User talk:Footballfan190/Archive 5

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

STD (disambiguation)

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of STD (disambiguation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/STD. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Please do not move proper disambiguation pages, such as STD or UCR to malplaced disambiguation pages such as STD (disambiguation) and UCR (disambiguation). Their proper place is at the simpler title, and I have reverted your changes. Additionally, do not attempt to move pages using copy/paste. This separates the revision history and violates the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; only move pages using the move tab at the top of the page. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

202.153.69.141

I protected his talk page for two weeks. While that address has been blocked for vandalism previously, what he does to his own talk page isn't vandalism. But if it involves attacks on others, it can and should be protected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Snake edits

Before you continue making edits like the last ones to Eunectes murinus and Crotalus durissus, you need to understand a few things. First, I don't think we can consider the book you seem to be using, Animal, by Burnie & Wilson and published in 2001 by the Dorling Kindersley company, to be the most reliable of all possible references. It's okay to use it when it can provide info not already available at Wikipedia, but please don't use it to replace information already there that has a better reference (Campbell & Lamar, 2004, is excellent). If you must, then add your information, e.g. "Burnie and Wilson (2001) mention ..."
Second, while working on the snake articles for the past two years, I've gone out of my way to cut out as much of the usual nonsense and hyperbole as possible: the biggest, the most deadly, etc. If we can't back up such claims with the best possible references, then we should not jump to such conclusions in the articles. Always remember the old adage, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (or references in this case).
This takes me to the last point: be very careful when using webpages as references. Most are useless because they do not cite any references themselves. Even the TIGR Reptile Database does not always cite its references (which is partly why I can't take it seriously as a taxonomic source). As for the the National Geographic website, they are affiliated with the TV channel -- not the Magazine. The latter has the better reputation for scientific accuracy. The TV channel and the website have a habit of exaggerating the truth for the sake of entertainment. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Footballfan190, please respond. Many of your edits are not constructive. --Jwinius (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I actually like animals. Don't call my edits unconstructive just because you don't have the same interests as me.
On the contrary, it looks as though we do have certain interests in common! You just need to think of a few things before you continue. For instance, it's not good to replace existing information that already has a good reference, and you keep misquoting your own reference. Try using this instead:
<ref name="B&D01">Burnie D, Wilson DE. 2001. Animal. Dorling Kindersley Publishing. 624 pp. ISBN 0-7894-7764-5.</ref>
Furthermore, I've found myself checking and correcting all of your measurement conversions. For instance, in the dimensions table in Bitis gabonica, you converted the head width of 12 cm to 30 inches -- over a foot across! You know, people make fewer mistakes when they use the convert template for this kind of thing. (PS -- Please answer here!) --Jwinius (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it looks like your edits are in good faith, they're becoming increasingly trivial and pointless. Do you think this is funny? I've tried to communicate with you, but you just don't seem to want to listen. If you go on like this, I will lodge a complaint and eventually have you blocked from editing. --Jwinius (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just leave me alone. I don't see what I ever did to you. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Then have some respect for the articles! Many of your recent edits are frankly of no value whatsoever and actually degrade the articles. I worked on many of those articles. It's almost as bad as vandalism now and we have enough of that as it is. But, it doesn't have to be like this. Think about what I've been trying to tell you and think before you edit existing articles. They don't all need to be changed. If you don't have anything significant to add to an article, please leave it alone. --Jwinius (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

rfa

Please hold off on going for adminship again. It wouldn't pass, given the 4 RfAs in rapid succession. Additionally, candidates are expected to know how to format their RfAs correctly. Please read the instructions. I can help if you have questions. Enigma message 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity. I've been around much longer than you have, have over 13,000 edits, and my RfA in May did not pass. Additionally, things like not using edit summaries, going for RfA repeatedly, not signing your posts, and inexperience will be held against you. As for formatting, I noticed it said it was USERNAME's RfA. That would definitely be held against you. If you really wish to pursue it, please make sure everything is fixed before transcluding to WP:RFA. If you'd like, I can review it next time and fix any problems. Enigma message 06:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

I have removed your RFA from WP:RFA. Please fix it before transcluding it. For example, right now, it says that it is an RFA for USERNAME. You probably don't want that - not that USERNAME isn't a very good user. ;) Also, and this is purely my personal opinion, but you really only have about 2 weeks of solid activity since your last RFA as you took most of the late spring off. I have a hard time imagining your RFA being successful. You also need to work on using edit summaries and on using the preview button, rather than making multiple edits back to back. --B (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA has been closed

I have closed your RFA prematurely per WP:NOTNOW. Please do not take this badly but your chances for success were extremely low. I must echo the sentiments of user:Ling.Nut in that I do not think Wikipedia may be the right place for you. Your help with Wikipedia is greatly appreciated but only certain kinds of people have what it takes to be promoted to an administrator. - Icewedge (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry about it man, but it was readily apparent that you were not going to succeed. So I will not make you another request as you suggested either. I am sorry. About edit count 2-3K edits does not equal adminship, for example see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2 where a user with 30,000 edits was recently turned down. I would recommend you check out Wikipedia:Admin coaching before you request adminship again. As a side note, yes, sometime I do wonder whether Wikipedia is the right place for me. I am yet undecided. - Icewedge (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"... User Keegan [said] to me that I need around 2,000 to 3,000 total edits ..."
Well, this seems to explain things. All those miserable, brainless changes you were making to the snake articles: you were just racking up edits so you could apply for adminship! I take a very dim view of this behavior. --Jwinius (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Jwinius

Re your message: Since the conversation has appeared to have stopped, there does not appear to be anything more that I can do. However, even if the conversation was still ongoing, I do not believe you needed my assistance. He expressed his concerns about your edits, but you did not respond to him. If you had responded to him, perhaps you could have worked out the issues that he brought up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Elephant seal

Please do not change sourced information in an article without reliable sources of your own to support it. The change you made to Elephant seal made it look like the information you added corresponded to the existing source, but it didn't. Please cite sources for any changes you make, and remember that deliberate misinformation is considered vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't need to cite my sources. I did nothing wrong. The reason that I didn't need to cite my sources was because the information I put in is already on this website. Just check the articles Northern Elephant Seal and Southern Elephant Seal Footballfan190 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Any time you make a change, the burden is on you to provide proof of its validity. For fairly obvious reasons, Wikipedia can not be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. The change you made was to a sentence that used another website as a source; your change was not supported by that website, so it was not valid. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User 203.89.173.124

I was going to do so, but User:Tanthalas39 got to it before me. Useight (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)