User talk:Tb

Things to watch

Special:Contributions/68.62.217.75

Sockpuppet

It's user:Pionier, not Pioneer (no contribs) - User:Tvarkytojas. (It was Pionier but has become Pioneer after several reverts.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Tb (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in my talk page. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when he comes back - let me know and I will block him. Can you please go over his contributions from the multiple accounts and sort out / fix whatever he messed up. Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleaned up what I found. Tb (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvarkytojas

Some tools:

User:Tvarkytojas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

P.S. "Block user" won't work for you because you're not an admin. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it should be "{{user5|Tvarkytojas}}" (without "User:"):

Tvarkytojas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Oh, and "deleted contribs" also only work for administrators. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm forms

Apologies for deleting one of the psalm classifications just now. I'm no scholar (just have a lifelong interest in the psalms). A quick "Google" for "Historical Litanies" and "Pilgrim Liturgies" didn't reveal anything significant (to my untrained eye) other than things resembling Wikipedian-clones and a handful of devotional sites. So thanks for tempering my over-enthusiasm.

The whole article has a worrying lack of citations. But I'm not sufficiently resourced or expert to make any significant headway in addressing it. The Talk page suggests the article is B-Class. Is it? It would be good to get this higher.

(Oh, yes, and it was me, a few months ago, who provided the formal citation for the Brueggmann source. I hope at least I got that bit right!)

Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's B class. I don't have the energy to fix it all up unless we really want to make a solid go for it to be much better. Tb (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus

Hi Tb, I think Stargate SG-1 Episode Cold Lazarus is a fact and should be included in the list of " In modern culture" section of "Lazarus" entry. I see no reason for a requirement pertaining removal of a less-important one to include these few words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barayef (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Tb, I read your comment but I have some reservations on the approach mentioned by you. I think in an environment where no paper or ink shortage is present, and where you can always start a specific search on a specific word, it would be convenient to mention as many relevant data as possible as long as they are facts classified under the appropriate title. Moreover, I know many entries in wiki which allow numerous modern culture references of a given word. I think neither it would cause any harm to the purpose of the article nor expand the bulk of the entry in an unacceptable way as long as it is mentioned under the "in modern culture" subtitle, on the contrary, it would provide uptodate information which constitutes one of the characteristics and advantages of wikipedia.

My purpose is not to argue here but just to express my opinion that I don't find your argument in sync with Wikipedia spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barayef (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that ideal place for this discussion is Talk:Lazarus. I am new in wiki editing and didn't know it. I will try to explain my point there. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.193.198 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

I'm sympathetic and cynical. I have no interest in pointless pseudo-litigation of the make-believe variety. There is no way to 'win'. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geosign

I found some additional referencees for Geosign. Could you please take another look at the article? --Eastmain (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you check this out for me?

I appreciate your wisdom. Would you check this out for me? User_talk:Johnparkw#An_Observation John Park (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tb/British Isles

I will comment when the RfC is finally over (I am not trying to hurry you on). Can you remind me? Crispness (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the 'further idea' point, IMHO its a non-starter. Crispness (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'suspend' not 'close', whilst requiring a WPwide moratorium on everyone, EVEN wherever its use is plainly wrong (such as in 9 out 11 cases in the evidential record)? Come on. Gimme a break. Crispness (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't speak for him. You need to ask him directly. But personally I don't see the need for a moratorium anyhow. I seems to me to go against the whole WP ethos. Crispness (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not deal with this just now. Crispness (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

Excuse me, but I fully know the three revert rule. If you carefully examine all the edits, you'll see that I am trying to put something back in the header that keeps being edited out by another zealous editor, and on the other hand that same zealous editor refuses to allow a small edit (with reference) that is misleading and inaccurate from an encyclopedic standpoint. You'll also notice that I have gone to the talk page for discussion. A Sniper 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So where is the other editor's warning on his/her talk page? A Sniper 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, buddy

No, no, no excuse me Sorry about that. *fixes. Thanks so much for the notice. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You recently asked a question of me as to my lack of contributions on the RfC regarding Bardcom. Our schools are on holiday and I've been away for a few days so my lack of response was not due to rudeness. I studiously avoid editing or commenting on Wikipedia simply because I've seen what happens: lots of people become needlessly upset (often about minor issues) and spend hours fighting, thus losing sight of the point. It becomes a case of ego rather than truth or knowledge. The matter of the term 'British Isles' was brought to my attention by my neighbour who is an absolute Wikiholic; she asked my opinion because I teach her son Geography. Anyway, this led to me breaking my rule and making a comment - and lo, some people became upset. Case proven. However, I do think that the matter of the term would be best left to those who live in Ireland or the UK as they much better understand the volatility of the expression - especially for the Irish. I read your proposal on guidelines for its use, and (whilst rather verbose for me) it's obvious that you have spent a great deal of time and energy on this matter, so I hope it will be resolved amiably.

Some years ago I was involved in a very heated newspaper discussion and was told by a colleague much wiser than I that before sending in my 'perfect' and 'devastating' final response perhaps I should consider whether or not it would bring the other person (or me) closer to God. Immediately, I knew the answer and the letter was never posted. As for Wikipedia I shall now return to my practice of reading and watching (and, I do confess, being occasionally amused). Again, my apologies for taking a while to respond. iktae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iktae (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tb, I find it admirable that you should try to sort out the usage of the term "British Isles", it could be a very daunting undertaking. I say this because most of the editors so far involved have obviously taken one side or the other. Then there are some editors involving themselves who either haven't read the proposal, or just don't understand the issues involved. To me it's just a matter of the correct usage of the term. I also think that the term should be avoided unless it has to be used. And there the problem lies. It will never be fixed if only "British Nationalists", and "Irish Nationalists" have a major say, which seems to be the case. Anyone trying to maintain middle ground is just left "running about the place", making pleas for compromise on both sides, a bit like war. I hope to add my little bit in the next couple of days, and my response about the Irish Sea was a little bit of "levity" on my part. Otherwise good luck. 78.19.164.54 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]