This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
Wondering what you can do today? Here are some open tasks:
More can always be found at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and Wikipedia:Cleanup. |
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 01:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for making this edit; I was going to do it after seeing the thread on m.t.r. -- NE2 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mind elaborating on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbo Hotel? You made no assertion on why it is "non-notable". As a new user, I would strongly suggest reading WP:NN. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you're signature is missing a closing tag ( </small> ) which makes all the following text small. Please fix. Thanks :) -- Quiddity 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you - should be fixed now. — Random8322007-01-23T20:55:29 UT C(01/23 15:55EST) TEST
What's the deal with this? It's extremely difficult to read, and I see no practical reason to include your time zone. (It happens to also be my time zone, but UTC is the standard around here.) — David Levy 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Random832,
I am not sure that merging these two articles into Bob and Tom in their current state was the best thing to do. Neither of these characters should take up this large an amount of space in this article. You'd have probably been better off leaving a small amount and a pointer to the other article. I'd like to work with you to improve the B&T article. Thanks!
Take care,
Larry Lmcelhiney 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an article Recurring characters on The Bob & Tom Show would be best - I took this action mainly because the Kenny Tarmac article got prodded.
Copy of a related discussion on User talk:Simply south#del rev |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger Syndrome. Since you originally nominated this article for deletion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Random8322007-01-25 17:10 UT C (01/25 12:10 EST) I'd like to note that the pronunciation that this redirect is based on is how I, my parents, and my doctors have always pronounced it, and while obviously we know how to spell it, that doesn't apply to anyone who hears about it secondhand — Random8322007-01-25 17:27 UT C (01/25 12:27 EST) |
Thanks for telling me about this. I think this stems over pronounciation. Simply south 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a reason why i am starting to question myself. How it is spelt and pronounced differently in different countries. Simply south 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sup, /b/. 192.138.214.106 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about the "Man Boobs" album. I have been adding the albums as articles as I've had the time and that was what I'd been listing there. I'll just go ahead and put the recent names up there for now and then wikilinx later as the articles are completed. There are over 40 albums as I recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcelhiney ( talk • contribs)
I'd think it'd make more sense to just redlink them. — Random832 T C2007/01/22 16:30:31 UTC (11:30 EST)
Lmcelhiney 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you see my response on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_24#Template:User_against_Fair_Use? It seems pretty hypocritical to contribute to a "free as in free speech" encyclopedia, while simultaneously campaigning against fair use, whose sole purpose is to protect free speech. Just makes no sense to me. — Omegatron 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think inclusion of non-free content hurts the overall freeness of the project? — Random832( t c) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice! >Radiant< 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was just making my way across Wikipedia and stumbled into the tempest over at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause. From what I gather, you're one of the principle parties involved in the discussion/debate/dispute/whatever. As a neutral party who is new to the discussion, I'm wondering if perhaps I can offer an outsider's take. To that end, would you care to tell me your take on things? If you'd rather not, I understand. I just figure a fresh perspective might help. Regards. — DragonHawk ( talk) 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[1] would appear to violate our policy on civility. Please try to express yourself in a more civil manner in the future. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
*I don't think anyone's saying that a phrase that is pronounced /æsbərɡər/ isn't a plausible mishearing of /æspərɡər/ when the distinction between /p/ and /b/ after a voiceless consonant is virtually nonexistent (if it exists at all, /b/ would be [p] and /p/ would be a very slight [pʰ]. But I'd have to be shown a minimal pair to be even convinced of that.) Even most of the arguments in the DRV about it not being a plausible misspelling are based on (in the face of reliable sources to the contrary) "asperger" being pronounced wildly differently rather than it not being a plausible misspelling of the correct pronunciation of it
One of the problems I have is that the DRV is heading towards no consensus - which means it stays deleted even though the original deletion was out of process. The status quo should be that it's there already and the debate should be an RFD, not a DRV. -- Random832( t c) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that anyone with any common sense would dismiss out of hand any name containing a profanity. The same logic would mean that "Assmann" (no less a german name than Asperger) would be similarly dismissed, and - well, I don't need to rehash the list of improbable names that someone posted. Other than the fact that it is in fact incorrect; to someone who doesn't know a priori that it's incorrect, "assburger" is no less plausible than any of those, and it's derivable from the pronunciation, whereas to someone who doesn't already know it, the name "Asperger" is completely random. -- Random832( t c) 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Ksipmann's images are of an appropriate license for the commons. He hasn't been around in months. If you think some of them are encyclopedic, please feel free to upload them or mark them with {{ move to commons}} and/or suggest it in WP:IfD. I don't know enough about martial arts to decide if they would be useful or not. ~ Bigr Tex 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my userboxes, I did however notice them earlier, and I planned on getting them fixed sometime, but no, in regards to your comment, I don't mind that you fixed my userboxes. Thanks again, I appreciate it ^_^ -- OdinReborn 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point is that they aren't essays. If you look through CAT:E, most pages there are people's opinions on how things should work. Such an opinion is different from a description of how things do work. There are a few people (both here and in articlespace) that do not like certain facts, and try to downplay them by calling them opinions instead. That's the theoretical part. The practical part is that novice users who attempt to learn more about Wikipedia tend to ignore essays (because they don't actually describe how Wikipedia works). So by calling a fact an opinion, we are misinforming our novice users, and that can hardly be a good idea. >Radiant< 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you increase the size of the font: it's unreadble! Happy Editing by Snowolf (talk) on 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I am a member of the League of Copyeditors. We have a template which we place on the talk pages for articles we've reviewed.
{{ WP LoCE}} {{WP:LoCE|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}
As you can see, it is currently substituting the month and year, but this isn't visible on the template. We'd like to automatically generate a month and year and display it in the template, perhaps with text like, "This template was added on: <Month> <Year>". Ideally, we'd then have a bot which would go through and delete old tags.
Can you help us modify this template? I am relatively new to Wiki, so I am sorry if this request is insultingly simple and/or difficult--I just don't know enough to tell, and you appear to be wise in the ways of Wiki. :o) If you have any suggestions for the bot, they would also be very appreciated. Let me know if you would be able to help, and thank you in advance for your time! Galena11 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Random, I have a problem because in this article you talk about Dave saying he made RSS popular ,even thought it was made and promoted by a major company, yet on the Ramanathan V. Guha page inventing RSS is basicly a footnote. I don't understand how one man telling people to use it deserves more text in an article than is given to the inventor of the technology. I have given you the name of the technology's inventor and therefor proven that Dave did not invent and does not control RSS. He has nothing more to do with it than you or I do yet you still insist on trying to word the article as if he has some controlling connection to RSS. If the man didn't make RSS he didn't make it. The only reason to associate him with it is to make him sound important enough to have an article.
Blogging: It is clearly known that he didn't invent blogging, yet you still want to tie him to it by using words like pioneered or was one of the first to blog. The blog wiki clearly begins the history section in 1994 while this article says Dave started blogging in 1997. How can you pioneer something or be one of the first if you were not interested in yet for at least 3 YEARS that other people used to actually pioneer blogging and blog? Podcasting: I along with other users have shown you that he did make podcasting, or make anything that was needed to do it.
You can say I vandalized the article ,but even after I and other people have told you that these things are not true you merely change the wording a little bit. Bill Clinton can define he word is ,but the definition is still the same! Quit trying to associate him with things he likes.--( Nirelan/ shout) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your help in trying to create a good article about Dave Winer, I realize that much off recent work has been to fend of vandals, but at least know that this user is appreciative of your efforts. Thanks! Tester er 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Random832, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!
-- Slade ♠ 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you are lying TED. MY POINT IS THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN BLOGGING. YOU show me where I have been blogging. The truth is you are lying once again. This is disgusting, and utterly reprehensible. Jance 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And would you, Random, please explain to me why I have to justify my reason for not wanting my real name linked to on Wikipedia? Can you show me the policy where it is acceptable to demand a showing of how it can harm me? As it turns out, there is valid reason. But I should not have to defend myself on my reasons. At all. IT is outrageous that you or anyoen even asked. Jance 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I should not have to explain my desire or need for privacy. PERIOD. This is a WIkipedia policy, as well. AND THERE IS A REASON FOR IT. My objection was the use of my real name, not a user name. Ted knows that. HE is now attempting to sling whatever mud wherever he can, because he wants me permanently banned,. That someone has not blocked him already for obvious harassment and baseless accusations is incomprehensible. Jance 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
...on Derek Bell (baseball player), the AP sometimes doesn't credit an individual author with a a byline on a piece of work. In those situations, it's appropriate to simply cite the syndicate itself (adding an "unknown author" note if you want to do so). - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what have you been up to? I've been running around sticking things in categories... and you know school and work and such. Shimaspawn 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, remember me,I'm User:Trampton you helped me with my userpage,well,uh, I added something to my userpage list,and I need you to put a picture on a new one, "That I'm male", oh, that reminds, how come on the others, you did not put a picture,I'm just asking, not forcing you to put one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampton ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey fellow user, should we ban User:Batzarro, he has done nothing but vandal, and he has only been blocked over and over, why not come hard on him? Trampton 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I was putting up some more to my infobox and it got messed up, sorry I am NOT good at building infoboxes or userpages. Trampton 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Musical Linguist is working on a paper at the moment, and is unlikely to reply to your query, but I can answer it for you.
She goes by a lot more than just IP addresses when identifying Amorrow, although of course she includes these in her analysis too. From what I know, Amorrow uses dynamic IPs, usually from a cafe that he does his stalking from. Generally, if an IP is thought to be possibly Amorrow, an admin would click on the contributions to see what else the IP had edited around the same time. He has a group of favourite articles, quite often about women that he stalks. His talk page posts can be easily recognized, and sometimes he is involved in a discussion in a particular thread, and goes back to edit his post from a different, but very similar IP.
Some of his edits have been deleted from page histories, and can only be seen by administrators. Musical Linguist, as an administrator, would have access to deleted edits. Sometimes he makes reference in a post or in an edit summary to something that he has written in one of the threatening e-mails he sends to administrators.
In the edit which you referred to, the IP's other contributions showed that he had modified a talk page post he had made earlier from a similar IP, and that IP was very clearly Amorrow, not just from the style of his post, but from other harassing edits made to someone else that he had been harassing.
I know Musical Linguist as an admin that doesn't block or revert unless she has very good reason for thinking it's Morrow, and that doesn't block an IP that last edited several hours before, as he hops from one to another. Admins aren't ever supposed to indef block IPs, unless they're open proxies. Someone else could use the same IP, which is why admins (ML being no exception) look carefully at the timing of the edits, and the choice of pages, and the tone of the talk page posts, before deciding to block.
Hope that helps. Str1977 (smile back) 10:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove entire sections of an article, especially when sourced by publications like the New York Times. If you wish to discuss such changes, please do so on the talk page. Thanks. Jokestress 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Random832, oof, I left IRC without telling you that I will get {{ onlinesource}} optimized. How it is now does work, however. See you around! Gracenotes T § 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! I posted a comment at the honesty essay talk page about your edit, could you take a stab at it? If I'm plumb crazy, then that text you removed should be gone, but I want to make sure that it wasn't pulled because I was clumsy with the thing I was trying to express. Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not make bad-faith deletion nominations because of disputes you've been in. This is strongly frowned upon and can lead to the deletion debates being closed early as speedy keeps, and can lead to you being blocked for disruption. -- Core desat 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The first criterion of CSK reproduced here for reference:
Fail. -- Random832 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Without a withdrawal, "no-one other than the nominator votes delete" is WP:SNOW. Please reopen per the recent arbcom finding. -- Random832 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Please consider that there presently are 21 redirects to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point":
-- Jreferee 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I overturned the deletion of this category to list it at UCfD, but since you volunteered to include it in a group nomination with all political user categories I'll give you precedence on it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw your last post to the workshop ... I just want to reassure you that I've read a fair number of arbitration cases, and participated in several, and this proposal of banning people from the arbitration pages is definitely not typical of how these things unfold. Please continue to contribute whenever you think you have something to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
I, Deon555, award Random832 with this Da Vinci Barsntar, for his awesome monobook work. He helped me solve a nice little script issue I was having, fixed the lot, and it works awesomely. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good work! — D e on555 talk desk sign here! 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
HI!How do you that to your userbox,that you just scroll down,Thanks Random! Trampton 08:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day. |
Best Regards!
Trampton 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
re: these edits and this non-standard thing: Template:Template doc( talk links history). FYI... but WP:DPP is somewhat contravened by this latter template and the inline call it makes from what I can see. Was this discussed somewhere that I missed? It's hard enough to Justify additional templates on WP:TSP, that using such pretty frills is contraindicated. If Quarl wants to adapt it so that it's subst'd, and includes DPP boilerplate (with it's proper auto-categorization to Template documentation, fine, but this needs broader consideration as it makes usage incompatible with sister projects at the moment AND adds a lot of bytes inside the template it's supposed to be documenting... which is contrary to the reasoning behind DPP. It's hard enough selling a sub-page there in some cases (Wikiquote, Wikisource, for two examples) despite M:DPP! // Fra nkB 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
and re: your answer here
I had discovered that on another template and assumed it was the new standard. If it's not, feel free to change it. -- Random832 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Trampton 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)== Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft == I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Template talk:Sortablename, since there seem to be a number of unconnected efforts to create sortkeys for sortable wikitables. ~ trialsanderrors 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the edit summary indicating that the format of the talkpage for the Billy Ego-Sandstein arbitration talkpage wasn't clear. I've tried to clarify things; please double-check that I put your comment in the right place. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Random832! I have restored the version of this template as it was before your edit today as the templates using nts seemed to be broken after this edit. They did display all numbers in raw format in the first column leaving the following columns blank. Maybe you can have a look into this. Thank you!-- VirtualDelight 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you noticed any problem with 0.45.x not being able to actually use the Measure Path script? It works on another computer with 0.44, but that lacks the options the 0.45 version has. It seems like the Python is not even running...weird. If you've got any ideas, please let me know. If not, sorry for bothering you. -- nae' blis 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you tried. Thanks. You seem to be the only adminitrator that was reasoning through things. Billy Ego 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I gots just two woids fuh ya: join an' spread-da-woid. Eh, dat's two woids, right? >;-)
PS: I did see the fnord. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Random, we've had to oversight out 60+ versions because they have personal names for people who are being labeled the shooter based on nothing in particular. A warning needs to hit hard. DS 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Truthiness_dictionary_page.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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:Media copyright questions. 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Random832 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your script request at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests#Highlight the character "g" in IPA tags. Let me know what you think, preferably on the request page itself. Mike Dillon 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that for me. No problem about the edit summary. — Sean Whitton / 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Arg, had no idea that had exploded; drat. Thanks so much for pointing it out. — Sean Whitton / 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick message to say thanks very much for fixing my Space Station template - much appreciated! :-) Colds7ream 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Unicode tables should absoutly be part of the article, as in any aritcle with Unicode values for it. I'm especially a fan of the joined ones, such as "Ⅳ". Epson291 12:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Jedi Mind Tricks Pharoahe Monch
Check the discographies on there, one of 'em looks a lot better
Check the tracklistings...
Internal Affairs (album) Violent by Design
Once again, the normal shit looks so damn plain, why do you care anyway?
-- PDTantisocial 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The text is different, looks better then the plain ass text used on everything else. And once again, who gives a shit? I use it on a few pages, what does it matter? -- PDTantisocial 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, they don't belong to me, but if I'm the one makin' em, I'ma make 'em look as good as I want em to. Your comp must be different or somethin', because it looks different to me. -- PDTantisocial 05:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)