Jump to content

User talk:Terrillja/Archives/02/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyrk Page Edits Needed.....

Terrillja - Thanks for taking the time to look into this. However the facts in this section are incorrect. Frank Bakirdan's offical start date was in January of 2008. Also the statement that sales went down soon after his hire is incorrect. The fact is that the first quarter of 2008 was the most profitable for Cyrk in 7 yrs. Cyrk made more money in the first quarter of 2008 then it had in total for the past 3 yrs. The downturn in sales and profitability did not occur until almost the end of the second quarter of 2008. This quarter was flat with no gains or losses. However the third quarter of 2008 starting in July was when Cyrk experienced a major shift in corporate and consumer purchasing direction. This was the beginning of the recession for Cyrk. By the end of this quarter Cyrk had experienced a more than 35% drop in sales volume. That is when the executive committee which included all upper management decided that Cyrk needed to right size the company to weather the storm. Layoffs were announced and executed. However by the beginning of the fourth quarter all signs pointed to a major downturn in business in all sectors. Cyrk's books showed the deepest losses and Sun Capital Partners, the entity that owned Cyrk, refused to put any further funding in place which caused Wachovia, the financing arm, to pull Cyrk's credit line. This happened the second week of November 2008. Within the next 2wks Cyrk missed 2 covenants which basically put the nail in the coffin. With no capital for basic expenditures Cyrk had no choice but to look for a buyer. With no one stepping forward to acquire the company Cyrk began the process of selling off on-hand inventory to pay off all outstanding debts. At this point Frank Bakirdan was released from employment from the company. So as you can see the information given to describe what happened is not accurate.

If you would like you may use parts of what I have written above as factual information. Being that this company was private I am not at liberty to divulge and financial records. Once again thanks for all the help in resolving this issue.

Frank Bakirdan

{{helpme}}

Info boxes

I noticed edits to the info box by me and others does not always transfer to the article, even though they remain in the editing section. So what is being done wrong? This is on Queen Of Swords and Adventure Inc REVUpminster (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is linkely because you are adding parameters that are not part of the template. The template uses a specific parser function, so if it doesn't expect an executive producer field, then it won't add it to the infobox, since it doesn't understand what it is. Hopefully that made some sense? --Terrillja talk 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IFU

Hi, thanks for your help with requests at WP:IFU :D. The Reviewer Instructions page is a little hard to find, but might be of some help when you're reviewing requests (instructions + templates etc). Once again, thanks for your help. Cheers, Matt (Talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

geez, a whole different set of templates from AfC... Thanks for the link, I'll start using those, assuming people actually use something that can be uploaded, not on their local drive, and not copyrighted.--Terrillja talk 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Thanks for your help. Now in my references section it doesn't list the reference or link at all. How do I make sure it's still there? I don't want to add more to it before I'm sure the first one is done properly.JGalfas (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the reference up to the top, next to the quote. The way that the {{reflinks}} template works is that it collects all if the references scattered throughout the article and puts them in a nice list at the bottom. So add your ref tags where they need to be, and they will be automatically added to the list.--Terrillja talk 21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Watson

Recently you have been making a lot of edits on Paul Watson that appear designed merely to remove material you consider unfavorable to him from that article. That is contrary to WP:NPOV and no amount of wikilawyering about it will change that. Are you Watson's close personal friend, or are you advancing an encyclopedia article? Please take another look at what you have been doing. It is not your role here to "protect" anybody by repeatedly reverting edits made in good faith with supporting references by other editors. The material is relevant to his biography and HE has not contested it. In fact, probably would not do so. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A friend? All I've been doing is trying to improve the article, which is something we should all be trying to do. That means finding refs rather than just placing fact tags. I'm not protecting anyone, I have no objections to your information being added to an article on Alison Lance Watson <--made a redlink for you so you can create it. However, adding a paragraph on his wife's activities is WP:UNDUE. Unless you have a ref stating that Paul was involved in the actions in any way other than marriage, then leave it out.
Simplified:
I have absolutely no objection to the material, but create another article on his wife unless you have proof that he was involved in her crimes. --Terrillja talk 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Trying to make work for somebody else does not excuse your arbitrary and repeated deletion of referenced material from this article. It is a lame tactic. You want an article on Allison, make one yourself.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
How about I create it, I'll move the text and replace it with a wikilink to her article. Would that work for you?--Terrillja talk 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you didn't reply, I did it. --Terrillja talk 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A report about this matter has been filed at edit warring noticeboard Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Heidi Montag

As a regular patroller of this page, would you mind letting me know if you agree with the tags recently placed on the article? Personally, I don't see any peacock terms, but perhaps I'm missing something. Frankly, I'm tired of people complaining about Montag having an article, but that's a whole other can of worms. Thanks. Pinkadelica Say it... 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that seems fansite-ish. I think it was placed more out of frustration of an editor that the article wasn't going to be deleted since they didn't like it. Fine by me to remove them. --Terrillja talk 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for you opinion. Pinkadelica Say it... 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Question

Hi, I did have a question. I have been cleaning up the Prison Fellowship page a bit. It has some wikiboxes on top saying the page doesn't have enough sources, wikilinks, etc. I was wondering who makes the decision to remove those boxes? I also asked this question on the discussion page, but haven't gotten any responses. What's the best practice for this? Thanks ConstRepublic (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Looking at it, a few sections should have more wikilinks added to them, and you do need more references from uninvolved 3rd party sources, such as the news. So for now, I think the tags are still fairly appropriate, but if you can add more wikilinks and find some 3rd party sources, then they can be removed in the future. More info in sources can be found at WP:RS. Hopefully that answers your question, if not, drop me a note on my talkpage.--Terrillja talk 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I understand why the quality boxes should stay up there. I had a more generic question though. Who makes the decision to remove the boxes on the top of the page? Should there be a consensus? thanks again. ConstRepublic (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The million dollar question. The answer is, they can be removed once the issues have been resolved. Resolved according to who? Generally, if the tag is not one that is argued over, then it can be removed once you have addressed the issues. For tags like wikify and those that ask for more sources, once you have wikified and added reliable sources, then you can remove them. Other tags, like WP:NPOV tags need to be discussed first, since it isn't a matter of "doing" something, it's a matter of how it's written, and your idea of improved may not meet the criteria of the person who left it. If you'd feel more comfortable, leave a message here once you feel that you have resolved the issues, I'll check it out and remove the tags if resolved.--Terrillja talk 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Apple

Following your edit to Apple I left a further comment on the talk page which is here. Can you have another look. I am not allowed to edit the page otherwise I would have done it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.165.220 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Apple

Following your edit to Apple I left a further comment on the talk page which is here. Can you have another look. I am not allowed to edit the page otherwise I would have done it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.165.220 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral

Cheers! And yes, we'll def keep the MacBook article clean :) Nja247 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Terrillja. You have new messages at Matt.T's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vocal Type

Thanks for revising it.

It looks ALOT better than my version.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mistake

Sorry about that. I was archiving some of the ones older than 30 days and I forgot that some on the archive page were still ongoing. Sorry for the inconvenience.--TRUCO 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Way We Were

The names were delinked not because they are linked in the infobox but because they are linked in the Production section preceding the cast list. Please familiarize yourself with the film project guidelines which strongly discourage wikilinking names more than once within the body of an article. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that? I have been going by WP:MOSFILM, which makes no mention of one wikilink per article. Is there another, separate MOS for films somewhere else?--Terrillja talk 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to raise the issue on the project's talk page, where it has been discussed in the past. But don't you think a name shouldn't be wikilinked EVERY time it appears in an article based on simple common sense? What would be the point of doing that? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be linked every time it appears, but of the sections to link, cast would be one of the most important IMO.--Terrillja talk 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terrillja/Archives/02/2009&oldid=1051211072"