User talk:The Boy that time forgot

Welcome!

Hello, The Boy that time forgot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - MPF 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit overdue - looks like you're the Boy that time (or at least the Welcoming Committee) forgot! You up Kielder way? Welcome from the Toon! - MPF 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming protocol

Hi TBTTF - this one has been hotly debated for ages . . . take a look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. No doubt you've guessed I (and several others) am in favour of caps for species common names; some others are not. My feeling is that it is a very useful practical format, e.g. wild cherry (any species of Prunus in its native environment) is not the same as Wild Cherry (the specific English name of Prunus avium). It also introduces consistency, uniformity of treatment (lists with names randomly capitalised and not capitalised look awful), and predictability. In many cases, how does one know if a name is derived from a proper noun or not? - surprisingly difficult to know in many cases. Is e.g. Pohutukawa a proper name? Or Kusamaki? I think it is unreasonable to have to expect people to delve into Maori, Japanese, etc., etymology to find out whether to use a capital or not. The idea of using caps for species is far from new; most field guides use them, and have done for decades (e.g. The Observer's Book of Trees, first published in 1937, does so). Others of course disagree, but I have yet to see anyone produce any reason for doing so other than 'going by the grammatical rule book' ("the bible says so, so therefore you must do so"; obedience to scripture, rather than reason). The net result though is that no consensus has been reached, and both styles are accepted on wikipedia; you will find many species pages with capitalised common names, many with lower case common names. So I guess it is up to you; one option when adding links is to use whichever form the relevant species page is at (e.g. White Spruce, chestnut oak), though that can of course make a page internally inconsistent. Hope this helps! - MPF 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edits

After a while you get a little more used to it. I still, and often, make sloppy copyedits just because so many articles on Wikipedia need a serious copyedit. KP Botany 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what the heck, I don't know everything. Do you? Wikipedia editors need to do a lot more neutral discussing, including, when someone asks you why you did something, you explain your reasoning, or see holes in it, and change text, in agreement, accordingly. Try not to get as frustrated with the lack of this as I do on Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuley tubes

Fine by me, just make sure a redirect points to the new name, and mention the alternative name somewhere near the start of the article. All the best. SP-KP 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clearcutting

Hi, I'm the other person editing the clearcut article, which for some reason is called "clearfelling." I really don't like the way it is, and I've been trying to guage if anyone will care or notice if I gut it and rebuild it. Anyway, I was hoping the talk page there would be more responsive if people are indeed editing and improving this article. 160.94.147.168 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I suggest you get yourself a user account and set up a talk page. Anonymous editors can be viewed with some suspicion. To answer your question, I think you'll find that some people will notice and indeed care if you 'gut and rebuild' the article but thats no reason not to do it. In my opinion the clearfelling article, in common with most of the forestry related articles suffer from the same problems, i.e, badly written, badly structured and suffering from a strong North American point of view. By all means have a go at cleaning it up but can I ask you to keep this firmly in your mind, this is an encyclopedia and so all content should be verifiable and preferably referenced. Stick to facts and go lightly on opinion. Try and start a debate on the articles discussion page and, don't do things anonymously. I hope I haven't put you off.The Boy that time forgot 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly haven't put me off. It's probably good advice--I had not considered that the lack of discussion had to do with my non-identity. It is unfortunate that many users cannot comply with the good faith policy66.41.66.213 07:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 66.41.66.213 , I've been looking at the changes you've made to Clearfelling, well done, big improvement. I also saw that someone had reverted a lot of the work you'd put in. This may have been because of your anonynimity, editors get twitchy when they see lots of changes being made by IP addresses. Secondly if you set up a user account you will find people will communicate via your talk page, useful for a collaborative approach. Just think up a stupid name and go for it. Keep up the good work. The Boy that time forgot 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chiasmus

See here: chiasmus. :) Cheers, Doops | talk 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Per Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short I have changed your sourced userboxes into subpages. Spurring readon: Your userpage is in Bood fan user templates category.

-PatPeter 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even policy. You can't invent policy on Wikipedia. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short

Why did you unnessessarily put your userpage in Category:Book fan user templates?

Why did you feel the need to copy the userboxes on your userpage from other places and waste space instead of a transclusion?

Why, if these userboxes are your own work, wouldn't they be in subpages so that other users can use them? -PatPeter 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy that time forgot, you are allowed to copy userboxes. There is nothing to say that you are not permitted to do this. There has been discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree. If you want to comment there you are welcome to do so (remember to remain WP:CIVIL, not that I expect you won't, but the Administrators' Noticeboard can have strange effcts on people ;-) — coel acan — 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "sinister", no. I tend to think it's a good faith attempt to clean up categories (like category:book fan user templates), but in a somewhat heavy-handed manner. — coel acan — 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to get off now but for your last comment, I do not think I know what spurring means, or the way you percieve it. I meant to say that the reason I did this to your userpage was not random but because there was something wrong. -PatPeter 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more correctly, you perceived there to be something wrong. So .. ummm .. you went ahead and fixed it, yes? May I request at this point that you don't 'fix' my userpage in this way? - Alison^☺ 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, shut up.
Coelacan, shut up.
Do you guys both hate me? Why do you feel the need to comment on every single damn page that includes me. Seriously, stop, stop bullying me. Do you know why I take this as a personal attack? Because it is one thing to confront me, and another to talk about me behind my back on pages that I will not always get to, to try to destroy me.
How can I defend myself against an entire onslaught of people? This is impossible for any human being. If you have something so say to me then put in one post, not three, not five, not ten, but one.
Boy that time forgot, I will respond to you in a moment, I have to copy and paste this message anywhere I can to stop this harrassment. -PatPeter 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright bttf, when next you come one tell me which userboxes you copied from other locations, and cite the locations, then I will replace your subpage userboxes on your userpage with the original userboxes, and delete your bad subpage. -PatPeter 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, The Boy that time forgot, you do not need to do this and there is no policy demanding that you act as PatPeter is asking you to. If you are having any trouble with your userboxes, you can always ask a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where there are lots of people with experience who can answer almost any Wikipedia-related question you might have. — coel acan — 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not demand that tbttf does this, I merely asked him. Because I did not know if he was a frequent user or not I went ahead and did it. You coelacan seem pretty keen on fighting me. -PatPeter 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

... looks like you've been here since October and we've not bumped into each other yet :) Nice to have another NI editor on here. I presume you know all about WP:IWNB and WP:NIWNB already but let me take the opportunity to blatantly advertise them again. Anyways - nice to meet ya! - Alison^☺ 00:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HE Anthony Bailey

Is this a recreation of Anthony John Bailey, or is there sufficient difference? Corvus cornix 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Feral Goat.JPG

The file File:Feral Goat.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, low quality

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]