User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Jobing.com article

Thank you for your assistance in editing the article about Jobing.com; I am new to the Wiki and a student doing this for a class project. I am going to find more third party references to add and correctly cite them. Thanks much for your help!!! --Phanavan 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

!!!Updated!!! External Links Policy

In what way does Cigreviews.com violate wikipedia's external link policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afro3429 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. You made a number of points..

• To be honest, you should avoid linking to any site you have a stake in. It makes your contribution a conflict of interests.

I have no affliation with the owners/moderators of that site, my only connection is that about 20 of the reviews on that site are mine, and I am a regular user of the site.

• You are placing the link on a number of pages of specific brands, but the link doesn't go directly to information about that brand. This makes it look like you are concerned more with driving traffic to the site than offering further useful information relevant to the page.

I see your point on this, originally when I added the links to Wikipedia I had a generic link that I copy and pasted on to all the web pages. Your right, links to specific pages would be more relevant.

• The site is a customer review site, so really just a collection of opinions from people of no verifiable qualifications.

• Wikipedia is not a directory. External links should really only be used if they contribute information that could not otherwise be included in Wikipedia (e.g. due to copyright). Cigreviews doesn't appear to offer any further useful factual information that isn't already there.

When I was reading Wikipedia's external links policy I came upon this under the "What should be linked section"

• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

This was my original rational for including cigreviews.com on the wikipedia pages in question. As no professional reviewer of cigarettes exists, and the external link policy is vague at best when it comes to reviews, the summarization of consumer reviews would be be a benefit to the users of the wikicommunity containing both relevant, and meaningful content.

Having said that I was wondering is a wikipedia page that more closely spells out the guidelines and definitions for reviews on wikipedia?

or if a external link set up in this fashion, say for marlboro, would be acceptable.

• User submitted Marlboro reviews

Thanks for your time-

Greater Jeruselam

Why would you recommend to delete "Greater Jerusalem" article? It is about a top Israeli swimming club and does not hurt anyone by being published. Is there a reason for it to be deleted? Commented was added by <CapeLand> <Talk>

East Surrey FHS notability query

I need some advice about how to make the entry more notable. Looking at entries for fellow UK family history societies the entry is in essence the same as some of the existing ones. In particular the Suffolk FHS entry is virtually identical. The entry can be expanded if necessary but it would be useful to understand the weakness in the content. Thanks BrianH 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

East Surrey notability issue

Thanks for your helpful reply and guidance. Although I had looked at the main guidlines I had missed the one about organisations so that was useful. Hopefully there is a bit of time allowed to produce an improved entry. I wonder if other societies have been deleted on notablity since there are not many of the links on the list of family history societies that have any entries attached to them. Regards BrianH 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Republican politician edits

Thanks for the heads-up on my edits. NPOV is clearly a very important principle, and I support the mission of Wikipedia to be as comprehensive and objective as possible. However, I disagree with your assertion that my edits fail to meet this standard, and in fact I think it's clear I was correcting grievous omissions that were tantamount to NPOV violation. Facts are facts, and I disagree that they must be truncated to suit the emotional reactions of certain people. Unless you're prepared to radically edit pages depicting a round Earth to suit the "controversy" of the Flat Earth Society's contentions, then you must accept certain facts as clearly established wrt the subjects in question: (1)The Republican Party is a fascist organization by definitions included in Wikipedia, a criminal organization by the same virtue, and a great number of its prominent members are Christian fudamentalists as also defined by the community. These are not my opinions, they are facts, and my edits are not bad-faith defacing or vandalism. Neutrality does not mean settling exactly between the opposite extremes of every subject, it means representing the facts in an unbiased manner. By deleting facts because some group objects to them, you are taking a side. I've undone your removals, but I appreciate your input.

Removal of Best Moot Court Programs

The ranking at bestmootcourtprograms.com has been cited by the law schools at George Mason University and Mississippi College, and has been footnoted as an authority in the UC-Hastings' wikipedia article. Although it is merely touting a web site, that web site is THE authority on how American moot court programs stack up against each other. To my knowledge, the "moot court" wikipedia article cannot be edited. User: Jimdugan

Jimdugan - "bestmootcourtprograms.com" is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. In fact, the registrant of the website (Brian Koppen) is a 2007 (yes, just 2 months ago) of Chicago-Kent School of Law. That alone raises an air of stink around his findings. Additionally, the author is not credible per se (as he had no academic credentials in which to judge a program nor any practical experience). Wikipedia is not intended to be a commercial. Aeh5a2 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the ranking is so transparent that the "stink" of previous affiliation is neutralized. you bring me one moot court competition with 24 or more teams that has not been included and i'll tell you why it hasn't. Frederick Douglass moot court competition hasn't. this is because it may or may not be exclusionary. bring me another one. who has academic credentials to judge moot court programs? would that be a ph. D in mootcourt-ology? brian koppen is about as credible as they get. final four in 176 team moot court competition administered by who? yeah, the american bar association. regional best brief winner in same competition. regional champion in same. who is more qualified? i'm guessing that the person who removed it from the "moot court" entry (i added it this time, someone else did previously) was not in the top five or so of the contest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimdugan (talk • contribs).

Removal of Charles Mower

On the mower page is examples of his boats. Some or the boats listed may be for sail but it most also be noted that thease boats belong in museums. Topps O cotten for example is the oldest boat in Chichago and the only know surviving Legendary not even the plans survive to this day. And the Fishers island boats are a fleet in NY that are over 60 years old and were not listed for sail anywere. By deleting facts because you think "This page is about Charles Mower. It is not here for you to tout business for your yachts" You are right Yet the historical significance of these boats must also be recognized. This reason is why they are listed so please consider the fact that thease boats are extreamly rear and only exist thanks to wood boat enthisiast.

I would love help rewording the boat text so they do not read as adds and yes most information was just cut and paseded from the respected sites The site looks great thank you for your help wikiifing the site

Delete

Dear Escape Orbit,

Monsanto. What do you think of seeing this kind of IP in the corporation's article ?. I love wikipedia and spend also time to edit my own articles in English, French and Russian about History, Art, etc. (with a login !). I just wish that users be conscious of the situation, that's all. Have you got an idea to do it in the best way (be serious please) ? http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

I would be happy to read your answer.

Sincerely yours,

80.32.246.17 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Springerdor

Thnx for allawin it 2 be in existence. Although it's a real breed with a farfeched (can't spell it, 1st time) name, like the Yorkipoo or the Labradoodle... I only know one in my neighbourhood, luckily she's mine (but she doesn't like 2 sound inferior so we have to retend she's of primate decent sometimes (she doesn't like to be different)). So, to continue adding 2 da page, we need someone who also has one. OV

Leggett & Platt‎

FYI: [1] ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I would have reverted it myself if it didn't sound like a reasonable response. True, a source is needed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

List of left handed people

I've put a prod tag on it. This is the kind of indiscriminate and potentially unmanageable list that has routinely failed AfD votes from what I have seen. If someone contests it, I'll put it up for AfD. Thanks for your understanding. --Finngall ^talk 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Batley Bulldogs 2007

Hi there. I see you proposed Batley Bulldogs 2007 for deletion...I personally agree with your reasoning. However, what I have done is created 2007 pages for all NRL and super league teams specifically to place these rather pointless crystal ball predictions on. They used to appear on the main article page for every team. Unfortunately it seems that no one can accept that these shouldn't form a part of wikipedia in any way, and they insist on having them somewhere. I figured may as well hide them on a 2007 page rather than the actual page!

You can see the debate, and add your opinion too, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Discussions forums/Putting up weekly run on sides on team articles

Nouse4aname 09:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of left handed people

List of left handed people, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of left handed people satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left handed people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of left handed people during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Paptimus Scirocco

I just made a few changes to make this article a little clearer about the subject. I added an opening sentence making it perfectly clear that he is a ficitonal character from Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. Shaneymike 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!\

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your reports at WP:AIV today. Maxim(talk) 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Expatica

I was wondering why you speedy-deleted an article that had already passed a proper AfD review with 'Keep'? I'm supposed to explain these procedures to this new user (I'm a part of the 'Adopt-a-user' program) - and to be honest, what you did seems entirely wrong...regardless of your regard for the merits of the article, if it was nominated for AfD and the result was a non-speedy keep - it should be kept - or at the very least re-nominated for debate after the author has had a chance to clean up the rough spots. Unfortunately, I can't now even read the article to advise this new author on how to fix it. SteveBaker 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have left you a link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expatica SteveBaker 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I flagged this very thing as a concern on the talk page. The AfD review was over a year ago, where as the article I read was created that day and indeed had already had a csd attached by another editor, which was then removed (perhaps inadvertently) by Salion. I'm not sure what occurred, but it would appear that at some point since the AfD the page had been deleted, and the talk page remained (as it does now). The page I proposed for speedy deletion had significant problems; notability not established, no cites or references, read like a press release. I've explained this to Salion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh - I see. Can we find the version that was considered acceptable at the previous AfD review? SteveBaker 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Salion is now genuinely trying to put together a decent article on Expatica - and has asked me to help out under the Adopt-A-User program. I'm an experienced editor (8000+ edits, two featured articles) and under the adoption system, I'll keep a really close eye on what happens with this article - I take this kind of thing very seriously. However, it would be useful to see the last known state of the thing so I can advise my adoptee on what went wrong. I'm not an admin - so I can't pull it back from the grave - but I guess you can. Would it be possible to copy the last known content into User:Salion/Expatica? Thanks in advance. SteveBaker 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

cinema of turkey

Escape Orbit,

the next time, could you please ask me to remove the things myself before you use your scissors? :) It took me some time to pull it all together and sometimes it's just the case that i don't backup my writings. I don't know what you were expecting from the entry, but i think you could have allowed me to progress a bit more. Citations and references were ready, but i think i just don't know any longer if it is worth the effort to write anything at all.

Thank you.

Ego sum cui sum 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Image:Burning hand.jpg"

I decided to release this image into the public domain, admitting that I forgot about the guidelines. Sorry for that. Please don't undo my previous edit. Jonghyunchung 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

a question

I have a problem. I want to give a link to the word "Tarkan" as referring to a series of historical adventure movies produced in Turkey during the 1960s and 70s. However the name is already given away to the turkish pop-star Tarkan.

How can I give a link that opens to an empty page? Ego sum cui sum 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the aid :) Ego sum cui sum 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting refs

Was probably just a normal mistake that happens to most everyone, but just FYI/FFR do please take care when messing with references; this edit broke some other refs that utilized the same name. ¦ Reisio 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnome image

Thanks. Seriously, I was getting tired of removing that picture. --Old Raw 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome some feedback

Hello, my name is Isucheme and I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article on the Churchill-Bernstein Equation. The equation is used to find an average (convection) heat transfer coefficient to use in Newton’s Law of cooling for a cylinder in cross flow, and the mass transfer analogy, as described in the article, can be employed to find a mass transfer coefficient. I would appreciate any feed back you can give me on my article so I can make it a great article. Thank you. Isucheme 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Gscshoyru 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SODA

WWWWWWW? OOOOOO? man you are really fast on those reverts, good job =p --Diaboli 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Kessler page

User User:KesslerRonald went back and put back in all the "back of cover" capsule descriptions of each one of his books and deleted a whole lot of the discussions on the Talk page. I undid his additions to the main page, but I guess I don't have permission to unmodify the talk page.

Anywho, you might want to consider locking this page, or locking that user from that page; he's being a wee bit obnoxious. Dougom 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Wikipedia that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone.

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and correct.

It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring.

My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on Wikipedia.

Once again, please preserve the laborers page. 128.12.170.194 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Granite07 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Religion and homosexuality is like God and devil.So I am right anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.120.62 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoking ban popular culture section

Excuse me but, why did you remove the "popular culture" part of the Smoking Ban article ?

83.203.227.147 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't think it added anything to the page. The article covers the subject of smoking legislation. People know what Smoking Bans are. They don't need an irrelevant list of trivial mentions of Smoking bans in the Simpsons or other comedy tv programmes to illustrate them or validate their significance. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Contemporary U.S. popular culture is killing Wikipedia. Referring to action movies and rap "songs" does not provide information about a topic.Lestrade (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

AfD nomination of Nicolas Rost

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nicolas Rost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Rost. Thank you. Edcolins 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You previously nominated for speedy deletion. --Edcolins 10:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Link Spammer

You did a great job scaring off a spammer on the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Swift_Transportation page. He keeps adding links to swift.drivers-central.com to a number of Wiki pages. Can you warn him and remove his spammy links from the following pages:

wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trucker wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Truck_driving wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Truck_drivers

Thanks Wiki Po-Po! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukebenson (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

re New York Military Academy

Thanks for keeping an eye on the New York Military Academy article. I think it has been made clear to all of the editors involved (who might well be one person), that the claims require sources. I have made friendly suggestions as to sourcing the claim and have applied warnings where they have not been followed. Please keep an eye out for any future reinsertions of the unsourced claims. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

John Travolta

Hi, I reverted your reversion without noting that it was, in fact, correct. I have now removed this per policies WP:BLP, WP:N & WP:V as per my note. I have the page on watch but I'm more used to people putting this in. Apologies for calling you a vandal. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob Krasnow

You nominated the Bob Krasnow entry for speedy deletion. He is a major force in the recording industry, and has been for more than fifty years. He has a detailed list of accomplishments, achievements, innovations and accolades.

Considering some of the bright lights that do have long-standing Wikipedia entries (high school football coaches that are no longer employed?) I'd say that Krasnow definitely merits an entry.

BayRadioDJ (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks =

Thanks for editing my comment on your blog instead of deleting it. I often find Wikipedia edtiors delete my comments (even when they are corroborated by several print media sources and books) when they are not to their liking. So I do really appreciate you tolerating my typing in some well-researched or documented facts, even though you are a wikipedia editor.

Your edit to Shakespeare's life

Hi. I reverted this: was it a cut-and-paste error? --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I rewrote a paragraph which I found awkwardly phrased, but then forgot to remove the original version. Thanks for spotting it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova's page

(also posted on the Sharapova page discussion thread)

I believe the rumoured relationships information to be notable. There's credible evidence suggesting that something MAY have happened between Sharapova and all the people mentioned, therefore, I consider it a valid entry to state these rumoured relationships which all have evidence behind them (the evidence being articles, pictures, and other materials). My understanding of the general Wikipedia policy on this type of thing is that, if there is evidence strongly suggesting that a relationship has taken place, as long as it is stressed that the information is unconfirmed, it is generally acceptable. I was looking at Nicole Kidman's page just earlier, and that contained information of Kidman's rumoured relationships between her marriages to Tom Cruise and Keith Urban - none of have ever been confirmed, but they were nevertheless included, with a note stressing that they were unconfirmed. Therefore, I can't see why the same shouldn't happen here. For now, I will not re-add the information to the page, but I am genuinely interested to here your further thoughts on this. Musiclover565 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page rv

Thanks - someone doesn't like me blacklisting their websites! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for your continuing help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask.com

Thanks for your helpful edits to this article. I was having trouble putting my finger on what was wrong, and your changes did improve it. -Lciaccio (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Escape Orbit, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Please familiarize yourself with relevant parts of the MoS prior to making sweeping changes. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#Preferred_variants, specifically, "foetus vs fetus: In American English, foetus is usually not used. In British English usage is divided. In academic literature, fetus is preferred." which has been in place since at least 2005, and has been followed for consistency throughout the 'pedia. As this is an academic venue, fetus is used exclusively except in quotes. There have been dozens of discussions dating back at least to 2002 concerning this, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of this spelling. One of the more recent discussions can be found in the archive of the article Fetus itself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)