User talk:Debresser

Linnea Sinclair

Linnea Sinclair This is the main article.

Megan Baker and Megan Sybil Baker
These are just pages that redirect to the main article. Note that Megan Baker is an article about somebody else with a disambiguation refering to Linnea Sinclair

This is my first try at writing a whole article. It's not going to be anything spectacular, but I'll learn a lot from it. And please be patient: although I don't intend to drag on endlessly with it, I'm also going to try to do it right, which will take some time. See you there. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously a big fan of hers. Please keep in mind our rules about impartiality and a neutral point of view. Anything that reeks of the fansite is likely to be killed quickly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of hers, so don't worry. I did like the stories I read so far. I'm doing this because of two reasons.

1. I was looking for a Wikipedia page on her myself.
2. For the fun of writing a Wikipedia page myself.

Apart from that, I am aware of Wikipedia's NPOV rules, and a lot of other rules too :) (no shortage of rules on Wikipedia). Debresser (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine sells buttons at science fiction conventions that say, "Oh, no! Not another learning experience!" --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All information collected today. Set up what you see so far. Tomorrow I'll write the article. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's finished! Now let's have your improvements! Debresser (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}How could I delete my userpages? Debresser (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can tag them with {{db-userreq}} and an admin will delete them in a short while. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done that and changed the references to them in this subsection to the real pages. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For collectors of Favicons only

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. At the moment I have over 3300 of them. A few of them are 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice collection. I'll see if I can help out.... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have over 3600 favicons. These are my "orphans", so to say. I'd off course be very happy with your help. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Romantic Fantasy

I reworked the lead of the Romantic Fantasy article. See the Talk page there for what and why. I'd very much appreciate your input.

The subsection on Fantasy Romance in the Romantic novels article was written by Marc Kupper and is based on the new lead. Debresser (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the list of examples of Romantic Fantasy too. And explained myself on the Talk page. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

David Weber

I started working on the article about Science Fiction writer David Weber.

So far I made just a few small edits, like adding references, removing irrelevant links, small changes in the external links. I'd appreciate your help and advice.

One of the biggest problems is finding sources. Many articles on the web are just copies or excerpts of the existing Wikipedia article. I'm starting to think that this is the case with many subjects... Debresser (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to start a new project. I took a quick look and realized the Weber article was one I'd glanced over before. I agree this business of copying stuff from Wikipedia is a pain. There's also a bunch of web sites out there that try to trap the Google spider or to appear "authoritative" or "official" on some subject or another where I'll recognize the site they stole their data from. Ideally people would be encouraged and allowed to write and maintain their own Wikipedia bio as it's extremely likely there not a single iota of information out there that's not directly from the person him or herself. That's also why I believe most of the people, companies, practices, etc. that have articles are not genuinely "notable" as they never attracted outside attention, research, and thus notability. Most of the data about someone/something is from the person.

BTW - something I have been doing recently is whenever I read a book or anthology I look at the introductions and such to see if they can be mined for things to go in articles. For example, I added this based on an editor's intro. The source is usually the person him/herself but at least it's likely something you won't see on all the web sites, especially for pre-web books. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I just meant the usual: fixing mistakes, advice. I'll gather information tomorrow, and put it up the day after. Shouldn't be that hard, especially since there is already an article to start with.

Good and logical idea, about those introductions. I guess that's the same information as the short bios they have on publishers' sites. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I was just passing through and saw your comment here. A neat trick when searching for reference material to add to an article is to add the term "-wikipedia" to your search term; e.g. /"david weber" -wikipedia/ (omit the slashes). That means your results will include only pages that contain the term "david weber" and not the term "wikipedia", which at least excludes those sites that admit to ripping off WP :) Gonzonoir (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So far I collected information. I'm working on it. In the meantime I have used parts of it to make small contributions to the following pages:

• Honor Harrington
• Honorverse
• Republic of Haven
• Andermani Empire
• Silesian Confederacy
• Military Science Fiction
• Space warfare in fiction
  Debresser (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heavily updated, completed and corrected the Published works section, both of David Weber and of Honorverse. The table of books in the Honorverse article, which reflects the Published works section of that same article, is copied in another 8 articles. That is after I deleted it from another two articles where it seemed irrelevant to me. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished writing on the David Weber article. Now let's please have your additions and changes. I have not divided the article into sections. That's the first thing I'd expect somebody to do. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of the Honorverse

I have made the following proposals

1. Add the list of books set in the Honorverse to the Honorverse template. The proposal was made here.
2. Delete the following articles, as they are not notable and are anyway completely covered by other articles as specified:
   1. Chief_of_Naval_Operations_(Honorverse)
   2. Hereditary_President
3. Delete the following categories, as they are examples of wp:overcategorization:
   1. Category:Grayson
   2. Category:People's_Republic/Republic_of_Haven
   3. Category:Spacecraft_in_the_Honorverse
4. Delete the following not-notable redirects:
   1. President's day (Honorverse), which I hope will soon be a redirect to a non-existing article.
   2. Harris Assassination, which redirects to an article that didn't even mention the Harris assassination till I entered one sentence about it. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition I have proposed to add the Honorverse template to all 18 books that are set in the Honorverse. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition I have added, changed or deleted a few of the entries in the Honorverse template, as specified here. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the words "in the Honorverse, a series of military science fiction novels written by David Weber" to the lead section of all Honorverse articles, in one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see, various of my proposals - though not all - have been accepted and implemented.

There are many redirect pages in the Honorverse. In accordance with policy they should be added to appropriate categories. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the list of books to the template; I have added the template to all articles about books; all as proposed above. Debresser (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all 4 articles from the Category:Planets in the Honorverse. Three of them were already listed in the Category:Nations in the Honorverse and the List of planets in the Honorverse I moved to Category:Honorverse locations. I'll propose deletion of the Category:Planets in the Honorverse, as I think it completely unnecessary alongside Category:Nations in the Honorverse. Compare the Honorverse template which also has a category "Nations", but no category "Planets" (just a list of sectors and a list of planets in a category named "Others"). Debresser (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I worked on the redirects. To give them appropriate categories. And in doing so I did a lot of work (!) with internal links (including redlinks). Debresser (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

D, Thanks fo ryour note.

We are here enjoined to write brilliant prose, all the while avoiding typos and misspellings (hard in English with its deranged spelling conventions) and following all of WP's multitude of rules and guidelines. And to be civil and yet accept merciless revision of our brilliant prose. Not, I think, something any of us can really achieve. But worth the effort for some.

In the case of the edits to Honorverse articles, I have indeed revised your intro to some sections. Note that boilerplate repetition, in each section, of phrases is mostly less than brilliant. My changes have tried to provide a bit of an increased glint. As for the phrase changes, they are mostly to remove slightly odd English or to improve the cadence here and there. On occasion, I have taken the liberty to add (or change) material which does not correspond with the books/stories. I have also removed or revised speculation on one or two occasions.

You will likely find that quality work, even if it seesm at first blush to be contrary to one or more of those guidelines or rules is welcomed by most editors. Those who don't simply oblige the rest of us to take another pass.

I hope that eases your mind about the edits I've found myself doing for the past few hours. ww (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You did great work, as I wrote you on your talk page as well. You will notice that apart from typos and one small thing I didn't touch you edits. But the first sentences of all articles and sections that are targets of redirects should unequivocally make clear what the article/section is about. That's why I use that repetitive phrase about the "Honorverse" and include the word "fictional". It's always good prose that has to pay the price in an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Did some more work on the redirects.

1. Fixed redirects to real-world articles and turned them to their Honorverse counterparts.
2. Some more redirects are up for deletion, see here and here.
3. Redirects are now catelogized (if not trivial alternative names), so you can find them in Category:Honorverse and its subcategories.
4. Redlinks almost all either redirected (when possible) or deleted (if non-notable) Debresser (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Category:Star Kingdom of Manticore, which has now 61 articles. Added categories where necessary to all Honorverse articles and redirects. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll see the best mod I can make (to date) to the boilerplate you've been adding to the first sentence or two of all honorverse articles at Treecat. I'm trying form something more glinting then the boilerplate phrases, so far not very brilliantly.

I take your point about redirects not being confusing, but balk at leaden phrasing. Ah well, we'll get something all will like sometime.

On another point, I note that Ukrainian Supermen redirects to a section in another article entitled Sol or something like that. I think this is not viable for two reasons. First, the group in question was not, according to Weber here and there, particularly tied to Ukranians and so is something of an ethnic slur. The baldies just happened to be Ukrainian genengineers and fanatics, but most Ukranians weren't such. Second, we ought not to have such a link (ie, a redirection to a very sparse section of another article). I've been editing here nearly forever it seems, but have resolutely avoided learning much about the mechanics behind the curtains, so I am reduced to asking those who do understand the backstage stuff to turn up the lights and raise/lower the curtains. Can you find a way to remedy this unfortunate redirect/link? Thnx. ww (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't have been created. But once it's here there isn't any better place to have it redirect to, bad as it is. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In a recent edit summary (at Treecat) you revert some edits I made, asserting that 1) we have discussed this and 2) that it's standard in something like 100 articles and a fait accompli.

As to 1), we have not discussed it to consensus, even between ourselves. When I noticed your edits (including that one) in several articles, I changed a few, and left you a message (above) noting that 'boilerplate' <> 'brilliant prose'. I did not agree, nr do I now. We can come up with a better way to address the issue if it needs to be addressed. As to 2), it is not WP practice (at least en.WP) to let difficulty of redress preclude correction. Perhaps there should be a larger discussion on these points to reach consensus as among more than you and I?

Finally, some of the stories are not military SF (The Stray, A Beautiful Friendship, the story about Helen Zilwicki escaping from Scrags on Old Earth, ...) and at least one of the HH novels is only barely so, being mostly a study of conflict in a conservative society (Flag in Exile, I think -- anyway it's the one in which her shuttle is almost shot down and Burdette is killed in the duel). Another Honorverse novel is also not very military, either, Crown of Slaves. For that matter, Service of the Sword can be seen as not primarily military, rather mostly about frontier conditions in the presence of a corrupt frontier administration. On that reading, the discovery of the Lynx Terminus is merely the macguffin necessary to the plot, and it's mostly a policing story with a large criminal organization or two thrown in for spice. The military science fiction label is, to some extent, inapt though obviously tempting. ww (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that because of two short stories in the Honorverse anthologies (of which one was written by Linda Evans) we shouldn't use the word "military science fiction" for the whole of the Honorverse works. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You do have a point as to some of the main Honorverse novels carrying less of a military character. But then again, that didn't stop Rob H. Bedford from saying "David Weber is one of the giants of modern Military Science Fiction having created the popular and best selling character/series Honor Harrington" in a Official sffworld.com Book Review. So you see I'm in good company, and having a source is very important in Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just now noticed that whoever made up the Template:HonorverseBook also categorized them as MSF. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually looked at your edit contributions re the honorvese and am somewhat shocked at the volume (or maybe it's blinding typing speed). For which effort you are to be congratulated. However, our disagreement about blanket boilerplating of all honorverse articles, and the inappositeness of that Ukrainian Supermen link is not trumped by volume or speed of edit. Consensus is required, if only as an artifact of the ruthless revision warning given all editors. And, as between us, we've not reached any such consensus.

Your reply to my point about Urkanian supermen as a page in the Honorverse category and its inadequate link destination illustrates some of this. That "bad as it is, it should stay" is simply dismissive of another editor's concern. As that's all I've heard from you, I went ahead and changed the link destination leaving a pointer to Supermen (not a good one, and one I hope someone -- you?) can improve to get around the problem I noted. Perhaps you can take a look? And, since you understand more of the scaffolding behind the scenes than I, adjust the Honorverse template page list to delete the reference to a Ukranian Superman article?

On another issue,you reverted at Treecat. There are two problems. First, the missing citations tag had been there for a long time, no one had done much about it (certainly not I as I think such tags in articles about fiction are inherently categorically wrong) and no none had deleted the so noxiously offending article. Nor discussed the vital issue(s) involved on the talk page. Hence, i have come to regard them as simply gratuitous surplusage. Mere tag bombing, simple Wiki-cruft, and not privileged over more considered perspectives. Adn of course the boilerplate issue remains. ww (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back, and I saw you did a lot of nice little things with a few articles in the Honorverse. Thank you for complementing me on by work for the Honorverse.

As far as the Ukrainian Supermen are concerned. I understand you have a problem with the term "Ukrainian Supermen" as it would imply that all Ukrainians of that time were changed into some type of supermen. First of all, this is just as true as saying that "American women" implies that all women are American. So I actually think that there is nothing wrong with that term. So for me this was no case of "Keep it, bad as it is".

I was quoting you, or at least the sense of your comment.

Apart from that I think I removed that connotation when I placed Ukrainian in front of the internal link (like this: Ukrainian Supermen). Do you agree with me? Or did I perhaps misunderstand you?

The problem is not as your analogy would suggest. It's more parallel to 'American ice-axe murderers'. Unless the 'American' is necessary, it invites invidious extension to all Americans or at least confusion as to meaning. The genengineers were, according to one of the stories, Ukrainian racist fanatics. Their subjects were also Ukrainian I suspect, as they are described as 'Slavic' looking, though that's sloppy and troublesome usage as well as there are a variety of Salvic faces, not merely one type. According to Godwin's law I must now introduce the Hitlerian reduction of the appearance of all Jews to the ugly stereotype used in Nazi propaganda posters. Consider it to have been done by reference. That's why I think the phrase 'Ukranian supermen', however it's broken up and sort of linked, is unfortunate. We should perhaps say something more explicit like "the supermen bred by a bunch of lunatic renegade Ukrainian genengineers". According to the latest (Storm of Shadows as available on line), a very similar theme is likely to dominate the next few novels and stories as Mesa is being revved up as the future baddies. Surely obvious in the last Honor novel, but much more explicit now. Best to avoid unfortunate phrases now, rather than keep them for lack fo something better. 'Better', in this case, being easy to arrange.

The missing page is linked, I think, in one of the Honoverse summary pages. A look at my contribs list of late will turn it up quite promptly. Probably List of regions or something. Anywhere it's where the old link pointed, about which i quibbled in a prior note. I'll have a go at it before I sign off, if my somewhat porous memory manages to retain.... something or other... ww (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference to "Ukrainian Supermen" in the Honorverse template, see Template:Honorverse. There does exist a redirect from Ukrainian Supermen to List of regions of space in the Honorverse.

As to your changes in the templates of Treecat. This is their common usage and this is what they were designed for. It seems to me that you have been caught up in some in-world - out-world loop, so to speak. Because in the framework of describing fictional work that description needs to be referenced. If you get my point. One other Wikipedian (actually a renomated admin) also expressed his concern about that edit of yours to me, although that didn'tget to me until after I reverted it.

Common usage is not adequate justification for WP content. Consensus is. It was that consensus, albeit a silent one, which led me to regard those tags as Wiki-cruft and to remove them as I noted (in the edit summary?) from the article. I'm innocent of a treecat template, and certainly didn't edit one. The 'loop' ref escapes me, as does the 'mnomated admin' -- do you mean renomimated? In either case, I don't see the relevance. I'm been an admin for a long time, but as I promised in my acceptance note, I've not been a policing sort, remaining concentrated on content and article quality. But it matters not, as I see it. ww (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The "boilerplate issue" remains, but as far as I am concerned it is obvious that doing so is in the interest of the encyclopedical character of these articles, so unless you'd start a discussion about it and consensus would clearly be otherwise, I will try to maintain the status quo in this aspect.

Agree as to boilerplate. Disagree as to status quo as a reason to keep or discard. There is no status quo, given the ruthless editing by others mandate. Resort to such an argument is thus feckless. Consensus amongst interested (as shown by activity) editors is the test, and it varies as I've found to my distress on several occasions. We're stuck with that arrangement, I think, and will just have to cope as best we can. The assorted attempts ot police the Wild West by setting up WP wide policies are becoming more trouble than they are worth as is shown by those editors who have become tag bombers without much thought. Especially the citation needed police. Some cops should just stroll down the street looking neither right nor left as they've no sense of the malleability of acceptable human behavior. One might consider the positions of some political parties in this light....

I don't think it accurate to labele the entire Honorverse as military sf, though a good deal of it certainly is. We need a better rubric; since deleting it on writing quality grounds is unsatisfactory to you (an active and interested editor). My objection to the boilerplate is that it's bad writing and decreases WP quality, regardless of accuracy. You will not that severl of my recent Honorverse edits were of the better English phrasing type, not content changes. ww (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant renominated.
• The common usage of templates reflects consensus. I'd say this is per definition.
• It has been argued (that may have been you) that some books in the Honorverse series don't have much MSF. Nevertheless, I argued, the two arguments for calling the series as a whole MSF:
  1. There are third party sources that have said so
  2. The absolute majority of the Honorverse series is
• I would like to hear if you have any proposals for a boilerplate that should include all the information of the present one, but sound better in English. I am not a native English speaker, so I understand I might use akward English.
• I really can not see your sensitivity concerning "Ukrainian Supermen" (or "Ameriacan ice-axe murderers" for that matter). Frankly speaking I do not think you or I have a choice in the matter, because the term is used in the Honorverse books. Just like we can't call "treecats" "treedogs" just because we dislike cats and adore dogs, likewise we can not make up any other term for "Ukrainian Supermen" that would sound any better or any worse.

Debresser (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We do have a choice as to how we phrase things and are not corenred by Weber and others fictional constructions, even in describing those creations. This business has been a peculiar one. Like obscenity (in a famous frustrated phrase by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart), I know an unfortunate phrase when I see one. Making the reason for the unfortunateness explicit is sometimes harder, as in this case. The US Supremes had much trouble doing so in the case of legally defining obscenity, so I'm not alone in my troubles. I'm not, in the following, departing from the canonical use of the term in the various stories and novels.

On the question of templates being by definition consensual, I think you've missed a point or two. The invention of the template mechanism was intended, if I recall correctly, to simply save time and effort. it was welcomed on the basis, or so my impression of reactions at the time was. The content of templates is not sacred nor to be accorded any more protection than any other WP content. So a resort to "the template says it this way" does not settle any difference of opinion. :As for WP:policy <pick one or many>, the situation is similar. They are not Holy Writ and can and have been changed. Some are inherently unworkable for one reason or another, some are perfectly fine save for an awkward codicil here or there, and others are so fundamental that they are not likely to be changed in any of our lifetimes. The demand for citations in the case of article covering the background of fictional universes is one which is logically silly. There is no authoritative reference to cite save the author's output, and that is subject or whim and reversal at any time. And discussion of some items cannot ever be except in terms of the fictional universe and has little or no other than trivial relation to the real world of (WP hopes) citable authoritative sources. That neither of the tags I deleted had been responded to in all the time since they were left by some passing tag bomber suggests that the interested editors didn't give a damn, thus converting their status from an ostensible cry for WP reliability support to mere Wiki-cruft. I leave aside Post-Modernist style constructions of relevance or non-relevance of this or that as inherently without content. WP, its policies, and nearly all of its conventions are not handed down from on High. They are not, almost always, not even enforced by the internal logic of some software somewhere. They are the result of pushing and pulling amongst those who chose to be involved and are subject to review at any time. It is not adequate response to point ot a policy or someone else's opinion as authoritative. WP is not an exercise in Scholasticism. Editors are however, constrained to work within the overarching obligations of civility, good faith, consensus, and ruthless editing of their stuff by others. Comment on anything here? ww (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here. But I don't see any reason in all of this to agree with what you tried to do to those templates in Treecat. I still hold that they were being used in the way intended, and understood by all Wikipedians. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The chief issue about the genengineers in question is that they were True Believing racist fanatics who caused much trouble and death by plowing ahead and doing what they saw as the "right thing" to the exclusion of all other considerations. We have in this world had some extended experience with those of similar True Belief (many terrorists fit this description, and chattel slavery, particularly that based on skin pigmentation, certainly did), and there is a considerable historical record of such things. That the fanatics in the present case were Ukrainian racists is mere accident unless one is prepared to argue that their is something special about Ukranians which leads to this sort of action. Such arguments vere into Hitlerian territory. So absent such arguments, it's misplaced emphasis to have an article on Ukrainian supermen -- the actual supermen didn't have any choice about it as they were the engineered victims and could have been Chinese (save for their creators racist fantasies). To note as a matter of 'historical' fact, that the Final War was started as the result of the machinations of a bunch of Ukrainian racist fanatics who happened to be genengineers is fair enough, I think, but not in an article title which strips out just about all of that information, leaving only unfortunate apparent implications about Ukranians.

So, having brought some of the 'obvious' into view, I again argue that no article with the title Ukrainian Supermen should be present on WP -- at least not as a result of covering a fictional universe.

My earlier suggestion of using more words to make clear the underlying ground, and so avoiding quite plausible misinferences, would work.

Reactions? ww (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So, having brought some of the 'obvious' into view, I again argue that no article with the title Ukrainian Supermen should be present on WP -- at least not as a result of covering a fictional universe. Your implicit thought that it might be an artifact of fluent English writing is, I think, not quite on point. Though not having close acquaintance with other languages' conventions, I don't think I'm really competent to comment. The avoidance of boilerplate is good English writing, though that it not the convention in some other languages in which exact repetition is thought well of. To anticipate your question, I will say that I've spent a moment or two trying to identify an example, and to remember where I ran across this bit of oddity, but can't come up with either. One of David Crystal's works is probably a good guess to the second, though. My earlier suggestion of using more words to make clear the underlying ground, and so avoiding quite plausible misinferences, would work. Reactions? ww (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add more information. But I don't understand: we don't have an article "Ukrainian Superman", just a redirect. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have a small question about your last edits to List of Honorverse characters.

I understand how one can have a personal and an official relationship with somebody (like Cachat and Thandi), but how can one be someones personal and official friend (like Rafael Cardones to Honor Harrington)? Debresser (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I read the novels, Cardones is an official associate (having been an immediate subordinate on several occasions), but also a personal friend, something not true of, for instance, Gregory PaXton, also a former direct subordinate. The same was true of KcKeon, which acounts for the sharp and extended reaction to his death, both by Honor and in the number of pages devoted to describing it. Cachat, on the other hand, has an official relationship (in essence hunting for evidence of Mesan involvement in the Torch assassinations, with Honor's support; he is reporting to her through the ex-countess of the Tor, after all)), but no personal relationship they having met once under somewhat unusual circumstances.

Did I actually claim a personal relationship of any kind between Honor and Thandi? Shouldn't have, if so. ww (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not between Thandi and Honor. I didn't understand why you call Cardones an "official friend" of HH. The words "official" and "friend" don't seem to fit together naturally. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Honorverse template

I noticed you changed the Honorverse template. I have two questions.

1. I didn't understand what was wrong with the way it looked before. I understand it's something technical? It seemed to work fine though.
2. The way it was before it looked nice: colorfull, two nice collumns. Could you make it look like an orderly table again?

Debresser (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It can still be colorful, it's just that the way you did it is not appropriate for use with navbar templates. If you wanted a book template, you should have made a second separate one, or made it with the same format as the old one, or integrated it INTO the old one. The old template was collapsable, your change isn't. That defeats the purpose of having a collapsable template. There are many non-collapsable templates, the Honorverse template is not one of them. Plus you've not formatted your table correctly, since it wasn't centered. (unless you meant to do that, in which case, it stylistically looks odd to not be centered)

The fix-up I did was quick and dirty, really, it should be one template, and not two functioning as one, or there should be two separate templates.

• {{Honorverse}}
• {{Honorverse books}}

Your table is also quite large. From my experiences on Wikipedia, it probably would have been zapped by some other editor for excessive size even if I didn't change it. Footer templates are supposed to be small. (even though some of them are huge... those seem to draw complaints because they are huge)

76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about collapsability. And about being too large as well. I have no problem with the new form you gave it. Just that it didn't look as nice as the second part of the template.

I do not see any problem in having a template made up of two parts, especially since the division in this case comes naturally. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you say about the way it looks now? Debresser (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks ok. I've removed the hanging dots, and removed the extra lines (when making templates, where you start lines and place include , includeonly , noinclude tags can make extra empty lines appear for no reason). There should be no blank line at the end of a template, so I've also removed that. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the dots (that was indeed an oversight of me) and the blank line at the end.

Changing the position of the tags does not make a difference, as in Wikipedia a new line is not a new paragraph unless there is a blank line in front of it, but the way I had it before makes the table more easily overseeable when editing it. Not important enough to make another edit though :) Debresser (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It does have an impact if you have multiple nav templates. I've frequently corrected extra blank lines because of misplaced tags. The blank lines appear because they are transcluded. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the whitelines I just added, before the template, so that it shouldn't come too close to the previous text. Have a look now if you like it. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's leaving blank lines right now. Template talk:Honorverse/testcases 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just corrected the extra blank lines before the template issue. (same way I did before, removing the lines between "noinclude" and the start of the template. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Honorverse... Perhaps there should be a whiteline before and after the first part of the template? To make the overall layout look better. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with anon. We should either have two templates, or one bigger one, but standardized. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would be in favor of two templates. Although I would automatically put both of them in every article connected to the Honorverse. But my opinion remains that having two navboxes in one template is no problem. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

An Honorverse books template could be used on its own on author pages, instead of both templates, which probably should be there. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But David Weber has written more books than just the Honorverse series. So that wouldn't work, I think. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That would work because you can have multiple nav templates. If they are collapsed, then they don't take up much space. Many authors have a book series nav template on their pages. Aside from Weber, there's also Eric Flint, etc. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to build template:Honoverse/doc and place the description there, along with {{Documentation}} 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you putthat "see also" in the template? Perhaps you didn't notice it's allready there at the end of the second part of the template? Debresser (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yes I missed it. Though it seems more appropriate on the top half, since it's a real world product, and the article deals with the real world product, and not the in-universe fictional simulator used in the novels from when Honor was commandant. So... which is the more appropriate section? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not appropriate for both sections. The first since it's not a book, and the second as you said (see also the talk page of the template). I'd say the second part is the more appropriate. I don't have any real arguments, but I definately dodn't like the "See also" variant. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself covers the Jaynes... books. Well, remove it if you want. If the template is split in two, then I think it should be reinserted at that time. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the list of books at the 'List of Honorverse Characters' page?

I figured you might know... What happened to the list of books at the 'List of Honorverse Characters' page? LP-mn (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It's now part of the Honorverse template. As all templates, you'll find it at the bottom of the article. For most articles that is where it was anyway, but in this case that's a bit of a move. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered a question of yours here. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Noooooo. It's _NOT_ at the bottom of the page. LP-mn (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that table is useless for the needs of the LoHC. The list uses abbreviation for the various books that are not reflected in the table that I _THINK_ you're referring to. LP-mn (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, is there an "anchor" or some other sort of html-like / wiki-code that I can use to link to the template? You moved it, but you didn't bother to repair _ALL_ the NUMEROUS links to the table.

BTW, is there some sort of an editor that can be used to so some sort of a mass edit that is now needed? LP-mn (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your question. The table was not a template before and therefore there were no links to it. It appeared in 9 pages and all are changed now simply through the template. That was the whole idea of the template. If I misunderstood you, please ask again. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since your last message, I've been busy too. Take a look a the LoHC page, you'll see a "===References===" link just before the template. While I've got your attention, please look a the sub-TOC's before the letters 'A' & 'B'. I've just tweaked it from the 'B' to the 'A' appearance. Do you think the new sub-TOC looks good? If yes, then I'll eventually spread it to the other letters. LP-mn (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... I do not want to sound critical, but...

The sub-TOCs seem redundant to me. There's the TOC on top and everybody knows where to look for it. The list is pretty dense with letters allready without another 26 TOCs.

The "Reference" in front of the template is really out of place IMHO. It is just the Honorverse template. Anybody wants to use it as a reference, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Sub-TOC's fair enough. I'll delete the four examples that exist so far.

I disagree regarding the "===References===" anchor point. It's needed for people to find the abreviations. LP-mn (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. But I do not like the solution. Debresser (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of "References" call it "Honorverse template"? Debresser (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That was really not serious, that section "NOT reference". Apart from that, it was just redundant, because just above it there is the TOC with a link to the references. Debresser (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

future history

I think future history is not for all sci-fi, only for a part of them that tries to tell fictional history of the future. Thus history of Honorverse or Honorverse timeline would fit, but treecats wouldn't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. My idea was not to add all Honorverse articles individually, but to make the Honorverse category as a whole a subcategory of the category future history. That would obviously include all individual articles as well, but as part of the overall work. In such a way I think that could be fitting. Is this how you understood my idea as well? Debresser (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but per my rationale above I don't think that Category:Honorverse should be a subcategory of the future history category.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coup: lack of time, and honestly, I am very hesistant to edit fiction-related articles on Wikipedia anymore. I prefer on Wikipedia to contribute to non-fiction articles that I know will be safe and respected, and to for my fiction work, I contribute (occasionally) to other wikis. Perhaps we could reach out to honorverse wiki folks and get them to help in connecting our two wikis with proper links and templates and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd like to take care of that merge then. I know absolutely nothing about how the work of different wikis might be coordinated. Perhaps you could refer me to some documentation on that subject? Debresser (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I am not sure if we have documentation on that subject. What I consider is good here means ensuring that redirects point to the right section, that that section will have a link to Honorvesrse wiki, that content is synchronized between two wikis and message left on the other wiki asking those editors to take interest in synchronizing content with Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the merge. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My user page

{{helpme}}I've started something of a user page. For the fun of it. And so that you might know me better. For to know is to respect (D. de Bresser, that's me).

Could somebody please help me to put the banners one below the other, in stead of in a row? Debresser (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For that you need to go read Help:Userbox. It'll teach you a couple different ways to organise them. Cheers. //roux   17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The previous advice tought me how to group banners. But still the groups of banners are not one below the other. And the same thing in the humor-section, where I want the text above the pictures, not next to them. So the question remains the same: how do I force one item of the layout to stay below the previous one even if there is enough place on the sides? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can use <*br style"clear:both"> to clear (remove the asterisk). :) — neuro^(talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} That doesn't do anything... Please, how to force items one below the other? See above for explanation of my problem. And that good advice seems hard to get by. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're sure it works, go ahead and put it on my userpage. really, I'll be gratefull. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can try asking Roux, he seems to know everything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User page finished

I actually like it. Please come and visit. Bring along your sense of humor too. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I keep updating it, as I find more banners and other stuff. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Languages of Pao

As I have mentioned elsewhere, this book has had some influence on me. I reread it today. I have never forgotten the central idea of it, called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as I found out today while reading the article on the book. It's no more than a stub really, just a large plot summary. This plot summary was actually wrong in a few places, both in factual content as well as in the order of events, not to mention that it didn't mention some events at all. Actually, it still doesn't. But I did change the things that were really wrong. I'd be happy if somebody would turn the article into something nice one day. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a section "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis" with a great reference. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another good SF book covering the subject is Babel 17 by Delany, which you might want to check out.

Thanks for clearing up the sentence i left at military SF - the whole thing certainly seems to be moving in the right direction, and its always good to get new active editors on SF articles!Yobmod (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the Babel 17. It's in the same reference I mentioned before. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a short section about euphemisms to the article. I added a line or two about this book in the articles Eunuch and Drowning. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia problematic articles

After another Wikipedian called me a WikiGnome, I added the WikiGnome userbox to my userpage.

Broken references

I fixed some 20 pages from the Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. Did my good deed for today. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I'll try to keep up the good work. :) Debresser (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I did, but in a special way. I fixed a broken reference in template {{US image sources}} and an other in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which appears most notably in template {{Grading scheme}}. (n.b. While I was at it, I created {{PD-USGov-HAER}} and {{PD-USGov-HALS}} and updated {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}}. ) That took care of (almost) all subcategories and as the job queue progresses this will take care of a lot of articles as well. As of now, the number of articles in this category went down from over 7000 to some 5000. Apart from that I'll try to do some more work in this area. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Wow, down to 3000. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I took care of some more pages. Down to about 2000. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Fixed a lot of articles in this category yesterday. In order to fix this I fixed a template like this. Not bad. For a mistake. And I used my favorite solution for broken references in templates (see Help:Cite_errors#Other_problems solution #2, which I added, actually) in Template:Largest cities of Russia and Template:Canada CP 2006. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Down to 1800. Fixed letters A-I. Need help. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Two days ago I fixed over 80 pages connected with train and tube stations in London, because of a template that generates references, and over the last month I must have fixes some 40 pages connected with locations in Saskatchewan. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken citations

I did some work on Category:Articles with broken citations, about 10 articles. Have to be alert for this one. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) That included the article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict which had a LOT of problems with referencing (apart from some sections being included twice). Debresser (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I did a lot more work here, and will continue to try and empty this category eventually. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I did a lot more work. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Did a lot more work here. Especially List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 was very ugly. Debresser (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Finished all of them (well, apart from 3 template pages that have to be like this). Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I try to keep up the good work on a daily basis, but 20-30 articles a day is a little much. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Invalid date in template

Fixed all (about 15) pages in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Many more appear every day as editors date tags like "Feb 2009" (abbreviated) or "february 2009" (without capital) or "Februray" (typo) while it should be "February 2009". But there were occasional old templates whose categories had allready been deleted and even a case of vandalism. Debresser Debresser (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I did more work in this area. Some funny guy added templates dated 2010 to a bunch of articles. At a certain moment yesterday this category was actually empty. Bots take care of most problems within a few days, but regular check-ups should be made. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Did a check-up. Left the easy cases for the bot. Took care of a few myself. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) There is just 1 and I can't find the problem. Have a try. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) At this moment they are all gone. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced categories

I worked on the articles in the Category:Articles with unsourced categories, but sometimes it is very hard to find reliable sources that say what you are looking for clearly enough to be able to quote them in the article. Nevertheless I manged to add a few sources here and there. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) That took care of half of them, but 6 remain so far. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I was instrumental (in a non-direct way) to bring that down to 5. Want to help? Debresser (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Down to 3. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template loops

This is a nice one: Category:Template loop warnings. I saw two very funny templates made by people who didn't know what they were doing. Put them up for deletion here. And 3 talk pages where the loop was caused by a redirect on a comments page, as pointed out to me by another user here. And a real case of a loop in Wikipedia:Translation/Paul_Ehrlich and a few other pages that transcluded it. Currently waiting for expert treatment. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I am slowly taking down more of them, and gaining experience on the way. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Today I decided to be bold, and solved Wikipedia:Translation/Paul_Ehrlich, and another 3 were connected to it. Now if those 2 templates get deleted, we'll be down to userpages only. Of which I solved a particulairly hard case today, by the way. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I think I did all I can do here. The few users who are still having template loops on their pages obviously want that to be so. That was fun. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) The templates were deleted and 1 user deleted his loop, and I took care of another one for a user who hasn't been around for over a year (so waiting for his answer might be ill recommended) and there is just 1 left. That user has received a message on his talk page. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) The bot searching for template loops has discovered that someone is solving them, so he brings me new ones all the time now. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I must have fixed some 100 of them by now. 4 remain unfixed, because they are on userpages and the users are around. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-reference

Fixed the 1 and only page in Category:Articles containing self-references. Debresser Debresser (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Overlinked

I started working on articles in the Category:Articles with too many wikilinks and fixed almost all of them. That is hard word, especially if the article is long. One should delete both repetitions of internal links as well as irrelevant ones. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC) There were two VERY long and VERY overlinked articles left. Now we're down to one. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Finished that one. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates

And then there is Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates which I ran into a few times before. Took care of them. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) They keep on turning up, and it seems other editors take care of them very fine. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Over 180 had accumulated, so I took down some 170 of them, including templates (poor job queue) and userpages (just don't tell the admins). For the 13 pages left, I'll have to ask for help. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I did a little more work, so make that 9. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Those 9 were taken care of by others, so now it's EMPTY! Debresser (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead-end pages

Fixed 1 page in Category:All dead-end pages (3 Lions F.C). That is hard work, finding the best categories and links. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think I'll be doing any more of that. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Wikipedians

I completely revised the Category:Jewish Wikipedians. Basically that means checking for each individual article (be it a category itself or a template or userbox) whether the categories it possesses put it in its appropriate place in the category tree. And for templates and userboxes that means checking apart from the above also whether it bestows the appropriate categories on the page it is transcluded to. I also reworked some of the category pages. I made my first table (turned out pretty neat, if you ask me).

And of course there are the usual mistakes you walk in to. And the things you didn't know yet. And the mistakes and problems other Wikipedians left for you. Like categories comming along with templates anywhere they go, causing terminological nonsense and the occasional category loop. Well, that's what we learn from.

I hope the category now shows that it was revised by somebody with the head of a Jewish mathematician. :) Debresser (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the userbox, there was no harm done. Keep up the good work! Fipplet (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is allready the second time I run into a category that obviously should have been connected to Category:Jewish Wikipedians but isn't. Having a look at it I found a lot of new Jewish templates and userboxes in and around it. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Took quite some time to add them in the proper way. Including adding categories (both to the templates themselves as well as the categories they bestow upon userpages). Including the introduction of Category:Jewish Wikipedians by religious denomination.

One thing I did throughout is adding the templates themselves (visually) to the approprate category pages. For example: the template Template:User yeshiva can be found both on Category:Jewish education user templates and on Category:Wikipedian Yeshiva students. This took some time. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My first userbox: ChabadnikLubavitcher

I just wrote my first userbox. Took a picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe from that article and used the userbox User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Chareidi, et voila!

I used it in the category Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians I created.

I put up a notice at Chabad-Lubavitch (together with a few other remarks), so that potentially interested user will take notice of it. Debresser (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Asaro

Now that I'm finished with working on David Weber and the Honorverse (and please notice that I don't like to write. I'm more the type to do links, standardizing, categories etc.) I want to get started with Catherine Asaro and the Saga of the Skolian Empire. I first improved the article Catherine Asaro itself. That was 2-4 February (I forgot to sign).

Today I saw all Saga of the Skolian Empire articles. They were put together well, both the articles as well as their internal linking.

1. I proposed to merge Saga of the Skolian Empire into the main Catherine Asaro article, as it is no more than an enumeration of the books comprising the Saga, already mentioned in the booklist in the latter.
2. I added and deleted internal links (completely removing 3 redlinked names, adding 2 new redirects).
3. I'd like to return the deleted article Kurj Skolia. Was undeleted upon request today. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Minor improvements in content and style where needed.
5. Added Category:Saga of the Skolian Empire to 34 non-trivial redirects. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Fixed all occurancies of "Empire" without capital (as in "Skolian Empire") Debresser (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kurj Skolia. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

That was very nice of you. May I ask where I have caught your attention? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, together with the other 24 editors thus rewarded. :) Debresser (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coup de vitesse

When I added it, it was a misformed redirect (look at your last version) and the shortpages monitor was not picking it up as a redirect, you can take or remove it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc.

You asked me to take a look at broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc. Ouch, that was a tough one. And yes, I found a better solution. I have responded over at Help talk:Cite errors#Broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc..

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle

Saw your edit summary at Amazon Kindle, re [1]. In this case, I think the source is acceptable. It is a primary source (from Amazon), but does not offer any critical analysis or interpretation, but simply claims basic core elements of the device (WP:PSTS). Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

flag a page as containing factual errors?

How do I (or any relevant person) flag a page as containing factual errors? LP-mn (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carter_system", you'll see that I have no issue with Carter System per se, I'm ignorant of it. I do feel that the reference to the California 3-way needs to be disputed, critisized, whatever. What exact terminology or flag do you suggest adding to the main "Carter System" web page? LP-mn (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Harout72

{{adminhelp}}

I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.

At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.

1. He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
2. He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
3. He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
4. He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Wikipedia as opposed to mine.

In short: he is being confrontational and uncivil. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• To get the attention of administrators in this case, you might want to try WP:ANI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Women and/or Gender in SF

Hey, after seeing your sig on a few talk pages , i was wondering if you were interested in doing a collaboration on the women or gender in science fiction articles? I have the encyc. of Sf and of fantasy, and google books have a lot of viewable stuff, so i think getting to GA is simply a case of putting the info together. I started on Gender with organisation and some sources, but don't mind switching to any article in the Sex (inc. Gender) in SF series i made up.

I've done 5 featured lists, a featred topic and a GA in the series so far, but it's slow going with only me working on them, and my terrible typing :). But with so few editors, there is also very little warrig or stress!YobMod 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a very nice name (if you know Russian). Actually I am not looking for any big projects at the moment. Actually, I doubt if I could be of great help. But if you'd like to me to have a look at some things once in a while, I'd be glad to be of assistance. I could do some wikifying e.g. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Month on fact tags

Re this edit summary: I have my preferences set to show my local time, and when I added that fact tag, it was 5:29 am on 1 March where I am. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

February 28th or March 1st

I have already realized that today is the last day of the month and that people in other time zones are already in March. I'm sorry for being a little slow sometimes. By the way, there are those who wrote March already a few days ago. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input regarding "flags" on pages

Debresser-

Please take a look at Circuit Total Limitation. I don't expect you to necessarily be an expert on the topic, but I would like your input regarding the "banner" (or 'flags' for lack of a better word) that are at the top. Once upon a time, one could _ARGUE_ that they may all have been relevant. (I would take issue with the neutrality and others.) But, since the time the flags were inserted NUMEROUS additions, citations, sources, quotes, and images have been added to back up the initial entry.
I agree that the "cleanup" banner is still relevant.

However, I believe that all the others should be deleted.
What I don't know is if it is appropriate for me to delete the flags myself.

Can you give me some guidance here on both
- the issue of deleting the banners as well as
- some input on how to clean up the article's appearance?

Thank you.
LP-mn (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think you've misunderstood. The article _IS_ now referenced. The banners now SHOULD be removed. There's no need for the 'disputed' or other banners. As the primary author, can _I_ be the one to take them down, even though I did not put them up in the first place? (While leaving the 'cleanup' one in place of course.) LP-mn (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, did all you recommended. LP-mn (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm humbeled. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Location message

Hello there. I am not too sure to what you are referring in your note on my talk page. I have not made a location article for awhile, I have been working on other items lately. You sent a message about two locations, if you could clarify, it would be appreciated. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote you on your talk page, including the diffs of the edits causing the problems. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh now AI understand. I knew I hadn't done it lately. Will keep eyes open Thank you for your note.SriMesh | talk 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi. Don't know if you realised, but recently you were actually editing one of my (now deleted) sandbox pages, and not an article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That must have been under an other name than "MickMacNee". Could you please remind me? Was there a template loop on the page, perhaps? Debresser (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A version of 60163 Tornado. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I work regularly on broken citations, broken references and template loops (which I fixed completely). If it was a really minor thing which I was sure you'd be happy to see fixed, I might have done that on your userpage. That happens rarely, but it happens. I hope you're not upset with me. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it did annoy me, because you moved text that was in a certain place for a certain reason, and would not have been in the article space release. I would caution against editing any pages which are clearly marked as user sandboxes. The issue is not the change, but the fact that it caused me confusion, because as a sandbox, I don't have it watchlisted, and only discovered your changes after looking at the history for an unrelated reasons, having previousy attributed the arising confusion to me being mad/crazy, and even worse, to me thinking I had somehow made an error and saved an earlier version. MickMacNee (talk)

I see it now. And I remember it. Have a look at Category:Articles with broken citations and you'll see why it stands out. But you are right, that was a bit more than ethically allowed. Please accept my apologies. You said you deleted it? Debresser (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'll think about how I can stop it appearing in there, now I know that cat exists. Essentially, if/when the article ever gets to release stage, all those 'broken' refs won't be in it, they are merely in there as copy/paste templates. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The solution I would use (and was that what I used in those edits of mine?) would be to place the unused references in remarks <!-- --> till such time as they would be needed. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cellebrum Technologies Limited

You removed the fact tags I'd put on; I understand your reasoning, but the problem is this;

The references given only supported 1 of the branches / offices overseas. I can't see another way of representing that.

Note that the article has a history of spam, COI and anonymous, commentless edits attempting to ramp it up.

It's barely notable, but it probably just passes the criteria.

I've been knocking back the unreferenced, badly sourced and advert-like parts for a while now, and I think I'll give up on it. I'm spending too much time checking the refs, tagging, validating etc. I don't see how this is ever going to be an article that actually contributes to the project.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the spam. I have the article watched now. I'm glad you understand my reasoning. I think the article looks a lot better this way, while still expressing that the refs need some (or a lot of) work. Isn't there some better reference available? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the sources. The list of international clients is derived from a page on the companies site. The page provides logos only, but it's clear that this is the same list. The offices are mentioned both in the BusinessWeek article as on their website. I'll add the references. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I ended up pretty much reworking the page. :) Have a look. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've tagged the article as disputed. The ref to their own website to support the facts is WP:SELFREF and thus not WP:RS, especially considering that there is a history of falsifying info on the page - check the history, edits have made claims several times which have been proved false - for example, they said they had bought a co in Malaysia, supported by a ref to themselves. A bit of googling showed that they had merely entered into some kind of partnership arrangement with the co (well, possibly, because that source isn't totally reliable) - and they had certainly NOT taken over the co as claimed. Again, check the hist if you like; I've wasted many hours on this garbage. If I now removed ref 1 from the list of regional offices, it will then look like ref2 (at the end of the sentence) supports all of the info in the sentence, which it clearly doesn't.

Ref2 is also to their own website, ref 3 is to a streetmap (does that really prove the co has a branch there?) and ref4 is a dead link.

So, it's really a totally unsourced article, and should be speedy deleted...but based on my experience, if I edit it to reflect that, I'm sure an anon IP will pop along within a short time, add another spurious reference without an edit comment, and so on and so on.

Which is why I give up.

I don't mean this in an accusatory way, I have good faith and all that, but...your edits are supporting their advertizing and spamming.

I truly hate these spam articles, and have gone to enormous lengths to try and prevent the editors from getting away with using WP in this manner, but it is extremely hard work to monitor. For example, the other day I spent several hours checking through the alleged validity in this article, checking their refs, making sure I wasn't making any assumptions or removing any valid material, and then - well, you know what's happened.

Sorry to rant, I'm really not having a go at you, I just really really REALLY HATE SPAMMERS AAARGh.

I'll have a lie down now.

--  Chzz  ►  06:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is not what a selfref is about. Have a look there and you'll see that a selfref is a ref in an article to itself (or Wikipedia in general). You meant it is a self-published source. The policy on self-published sources is that they may be used with caution as sources on themselves.

Apart from that I personally think that a self-published source, even when doubtfull, is better than no source. If the information is there, then so should be its source.

So basically I feel that your removing the ref to their site was unjustified. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, somebody already

1. removed the "disputed" template (I think that is for the better, because if you dispute then you should have put your reasons on the talk page for discussion)
2. deleted the information you added about a case (but he did post on the talk page about that, so that wasn't vandalism)

Debresser (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant WP:SPS, not WP:SELFREF.
• I disagree with the users removal of the perfectly valid, sourced info about the cases. I think it relevent to the article. Should I put it back, at the risk of an edit-war?
• Regarding the reference - if you follow the logic you gave, any company can write anything they like about themselves, as long as they put the same info on their website. Which they frequently do.

Did you look back at their prior claim, that I spent time researching to prove was invalid, regarding the Malaysian part of their operations?

--  Chzz  ►  14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The right thing to do would be to discuss it on the talk page and act upon consensus. After all, nothing is lost by waiting a few days.
2. There is something to be said for your argument, because it is precisely what I hold. That anything sourced could be posted unless and until that source would be proven unreliable. Which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you claim it to be in this case. If you'd bring your proves on the talk page, then we could stop using their information officially, but as long as that hasn't been done, it is sourced and reliable.
3. No, I didn't go into it. I am involved in a few projects of my own and they keep me busy fine enough, thank you. :) Debresser (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am rubbing it in on Talk:Cellebrum_Technologies_Limited#Opinion and the one above that. :) Debresser (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your 'weak keep' vote; please see my response in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellebrum Technologies Limited (2nd nomination)

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is closed as "no consensus'. Some more sources came up in the discussion. I hope the article will be improved now. But I have my doubts as to wether User:Raj Kumar Machhan will stop his attemps at influencing the article. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational edit warring

Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: which template

Which template did you substitue on the talk page of this user? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Template:uw-huggle1. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I only new those on wp:User warnings. This is a lot better. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That template is used by Wikipedia:Huggle , a piece of software for editing/fixing Wikipedia. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed

I saw you added a reference http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/1998/04/25/bosta25.xml to the article about Antony Beevor. Could you add the title of this article, please, since without title the Template:Cite web produces a "broken citation" error. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn’t find a title, as the link is dead. Suggestions?

--

Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link is dead, and even on www.archive.org it doesn't work. Have a look in a few minutes to see what I did. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We could, of course, also delete it. However the Telegraph is archiving its publicated material (so far down to 2000), so it is reasonable to leave this link and to search for it on their webarchive in another year or so. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary

Thanks! Who says fixing those articles can't be fun? =D

--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on the parshah pages. And thanks for updating the links to Talmud Rabbis. I appreciate it. -- Dauster (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenian diaspora

Hi דָּוִד is that right?,
thank you very much for supporting me and my work on the armenian diaspora article. As I did not agree with all of your changes, I used a subsection of the article's talk page to explain why and now invite you to discuss there if you do not agree with my opinion.
Have a nice day,
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was right. I thank you very much for crediting me by name for my changes on the talk page. I was just trying to fix broken citations when I saw that I might do a little more in this case. My pleasure. I had no problem with the things you don't agree with me about. Go ahead and make this into a good article. By the way, you might want to consider splitting the article. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer and your overwhelming politeness ;). Great to see, that we have the same POV. I wanted to split the article moving the table in an own one anyway. I really hope I'll be able to improve it - you might sometime perhaps concider having a glance at it (then perhaps allready being an own article - I want to do that, when everything else is finished. What do you think?) again ans then maybe also feel like fixing the mistakes you spot ;)
Greets from Munich, 85.181.51.205 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited, 85.181.51.205 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Will be my pleasure. I see that you use different IP's. Have a look here, please, to see what I wrote you on the previous IP. You'll agree with me that having 1 user name will be more convenient for all of us. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(I tried to catch you by placing a redirect on this last talk page which I will remove later on) Debresser (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As you see I (being me ;) ) allready have one. I just don't login that often mainly because I'm not bold enough and because I want to use seperate Sockpuppets for every topic I'm writing on (especially local ones), making it harder to identify me. But it's sort of funny you propose me to register as I allready typed (and then deleted - but nearly posted) that I was going to continue my work with my user as I really like, what I reached so far. But now, I have to go back to work ;). Thank you very much for your efforts.
BTW: How good is your basic German? Have you only been to Germany or also to Bavaria? ;) Perhaps even to Munich?.
Greets from Munich, Bavarjan (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited Bavarjan (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You may write me in German, no problem. Yes, I've spend one summer in Bayern (not far from Fulda, if I remember correctly, that was about 20 years ago) and have visited Munchen once. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta'am 'elyon and Ten Commandments

Your post on my talk page is noted.

The section in question is about how the Ten Commandments are used in the Jewish liturgy, which is a legitimate aspect of an article on the Ten Commandments. As part of that information, it points out that the Ten Commandments have a special set of cantillation signs, and a special chant to go with them, and that the term "ta'am elyon" can be used to mean either. What on earth is problematic about saying that? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check the articles on Neviim and Ketuvim, the cantillation of those books is discussed. So why should the cantillation of the Ten Commandments not be?

If it's just the way it's expressed that you find obscure, by all means have a go at clarifying it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

I have added the links that came up during the discussion to the Cellebrum Technologies page. Though I am clear with myself about my intentions, I would prefer to avoid making any edits. If you have the time, I would be highly thankful if you could add the information based on these links. Alternately, I can compile the information and get it reviewed from you (I won't be really comfortable doing it though). I look forward to your views on this.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not, sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User JTS

No problem. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ICQ template

Today I found a messed up ICQ template. It had multiple problems in its code, and clearly didn't do what its writer had intended it to. I think I fixed all of the problems, and that it now does precisely what it was supposed to do. I have changed font sizes and the size of the white field a little, in accordance with my taste. Unfortunately, I am not a programmer, so it took me a lot of edits to reach a satisfying result, using the method of trial and error. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

template loop

Thanks for your assistance. I did not know how to resolve the problem, and I will study your correction for a better understanding of this issue. Cheers! Mgreason (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Be in touch, if you need anything. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Test of Template:Yesterday

This is substitution: June 29, 2024

This is transclusion: June 29, 2024

Debresser (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

special characters

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Years of Refusal

Hi, yes it is because the information contained in the link could (and maybe should) be added to the reception part of the article. WP:ELNO#1 applies because if the information was to be added to the article, it wouldn't stop it from becoming FA-class. I hope that helps, --JD554 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category clearing

Thanks for clearing the category at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates; I've been doing it piecemeal for a while and I greatly appreciate the work you did clearing it. (To get a sense of my appreciation: I typed this message entirely from my iPod Touch :) ) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template loop

That won't work. The entire template is designed to be substed into the talk page of another user. User:Will Pittenger/templates should be showing it as it would appear on a talk page. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't even know why there is a problem. It was working fine last I knew before you posted. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to European Union wine regulations

Hello, please do not remove relevant information and mark it as a "minor edit", as you did with this edit. I take your point that the reference could not be used in this place of the article (which is a rather recent change to Metawiki) and it is no longer. However, you may wish to consult Help:Minor edit. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I actually said so myself in the edit summary: "if this information was important it should have been in the main body of the article, but no references are allowed below the refsection". I'll try to be more carefull in the future. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Allhomes

Hi

you have been removing links to allhomes.com.au from Canberra suburb articles. This was not originally an advertisement, but was often the original reference source for the information in the suburb articles! Applying particularly to hose prices. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia needs information of house prices. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti with meatballs

It isn't a nonsense page, it just had nonsense added to it, so I've reverted it. —Snigbrook 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lucky you were around. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been a problem, administrators are unlikely to delete pages without checking the history. —Snigbrook 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, thank you for fixing the ref tagging thing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcata_Wastewater_Treatment_Plant_and_Wildlife_Sanctuary&diff=278197501&oldid=278196900 article. I could not, in my haste, figure out how to do it. I think that I, by mistake, reverted an edit that you did, as you were trying to be helpful, in between my edits. I appreciate you correcting that tag. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

It is important that pregnant mothers suffering from depression receive treatment and are not scared to help themselves. There is new evidence that paroxetine does not harm nursing or pregnant mothers and their offspring. In fact, evidence suggests that left untreated, depression in pregnant mothers could be more dangerous than the unknown affects of the drug. I appreciate your interest in the subject. Mwalla (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla