User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to its talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello JLaTondre/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Create a User page
Be bold
Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax ^τεχ 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Forth

JLa: Sorry, I didn't know that about "moving" but read it yesterday. The problem was that both titles were identical, both were same form (comic strip) and both were in book collections. I felt the label (syndicated strip) would clarify, since Wood's strip was not syndicated. I did make sure to put a link to Howard's strip in the first Wood paragraph, so people could easily find. I also checked "what links here" and reworked every link to go to the Howard strip. The problem with the "history" was just something that unfortunately never occurred to me. Pepso 14:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JLa: Your solution works nicely and looks cool. Thanks! Pepso 07:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STOL - thanks

Thank you for your intervention at STOL. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Gaius Cornelius 20:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second the barnstar for spell checking a couple of the articles I worked on! WikiDon 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws in Category: Jewish Christian topics

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

Vic Chesnutt

If you had looked at the discussion page you would have seen that Chesnutt is a quadriplegic, not paraplegic. Thanks, Christianjb 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had followed the edit history correctly, you would have seen that edit was made by 69.224.7.168 and not me. Thanks, -- JLaTondre 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies! Sorry for the annoyance. Christianjb 00:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see what I did- I clicked the last comparison link and then clicked on the username associated with previous, not next edit. Sorry again. Christianjb 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I re-read what I wrote, it comes off a bit harsh which wasn't my intent... -- JLaTondre 01:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions and Redirects

Thanks for the advice. There are still some areas on WP that I'm unsure how to utlize. Can you do the redirect for me? It's still kinda all Greek to me. Thanks again. Nightscream 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to except that now that it's on Afd, I'd rather wait for the Afd to close out. You'll learn the tools soon enough. Don't worry about it. You're intent was correct in both creating and Afd'ng the article. -- JLaTondre 16:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MDAC rollback...

... sorry! I did this accidently :( hope I did not cause you any offense... Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wouldn't even have noticed if you hadn't said something. And I could hardly complain as I did the same thing to someone else yesterday! -- JLaTondre 23:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for catching the vandalism to my user page. It feels great to have it vandalized. I must be doing something right. Peyna 14:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too.--Hraefen 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTVX

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank your for reverting the vandalism to my user page on Dec.10 just discovered it today after continued vandalism to it. I must be doing something right. Thank you again.--Dakota ^t ^e 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- JLaTondre 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z spelling corrections

good job, and thank you. will you be finishing the page? Infinare 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I use the Wikipedia:List of common misspellings list to search for common misspelled words. When I find one, I spell check that entire page. I then move on to the next word on the list. So, unless another word pops up on that page, I probably won't return to it. -- JLaTondre 02:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You (reverting vandalism)

Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism to my user page. -- JLaTondre 03:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just rvv an edit by 81.153.149.255 and when I checked history to make sure I saw that is was reverted by you. What vandal fighting tool are you using because your are good!--Dakota ^? ^e 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not using anything special. I use the list of recent edits, but filtered for anonymous edits only[1] and then go through each one. To revert, I use Godmode-lite. It was probably just coincidence that we saw the same thing, but my revert completed before yours. -- JLaTondre 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

Hi. Why did you mark Pete Gross as a copyvio? I discussed the issue with the writer and he assured me that he would rewrite the article from scratch, and although there are some similarities with the content originally copyvioed, it seems to have been largely rewritten. It also now links to the source that it originally copyvioed. I don't think there's a problem here and I've re-added the content with a bit of rewriting to eliminate some similarities. Deco 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot the page isn't supposed to be edited yet. Let me fix it. Deco 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since rewrites are supposed to be at the indicated temporary page, the copyvio notices states that an admin will move the re-write in place after review, and an IP user is not an admin, my assumption was that someone was violating the policy. Especially since, Pete Gross was still listed at WP:CP. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case. Thank's for clarifying it. -- JLaTondre 02:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I've copy-pasted the content to Pete Gross/Temp and I'll leave it there for a couple days. I'm an admin, so I'll move it back to Pete Gross on the 23rd, deleting the page there. Deco 02:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only noticed it from checking anonymous edits for vandalism. If it wasn't anonymous, I probably would have assumed good faith and let it go or at the most posted a question to the user's talk page. -- JLaTondre 02:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For revrting vandalism to my user page. :)--Shanel 12:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- JLaTondre 20:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

207.6.232.203

Stop following me
I do not like you
MIND your own bussiness yanke doudle

The above unsigned comments (reformated to reduce space on page) came from 207.6.232.203 after I reverted their vandalism. I find them rather amusing. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in keeping discussions intact

Except when the discussion might be critical of Wikipedia.

The above unsigned comment came from 172.160.151.73. I'm guessing this is in reference to me reverting your additions to Andros 1337's page. Comments belong on a user's talk page and not on a user's page. If you were seriously trying to communicate with Andros 1337, then you should have put it on this talk page and not vandalised his user page. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reversions of CROOK page

The QUOTE that President Nixon made was, "I'm not a crook" with the contraction.....and NOT "I am not...." as stated in the aticle. This can be heard at: http://www.earthstation1.com/pgs/history/dos-I'm_not_a_crook_speech.wav.html Please explain why my minor correction was reverted to an version that is NOT accurate!? I thought that accuracy was important? Perhaps you assumed that I must be wrong?? The quote can be CLEARLY heard on the sound bite....and yet you revert to an incorrent version?? Braaad 15:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made an anonymous edit without an edit description or including a reference. There is a reason for including both. Without it, it is hard to distiguish corrections from vandalism. However, my reversion was actually related to the link to the speech. That is an inappropriate place for it. It should be under Richard Nixon not this page. An acceptable way to do it on this page, would be to include it as a reference after the quote such as "I'm not a crook."[2] Also, using a direct link to the speech such as the one I just used would be better (plus this one is shorter so you get to the relevant part faster). -- JLaTondre 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining it to me.....I'm new to Wikipedia. Braaad 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

Hi - Re this edit - you don't seem to be an admin so I assume you're using some add-on interface that gives you a "rollback" sort of function. Please don't use this to revert anything other than blatant vandalism. In particular, this edit doesn't look like vandalism to me. Sources for the deleted statements are not provided, so in some ways this seems to be a perfectly valid edit. With a manual revert, you could explain in your edit summary why you're adding the statements back (or, even better, include a source in the change itself). In any event, thanks for watching out for bad edits - it's definitely a good thing to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family is a prominant Christian right group and is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. If you look at the Colorado Springs article, you will see that it is stated as having "attracted a large influx of Evangelical Christians and organizations" and then proceeds to list them. While the 2004 population numbers are not sourced, the sources given for the 2000 census show a foriegn population of 8.6% -- so 9.7% for 2004 doesn't seem unreasonable. Therefore, the Christian statement is sourced via internal links and the census data is at least possible. I do think if this wasn't outright vandalism, it was POV pushing. I wouldn't have reverted on the population numbers alone, but since I know the Christian portion to be true, I had to also call in doubt the population deletions. Personnally, I believe unexplained deletions to be a bigger problem then unexplained additions. The additions are there for everyone to see who reads the article. The deletions are only there for those who look in the history which isn't many so it's more likely that valid information will be lost than invalid information kept. I'll keep in mind what you say about the summary, but my summary probably would have been "unexplained deletion" (since the whole logic I just explained wouldn't fit) which wouldn't have added much more. I also don't know that we'd agree on blatant vandalism. -- JLaTondre 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of vanity articles

Hi. So you quoted "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." So to put Chris Davison on AFD, it's not enough that the article should just assert notability, e.g. he is important, but it should at least be remotely plausible. For the not remotely plausible stuff, you can speedy it. Which is what I said in my response. If you think the article gave at least a plausible reason for notability, we'll have to disagree on that. But the point of my comments was to explain it's not just an assertion of notability, as your quote and the rest of Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles makes clear. --C S (Talk) 02:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that he is "considered one of the most gifted mathematicians of his generation". That is unlikely, but not implausible. I suppose if one travels in mathematical circles and has never heard of him, it would be implausible to them. But for those of us that don't, we can only say it's unlikely. I agree that claims that are not remotely plausible are speediable, but we probably have different opinions on "remotely plausible". A speedy could result in the deletion of valuable input if the nominator and adminstrator simply don't have enough information about a specific field and they apply the "plausible" too liberally. I have seen AfDs that start with several delete votes and along comes someone who says "hold on, here's what you missed." The totality of that article does say delete to me (obviously, since I nominated it), but I rather be conservative. -- JLaTondre 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Why I find the whole thing highly implausible is other than that claim at the beginning of being "most gifted", there really is nothing that I would consider worthy evidence. I feel if someone is really so great, the article creator should be more than capable of adding at least one significant accomplishment of some sort, whether that be being professor at a prestigious place, winning some award, some mathematical results, even being (lame-o!) associated somehow to a famous person. As you can see, I'm not setting a high standard here. The fact that some article that looks like a vanity article makes a grand, vague claim at the beginning of "most gifted" doesn't really raise any doubt whatsoever in my mind. In fact, it makes me even more skeptical than usual. I can understand your conservatism, but I think in the end, if someone is important enough, s/he'll be included by someone who knows enough to say something about the person. So I tend to be less conservative :-) BTW, I liked the formatting and color of your talk box above, so I copied it. --C S (Talk) 03:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I based the box on what other people had so I can't take credit for it. -- JLaTondre 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: gas phase ion chemistry

You wrote: I randomly picked your name from editors on a chemistry article. I was going through the 0 length pages at Special:Shortpages and correcting the blanking I found. However, on the article Gas phase ion chemistry, I'm not sure what to do. An anom user blanked the article, but what was there solely consisted of "Gas phase ion chemistry is the study of gaseous ion particles". I could mark it was a dictdef, but was wondering if this should be redirected instead. Are should it be made a stub? I would appreciate your opinion or a suggestion of who else to ask. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is potential for a short article here, but not with the current state of the chemistry pages. No point in having gas phase (ion) chemistry if there is no condensed phase chemistry and a number of other similar concepts. Karol 11:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) If you're looking for chemists, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry[reply]

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the redirect re: Empirical Process. I just did not know what to do. What did you do? It was elegant. Thanks again. MathStatWoman 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Redirect per my note. There is also a shortcut for entering the correct syntax in the "special chracters" section of the edit page (below the save, preview, and show changes buttons). -- JLaTondre 14:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Brockman

I removed your {{unreferenced}} tag from this article. The contributor does have a reference for this material in his References section. He provided it in response to what appeared to be a copyright issue (see talk page). The reference section simply needs to be formatted correctly (along with the whole article). -- JLaTondre 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry: you're right. I was skimming a bunch of articles for cleanup and mistakenly read the description as only giving more information on the regiment, rather than Brockman himself.

Still, I think other Brockman family material does need looking at; some of the sourcing isn't up to WP:Verifiability standards (i.e. personal correspondence and unpublished work). Tearlach 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I also think it couldn't hurt to have a general clean-up tag applied as the whole article could use improvement. -- JLaTondre 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New Pages

Was wondering why you nominated the new pages redirest page for deletion. I use it all the time and the nomination has become a major annoyance in trying to reach where I believe the page was very effective in directing me. I don't believe the nomination served Wikipedia for the better at all, as the pages served a VERY useful function and purpose - and was a logical path towards the pages on which new articles appear. Westendorf 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cross-namespace redirect (see #3 of When should we delete a redirect). If you want to access Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol (since Wikipedia:New pages is itself a redirect), why don't you just bookmark that instead of trying to get to it via the article namespace? Article namespace is supposed to be for articles and not internal Wikipedia workings. -- JLaTondre 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Thanks a lot for letting me know. I'm still not au fait with all aspects of Wikipedia... Lincolnite 15:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your correction and your kind advice. I will certainly consider your advice in future. 21 January 2006 Nima.nezafati

Thanks for letting me know. I wanted the pages to be deleted so that they could be initiated as new articles, but i understand the procedures. Gareth E Kegg 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Lady Aleena re: Probe

I don't know what I was thinking when I did that. Thanks for letting me know that I did it. I must have been tired or frustrated. Lady Aleena 07:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It happens to all of this. -- JLaTondre 12:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am a big proponent of eliminating links to redirect pages, and those include links on user pages and in user talk pages. I try to get as many as I can when I do a move or just get int he mood to check a page's redirects. If you find any more idiocies of mine regarding redirect pages, could you please not link to it in my talk page. Thanks! LA

On this, we'll just have to disagree. I believe if the redirect is under discussion then the redirect is what should be linked. For example, WP:RFD would be pretty inconvienent if links to redirect were not used. -- JLaTondre 12:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to disagree. :)

The only reason to leave a redirect is for those who are new and searching without any idea of the structure here. I change links in articles, but I won't ask for a redirect to be deleted.

I am now a bit tired, so if this doesn't make sense, sorry.

Lady Aleena 12:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS York

Sorry the blanking but i will soon adding a article to HMS York in the next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiniEntente (talk • contribs)

Mercenary for Justice

Sorry about blanking the page, man. I meant to replace it but was in a hurry. User:Blue80

Re SRG SSR idée suisse redirects

Hi JLaTondre! Yes, I've been going through the SRG SSR idée suisse redirects because some of them are totally unnecessary now, as Wikipedia searches aren't case sensitive anymore, and I seem to remember that one of them existed in duplicates as well. So I started to check which links went to which redirect and changed them to point to the article directly. The reason I I left the comments was that I planned to revisit them when the redirects were finished and then ask for deletion. Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudintsev

Whew, that was quick... I hope I have not been in too much violation of Wikirules by admitting up-front the article was pilfered. I apologize for any trouble in advance. Dietwald 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 24-Jan, you blanked Sogndalen. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. In cases of creating an article under a misspelling, it's better to redirect the misspelling to the correct article. You are probably not the only one who will make that spelling mistake. I've redirected this article to Songdalen. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on my page. Promised a more extensive response at JLaTondre's page. That response is - how does one redirect? I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to redirect after filling in a link only to realize that the link was a typo & the right page already existed. Williamborg 03:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link to the directions in my first post. They are at Wikipedia:Redirect. If you still have questions, let me know. -- JLaTondre 13:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you did! ThanksWilliamborg 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the redirect

I was trying to get the same result, but couldn't figure it out properly. Thanks for the helping hand. Progman3K 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Davies

Thanks for the comments re Mary Davies. It appeared an obvious candidate for correction as clicking on Mary Davies took you straight to an article on the Duke of Westminster. However, I'll now go through the deletion procedures as you suggest. Cheers Nigel45 16:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering...

Hello. Sorry to disturb you with this, but I'm a bit curious how you view this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild levitation.

I'm still a bit new here, and I'm not quite sure I've understood the purpose of the Wikipedia yet --TStone 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about disturbing someone via their talk page. That's what it's there for. They can always choose to ignore it if they don't want to deal with it.

For alternate titles, it's easier to simply redirect them to an article by the most common name. There should not be duplicate content, but it doesn't need to be deleted either. A redirect puts little burden on the system and, even if uncommon, the odds are more than one person will use that term so the redirect could actually be usefull. In a case like this, the best course is simply to restore the redirect (like you first did). You could try commenting on the user's talk page. With an anonymous contributor, sometimes it better simply to wait a few days and come back and make the change again. They'll probably move on after awhile. That sounds cynical, but it's better than getting into an edit war. There are anonymous contributors who make valuable inputs so you should assume good faith, but you should also be wary as an edit war with an anonymous contributor can start pretty fast. Patience and your watchlist are sometimes your best friends. -- JLaTondre 01:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot: While there may be 30-40 variant names by which this is known, it's not totally unreasonable simply to have a list of verifiable (I imagine this would cut the list down significantly) names without many details (likes the ones listed already) as part of the Balducci levitation article. Sometimes listcruft is a necessary compromise. -- JLaTondre 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice! Yes, as the one who did the revert said Nobody cares about "history" or "origins" for tricks, really. We want to know the details, I assumed that it just would become a revert war of it. I'm going to add to the list, but first priority is to correct false information already here - which is quite tricky, as the notion of having correct info seems to make people upset. --TStone 08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help by Berchemboy

Thanks for giving me the information about deleting pages instead of leaving them empty! It helped me a lot. -- Berchemboy 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. -- JLaTondre 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

If you went to the Extreme Makeover page and clicked on Tanya McQueen's page, it would go back to the Extreme Makeover page. It just didn't make sense. I had no idea that blanking was a bad idea. I'm sorry. va_girl2468 14:48, 5 February 2006

Appology not required - everyone here can always learn something new. I've removed the circular link from the Extreme Makeover page. The other option would be to make the Tanya McQueen page a stub. Either would be acceptable. -- JLaTondre 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dewdney

Greetings. I notice you edited Richard Dewdney and thought you might have a view on the AfD vote currently in progress. Best wishes Flapdragon 12:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 10-Feb, you blanked Pedro Joaquín Chamoro. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. Redirects for spelling mistakes should usually be left in place, but if you believe this one should be deleted, please follow redirects portion of the deletion procedures. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry if this created any inconvenience. Thank you for the link to the deletion procedure. Get-back-world-respect 15:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem & you're welcome. -- JLaTondre 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cursor Miner

Hiya, you edited Cursor Miner so the article is indexed under "Miner, Cursor" instead, but I think it should probably be listed under "Cursor Miner", since that is his artist name, and not his real name, so there is no suggestion of family names or anything like that. Similarly, Aphex Twin wouldnt be indexed as "Twin, Aphex". If you agree I'll revert it? Cheers! Jdcooper 15:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. When fixing categories, I've come across a number that weren't indexed correctly and simply changed this one out of habit. I've changed it back. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks! Jdcooper 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Three Component Meal

Hello,

I was responsible for putting a bunch of tags on this article in an attempt to get it cleaned up. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought the article might just be better served by being deleted.

So I AfD'd it.

Then someone came along and put a boilerplate that said 'This article has too many boilerplate tags on it'. Which I agreed with. But I didn't want to AfD an article and then blank something that'd been there before I AfD'd it. That appears improper. So I moved those tags to the talk page instead. Letting you know, just so you don't think I'm a total nitwit. -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was going to put the tags inside a <nowiki></nowiki> to avoid them being expanded, but that "too many boilerplate tags" one was a box and so that would have shown the code. I decided it was easier to just delete them.

I actually find the "too many boilerplate tags" tag rather annoying. If someone believes there's too many tags, then they should re-tag the article as they see appropriate and not add to the "problem". -- JLaTondre 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greer

You deleted the living people category, [3] so I rollbacked then restored the useful edits you had made. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. As you can see in the diff, I moved "living people" right after "1939 births" as the two go together. -- JLaTondre 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I misread the diff. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology not required. I make enough mistakes so I don't expect others to be perfect. Thank you for taking the time to explain what happened. -- JLaTondre 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Having read through your user:discussion page, i am struck by how friendly you are, relative to many editors on this website with little patience, little tolerance, and little gratitude for a) correction of their mistakes and b) new editors to the fold who could plausibly add a whole lot in the future but make mistakes at first. Thank you for being a great wikipedian! Jdcooper 16:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's high praise. I'll do my best to continuously live up to this. Thank's very much! -- JLaTondre 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for the tip about redirecting! Will make "Hard" redirect in future, appreciate the assistance!

I attempted to implement a hard redirect for Gallena (should be Galena) but I don't seem to be successful at accomplishing my goal. Can you tell me what I did wrong? Thanks! (Nevermind, I think it is working great now!)

ebacherdom

Your welcome. Let me know if you have any questions.. -- JLaTondre 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for blanking

Thanks for catching my mistake. I'd blanked it thinking that I coudl move the page, but forgot to reset it once I realized the correct move procedure.--Zyryab 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- JLaTondre 23:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Gardner (page blanking)

Why exactly is the page on sportscaster Gayle Gardner (of ESPN and NBC fame) directing to the article on Fox Sports anyway? User:TMC1982

I have no idea. You would have to take that up with the person who redirected it (check the page history). If you disagree, feel free to find a different redirect, replace it with a stub article, or nominate the redirect for deletion. Each of those can be a valid choice and avoids leaving a blank page. If you choose to do any of those and have questions, let me know. -- JLaTondre 23:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Page Blanking & Redirects

"On 21-Feb, you blanked Japanese Touring Car Championship. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I have redirected this article to All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow the deletion procedures."

The reason I ended up blanking it was because I made a mistake of directing it in the wrong place and I do not know how to delete pages. The reason why it should be deleted if not have a new page written to it is, JTCC is different from JGTC. JTCC began in 1985 as a race for Group A for Touring cars until 1993, wheras JGTC began as a replacement for the All Japan Sports Prototype Championship at the same year for GT cars, which means JTCC only allow cars with a minimum of four seats, JTCC moved on to being a supertouring category, wheras JGTC stayed the same. So I would say it would be best to delete, as I will be writing a new article for it, when I have the time. Willirennen 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now currently writing a new article for the abovementiond page. Willirennen 13:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't place comments on a user page. Always put them on the user's talk page. I have copied the above comments to here and reverted your edits to my user page.

I see you have created a new article. However, if you find yourself in a similar spot again, remember that you can find a different redirect, replace it with a stub article, or nominate the redirect for deletion. The deletion procedures provide information on how to get something deleted. Creating a stub article (a couple sentances and a stub tag) is always a good option when you know there should be an article, but you don't have time to write one. If you ever have questions, let me know. -- JLaTondre 23:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1926 version taken from Bill Haley DECCA (original versions)

"Charmaine": instrumental of the M.S.T. "What Price Glory" by Raoul Walsh, 1926 [Charmaine de la Cognac] based on a Hungarian gypsy/gipsy [to distinguish from the Magyar] waltz from the operetta "Der Lachende Ehemann" ("Zigeunerlieder" = gipsy/gypsy song);["Weinlied"/"drinking song"] (trad.:"The laughing married man") re-arranged in Bratislava by Edmund Eysler in 1913: (C) by Johannes Brahms, Hungarian Dance #11 as "Waltz in La major, opus 39, "Poco andante", 1880. Best wishes, Stephan KŒNIG 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

Thanks for the advice on speedy tagging redirects to non-existent pages. I'll keep that in mind.--Drat (Talk) 05:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I see completely what you mean--jackbergin 14:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of partial equation - needs looking at?

Hello! You reverted my deletion - I accept that just deleting the page Derivation of the partition function was the wrong way to go.

You missed my point. You did not delete the article - you blanked it. Those two are not the same thing. I am not taking a position on this article. As I said in my note, if you want the article deleted, you need to follow the deletion procedures. -- JLaTondre 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I still feel/know that the page has problems - I have added my concerns on the talk page after your message - Is there a way to bring an article to the attention of users? - If you know the wiki procedure for doing this please let me know. Thank you.HappyVR 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics would be the correct place. -- JLaTondre 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blank

thanks, sorry about that. Crumbsucker 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Signing is not a requirement. It is considered "proper etiquette" and is requested, but it is NOT a requirement. Learn the difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

Please read Wikipedia:Talk pages as suggested. Specifically take note of the words "policy" and "rules". You may choose to ignore them as that's acceptable under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You are only hurting yourself when you do. However, vandalizing user pages is not acceptable. -- JLaTondre 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear your reasoning about how I'm "hurting myself". Physically? Emotionally? Mentally? My "wiki reputation"? If so, you have much more to worry about than I do - learn the difference between your and you're. I'm not vandalizing anything - I stated Crumbsucker did not spell well and changed justified text to unjustified text (which are facts, as evidenced by his edits). And since you seem to love policy, here's what it actually says on Signing your posts on talk pages: "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy." So, you are incorrect - it is NOT policy. Stop attempting to justify your incoherent actions by referencing policy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .

As far as the vandalism, you are ignoring your first edit to his page. However, since it's clear you are only looking for a fight, you may wish to try elsewhere as I'm not worried about your opinion of me. I'm not going to take the bait. -- JLaTondre 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing on his page. I thought I'd spice it up a bit. That Crumbsucker guy is a piece of work - he's been undoing almost every single edit I've done on this site, no matter the subject. And you're defending him? And if someone were to correct my grammar, I'd actually be thankful. Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 20:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith R. Wood/Critic-at-arms

My bad. I had looked at the Mar 3 log, and I didn't see the entry. I'll take a look at the link you posted. Thanks. Nobunaga24 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MechZ

A tag has been placed on the article MechZ, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why MechZ is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:MechZ. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources in order that your article will be verifiable. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, three points: 1. I'm not the author of the article so I have no clue why you posted this here; 2. You put the article up for AfD, but the {{subst:nn-warn}} template is for speedy deletes; 3. The {{subst:nn-warn}} template should be subst'ed (I have fixed that for you). I suggest you take some more time and get better acquianted with using article history and which user templates are for which before you apply more to user's talk pages. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I posted this message to anybody who had edited that article. Secondly, I am aware of that, but I found this warning template most appropriate for my needs. Thirdly, thanks for fixing this for me - I admit that this is one area that I am somewhat inconsistent in, and fourthly, if you check my edit count, I am actually fairly experienced in Wikipedia, though not as much so as you. I've written a number of these templates. Anyway, my apologies for bothering you on this matter, and thanks for your (somewhat unneeded) advice. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't post this to anybody who edited the article. You only posted it to 3 out of 9 editors.

Using an incorrect template as a shortcut is not a good idea. This template is for speedy deletes and this was not a speedy delete. It provides information that is not correct and risks confusing new comers (who are the primary persons who have articles deleted). They have enough problems understanding why their article is up for deletion in the first place without further confusing them with how the deletion process works. It wouldn't have taken much longer to type an accurate message and copy and paste it to multiple talk pages.

It's comendable of you to want to notify people that you tagged "their" article for deletion, but I think you can safely ignore anyone who has simply reverted vandalism. This use of an auto reversion tool (such as my edit) is a good indication of that.

Which of us has a higher edit counted really isn't relevant. We're all allowed to have differing opinions.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I obviously mistook your edit for an actual contribution. Then again, it was about 10 at night. Anyway, sorry to bother you about all this. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daystar (hacker culture)

Since you prodded it, I thought I'd let you know that Daystar (hacker culture) is at AfD. NickelShoe 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. After discussions with LtPowers (see his talk page) based upon his de-prodding, I have decided to remain neutral. -- JLaTondre 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Transit

I noticed you changed Mass Transit to a disambiguation page. Is that really necessary? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that 99% of people who type in "mass transit" as a search will be looking for "public transport" as opposed to a fairly obscure pro wrestling incident. I thought it was fine having it as a redirect with the "if you were looking for the wrestling incident, click here" type of thing at the top. Foxmulder 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, I think it's a bit confusing to have a "if you were looking for Mass Transit" at the top of the public transport page. Normally, the alternative use goes with names that are the same. If you arrived at public transport directly (i.e. not via the redirect), you wouldn't expect to see a reference regarding a wrestler named Mass Transit at the top (IMO). However, I don't feel that strong about it and if you want to revert, go ahead and do so with a summary of something like "reverting after discussing with JLaTondre". Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yeah, I see your point, and I can't decide which way I like better, so I'll just leave it the way it is. Foxmulder 04:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kingdom Hearts III

Kingdom Hearts III is listed on AfD. However, this article was previously listed and you closed it as a deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts III). The user who listed it this time linked to the old nomination so it is shown as closed on the AfD summary (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 25). I was wondering if you would care to look at it and see if it's speedable as reposted material? That would save having to fix the nomination... Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at today's AfD nominations and I can't see the relisting of the previously-closed nomination. Perhaps another editor removed it in the interim? Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not today's, but yesterday's (25 March). Follow the link above and it's number 1.136 on the TOC. -- JLaTondre 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right - my mistake in concentrating on too many things at once. I have tagged the article with {{db-repost}} and placed the AfD discussion link on its Talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

You might want to think about archiving this Talk page, as it is 49kb long. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cup (unit)

re: If you knew it was misspelled, why for Pete's Sake! did you delete it instead of fixing it? This thing will never get finished if people spend all their time tearing it apart. FrankB

As my edit summary says, I didn't delete it because it was misspelled, I removed Category:Measurement because it is a parent category of Category:Units of volume, Category:Imperial units, and Category:Customary units in the United States which are also on the article. That article is already included in Category:Measurement via the subcategory relastionships. If you look at Category:Measurement, you will see individual unit measures are not at the main level. This article is out of place at that level. -- JLaTondre 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Will get back to you later here. Rushed! FrankB 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Rod

Ah, yes, I told why at the talk page of fuel rod. Don't know anything about those rods, so couldn't say something about it, not even a stub. Sijo Ripa 10:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking Minis

The problem with Minis is that it's a plural of Mini - and Wiki doesn't usually have redirects from plurals - so that was (and is once more) inappropriate. However, the word 'minis' is also some kind of Jewish term - and is linked to from several places. I don't know how to delete articles - but I wanted to remove confusing linkages from pages referring to the Jewish word (eg Pedigree (Jewish Encyclopedia)) that now point to the article on tiny little British cars. IMHO, the redirect should be deleted - or at least turned into a disambiguation page - but I don't know how to do that - and I suspect I'd need admin privilages anyway. The page was blanked because at the time I was using a different kind of Wiki software for our corporate Wiki where I work - and not 'MediaWiki' - on that other system, deleting all of the content of a page completely deletes it...evidently that doesn't work with this Wiki because the page is still here! I didn't realise that at the time (although I learned it since). Sorry if I made a mess - it was definitely done with good intentions and was certainly not vandalism or anything! SteveBaker 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment on your talk page, I provided a link to the instructions on nominating an article for deletion. It contains a pointer to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion which is where you list redirects that you believe should be deleted. If you think a disambig page can be made, then you can simply edit the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I didn't think it was vandalism. If you need help with either approach, please let me know. -- JLaTondre 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! SteveBaker 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogblue

i am sorry i am new. i tried to tell you that i accidently did it again and to your page. sorry. also you should listen to system of a dow na nd go to play runescape at www.runescape.com
i am sorry. ia m new. ~~dogblue 3-28-06
runescape is awesome. go play it please. it is an online adventure rpg game. also it is interactive. i play it and it is awesome.
please, go play runescape. it is fun. trust me. sincerly,Dogblue