User talk:IP4240207xx/archive

George Mercer

That's not how you go about making a disambiguation page. First you should of moved the original page George Mercer to George Mercer (murderer) and then changed the redirect on the original article to a disambig to preserve the edit history. See WP:MOVE and WP:DISAMBIG. And in this instance, there is no need for a disambig page, as the each article can point to each other, as per my edits. Lugnuts 20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neosho cities/small towns

Apparently, those two small towns are cities by Kansas law. It seems silly to me as well but that's really what they are. It's that way for every municipality in Kansas; in fact, there are plenty of cities in Kansas with populations smaller than 50 people. Nyttend 03:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neosho name source

Yes, I do - but not in front of me. I will get back to you soon. --Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Bots

Wikipedia has a policy against spell checking bots. I personally happen to disagree with it, but it's not my call. --Bachrach44 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Query at user talk:Arcadian

I watch Arcadian's talk page and I have replied to your question there. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown, New South Wales

Moved to Talk:Newtown, New South Wales

90 Millas

You removed material from the above article, and labelled your edit as minor. Removal of material is not a minor edit. The previous editor, perhaps not a native English speaker, had the order of the phrases wrong. A little thought and a little less sarcasm from an experienced editor would have fixed the problem.

See below:-

"90 Millas (90 Miles), to be released in 2007, is the eleventh studio solo album and fourth Spanish album released by American singer Gloria Estefan, but is the artist's twenty-ninth album overall."

Your "minor" edits contained in the edit summary 9 words in capital letters. This is usually considered to be shouting, and is rather bad form. If they were really minor, they were hardly worth shouting about! --Amandajm 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies!

I mistakenly left two messages for you on your user page, instead of your talk page! I have removed them and palced them here instead.

--Amandajm 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slave ship

No, you've got the wrong person for this, mate!

I reordered those sentences, I didn't change them. What I did with the bit that said "a less pleasant blah-de-blah..." was to shift someone-else's poetic prose from the introductory paragraph to the bottom under a new heading. I added (to the intro) the bit about her being mother of two monarchs and grandmother of three, which is fact, not poetry, and probably/possibly of greater significance than the fact that Maryland (and a slave ship) was named after her, depending on your point of view, of course....

Oh, I am capable of very poetic prose... I thought for a moment that you were about to tell me off over my recent, now deleted literary exercises at Newtown, New South Wales, but if its only the blinking ship... well, I can handle that...

The problem is this, when someone writes something expressive, I'm often hesitant to change it, simply because people get attached to what they've written.

If I totally reorganise something, which I do fairly frequently, I try to leave in bits of other people. Renaissance architecture is a case in point. Leonardo da Vinci is another one. Roof and Cheese are two more that I restructured. Everybody involved is happy with them and defends them fiercely against vandals.

I generally work on majorly large, broad-focussed articles that are too big for most people to tackle. I like them to be well-stuctured and consistent so that anyone who reads the List of Contents knows what the article contains.

As for Newtown... Newtown is a suburb that has a unique atmosphere, and I don't know how to express it without getting into the realm of narrative. It's a place where people don't just buy the "Big Issue". They hug the vendor. The Cemetery is not just where you go to smoke a joint. It's also where you go to have your kid's birthday party. Newtown has the best-fed vagrants in Sydney. How does one express that sort of atmosphere in encyclopedic prose? It's not documented. Except by yours truly in a number of mostly unpublished stories, poems and articles. --Amandajm 11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... why didn't you fix that line in Henrietta Maria? I can't help wondering? --Amandajm 12:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Bulusan

The apparently missing list. Yes, you were quite right, of course. The list of active volcanoes in the Philippines didn't have a heading to say it was a list. It wasn't actually wiki-formatted as a list; it merely had a string of names separated by commas. So it doesn't say "See List below" anymore. It now says "See below: Active volcanoes in the Philippines".

I feel impelled to ask why, as an experienced editor, you didn't simply fix the problem when you found it? --Amandajm 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above material transferred from user page --Amandajm 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About effective editting

The Newtown talk page is now cluttered up with extensive blocks of information lifted directly from Wikipedia policy pages.

This is completely unnecessary and is disruptive to meaningful communication between other editors wanting to discuss the topic, but not wanting to sort through pages and pages of policy with all its subheadings.

Would you kindly remove it from that discussion page, leaving only that which is relevant ie: your comments and my comments. If you wish me to read the policy, then refer me to the relevant pages in wikipedia and I shall find them.

Since you are very much into the game of telling other editors how to write articles, may I suggest to you that you chose for yourself a large topic, research it and write about it.

I can assure you that it is much easier to cruise around, making critical comments and leaving ^{[citation needed]} tags than it is to:-

research, write, and reference a new, major article. See Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor, Stained glass - British glass, 1811-1918
creatively expand articles so that all previous worthwhile edits are retained, in meaning if not in whole. See Leonardo da Vinci, Stained glass
gain the creative support of other experts who can add their knowledge to an article under construction See Renaissance architecture
locate citations for material written by other editors See Roof
make sense of badly-written material by non-English people, people with poor grammar and expression, and well-meaning people who have lost the plot but want to contribute. See Cathedral,
Co-operate regularly with another editor to tun their foreign-language translations into good English prose. See numerous articles on specific Italian buildings.

This is what I do, mainly, when I'm not dealing with petty interruptions. What do you do, mainly?

--Amandajm 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample bibliography

Just for you interest, these are the books that I consulted to write the article Renaissance architecture.

Sir Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, first published 1896, current edition 2001, Elsevier Science & Technology ISBN 0750622679
Arnaldo Bruschi, Bramante, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977. ISBN 050034065X
Trewin Cropplestone, World Architecture, 1963, Hamlyn. ISBN unknown
Giovanni Fanelli, Brunelleschi, 1980, Becocci editore Firenze. ISBN unknown
Helen Gardner, Art through the Ages, 5th edition, Harcourt, Brace and World, inc., ISBN 07679933
Ludwig Goldscheider, Michelangelo, 1964, Phaidon, ISBN 10-0714832960
J.R.Hale, Renaissance Europe, 1480-1520, 1971, Fontana ISBN 0006324355
Arnold Hauser, Mannerism: The Crisis of the Renaissance and the Origins of Modern Art, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965, ISBN 0674548159
Brigitte Hintzen-Bohlen, Jurgen Sorges, Rome and the Vatican City, Konemann, ISBN 3829031092
Janson, H.W., Anthony F. Janson, History of Art, 1997, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.. ISBN 0810934426
Marion Kaminski, Art and Architecture of Venice, 1999, Könemann, ISBN 3829026579
Andrew Martindale, Man and the Renaissance, 1966, Paul Hamlyn, ISBN
Anne Mueller von der Haegen, Ruth Strasser, Art and Architecture of Tuscany, 2000, Konemann, ISBN 3829026528
Nikolaus Pevsner, An Outline of European Architecture, Pelican, 1964, ISBN 9780140201093
Ilan Rachum, The Renaissance, an Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1979, Octopus, ISBN 0706408578
Joseph Rykwert, Leonis Baptiste Alberti, Architectural Design, Vol 49 No 5-6, Holland St, London
Howard Saalman, Filippo Brunelleschi: The Buildings, London: Zwemmer, 1993, ISBN 10: 0-271-01067-3
John Summerson, Architecture in Britain 1530-1830, 1977 ed., Pelican, ISBN 0140560033
Robert Erich Wolf and Ronald Millen, Renaissance and Mannerist Art, 1968, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN not known
Manfred Wundram, Thomas Pape, Paolo Marton, Andrea Palladio, Taschen, ISBN 3822802719

This is the sort of referencing required for a Top Priority article, like this one.

Unfortunately, when it comes to writing about Newtown, (which is of much lower priority as far as wiki is concerned), I am now living remote from Sydney and cannot get to Marrickville Library, where most documentation is kept. Perhaps you are available to do the research necessary?

--Amandajm 03:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Your Problem!

I Don't know what you're thinking and who do you are, I really do not care! But something that I must tell you is that at least I do something to extend the Gloria Estefan discography, and you! You? What we can expect from you???? So stop saying BS and instead of being complaining start to do something for her and her music, moron!

Re: Why Don't You & I

I removed the cleanup tag from Re: Why Don't You & I. You can remove such tags yourself once the problem has been solved. InnocuousPseudonym 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal report for PDougherty90

I delisted User:PDougherty90 from WP:AIV because the user had no edits, deleted or otherwise. You mentioned the user's edit history in your report, but as I said, (s)he has none. Is there something else about this user that would indicate, say, sockpuppetry? —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that did not show up in edit history or deleted edits when I pulled it up! I'm not quite sure what happened, though I know the server was throwing errors (500) at me yesterday while looking at my watchlist, so maybe it was a server hiccup. Seeing now what I should have seen then, that was a good report. My apologies. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 70.20.46.65

Thanks for your note IP4240207xx. Unfortunately, this user hasn't actually done anything that would bring about a full block yet. It is a drag but users are allowed to blank their talkpage so that is why the 3RR didn't cause a block. As to this users edits most of them are just little things. A few (very few) of them have actually helped a page. Most of the rest have needed some editing or removal and I think that there has only been one or two that I considered real live vandalism. I know that it is annoying to have to check one users edits all of the time, but, the only thing to do is to keep an eye on them and post warnings as needed. If enough warnings pile up a temp block may occur. I have a feeling that this editor is a young person who isn't trying to be malicious (man I think I spelled that wrong), rather, they are just sloppy. The most annoying thing to me is that they feel that Laurence Olivier should always be called "Sir" though that wasn't his title his whole life and he didn't like it being used when it was. Well, thanks for trying to report this user to the proper places and thanks for your time in reading this. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Something To Say You!

I Don't know if you were, but the person who putted the edit tags to the articles I made, is wrong, because I've made those articles just yesterday and I guess that's all the information that I can add to those articles, so please respect those articles and leave them the way they are.

Thank You!! Charlie White!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie White (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Vandalizing, please undestand!!!!!!!

I Don't consider I vandalize my own articles, Like I told you, I made all the Abriendo Puertas album single yesterday, and you are asking that I edit them, that disrespectful and untolerable, please don't ask that and please don't say that I'm vandalizing.

Thanks! Charlie White! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie White (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coarse!!!!

I don't know what happens with you, and I don't know why you talk to me that way!!!! But I created all those articles because no one made articles from Gloria Estefan discography and now you're telling me that you don't want me to edit them, I think you are a coarse person and if you're think you're so smart for (grammar, punctuation) and all that stuff, why don't you make the articles...and then you come and tell me all these things that you're telling me. I can't believe that god created people like you in this world!!!!! What a shame!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie White (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Started Everything!!!!

I didn't attack you, I'm just defending myself from your intolerable insults, Firstly, you are telling me that I don't speak a good-English, maybe I don't write a good-English, but I speak very well, so please stop saying me that, It's a insult to me that, Second, I'm just helping to extend this enciclopedia, I speak four different languages so you must understand me, although my original language is the English. And third I won't stop making articles, if you want to edit them, it's ok, but I won't stop, so let's leave war and make peace!!!

Peace & Love!!!! --Charlie White 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process. Adrian M. H. 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK!

It's ok with me, but it better do it this way, than just putting the tag without asking to the person who made the article, and please don't be coarse with me, and sorry if I insulted you before. --Charlie White 00:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your query on my talkpage

You'll have to request a checkuser... sorry, I don't have access to underlying IP checks.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Damodin578

Done. You can do that too, you know! :) Once the editor has been given the appropriate last warning, you can report him here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism --Rrburke^(talk) 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whois question

I suspect you're adept at this, while I'm not. Would it be possible to discover if two editors are connected? Machocarioca and 201.17.42.222? The former is the one who uploaded the cropped Marlon Brando photo, and the latter is the one who kept putting it on the article page. The upload occurred SO close to the posting that it's all quite suspicious. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie 06:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio University Page

In case you didn't know, there was an article in the OU student paper (some alums still read it!!) about these sports cuts being on wikipedia. The small faction of athletes who continue to fight obviously would like their ideals all over the web, but most other OU alums, fans, etc. are long since sick of it. The Post article even had quotes from wikipdia guru Theresa Knott saying that such a story does not belong on the OU wikipeida page and is non-neutral POV propaganda (half the stuff being said by them is not even close to true). Nothing else on the OU page talks of a "one time incident" such as this, and if you knew about OU's rich history, you would know that it is quite a non-story that is a year old. I have told several of my OU alum pals about this bologna being on our alma mater's page and we have all agreed to watch it and keep deleting it. Thanks!.......AlumniGal99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlumniGal99 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Affair discussion

I read this on the discussion page:
"DECISION More than enough time has passed for this discussion. The consensus is OPPOSE and/or NO-Decision. Removed tag from article. IP4240207xx 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)"
—and saw that the tag remained, all I did was remove it and I guess it just keeps coming back. Not my problem. Thanks for drawing attention to it.Julia Rossi 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ursulines of Quebec

Put the tag back if you don't agree with its removal. However, I came up with those two easily and will be watching for them. The Ursulines of Quebec were important to the history of the time so, presumably there will be more links. Cheers! --Stormbay 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining "Vadalism" claim and requesting reversion to my edit

My source for his having some Irish background comes from Warren Harris' book p. 2, not the source you cite as bogus, which is not mine, therefore it is incorrect to call my additions "vandalism". All my information is from a reliable source. Please do the right thing and undo your reversal, and I will add the citation. Thank you. Scotwriter 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and for helping me be a better Wiki contributor. Scotwriter 13:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore (Medal of Honor)

Jwillbur and Kumioko: I invite you too settle an issue.

It appears that IP4240207xx suffers from Kobe Bryant syndrome in that he insists on tearing down his teammates in public for all to see so that he can feel more secure in his own failures instead of offering support and or guidance. Teammates in this case would be novice contributors who are being stomped by the BIG Boys with comments like “Attempt to clean up mess made by User:Lasherp”.

I am well aware that I have no business even being here if I can’t handle someone else editing my contribs but that goes both ways for me and my Laker friend and I can assure you I have been edited plenty by you and others and only once had a problem with the changes that were made to my page.

Reference: User talk:Lasherp I have incorporated all six outstanding suggestions by IP4240207xx made on the 8th of Nov into all my editing and you need only look at the drastic change in my format and style as of that date to see it, but not one of those suggestions was made with malice and all were appreciated.

Here is the problem: William Moore (Medal of Honor) I have returned William Moore (Medal of Honor) to my last edit change and than back to the original from the 16 of Sep by IP4240207xx removing all traces of a mess that I may have added. After doing so I would ask that someone please explain where the mess is and suggest an end format so that I may continue to use it across the board with all other MOH recipients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasherp (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings IP4240207xx, Lasherp asked me to review the comment you made on the William Moore (Medal of Honor) article and I didn't see anything offensive. I would also ask if you are having a problem with the edits made to an article the term copyedit or a simple revert is more acceptable than "cleaning up the mess". If there is something that I am missing, please let me know. Happy editing:-)--Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]