Jump to content

User talk:Lethaniol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.1.212.140 (talk) at 23:10, 11 March 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User:Lethaniol/Archive1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Automated Peer review of Catch-22 for me!!!

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Adoptee question

Hi Lethaniol, I am one of your adoptees. I apologize for lack of response to you in a while. We had been working on The Hitachi Foundation's entry that had been deleted. I have redrafted the entry and wish to put it up, but remember someone saying that it should first be placed on a discussion page. Which discussion page should I put it on? Will it be voted on? If there are pieces that the community feels should not be included, will they address that specific issue, or request to delete the whole entry? Thanks so much for your time! You have been a huge help and have kept me from getting too discouraged with Wikipedia. Julieatrci 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestripe

Could you take a look at this entry -- Michael E. Raynor -- and let me know if you believe there to be any issues? Need to know if it is a stable entry in the Wikipedia or if it could potentiall be deleted. Thank you. Bluestripe 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethaniol

Thanks for the review. Appreciate the assistance. Will work to wikilink. Bluestripe 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you help and be my mentor?

You were recommended to help me and be my mentor. If you have the time and are available, please let me know, I would appreciate all the help I can get. I have learning problems do to major medical problems. Thank you in advance, --Crohnie 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand your position. I think that I'll just try read and watch a little bit more with hopes this case gets a solution so that I can see what this Wikipedia is about and learn to use it. The case you mention is splashed all over the websites right now and I think I might just bow out of trying to become an editor. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it. --Crohnie 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your response on my talk page. This is the same advice I got from several other editors who have been kind enough to help me. I have only been bold enough to edit some info I found onto the article with the other editors telling me they would help me if I did it incorrectly. I got the idea but I still having been reading to learn and trying to just sit back and let the communnity calm down a bit. Thanks again, --Crohnie 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of editorial privilege

My understanding is that, if an article was deleted once, then it should be marked as WP:AfD and not summarily dimissed. Well, the article for The Strategy Paradox, was deleted without any discussion. Nor was it marked as an AfD. It was simply deleted. Counsel?

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). 04:42, 3 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) deleted "The Strategy Paradox" (Per CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.) 17:23, 31 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) deleted "The Strategy Paradox" (Per CSD G11 - Advertising - Please see our guidelines.) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Bluestripe 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the diligent follow up regarding the deletion of The Strategy Paradox entry. If Betacommand had not deleted the article and left it in place for discussion, then we could have added book review references from The Financial Times, BusinessWeek, The National Post as well as Strategy and Leadership. Bluestripe 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I added my thoughts to the discussion, including today's Amazon.com Sales Rank: #823 in Books. Thanks again. I didn't have the faintest idea of how to start the reveiw session. It is another wonderful aspect of the Wikipedia. Bluestripe 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balikem

I am the user who offered to adopt Balikem. I put the adoptme box back on because they have become inactive. According to their contribs, they haven't done anything since the day they accepted the offer, Feb 19. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ara Pelodi

Oh yes! Please adopt me. Once I have the sound files I'm working on edited, can you help me with upload and such. Thats a bit foggy for me.

Ara Pelodi 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddball info

Thought you might be interested in this. Spotted while wandering the world-wide-wait :-) [[1]] Shot info 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Shot this is an interesting link. I have not ignored but I am trying decide what to do with it. Thanks again Cheers Lethaniol 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LXXXI adopt

Hi, Lethaniol, thanks for your offer. I'd love to be adopted by you. Thanks a lot. Lxxxi 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking me under your wing... I'm usually someone who likes to explore and fiddle on their own, but its nice to know there's someone around to help! I look forward to learning abt WP under your guidance! Lxxxi 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

Howdy - please check out Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. I've reverted your edit at Wikipedia:Spoken articles since it is a serious article. -SCEhardT 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on outdoor equipment

I am quite an outdoor enthusiast and discovered that Wikipedia has very little information on this kind of stuff. For instance Terra Nova Tents, Bibler tents, scarpa boots. There is loads of info on this on the web, but maybe company history, policies etc and lists of adventures sponsored by and using those outdoor gear might make some interesting articles? There is no policy against articles on brands/companies? Lkleinjans 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under review

That would be because I'm a clot. Thanks for pointing it out. David Mestel(Talk) 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin

I am confused by this edit since the facts don't seem to fit. Did you intend that message for someone else? Cheers, NoSeptember 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing this out. Have sorted Cheers Lethaniol 12:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when you click on the admins name instead of the users lol Cheers Lethaniol 12:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it was

That 3 hour block, earlier this year, was a mistake. It was done, while I was away and it was not done with proper thought or consent. --Cheers :) Zazzer 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My little sister was the one that was adding the parts that shouldn't have been there. --Cheers :) Zazzer 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thane Eichenauer response

Hello Lethaniol, you said you had a question for me. I may well be shy on a 500 edit count that the guidelines say I should have to be an adopter if the adopter guidelines were strictly followed. Thane Eichenauer 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can address most questions likely to arise. Many questions are likely to be protocol (and can be answered by assorted variants of be good and refer to the five pillars and/or technical and most technical issues are just a matter of determining where to find an answer (e.g. the answer is in these *somewhere*). I certainly still have gaps of technical wikipedia knowledge but knowledge can always be acquired by reading the fine manual. Thane Eichenauer 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

I did not think was swearing but I see you have a point.Comic book swearing has the same effect with out words as real swear words. I'm sorry. Venado 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of Adoption

I thought that ended a long time ago Lethaniol - that's why I haven't been asking you for advice. I'm just waiting for my final banning so I don't really care what happens from here on (I thought I made that clear). And I've cut down my time here from 18 hrs a day to 1 hour a day - so I'm not going to be very thorough with my research - I don't want to invest the time researching something that is so easily removed after I've been banned. I tried working through consensus, others just edited the article directly without regard to consensus. So I'm just editing articles now and don't care about consensus any more. It's obvious that as long as some people aren't willing to cooperate, there's no reason for anyone to. So, yeah, I'm using Wikipedia as a soapbox... no different than the brochure that was produced in the Waldorf Ed article... an advertisement for Waldorf (better now than before, but still pretty bad in my view). You bet, I want to get this difficult material out there before I'm gone - it's real and it's constantly suppressed by the people who are disgusing Steiner's legacy. There's really nothing else for me to do while I'm waiting to be banned. There's no point in working for days consensually to get a sentence reading properly - this process requires too much investment for too little reward. You know I'm capable of better work than this - but what's the point? The minute I'm gone, someone else, anonymously, will remove everything I've done. So I am quite comfortable endlessly reverting material I don't like until I'm banned. Frankly, I wish they would hurry up and get it over with - as it seems to be a foregone conclusion. And the banning process was initiated by Fred under false pretenses. So why shouldn't I be bitter? Pete K 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warning

I was going to warn you to avoid a third revert on your behalf, a third revert constitutes a possible block, I'm not interested in blocking you, please discuss on talk page why you have removed factual, fully referenced material from a page cited for cleanup and also expansion...83.78.136.13 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flattering message, yet I actually have little to no interest in the roundup and glyphosate pages actually.I'm much more interested in a number of other articles, and I dont really touch the glyphosate page, I just notice it is flagged for cleanup and expansion so made a gesture, yet I leave it up to the editors concerned with the glyphosate page to make the changes they feel they wish to...(looking at last 100 edits to glyphosate it clearly looks like page is dominated by limegreen, beetstra, lethaniol, ttguy...no one else is really editing that page, including myself...skoll!...83.78.136.13 01:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ads to benefit Wikipedia

Terribly sorry about that. I created the ads in question; Real96 decided to try to push for my work used in a way that I never intended – I would be firmly against having them outside of userspace – Qxz 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your offer

In your last post to my page you offered to mentor other promising editors. I don't know whether BabyDweezil fits that bill, but this editor has requested a WP:ADOPT mentor at my recommendation. At WP:RFAR the Committee is 6-3 in favor of hearing the editor's request for a case. At present BabyDweezil is community banned and unblocked for the sole purpose of posting to the account's own talk page and the arbitration. I supported the community ban but am neutral about the arbitration request - the editor actually raises a couple of valid points about community banning that deserve to be addressed at the policy or guideline level. It would be an uphill climb to help this person: eight blocks by six different administrators in the last few months over problems at Scientology-related articles. I'm not actually asking you to adopt this user, but figure at this point I'm obligated to tell you about the situation. It's your call. DurovaCharge! 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roundup

thanks for the roundup edits, i agree with some of your changes such as change "giant" to "company", I disagreed with removal of "controversial" as it is in fact true and well documented that they are controversial, with a substantial amount of critics, (some people devote entire websites against them if you look around), and plus this word controversial just isnt a negative word, its a neutral adjective to state that they have critics or an opposition of some sort, just because something happens to be controversial doesn't really cast any negative or positive to that, plus its the only place in the article where monsanto is refered to with this adjective, it is simply established once that monsanto is a controversial company, there are other companies one could use this adjective for, and then there are many that really stir up no controversy that one couldnt use it for as it would be inaccurate, (for example it is a fact that there are frequent demonstrations against this particular company)...plus to use the word controversial isn't a bad or good and gives no opinion from the writer as to agreement with either side in a controversy...the only other change i disagree with was the reference tag at top, and I'm not really that concerned over it one way or the other, but truthfully if you look around wikipedia your going to find, perhaps even most articles, with far far fewer references, in fact most articles arent even near to the number of references in the roundup article, and while I do agree with you putting fact tags by things you feel really need a reference, I'm all for that, I just don't think you are treating the article as it stands to the same treatment most other wikipedia articles have by placing that specific tag up top, I think we would then need to head to most wikipedia pages for instance thruout the entire site and add the same tag, yet even with stronger wording, many in fact don't have a single reference, yet are quite good, its clear they did likely use references even though they dont state them, but anyways they don't have such tags at the top ...so I fully agree with you stating the article could use more references, and in fact I feel this way about every single wikipedia article, its just that I dont think that tag is really appropriate in comparison to other pages-85.1.212.140 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lethaniol&oldid=114407667"