User talk:Oliver Pereira

Hello and welcome! --dan

Hello! What's going on? I'm confused... ;) Well, no, not really. I think I'm sort of getting the hang of things... to a certain extent, anyway! -- Oliver Pereira

There certainly are a lot of features and conventions to get a handle on - don't worry it will come in time. Welcome aboard and don't forget to have fun. :) --mav

---

you are assuming well...I have problem with my browser sometimes (I have not been able to figure the pattern yet), it seems not to appreciate at all stuff put into < and >, so from time to time it just add some ; or change some < into weird characters.

I try to avoid editing pages with tables to avoid the problem, but here, I didnot think there could be some balise stuff, and the browser misinterpretated the font balise :-((. Ended with a non-closed balise, hence the greeeeeen everywhere...

My mistake. Sorry I didnot ckeck afterwards.

I don't think I qualify as a vandal usually...but I may do it again from time to time...user:anthere

Ah, that's all right. It was easy enough for me to correct! :) I wasn't sure if I should ask you first, but then I thought, no, all this greenness is making me feel too ill, so I'll have to change it for the sake of my own health... ;) -- Oliver Pereira 17:18 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

---

Since we're talking to each other now anyway, I'd like to apologise on behalf of Wikipedia for the way you were treated on the mailing list(s). — Toby 18:27 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Oh, that's quite all right! I probably shouldn't have jumped into a discussion of such a contentious issue when nobody knew who I was, and without thinking it through more carefully first. Thanks anyway, though. :) -- Oliver Pereira 20:13 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

---

Oliver, mi respondis al vi en mia diskuto-paĝo. Bonvenon al Vikipedio! --Brion 20:26 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Ha, jes, mi jxus vidis vian respondon. Dankon! Tamen, mi versxajne ne kontribuos multe gxis pli malfrua tempo, cxar mi iom timas verki artikolojn en Esperanto. Mi devas denove alkutimigxi al la lingvo... :) -- Oliver Pereira 02:06 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Ne timu! Via lingvouzado ŝajnas sufiĉe bona (aŭ eble la mia estas sufiĉe aĉa ;) ... kaj krome, artikolverkado estas perfekta praktikejo por plivastigi la vorttrezoron kaj fajnigi la stilon. Aliaj kontribuantoj trarigardos kaj korektos se io misas. Se oni volas alkutimiĝi iun medion, bona metodo estas simple ensalti kaj eklerni naĝi. Mi promesas, ke ne estas ŝarkoj. ;) --Brion 03:27 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

(Copied from requests for deletion:)

• Chocobo Racing
  • New page with no encyclopedic stuff. Subject unknown (to me). --FvdP 02:41 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)
    • Have a look at my new stub and see if it will do. But no, I don't know anything about the game, either... :) -- Oliver Pereira 02:54 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks ! I'm not too sure a video game deserves a wikipedia article, though. But... Let it live... FvdP 02:58 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'm sorry to hear that articles on video games may not be considered appropriate for the Wikipedia. There seem to be quite a few cropping up. I even made a start on an article for "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" the other day - despite having previously known virtually nothing about it! :) For what it's worth, my opinion is that it's better for the Wikipedia to err on the side of too many articles than too few... -- Oliver Pereira 03:15 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

Don't be afraid, I'm no authority on what is considered appropriate here ! And i agree with you on which side it is better to err. FvdP 03:31 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on things that some people think are uninteresting, including video games, television shows, music albums, cities, poems, variations of poker, obscure authors, and particle physics. Far better to err on the side of too much material than too little, as long as we stick on NPOV description. --Brion 03:27 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

Nice observation on Isaac Asimov with the double "most-famous" statement. Vera Cruz lol

Thanks! :) But deary me, all these edit wars are a bit of a nightmare, aren't they? I wish people would be more willing to compromise... -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:46 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

It just takes time. Ive been in an edit war on New Imperialism for about 2 weeks now and people are pretty much refusing to even talk to each other, but still its slowly evolving, at least the opening paragraphs are ...;> Vera Cruz

Actually, come to think of it, there were a couple of changes which you made to another article which I've been meaning to take up with you, but I'll leave that for another day, eh? :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:55 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

whenever Vera Cruz

---

No prob. I actually ended up agreeing with VC on the Asimov page (but I will not work on any article with VC). Ortolan88

---

I think you're Louis Theroux page may have been the 100,000th article. Lisiate

No, no, I think you get the crown. :) When I looked at the counter before posting Nigel Buxton, it said "99,998". After posting that one and Louis Theroux, it said "100,001". So I checked, and found that three articles had indeed been posted: since your one came in between my two, it must have been the 100,000th. Congratulations! :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 04:05 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. - I mean... *cough*... not that I was looking at the counter or anything... I mean deliberately trying to get the 100,000th article in that way would just have been terribly childish, wouldn't it? ;) -- Oliver PEREIRA 04:05 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

And I wasn't looking either ;) Lisiate 04:14 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh! I'm surprised more people didn't try for it, actually. I suppose everyone round here must be just far too sensible... or just asleep! Oh, and perhaps I should point out that checking the Recent Changes reveals that I posted Louis Theroux before Nigel Buxton. So, just swap them round in the above paragraph. Sorry for the confusion! -- Oliver PEREIRA 04:24 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Congratulations, then! I never noticed the counter at all. What I really wanted to say was... I had begun to think I was the only person interested in Siegfried Sassoon. It's nice to know that's not the case. Deb 21:36 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

If you mean on the 100,000th article thing, that was Lisiate, honestly! And as for Siegfried Sassoon... erm, I must confess that I only have a passing interest in him. Basically, I made an article on Marlborough College, and started looking for past pupils to link to it. Then I found that the Siegfried Sassoon article looked a bit POV, so I slightly reworded a bit. I might add some more later, though, if I ever get round to it... -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:47 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'll be interested in seeing more about Marlborough, anyway, for obvious reasons (Siegfried Sassoon's brother also went there, by the way, and his name is on the war memorial wall along with Sorley's). And there's that peculiar modernistic science lab that's a listed building... Deb 21:56 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Fair point, I wrote up the Princess Royal bit after doing bits on Anne's page. I think though her pre-marital surname should go in. However her surbame isn't disputed. I checked with the Buckingham Palace press office and her surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. She belongs to the House of Windsor and the Royal Family's name is Windsor, but that is different to her personal surname. As Wiki normally places in surnames, it is important that we apply the standard version for all. I am checking with the Palace about the correct surnames of the Queen's children. I'll then put them in the articles so we have an accurate version. (I'll also put a note in the talk pages to make sure everyone knows they are the correct surnames as a lot of people on Wikipedia seem to be mixing up the name of the Royal House with the personal surname, which is causing endless chopping around. :) JTD 02:23 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

You checked with the Buckingham Palace press office? That is impressive! :) Okay, it looks like we should use "Mountbatten-Windsor" as her surname after all. Is it all right if I leave it to you to put back in? It's probably about time I went home... -- Oliver PEREIRA 02:27 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh. Yup. BP press office. (Ok, among other things I work as a writer and commentator so I on to them occasionally. I've also been on to the President of Ireland's office to get permission to download official portraits of presidents for our pages on presidents! They are getting back to me on Thursday. Jeez. I am a real wikiholic. One query: you mentioned Princess Mary, Princess Royal as dying in 1965. That is what I thought to, and the website supports it, but the family tree at the back of Harold Nicolson's King George V says she died in 1967, which was news to me. I'll email the BP press office about it to check the correct year. (Yeah. I'll add in the change on Anne's surname. I am waiting for a 100% definite confirmation from them. All they could give me is 99%, as in "I've always understood it was MW. That's what we use. But just in case that is wrong (but I'm 99%+ certain it is right) I'll double check. But go ahead and use it anyhow. If you are wrong, we've been wrong for decades ourselves! )

Great work on the Princess Royal page. I just put in a stub based on that family tree. It is nice to see it updated and broadened so quickly. :) JTD 02:37 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

Just got word back from the Palace press office. The Princess Royal's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. And Princess Mary did die in 1965. JTD 16:25 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Good work! It's nice to know that at least some of the information in the Wikipedia is backed up by reliable sources. ;) I'm still worried about naming conventions for royal people in general, though. I can't decide what the most logical conventions would be. I'll have to give it some more thought. -- Oliver PEREIRA 22:04 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, its a nightmare for those people in the public eye with a complicated nomenclature. I've added in stubs for Royal House, House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor. What I suggested to some people is that in doing UK royal pages, we use their title in the article title, the correct surname in the opening line (with a link to Mountbatten-Windsor in that line), following by 'of the Royal House of Windsor', to enable people to get the full understand of the difference between Royal House, surname and title. Otherwise, everyone will keep undoing each other's changes in the articles, because they think 'their' approach is better. If we can all get agreed on one approach, it will make things much easier. So far everyone seems to agree with the THREE GENERATION RULE as the most workable option, subject to some refinements. Even looking through various UK and other royal sites, there are at least four different structures being used, with some people going through everything to follow one version; then someone else changing everything to do a different version, then a third changing everything once again. It is enough to drive you mental! JTD 22:24 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

Isis, I see that you have replaced the Juliette Binoche image today. Have you now established that we have permission to use it? -- Oliver P. 16:57 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. -- isis 00:35 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. You should put a note explaining this on the image description page. See Wikipedia:Image use policy, which says, "Always describe the image and where it came from on the description page. Images without descriptions may be summarily deleted!" Just thought you'd better know! -- Oliver P. 02:51 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

I did explain it: It's a replacement for the one you objected to that I deleted after I uploaded this one. -- isis 04:16 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)