User talk:Escape Orbit

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mortetviolachaud" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

why?

what are you doing to my contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel Universe 11 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

not opinions

They are not opinions they are merely facts presented in a sensationalised way

Message left on their talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

go away

if your going to be that thorough then no one will post anything on the site as it will take too long to back up each statement with the necessary amount of facts and evidence – why are you so concerned about a video game entry anyway – please go away as you don’t believe in freedom of information and independent thinking – if you don’t like what I post tell Wikipedia admin or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel Universe 11 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on Wikipedia policies. We need to be that thorough. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

one hundred push ups

Hi, can you explain why you think one hundred push ups is spam? --ChristopheS (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtic

Why are you removing my addition? It is very relevent, Celtic FC is viewed on Wikipedia as a heaven whereas Rangers FC is viewed as been a club of scum. Where is the level playing field when it comes to the view of both clubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.213 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained in the summary. One minor event with a small number of fans does not merit a mention in the lead of the article. Your other recent edits also suggest your motivations for adding it are not constructive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Golden Boy

None of the content on the article Golden Boy (song) is subject to personal opinion. ALL of the content is subject to the information as cited in the provided references. You may have been acting in good faith, but please only make constructive edits to such articles. --Sky Attacker (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You say the content you've added is from the cited references. Could you please indicate where the analysis of the lyrical content comes from? Where in the cites is it said the video is "distinctive for some very unusual content"? And who has speculated that there are references to Jesus Christ?

If you can't cite references that does this then I'm afraid it is original research, personal opinion and speculation. None of which should be on Wikipedia.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

READ THE REFERENCES! They are all there. For example, the lyrical meaning is cited from the Eurodancehits reference on Golden Boy (song). How is that personal opinion??? It is the official lyrical meaning of the song as given by both the music organsiation in question and the artist, Sin With Sebastian himself. Looks to me like it is the exact opposite of personal opinion.

My advice: 1. Please don't vandalise 2. Give your head a shake 3. Have a nice day. --Sky Attacker (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't accuse others of vandalising simply because you don't agree with their edits. I'm trying to help you improve the article, as uncited material can and will be removed.

I'm afraid I still can't find any reference to the video being "distinctive for some very unusual content", and no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere. Could you please indicate where this is? This may be easier if you added inline cites. I've added one for the lyrical content to show you how it's done. This makes it a lot easier for the reader to verify the contents of the article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you are acting in good faith. But we could have had this discussion BEFORE you removed the content mm? --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But if you really are trying to help I do appreciate it. Perhaps you really are a "Golden Boy" after all. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Orbit, I looked at your removal of that content and you were perfectly in your right. The editor here is confused in a couple of ways. First of all, that "Eurodancehits" page is hardly a reliable source. Second, it is not "the official lyrical meaning" (and if it were, it wouldn't be independent), since there is no such thing, as anyone who studies literature knows--the article on hermeneutics might be helpful. Third, there is a significant difference between the author and the speaker--if there weren't, lyrics as we have them wouldn't exist. That is, if "Sebastian" is really a "Golden Boy," he'd be out partying instead of working on his songs and his career. (This is pretty fundamental. I'm tired of people thinking Johnny Cash killed his wife because he sings Cocaine Blues.) Fourth, the editor is perhaps unaware that unverifiable material can be deleted. Fifth, an encyclopedia should contain relevant material--this passage about a young man stating he wants to party and not work is just about the tritest thing I've encountered on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the Legend has issues: they tell me I don't want them as an enemy... Drmies (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section on Zaid Hamid Page

There is substantial cited information on the discussion page which warrants a criticism section on "Zaid Hamid" living profile page

what needs to be done to re enter it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.158.197 (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

These cites are both from WordPress blogs. Cites from blogs are not reliable sources and not acceptable for negative material on biographies of living persons. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan Green

EscapeOrbit has removed quotes from Green himself, and sent a justification containing numerous spelling mistakes and poor grammar. Surely someone in this position should at least be able to spell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.103.62 (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it when self-appointed experts go around reverting things arbitrarily. Please remember that the whole point of Wikipedia is to add to knowledge. It is a dmeocratic place and anyone who has something to contribute should be allowed to do so. Merely because you have a username, it does not mean you "own" any particular entry. What I wrote is factually correct, so please leave it alone.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.75.2 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on biographies. If he is known for his pronunciation then please add some cites from reliable sources that demonstrate this. Otherwise it would it appear that the addition is original research and your personal opinion. We can then consider if this is notable enough to be in the lead of his biography. (Which I doubt.) Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion, nor is it "original research". It is merely the case. Do you not ever listen to his commentaries? If not, you would not really seem to be a suitable person to act as an "expert" on this entry and reverting other people's additions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.75.2 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is not your personal opinion then provide cites that show where this 'fact' comes from. Who has said he has a strange pronunciation? Who says it sounds French? Whether I listen to his commentaries or not is irrelevant. My thoughts on what he sounds like are as irrelevant as yours. It's a question of what you can cite from a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as you seem incapable of grasping this really rather simple idea, let me give you an example. Provide me with a "citation" that Michael Douglas has an American accent? You can't. Does this mean it isn't true? Tell me, have you ever actually listened to Alan Green? What makes you think that you have some innate right to revert people's posts? Why is your idea of "evidence" any better than "mine"? --193.63.75.2 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's some "evidence" http://www.tendollarbiglove.com/post/52456218/alan-greens-penalty-area or this http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=305763 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.75.2 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am offering you guidance. My "idea of evidence" is not "better than yours", it's not even "my idea". It is Wikipedia policy. Please read the links that I have provided above. There you will see that forum posts cannot be verified, are not reliable sources and so should not be used as references in biographies.

In addition, I cannot see why this is significant enough to merit mentioning on the lead of his biography. All you have is that some few random people think that, in their opinion, he says certain words strangely. It's a Northern Irish accent. Plenty of people have it and do not, in their opinion, consider it strange at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I admit it does not merit being at the head of the article. But what is at issue here is what you (or even Wikipedia) consider to be "provable". Please re-read the Michael Douglas point (above) and answer it, if you can. That he has an American accent is clearly a fact, even though I very much doubt you can point to a citation. Does that mean you would deny it? As for Alan Green, it is nothing to do with his being Northern Irish. I am referring to his omission of the last two syllables of the phrase "penalty area." Now, putting to one side for a moment the issue of whether this is sufficient to merit an inclusion in Wikipedia, you must surely be able to accept that this mispronunciation is a factual issue and not a matter of opinion? Whether you consider blogs, boards etc evidence or not, this is not a matter of opinion any more than Michael Douglas's accent is a matter of opinion. What would it take to convince you? A sound clip?--193.63.75.2 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If the issue you have is with Wikipedia policy then you'd be better taking it up in the appropriate places. Your Michael Douglas comparison is not a good example. His accent is a matter of fact that no reliable source has ever made an issue out of. Whether Green's pronunciation is 'strangely French' or something he is particularly known for is a matter of opinion. Unless it has been noted in a reliable source, it is not up to any Wikipedia editor to decide it's significant and point it out. That we be what is known as original research, which Wikipedia and encyclopaedias in general just don't do. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the "strangely French" interpretation is opinion, but the fact that he says what can be transliterated as "Penalty Air" rather than "Penalty Area" is beyond question. It can be verified by listening to any Alan Green commentary. It is a "fact" in exactly the same way that Michael Douglas's accent is a "fact". There is absolutely no difference. Nor has any "reliable source ever made an issue out of it" (to quote you). The plain fact should therefore be allowed to stand, albeit with the French remark omitted.--193.63.75.2 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First you want me to decide what is normal or correct pronunciation, then you want me to listen to his commentary and decide myself what it sounds like and whether it differs from what I have decided is normal, then I should decide if this is significant enough for Alan Green to be known by it. This is all original research, synthesis & opinion. No reliable source mentions = Not significant, should not be included, end of story. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In response

I did not make a change abt his probable future ranking. Becuase Novak did not defend his title, his 2008 championship points will expire on the 11th which will drop him down to number 4 and raise murry to number 3. I think you need to check your facts first with the Pro tennis tour website. Also, I believe that Nadal's ranking was changed on wikikpedia to number 1, 4 weeks before it was official.

Please stop changing correct information.

http://www.atptennis.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.31.188 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what happens on the 11th or what will cause it to happen. The infobox is for current rankings. And if you have a issue with what happened on Nadal's aricle I suggest you take it up on that article's talk page. It has no bearings on what occurs on Murray's. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you think there is a case for a temporary block for 211.31.31.188? I'm getting fed up with his vandalism on the tennis articles. Also, you do good work even if most of the above people who clearly haven't read the guidelines don't think so. Alan16 ^talk 00:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nangparbat

Hi I see you have beenreverting a sockpuppet of Nangparbat 86.162.69.128 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). Thanx for your efforts. Wikireader41 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

User:Wikireader41

i am reverting all of this vandals pov edits sorry to get you involved [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] these diffs should make his aim clear hes a strongly anti pakistani editor of indian origin and i will continue to wage war on him/her 86.158.177.27 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's have both of you calm down

Let's have a break for a day and just let it go -- no more posting on each others pages, just clear off your own talk page then let it sit for a day or so then we'll come back and talk about it, ok? :) Banaticus (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm perfectly calm. We cannot talk about it; the IP editor is a banned editor, who doesn't own a page to be posted on. I suggest you actually look at the edits the IP editor is making the fuss over. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

SR Bosnia and Herzegovina

Excuse me? What country didn't exist? It clearly says SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was an independent state within SFR Yugoslavia just as is England within UK. Would you like to read the history of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state? We're not talking about today's Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign, independent nation, but a recognized, independent state within SFRY. Care to explain your stand on this?--Stlunatic071 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

State does not equal country. What England is is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Will you answer my question? What do you think the point of this website is? Answer below please.--Nomichosso (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of this website is to empower everyone on the Internet with knowledge.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And not dumb articles full of made up stuff for a laugh. Hope this clears up your misunderstanding. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

article on kilts

Picture of Duncan Campbell of Inverneill is more informative than the picture of Oliver tartan as:

a) The Oliver tartan is not very clear for easy viewing b) The age of the portrait clearly demonstrates a certain style of kilt outfit, c) what has changed on kilts over more than a century d) shows clearly a recognized ancient campbell tartan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigenputtock (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Offering assistance on Wiki-policy

Adding false content is vandalism. Also, using sock accounts to by-pass 3RR and re-vandalise articles is a grand no-no as well. If you need more explaination about wp:van, or any other Wiki-policy, feel free to ask and I will give you as much help as I can to catch you up on things. Have a nice day. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some guidance on policy. What is not vandalism. "Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it."

The issue of sockpuppets is another thing entirely, and doesn't explain your initial edit warring with 04parrw. Hope this clarifies things for you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for the support at User Talk:Wiki libs, thank you for your opinion, much appreciated, however I feel that this issue has been taken as far as it is constructively going to go, and so am logging out for the night, thank you again, and all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you help find sources for Malaysia–Sweden relations and Denmark–Mexico relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

B&B

hi escape orbit

i couldn't find the comments you referred to on my talk page. rest assured i am trying to make wikipedia better and i think you are too. just can't find what you were referring to.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. Tony Mowbray

Sorry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.177.194 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't add information about footballers and managers changing teams until it actually happens. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ELO

No problem. Krobertj (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help Requested.

Hi Escape Orbit. Please can you review Talk:Rob Locke in response to your COI tag? Many thanks! Credible Talent (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input on Talk:Rob Locke. Understood and we will work on providing the sources you have suggested. Your help is much appreciated. Credible Talent (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

George Davies picture

Hello Escape, this picture of George Davies is a promotional picture and is not subject to copyright - I work for the company that owns it - please do not remove it, I see that you have marked it for a speedy removal...thanks. Wishbone Ash —Preceding unsigned comment added by WishboneAshFan (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply on WishboneAshFan's talk page.

Boy George

I am replying to your comment on Boy George's "talk" page, regarding the issue of whether or not he is Irish. Your comment:

This is all academic unless George has self-identified as Irish. Regardless of his parentage, George was born and raised in England. Unless we have a cite that specifically states he regards himself as Irish, or has applied for Irish citizenship, that makes him English and not Irish. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia or anyone else to decide, or speculate, otherwise

I don't believe we Wikipedians were trying to declare George an Irish citizen or national. Perhaps I went "too far" on my discussion of just why George could be considered, Irish. While I see your point and agree, completely that he is a citizen of the UK, by birth and residency; I don't believe this was the issue. I think someone was questioning whether George should be referred to as being Irish, when discussions of his ethnicity, or ancestry, arise. Another Wikipedian referred to an anecdote of how the name Culture Club was created, when George referred to himself as "Irish". He said in his book, "Take it Like a Man", (when contemplating a name for the group) 'We all agreed Sex gang Children was the wrong name. We toyed with new ones, Caravan Club, Can't Wait Club. Jon said "Look at us. An Irish Transvestite, a Jew, a Black man, and an Anglo Saxon". That's how I came up with the name Culture Club'. From this context, I believe the Wikipedian was questioning whether George is Irish. George speaks about his Irish parents, and the Irish customs, which influenced his upbringing, in his book “Take it Like a Man”. When it has been to his advantage, and when asked directly, he has mentioned that he is Irish, throughout many interviews, or when a guest on a talk show. I won’t go so far as to declare George as “Irish”, and nothing else, as you said, he’s clearly British by birth. Oh, and as to the section on his personal life, I rarely, if ever, make changes or add information without properly citing my sources. I wouldn’t dare or dream of turning any Wikipedia Biography article, into a mini gossip column. I appreciate your suggestions. --irshgrl500 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

George Davies

Hi and thanks for your response - will get another picture sorted out - Wishbone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.47.165 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

andy murray wiki

Thanks for letting me know, I've now given my input. Mark7144 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding copyvio

Could you clarify (on article's talk page and if possible on the talk page of editor who did the copyvio edit) who did the copyvio ([9])? I am supervising this class project and input from others would be appreciated to illustrate to the students that this is a community project. PS. Have you ever considered working on the escape orbit article? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

stereotype

I respect your points of view, but please tell me why do you keep deleting my info on Irish sterotypes? Ask anyone about sterotypical Irishmen and they will say drunken and always wear green. Lu-igi board (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Stereotype talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Alternative rock

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

question

Hi Orbit, I just want to know why a link to the Max Baldry Forum is irrelevant to this page. If you think so, I respect that, but I think that readers of this page will be delighted with that link to the forum. Have a nice day, bye! Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.35.93 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia guidelines on what not to have in external links. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

Wikipedia cannot possibly have a NPOV without a controversy page for both CNN and MSNBC. The extensive FNC controversy page is proof that we need those two to match. I know this website has a liberal bias. I've seen that in the behavior of the admins. I just wish one of them would admit it.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fox News Channel controversies article was forked from Fox News some while back because it was getting too big. But that's where it started. If you genuinely believe that you have cited material to add about MSNBC, then there is a Criticism and controversy section in the MSNBC article. It would also be good if these were genuine 'controversies', not just political inter-pundit sniping. Creating a new and separate page for your edits for no good reason other than to avoid the main article page is the very definition of a POV fork. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haggis

By removing the passage saying that Haggis was already well-known and highly appreciated in England in Markham's time, although Markham did not claim Haggis was English in origin, you have rendered the reference (4) pointless.

Andouillette is as relevant as chitterlings, and also has the benefit of a very early recorded instance of its consumption on a specific date, unlike the Roman and Homerian references.

Ben-alder (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I removed the part about "which indicate that the dish was well-known and popular in England at that time." because the cite does not make this conclusion. And the specific text quoted doesn't either. All it indicates for sure is that the writer knew of it and was keen on it. The BBC cite specifically says "the author made it quite clear haggis was enjoyed by everyone, not just Scots." Emphasising the English is therefore putting undue weight on that nationality alone that may be interpreted as an claim of origin. Something that isn't made.

I removed the mention of Andouillette because including it just muddied the waters. If we include the history of other current day dishes that are similar to haggis we could date similar dishes back thousands of years if necessary.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haggis

Why can't the first line of the haggis say it's English, why must it say a traditional Scottish dish??? That's like putting pizza is a traditonal English dish on the first line of a pizza article article without any mention of Italy. Grow up and listen to the facts. Regardless of who stole/adopted the recipe, it's English. Just another in a long line of so called "scottish" things which are actually English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.198.211 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Haggis

There is no need for the mention of Haggis as a Scottish national dish untill HISTORY as the dish is actually a world wide dish and the official origin is still unknown awaiting clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsy88 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

== I believe with reference to your last message to my Wiki that you assume i am "Edit warring" is incorrect. I also believe that by changing the fact that the most original copy of the RECIPE of haggis( Which was first recorded in “The English Huswife” by Gervase Markham 1615) should not be mentioned in the LEAD section of the article is incorrect as this information has caused much recent controversy ( as noted in my original edits and also my orignal sources) and needs to be mentioned in the LEAD Johnsy88 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you also for your reply. I Think that in this case we need to find a compromise to make sure that the LEAD contains not only the Information regarding the importance of the dish as a national Scottish Dish but also the fact that the original origin of the dish is still unknown and that recently it has come to light that an early record of the original ingredients is found in an English Book thus causing controversy. Johnsy88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Expenses

Hi, yes.. its the ones which were originally listed in the Daily Telegraph; the report that brought the scandal to light. Its listed here. The expenses scandal took place over time, but it was only recently put into the public domain;

Tony Blair, former Prime Minister - claimed £6,990 for roof repairs to his constituancy home in Sedgefield. He had submitted the invoice dated 8 June 2007 on 25 June - 2 days before he was replaced as Prime Minister. He had announced his decision to stand down as Prime Minister on 10 May 2007.[57]

- Yorkshirian (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

EscapeOrbit has removed quotes from Green himself, and sent a justification containing numerous spelling mistakes and poor grammar. Surely someone in this position should at least be able to spell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.103.62 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trolling on my talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Emotional doesnt make sense your right, and your right it is opinion of the author, and Mariah Carey more importantly.... “Trying to sing today was basically impossible for me. I could barely keep myself from crying. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to pull it together and really do it right, but I was literally choked up when I saw him there in front of me,” Mariah continued. Despite her shaky performance....

Thanks for showing one aspect of error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

unused platforms at Waterloo station

I think you have been taken in by Network Rail's public relations spin on this issue. It seems to me and most people who have to use Waterloo station on a regular basis that it is a scandal that NR has done nothing to bring the four unused platforms at Waterloo into use: a relatively cheap project that would improve station capacity by 20 per cent. Waterloo is one of the busiest UK stations and because of the lack of platforms commuters often have to wait in the station concourse for ages before a platform is allocated to a train. Passengers are often told which platform to go to just two or three minutes before the train leaves the station, which is of course a completely chaotic way to run a railway. By contrast the website of the Swiss Railways is able to tell you which platform to use at Zurich or Geneva stations up to YEAR before a train leaves. Two or three weekends of engineering work would be all it would take to add a dozen sets of points further down the lines. That work would also cost far less than the 20 million pounds that was recently spent installing completely unnecessary ticket barriers at Waterloo: another indignity which rail users in more civilised countries don't have to put up with.

Petershipton (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been "taken in" by anything other than the need to have facts cited in Wikipedia, and not allow original research and opinion. All the above is your analysis and your opinion. I am not saying it isn't correct, I'm saying Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wloo Int

I see you have tangled with an editor who seems to promote strong personal opinions. Even further than your removing the "Blame NR" edits, I can see no relevance to this article of mention of ticket gates at WAT, (I've not re-removed it and associated bits from WP.WIT and WP.WAT, not for doubts about them but not to play ending silly-bvccvcs with that editor.)--SilasW (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Degrassi

Please stop deleting the descriptions from the Degrassi season 9 page. It is very useful information. Thank you. --Touchmypickle (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalising this article or be blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wallace and the ip

Hi there. I have offered to give some advice on editing and referencing at his talk page. He accepted the offer but I'm not sure how keen he is as he's off to watch Big Brother. If you would add some of your own sage advice it would be appreciated. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cancel that. Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

Where I come from, it's typically pronounced as if it were spelled "zyne". Also, check out the end of this clip from It's a Wonderful Life, a famous film rendering of the song. Sure sounds like a "z" to me. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No question it's uncited, and terms like "often" are slippery. What I hear is people pronouncing it like it was a possessive, which in American English at least is usually a "z" sound even though it's written as an "s" - as if it were "Auld Lang's Yne". (Or "Old Lang's Sign", as Allan Sherman put it.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi escape - I've put this bit into a little note after the IPA version of the Scots pronunciation. This means we are no longer telling anyone how to pronounce it - just saying how it is pronounced in Scots. After all, just how "often" it is pronounced "Zyne" must vary with accent and location. Personally - before I saw this article I had never heard anything other than "Zyne" and had no idea that this was not the correct Scots (!) so I don't think it is entirely irrelevant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Escape Orbit. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.