User talk:Batmanand/Archive 4

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

This page contains what was added to my talk page in June, July and August 2006 Batmanand | Talk 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Dozer Build

Hi Batmanand, Just a quick note to say thank you for all your edits and contributions on this page. Greatly appreciated, we have now survived 2 deletions =D Hopefully we'll survive the citations annoyance, too =) Exemplar 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

... is now a featured article. Color me bummed out. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod warning

Thanks for the prod warning on American airlines flight 1740. I don't have a strong feeling about whether it is kept or not. It appears to be a fairly minor incident overall. However, my preference would be to avoid action on the article for at least 10 days, which is the estimated time for a preliminary report from the NTSB. Then we will know if there is something more interesting here or not. Johntex\^talk 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that sounds very fair. I have just noticed that today's Chicago Tribune reports that the same airplane had been forced to make an unscheduled landing at O'Hare due to a problem with the landing gear so I've added that to the article. Johntex\^talk 09:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

You are unbelievably quick! As soon as I made Tennis (disambiguation) you edited the Tennis page before I could. Just so you know, I put Template:Redirect on top of the tennis article instead of what you put; it probably doesn't matter either way though. See you around. —EdGl 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time those stupid templates are hard to find; I always have to search high and low to find them. Fortunately, I just found the place where all these templates are: Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. I'm definitely bookmarking that page.. —EdGl 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Im just wondering how to make my I-desk Article less of an advert, and more facts, mabey you could help me please?

Thank you very much, --Joshuarooney2006 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-desk

i have just read wikipedia:corporations, and the article dosen't meet the set requirements. you can go ahead with deleting I-desk.

--Joshuarooney2006 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus on fan site list on Andy Murray page

Hello Batmanand,

You've probably noticed my (probably foolhardy) attempt to resolve the edit war on the Andy Murray page regarding fansites. The protagonists do not look about to resolve it among themselves, so I'd appreciate it if you and other regular editors could express your views on this part of the page, so that we can stop the war going forward, or at least block a protagonist who persists in it. Please come to the talk page here

The questions I've put are:

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Thanks RobbieC 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines flight

Thanks for the reminder. I found the Preliminary report of the National Transportation Safety Board (PDF) by searching their on-line database. It is not very interesting. They have not made any guess yet as to cause, remedies, or anything more than was reported initially by the media. Johntex\^talk

I've now added it to the article, for what it is worth. I would still be against a Prod. But of course, you'd be well within your rights to take this to AfD. Whatever you decide to do, I would like to tell you again that I appreciate the fact that you waited for this report. Johntex\^talk 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I have voted Keep and explained my thoughts on the AfD entry. Johntex\^talk 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joshuarooney

It's just an article, and if the rules say that only larger companies can have articles, that is what they say, and if you argue with the rules, it backfires and you look like a fool!

Anyway, I suppose there are more important companies in the making that I can write articles for i suppose.

--Joshuarooney2006 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AA flight prod (again!)

Thankyou for notifying and inviting me to the discussion. I am not extremely fussed about the outcome but would like to see it kept or merged. I appreciate your comments. Thanks Jam01 00:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Current Events Portal Redesign

Since you were in support of the the redesign of Portal:Current events, but also in support of archivals in the mainspace, I'd like to invite you to look at a a comment I made. joturn e r 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also, there is now another option regarding the date format, which, given your rationale for the European date format, you may want to look at. joturn e r 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA World Cup

I completely agree that 2026 is very far into the future, but I've found source which confirms the information on the page so far:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/23/content_4333674.htm

However, the text there is also quite short and comes down to a few 'ifs' and 'maybes' so I'm not going to put it onto wikipedia for now. Should the 2022 page also be removed? The reference there is correct, but the assumptions in it are big. --Pelotas 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's ok, leave it as it is. I'm going to wait and see what happens, but I just wanted to mention the source :) In the meantime I'll be on the lookout for more references for 2022 and 2026. --Pelotas 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD bundle

What pages are in you AFD bundle?
How did some pages get in your bundle?
Why are you deeleting an improtant page to me?--Lucy-marie 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me how these pages do not deserve to be in the encyclopedia?--Lucy-marie 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

robot wars pages.

If you remove the articles from the request for delete i will take over the artiles and clean them up and expand them and merge specific pages so that they can meet the standards of the wikipeidia encyclopedia.--Lucy-marie 12:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Please feel free, if you have time, to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write your support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR, GA then FAC

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Is there anything else you want to do over at German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I? Or is it finished? If it is, I will take it to WP:PR and nominate it as a WP:GA asap, and then, once the peer review is over, will submit it to WP:FA. Outstanding work. Batmanand | Talk 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be ready. Right now, I'm looking through old Luxembourgian newspapers for appropriate photos (!). I think that the only barrier to it becoming an FA would be images. Of course, there's only one way to find out, and that's to nominate it, so that's probably the way to go now. Cheers. Bastin 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg in WWI - again

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Can you see any reason not to take it to FAC? If not, then I will do it asap. Batmanand | Talk 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at the PR, the only two flaws are images and categories. Both are an irritating absences, rather than necessary inclusions (neither is a criterion, according to WP:WIAFA). I can't imagine it failing at FAC, so it's a good idea to push it forward. Bastin 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it is done. Batmanand | Talk 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed. Thanks for the support! Bastin 08:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! The article made it through the rigours of FAC relatively unscathed, and is now a bona fide Featured Article! The effort was pretty much all yours, so a particularly hearty pat on the back. Now maybe you can return to Gen. Smuts? Batmanand | Talk 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the credit, and kudos for nominating it. Jannie may have to wait a bit longer, though; until WikiProject Luxembourg gets a few more members, it can't sustain itself, so that's the primary aim at the moment. Bastin 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kierkegaard in After Virtue

In your After Virtue page, I found it strange that Kierkegaard was deemed an Enlightenment philosopher, given the savageness of his attacks on Cartesian reflection and, indeed, the primacy of classical reason. MacIntyre credits him with "an understanding that the project of giving a rational vindication of morality has failed."

However. In context, MacIntyre sees K. as continuing the Enlightenment project, citing his conception of the ethical.

Still, I bet readers, as I did, trip over the "Enlightenment philosopher" designation applied to Søren Kierkegaard, thinking it a flat error. William Clements | Talk 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Grim

Thanks for creating the Edward Grim page: I had been waiting for someone with for knowledge on the subject to do so. User:Flintwill 1456 28/8/2006 GMT

Subsections about Rod Ball

Did you mean to add your comments about Rod Ball as a subsection of mine [1] or as a separate section altogether? I don't mind either way (and they both make sense), but I'd thought I'd mention it just in case. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]