorses and could well be what the reader is looking for but "Horses in the Middle Ages" is just a general article about many horse types in a historical period so would not be the sought article. That is how I read it ... however I am not judge and jury in these things so don't be too disheartened. I have looked through the article again and it does have a lot about war so I maybe we can find a way of including it, but I am off to bed now so perhaps we can leave it till morning if you don't mind? Abtract (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe look at Rouncey too. I guess I feel that the link to the medieval article is of benefit, as it is much better than any of the breakout articles. But your call, it's not a moral issue. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy call

I see nothing wrong with someone else quoting what I say in relevant situations :) I have neveretheless clarified my position on the the talk page you linked to, because it indeed can be interpreted both ways. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Goku/Son Goku

BTW, how do Goku (disambiguation) and Son Goku look? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the question. How do they look in what way? Abtract (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just asking how the formatting looks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know I don't like the minute variations in spelling the term and I am in process of getting MOS:DAB changed to prevent this. You probably don't know that I am also not very keen on the intrusive nature of the "People with the family name" section header and the category that follows; they somehow seem to dominate the page especially a small page like Goku (disambiguation). Apart from that they look fine at a quick glance. Abtract (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tien

You said before that two or three entries is too little to warrant a disambiguation page. Where did you read this exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links can often be used to good effect when there are only two entries (I thought I had read somewhere it was positively encouraged but cant't find it now). As to other very short pages, I was talking about having two very similar pages where one was very short - better to combine them imho. Along these lines I looked up Tiens in case there was a dab page there to combine with Tien but as you will see there wasn't ... but there is an article so I have added it to Tien. It just seems silly to me to have two dab pages examplepage and examplepages each with 3 entries; better to have them all together to help a reader not quite sure of the spelling. Abtract (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a universal limit on entries which would be enough to have a page. And why use "Tien(s)" instead of "Tien or Tiens"? Because of WP:MOSDAB? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It just makes sense that tiens and tien should be on one page. Abtract (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the top line. Do most dabs do this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Harshing My Mellow

Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) exists because of wikt:harshing my mellow. I was going to make a soft redirect, but then found other things under the same title, so it became a disambig. --evrik ^(talk) 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Did I answer your question? --evrik ^(talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • They are self-referential. One refers to the other. --evrik ^(talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Zero (ghost dog)"

Uh, there's an overlink as a result of your edit but first, why the vague "Zero (ghost dog)" and not "Zero (The Nightmare Before Christmas)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry don't know what you mean by overlink. As to ghost dog, I just picked a name that seemed to make sense. Abtract (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I utilize the latter name? It's just that "ghost dog" doesn't seem fit for dabbing, when the topic "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is available for use. Also, what I meant by "overlink" is that one line has two blue links. The guideline prefers one blue link per line. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Puer and Pu'er

Me again. I just really need your opinion on what to do with these. A cleanup? A merger? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both. Abtract (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Godalming

I noticed you just did an edit on this page so I thought I would ask your opinion on the school section. Someone has very nicely put in all the local schools but they are red links. Lots of red on a page doesn't look so good. Shall I ignore them, remove the square brackets, or (don't like this idea) make a brief comment to start the pages. Thanks and regards SuzanneKn (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by ... I input most of the schools section and the redlinks are there because there are no articles for the individual schools (or they do exist under slightly different names). What you do about it is obviously up to you but I see no harm in redlinksa for articles which are likely to be written sometime ... why not start the process yourself? I am happy to cooperate with you in this. Abtract (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Pending Action RE: User:Arcayne

A Wikiquette_Alerts section has been opened regarding User:Arcayne. Interested Wiki Editors may add comments here:[8]

Edit Warring at Entropy

Hi,

Please stop edit warring over at Entropy. As far as I can tell, you have no actual experience in computing or measuring the entropy of a physical, chemical or information system. If you do not have any actual subject-matter expertise, please try to avoid editing! It does not benefit WP in any way when you insert factually incorrect information into an article, and then engage in edit warring to maintain this factually incorrect information. Basically, your actions are nothing other than vandalism, they bring no benefit to either the factual content of the article, nor to the social well-being of the WP community. Again, please stop. linas (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your point; I simply reverted back to the agreed version which reflects the definition in the primary article. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it to the entropy talk page and reopen the debate rather than invading my talk page with comments about my actual (sic) experience. But thanks for stopping by. :) Abtract (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The "primary article" is WRONG! The debate was over! Please butt out of topics about which you know nothing about! linas (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see; your first language is not English ("about which you know nothing about") so please forgive me for not making myself clear. Entropy has been chosen as the primary article by the wikipedia community not by me, indeed you may remember I suggested changing this status ... however this was not to be so we are where we are. Therefore, we have no choice but to accept the definition in entropy as the primary definition; I don't choose that, Wikipedia does. I really hope I have helped make it a little more clear and please don't hesitate to ask me any more questions of interpretation of more sophisticated usage of English, I would be pleased to help again. Happy editing. :) Abtract (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Harry Potter

Perhaps you could be troubled to stop the edit-warring and actuall contribute to the article discussion page. I mean, if it isn't too much trouble. After all, you haven't contributd a single word to the discussion. As an editor a lot wiser than me once told someone else, either put up or shut up. So far, all I am seeing from you is trolling. Prove me wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure what your point is ... Abtract 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Should I use hand-puppets to make the post more clear? lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please. :) Abtract (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

You violated WP:3RR on HP (disambiguation) with these edits:

1. [9], [10], [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Will you fix that? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that there only three reverts there ... the first set (1) is a new series of three edits where I 'solved the problem'. I have reverted you three times since then (2, 3 and 4) as have you. I am intrigued; do you seriously not think my 'solution' is a good one? There clearly is not a primary meaning as two articles are fighting for it ... and I could make a good case for Hire purchase as a third contender. Why not support me in what is a clear improvement? Abtract (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)