User talk:Pinethicket: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:49, 3 June 2013

"I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." Capt. Woodrow F. Call.

Welcome to Pinethicket's Talk Page
Leave messages here, and I'll respond as soon as possible on this page

File:Lambert Estes Gwinn.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Lambert Estes Gwinn.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asda

Why did you change my edit to Asda? I have a friend who lives in Asda, and he is ashamed of what you have done to that town's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.243.137 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? 86.159.243.137 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neat trick; I'll remember that--Strabane. Have a nice day. Pinethicket (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Bank addition

Hi,

Thanks for the kind talk. I have posted a link to a website which is an online sperm donor bank (or "catalog"). I think that such a link is useful for everyone who search more information and links about sperm banks, especially online sperm banks.

84.228.190.180 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like Spam to me and also to another editor. Pinethicket (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments and edits to Columbus, Ohio

This is from the Columbus, Ohio Talk page: "Unless you are WP editor that (1) has actually lived in Columbus in the last five years and (2) willing to do some time doing research before undoing others` careful edits, please leave the nickname thing here alone, because you are likely to be flat wrong. A recent magazine in Columbus had the very name described as here today as "nonsense", the term "C-bus". (http://www.columbusunderground.com/c-bus-magazine-is-ceasing-publication). An Ohio clothing manufacturer, as mentioned in the Columbus Dispatch article "T`s with tude" (10.2.2008), sold 5000 shirts with "C-bus" on them; these were even sold at Port Columbus. C-bus is a real nickname of Columbus, Ohio, in current use, by real people. And this article has plenty of refs already, not to mention that it is silly to use a ref to restate common knowledge. Jack B108 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)" Jack B108 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you add a editors' note (invisible comment: "See talk page regarding resolution regarding nicknames") stating that consensus was reached regarding a talk page issue in the nickname section of the infobox. That prevents confusing situations like this. The statement "silly to use a ref to restate common knowledge" doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic! Pinethicket (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physical education

Thanks for your message. It was my mistake. I meant to revert the edits before yours. I've reverted myself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Escape Orbit; thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Pinethicket (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this. I was just going through the change log to find the last clean version to do it myself. XD - Amaury (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is a guess exactly where that is! Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leonardo da Vinci's personal life may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your head

Hi, you seem to have deleted my edit in the coconut article. I want you to know that I was shocked to see that there was no reference to the dangers of sitting below a coconut tree in the article. This is a real danger, and it is frequently portrayed in popular culture. The coconut article would surely not be complete without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.109.146 (talk • contribs)

It's unnecessary trivia. - Amaury (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Montana

Hi, i'm Crystal, thats my fake name, I er put my real name on Lenny Montana's artical, can you delete that? He really is my great grandfather though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.39.100 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit lasted all of 2 minutes. That is not bad! Have a nice day. Pinethicket (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand the computer science related to The Cigarette Smokers' Problem

However, the article has not, in all the time it has existed, contained an understandable elucidation of what the problem is; how any problem arises.

If you took a few minutes to read the article and the talk page, you would understand completely that the article starts out on a bad footing. It flops on its face right out of the gate, because the problem is not described.

Why not leave the optional title and maybe contact the authours and see if one or more of them have the inclination to address the fatal flaw in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.249.238 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious, post your comment on the article's talk page. That is what it is for. Pinethicket (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and lots of people have expressed the same sentiment in various ways on the talk page. Perhaps by putting the problem front and center, somebody who is an expert and may be motivated to begin even incrementally improving the lead~in, the (currently NON~Informative) statement of the problem.

By the way, hadn't encountered the quote from Dorothy Parker you have on your page head. Nice one ... she was Quite the gal.

Just overall, you editors need to be a lot more open to letting things evolve. You seem increasingly like a lot of strange folk running around instantaneously and Unthinkingly putting back in the precise spot a thing was before, any minute thing! anywhere! instantly... like, OMG OMG that thing has been changed! MOVED! OMG and zap!!!! revert, erase, undo. Are you all working so hard that you have all gone Quite Mad?

Lighten up man, go out in the sun and the wind and the rain once in a while. You are all stifling Wikipedia.

Crow Adoption removal.

Why did you remove my post concerning the Crow Adoption of the Notoweega. I provided a link to reference authenticity. Should I have Karmelia Bulls Plains the Crow Elder contact you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.197.172 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no place for a discussion or to post a question. That is the purpose of the article's Talk Page. Pinethicket (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]