User talk:Pyrospirit

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Pyrospirit}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my user talk page. Please sign your posts using ~~~~ at the end of your message. I prefer communicating directly on Wikipedia, but if you want to talk with me privately, you can send me an e-mail.

If I tagged a page you wrote for deletion, please read why I tagged it and any related policies before asking me here. If it still seems like it shouldn't be deleted, go ahead and ask me and I'll try to explain my reasoning. Remember, I sometimes make mistakes. Please link to the page so I know what you're talking about.

Thanks!

That guy was really hacking me off! and by the way, sorry.

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MHE

Hi, it's common practice to tag a page for speedy deletion which is in an AfD discussion if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, which I believe this one does. Is there a reason you don't think it should be speedily deleted? Redfarmer (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'll self-revert that. I thought that there wasn't supposed to be a speedy tag on an article while it was up for AfD; I guess I was wrong about that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reminder

we're somewhat in a holding pattern here - [1]. Drop by? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids Medical Corridor

Uhm, I am not sure what the issue was with the paragraph form but I though as wiki editors we were to avoid lists. In anycase as for the Mid Towne Development everything listed in the paragraphs was listed in the site at the time of writing. Right now they are changing a few things but they will not publish anything until this spring. I have some messages from the developer but uhm I would prefer to have info that is easy verifable. A lot of the reasoning for the citations at the end of the paragraph is to show that I used two or three sites to make that paragraph. In anycase let me know what should be helped. BTW thanks for the quick review of the article and getting some links taken care of. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content I converted to list form is currently in a form that's rather unclear and has a lot of sentence fragments. According to Wikipedia:Lists, lists can be included in an article in some cases, and since I'm unsure of what some of the parts of the phases mean, I didn't want to add on something that might be factually incorrect. So, I converted it to list form, which makes the sentence fragments and such less of an immediate issue.

I think the next thing to do with the article is to clean up and improve the RDV/Christman Medical Complex and Mid Towne Village sections. The other sections seem pretty good for now, but the first section is somewhat confusing in my opinion, and the second section could really use some links and stuff. I think we should aim to convert the information on the RDV/Christman development phases back into prose as opposed to a list, but it'll need to be clarified and made into complete sentences first.

In the longer term, I'd like to aim for Good Article status as our goal. The article is already a B-class article, so GA is the next step. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand. First lets talk about RDV. That section I would like to get into a paragraph form. The first reference in the section appears to have the two phases laid out. So that should not be a difficult item to fix. As for the Mid Towne Village. I think the first paragraph should just be considered an overview look of the facility. I think some of the info in the Condo could be repeated in the intro paragraph. As for links should we be looking for links that talk about coding of the PUDs and the such are you looking for another citation. If you look at the citation I am using for the 2nd paragraph about the Womens center directly off the PDF that the group put out. So I am sure if there is anything else that would need to be covered. --Mihsfbstadium (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at those citations. Your suggestion for the layout of the section seems to be a good idea. One thing that I think might need fixing at some point is that some parts of the article don't have very good context for people who don't live in Grand Rapids. I might be able to work on that at some point, but it would be great if you could help rephrase parts of the article with that in mind too. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still open

Issue is still open: Talk:Palestinian_fedayeen#communal_editing. Give it a look when you can. Thanks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fairly busy this week, but I'll take another look at it when I get the chance. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is so crazy!

I'm a new user here but, it is such as conscience that i dream to be a Wikipedia admin, and i am on RuneScape too!!! Plz reply so i can add u to my friends list on Runescape!!

P.S I love your page!!!

Gossipgirl1 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gossipgirl1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nice to see another RuneScape fan here. I personally rarely play anymore, but if you want you can add my RS account. My main username on RuneScape is yaros_avatar. I'm glad you like my userpage; it's not as fancy as some, but it took some work to get it to look right.

One thing I'd like to point out is that admin status on Wikipedia isn't a major status symbol or a trophy. It's really just a few extra buttons and technical abilities, and from what I know of it (not being an admin myself), it seems to be more work and responsibility than the sort of thing you'd want as your main goal.

What really is a status symbol among Wikipedians is contributions to articles. Administrators are important, but I consider a non-admin who brings a few articles up to featured status much more critical to the project than an admin who makes few article edits. Adminship isn't a trophy, but articles brought up to featured status certainly are. Just something to keep in mind. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, i get what ur trying to say! My friend thinks that being an admin is just another bragging right! But i keep telling her that it is a privilege to be a admin, and not a way to show off. Could you plz e-mail her at [e-mail removed] to tell her, because she wont listen to me!!! Gossipgirl1 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell u that her Wikiusername is Thatshoturnot! She just edited her userpage today!! Gossipgirl1 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the e-mail address as it is discouraged to give out personal information belonging to people other than yourself. I took a look at Special:Contributions/Thatshoturnot, and I found nothing indicating that sort of opinion. I don't think an e-mail is really necessary; you can just show her WP:ANOT yourself to correct any misconceptions she might have about adminship. Someone who believes that adminship is "just another bragging right" stands virtually no chance of becoming an administrator anyway, so it's not much of an issue.

Oh, by the way, if you respond to this, could you reply in this section rather than creating a new one? It's customary to keep discussions on the same topic in the same section. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please oh please oh please help me with Thatshoturnot! She doesnt get it!!! You should she what she told me on her talk page! She doesnt believe a word i say about that!!!!!

Gossipgirl1 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

.:

RFA thanks

:.

Ha! MoP got the mop! Congrats on becoming an admin. Now... when do you plan on adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Italic text

Thanks!!!

I like it better!

Gossipgirl1 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Check out Template:Userbox for all the ways to customize your userboxen! Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Metadata script gadget

I installed it today. I suggest you to create some kind of "home page" at the Wikipedia namespace for the script, to report errors, and suggestions. Finally, you may experience some refresh problems at first, so get sure to purge contents a couple of times until it works. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bug report here. See if you can check that out, please. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for installing that, I'm looking into the bug right now. I'm not an admin, so any changes I make to the version in my userspace will need to be made separately to the gadget by an admin. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use encodeURIComponent() instead of escape() which breaks on non-1-byte UTF characters, e.g. in Poreč. You could also use sajax_init_object() from ajax.js in your script, like I suggested before, and pay some attention to User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata.js. Cheers. —AlexSm 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I've done both. If you have time, could you update MediaWiki:Gadget-metadata.js to match? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Radio Show

Hi, you recently helped edit this template I think so that the image is not required but optional for the A State of Trance page. Whatever you did made the image not work now on the Trance Around the World page. Do you think you could take a look at it again? Thanks. FOR GREAT JUSTICE. (talk · contribs 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very odd. I double-checked the code and it should render out exactly as it's meant to; however, the image isn't displaying for me either. Perhaps check back at WP:VPT again as I have no clue why it's not working. It seems to fail to display when an image is specified but the imagesize is not, so as a workaround, I'm specifying the imagesize in the article. We might have to revert my edit to the template if it can't be fixed, though. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re rollback script adaptation

{{talkback|Voyagerfan5761|Creating a variation on your script}} Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

al1012

oh thanks i did not see the link on the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1012 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you want to know more about the guidelines and policies relating to external links like that one on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External links. It's a very useful guide to which links are appropriate and where to put them. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|wcbpolish}}

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too! I think we could all use some spontaneous smilies/cookies every now and then. Wait that doesn't mean I want a bot to do it bad Bot Approval Group nooooo... Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Hill Article

I am having a problem in the article on figure skating coach Priscilla Hill.

Her major achievement as a skating coach has been coaching skater Johnny Weir to three US national championship titles and a World Junior Championship title, but there is another poster who has a bias against Johnny Weir and will not allow any information about his titles in the article about Hill, deleting it over and over (even though it is factual and properly referenced). I tried discussing it with him (her?) but the response was hostile and irrational (he said it doesn't belong in an article about Hill because they are "his accomplishments and not hers" - obviously, figure skating coaches are judged by the success of their students, and since Weir is Hill's only successful student, and those are his major championship titles, not mentioning that she coached him to those titles in an article about her is to completely omit her major achievements as a skating coach.

He also accused me of deleting information about Hill to make room for information about Weir in her article, which I have not - I have simply reverted his edits of the Weir information.

The other poster has the IP address 141.151.164.201. I cannot keep engaging in a nonstop editing war with this person, but it is ridiculous to have an article about a figure skating coach that does not mention her major coaching achievements because of one poster's personal bias against the particular skater she was coaching. It makes the article very incomplete.

Please help resolve this issue. Thank you. 64.222.244.219 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully looked over the article, and it seems to me that there is no major POV-pushing occurring. The difference between the two versions over which the dispute has centered appears to be quite trivial. In fact, the only major issue I see here is civility and edit warring; both you and 141.151.164.201 have violated the three-revert rule and have been uncivil towards each other to some degree. I recommend that you both stop editing the article altogether until you've discussed the matter on its talk page and have come to an agreement. The actual content of the dispute makes little difference to the quality of the article, but your edit war is without a doubt harmful to the article, and I will report the dispute to the 3RR noticeboard if it continues. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have looked at the discussion page on the article, then you know that I have already tried that route, as well as tried talking to 141.151.164.201 on his/her "talk" page. He/she refuses to discuss the issue on either of those venues, preferring to just revert what I have written on the article repeatedly. You can also see that 141.151.164.201 deleted my referenced information first and has repeatedly removed it when I put it back, replacing it with unsourced writings, which is in fact against Wikipedia guidelines. That is why I tried appealing to an editor for moderation, because I was tired of engaging in an editing war that was getting us nowhere.

I am afraid that telling me that I have to come to an agreement on the discussion page with someone who I have already tried to do that with but who has refused to discuss the matter either on the discussion page or on the talk pages does not help to resolve the matter. It also doesn't solve the issue of keeping the article properly sourced and referenced, or determine whether or not it is relevant to mention in an article on a figure skating coach her most important coaching achievements (in this case, coaching a skater to World and National titles).

Is there a higher authority that I can ask to moderate this? I mean no offense to you, but threatening to report me for asking for your help does not really seem like a very useful response to this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some help with resolving the issue, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, from looking at the situation, it seems to me that neither of you have been doing a good job at attempting to resolve the dispute. While 141.151.164.201 also continued an edit war, I notice that your attempts at communicating sounded angry and insulting. Calling edits that you don't agree with "vandalism" could also be considered a personal attack.

I will state again that the actual content issue seems to be quite minor and not especially important to the article as a whole. Incivility and edit warring are in this case a much greater issue. It may seem like "threatening to report" the involved editors is unfair, but my guess is that a good number of administrators would have simply blocked both of you on the spot for breaking the three-revert rule.

At this point, I suggest that you try contacting 141.151.164.201 again, this time politely asking to discuss the matter rather than angrily throwing around insults and accusations of personal bias. I notice that 141.151.164.201 did in fact respond clearly and civilly to you, so he/she is not refusing to discuss the issue. This seems like something that you can resolve with rational discussion; just stay away from personal attacks and assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School IP vandalism issue

Hi Pyrospirit I work at Great Southern Grammar, a school of 600 in Albany Western Australia. My email address is maxs(at)gsg.wa.edu.au One of our staff members found the message below. Can you track down for me the time that the vandalism occurred. It would be useful if this info was added to the reports. This has happened an a number of occasions this month and I know that the year 8s are doing a stem cell assignment.

Thanks 220.233.16.214 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Max[reply]

The recent edit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell?diff=215902802> you made to Embryonic stem cell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell> constitutes vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox> for testing. Thanks. Pyrospirit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pyrospirit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pyrospirit> *·* contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pyrospirit>) 05:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complete log of all edits to Wikipedia made from your IP address is publicly available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=220.233.16.214. The two warnings I gave were in response to two edits to the page Embryonic stem cell; each warning gives a link to the diff, which shows the exact time of the edit and exactly what changes were made.

Here are the log entries for those two edits from the contributions page I linked to:

05:29, 30 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Embryonic stem cell
05:28, 30 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Embryonic stem cell

Note that the times mentioned in the log are UTC, so you will need to convert it to your Australian time zone. Good luck tracking down whoever has been using the school IP for vandalism. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Planecrash111

Got it changes have been made thanks for the tip.(Planecrash111 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

David Linden page

Hi. I started the entry on David Linden that you flagged, and it has since been edited by me and by at least one other person. I was wondering whether some of your concerns had been addressed. If Linden passes notability now (or if he might), could you tell me how to fix the problem of his last name beginning with a lower-case letter? I haven't figured that issue out. Scooge (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the title. See Help:Moving a page for information on how to change the title of a page. While I'm here, I'll fix up the formatting a bit as well. As for the article issues, some of them have been addressed, so I'll modify the notice accordingly. By the way, don't forget to post to my user talk page instead of my user page when you want to contact me. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; sorry! I used to be a smart person before I started trying to work on the Wikipedia! ;) Scooge (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd guess you still are. ;) Wikipedia doesn't have the most newcomer-friendly interface, unfortunately. Also, on the scale of mistakes, posting a question to the wrong page is pretty minor when you compare it to the poor folks over at the village stocks. Hint: Don't delete the main page, crashing the servers is a bad thing, Jimbo Wales should not be blocked, and the correct title for the administrators' noticeboard is not "Wikipedia:BWAHAHAHAH". On the subject of the David Linden article again, I got rather absorbed in editing and ended up making a lot of changes, including deleting a whole section. From the perspective of someone who knows more about Linden than I do, were there any problems with the changes I made? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, except maybe the references to Joy McCann's blog, Little Miss Attila--though blog quotes are probably dicey in the first place. The one thing that's tricky about Linden is that because of The Accidental Mind I'm not sure he should be judged strictly as an academic, since as a "popularizer of neuroscience" he might also be sort of a pop-culture figure as well. Not sure.

I'll try not to block Jimmy Wales! ;) Scooge (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any references, just formatted the external links that were already there into references with link titles. I agree that blog references are often problematic, thus why I left a {{refimprove}} tag on there. I think he would still be considered primarily an academic, though I'm not entirely sure either. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]