User talk:Erebus555/archive1

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF EREBUS555'S MESSAGES ON WIKIPEDIA, CLICK HERE FOR THE CURRENT DISCUSSIONS.

Upload

I have just added my first upload apart from an image onto Wikipedia. It is a .pdf file however it is under Image:.

It is on the Birmingham redevelopment plan

Birmingham buildings

Hello, I see you're doing a lot of work on buildings in Birmingham. To avoid conflict with some users (I don't mean me), could you try to write more encyclopedic information about the buildings and why they are relevant for inclusion to wikipedia. Otherwise you're going to get complaints along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a listings directory" (which is fair comment). If you'd like any advice, please feel free to contact me. The JPS 17:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. I have been doing alot of work on Birmingham buildings but now I have taken that in to consideration. So I have now started revamping the articles to give more information. This may take some time but time = care and care = recognition. Sorry that was a bit stupid but you should understand that I am still new to Wikipedia.

By the way everyone, my User: page has been revamped too. Learn more interesting things about me than just where my name came from etc. I will be adding more to it as time progresses.

Everyone's new at some point and everyone makes mistakes. Live and learn...

a) for the buildings you need to justify their inclusion for an encyclopaedia. Otherwise we could have the height, architecture and dates of construction of every building in the world on here!!!

b) it is very important that you understand copyright in relation to images. Have a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. The explanations you have given are not acceptable, unfortunately. Take a look at User talk:Cheung1303 for an idea of what happens to a talk page when people see images without acceptable info (although Cheung's lack of ability to fully understand English did not help).

The JPS 21:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right....

Right. After looking at cheungs talk page I think I better do something about my images. Now, to be honest, I don't know how to get permission off websites to use their images. But altogether, I don't have a clue about copyright anyway so I have decided to take the photos off the pages and ask someone to delete them for me. I will take my own photos now so it saves having to do lots of stuff with copyright.

Thanks anyway. Erebus555 08:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, taking your own pictures is the safest way to do it. It's more satisfying too! Yes, I would advise removing them from the articles and getting an admin to delete the images. I guess the best thing to do is add this to the image pages: {{deletebecause|I accidentally uploaded this image which is under copyright}} This should allow an administrator to delete them without having to go through the delete procedure.

Glad to see you're keen! Hope you enjoy wikipedia The JPS 12:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the images off the pages and I am going to buy me a new digital camera as well since I am also going to America this year so I will take my own pictures.

Re: Joking about British

Actually, the British didn't invent English. No one did. It evolved from the Indo-European language family. When the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons conquered England, they blended their Germanic languages with the Celtic peoples who already lived there. Furthermore, when the Normans conquered England around A.D. 1000, the French language was intermingled with the English language of that time; thus, nearly half the words of the English language are derived from French. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks for that Erebus555 Φ TALK

No problem. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural Sciences

Excellent job! - UtherSRG 17:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

- Incase you were wondering everyone, I sorted evrything out into alphabetical order and put them in the categories. I tidied up the other groups too. Something I will keep doing to lists. (Erebus555 14:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC))

While, I am sure you mean well and I applaud your determination in going through and sorting and labeling everything, I don't think the little alphabetical labels are all that helpful in the smaller groups. Please see comment at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Natural Sciences. Dragons flight 00:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

- Posted comment (Erebus555 12:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Vandalism

My talk page has just recently been vandalised with an unappropiate image put on it. I will make aware the user who did this soon. - (Erebus555 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

The name was ... Le Migou. I am asking my trusted users to see if they can report her. - (Erebus555 17:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))
- I see you managed to already do it. It looks like the bot is just selecting random users. The JPS 20:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Task

I will now start editing spelling mistakes and other minor edits on stubs and other pages since I cannot find the time to create new bold, detailed articles. - (Erebus555 15:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Stub templates

Hi Erebus555,

Though I think it's laudable setting up a special page with stub templates for new Wikipedians, it's actually causing a problem. Your user page now appears in lots of different stub categories which the stub sorters are busy trying to empty, because you've put the templates themselves on the page, rather than putting template links to them.

In any case, there is a much fuller and more comprehensive list of (as far as I am aware) all the stub categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. By the way, if you're interested instub sorting, the people at WP:WSS would be only to happy to welcome yu onto the stub sorting team! Grutness|^hello? 02:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey there. :) Might I suggest that you began using edit summaries? They are very helpful for other editors who have interest on the articles you are working on, since it's a way of keeping track of what is being changed. So if you are, for example, editing an article about a city, and you correct the date of it's founding, mark the edit as minor and that will do for the summary. However, if you make subtantial changes to the article, make a short list of the things you have changed. It takes very little time and it helps others greatly. Cheers! --Sn0wflake 15:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- I have started doing that, it is just that I keep forget it and ignoring the box. Thanks for reminding me anyway. (Erebus555 16:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  - Nothing specific. Just giving you some general advice, really. --Sn0wflake 00:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why people use Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Why people use Wikipedia has been moved, per your request, to User:Erebus555/debate1. – AB CD 22:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lake-stub

...cuts directly across the current categories used at WP:WSS and as such is worse than useless as a stub! Please - if you intend to make new stub categories, get them checked out at the stub sorting project first. Currently all geographical items are separated by country or region, not by type of item. Double stubbing is unneccessary in these cases, since it is far more likely that individual editors will know about a country rather than a landform type. If there was a separate Lakes WikiProject (as is the case with ecoregions) it might be acceptable, but there isn't. Both template and category have been listed or deletion. Grutness|^hello? 23:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ad-stub - only discovered today, looks much more useful but - as I said - please get any new categories and templates checked at WP:WSS first... it'll make stub sorting much more effective if the stub sorters know what stubs there are! Grutness|^hello?

09:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (PS - sorry I was a bit terse with the previous message... you caught me at the end of a baad day, and finding lake-stub was the icing on the cake!)[reply]

- It's OK. I only read the message AFTER I made the ad-stub. I know now not to make any stubs unless I ask or tell or something with the Stub sorters. - (Erebus555 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

User Page

I have done my user page up. It looks like the main page now so I am happy. - Erebus555 14:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just come back from France from a town called Dreux. I am going to add a few pictures to this article. - Erebus555

Enhancing images

I have started enhancing images which look a bit faded. So if a user wants to use the photo, they have a better version to use.

Article creation

I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found 1824 in architecture. I see that you created this but were not watching it. You may want to go to your preferences and under the "editing" tab turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". This will enable you to keep an eye out for any edits that are made to pages you create and help to revert vandalism. If you do decide to turn it on can you please drop me a note on my talk page so I can cut down my excessive watchlist. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Málkov

[1]: three villages exists (Beroun, Chomutov and Tachov districts). With two names I use direct point from one to another, with 3 or more disambig page. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several thousands of villages in the Czech Republic and I am practically alone in adding them. It will take year or more to add them all. Pavel Vozenilek 16:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject! I see you have contributed to some Atlantic hurricane articles, and we are glad you decided to join us. There are numerous ongoing projects are currently being worked on, and any help you can give we will greatly appreciate. If you have any questions, you can ask me or prose a question at our headquarters. Have fun, and see you around. Hurricanehink 17:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised article

I've just been informed of Bishop Vesey's Grammar School, which had some pretty nasty defamatory material left on it for a while. I've deleted the offending revisions - basically everything after 11th Feb - but there's always the possibility it'll come back again.

I'm leaving it on my watchlist as normal practice, but as an editor recently involved with the page, could you keep an eye on it as well? Thanks... Shimgray | talk | 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When it gets to the level of people sending us annoyed emails, it always seems good to share the worying a bit ;-) Shimgray | talk | 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Sor, Fenando, (1778-1839), composer

I can't imagine why your "Small edits" included removing him; i'm putting him back. If i am missing something, please let me know.
--Jerzy•t 07:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. You removed the misspelled one, and left the mis-alphabetized one.
--Jerzy•t 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Five_Ways_Tower.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Five_Ways_Tower.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monadnock Building and other American buildings

I reverted your changes to the article on the Monadnock Building (and other American buildings) to the American spelling. Article on an American building should use American spelling, according to Wikipedia style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing American English to British English in articles about American buildings. If you persist in ignoring these warnings, you will be blocked from editing. - EurekaLott 15:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped a while back. I am only persisting in replacing story with storey on highrise building articles. I was unaware that this would cause such problems. I will revert them asap. - Erebus555 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erebus, unfortunately your edits of American spelling to British spelling on American-content articles contravene the Manual of Style, as pointed out to you above. The particularly unfortunate thing is that you have been using the AutoWikiBrowser which is a great productivity tool, but can cause a lot of damage in a short space of time if misused (even if inadvertantly). An admin has temporarily blocked your access to the use of AWB.

Please carefully review the MOS spelling gudelines and look through all the edits you made. If you can agree to work your way through them systematically, and revert if need be, I am sure we can restore your access to the use of AWB. Bear in mind for the future that all AWB edits should be carefully considered before being committed. Please get back to me. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your AWB approval to help with rolling back. I won't say happy editing because it will no doubt be tedious, but happy editing once it's all cleaned up :-) FYI this was all discussed on the Administrators Noticeboard --Cactus.man ✍ 07:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see your IP is unblocked now. This was all very unfortunate and not really your fault, but hopefully you are not too bruised by the whole affair. Editing the article for Storey is probably a good idea as you suggest but it is a redirect to Floor which is a bit ambiguous in it's use of singular and plural tenses. Some further clarification would help, good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing spellings

Erebus555, please stop using AWB to change spellings of words in articles to your own preferences. "storey" and "metre", among others, are the correct way to spell the words in some countries. Wikipedia accepts all variants of English, and prefers no regional spelling over another. Also, please do not forge your edit summaries - you are not "reverting" your changes - indeed, many of the articles you modified today have not previously been modified by you. Thanks. -- Tangot a ngo 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I am getting really confused now. Right, I have been told to use American English spellings in American articles. The articles I am editting are American so I am simply changing them to American English. I changed many articles yesterday to British English and this caused problems so I was changing them back as well as other articles. - Erebus555 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erebus555, I have read the comments above and now understand what you were trying to do. I'm sorry to have come to a quick conclusion. Thank you for changing the spellings of words in articles about American/Canadian buildings to their proper spellings. However, may I suggest you change your current edit summary, as it is misleading. Thank you. -- Tangot a ngo 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I lost track of which articles I had modified yesterday and so on so this may be misleading. I have finished now anyway so I hope no more complaints or queries will be given as a result and leading to another block which I received yesterday. Luckily, they understood my reasons and unblocked me :-) Erebus555 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I really need to look at talk pages before posting to them. :) -- Tangot a ngo 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note that in American English, when you are refering to the level of a building's floor, the proper spelling is "story", not "storey". 209.150.223.87 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian articles

Erebus555, you have been changing the correct spellings of "storey" and "metre" in Canadian articles to the American spelling. Please stop. Skeezix1000 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I? Oh dear, I must have got them mixed up with United States articles... Hmm, I'll have a look through. - Erebus555 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the articles back to the Canadian spellings. Skeezix1000 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Help.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Help.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cataphile

Can you explain to me your reasons for changing the cataphile page? You didn't leave an edit summary, and you edited out some important points. -- hibou 12:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how so? I'm fairly new to wikipedia, so please explain. For me, the important information that was edited out is (1) that people go down to enjoy themselves, or party, hang out with friends, etc. -- i.e. not solely for photography, painting, etc. And (2) that the abundant rumors about skinheads and such are unsubstantiated. Even I heard this rumor before starting to explore, and I continue to hear this rumor both from cataphiles (along the lines of 'oh yeah, I think there were skinheads in the 80s') and other people ('aren't you afraid of the skinheads?'). -- hibou 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I reworded it a bit for clarity. -- hibou 09:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in Manchester

Hi. I noticed that you created a new page called Category:Buildings and structures in Manchester as "part of a plan to downsize main Manchester category". Has the creation of this page been discussed anywhere, as it introduces a problem with some of the recategorised articles and I want to see if corrective action has already been agreed before I take action myself. Thanks. Road Wizard 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you took my post above as a complaint. Unfortunately written forms of communication lack any indication of the tone of voice the writer is using, and can often seem more negative than the same sentence does when spoken. I was just inquiring if there was a discussion as you mention this new category is "part of a plan", suggesting that there are more changes to come. The only problem I have spotted with your recategorisation is that the Manchester Victoria station and Manchester Piccadilly station articles are categorised as just buildings in Manchester, and not transport hubs. If there has been no discussion, however, my creation of a second sub-category called Transport in Manchester will not duplicate the actions of another editor. Sorry again if my choice of wording caused you any concern. Thanks. Road Wizard 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For stub creation and category sorting, you are a working man. T e ke 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!

I have to redesign my edit count tool a bit, because of your modesty, it now can count "minor edits" as major if they should be. That said...

--Viewing contribution data for user Erebus555 (over the 1000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 59 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 3, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.23% Minor edits: 68.79%
Average edits per day: 13.3 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 1000 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 901 edits) : Major article edits: 99.73% Minor article edits: 74.1%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 13.1% (131)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 14.9% (149)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 49.2% (492)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 833 | Average edits per page: 1.2 | Edits on top: 40.6%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 13.9% (139 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 72.7% (727 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.1% (131 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.3% (3 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 90.1% (901) | Article talk: 1.2% (12)
User: 1.7% (17) | User talk: 1.9% (19)
Wikipedia: 2.2% (22) | Wikipedia talk: 0.1% (1)
Image: 1.1% (11)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 1.7% (17)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Wow!!! 13.1 is the highest number I have ever seen (7.4 was the max before). Good work, and happy editing!Voice-of-All^Talk 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]