User talk:71.77.20.119: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:20, 8 July 2010

Question

Whose SP are you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<humor>Wow! You must be my long-lost twin brother, 71! Cool! Which one of us gets to be the evil twin, though?</humor> — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noles1984 sandbox

I started using one bracket [ on each side of "Category:xxxxx" or removing "C" from word Category so that they would not show. I probably missed some.Noles1984 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on my talk page

Please get your facts in order before you accuse people of edit warring (one revert is not an edit war). 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting all further postings to my talk page. You can stop now. Hairhorn (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR and List of common misconceptions

Hi... It's not clear to me what section of WP:ENGVAR you're invoking as the basis for these changes. Could you specify? -- Rrburke (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning and have no objection to the changes. But since WP:ENGVAR has a number of subsections, if you were to cite in the edit summary the specific one you're invoking (in this case, Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Consistency within articles), you'd be less likely to face pushback. Happy editing! -- Rrburke (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since, ceteris paribus, Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Consistency_within_articles favours neither British nor American spelling, the clause that this user has fallen back on (in several terse postings on my talk page) is Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Stability_of_articles; it's not even clear if that part of the policy applies here. It's also not clear that this entry started out with American spelling: a brief dig through the history suggests otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another terse posting (and in case you don't like the fact that I am posting on your talk page, I remind you that I told you the best way to stop that is to not post on my talk page). First, I never said the article "started out" with either British or American spelling. Don't put words in my mouth (for a second time). I said that by about 2009 the article favored American spelling, but that both forms of English could be found in the article. Secondly, maybe your "brief dig ... suggests otherwise", but my more extensive dig suggests predominantly American spelling at about 2009. And finally, I have never objected to British spelling in the article if it is done consistently. I was trying to achieve consistency by changing to American spelling as I could find instances in the article that needed changing for consistency. What I DID object to was your suggestion that you might change another editor's attempt to change to American spelling (for the sake of consistency) by stepping in after those changes and reverting to British English simply because there remained some examples of both spellings remained in the article and because the article was not instantly changed to one form or the other. I have no idea why you have repeatedly failed to understand my points in this matter because I believe I have simplified them to the point that most third graders could understand. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the MOS, WP:ENGVAR is actually a guideline rather than a policy, which means that while it enjoys consensus and editors should attempt to follow it, it should be applied with common sense and a measure of flexibility. It is rarely worth fighting over, though fractious insistence on changing articles to conform with one's own national variety may be seen as disruptive if it becomes a pattern. I don't mean to imply that I see evidence of such behavio(u)r here, only that it's good to avoid it. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Number 23, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 71.77.20.119. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:The Number 23, you may be blocked from editing. JV Smithy (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sorry :/

Sorry. I didn't realize. I don't remember reverting that one. It was the section removing that caught my attention. I'll be more careful

Have a cookie?

JV Smithy (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintance Tags

Do not remove maintance tag from articles like you did to National Federation of the Blind unless you have addressed the problems. That article is sourcd only to primary sources for a subject to be considered notablel it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The advert is because the page appears to have be written about the subject by the subject to promote the subject rather than being an encyclopaedic article. Gnan garra 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the worse parts of the article & removed some blatant advertising, hidden a section that need attention but wasnt as bad. I also moved the article to disambiguate between US and the UK as they dont appear to be the same organsiation. Overall it maybe more appropriate to delete the article out hand but will wait and see if it gets improved. Gnan garra 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson.com Guitarist Rankings

I would like to challenge my additions to guitarist's pages being considered spam. I have two questions I would like answered. First, why are sentences about Rolling Stone magazine's ranking lists not spam and Gibson.com's ranking lists are? Both are from respected publications in the pop music community. Why is Wikipedia biased toward one and not the other? This appears hypocritical to me. Maybe there's a technicality I am not aware of.

Second, I find it interesting that some references to the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list that I did not put on Wikipedia remain on the site. For instance, on Danny Gatton's page, there is a sentence about his Gibson.com ranking that follows his Rolling Stone ranking. I was not the person who put this here. The other day, I incorrectly added an outside link to the sentence. That was my mistake and it was rightly removed by another editor. However, they didn't remove the original sentence. It remains on the page. So clear this up for me: It's OK for the Gibson.com list references to be posted, just not by me? I don't understand. Please explain. Thank you. Wawzenek (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek[reply]

Alfred Kunz

You shouldn't remove a reference just because the URL has gone dead. Even a dead url makes it easier to track down the reference. In this case the citation would be totally adequate even without a url, not every reference needs to be online. You can add Template:Dead link in cases like this if you want.Prezbo (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Joy to the World (House). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Category in sandbox

Thanks for telling me about the category I left in my sandbox. I deleted it. Every day is a learning process, right? --Rosattin (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It wasn't a personal attack, but it was irrelevant to the discussion about whether that page should be kept, as well as inflammatory. If you think that admins should watch those users or whatever, there are other places that can be brought up.—Chowbok ☠ 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got your point the first time. You'll note I didn't delete your comment again.—Chowbok ☠ 19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 It wasn't a personal attack, but it was irrelevant to the discussion about whether ''that page'' should be kept, as well as inflammatory. If you think that admins should watch those users or whatever, there are other places that can be brought up.&mdash;[[User:Chowbok|<span style="background:black; color:white; font-weight: bold;">Chowbok</span>]] [[User talk:Chowbok|<span style="color:black;">☠</span>]] 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 :Yes, I got your point the first time. You'll note I didn't delete your comment again.&mdash;[[User:Chowbok|<span style="background:black; color:white; font-weight: bold;">Chowbok</span>]] [[User talk:Chowbok|<span style="color:black;">☠</span>]] 19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Kill Bill==
-Do not send me a message like this again. What makes your edits more important than mine? You have accused me of vandalism and edit warring. You are edit warring yourself by changing my edits. If I am edit warring, then so are you. I have already disclaimed your vandalism charge:
-"Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing"
-First, you scoff at administrators when I remind you of their power when you make false vandalism accusations and now you threaten me with them?  [[User:79times|79times]] ([[User talk:79times|talk]]) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)