User talk:Triona/Archive Oct2006

Globular cluster

Nevermind, I misread the diff.

Thanks for keeping an eye on the page. Unfortunately I have seen that happen more than once (where good content gets eliminated during the effort to revert vandalism) so I can relate. — RJH (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RETF Cleanup

Hey, could you explain to me what you did in this edit? I'm a little confused. alphaChimp^(talk) 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't mean to be rude, but could you mark your AWB edits as minor and try to avoid edits that are simply whitespace moves or category/template reordering? Martin, some other users, and I tried to clarify that at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests_for_registration, but we realize there might be some issues. Basically, we're trying to avoid filling up edit histories and the recent changes feed with meaningless edits.

Coincidentally, don't take this as an offense to you. I think your spellcheck edits are great (I helped a bit making RETF). Just make sure you look at the preview and decide before you hit save. Thanks, alphaChimp^(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo's RfA

Triona...
Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support.
Triona, thank you for the support you gave on my RfA. I feel encouraged and brightened with so many excellent users supporting me, so thank you very much :)
Yours, Th ε Halo ^Θ 23:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publically

It's unclear to me why you're replacing publically with publicly. Both are correct spellings of the word, though admittedly publicly is the more common one, and it's general Wikipedia policy not to go through and make wholesale changes from one variant spelling of a word to another. --Delirium 07:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps because "publically" is at best a rare variant ref: http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/4873.html Abtract 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this has come up before; some previous discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Lists of common misspellings#publically/publicly. --Delirium 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Irwin

The article is a different article, not a repost. Also, the AfD was closed prematurely because it was discovered the original author was a banned user. The "delete" was without prejudice and not a result of the AfD. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just seconding what Sarah said, and also please check out my extensive explanation on the Bindi talk page, and the DRV I linked from there (I filed DRV just to clear this procedurally since so many people keep mistakenly referring back to that). · XP · 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Famous Azerbaijani's article

Please do not let them influence you. They are the POV pushers for these reasons: 1)Azeri's from the R. of Azerbaijan and Azeri's from Iranian Azerbaijan are not of the same ethnicity, they just speak the same language, 2)The Azeri's from the R. of Azerbaijan want it to look as if these people are Azeri's (from a "united Azerbaijan", when historically, the R. of Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Iranian Azerbaijan) rather than Iranains, which is not correct. That page is like having Americans and Canadians considered Famoush English men or something... Do you get what I mean? I strongly urge you to revert your previous revert. Khosrow II 00:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They speak the same language, they both call themselves azerbaijanis but they are not the same?? Canadians and Americans don't call themselves the same thing, so the analogy is not correct.. However, in this case they both call themselves azeris, and they speak the same language, they just happen to live in different countries for geopolitical reasons greater than them, like the Kurds.. Baristarim 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Arthur John Haughey

Please read the notes in User talk:Letlifelive made by TruthbringerToronto --ArmadilloFromHell 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it appears I am wrong. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

That user is becoming a bit of a bother. Thanks for caring enough to revert that comment of his. I owe you one. - Lucky 6.9 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Award

"Good RC patrolling isn't just a vandalism/not vandalism decision, its the first line of quality control."
Your statements on Wikipedia:VP2/suggestions just earned you this award! :-) Best regards.--Hús ö nd 03:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Service
		I award you this medal for your strong commitment to improve Wikipedia's quality. Best regards.--Hús ö nd 03:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

Much appreciated. I always like to know that others like my pics.--Londoneye 11:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope ^Talk 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup

Hi, Triona! In response to, among other things, your comment that another weekend might work better, the Philadelphia Wikipedia meetup has been rescheduled to 4 November. If you could again edit Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your coming, that would be excellent. Thanks! --CComMack (tc) 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Star Trek Planets references

At the end of each planet's entry is a link to a particular episode from which the planet is referenced, either in dialog or actually shown on screen. Therefore the episodes are the references. I don't see how we can give a better reference than that. Cyberia23 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems

Hey great work on this by the way! Some of the points have made me think... :) Glen 13:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse _work 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Trading Card

Hey, not cool. The Star Wars Trading Card article I started had a lot of content, and was still being filled out. You deleted lots of useful content and links. The Star Wars article is far too long, and needs to refer out to these special topic pages (and I wrote the trading card brief specifically for that purpose) more, rather than less.

Please reverse however you deleted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandfigures (talk • contribs)

It's not deleted, I just replaced with a redirect. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I strongly disagree with you that the content of the Star Wars Trading Card article is not significant enough for its own entry. The information about grading and terminology was (and still is?) not in trading cards. The lack of having that information handy and explicit has caused many card collectors, especially novices, great consternation. For example, confusion over what constitutes a 'box' vs. a 'case', or 'pack-fresh' vs. 'mint' vs. 'excellent'. I do not know if you are an active collector of SWTCs, but if not, we are many and worldwide, and very passionate about the hobby. The starwarscards.net site is the place on the Web to discuss and trade them (not wookiepedia or elsewhere), but it is a privately-owned, unfunded site so on occasion the site owner (Cathy) must purge old posts. One time all was lost from the site. So this Wikipedia entry is meant as a brief, 'timeless', lasting article that is an introduction to the topic -- exactly what encyclopedias are for!

I'll restore the article after figuring out how. Your comments/additions on how to improve it are, of course, encouraged. I'll also add in the discussion section an explanation of the purpose of the article. I'll state too that the original author is not affiliated with any card companies, if you had concerns about commercialism.

Please don't be so hasty on merging articles (about 15 minutes in this case). Wikipedia says at least five days, as a guideline, to give time for comments and discussion. And in the interest of 'knowledge', please err on the side of retaining information. What seems minor to one reader may be very significant to another. A great thing about this Web site is that disk space is dirt-cheap, so the Wikipedia can be huge.

If you are looking to author a new article, and you are a Star Wars fan, one is needed on Star Wars Toys. I don't collect them (much), but they are very important to many. Star Wars is central to our culture these days, much like baseball was a hundred years ago, so many articles on its subtopics are quite appropriate.

FactsAndFigures 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm definitely not an English expert (although a published author since 1986), but one pointer I picked up along the way is " there is 'a rat' in 'separate'." Remember this, and you will never again misspell separate! Worked for me.