User talk:Refsworldlee/archive01

Archives
2 January – 14 April 2007 15 April – 22 July 2007 23 July – 23 October 2007 24 October 2007 – 17 January 2008 18 January – 10 April 2008 13 April 2008 – 29 July 2017 21 August 2017 – 26 February 2019 26 March 2019 – 18 September 2021 25 September 2021 – 15 June 2024

Scan

Indeed, I had done much work on that page (as it was a giant advert so I NPOVified it) but it has now been deleted as not-notable, which I don't disagree with either. Thanks for the note.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating though! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

CADA1999

As it seems you are now monitoring my user page I would like to thank you for doing some touch ups to the article I wrote today. Good to have someone ready to jump in and make things better. (That was a heck of an article to write by the way!) Is UK law an area of interest to you at all? Cheers!-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not monitoring, Tony, it just appears on my watchlist each time as I have my preferences set to watch every page I create or contribute to - I just thought that what I added was expansion (pity about the lack of online pre-1987 Acts though!), so felt 'bold' enough to go ahead. If you had altered/removed my expansion, I would have deferred to you as the creator. And yes what a creation! It looks as if it was a job and a half. I have only a passing interest in law itself - I have a broader base of interests, so cannot see me concentrating too long on one subject (except for Westies, which I have a passion for, and have one myself, and do charity work for, etc., blah!). I am trying to summon up the courage (and time!) to create my first page, "The Adventures of Greyfriars Bobby", not a brilliant film admittedly, but it appears in red on West Highland White Terrier, and I'd like to change that - I think it's notable enough as a piece of cinematography, so you may well see it attempted before long. By the way, do you think this is authoritative enough to be considered a Reference for that Act? It's the only electronic transcript I could find that didn't appear on a solicitor's page or suchlike. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would say no it isn't a good source. However, having spent a considerable amount of time trying to find copies of pre-1987 laws (you think a 1986 law is bad! You should try some of the late 1800's!) I would say we can only source what we find in this case. I would leave it there until a better ref appears (although we can just reference the act and not actually provide a link).

I also love westies - and miss my childhood pet dearly!-Localzuk^(talk) 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spike Jones

Hi there :). I was really amazed to see that this dear Spike Jones was not in the French Wikipedia. I'll finish the translation tonight I think. Unfortunately, I think I can't use the picture :( . One more thing, maybe you can help me : I don't know how to translate "rail spike " (beginning of the article, about his nickname). Is it a kind of nail on the rail ? Matriochka 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi and greetings. A "rail spike" was used to attach the rail to the wooden or concrete 'sleeper' or cross-piece. You could call it a rail nail I suppose. Good luck with the translation! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Westie.JPG at West Highland White Terrier.

Hi. Could you please give your opinion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Image:Westie.JPG in the article West Highland White Terrier. This image seems to be being added and removed by turn, with no attempt to examine its worthiness or otherwise.

The specific criteria appear to be:

• its suitability on quality grounds; and
• whether it is deemed of sufficient quality, is it more deserving of being shown than other images currently contained within the article, bearing in mind that another issue might be the limitation on including too many images in the article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned user

I saw your note at User talk:155.84.57.253. FYI, that user has been banned for sockpuppetry, stalking, edit warring and other problems. He's been a regular contributor to West Highland White Terrier. In addition to the IP number he has also edited as user:WehrWolf, user:ChevalierJean, and user:Russophile2. The main account is user:CantStandYa. As a banned user he is not permitted to edit any article under any name. Should you spot any user who appears to be him it would help if you notified me or another admin. Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Links on Westie

The remaining ones are actual Westie clubs so contain information directly relevant to the breed as a whole, compared with the rescue ones which are only specific to rescue (which is not a breed specific thing). However, I would not be against the removal of the remaining ones and links adding to the dmoz sections [1] which covers them all.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I would. Sounds like a good idea. -Localzuk^(talk) 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that all breeds have rescue centers and rescues, and thousands of them at that, but there are only a handful of proper breed clubs around the world but then the kennel clubs cover this anyway.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's nice to have someone asking legit questions and not trolling like on many of the articles I work on. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Squared World

Good job on spotting that and tahnks for letting me know. It hadn't been protected, the creator had put the protection tag on the article bu no admin had protected it. And yes, it was totally speediable as it had not assertion of notability. Thanks, Gwernol 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:67.174.27.138

User actually vandalised Wikipedia:Disambiguation after your stage 4 warning - did you realise? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That and three other pages, actually. Once they're reported to WP:AIV, though, there's not a lot I can do; just sit and wait for an administrator to show up and issue a block, reverting any other contributions they make in the meantime. Thanks for catching that edit – Qxz 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Myspace

As soon as you log in goto the home link. On the right you should see a "Network" figure. That is likely the number being referenced. The my network is actually a count of all users on the service, below it should be your profile views and your last login date.--Crossmr 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every citation requires a hyperlink its just the easiest way to do it. There have been cases on articles where if someone is questioned its verified and the citation isn't always left. In this case we've had more than one editor verify the number and we can leave directions on the talk page for verifying it if someone really wants to question it. This would be a different situation if verifying this figure required a fee of some sort. though we might want to establish a standard of say only updating on the 5 or 10 million marks.--Crossmr 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RE Table layout - problem with MySpace?

Hey, as i saw on the article's talk page, everything seems to be clear :) I'm happy with that, sorry for not expressing it well in the first place! Asymmetric 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE Your Reference to Ludvikus

I've noticed your citation of me at User:Gwernol. But I do not know what exactly you are refering to. Would you be so kind as to give me the exact reference? Thanks. --Ludvikus 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's an "IP range"? I do not understand this Wikipedia?

But also, I do not mind not winning an argument. What bothers me is how people gang up on you to get you banned from Wikipedia simply because they do like what you say, or agree with it.

I'm not even editing the actual Philosophy page - just supplying block quotes from philosophical sources in support of arguments. What's depressing for me is the extremely unfavorable impression of human nature I get. How do you feel about "mob mentality"?

Anyway, what's this "IP range"? --Ludvikus 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to be a football (soccer) referee! Watch any top-class football match in England, and you will see at least two incidents where groups of players converge on the official and abuse him. I got quite used to that. The trick is to develop a way of handling it which allows you to smile at their ignorance, and step back from the 'heat'.

If a house is on fire, do you go into the middle of it? How's that for philosophy? :-)

Like I say, as long as your own behaviour is impeccable (faultless), your tormentors' ignorance will be found out by the people that matter. You can still choose friends within Wikipedia - you just have to recognise who the true ones are.

IP range: A single IP address comprises of a series of four numbers spaced by dots to form an internet protocol, which looks like this - 240.83.17.116 for example. A complete IP range for the above would be - 240.83.0.0 to 240.83.255.255 for example. When a Wikipedia ban is applied, any user who tries to edit from a computer in the ISPs range above would find it impossible to open an edit, although they could still look at Wikipedia.

Good luck. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good observations - regarding soccer/football. However, in football/soccer, you usually get to choose "good players", and your dealing with muscles. But in Philosophy, at Wikipedia, anybody can play, and the organ at play is the mind/brain which contains also the worst elements of human nature (too often the rule, rather than the exception). Also, any criticism is easily construed as a "personal attack". Imagine yourself as a coach in which you were not allowed to tell anyone what they did wrong - because doing so would be prohibited on the grounds of being a "personal attack". Why don't you come over to the Philosophy Talk page and see what's going on? Better yet, please feel free to put in your at least your 2-cents worth of contribution - and examine first hand what will happen to you. As a coach I would very much consider observing you in action on Philosophy an extremely useful experience. --Ludvikus 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Although in fairness to the philosophy editors, you might want to consult this as well. Dbuckner 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question about what I wanted you to do with it, I said you might want to consult it. Don't want you to do anything! With every kind wish. Dbuckner 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dbuckner, your views are the most important - you are, in fact, effectively the "coach" at Philosophy - and the way we "play" the game there is determined primarily by you, is that not so?

Now our coach here thinks he needs knowledge of Philosophy. Why don't you inform him of User:Rachie's role? You know that he (Rachie) says that he has no knowledge of philosophy - that he's merely a shrink - a lay psychiatrist who has analyzed me as not suffering from "bi-polar disorder".

Wait a minute. Am I now attacking him? Sorry, I only meant to show that knowledge of philosophy is absolutely not required to get into your "Safe house."

Could you explain, User:Dbuckner, what chance, if any, I have to get the honor of inclusion in the "safe house" on your talk page?

Also, could you explain to the coach here what is the history of the Bristol Stool Chart which you so proudly keep in your list of "rants" that you maintain on your talk page?

And what are your concepts of Civility - and Brotherhood of Man? --Ludvikus 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys - now it's all started again on my (fairly quiet so far) talk page too. Could you kindly take this elsewhere so that I don't get message alerts every time? However, I will still converse with whoever I like, without prejudice, by the way. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gwernol is not always on line. The way to report a vandal, after he has received appropriate warnings, is detai;led at WP:AIV. I have done it for your football vandal.--Anthony.bradbury 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporary block now in place. This system works pretty quickly.--Anthony.bradbury 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ghost Riders

Corrections noted. Thanks! Any idea where to get the unedited version? I'd love to hear it... -MMM- Marmelmm 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard a live version which contains the verse:

CHORUS: Cause all we hear is Ghost Riders Sung by Vaughn Monroe

DRUNK: I'm not wild about his singing

FRIEND: But I wish I had his dough!

Wonder if that's the excised bit? -MMM- Marmelmm 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's the bit he had thrown out of the newer version. Where did you hear it? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cocktails for Two," Pro-Arte Digital, cassette PCD516, 1990, side two, cut 5. Vocal, I.W. Harper and Sir Frederick Gas. Marmelmm 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my dispute with Localzuk

Thanks for your kind words. I certainly didn't make those changes deliberately, or even intentionally. I think what must have happened was that I simply went to my original edit, when I first added the link, and saved the page like that. There is no way I would deliberately change "CNN" to "Cable News Network," for example. In any case, that's not vandalism. My only interest is to restore my link, as you have suggested. Your fellow editor, Localzuk, claims, however, that that link is a "violation." Who am I to believe? (I confess, I lean more towards your opinion...) Paraponon 14:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Greg Courtney

Looks irrelevant to me. The article is about him, not his son. He doesn't seem to be directly involved so there is no need to have it in the article.--Crossmr 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Refsworldlee, I feel very strongly that unsourced material, especially nasty stuff in bios, should be removed on the spot as Jimbo Wales has suggested. I don't even use the fact tag anymore since that never seems to work. If in doubt, I err on the side of removing material that is unsourced. Thats just me. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2006

I assert to have voted for 3 in the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting my changes further. I had only spot-checked for the Link title link and was unaware that there was further vandalism to the article. Bobo. 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting rid of the vandalism on my user page. Bellagio99 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Refsworldlee for your informed cleanup of the Social Network page. I've just reviewed it all and like it all. As I am pretty central in the field, feel free to ask me if you have any Qs. BTW, what led you to edit that page? Bellagio99 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Flote

Apparently the blocking admin did not announce the block on the talk page. The best way to check for blocks is to look at the block log. Academic Challenger 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BLPN

Thanks for the note. I was wrong to mention it on that board anyway. Steve Dufour 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites

Quote: "Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. The article you added no longer exists. Non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will always be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia. If you have questions, use the talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

Yes I reverted myself my error for the non notable website train-union. The revert you did on the List of social networking websites is about User:84.152.118.45 changes...

I really understand that this list should only contain notable sites (it's huge enough...)

I am not sure that the page I made should have been removed because I use a {{hangon}} and the talk page to justify just before the deletion. I explained that the page is a beginning and the interest of it. I am not someone from the company and I don't want to make advertising, the goal was just to make people able to know that a concept exists (and the site could not be considered as something more as a pure proof of concept).

I'll look at Non-notable sites when I'll have more time (and before posting an external link) to know the exact policy...

193.253.141.80 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (and I'll think at choosing a pseudo for my futures contributions)

PS: a very large number of people may use this IP (people using the french orange gprs carrier with a mobile phone)

Apologies if I jumped the gun on this one, it's just that there is a lot going on with anonymous IPs (as you may have noticed in Wikipedia), and it becomes a full time job coping with non-notable reverts and, worse, blatant vandalism.

I do know that IP addresses are not exclusive to one user, but that does not mean no comment should be left on the user talk page - that's what it's there for.

When you talk about using a pseudonym, if you mean registered username, I would strongly recommend it. I myself suffered an IP block when I first started editing, so I registered at the first available opportunity. I know first-hand how tricky it is editing as an anon. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 10:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorical Madness

Refsworldlee, NP your reverting Guanxi as a category in Social Network. I added guanxi in a few text places, and another user added guanxi as a category. S/he overlapped me in the major edits I was doing, so I added it as a category to honour her wishes.

But the real Q: I don't have any deep understanding of categories. Who creates them? What are they for? What are the principles of inclusion? As usual, the help pages don't. Bellagio99 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

It will take me a while to find it but I will try to find something. I know that Wikipedia has changed its policy regarding linking dates and now discourages it. I take a lot of articles through Feature Article review, and they do not allow linking dates unless there is a specific reason for doing so -- like someone was born on the day Pearl Harbor was bombed and that fact is significantly related to the person's life. They also object to any unnecessary linking, only allowing linking if there is a genuine reason to believe that the average reader would not know what the word means. I'll try to find documentation for you, but if you read through FA reviews you will see that. We have Western Chalukyas in review right now, and one of the first things they said was to unlink common nouns (even though we already know that) but people go through and add them! Sincerely, Mattisse 15:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) is wishy-washy vague on the subject of links but it does say don't link to dates for no reason and gives some examples, one of the few actual examples they give. Admittedly, the decision what to link is subjective. But on the linking of dates, MoS is pretty clear. Sincerely, Mattisse

But the linking you are removing is also a formatting issue, as regards user preferences. It follows that un-date-linked articles then force the reader into viewing the date in a certain way, rather than how they prefer, which is the reason for allowing personal-choice formatting of dates in the first place.

I think you have this totally wrong - I would agree that "year" dates in one article need only be linked to the year once, just as you would only link once to another Wikipedia article within the same article.

I would ask you to seek advice from a higher source i.e. a long-standing editor or admin, as I really think you are causing a lot of format choice destruction in the context of what I have laid out above. You have not provided me with the link to a specific guideline, which is what I asked for. I gave you the link for the guideline I always use.

I really do think I must revert Hoagy Carmichael unless you reply with a hard, set guideline for me to read. I have tried to find what you are referring to, albeit rather vaguely, but cannot. If you would do this, I would obviously apply the rule in the future myself. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave me says, under "dates and numbers", (quote):

"Where a date contains day, month, and year — 25 March, 2004 — or day and month — February 10 — a link will permit the date preferences of the reader to operate. Day, month, and year must all be linked for the preference to work fully."

So it appears to approve of date preferences - and you are removing that wholesale. Can you now see my point? I would ask you to hold fire with any further de-linking in articles until we/you get total clarification from someone. I will contact an admin I know to get an opinion. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Quote from Manual of Style on the subject of overlinking:

* Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

But we can get a third opinion, like from User:Tony1 who is the master copy editor here. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we get a third opinion, as you are advocating the opposite of what the Feature Article editors say, and their mission is to upgrade Wikipedia articles to their standand. They do not like lots of blue links unless there is a specific reason for the link. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, your quotation on my page pertains to another issue. It is saying that if you have a linked date and you want the user's date preference to apply then all parts of the date must be linked. That has no application to linking 1930 for example, as there is no user preference option there. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But the day-month-year combination is not a single-value reference - the multi-facet is what makes the preference work, and you are removing the preference! I agree that linking every year date, or month-year date, is inappropriate, but cannot agree on the triple combination.

I prefer to ask Chris Kreider if that's okay. I would ask that you wait, but please go ahead with your third opinion, as I would be interested to hear why genuine user preferences formatting should ever be torpedoed in Wikipedia. Cheers. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You must not be linking correctly, as the dates you put on my page did not change according to user preference. Maybe there is a special way of linking for that to kick in. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Tanner

Steve Tanner was a one-episode cousin character on Full House played by Kirk Cameron. Someone created an article with even less information than that, and there's very little more that could be said. Hence the redirect. The Steve Tanner you want to write about is undoubtably more notable. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. I have since added Steve Tanner (Brit "Coronation Street" soap opera ex-character) to the disambig as well, so I will update the page with the info you just gave me, unless you do this yourself. Many thanks once again, happy editing. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking Dates (2)

I guess for interpretation, I would go to some other big name articles and see how it is done. For example, George W. Bush wikilinks birth date, other ones that do include George Washington, Anna Nicole Smith and John F. Kennedy. I think it is safe to assume that wikilinking the dates is the preferred style. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to your version per your request

The article is mess anyway so I do not have any investment in it. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Why the sour response? Play the game, please. An article's an article. We can all improve them by investing time, whether it's our 'bag' or not. Thanks to you for your time, Chris. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought that is what you wanted. The person I asked is on a trip until March 29. So, off hand, I don't know an authority to ask. Even many Feature Articles are being de-Featured now because they no longer meet the new Wikipedia requirements. So, I will do as the Feature Article editors say for myself. Since you seem to care about that article, I reverted it to please you. I apologise if that is not what you wanted. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly want a revert for revert's sake - I want to be sure of the approved way of doing things as much as you do. Please note my admin friend's post above this thread here - I hope you will take this as informed opinion? I see no reason therefore to change my method of linking in articles at the moment. However, if you can get a Featured Article admin view, I will still be interested in hearing about it, whenever that is. Sorry I jumped. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered on my page

There is always an edit conflict when I answer here. Makes big work! Sincerely, Mattisse 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoagy Carmichael incorrect references now that article is reverted

Now that it is reverted, you might want to fix the footnotes. For example, the first one is incorrect. And the others I had put in the correct format. What a waste! Sincerely, Mattisse 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue was never about footnotes - the links could have been restored whilst leaving the footnotes alone - I did not revert, remember. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

I received an answer from the expert on the issue, but unfortunately it does not answer the question for me so I have asked it again. Meanwhile, this is his answer:

Given the unfortunate technical situation, in which dates can't be autoformatted without linking them, I'm now refusing to link any dates. I suggest that you do the same until the situation is resolved. Tony 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, there it is. The question of what dates to link and what not to for now is the above if you are interested in quality article editing. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your quote doesn't tell me at all why I for one should not link dates - it tells me that one editor in particular is persuading another editor (or more than one editor possibly) not to link dates. It does not explain why the technical situation is 'unfortunate', so much so that dates should not be linked to serve the purpose of user preference formatting. Your 'expert' does not explain his problem (or the fraternity's problem perhaps?) with this function in the quote you give.

I remain unmoved on this subject I am afraid. You may want to ask your expert to contact me directly at my talk page if you so wish, or if you feel it is that important.

And I'm always interested in quality article editing, though I have no sense of elitism where that's concerned. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like

We are obviously operating at different levels of experience and concern with quality articles. I have 20,000 edits and and involved with Feature Articles. It seems that your interests are other than that, especially if you would request clarification from an administrator who seems inexperienced with quality articles, judging from the quality of his advice. I hope I am not insulting you by saying that you seem like a newbie. So, with that belief I will not pursue this for now. But if you interfere with my edits again I will file an ANI or take other recourse to clarify this issue. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I take no insult, as I admit that I created my account in January 2007, and I admit I have nowhere near that number of edits. Putting that aside, it does not alter my level of intelligence. As a fairly intelligent person, and one who creates the odd article here and there, I need to know for myself what is the 'done thing' in everything Wikipedia, and what is not. That includes the MoS, which itself includes the subject of our conversations recently, namely linking of dates. How can I create, or avoid, date linking in those articles when I am confused as to which is the correct convention to follow?

If there has been some kind of controversy within your group of editors at Featured Articles which causes them to question the validity of date linking, then I am not privy to it. And so I am in the dark about this. I re-read the MoS yet again, and cannot find where it disallows this linking. Sorry I have caused you so much grief. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifics

Could you be a bit more specific about what your conflict is? I'm guessing it's with Mattisse, but it would help greatly if you pointed out (with differences in edits, preferably) which articles are involved. Thanks. --Wafulz 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, directly from the Manual of style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death & Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Dates_and_numbers

So, linking dates is preferred. I think a big hint should've been that every single featured biography article has linked birth/death dates. --Wafulz 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

INSNA & Social Networks

Dear Refsworldlee, In response to your query, Yes I am a member of INSNA (International Network for Social Network Analysis). Quite a central member, in fact. BTW, I note there are separate articles for INSNA and for the full name, International Network for Social Network Analysis. They should be merged, with a redirect from INSNA to the International ... But I don't know how to do this, and as some other pages link to "INSNA", the INSNA link needs to be kept even after the merge. What's your query about? Bellagio99 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Refsworldlee, Thanks for your suggestions and edits. I try to stay straight. I have contributed to five print encyclopedias and edited 50 articles for one of them, so I do try to adopt the proper tone and factuality. But I guess I was overly bold;-) this time, and I appreciate your stepping in. I do want to know how to redirect INSNA to "International Network for Social Network Analysis". It is foolish to have 2 articles for the same organization, but given cross-links, a redirect is better than a deletion of one. Bellagio99 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ref (if I may use shorthand;-)

INSNA now has > 1,000 members, according to the President whom I asked about 2 weeks ago. An explosive growth due to the worldwide interest in social network analysis. I'm sure it is "easy" but I found the Help Redirect page confusing. (In fact, I find most Help pages confusing in Wikip, but otoh, I am not taking on the job of fixing them;-). So thanks for offering to do this and showing me how for the future. Bellagio99 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ref,

thanks for the tip re Mash... I hadn't encountered him/her before. I do have a basically utopian view of the world, admixed with the cynicism of experience. I wonder why folks do such things. The motivations of many destroyers in WP world puzzle me. I wonder if anyone has done research on this.

I am just back from a conference that consumed my attention, and I have the vague memory that you had suggested I do something. I would appreciate it if you would remind me.

PS: I took the liberty of expanding the header of this section a bit. Bellagio99 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. May all your footballs be clean from here on. Bellagio99 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for de-spamming Social Network tonight. I am on for the next hours and will continue the patrol, so you can go to sleep;-)

Bellagio99 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your conscientious and supportive support

On the International Network for Social Network Analysis page. It's much appreciated. Bellagio99 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for putting Thanks on User instead of User Talk. Too late and too harried. But kind thought was there. Bellagio99 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:welcome back

Indeed it was. I was only able to get on the net at ~80kbps so editing took so long I just gave up until I got broadband :) I shall dive head first into something now, to get me back into the swing of things. Localzuk^(talk) 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Need guidance on adding external links

Insert non-formatted text here

Hi

I really respect Wikipedia. And i really want to add important links to research i did. They are really not minor research. Every research has its potential. I do not add links for any search engine ranking. I do not need that as i believe in my research.

Please guide. Who removes links if authors are multiple? If author doesnt remove and someone else; how the person knows if my added link to research is poor or great? They feel that i am adding invain. Sometime i find invain links to this section; which are merely added because of it belongs to great portal. If wikipedia is by the people; then why wikipedia is not allowing such good links. You visit my research and if you feel; i did anything poor then i will be honest to accept it.

Dmoz has done same thing and really lost people's interest. As they stopped accepting good links as well.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyage2mail (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks

Please do not carry out personal attacks on user pages, such as the one on Editorinchimp talk page. Thank you. Nigrastolemybike 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You are mistaken. I was pointing out the personal attack, a rather nasty one, by Editorinchimp on Regan123's talk page, and asking him/her not to do it, per policy. Why would you think I was attacking Editorinchimp? Thanks for your post to my talk page though. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I can report to the casual reader that both the mentioned accounts have received indefinite blocks. Some coincidence, eh? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To be an author

Your reply was very much positive.

Thanks for that. If i want to be an author for Wikipedia and add rankings or anaysis part i did for similar topics; how should i do? I just stated wish to include an important link to that article. But i am not sure to whom should i contact? How to be an author for Wikipedia? I wrote many articles for portal like Buzzle and i am good in sharing details. I am looking for positive relation with Wikipedia. Believe me i am not spammer or any advertiser. I am knowledge management researcher and author.

Please help.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyage2mail (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC).