User talk:Wugo

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


Hello, Wugo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  BlankVerse 08:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Your recent edit to pupusa changed masa (an article that already exists on the Wikipedia), to masa de maíz (which is a redlink, which means there is no article on the Wikipedia by that name). If masa de maíz is a special type of masa, then it would help if you would edit the masa article and explain that. Then masa de maíz should be turned into a Redirect to the masa article.

The other choice, if you think that masa de maíz is important enough to have it's own article, is that you can write one at masa de maíz (and then add a See also section to the masa article).

If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. BlankVerse 08:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You edit to masa looks good. (A couple of notes: 1) Common redirects to an article that are likely to be used in another article [such as masa de maíz) are bolded just like the article title is bolded [per the Wikipedia Manual of Style—other redirects, such as for mispellings, don't get bolded]. 2) You don't sign articles that you edit—just talk page comments.)
There already is a redirect from masa harina and you created the redirect for Masa de maíz. There probably should be another redirect created at Masa de maiz for gringos and lazy editors. Do you think there should also be redirects created at Masa nixtamalera or Masa trigo (are they both fairly common terms)? [I just went ahead and created them. Redirects are easy to create, and it's probably better to have too many of them than not enough.]
A comment: Unless there is a specific reason for privacy, communication between Wikipedia editors usually happens on their talk pages. It can, however, take awhile to get used to the ping-pong-like nature of communicating that way. BlankVerse 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For the pronunciation, it's probably unnecessary in the masa article, but it should be added to the Nixtamalization article. I've never dealt with pronunciation, but I think that the standard is to use the International Phonetic Alphabet. If you add your own description, you can add the {{cleanup-IPA}} template to the top of the article. This adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles with nonstandard pronunciation, where hopefully some IPA wizard will come along and add the IPA pronunciation to the article.
For posting on a talk page, new comments are always bottom posted, instead of top posted or interleaved. I've never seen anywhere where this is explained, so it may be everyone just following the lead of the MediaWiki software. If you click the "+" tab at the top of the page to the right of the "edit this page" tab, you start a new section that will be added to the bottom of the page. You will get an edit field for the title of the new section, and a larger edit field for your comments. When you want to add to the comments of an existing section, just click the "edit" link at the far right of the section, and again, you bottom-post your comments.
You also generally don't need to use any HTML coding for your comments. Instead of <br/>, for example, just add a blank line between paragraphs. BlankVerse 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
People have slowly started adding pronunciation files to articles. For example, someone just added a file to the haiku article. You can see the links to it at the top of the article. For me, clicking on the link launches my default .ogg file player Winamp3. The following page explains some of the details: Wikipedia:Media#Audio.
There are two different Wikipedia:WikiProjects that will probably be able to help you. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sound is for sound snippets, such as the pronunciation of single words. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia is for reading entire articles.
I just did a minor clarification to the sentence where you added the pronunciation in the Nixtamalization article. I hope that it is accurate. I chose to link to Nahuatl language instead of what is probably the more accurate Classical Nahuatl because I think that article gave a much better overview of the language.
All this talk about pupusas has reminded me it's been close to a month since I've been to my favorite pupusaria. Unfortunately they are way too busy on the weekends, and they are closed on Mondays, so I'll have to wait until Tuesday for a pupusa fix. On the other hand, I could always go for its Mexican cousin, the gordita, tomorrow. ;-) BlankVerse 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left a question on the definition of molino (mill) at Talk:Masa. BlankVerse 11:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
note: I was using foo as a Metasyntactic variable, because mill could be anything from paper mill to a rumor mill. BlankVerse 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Shakes versus Shav, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve (Slf67) talk 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


So, would you like me to delete the image? The upload worked... Teke (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sopa de pata[edit]

Please don't 'sign' articles, like you did with Sopa de pata. BlankVerse 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America[edit]

You might be interested in WikiProject Central America. BlankVerse 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I prevented your workspace page /JBS from appearing in article categories and from possibly confusing interwiki robots by simply wrapping them in a <nowiki></nowiki> tag. Best wishes, RobertGtalk 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your note, I enjoyed reading the article. One thing though, I'm not sure the extensive links in the "Works available online" section are needed; it might be better to restructure this as "Selected works", with singular and prominent links to the Project Gutenberg sites. Great work overall though. Ceoil 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the comment because multiple reproductions of links to the same project could be interpretated as spam. Why would you need a link to each work, if one to the parent site would suffice. I think his vegetarianism is a minor aspect, and should not be prominent; not many visitors to the page were spurred by this aspect of his character. Ceoil 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


thanks, you should check out both the George Bernard Shaw and Caesar and Cleopatra pages. The dates don't match.

yep, good job.

Feel free to move this to userspace...[edit]

Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
I, VanTucky, award you, Wugo, with this Biography Barnstar for your edits to the George Bernard Shaw article. VanTucky (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

An understanding of the man indeed! Bravo. VanTucky (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Wugo! Sorry to be so long in getting back to you about the gluten article. I just wanted to say that the article has been greatly improved since the version I looked at in the peer review. It is much clearer and has good sources. I changed a few wording problems and moved a section around for clarity. I see there's lots of debate on the talk page, though :) Anyway, cheers on helping to produce a good article. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine of El Salvador[edit]

Hi, nice to see interest in this specific article. I noticed you undid a change I made about the water sources in El Salvador. I deleted it, because it is confusing. It gives the impression that salads are not consumed in El Salvador, and that is not true (in my 25 years of life in El Salvador, I have always eaten salad), and also makes it seem as if clean water is not availeable at all, which may be true for some rural areas, but it is not a rule for the whole country. Just look at the supermarkets and markets, and see how much fruit and vegetables are sold and consumed.

I won't change the article until without hearing your opinion. I'm by no means trying to be a bother. I hope we can reach a satisfactory consensus. Kohitsuji-no-bushi 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

help request[edit]

{{helpme}} I want to reference multiple pages of Holroyd's three volume biography of George Bernard Shaw with the references placed at different spots within the article. Can this done with named references? If so, please tell me how. If not, what shall I do? I could use ibidem in some instances, but have found no way for doing that.

There are examples at Help:Footnotes is you are using the "ref" system for footnotes. You specify a name the firs time, along with the details, and the other times you just give the name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, you can. I'd recommend using a separate name for each of the three volumes, of course, but that shouldn't be necessary for each different page, provided that you mention the pages you use in the citation. If you use {{cite book}}, that shouldn't be hard. Anyway, to answer your question, you can name a reference by including name="text" inside the opening ref tag. You can then call that same reference as shown below:
This is the initial citation.<ref name="Sample">Citation goes here.</ref>
This is the second citation.<ref name="Sample"/> Note the / at the end of that tag.
A few things about this:
  • A reference name cannot be numerical. You have to include some sort of text, which can contain numbers, but cannot be only numbers.
  • You can't call a name before it has been declared. The first instance of a name must contain the actual citation, otherwise you get a nasty error.
  • As with everything n Wikipedia, it's very case sensitive. THIS is not the same as This or this or even ThIs.
I hope this helps! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to cite different pages each time in George Bernard Shaw, all you can do is repeat the information in some way from one reference tag to the next. There are some articles that use a different system, where the full details are listed once per book and the footnotes just list author, title, page number. But this article is not set up that way, so your options are limited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Because we don't have the length limitations of a paper encyclopedia, just repeating the entire citation information twice is not a bad idea. Or, you could use something like: Author, Title, ibid., pp. 44-45. If you have the page numbers for the reference, they are a valuable asset to the reader. In my opinion, the only reason to use footnotes, rather than just listing references at the end of the article, is so that page numbers can be provided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There are other, more important, reasons as to why we use in-line citations like this, but whatever. Glad I could be of some help. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheat agrnonomy[edit]

What statements? I just added an internal link.--Jorfer (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Look at the history. I had nothing to do with that statement.--Jorfer (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Just look at the history more carefully from now on.--Jorfer (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heywood Hill Literary Prize[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heywood Hill Literary Prize, and it appears to include a substantial copy of 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) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Request[edit]

{{helpme}} Working on George Bernard Shaw I found a link to Michael Holroyd, one of his biographers. There I found a red link to Heywood Hill Literary Prize, which Holbrook won. I fixed the link by supplying a description of the prize and a list of the prize winners. Now, unhappily, the Heywood Hill article has been tagged, at start and finish, as deficient but repairable by means I do not understand. Please tell me what I ought to do, or failing that, please delete the article and leave Holroyd the red link.Wugo (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! These two tags on the article Heywood Hill Literary Prize are a very good thing. These boxes place this article into special lists (like this one and this one) that other editors patrol and watch. Then, other editors will come to this article and attempt to improve it. The information you have added to wikipedia is greatly appreciated and very welcome. I would suggest a look at the tutorial and "How to write a great article" for some suggestions on how to improve your wiki-skills. If you have any other questions, feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Happy editing! --omtay38 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've dealt with the (minor) issues (if you've got time for a lot of reading, the links from those templates tend to explain how to fix the problems pretty well). Note that your previous request wasn't deleted, but rather moved to the bottom of this page. Algebraist 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw[edit]

Hi Wugo, thanks for you note. Great work on the article, by the way, I think you may be almost there for GA. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

re: GA status for GBS[edit]

Hi, Wugo, thanks for getting back to me. Let me just say I'm genuinely surprised that you were able to do so well on such an important article with a professed lack of Wiki-knowledge; trust me, some admins don't even understand this stuff, so don't be discouraged. We all have to start somewhere, right? There are definitely a few points that can be fixed quickly (all of the MOS stuff, for example, and copy-editing, of course), so that's not what is holding the GAC back. I'm mostly concerned about satisfying WP:V, which may take longer than a week (the "usual" time to put an article on hold for GAC), but I don't mind waiting if you don't mind rolling up your shirtsleeves. :)

I'd say that any specific comments and questions about the article, or in regards to my review, should be posted at GBS's talk page. Any personal worries, gnashing of teeth, hand-wringing and complaining about em dashes and/or citation templates can be left on my personal talk page. :) BTW, did you want to take me up on the offer to copy-edit? I'd be happy to help, especially with MOS intricacies. María (habla conmigo) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do some copy-editing tomorrow when I have more time. I definitely admire your wish to make the sources available to the reader, but be aware that there are those of us who write literary affiliated articles while relying mostly, if not entirely, on book sources; they may start a rumble if you want to go to FAC with mostly online sources. What it boils down to is that book sources are more academic, and there are purists out there. I think you've done remarkably well on online sources alone -- Google can only get me so far, unfortunately. Recent author FAs such as Edgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson and Chinua Achebe have online sources peppered throughout the refs, but I don't think keeping the thirty-or-so online refs and then adding, oh, sixty or so book refs is a bad way to go. :)
Seriously, though, if you are able to go back and use your prior research for additional sources, especially to help boost the sections that are lacking verification, that would be a great step forward. Just add your sources to the Bibliography if they're not there already. I'm sure Ceoil just added what he did as a basic guide for readers, so if you think something doesn't fit it can be replaced by something you did use. What is important is that the source gaps are filled, but if you find a goldmine at your local library and decide to double the article's length, I won't try to stop you! María (habla conmigo) 02:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That his sources are apparently not verifiable poses a problem, but I'll give him a little time to add additional information if it's available. Have you come across the assertion that Shaw was a eugenicist? If so, then we can just trim the added information quite a bit and add somewhere, "Shaw was also a eugenicist" or something similar and hopefully that will be good enough. If you have no proof, however, and none of the quotes check out, then the information must go. WP:V deems it be so. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's urgent, but it's better to make a Good Faith move and add something, somewhere for the time being. As long as you can cite it properly. The info can also be refactored later on if there's more info available or if other user's have suggestions. There are other facets that need more urgent attention in regards to the article, however -- those External Links are still lurking about the place, for example. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Listed works by an author do not require citations (obviously they exist), so no individual links to online sources are necessary. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for a better explanation and examples of articles with lists of works; none of them link to their online counterparts. Now, readers can get to these texts by one of three ways: once it's available on WikiSource, they will not need the ELs since there's already a link to GBS at WikiSource, they can click on the link to the play/novel if an article already exists (Saint Joan (play), for example) and find a link listed in the EL section there, or they can scroll down to the EL section at GBS's article to his section at Project Gutenberg where all of his works available are listed. I'll add that link and also remove the ELs if you'd like, but it's really quite simple and I wouldn't want to take over the project any more than I have!

Keep working on the refs, they're already looking better; remember that those fifteen paragraphs in the middle are still unsourced, though; that's the main issue that's plaguing this article, but if you need more time than allotted I can always close the GAC so you can take as long as you need without the pressure of me looking over your shoulder. María (habla conmigo) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey Wugo, just want to say how much I think the atricle has come on in recent days. Very nice referencing, and well done overall. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For Wugo, who, even when faced with heaps of tedious citation formatting, brought George Bernard Shaw to Good Article status. It's not an easy job, but you did it with good humor, dedication and great determination. Well played! María (habla conmigo) 23:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea about using the Bibliography section for referential works while moving supplemental works to their own section; that's what most articles do. I haven't seen "Suggested reading" before, though; usually it's called "Further reading", but really it's the same thing, isn't it?

Were you considering putting something together like Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe, which is a Featured List? If so, not only could you play around with chronicling publication information, but you could also easily add links to online source material, whether it be Wikisource or external links (albeit perhaps in ref-style, not [1] <- this). Since most bibliographies are list format instead of article format, it's a different arena entirely. You could try all kinds of cool stuff! I know nothing about writing lists, however, so I'm the wrong person entirely to ask. :) I like this idea, though, especially since Shaw was so very prolific; it would be helpful to expand on it but not crowd the main article. *approves* María (habla conmigo) 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, user subpages or sandboxes are very useful and even encouraged by some, especially when it comes to long projects. I've seen people with sandboxes for their sandboxes! When creating an article in personal space, all you have to keep in mind is to omit or (better yet) disable the categories since you don't want random people to show up and start playing in your sandbox; that happened to me once and it was fairly annoying. It looks like the user who played in your sandbox disabled the categories by bookending them with the <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki> tag so they wouldn't link. You can also "hide" text so it doesn't appear at all with this tag: <!-- Insert non-formatted text here --> I believe that's it, though. I'll leave you to do your magic, but I'll be watching with interest. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi again Wugo; I did not create the bibo section, I just formatted it. But thats a small point, as I said before the page is a credit to you, and I think with work it could be brought to FA standard. I would be willing to help out out on this effort, if you want. Ceoil (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the list. I'll keep it watch listed and help out now and then. By the way, the project could sorly do with an editor like you working on a broad range of lit articles. Any interest in watchlisting W.B. Yeats, William Blake, John Millington Synge, or Sean O'Casey? Best. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw's Residence[edit]

Sorry, rather new to this. I had found Shaw and his mother on the 1881 British census when I did a project on him a few years ago. it's free on My apologies again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unwisely (talkcontribs) 23:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to Methuselah[edit]

My talk page is fine. I'll review it ASAP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Using rollback[edit]

Hello, try not to make reverts like this; the rollback you made restored vandalism from an IP user. Just also keep in mind that the rollback feature is designated to revert vandalism only. Thanks! SchfiftyThree (talk!) 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your message on how to restore the section in Masa on my talk page. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 01:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


I know about the original term for the dish. I was only fixing a redirect (the article still says "tamales," which is the plural form regardless of whether you say "tamal" or "tamale"). Tamal redirects to tamale, which is why I changed it (the text wasn't changed; just the article the link goes to). --Evice (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello again. I think you should eventually aim for FAC at some stage. Ceoil (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

September 2009? Its a lot closer than that. I've been following the progression of the article all along; you need to rope in a copyeditor or two, but you are very close to FA standard. Just add the info, why wait so long? I'm saying this for a number of reasons, and one is that the project should be proud than an article on such a difficult subject as Shaw has been brought to this standard. Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shaw's "Black girl in search of God"[edit]

The way the article is written seems to violate WP:RS and WP:NOT PAPERS. For example, the Bible is not an appropriate reference for a Wikipedia article. Especially an article about a short story. RobertM525 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That Biblical quote might be something of note but it is not a reference in terms of being something that was referred to in order to write the Wikipedia article. It is symptomatic of the problem with the references there in general. Again, please see WP:RS. Also, WP:CS as far as what ought to be cited in a Wikipedia article. RobertM525 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, leave the Bible link as either an external link or a footnote. Ditto note #1, 3, and 4 (and perhaps others, e.g. 6). As for what needs to be referenced, I have added tags to the article to make clearer what I was referring to with the tags I added (which did not, BTW, include the orphan tag). The article will also need a "References" section and a "Footnotes" section added if these changes are performed. Finally, please see WP:SYNTHESIS. What is an appropriate source for an academic paper is not an appropriate source for a WP article. The article reads like the WP authors' analysis of the work, which is original research. RobertM525 (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment! Any more articles that are infested with low-value links, please let me know. (Well, there are tens of thousands, but I'm interested in cleansing the most well-known ones, as an example to other editors.) Tony (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to Methuselah[edit]

  • Hi, saw your request on the Theatre page (asking for feedback), I read the article and left a few questions on the talk page there. I think the rating is appropriate (it is C/ low). The article is interesting but the problem, for me as a new reader, is sort of the "forest for the trees", there is lots of detail, long descriptive sections, but not much summary or overview of the big picture. But thanks for your efforts, it clearly was a lot of work to do the summary that is there! --Mdukas (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


This is in response to your recent edit of Sun. In astronomical parlance, oxygen, carbon, and all the other elements with more massive atoms than helium are called "metals". I don't like this any more than you do, but that's the way it is. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Religious initiation rites, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)