User talk:Sophie means wisdom/Archive2007a

Paranormal

Eth Bombo

There's no debate because it is a prod, not an AfD. Prods get deleted in 5 days if nobody objects to the deletion. If you want it to be an AfD instead, feel free to change it to that.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's me getting confused by all the different ways of doing the same thing. Totnesmartin 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original user just removed the prod (so now the article is ineligible for deletion through the prod process) so I guess it'll have to go to AfD. He removed all the other templates too. I'll try to put them back but I think they'll probably get deleted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bermuda triangle

Thanks, grazie, gracias and merci for semi-protecting the article. Now I can do useful things instead of dealing with idiots. Totnesmartin 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Martin. It was just unbelievable. Happy editing. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that little padlock on the Triangle page! Carajou 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie page

You stated the plesiosaur section was too long. Read it over and tell me what you think. Carajou 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And would you mind if I unprotected it to edit the waffly lead? --Guinnog 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit it anyway, it's only a semi-protect. I de-waffled the plesiosaur section, then carajou split it, so it's still editable. Totnesmartin 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism again

Guess what got removed because some admin guy didn't think they'd be back?

And guess who came back? Carajou 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

You've seen a UFO? What did it look like? What did you do about it? You should put that in your user page, I don't know a lot of people who have seen UFOs. I did find it useful that you have a "Trying to avoid lame edit wars" section; that part about going through the trouble of scanning a book only to be met with persistent disbelief sucks. V-Man737 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was like a flickering light hovering near a building - I didn't see any shape. I call it a UFO because in the twenty years since I saw it, I've been unable to work out what it could have been. Weirdly, I was playing I spy when I saw it! "I spy with my little eye something beginning with U.F.O."

Every time I log on here I think "Has Love Hangover been reverted? What silliness is happening at Mothman?" But I persevere. You have to.Totnesmartin 11:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February Paranormal Project Newsletter

The Paranormal WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - February 2007

Project news

WikiProject Cryptozoology is in the process of becoming one of our subprojects, and WikiProject Psionics is under consideration for the same. If completed, these would serve as more specific discussion/workspaces for these topics. Please help edit these projects for parentage consistency and lend your voice to the merger discussion on the main talk page.
A project-specific watchlist has been created to keep track of changes to all pages within the project scope. Thanks to Badbilltucker for that.
Say hello to our newly founded analog on the German wiki, WikiProjekt Paranormal!

Milestones: Current Collaboration of the Month: Cottingley Fairies (held over due to lack of a new nomination with any support); Did You Know? Mentions: Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois), George Stickney House; New Members: Bentonia School, Second Crimson, Stevepaget, Spooky_Brian

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please de-list yourself in the appropriate section here.

InShaneee 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot: the physical evidence

Construct your article around that title, lay it out according to the way it looks best...and there ya go! Carajou 02:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change includes that Nessie girl...

Yeppers, I did Nessie, pretty-much following the same layout I did for Bigfoot. Put the animal first, then the other mundane stuff afterwards. I didn't do too much changing of the writing, but I did smooth out the lead paragraph, which should work for the article. Carajou 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Triangle again

I just ripped out some new arse-orifices without naming names over the Bermuda Triangle page. What happened is two editors came in, and altered the intro paragraph in such a way as to downplay the official, real version and replace it with the fictional one. In short, they traded facts for bulls##t. They also trashed the layout of the page, and I wouldn't stand for that.

The Triangle page was picked up as a foreign-language featured article before these clowns did their alterations. I put it back exactly the way I had it, and invited the staff at the Wiki-paranormal side to give it a look. They can edit in their own info, but they're going to respect the article. Carajou 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that change, but I left it for you to sort out, because I was tired. (I read the link they put, and it was more rhetoric than info...) Totnesmartin 11:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more rhetoric than info. In fact, if left to the Triangle believers, the whole article would be left without the documentation, without the reports, without the photos; it would all be left in such a way as to just repeat what is written in the popular stories, which are heavily POV anyway. Right now I'm expecting people like this Chs.K. to go whinning to the paranormal guys in charge and complain that the Triangle article is not paranormal anymore.

If you look at the talk page Chr.K. kinda challenges me to explain certain incidents to him. It's going to be the other way around, and what he states, if it's satsifactory, is going to be included in the article. I want two things about each incident: that it states exactly what is written in the popular view alongside what is actually documented about it; and if there is no documentation, then there will be an admission that it is found only in what the Triangle authors have said about it.

And yes, I also changed the page back to where I had it. Carajou 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mothman Prophecies (film)

Cheers for the info. I've never read the book so I couldn't do the comparison myself.

I hope that you don't mind, but I've used the information that you provided and reworded the passage a bit. If you don't think that my version is an improvement, feel free to edit it.

perfectblue 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's better now, it reads more smoothly. i just fiddled with some errant commas but I prefer your text to mine. Totnesmartin 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March Paranormal Project Newsletter

The Paranormal WikiProject Newsletter
Issue III - March 2007

Project news

The small switch has been added to the Project banner to help reduce clutter on pages with multiple templates; see the banner's page for information about how to use it.

Milestones: Current Collaboration of the Month: Cottingley Fairies (held over for a third month due to a lack of votes for any new nominations); New Articles: Evidence regarding Bigfoot; New Members: Ender_Wiiggin, Kamope

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please de-list yourself in the appropriate section here.

InShaneee 05:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devon

The Devon Wikiproject

Thanks for the message. Please feel free to take and make use of anything about the [[WP:Cheshire|Cheshire WikiProject}} you feel would be useful. If you improve what you borrow, may be we will come back and re-borrow the improved one from you! Seriously, anything that can help us both improve the coverage of our respective counties can, I think, be shared with no problem. Congratulations on getting the project up and running. Already, I can see some things that might be useful for us to borrow! DDStretch (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

(stored here after deleting section in Proposed Projects)

Devon

Description : a project to create and improve articles about Devon (the English County).

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Comments:

There have been a number of rather negative aspects to Devon articles, notably disagreements as to history, obviously enthusiastic people who have a particular viewpoint or local knowledge but unverified information, and also the usual inferiority problem we have relating to our regional position and low economic and social status, within the SW, UK and the world. Cornwall should be the model to approach, with an objective for everyone to raise their game, and be more constructive. The project should cover Plymouth, Exeter, Torbay and all aspects of Devon and its environs. I'm likely to provide rhetorical help. Stevebritgimp 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIll you be Exploring the Devonian langage?--Lucy-marie 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would depend on whether or not anyone has the needed expertise Birddrz 12:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langage as in the farm? :) Old Westcounty Brythonic/Devonish would be fair game as a Devon subject, but the facts (such as they are) should be stuck to. Speaking personally the 'Devon'-ness of things needn't just be geographical, but as pointed out below geography will be the lion's share of it.Stevebritgimp 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been involved in setting up a similar project concerning Cheshire, for all the same reasons as you give (using the project on Cornwall as a goal to aim at, as well.) You can go to WP:Cheshire for its project page which is still in its infancy. I'm just making this comment to encourage you to go ahead and create the project page, starting work on it as soon as you can, as I have already found it enjoyable. But I also want to make an enquiry. How do you see this project relating and working with the existing UK Geography WikiProject? I'm curious because, like your project is in a similar situation as ours is in this respect. For example, like Exeter does, we have UK Geography WikiProject templates on some talk pages. Our solution is to name them as a "parent project" at the moment, and leave the templates in place. I don't foresee any problems so long as we keep talking with each other and our objectives and guidelines do not diverge. I've yet to get any comment on the UK Geography WikiProject talk page about any of this. DDStretch (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that having the geography project as a parent project would both be wise and helpful, as we would have guidance and potentially more contributers. I would see a Devon project as overlapping geographical material, into other areas, such as the Janners article. Stevebritgimp 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, much of Devon is geographicaly interesting anyway such as Dartmoor Birddrz 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, it's not our template to remove. Totnesmartin 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree - it is not your (or our) template to remove, which is why I wondered myself whether a "negotiation" between the members of the "parent project" to hand over ownership of the template might become in order at some point. Also, although this parent project uses the word "geography" in its name, it has a quite wide interpretation of that word. However, like your own project, I see ours as also extending from a purely geographical coverage. DDStretch (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I see WP: devon covering Biographical, historical and cultural topics as well. (To give an idea of what I mean, go and look at Talk: George Orwell to see who's covering that article!) Now I'm going to go and start the thing up... straight after a nice cup of tea.Totnesmartin 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get out the scrumpy - Wikipedia:Wikiproject Devon is now up and running! Totnesmartin 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the anti-vandalism work

I'd like to apologise on behalf of Axevalley, as I guess some of our more immature students were responsible for at least some of the vandalism created on the Colyton Grammar School Page.

My apologies, Pureferret 10:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've seen much worse here! Totnesmartin 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Yes I know, nobody's perfect. go away. Totnesmartin 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Niari Region; Bear Lake Monster; Storsjöodjuret; Lusca; Pool Region; Adrian Sanders; Great Rite; Dobhar-chu; Cuvette-Ouest Region; Kouilou Region; Loch Morar; Perris Union High School District; Kasai Rex; Edgehill College; Bloop; Muc-sheilch; Manipogo; Ruth Barrett; Urmston Grammar School

Cleanup: International Churches of Christ; Food porn; Kemetic Wicca
Merge: Ska punk; Tsukumogami; Fifth grade
Add Sources: Mystery religion; List of major UFO sightings; Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path
Wikify: Joan Jett; Chicago hardcore; Cinema Strange
Expand: Piranha; Pygmy; Shorty Rogers

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

these are great. I'd never even heard of some of them! But then, what good's an encyclopedia if it only contains what you already know? Totnesmartin 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to blahblahblah etc HagermanBot 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you've told me before, piss off. Totnesmartin 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mermaid articles

Thought you might like to know that several of the articles in the Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid characters are currently being considered for deletion as being non-notable. Badbilltucker 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. My only interest is "why give it a CZ project banner" (and i accept your argumant on that one) - I don't really care about the film as such. Totnesmartin 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Spiders

Hola, I thought this comment on Talk:Spider webs in space was hilarious! "Cross spider redirects to European garden spider, so perhaps that's the answer, rather than hybridised spiders. Or perhaps they were annoyed about being in space. Totnesmartin 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)"You have just scored yourself a laughing point :)Rosa 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing

Just like to thank you for cutting the plot section down a considerable amount! It's been that way for far too long. WP style guidelines recommend a length of 400-600 words (IIRC) unless the film is very long or very complicated, so it's still a bit too long, but you've cut out a big chunk. Thanks again. Geoff B 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The length was a bit intimidating for some editors. I watched the DVD last night and remembered the ludicrous lenghy plot "outline", so I decided to get a grip on it. Scanners is the length I'm after. Totnesmartin 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that's more like it! :-D Geoff B 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Forest coven

Thanks! A Tory? Yeah, us Wiccans tend to be pretty conservative old gits! Funny, eh! Fuzzypeg ☻ 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

Hi...the AFD you posted in was for its first nomination. I've nominated it for AFD again, so feel free to drop in your two cents again. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 17:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British experimental musicians

Re: your post in Talk:Current 93, I'd say that if the category is British experimental musicians then it should only include people. Thus, David Tibet should be included, but not Current 93. Likewise, Nurse With Wound (a band, though one containing only one constant member) should not be included in the category, but Steven Stapleton (NWW's sole member) should be. -- rynne 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC) How did I miss those links? dur. Totnesmartin 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zohnerism

The "discuss" tag for merging Zohnerism goes to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax talk page, where nobody necessarily knows that Zohnerism (the article) even exists. Shouldn't it go to the talk page for Zohnerism? - DavidWBrooks 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and the Zohnerism talk page stays with Zohnerism. Totnesmartin 14:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "go to" I meant "point to" - because there's a lot of talk on the DMHO Talk page that has nothing to do with Zohnerism, so somebody who wants to comment on the merge doesn't know where to leave a comment. It would be more natural, as well as more visible, to have those comments on the Zohnerism talk page, I think. - DavidWBrooks 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Softshoe and Soft-bodied Trilobites

Say, do you know of any journals or articles discussing about the Naraoiids and relatives as not being trilobites? I want to include that in the articles about Naraoia and Nektaspida.--Mr Fink 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totnesmartin 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cauty

Hi, Thanks for your contribution to the article Jimmy Cauty. I'm a little surprised that Cauty is mentioned in a book as early as 1980, perhaps you could help WP:KLF out with a little more info on this? Please see Talk:Jimmy_Cauty#Born_in_Totnes_reference. --kingboyk 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - it was 1999. I'll just go and correct it. Totnesmartin 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaadonta

I just wanted to thank you for cracking me up... "New article about slugs. Needs lettuce to grow." is possibly the funniest (and cutest) edit summary I've ever seen. :) Pinball22 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having done new article monitoring myself, I knew how much you guys needed some light relief! Totnesmartin 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random hello

File:KildLaughing.jpg

^_^

No reason, just hoping to brighten your day. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! Totnesmartin 11:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleegle

Thanks for the link - I meant to reply earlier. The spelling would probably still keep getting altered even if I added it to the article! It's always good to have proof though, especially for obscure details like this. Pufnstuf 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) What you have to do is add an invisible comment at the spot. here's a couple of examples:[2][3]. They help, actually. Totnesmartin 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling

Onceonthisisland has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to bring happiness!--Onceonthisisland 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ay thang ewe! Totnesmartin 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when reverting vandalism

Hay Totnesmartin... you might want to watch your language a little bit when reverting vandalism. (In reference to this edit) I know it's not really a big deal when the shoe relay does fit... but it makes us all look good if we maintain a level of dignity above that of the vandal. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

Ok I'll... try. Sometimes I get annoyed by the stupidity of it all. Totnesmartin 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work in tech-support... you haven't seen stupidity until you've worked in tech-support. The children who vandalism here at least have the excuse that they are children. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult vandals are social inadequates who relish their little illusion of power. A bit sad really. Totnesmartin 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumex obtusifolius

Thanks for being bold where I wavered. The trouble is the "Medicinal use" section is now better referenced than the rest of the article. I'll see what I can find.--QuestingVole 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all out there, if you can wade through the science paper PDFs! Totnesmartin 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK V Britain

Sorry to go on about this, but all of the sources that I found specifically state Britain as in the geographic area, the UK is a larger area and the overall statistics may be very different if you include the rest of the UK. I only have data for Britain so I think that we should stick to it.

perfectblue 17:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's what the sources say then best stick with that. Don't really want a pointless edit war, do we? Glad the article was kept, btw. Totnesmartin 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grovelling

Its on david gerards watch i think - he used to come from where I am sending this from - I was the driver for jimmy when he was here two weeks ago - does that explain all? Satu Suro 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just making a joke from the film - please ignore. Totnesmartin 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never apologise - I really have to get the dvd out and go through it again - obviously there more in- jokes than I can cope with at the moment, but realise that I shall have to tread very carefully in monty territory - cheers Satu Suro 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of in-jokes there, and tons of people who know them all. Watch the film again (if only because it's great!). Totnesmartin 12:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a real thing about Time Bandits as well - vastly under-rated I thought - probably need a day when my teenagers are at school and the other halfs out - and indulge including brian, meaning and the rest - truly get in the swing so to pseak Satu Suro 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a day well spent! Totnesmartin 12:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tregear

Hi, thanks for getting back to me with that. I did a bit of scrounging and worked it out... I take it that it's not too big a placethough - it looks like you've given me a map of some guys' back paddocks!Ga rr ie 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a couple of farms! I'd never heard of it until you mentioned it. Totnesmartin 09:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGC

NGC=National Geographic Channel, it was said in the Bermuda Triangle article.--Migospia 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergeist/Archive1

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Poltergeist/Archive1, by SkierRMH, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Poltergeist/Archive1 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

someone's attempt at archiving created an article: n.b. correctly archived talk pages appears to exist for the article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Poltergeist/Archive1, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Poltergeist/Archive1 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Wheel of the Year] Spelling

As far as I'm aware, it can be spelt 'Febuary' or 'February', though February is more common. I actually don't think I can change it at the moment, I've been having computer troubles. Brenton.eccles 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Please always check page histories before nominating pages for speedy deletion. Some pages, such as Dahia (Rajput clan), which you tagged to speedy deletion, have merely been vandalized. Administrators are responsible for checking page histories before they hit the delete button as well, but sometimes make mistakes. Thanks for your help! Goodnightmush^Talk 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry! I normally docheck I must be tired. Goodnight Wikipedia. Totnesmartin 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]