User talk:Aoidh

Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill. - Buddha

help

please help me with that , I am very new user so I am not able to add this . Thank you .--Bampublore (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Removed WP:TLDR by (now) blocked sockpuppet. - SudoGhost 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

108 article, other Coincidental numbers

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. Can you please clarify basis for your edit of the article 108 (number). There're other coincendences mentioned in the facts secion, such as crash of Wouter Weylandt or water volume expansion. Why do you think Gagarin's flight length does not deserve to be on this list? Thank you. Karatyshov (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the edit was that the flight being 108 minutes was a coincidence, and not an important or key fact about the flight. I didn't mean it as saying the flight was not important, but if the article were to be filled with every fact that every involved the number, the page would grow very large (to the point of being unwieldy). Certain items are defined and notable for the association with the number. For example, in many schools of Buddhism, Buddhist prayer beads have 108 beads. Every such juzu is this way, and having 108 beads is a defining aspect of the item. However, looking at the related article, the number 108 seems to be displayed twice in the lead alone, so if you want to restore the information on the 108 (number) article, I won't object. Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page discussing this, and again, welcome to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bampublore

I can do no more today due to 3RR but I can assure you that the press release refers to all the contestants using cotton, the show was sponsored by Cotton Council International and "haute couture" is pretty meaningless. The press release makes it clear that all contestants had to produce a range & lists some items in that range. S/he is acting just like Vermapriya even if s/he is not that person. Even signs posts in the same way, IIRC - I will have to check that. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm still keeping an eye on it, but for now I'm stepping back and waiting for something to (eventually) happen at the SPI page, so that way things can go forwards with the outcome from that, one way or the other. - SudoGhost 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It will happen and it is a dead cert, especially since C.Fred is back in the game and agrees about the deafening quacks. Can I give you a tip, though? It was only after writing my note above that I revisited the SPI itself. If you do spill the beans then you are potentially educating the serial evader regarding how to alter their behaviour for a future evasion. The solution is email, and it is a legitimate solution. Happen in this cae I doubt it matters because the culprit is clearly not learning even after your message, but nonetheless it is probably worth bearing in mind for the future. Basically, if it is an issue of writing style (rather than articles, sources, timing etc) then notifying the precise details by email is likely the best option. Just drop a line at the SPI to say that is what you have done and name who ever it is you have notified. Just my opinion, of course, but I have seen it work very well in some rather awkward situations.

The circumstances are not great but it is good to know that you are still around, and very much appreciated also. We seem to meet in contentious situations! - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that settles that. The article is currently at full protection, but once that expires the article can be changed back to reflect what the sources actually say. But yeah, I'm certainly still around. If you need any more help, just let me know. I'll be here. - SudoGhost 09:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

United States

Dear SudoGhost,

The map, of which you removed the link is not the same as the maps in the section of the article that you cited. One of those maps shows territorial expansion by date RANGE. The other is an animation of STATEHOOD.

The map in question is a combination, showing both territorial expansion and statehood, in a very concise and accurate way, with a changing caption of the year of each. Not the same thing. I like that map a lot, even though the page on which it is located is very old, like me. Judygreenberg (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I don't believe the link should go in United States. As the website/image is about the history of the United States, History of the United States would be a more appropriate location for that external link, in my opinion, because the United States article does not cover the timeline of the states, which means the external link provides additional information for information that is instead covered in other articles. - SudoGhost 13:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will add the link to the history article, as well. Judygreenberg (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs to be removed from United States and placed at History of the United States, not retained at United States (being that the external link covers something the article does not). - SudoGhost 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be stingy. Someone who reads the US article, but not the history article, will likely be glad to see that map. Loosen up .. Judygreenberg (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of loosening up, it's a matter of overcrowding links when they don't belong. The external link covers a topic that is not covered by United States, but by History of the United States. See WP:ELNO #13, "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Since the external link does provide useful information for History of the United States, but not for United States, the link belongs on the more specific history page, not the general article. It is much more likely that a reader at the history page would be interested in that. A reader of the general page likely wouldn't be interested in that type of information, else they'd be at the history page. - SudoGhost 14:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a crowd of links in that section at all. That animated map is the perfect and most concise complement to the "History" section of the "United States" article. By your logic, we should remove the History section of that article altogether, and do this for the History sections of the main articles of all countries. Fear not. Bytes are dirt-cheap, and so is bandwidth. Judygreenberg (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "by your logic" statements. They're hardly ever accurate, this not being an exception. While bandwidth is dirt-cheap, such is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Entire articles get deleted because they do not belong, and when the link is being placed contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for such links, it must be removed.

There is a specific link that the page belongs on, and Wikipedia's guidelines say that the link does not belong on the general article. There is no reason for it to be there. "Just in case people want to see it" and "what's it hurting" are not sufficient. It's on an appropriate article, it should now follow that it will be removed from the inappropriate article. It does not belong. - SudoGhost 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong. It is a perfect complement to the "History" section of the main US article, as it summarizes (just like the History section of the US article does) the territorial and statehood history of the US, without going into the great detail of the History article. Let's be reasonable now. Do not remove that link, and do not remove the history section of the main United States article. A summary of the history does belong there, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Judygreenberg (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you may be confused as your comments. You seem to have applied your "by your logic" and took it to mean my intention. There is no reason to keep the link on general article that isn't satisfied by it being on the History of the United States article, especially when given the quality of the website, which renders oddly on my Chromium browser on Linux (which is probably due to the website being over eleven years old). - SudoGhost 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If the link could be updated with a better link, I wouldn't object to it being on the general article. This looks better (to me), but may not render correctly on all browsers. If a newer map like the one in the link could be found, that would be best. - SudoGhost 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As a lover of movies, I can see why you like the razzmatazz. The map that you do not like is accurate, concise, excellent. Think history, not Hollywood. Judygreenberg (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, what I have an issue with is that the other site does not load properly, and is advertising tacky advertisements for the website's products at the top of the page. The other map is the same, and has the added benefit of not having a comparatively large watermark on the image. Are you saying that the website linked is perfect, and a newer one should not be found? - SudoGhost 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the old website with a newer map that does not have the same issues of the old website (namely the website loading correctly, and advertisements / watermarks detracting from the information) with the added benefit of having additional information for each year on the image listed in links below the image. I think that's a fair compromise, so everyone should be happy. - SudoGhost 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oakwood

Okay, Oakwood is clearly larger than the population given. I got my sources from Factfinder.Census.gov, so all information is relevant. Why don't you check it out for yourself? Also, you were a bit rude. You will not get far in life if you act so cocky. Thank you.Jmaddux23 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing rude in this, it was in fact warranted since you continued to change town's names without discussion, and a good deal of your changes were unsourced. You were changing the names of towns in articles, and inserting overly technical census-area names as the official names of places. This is what I had issue with. Telling me I "won't get far in life if you act so cocky" is not only rude, but uncalled for. Don't change the town names, and don't add descriptions that aren't accurate. Considering the nature of your comment above, however, that is all I will say on the matter. I have no further interest in this discussion. - SudoGhost 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock+Venom edit

Apologies to you and the others monitoring my latest acitvities on the pages. My previous edits on the Eddie Brock Page before my last one were only meant to improve my additions based on the suggestions/reasons given. I was only asking on the last edit what was needed doing to make it good for the page. I did not mean to upset anyone.

Can you and all others who were monitoring me, forgive me?

Jdogno5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogno5 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm sorry if the edit warring template came off as harsh, it wasn't meant to scare you, but just to inform you that you were at 3RR (users cannot make more than three reversions on any given article in a 24 hours period or they are blocked), however I noticed that I myself made three reversions, so I certainly wasn't trying to scold you or anything. I apologize if it came off that way.

However, I do appreciate you trying to improve the articles, but I think the best way to do that from here is to follow BRD, namely to use the talk pages and discuss the edits you wish to make (ideally with reliable sources to verify the changes). That way, there's no confusion, and you don't see all your hard work reverted (which I know can be frustrating to see). Thank you for leaving me a message, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. - SudoGhost 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

FYI, I responded on my talk page. I just wanted to thank you for the notice, as it's something I wasn't aware of. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 (a recent edit that you made on Talk:Lexi St George)

--QuickEditor (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)