User talk:Hu/Archive2

Archives
	1: 2005-11-10;; 2: 2006-02-08;; 3: 2006-11-15;; 4: 2006-12-23;; 5: 2007-12-02;; 6: User talk:Hu.

NEO update

Hi Hu, I checked the references given at the bottom of the page, and it looks like the edit by the anon user checks out (see [1]) so I reverted. Thanks for being alert to sneaky vandalism. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diligence checking references. I'm glad that though I might have made a quick judgement based on the user being anonymous and a first edit, I put enough of a clue in the edit summary that it alerted you to chase it down. Thanks! Hu 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion

I'll take my life into my hands and hit you with the boilerplate. ;-)

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks, makes sense, I've been giving it a try. Perhaps certain template tags should automatically substitute when Save Page is clicked. Hu 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across some of your substitutions while cleaning up some linkspam. You shouldn't subst the speedy delete templates as they include categories in <noinclude> tags and the articles don't end up in the speedy delete category if they are substituted. Slightly confusing I know, but AfD tags should be substituted, speedy delete ones should not. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nair caste spammer

I've noticed you around (the nair spamming); keep up the good work. Cheers. Lectonar 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for vandal fix

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism by 193.39.159.3. It is the permabanned User:Tern who has been doing the periodic vandalism; though he keeps posting that the IP is from the Edinburgh library (and it probably is) the content and pattern of the edits and the writing makes it clear who's responsible. So thanks for cleaning that up! ManekiNeko | Talk 23:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boo. You have seen that Wiki is in breach of personal fairness.83.67.65.99 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. And your vandalism reaction completely shreds any claim you may have had to moral clarity. You have no leg to stand on. Stop. Hu 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. He posted from his previously-used (home?) IP this time, making the pattern even clearer. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions (Brooklyn Tech)

Before I became an Admin I typed "rv undescribed deletion by anon" so many times I almost programmed it as a macro. If the text hadn't been so obviously inappropriate I wouldn't have noticed either. Not to worry, you're doing fine. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of AI

Good work done on this topic Hu. Thanks. IMHO the summary on the main AI page could be much shorter though..? --moxon 12:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer tricks

I noticed you cleaning up after the 213.184.238.50 spammer. Watch out for his tricks like this. It puts an invisible link in the page for SEO purposes. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering about that edit. I let it pass. I won't in the future, now that I know. Hu 15:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I'm sorry you feel this way but the article on Thomas Szük is not a hoax as many people seem to believe. My uncle is a close family friend of the remaing Szük family. It is not my fault hat I cannot get any reference on him. I just put him on here because of a project we had to do in school. If you guys can't fathom the notion that not everything in history has a reference in a book or on the internet, that's not my problem but do not acuse me of making this up. Far from it, this is the 100% truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvtjoker (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 November 2005 UTC

0) User User:Pvtjoker (User Talk:Pvtjoker, contributions) wrote the above at 06:44, November 25, 2005, unsigned and not time-stamped.

1) I had nothing to do with your Thomas Szük article. Check the history, I made no edits or reversions on it.

2) The article is unbelievable and has abusive and unencyclopediac language.

3) I did revert your vandalism of the Kristof Walken user talk page where you wrote: Nice guy. I know pledge alligience to Kristof Walken. ZEIG HEIL!

4) In the Sponza user talk page you wrote vile obscene abusive messages. You damage your case when you behave like this.

5) In Wikipedia, we sign our comments on people's user talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. That puts your user name and a time stamp, which is helpful and polite. I suggest you start doing the same.

6) Now, please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Hu 10:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitties

Why do you want to delete bitties? It's a real slang term. It even says so in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.191.252 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 December 2005 UTC

It's junk, unencyclopedic, and you don't have the strength of your convictions to sign or register. Hu 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: the article was deleted by consensus. Hu

History of Science Fiction

I notice you recently edited History of science fiction. I have been working on an overhaul of that article, which I just placed at History of science fiction/rewrite. Please comment on my rewrite and whether it should replace the current article at History of Science Fiction's Talk page. Ferret-aaron 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work re-writing and for the invitation. I have replied on the rewrite's discussion page. Hu 15:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein

Thanks, that's the one (Hugo) I couldn't find to make it seven! (Had to check as an anon edit changed seven to four). Thanks. Alf ^melmac 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Hu 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piga Software Stub

The Stub didn't display properly so I didn't know that I couldn't remove it Comrade Hamish Wilson 01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Leave it there now. The page looks like it is only non-notable vanity junk and should be deleted. Hu 01:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The Piga Software company page was deleted by consensus. Hu

Taoism vs. Daoism

I noticed that you edited my changes to the Taoism page recently. I did not realize that changing Taoism to Daoism would be a big deal, and I apologize for not bringing it up before making said changes. Please forgive me, I am relatively new here. BobMaestro 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven, happily. I encourage you to continue being bold, as Wikipedia advises, despite the occasional setback. I've had my own edits reverted occasionally and, also, I've not always been right about my reversions of other's work. But with a little time and experience it becomes easier. Hu 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neural network spam

Hm, I think that while the last entry, about 'neurosecurity', was spam, yes. But the intermediate ones seem to be valid edits that clarify the term 'neural network', though perhaps with an over-enthusiastic use of the 'save page' button. Maybe you should put those back... and yeah, anonymous edits are a bit annoying, but the ones from 24.163.93.109 seem to be valid. 03:38, 18 December 2005 User:Olethros

Thanks for catching that! I had meant to revert only the one edit, but I had been a little sloppy by reverting after a history comparison of multiple edits. I fixed it. Hu 03:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Ship redirects

Perhaps instead of a declaratory 'stop doing XYZ' comment, you could help to educate me as to why what I am doing is a problem. I am in the process of updating the List of Liberty ships page, and more than a few were "laid down" and/or launched with a civilian name but then taken over by the United States Navy and renamed. I thought it would be most beneficial to have a redirect from the civilian name to the Navy name. Is there harm in doing it this way?

Also, my apologies for misspelling "redirect" on one page. (Not all of us are perfect, you know.) — Bellhalla 04:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize it. It was a request, since I said "please". A more thorough response will be made on your talk page. Hu 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

geo-stubs

just a note for future reference - you stubbed West Frisia with {{Netherlands-stub}} and {{geo-stub}}...North Frisia with {{Germany-stub}} and {{geo-stub}}... and Therhalli with {{India-stub}} and {{geo-stub}}. Most countries (and all the bigger countries) have their own geo-stubs now - it would have been quicker for you and for others if you'd just used {{Netherlands-geo-stub}}, {{Germany-geo-stub}} and {{India-geo-stub}} :) Grutness...wha? 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked for but couldn't find a Frisia stub. Hu 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have my articles been containing self-references?

(for reference here is what I wrote on Aidan Work's talk page:) Please adhere to Wikipedia style. In particular, please look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other guides. Articles should not be self referential. That means not to start an article as "This article ...". Introductions to articles should not have section headings, especially titled "Introduction". Section headings should not use a period after the words. Symbols and single digit numbers in general should be spelled out, so that ampersand becomes "and" and "2" becomes "two". Hu 05:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There has never been any self-referencing in any of my articles. What is wrong with using full stops at the end of section headings? My use of the ampersand symbol to represent the word 'and' has never been an issue. You're the first person who has raised this issue with me. I have a very old-fashioned way of expressing things in English. I hate it when people say 'an historic event' or 'a honourable person'. I always say 'a historic event' & 'an honourable person'. - (Aidan Work 06:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You articles reference themselves by saying "This article...". That goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You will also notice that almost zero articles on Wikipedia do this. Using full stops (periods) at the end of section headings is against Wikipedia style. You will notice that almost zero articles on Wikipedia do this, too. I can't recall a single one, other than your articles. Using the ampersand to represent "and" is not Wikipedia style. Once again, you will find a vanishing small fraction of Wikipedia articles that do this. Nothing is wrong with "a historic event" or "an honorable" person and I didn't object to that. Hu 06:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup on Eli Franklin Burton

Just came across your cleanup of Eli Franklin Burton, and I wanted to say thanks. It's always nice to see the inclusion of a reference in an article. Keep up the good work! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

202.152.162.215 and 202.15.162.216

Thanks for blocking this user, but I think a longer block is needed, as I've requested on Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest a week due to the persistent nature of the edits that span days, despite severe warnings. Hu 16:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a misguided user who simply doesn't understand how categories work. However, as he is noncommunicative, there's no point in trying to reason or educate him, regrettably. Hopefully, this short block will get his attention. As this is a first block of a user with some valid edits, I'm reluctant to apply a longer block. Let me know if he continues in the same pattern when the block expires. Owen× ☎ 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Space Elevator Critic

I inserted "anonymous evaluation" into Space Elevator page. Appreciate your feedback. Please see my rewrite in space elevator talk section. Wikipedia communications obxcure as hell. (unsigned, by 21:05 UTC, 26 December 2005 4.232.144.91)

Thanks. I will look at the Talk:Space elevator page later. You can use four tildes to automatically sign your posts on Talk pages. (~~~~). Hu 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

I love your work on the inset Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr-2.png at global warming. Do you think you can do the same thing to Image:Carbon History and Flux.png at greenhouse gas? --James S. 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've improved the image that you asked for and I hope you like it as well. Hu 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Commonwealth

Hu, most people know the Commonwealth by the name 'British Commonwealth'. A lot of people are unfamiliar with the name 'Commonwealth of Nations'. To me, the use of the word 'Nations' is strictly incorrect,as the term 'nation' is an ethnological term.I am a very strong advocate of proper use of English. I hate it when people say 'an historic event' or 'a honourable person',as that just doesn't sound right. - (Aidan Work 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The Commonwealth of Nations has chosen to call itself "The Commonwealth of Nations" and there is no good reason not to respect that. That is why British Commonwealth is not the article title and is only a redirect. The function of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not to perpetuate false notions, but to describe things in the proper modern terminology so that people can become informed about it and familiar with the proper names. The Oxford English Dictionary emphasizes the political aspect of "nation" in the first sentence of the definitions. Your preference about what you consider strictly correct or incorrect is not the determinative rule. Hu 02:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan States' Names

Hu, the names of the Malayan States have both an English form of the name & the Malayan form of the name. The Malaysian Government website always uses the Malayan form, but more people are familiar with the English spelling - 'Negri Sembilan' instead of 'Negeri Sembilan', 'Johore' instead of 'Johor', & 'Malacca' instead of 'Melaka'. If you are looking up in the Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogues, the stamps of the Malayan States are listed under the English forms of their names. - (Aidan Work 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Postal Orders of Negeri Sembilan: I will state it as many times as needed for you to understand it: An encyclopedia does not exist to perpetuate incorrect information. That is the reason that there is a redirect from the incorrect spelling to the correct spelling, which is the spelling that Malaysia mandates, their choice, not yours, not mine, not Stanley Gibbons, not Wikipedia's, just the fact. There is no reason you can't mention the Stanley Gibbons spelling in the first paragraph, to make things explicit and clear. But you do not have free reign to perpetuate misinformation. Hu 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Order articles

Hu, that article on Postal orders is referring to British postal orders, however, I have been writing about postal orders in other countries, especially British Commonwealth postal orders. - (Aidan Work 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The comment on the Talk:Postal Order page regarding a merge-out is still valid: "postal orders are not exclusive to Great Britain". Hu 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu, if you read the Postal order article right through, it is mainly about the British postal orders, but not exclusive. - (Aidan Work 04:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks and you're welcome

Hi Hu, i wasn't logged in when i made a correction (whoops :P ) but anyway you left me this comment:

Thank you for catching the error on Dragon (zodiac)! Your alert eyes made me go back and check it. I not only got the year wrong, but the month and days wrong by using the dates for the previous animal. I'm now fixing it. Thanks again and welcome! Hu 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So i would just like to thank you for correcting the data so i now have a zodiac animal assigned to my birth :p

Thanks for your hard work so us curius people can stay informed. --Nat 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Before Time VI: The Secret of Saurus Rock

Please take more care when tagging items for speedy deletion. This was not vanity fiction, but an article about a film in the series called The Land Before Time produced by Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment, which is quite obvious from the Google links. Please make sure you check before tagging something. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did google, but not carefully enough. Your advice is noted. Did you offer the corresponding advice to the new user, i.e. advising the user to apply appropriate context to edits? I see that you haven't. To atone for my sins, I changed my test notice on the user talk page to a Welcome, almost immediately, before your note here. Hu 11:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect

Hi. Adding the Sprotect tag itself to a page does nothing, which is why it was described as 'fake'. Protection is an admin function excercised by the a special tab. Looking in the protection log (look at [2]), the page is not currently protected. Morwen - Talk 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It really does need to be protected. Hu 12:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with...?

Hu, what is wrong with me reverting your references to the British Empire back to my references to the British Commonwealth? What you have forgotten is the fact that the British Commonwealth is the successor to the British Empire. - (Aidan Work 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

With reference to the Coins of Upper Canada and the Coin of the Magdalen Islands, I have not forgotten that the British Commonwealth was the successor. Nor have I forgotten that the Commonwealth of Nations is the successor to the British Commonwealth. What you have forgotten is that at the time of the issues, the Commonwealth did not yet exist, but the Empire was in existence. Collectors of Commonwealth coins are often also collectors of Empire coins and vice versa, but in an encyclopedia, it is important to be accurate about the distinction. Hu 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion status

Any state that has the Queen of Great Britain as head of state is a Dominion, even if the country does not have 'Dominion of' in its name. Belize is one, & Grenada is another. - (Aidan Work 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Huh....

I'll be damned... Who'da thunk that there wasn't a page for Demon with a Glass Hand yet? Good work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hu 15:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's name

Hello! Thanks for your recent edits to the Canada's name article; you'll also note that I've contributed a bit – and equitably (methinks) – to it.

However, I'm mildly puzzled by your removal of the quote from the KJV: while admittedly its addition might have been spurious, it is supported (in a biblical context) by the link to Canada's national archives and elsewhere online; for example, this entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online alludes to it and the religious undertones. This article and passage, after all, addresses the usage of the term in the context of Canada's name, not on a wider basis per se. I find it adds value and context to the article and the passage should be massaged, not nixed.

This isn't or shouldn't be a huge issue, though. Let me know if you've any questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had read the reference carefully, but I had not. Thanks to your note here, I went back and re-read it. As a result, I restored the quote to the article. I was trying to avoid the proliferation of inappropriate quotes by biblical dominionists that have been popping up in non-NPoV ways in various articles, but this one is appropriate because it supported by historical fact. Sorry for any consternation. Hu 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention and accommodation; I appreciate it. As you might gather – particularly after a glance at the article history, the talk page, and archives – I know of those challenges all too well (even when valid citations are provided) and try to walk that line too ... though some may and have accused me differently. :) (By the way, I'm an agnostic ... and idiosyncratically characterise myself as a di-agnostic.) :)

I'm gonna edit your edit mildly; let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your category tags on British Commonwealth Honours Systems is deeply offensive!

Hu, your tags on British Commonwealth Honours System-related articles are deeply offensive. Here's an example of how politically offensive your tag is; Rhodesian Honours System. I want an apology please! (Aidan Work 05:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think you are confused again. Look at the history of the Rhodesian Honours System article and you will see that I have not touched that page. If anybody is politically offensive, it is you, the way on talk pages you call some groups of people "subhuman" and the way you push your monarchist and Ulster agendas around Wikipedia. Hu 13:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This confused me too, when he brought it up on WP:AN. He is referring to your text in Category:British Commonwealth Honours Systems. When he went to categorize Rhodesian Honours System, he accidentally included the Category description by using curly braces instead of square brackets: [3]. So your text appeared to be in the article. And yes, Aidan most certainly does need to modulate his tone if he wants to work within Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: renaming the category to "Commonwealth Honours Systems". In my opinion, this category could just go away, and the articles could go in Category:Orders and decorations. If there is going to be such a category, then I think "Commonwealth honours systems" would be a fine title. Thanks for your cleanup work, by the way! FreplySpang (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Visions/Again Dangerous Visions

You're right that the title should read Again, Dangerous Visions. I was able to make a correction on the link so that it's not circular. Thanks for the heads up. --Konczewski 21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that doesn't fix it. The problem is that the article title has no comma, and a comma is needed. Ordinarily one would move that article name, but in this case there is a redirect blocking the path. Hu 21:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how does it get fixed? I'm new to this. Is there a specific moderator to contact? --Konczewski 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, to preserve edit histories, an admin would have been required to delete the redirect and then move the page. However, since there was only one edit on the page beyond its creation, I decided to move the text over wholesale, and "just do it". I also created a page for the third book, and made a couple of tweakes. Hu 19:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popups

My request on Achille's talk page that sparked the conversation:

Thank you for your work reverting vandals. However, please do not use the popups edit reverter mechanism. The edit summaries it uses are basically useless because the codenumber it leaves does not correspond to any particular edit that is easily identifiable and unlike the summaries that refer to the user contributions and talk pages, it leaves no trace of the user at fault. All the same, thanks for your work. Hu 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use popups sometimes, but plase note that only admins can do automatic reverts that show where the revision was made. Most people who revert vandals just say "RV vandal", and that's not anymore enlightening than "Popups-assisted-revision to X" Pick your choice =D

rvv
rv vandal
rv blanking
rv
Popus -revision to XXXXX ~ This user has left wikipedia 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and yet I manage to put informative reversion messages that point to the user's contributions and talk page. I should probably try talking to the person who runs the popup thingy. Hu 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem when trying to revert several vandals, takes much more time to add the aprop. links. If someone really wanted to know what's going on they could do a compare and see what was reverted, if you know JS you can modify popups yourself... I think I might do that and have it just say rv by ip below or something like that. This user has left wikipedia 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing about the links to user contributions and talk pages is that they appear directly in Watch lists and other lists of edit summaries and it saves a great deal of time for fellow editors, which is why I do it. I put some text in a file so that I paste in the user ID or IP address three times and it is done. <nowiki>Revert [[Special:Contributions/|]] ([[User Talk:|talk]]) vandal</nowiki> Hu 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider using Popups, it does does that automatically =D, just hover your mouse over the "ip", it has lots of features. This user has left wikipedia 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it does it automatically, then why don't you use it and achieve the effect that we both want? Hu 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental clobbering?

My note to Gene Poole:

Please exercise more care with your edits. You accidentally clobbered my Robert A. Heinlein link disambiguation edit on Micronation and I had to re-instate it. Hu 00:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've no idea what you're talking about. There's no record of my making any edits to the the section of the article you're referring to. Am I missing something? --Gene_poole 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours. Hu 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre. I must have been editing an older version of the page at the time, because I certainly didn't deliberately remove the "A." from Robert A. Heinlein. My apologies. --Gene_poole 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I thought it was an accident. Onward and forward. Hu 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

Thank you so much for starting the Babe Ruth article, along with The Mexican (song), I really found it a pity there was no such yet, and I barely knew anything about Babe Ruth at the time I checked out Wikipedia on this matter. - User:Claire van der Meer Jan. 25, 2006.

You are most welcome. I was astonished myself that it wasn't available, so I gave it the full treatment, so to speak. Hu 14:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eep

I posted on User talk:219.94.119.7:

Please don't spam. Given that you have spammed now, if you really think that your manual is academic, then post a note on relevant article talk pages with the link directly to the manual, not to the whole blog site, and ask for reaction. At this point if you post any kind of link directly to the pages, you may get reverted reflexively. Hu 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hu, sorry for being illiterate. I'll look into your instructions. unsigned comment by User:219.94.119.7 Jan. 25, 2006

User talk:Paper33d

Thanks for your message, and apologies for overwriting your comment - it was entirely unintentional. I have been getting occasional silent edit conflicts for some weeks now.

To be clear, I did not ignore your comment - I simply did not receive any notification of the edit conflict. I have now added your comment back (you could, of course, have done so yourself)-- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the restoration, and I accept your explanation that it was unintentional. I think you are right that there may be a lack of notification by Wikipedia of edit conflicts, like there usually is. I apologize because I ran into the same thing and momentarily clobbered your edit, which I was able to catch and restore immediately. I wonder what's broken. Hu 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - clearly it can happen to the best of us! (I just got an edit conflict when writing this, btw, so the problem is clearly quite patchy.)

Now, would you like to buy a 3D paper model? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Hu 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um - the same thing happened to me on this page...I didn't get an edit conflict warning either on this page. As such I feel like you might fix your comment to my talk page. Pschemp | Talk 13:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Pschemp | Talk 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, something funny going on with Wikipedia. I replied on your talk page and accept your explanation that it was accidental. Sorry for any disturbance. Hope that all is well with Wikipedia soon. Hu 13:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblanking User talk:Paper33d

Thanks for doing that. I also feel that is the right thing to do, but as I had already been chastised by Morwen, I was afraid I'd get another talking to. I've always, always been told that blanking talk pages is a no-no, and I couldn't figure out why exceptions should be made, especially for the unrepentant. If the feeling about talk pages has changed, I certainly missed it. Pschemp | Talk 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I don't think you missed anything. I think Morwen missed the fact that blanking the page not only made the discussion bizarre and hard to understand, but it whitewashed his or her own blocking / unblocking action. Hu 15:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for attempting to destroy my chaperoning of this user, both of you. If you want to provoke them into becoming an enemy of Wikipedia you are going exactly the way about it. Morwen - Talk 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to provoke. After a personal attack it is proper to direct the new user to take notice of No Personal Attacks. Blanking pages is not chaperoning. Mollycoddling spammers and uncooperative users who know exactly what they are doing is not helpful. Hu 15:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'd stopped. Various random people were warning him against doing things he had already stopped. That was not helpful. I had the matter in hand. You should always be polite, even to rude people. Morwen - Talk 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was polite and so were others, and he had not stopped after being warned. You did not have the matter in hand, because he continued after your warning and he blanked his talk page to remove your warning, which is why you made your statement to him "If you respond with defiance I am going to block you.". Hu 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only used approved templates. If they are not considered polite, why have them?Pschemp | Talk 15:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He had stopped and then people warned him afterwards. If you examine the timestamps you will discover this to be true. As a new user, he cannot be expected to know that blanking talk pages is supposedly bad - something I dispute anyway - it's usually used as a arbritary bat to hit people with rather than a rational rule - plenty of regular editors seem to do it happily. But fine, I've got better things to do than this. Morwen - Talk 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I warned him about the blanking after he had done it, because its hard to warn people about things they haven't done yet. :) I did then explain it. And no one before me had said anything about blanking so it wasn't a repetition of something earlier. Pschemp | Talk

The last insertion of spam was dated at 12:42, which happened slightly after I warned him quite strongly to stop, and I can assume he didn't read the note until 12:43. After this, he recieved this warning and this warning despite having not done any more spamming in the intervening time. Morwen - Talk 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overcome with preceding colons! Anyway, yes, Morwen, You are correct about the spamming warnings, but there was something funky going on with the lack of edit conflict messages and I suspect that all the comments weren't displaying to everyone which may have contributed to the multiple spam warnings. (see above topic for this.) However, the blanking thing is a different issue. I understand that by then we all were frustrated with this person and this was the cause of any pileon, rahter than a deliberate intent to undermine your wiki person cultivation. Pschemp | Talk 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper33d was protesting Morwen's warnings (plural) and clearly not understanding the issue when I added my first note, which was explanatory and not a warning. The policy against blanking talk pages is rational. As I explained on Paper33d's talk page, blanking makes it very difficult to read a discussion because it forces editors to reconstrust it by laboriously going through the page history and it whitewashes the issues. Hu 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a talk page archive for the user before reading this: I think it generally is considered bad form to delete material from talk pages without storing it somewhere; but, yes, some people do do it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had created an Archive. I thought that was a reasonable approach that does not delete material and makes it easily available at hand, so it was a good compromise under the circumstances. It remains to be seen how reformed an editor Paper33d becomes or if he or she is just driven by a single agenda. Hu 18:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Heinlein Novels Template

I've created the new Robert A. Heinlein bibliography and placed your Template:Heinlein (Novel) template on that page. I also moved the template in the main Robert A. Heinlein article up to the Bibliography section, where it serves a good purpose to summarize the list of Heinlein novels for quick reference. I edited the template to make the name conform with the convention on Wikipedia that the name include the middle initial A. Thanks for creating the template, and just in time too. Hu 02:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Double kudos on making the bibliography page. The main Heinlein page had just gottten too unwieldy. Palm_Dogg 08:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was happy to do it, and I'm glad you like it. Hu 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Catergories?

What catergories did I make recently? You posted a message on my talk page but I don't know what you are talking about. Jedi6 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Plankton. It is now deleted for the second time. Hu 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.226.18.229

Hu, You sent me a message asking me to stop vandalizing Pierre Trudeau's page but I've never edited that. Of the edits from my ISP the following were not made by me: Anything about Pierre Trudeau or Jack Layton. The stuff about Stephen Harper, the Senate and McNamara are mine. If any of those are included in the "other" vandalism you mentioned please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.18.229 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 January 2006 UTC

If you register an account, you can avoid problems from using an IP address. Accounts are free and easy. Please append four tildes ~~~~ at the end of posts on Talk pages so that your user name and time-date stamp will be automatically appended. Thanks. Hu 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Spider pit sequence

About this edit: [4] For the record, it wasn't vandalism. It was I who put the article in the Fictional arachnid category, because although I wasn't sure it belonged, it does include fictional arachnids. All the anon did was give it the more specific fictional spider category. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Hey. I just discovered that (a few weeks ago) you blanked the talk page for the "Wolpertinger" article because it was stupid garbage. Although I know you meant well, blanking an article or a talk page is never a good thing; just list it for speedy deletion. No harm done; this is just so you know. DS 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I only extremely rarely blank something anyway, but I'll follow your suggestion in the future. Thanks. Hu 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Jackins

Would you mind keeping an extra eye on Harvey Jackins? SarahWilliams (talk · contribs) seems to have claimed OWNership of the article and keeps removing information -- some of which she says "has no evidence to support it", but other parts of what she keeps removing appear to be in fact supported by scans of the original documents, er, documenting the point at issue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that. I'm not familiar with the topic, but I'll do what I can. Hu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not familiar with the topic either, but these strike me as extremely new users who need to learn that they can't simply remove information that they don't agree with or don't want people to know. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some don't know enough to sign talk pages with four tildes, despite requests and notices at the top of the talk pages in question. Also, there has been some anonymous IP address editors who pretend to be two different people in the same edit. Hu 11:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Categories and Pokemon

The animal categories are appropriate for Pokemon. They represent fictional animals. Andros 1337 04:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only peripherally. The Pokemon categories are more specialized, so that they are the appropriate categories for the monsters. People who want to see Pokemons will go to the Pokemon categories. However, for other people, the Pokemons just clutter up the fictional animal categories. Hu 11:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may be more specialized, but it's not like, say, Category:Flying Pokémon is a subcategory of Category:Fictional birds - and it shouldn't be, since, after all, not all Flying-type Pokémon are birds. If they were all birds, I could see just making Category:Flying Pokémon a subcategory of Category:Fictional birds, but since they're not, I can see a possible need for sticking each Flying-type Pokémon into a fictional animal category, and the same goes for the other Pokémon types.

On the other hand, I can also see how this could be irritating to non-Pokémon fans, so I'm not really too interested in the outcome of this. I just wanted to note what I did above.

(And just for reference, the plural of 'Pokémon' is 'Pokémon', like 'sheep' and 'sheep'. ;) ) --Sparky Lurkdragon 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that Sparky Lurkdragon is a sockpuppet for Andros 1337 and vice versa since you say "note what I did above"? Hu 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. I was referring to the fact that I had written more than one paragraph. --Sparky Lurkdragon 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I was confused. Hu 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]