User talk:Bellagio99/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Re: Sociological Research Association

The article was deleted under speedy criteria A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Just being a group of 200 members does not make it notable. Basically you need to answer the question, "why does this matter?" Cheers, 13:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. Please add the assertion of importance. Have a great day. --Fang Aili talk 19:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Just click on the link above--it's there. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bronx Gangs

Are you still onboard? discuss with me in the talk section of the page, of who's name I had changed. Bronx gangs (mid-twentieth century)--rocketrye12 talk/contribs 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I am still on board, but don't have much time (as I previously said) to do more with it. Four deadlines in next two weeks. I will check the talk section of the Bronx Gangs page itself and do some lite editing Bellagio99 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Your recent revert to Social network

Hi. Whilst I am in total agreement (of course) with your revert to the linkspam for '', can I point out that, over time, Social network, List of social networking websites, and several other social networking related articles within Wikipedia have been constantly reverting certain IPs which have only one aim - to place that particular link wherever they think they can get a way with it. They have no rationale in this, it is a linkspamming exercise.

As such, and to give us spamfighters a headstart, in your edit summaries, could you not add encouragement to the perpetrators with a suggestion to place their rubbish anywhere? A mere 'rv linkspam' would suffice.

Yours in the fight against those who would ruin our Wikipedia. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will follow your advice. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so make mistakes in not following the many implicit rules. I am also a leading social network analyst (by all accounts), so I do care much about this one. I also think that that there should be a prefatory note that this site is about social networks per se (sometimes I want to change title to Social Network ANALYSIS), and go to {Name} site for social network software stuff.
Do you think that is feasible, do-able?
I am away for 10 days (in UK, which I gather you're from ("whilst")), but I have been thinking about organizing a clean-up crew when I get back. Does this make sense?
Bellagio99 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reply. Yes I'm a Brit! If you were heading south-west, you'd be going in my direction.
I'm fairly new myself, but learning fast. There's so much I'd like to do creatively here, managed a couple of new articles so far, but vandal- and linkspam-fighting seems to take up so much time it seems.
I'm not into 'teams' myself, as they can tend to get a bit heavy on single editors I've noticed - "quasi-ganging", I would call it. The only fair way to edit is 'one-on-one', opinion for opinion. That is the Wiki way also, you will find if you research the various guidelines and policies. Admins are a different thing altogether. You place your trust in them not to gang up - "Don't bite the newbies" is one buzzphrase you'll hear a lot of.
However, I applaud your obvious enthusiasm, and wish you luck when you come back from your 'Wikibreak' as they call it. Best wishes.
P.S. When you reply to a comment, it's policy to indent once more by placing : or :: and so on, at the start of each paragraph in your post - look at the edit source for this page to see what I mean. Bye. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi. No problem - I know you'd do the same for me too! Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Anna Nicole Smith

You are correct, the father being an American would also grant the child citizenship; however, in this case the father is still unknown (or at least there is still a court battle over it). The mother, on the other hand, is certainly known, and the child's citizenship therefore comes through Anna Nicole. My wording does not imply that a child must have a MOTHER who is a US citizen, but that this particular child is a US citizen because her mother was. CaveatLectorTalk 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CL, OK. We're both right, altho I think I am right-er, as the legal point is that the baby was born to a U.S. citizen. I am going to change it back, and if you still care enough to revert me, I'll let it be, I think. Bellagio99 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith

Hey there. I'm sure it was a mistake, but please be careful when you edit AfD discussions. You wiped out my comments when you did. --UsaSatsui 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:UsaSatsui, Apologies. It certainly wasn't intentional, and even worse, I don't know how I did it. Perhaps, I didn't edit the last version of the article. Bellagio99 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Actually, "none" can be singular or plural - depending on the sentence. So if what was meant was "None of the 4 victims" it could properly take the plural "were" - where "none" is the opposite of "all". If it is used to mean "not one" as opposed to "one", then it uses the singular. Google "none singular plural grammar" and you'll find lots of references - here's one. In this case, "None were closer" - would be correct to connote the opposite of "All of them were closer" or "None was closer" meaning "Not one of them was closer". It's a subtle point. I think either one works here. Tvoz | talk 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz. I ain't gonna get into an edit war over "none were/was". But I filed away for my book on writing for social scientists that is gestating. Bellagio99 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah,I know what you mean! Tvoz | talk 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Categorical madness

It's not madness really. I have no real interest in categories to be honest, but you should not guess at them. If you are adding a cat to an article, you need to research it thoroughly, to ensure it exists, is not a redlink and is therefore of no use as a reference link (try clicking on one - it will ask you to create the Category). You need to put the question to the Village Pump, I feel. But in the meantime, please look at the very bottom of the edit page after your first "Preview" to see which cats are going to be included, and which are 'real' cats i.e. bluelinks. Hope this helps. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Bellagio99 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Social network

Hi. Thanks for the post on my talk page. I am glad you like my work on the above page. I would not go so far as to say 'informed' - I may have got it right, luckily. If you do see anything amiss, please edit further.

Firstly, I patrol social network lists and articles as a matter of course because they attract an inordinate amount of spammers and vandals, it seems. Vandal-fighting is part of my personal interests in Wikipedia, and reverting inappropriate edits in these pages quickly is necessary to maintain the integrity of the articles.

At the same time I am gradually learning more about what a social network is, and also when something isn't strictly social networking.

My other hobby is article clean-up and referencing. Mostly biographies (which also need to be 'spot-on' to be credible pieces).

Lastly, I contribute the occasional article from new - so far only in the football (soccer) refereeing field, but I expect to move away from that sphere a little when the majority of notable officials have been written about.

Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bellagio. Can I ask if you are a member of INSNA at all? I will explain if you post a reply to my talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just needed to point out, if you weren't already aware, that you have to be a little careful what you do with information in which you have a vested interest. I know you are probably very committed to INSNA, which is always commendable, and, as you say, you are a central figure. This makes it an even more sensitive matter when inserting external links to the organisation, and broader information about the organisation, into articles. It is the reason why I standardised the external link to it from its bold format, and removed the duplicated link from the references section.
Of course the link and the info are relevant to Social network. But the manner in which they are displayed needs to be subtle and measured, and I hope you agree that my edits now reflect this. That was all I had which concerned me just a little. All my best. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Oops! Look what you missed here - linkspam! Sorted. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: INSNA and International Network for Social Network Analysis

Hi, Bellagio. What you propose is so easy to be honest. You do not need any permission to merge articles in this instance, as they are plainly two articles about one subject, side by side. We will be doing Wikipedia a service by tidying this up. I will do the necessary, and explain what I've done so you know for next time.

First off, do you actually have 800, or over 1,000, members - this appears to be the only piece of conflicting information in the two versions? When you have ansered that for me, we can get down to the "nuts and bolts" of merging the two, or rather, rightly expanding International Network for Social Network Analysis (the acronym should never have had a standalone article in the first place, if you research the Manual of Style thoroughly).

Let me know when you can - this may take a while, as I have work commitments which limit my time at the computer this week. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. 1000 + members then. Basically, I have taken all the information which is in INSNA, but is not in International Network for Social Network Analysis, and inserted it, but with artistic licence. This diff shows how the latter has changed. With the former, to create a redirect to International Network for Social Network Analysis, you simply blank the page and replace it with "#Redirect[[article name to go to]]", as in this diff. The merge and the redirect are now done. The article could still do with expansion, if you can think of any other facets which have sources. Any other questions? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, friend. Only me! Can I point out the above user, whose edit you reverted from Social network recently? From my experience already, this person is solely interested in adding an external link to his/her own website wherever he/she can. Although you are absolutely correct to remove the link (well done!), it is advisable not to encourage this user, or many such like-minded, to post spam in any other article - for that's what it is, to be differentiated from genuine notable website links. It is sufficient in an edit summary to explain what you did and possibly why, but alternative advised actions should be left out. Just a friendly nudge, hope you don't mind, and hope you are well. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot think of anything I may have asked you to do, apart from casting your eye over the method of merging and redirecting articles, such as that done to International Network for Social Network Analysis and INSNA. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


The English Wikipedia standard is that spellings correspond to the most appropriate English for the article. So East York, Ontario uses Canadian English, for instance. The manual of style goes over this. WilyD 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No - there is a strong consensus that articles should always be consistent and use a single variety of English. A lot of the time it is just "guesswork" - it's really not all that important. WilyD 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Strom

Ha! I am definitely neither Bobby Strom nor Steven - but Pearl Strom was my favorite bio teacher in jr high and then at Science when she came there... I had a recollection that was the case and then got confirmation from The $64,000 Question. I wouldn't swear to it, but it feels right. If you know otherwise, by all means change it. Cheers Tvoz |talk 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] and [2] I think shows it, if I'm reading it correctly. As for Pearl - you know, after all these years I'm not completely sure if she was their mother - I think so, but again, I wouldn't swear to it. Bobby was a year ahead of my sister and I was a few years later. Tvoz |talk 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploading to commmons

A quick guide to uploading to commons

  1. go to
  2. register an account (it is odd that you need another account, it is just the way it is built)
  3. go to
  4. click browse, find your photo
  5. enter a sensible filename
  6. describe the photo, you could use the example description template
  7. select a license
  8. click upload
  9. edit the article you want to add the photo
  10. use syntax like this: [[Image:whatever you call it.jpg|thumb|Caption goes here]]

Do you hold the copyright on the photo you want to upload? If not you need to check with the copyright holder first. You need to pick a license. I normally release my photos as public domain so they can use for anything. The other popular option is dual-license GFDL and Creative Commons. Let me know if you need any more help. If you get stuck you can e-mail me the photo and I'll upload it for you. Edward 16:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Sincere thanks for the barnstar you awarded me, although I have to say that I do a vast amount of reverting of nonsense/linkspam/vandalism on the social network (also social network service and List of social networking websites) pages and little else really. I will accept it gratefully, though, for my work on the International Network for Social Network Analysis and INSNA merge, which I was glad to help out with. If you need any further help or advice, keep in touch. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Have moved it to my talk page - hope you don't mind!


Yep, he did love puns. I find it amazing that people keep changing it without wondering why it says right there not to! Too bad there's no way to protect a word - ah, he would have liked that idea too. Tvoz |talk 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Actually I blocked her about ten minutes after her last edit; she had already left. The reason for the block was that in leaving, she tried to remove her contributions from Wikipedia and claim she no longer allowed for their use, but a person can't do this under the GFDL. So rather than try to fight it out, I blocked her for 24 hours to stop that from continuing. Afterwards, I left a note to tell her that this can all be forgotten and put in the past if she comes back after the block. If you think it's a good idea, I'll also try to welcome her back after the block wears off (in another 22 hours or so). coelacan — 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your email link seems to be set up properly. There's a bit of a help page at WP:EMAIL. Basically, if someone has their wikipedia account set up to receive email, then there's a link on the left side of the screen, in the toolbox under the search bar, that says "E-mail this user". Just click on that. And if you want to place a more obvious link elsewhere, it's Special:Emailuser/Bellagio99. coelacan — 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I just made WP:E-MAIL as a redirect, which didn't exist before. How and where did you search for "e-mail"? Let me know and I'll go try to make the searches redundant for both, since both terms are widely used. coelacan — 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I search in the search box in the left above the tool boxes, using "WP:E-mail" and "Help E-mail". I tried both Go and Search. When that didn't work, I tried on a main (full-page) search page, also with no results. I know if one doesn't work, the other shouldn't, but having programmed for 42 years, I do believe in magic sometimes. But not clever enough to drop the hyphen. Bellagio99 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright

Hi, Bellagio. Hope you had a wondrous vacation.

Happy to keep watch over the articles. However...

I re-inserted the cat you (mistakenly?) removed when you stubbed out the stub on INSNA (lazy redirect link), as this would have left the article uncategorised and would have attracted being tagged as so.

Incidentally, when is a stub tag redundant, apart from when the quality reaches a certain level, or it becomes a featured article? To me, a stub is merely a request to expand. If there is any way we can get INSNA expanded, we cannot ignore it. Displaying a stub is just one way, I feel.

Glad to have you back. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stubs

You are of course right, the article is not strictly a stub; however, I usually leave stub templates in until an article is a good length. I always hope to attract good editors who might have something to add that I hadn't thought of, or couldn't source.

I would have suggested that after you had added the proposed content, it could have been de-stubbed. However, you are within your rights to remove the template now, and I will not be re-adding it. I think we just have to agree to disagree over stubs, and the value of leaving them in.

Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent revert to Social network

Hi, Bellagio, hope you are well. Just a line to comment on your recent edit here. The URL is active, but it leads to a "blog". Blogs belong nowhere in Wikipedia, except in extreme cases as references to some minor content for which there are no other sources. They certainly wouldn't be included in any article with a social networking slant (blogs and forums are not accepted onto the List of social networking websites, for instance).

It is always better not to recommend alternatives in edit summaries or even posts to user talk pages. We are fighting spam continuously as it is, without encouraging them.

Just a friendly point. Good editing to you! Ref (chew)(do) 13:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I'd rather have dealings with you than blessed trolls and vandals! Regards. Ref (chew)(do) 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I've looked on Wiktionary and there is no such page, for "locknote". So, why not created the entry instead of sending curious readers off on a wild goose chase? Is this close: "LockNote is a portable memo pad that enables you to store text information, using 256-bit AES encry"? If so, boring. There is an article on Wikipedia called Locknote Speech. Again, boring. :) - Jeeny Talk 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and what's an encry? I'm afraid to look it up. - Jeeny Talk 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott Tremaine

Hi - I noticed you added information about Scott's wife. While it's true that Marilyn Tremaine is his wife, it would be nice if this information was verifiable, from a reliable source. I was wondering if you knew of any - I've been searching and I'm stumped. Thanks WilyD 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear WilyD, Marilyn is a very good friend of mine, and Scott is a friend, so I am a reliable source. I don't know where the wedding was published in, but it was about 10+ years ago in Toronto. Google shows her faculty site at Rutgers to be . However, I couldn't find much that documented their marriage, except this which is about their farewell party: However, a depth search of the Toronto Globe and Mail might show the marraige itself (or not). (And I don't know why this is suddenly small print.) Bellagio99 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's almost exactly the phrase I got from the sources. I know that Scott is married to Marilyn (or at the very least, he was married to a woman named Marilyn last time he was in Toronto) - I'm just trying to source it per WP:RS. For what it's worth, it may be true, but I (at the very least) don't know whether Scott (or Marilyn) would want it publicised in Wikipedia, for instance... Anyways, I didn't remove it or anything on the grounds that it's true, but it would be nice if any reader could verify it for themselves. WilyD 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well I think it's fine - if he prefers it this way, it's not really critical to his long-term notability or anything. Cheers! WilyD 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So be it. Yet, in principle, it is notable that a notable man is married to a notable woman. Besides, the "behind every man there is a woman", or various gender-neutral permutations of that. 10-4. Bellagio99 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As I hope is the final move, I re-inserted a marriage sentence, after I heard from the principals: "You can tell WilyD that you checked with Scott and Marilyn and that this is fine."

Not the Messiah

Excellent work fixing that up! I presume you were also at one of the first shows. What did you think? Goyston talk, contribs, play 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, glad you enjoyed it. I've been to Dildo, actually! (Oh, I've also not seen Life of Brian.) Goyston talk, contribs, play 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors

Hi, Bellagio!

Sure you can call me Goyston, though my name is Grant. The League is actually just a group of us Wikipedia editors who are working on making the project grammatically, structurally sound. We also like to remove typos. You'd know that if you clicked on the link in my userbox related to it! =P

I have no training in copyediting, but I am pretty good with grammar and have a keen eye for detail, so if it's only a few things, feel free to e-mail me. I'm not sure if you can attach things that way, but my e-mail address is

goyston (at symbol) gmail dot com

By the way, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a built-in dictionary (unless wikEd does). If you are using Firefox, though, you'll see that in all text-boxes there is built-in spell-check. Maybe that's what you are seeing? Goyston talk, contribs, play 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, by "edit" I mean "read it a couple of times and point out things which seem wrong". I really don't have any training but a second set of eyes often helps find errors the author's eyes cannot. Goyston talk, contribs, play 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Social network reference

Where in the article is it used as a reference? It may be more appropriate in a "Further reading" section or something similar if it's not being explicitly used as a reference. If it is being used in a such a manner, please accept my apologies as I have missed it! --ElKevbo 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the term "References" to mean "Reference material". I'll move it to "Further Reading." Bellagio99 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Social network

If you say you do not know this person, you cannot possibly speculate as to the sum of their personal knowledge! Wikipedia isn't a physically-based community - by definition it is an electronically-based, or online, collection of users, each with their own bank of knowledge and assimilation of views and opinions. Surmising anything about another online user (to the exclusion of what we might think we know about them in real life) is not a valid action here, and requires just as much verifiability as any article. And you also imply that he or she is being misleading, due to you "not knowing anyone from Emory" with the requisite breadth of experience.

Comments need to be taken at face value as you read them, not with a prejudicial mindset gained through your experience on the outside of the encyclopedia. Surely?

(Moved from article talk page as an inappropriate place to conduct this) Ref (chew)(do) 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(Moved your post from my userpage to my talkpage!) OK, but do realise I was not referring to specifics about talk page etiquette, merely generalisation. The way you phrase things and the impression you then give during discussions affect the light in which you and your comments are seen by others, and thus the amount of credibility attributed to you and your views. I'll now shut up. I wish you good editing as always. Ref (chew)(do) 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. I did not think my comments should be evaluated by whether or not I was "inside Bellagio99's social network" (ironies aside), nor do I believe that Wikipedia is a place where one person can decide whether or not a person's facts are heavier or lighter than their own. It seems like you've become very attached to the Social Networking article Bellagio99, which is good, because that means someone will care for it... but I would caution that in your care, you don't start becoming a dictator and delete any factual views that don't mesh with your own held views. You've deleted valid academic reference articles and lambasted comments in ways that seem to be more out of your opinions vs. fact (did you even read the recent article you deleted as a reference? That won best paper award; you might want to rethink your rash actions.) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

would you like to do a survey?

Only joking - I had this to add to the discussion that was taking place over the user survey that was proposed. I can only conclude that it's actually a student, the questionnaire is so poorly designed (leaving aside spelling mistakes). --Fredrick day 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well - it's an UK institution,the centre is funded for this work but I can only conclude that they have either got research students to do the legwork or it's a Research assistant who needs a bit more mentoring that he's currently getting. --Fredrick day 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It must be different in the states, as you can see here we use Principle (as in "head"). As for the centre, it's (it has to be this one, the survey is hosted by and the list of partners on the EU funding page lists this centre at surrey. --Fredrick day 20:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bronx interest

Resident for most of the last 20 years. And I like facts, not hype. Details, not superlatives. Extra interest in transportation and education, but not in what gets called around here "cruft." So yeah, I liked what you called tightening, and decided it was a good moment for a bit more.

FWIW, the history section is missing some major demographic shifts. It reads from a white ethnic POV, in parts. And the early stuff is overweighted. But I'd rather balance it slowly through careful deletions and strategic additions than blow the thing out. This article is already on the large side. Jd2718 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting my talk page repeatedly tonight - the vandal has been blocked for 31 hours, which seems a bit light to me for the repeated attack, but maybe it will do the trick. Just so you know, in addition to reverting, any editor can and is encouraged to post warnings on a vandal's talk page (see WP:WARN - there are appropriate warnings available for many indiscretions) and if a vandal has been adequately warned but continues to do his or her damage, you can report such people at WP:AIV. Only admins can block, but the rest of us are encouraged to root out destructive editors. But even the reverting helps, so thank you.Tvoz |talk 04:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. You've been a good wikifriend and fellow Bx Sci person. I didn't go further, because (a) I "knew" someone else would pick up the baton in what I called "the relay race", (b) I didn't know exactly what to do, and (c) I was kinda curious how it would play out. Bellagio99 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) BxSc 59 ("you could look it up" - Casey)
Hopefully this vandal will have moved on to more productive aspects of his pathetic life, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

7:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi There

Thanks for your message. I've responded at my talk page.Ferrylodge 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Category help

I saw that you were looking for help with categories. To delete or rename an existing category, you should follow the Categories for deletion process. Simple renames that meet specific criteria can be listed for speedy rename. All other rename/merge/ or delete discussion need to be listed as a regular WP:CFD. There are instructions there (similar to WP:AfD if you are familiar with that) on how to tag and list a category you want altered. After the 5 day period, if there is consensus for your proposed change, an admin or helper user will either use a bot or manually rename/delete/merge the category and alter all the pages that include the category. If you have more specific questions, I'd be glad to try and address them. If you have a proposal you'd like to introduce, I could walk you through the steps, or even list it for you to help introduce you to the CfD process (if, for whatever reason, you are have difficulties figuring out how the WP:CfD stuff works). Keep in mind that you can't simply move categories like you move pages, which is why we have CfD for even simply page moves and renames.

To create a new category, it is similar to starting a new article. You need to go to the redlinked page (for example typing in "Category:Newcatname" into the search box, of course substituting your new name with "newcatname") Then you can add introductory text. We have a header template, {{catmore}}, thay you may find helpful. Then, you need to add some categories to the page so it is listed as part of the existing category trees (for example, if you want to make a category called "Things that are round and blue" you'd need to add the categories "Things that are round" and "Things that are blue" to the new category page, assuming these categories exist in the first place). After you have intro text or a header plus categories, you can save the new category page. Then you will have created a new category, however you will notice the page will be empty of articles. You need to go to all the articles and add the newly created category to the bottom of the article in order for them to show up on the new category page.

Finally, sometimes categories are transcluded through templates, and therefore will not show up when you go to edit the category section of a page (for example, {{unreferenced|date=August 2007}} automatically adds Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2007 and Category:All articles lacking sources). If you provide an example of a page where you cannot edit the category, I'd be glad to try and track it down and explain where the category originates.

Anyway, sorry if this is a bit verbose, but I hope it helps, and feel free to contact me for any more concerns or help.-Andrew c [talk] 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to address that concern in the third paragraph, starting with "finally". If you could give an example of this happening, I can try to be more specific, but all I can say is that if a category shows up at the bottom of a page, but when you click to edit, you cannot find the category anywhere, it is being transcluded through a template, so you'd have to edit the template itself, or remove the template from the article. Can you tell me what page/category you are talking about?-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi. All I was trying to do was to remove a redlink. In future I will merely de-link it as you have done. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate situation?

Hi. In what way is there an unfortunate situation? All I can see from the history of the article is a tags removal edit (fair enough, it is a more or less complete article), and a reversion of a change you made. This is basically a difference of opinion between yourself and MultimediaGuru, and I do not have the expertise in this field to choose between your version and his. You must sort it out. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Giving you an ((((e-hug))). Hope you are well. (JG) 04:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Jeeny's Day! lol ((hug)) in case you took me off your watchlist again, see my talk page ((hug)) - Jeeny Talk 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghanaians in the Bronx

Thanks for the work. The bit about Ghanaians could have been true in 2000; it is doubtful today. The problem here is that the Bronx receives surges of poor immigrants from different countries as the opportunities (to leave, and to enter) come and go. Further, groups that come to the Bronx generally move out if and when their economics allow. So, there are West African immigrants in those neighborhoods, in the mid-90s the majority were Nigerian, by 2000 Ghanian, and today we don't really know. I'll reword away from the superlative, and delete the Spectator article as dated.

I have watched you work on cleaning this article up. Good work, but it's a bear. Jd2718 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy B Day

Happy Bellagio99 day! Smile.gif You'll have to wait for the real day. ;p - Jeeny Talk 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid anonymous sources as valid info

There is currently a new discussion to merger Larry Seidlin's article with Anna Nicole Smith's article in its own separate section and deleting the Seidlin article.

Back in April on Anna's discussion page, you made a statement (to the effect) that tabloid web sites who use anonymous sources and gossip shouldn't be used as solid citable sources as they are unreliable and don't quote official, on-the-record, reliable sources who stand behind their statements. However, some people want to keep the Seidlin article because of a rumored talk show that neither the alleged producer (CBS/CTD) nor Seidlin has officially confirmed; in fact, they won't even confirm any screentests, which is unusual unless it isn't happening and is just gossip. They cite an article from Hollywood Access, a notorious site that uses rumor, gossip & anonymous sources for the basis of its articles, not just a peripheral sources.

Therefore, since he's not newsworthy anymore or a historic figure, some users want to keep it due strictly to gossip and it's only an extremely-thin group of hard-core Anna fans totaling 4 people at the moment. I'd like to hear what you think. Please go to the Larry Seidlin talk page and put your two cents in.--Bamadude 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Society barnstar 2.png The Society Barnstar
For all your great work on social science articles, and making Wikipedia a better place. Jeeny 02:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Social network service

Hi. The article above is currently experiencing activity with the placing of blog linkspam, and repeatedly so if anti-spammers such as myself revert the edits. I am hoping not to have to come anywhere near 3RR editing. As a previous contributor to the article, you may like to take a look. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR has exceptions and would not apply in this case. I believe so, anyway. Please see 3RR exceptions Jeeny (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. If you take a look at the particular edits here and here, the anon IP is trying to pass it off as a valid link reference to the "dangers of social networks", despite not having created a section about this particular facet. Thus if others, especially admins, were to deem his edit as good faith, a 3RR would be punishable. As quoted in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions: "When in doubt, do not revert".
However, of course, if a group of interested editors were to patrol this edit for a period of time, each of their reversions would be carried out individually, making it unlikely that any of them would 3RR as single editors. I am not, of course, canvassing, merely pointing out a logical theory in reverting this kind of edit. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Lee, Jeeny was busy editing a Barnstar for me -- my first. So she probably violated the 3RR rule on this User page, but not in the way the rule was intended. Heck, I violated it myself yesterday, putting in cross-links from my user description to everything I could think of. Anyway, as I "know" and like you both (in the Wiki way), and know that you're both caring and honourable people, I'm glad you've made contact, and happy that no harm has been done. Meanwhile, I will do my daily patrol of Social Network Service. Bellagio99 13:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have not been in contact with Jeeny over any 3RR violations to do with your user page. Only the 3RR violations which might occur in reverting a suspected linkspammer on Social network service, as we have discussed already. There's the misunderstanding, my friend. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

grace wong

hi - I looked this up when her name popped up and I think I did find some independent source that said she went to Science, but I can't remember now where - I'll look around, but meanwhile I'd agree we should keep it off. (But the thought that a beauty pageant winner was a Science alum is something I wouldn't want to miss if it's true...) Tvoz |talk 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK yeah - Grace Wong appears to be Kwan Hing Wong "from New York"; there is a Kwan Hing Wong in the class of 2004. Too circumstantial? I think I had another source that spelled it out, but it's ok with me to wait for something we can reference anyway, because I wouldn't take this to the bank. Tvoz |talk 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: INSNA thanks

Quite alright, old chap! I entered the article idly just to see what had been added since I last had a look many moons ago, and found all the little tweaks that needed doing. Best wishes as usual. Ref (chew)(do) 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not, of course, a virtual reference to your existential longevity, but a friendly informal Brit greeting, as you well know. Reserved for those who make an "insomniac" Brit feel at ease, so well done. And thanks for the barnstar, which I will move to the talk page, as I do. Thanks again and good editing. Ref (chew)(do) 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Grace Wong Kwan Hing

Dear Bellagio99,

I did not know if really Grace Wong Kwan Hing was in the High School of Bronx and Science. Another Wikipedia editor, IP address wrote the info on the Miss Hong Kong 2007 article, so I wrote it on the school page. I will confirm whether it is true or not.

Sam72991 23:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My birthday gift to you

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Dear, Bellagio99, I hereby give you this barnstar for all the kind words and acts you have done. You've made my Wikipedia experience a better place. Thank you. Jeeny (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

0:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Business network

Hi, young chap(!). I saw your edit to Social network service, and noticed much wrong with the latest involvement of the above article in social network fields within Wikipedia.

They had also inserted the above piece of original research into Social network, so I prodded the article as such, highlighting its essay form and lack of any reference. I then removed it from the Social network article. By October 24 we will see whether it still exists. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And hey presto! it was gone. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And while I'm at it...

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You have long deserved this, for your dogged approach to the protection of your favorite articles, and especially those connected with social network themes. Well done! Ref (chew)(do) 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Social network article

Hi. Someone has today inserted an external link to an Indian network research website into the article. As it does provide a hyperlink to INSNA, it may well be valid. I will leave you to assess whether that is so. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Grace Wong Kwan Hing

Bellagio99, Grace Wong is from the high school. She said it on the her personal forum and it is confirmed by the school as I sent a e-mail to the school regarding the issue. The school has confirmed her as a 2004 graduate. The forum source is here: forum message. Scroll down to the November 8, 2007 posts to see the message.

Sam72991 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Social Networking

Social Networking is an act of utilizing Social media to interact with a Society to build relationships and promote a Brand, which may be a product, a service, or a person.

What I mean is, "interacting with Society" is interacting with members of Society. I have spent the last 7 years in different Social Media Networking Groups and I have observed that the mojority of users come to these Networks because they have something to sell. What are they selling? a Product, a Service, or their Name! This is a Sociologic observation that I have induced from a group behavioral interaction within a respected community observed. Igor Berger (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bellagio99 (talk) I am a little confused by Social network and Social network services pages. I find some contradiction.

Social Network

A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes.

Social Networs Services


Social network Not to be confused with social network services such as MySpace, etc. or virtual community


Social network service's

A social network service focuses on the building and verifying of online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.

On both pages it is refered to social network, but you are saying it is different. Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Berger: "Social network" is a field of study and an epistemological approach with a long history in the social sciences. The Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining it, as does the book by Linton Freeman that it references. By contrast, "social network services" (sometimes known by different names) are software that facilitates making connections with people. Sometimes, SNS uses the insights of social network analysis; often it does not. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explentation of "Social network" is a field of study.

I am going to undertake a very chalanging task of creating

It is going to be monumental to get WP:notability, but I like the chalange. I will refer to Social network article for guidelines. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of virtual community article but I would like to shed a new light on the topic, and it would not do justice to do it on vc article, so will experement with vs, and see where it takes me. I will draw on what is in vc and will expand on it in vs applying sn theory. Igor Berger (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bronx

Thanks for adding that funny quote from the Times. I remember reading it last week and thinking it'd be a nice addition. futurebird (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

formatting references

yesterday, i spent the better part of the morning properly formatting the reference links in oscar peterson article and thought you might find the following templates useful and helpful in including references in future edits.

template:cite news: newspapers, news organizations, etc.
template:cite web: websites
template:cite journal: magazines and journals

cheers! --emerson7 16:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


I have granted you the rollback user right, just remember that its purpose is for reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits (like linkspamming), and not for edit-warring. Good luck. Keilanatalk 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Peterson

Thanks! I was wondering if it was incorrectly transcribed: "a one-handed Oscar was better than just about anyone with two handed." Shouldn't it say something like "anyone with two hands"? Or "anyone two-handed"? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll change it now to "two hands". And I will check the quote from the CBC website when I get a chance. Probably Wednesday. As I transcribed in the dark, I might have missed it. But the website frees it from WP:OR Bellagio99 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on the talk page. I also think that "Canadian icon" is the proper title, when referring to the great Oscar Peterson. Blackjays1 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


I think you are correct. He is not best-known as a vocalist and therefore does not belong in the opening. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you help wikify Andy Beard

It is marked as AfD and can use your attention Andy Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I never heard of him, and I have my own deadlines. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Professional network and Professional network service

Hi, Bellagio. Please take a look at the above two very similar articles. First question: in your considered opinion, is all right with them, or are there issues? Second question: if there are issues from a sociological standpoint, is this the area you would be thinking of editing in and possibly improving? I haven't a clue how to proceed on this, but something just doesn't feel right about the articles. They do check out on a Google search as correct terms. Perhaps the articles just need a darn good expansion. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies on my talk page. I'll just watch them to make sure they don't get spammed. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Tilly

Hi Bellagio99, you have recently removed the word "political scientist" from the article about Charles Tilly. Although I totally agree he is primarily a sociologist by training and heart, Columbia University lists him as faculty in both the Department of Sociology and the Department of Political Science. Moreover, his work on contentious politics certainly is an important part of political science as a field. Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650-2000 even got an APSA "best book" award and Tilly has also published in a couple of political science journals. His works on the evolution of the European state system are standard political science readings. As far as I know, much of what he has done crosses boundaries between fields. I would consider Charles Tilly rather as a "sociologist, historian, and political scientist". Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is persuasive. I'm ok if you make the change, as long as you leave in sociologist and historian. 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

108 year old source

The item you found on Jonas Bronck, please bring it to the talk page. I'm going to revert and argue that the talky, folksy column from the NY Times of 1900 is not a reliable source. Jd2718 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree, please, still bring it to Talk; I'm not the ultimate authority, and I certainly don't mean to cut off discussion. In this case, though, I think the Times is wrong. And it is iffy enough that it would be better to seek consensus before adding.
Is there an article about newspapers in New York? When I was a kid I did work for a research paper on the Civil War, and remember the NY Tribune seeming to be a more reliable, more dispassionate source. I think NYC newspaper history might be fascinating. Jd2718 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Jd, I don't disagree (appropriate use of double negative), because I don't know anything more, and I don't have the time to find out. While it is the case that many people moved from country to country as refugees (the Pilgrims) or for jobs (Columbus), I have no other knowledge about Broncks. So I am quite content to let your reversion stand. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bronx ethnic concentration map


thanks for the continuing work on the Bronx.

Do you know who added the ethnic concentration map? The upload looks like it doesn't have permission from the author. (too bad, good map).

Jd2718 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I changed a few of my userboxes so they take a parameter: "he" or "she". I edited your page so the userbox you had previously would continue to look the same. No problems. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the question. Try using a lowercase "the" as in "the Netherlands" and "the Vatican City". I'll try to make the fix so you don't have to. HokieRNB (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This should work for "the Czech Republic", too. Please feel free to edit my userbox to add code for other countries where use of the word "the" will cause this error. HokieRNB (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Bronx, Thonx

Oops, my bad. Thank you for correcting my mistake and leaving me a message. Cheers! Tiptoety talk 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian dictionary

No, I know of no online Canadian dictionary. There is which is interesting but not extensive nor authoritative.

Offline, I like the Canadian Oxford Dictionary or Gage Canadian Dictionary.

Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Current discussion with User:Ogmamas

Hi Bellagio. Regarding the above at Talk:Social network service. I have to say that you are sounding as though you own the article when you make your comment about "inviting others to edit the article". It is not really yours to invite, and I am sure you haven't realised the language in which this seems couched. I would also advise against accusations of sockpuppeteering unless you have really firm evidence - editors will not take this sort of comment as light-hearted or jokey. As usual, I am only posting here to try to save you getting embroiled in any nasty stuff, not to criticise. I hope you will take my observations as neutral and as coming from a person with the necessary objectivity. Thanks and best wishes as always. Stay cool. Ref (chew)(do) 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref, It was the opposite of ownership, and I'm sorry if the word "invite" mislead you. I thought more participation would be good, so I put a notice in two listserves asking people to contribute -- so as to open up the contributions of other potential editors. 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alice and Bob reply.

The Social network service article under Basics states:

For example, if Alice lists Bob as a friend, then Bob would have to approve Alice's friend request before they are listed as friends.

It has Alice wiki-linked to the article Alice and Bob.

This is basically what a Alice and Bob connection is. And the title of the category is Category:Articles with Alice and Bob explanations. This is applied to the Computer Security section of the Alice and Bob article. So, I added to it, also as it links directly to the Alice and Bob article.

Now, not all the articles that wiki-linked to Alice and Bob has that category added, just the ones that use it as opposed to having it in the "See also" section or Talk pages. I also fixed a couple articles that wiki-linked to it without actually referencing Alice and Bob.

If you think I've erred, please remove the category tag.

Leobold1 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revert to the virtual communities page

Why did you revert my edit? I feel it is important to have recent knowledge in Wikipedia pages, without always having to hark back to ancient and sometimes irrelevant histories. --VCHunter (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Sweet of you, but whaddya mean she has a New Yawk accent? (By the way, I think that whole section is way too long, so I made it one name shorter...) Tvoz |talk 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Tilly

Hey Bellagio, I am sorry to hear that Chuck Tilly has died. He was a great person and many people will miss him. It was amazing for how many years he was able to fight his illness without losing his brilliant intelligence and good humor. Pity that experimental treatment did not work... But, well, none of us can resist death forever. Anyway, thank you for updating the article with a citation. And I wonder if you have by any chance a picture of him. It is a shame that there is no picture in his article on Wikipedia. I will also try to find something at Flickr. Best, Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A mentor of mine who knows Tilly personally confirmed the sad news to me :( It's a sad day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I DO have a personal picture of Chuck Tilly, and a nice one -- from his mid-career. It may need a little touching up, in terms of fade (it's been up on my office wall near a window). Alas, I am on the road lots now, but it should get done within a month. Sorry, it can't be sooner. I will also post memorial info here, when I learn of it.Bellagio99 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Web and virtual community

Hi! I agree, web community and virtual community should be separate articles. It seems the main discussion about this is going on at Talk:Virtual community#Merge with web community - perhaps you want to move your talk page comment there, to avoid maintaining two separate discussions? Dreamyshade (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to say hi to you, Bellagio99. And I'd like to smile at you. :) ! Hope you have a great time! From Tagi to Bottom, MySurvivorPartay (Wobbuffet!. Dats right) 18:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"majority agree"

quote from source: 76 per cent — believe the bill has been drafted in response to lobbying by the North American music industry, despite the government's claims that the legislation is "Made in Canada." Adding it back in. Just so you know where it is, thought it'd save you some time (and possible edit disagreement). I cited it earlier, but guess it wasn't clear enough (I almost missed it my second time through the source)..... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Np. Tell me if anything else needs to be sourced clearer, or just go ahead and edit them if its wording (bad at grammar personally so I'd welcome wording changes) or add the fact tag if its a source.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New York dialect

Hi Bellagio99, I moved the section on "New York dialect#Notable speakers with a New York accent", to its own article: Notable speakers with a New York accent. I'm not in favor of lists of trivial information, but I stepped aside and just moved the whole lot of the article (which seems the right thing to do anyway, the "Notable speakers..." part was over one-fifth of the entire article). Because I looked at the history of the page and you did some extensive work there, I just thought I'd let you know. Kind regards, --Soetermans (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


But why when Roosevelt's accent is cited in the article and in the sources I provided? MrBlondNYC (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure I understand. FDR didn't sound like De Niro. But upstate Hudson Valley is considered part of the area where the dialect is heard and that's where FDR was from. I'll add a couple more cites that I think will put doubts to rest. Thanks for trying to save this list. MrBlondNYC (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New York dialect list - fix formatting

On my 24" widescreen, at lest, your formatting left 3 short columns and one very long column. I don't want to undo, because you did another edit right after that. But could you fix. It's really ugly now. Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit in Felice Picano by Delaszk

Hi - You reverted an edit by User:Delaszk in the article Felice Picano here. Changing "pathbreaking" to "trailblazing" is absolutely not vandalism. It isn't even a major edit, since the terms have similar meanings. To identify the edit as vandalism by Delaszk—who is neither a newbie editor nor a vandal—is inappropriate, especially since TW allows for custom edit summaries. I don't object to the change, just the use of vandalism as a reason, since it clearly isn't. I assume this was not intentional, but please be careful which revert button you push. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and also right to AGF (Felice is a friend). I misread as "railblazing" for some reason and was sloppy (and tired). If you haven't reverted, I will do it now. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Charles Tilly

Do you think you can scan it now and add to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Previewing refs

Hi. I saw your edit comment. Actually, you can preview refs. Stick a temporary {{reflist}} at the end of the section edit buffer and hit "Show preview". It's a bit of a pain, but it works. Don't forget to delete it before you save the buffer. Cheers. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Fordham Village

I think I came up with a solution. Go to Old Fordham Village and it redirects to the general Fordham article at the section relevant to Old Fordham Village. That's probably a better solution than deletion anyway as people can still access the topic fairly easily, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


An article you have an interest in, Jonathan Bishop, has been nominated for deletion. You might wish to express your opinion on the proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). Pontyboy (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Religious categories

Your statement of "99%" not falling under the category intrigued me into needing to explain something about wikipedia categories - they are inclusive, not exclusive. To be in the American Christian category you need to only be American and identify your religious beliefs as Christian, that is all, and then the category applies to that biographical page. It is not for Category:American priests or other people who belong to the structure of the Christian denomination, just people who state they are Christian.

The same applies to Lolo, he is Indonesian and self-identified as Muslim. It is irrelevant that he did not strictly adhere to all Muslim fundamental beliefs, just as it is irrelevant that some Jewish people eat pork or some Christians murder other people. Just because they do not strictly follow every tenet of their religion does not mean they are not part of it and really is a classic example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. –– Lid(Talk) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns on the articles talk page. –– Lid(Talk)
I have responded to your response, however I do feel the need to bring up that even in the recent past I have fought peoples attempts to crowbar in that Barack Obama's father religion was Muslim when all sources are that he was a Christian, then a Muslim and then an atheist for the rest of his life. I hate the fact that people try and connect Obama and Islam as a negative, perhaps far more than you, however per WP:NPOV and that it fulfills the criteria of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other considerations the category is to be included. –– Lid(Talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Browser setting

Hi, could you please check your browser settings to see if something is amiss? I notice that frequently when you make edits to a talkpage, for some reason multiple other links and signatures on the page suddenly "lose" any numeric suffixes, which breaks the links or points things to odd places.[3][4] Any idea what might be causing this? --Elonka 20:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for the heads-up. I noticed this only once. And that's all that shows up on my watchlist. But I just edited on danah, so perhaps it happened again. I dunno how to fix it. Where would I check? I continue to use Firefox, but it has upgraded itself recently, to 3.03. I haven't changed any settings. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure, as I haven't seen this kind of thing before. I haven't gone through your contribs to see if it's happened at other articles, I've only noticed it at the Boyd article. My recommendation is for you to keep an eye out and see if you can spot it happening again. For example, when you write a post, before hitting "save page", click on the "Changes" button first, and that'll show you if other things are being changed that you're not aware of. You may also wish to doublecheck that your virus-scanner is up to date, run a spybot checker, etc. --Elonka 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Good tip. I always wondered what Changes did. (I've used Preview a lot.) PS: You might be interested in Phoebe Ayers, et al.'s new book How Wikipedia Works. (No Starch Press, just out). Bellagio99 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, your latest comment just did it again, so now we know it's happening on multiple pages:[5] If you figure it out, let me know, I'm very curious! --Elonka 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are the rules

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Palin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsztalk 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who left that, but I was about to leave you the same warning. Please stop edit warring and discuss controversial edits on the talk page, and especially stop using automated tools to do this. I am considering removing your access to Twinkle if this continues. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I did, oops. Grsztalk 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I used Twinkle, with the assume good faith option, which sends a polite note to those I was reverting. Anyway, I know/respect 3RR. I've done 2500 edits on many articles and have never before been accused of an edit war. In any event, it's on the Talk page, and the last time I looked, part of my edits have been accepted by others. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries really don't cut it. And using automated tools, even with the green buttons, is unacceptable. I do see that you're working it out on the talk page, which is good. Thanks for actually listening to the warning instead of what most people seem to do. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)