User talk:Thespian/Archive1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thespian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How 1950-1952 constitutes three years
Although it looks like two years at face value, the phoenetic naming system involved three hurricane seasons (1950, 1951, and 1952). Hence, three years. Thegreatdr 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- except, of course, that it wasn't used in 1950: "Using women’s names became the practice during World War II, following the use of a woman’s name for a storm in the 1941 novel "Storm" by George R. Stewart. In 1951 the United States adopted a confusing plan to name storms by a phonetic alphabet (Able, Baker, Charlie), and in 1953 the nation’s weather services returned to using female names." - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/naming.shtml. That's two government site cites I've provided, and you keep changing it to 3 *years*, which it is NOT. ---Thespian 09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
they must have sensed that I took my eyes off it
Yeah, I'll go dig through the diffs and see what's been going on. Thanks for the heads-up. — coelacan — 04:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I left a note on the talk page, and I'll try to keep up with the changes there again. =) — coelacan — 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The Riches
Thnks for your message. You are right, of course, that they didn't flee because of the stolen money, I didn't consider than when I reverted. I think your second edit nails it. Rockpocket 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hidden track
I think the content is probably about right for GA, and most of the text is well written. I think it would read much better as an article if the lists were converted to prose wherever possible. Also, the liner notes need citing for the Alien Ant Farm track. Once that's done, you could try listing it at WP:GAC. - Alex valavanis 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree it's a difficult task! You might want to try asking for a peer review. It takes a little while, but they're good at generating ideas for improvement. - Alex valavanis
- Sorry, I meant a request for feedback (Peer review is usually for near FA candidates) - Alex valavanis
complete reversion?
that would be bad. from what i ve seen, itl ooks like this article went from good to bad to stub . id rather that not happen again. In my estimation, this isnt even psychology, becuase a lot of otherkin treat it as somthing far greater then that. since its not a bout " a collection of people who have been afflicted by various forms of clinincal lycanthropy" like some who would call themselves detractors would have yo u think... its abot a new , but genuine spiritual movement among many. hencei think it deserveas more then a mere stub. why not find someone who has the right books, or hle me out with finding better websites? (in not very good at any of this yet)Karaveks voice 11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Should anyone be reading this, after Karaveks voice edited Otherkin to a degree that made me call for a reversion of a huge amount of NPOV-ish stuff to the article (there was good stuff in there, but it was enmeshed with a huge amount of highly biased rambling). Within hours of me asking on the Otherkin talk page if I should do this, before I had a chance to see what consensus was (100% concurring, with the noted exception of Karaveks voice ;-) ), he was banned for being a sockpuppet created by a user who wanted to evade a ban. My instincts were right in this case, though I was a little surprised. - Thespian 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
doubt pov
you disagree that punishment severe enough to kill the punished is termable as unspeakable? you dont think that pedophiles entering a teaching position is coinable as underscreened staf?
not to sound pushy, but i also beleive that cultural genocide is a coprect term for what this school sysem was designed to do.142.167.127.98 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a POV term, unfortunately, and somewhat unencyclopedic. You really need to bring this to the talk page for discussion and consensus, though. - Alison ☺ 07:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
the following is copied from the original disucssion about page protection, because it was getting too conversational for that page
Canadian residential school system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection We have a very passionate IP address who is determined to change the text to a seriously non-NPOV version. History of page will show they what they are doing and will keep doing it. I don't believe it needs a long timeout, a couple hourse should be fine. --Thespian 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Declined, semi-prot not appropriate here. Note that anon editor has never been warned for 3RR even though they're over the limit. Warned now - Alison ☺ 07:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Righto. I see that while I was responding to their post on my talk page they pushed you over the edge anyways. Sorry about that! ;-) --Thespian 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. They mean well and feel strongly about the subject. I've reduced their block to 8 hours & when they come back, you guys need to work together to get some kind of consensus there. - Alison ☺ 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. I was just recent change patrolling. I fixed, I went back, I did another one, I reloaded, and they'd done it *again*. I'm not an editor of that article, I just have a thing for citations ;-) I wrote them a fairly long thing explaining this while you and someone else dealt with them edit warring with you 4 more times. I just knew where that was gonna go; if I adminned, I'd have semi-protected the article, because they are well-intentioned, if evangelical, to encourage them to create an account and work it out (getting an account tends to make you feel a little more invested in the site). I guess that's an approach issue. But this should prolly get moved somewhere else. Your talk page or mine? :-) --Thespian 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- LOL!! Take your pick :) Looks like both of us are non-involved parties here. I'll stick around tomorrow and try help the guy out & get him through this. Anyways - 2am here - gotta go. Thanks for being patient :) - Alison ☺ 08:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. I was just recent change patrolling. I fixed, I went back, I did another one, I reloaded, and they'd done it *again*. I'm not an editor of that article, I just have a thing for citations ;-) I wrote them a fairly long thing explaining this while you and someone else dealt with them edit warring with you 4 more times. I just knew where that was gonna go; if I adminned, I'd have semi-protected the article, because they are well-intentioned, if evangelical, to encourage them to create an account and work it out (getting an account tends to make you feel a little more invested in the site). I guess that's an approach issue. But this should prolly get moved somewhere else. Your talk page or mine? :-) --Thespian 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. They mean well and feel strongly about the subject. I've reduced their block to 8 hours & when they come back, you guys need to work together to get some kind of consensus there. - Alison ☺ 08:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Righto. I see that while I was responding to their post on my talk page they pushed you over the edge anyways. Sorry about that! ;-) --Thespian 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Thespian. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: you have under 250 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego talk 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Ratsy.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ratsy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
word choices
i apologize for my bad spellong, but nonetheless i think my changes have merit, as explained in little blurbs on the talk page, (i am the IP guy) so please, maybe fix typos and not undo wholesale?Charred Feathers 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your changes have merit. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page - I'll try to help out over there if I can. Crazy-busy today :) - Alison ☺ 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
Wikignoming
You may indeed be a Wikignome, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you also took the time-out to help a new editor find their way. Well done! - Alison ☺ |
*heh* I'm teh stupid!
I knew what to do and I bloody well didn't do it. Which is why I called myself stupid :) I was on the Template page when we figured out the fix and what change DIDN'T I make? D'oh! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ratsy.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ratsy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Thespian! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Cheers, Daniel 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Canadian residential school system
Please check your bot programming; it changed practising, the Commonwealth spelling, to practicing, the American spelling, on a page about a Canadian subject. Canadian spellings are used throughout it, so 'correcting' to a non-Canadian spelling is an issue with WP:ENGVAR and WP:SPELLING. Any words that are in the 'English spelling comparison chart' should be removed from any automated system, to avoid this sort of thing. I'll leave it for you to correct, since it's not a huge issue, but I felt it should be brought to your attention (I'm a Canadian living in Massachusetts, and writing for both US and Canadian clients, so I wind up having to watch this a lot! :-) ) --Thespian 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Argh. Thanks for that. I go through two phases with my bot usage: the first is manually spellchecking a bunch of articles to find interesting new typos to add to my dictionary, and the second is spellchecking more articles using the bot itself. Occasionally I screw up the first phase :( Thanks for pointing me at the spelling chart, I didn't knw about it before. Cheers, CmdrObot 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines
Yes, thanks for reminding me of the guidelines. As you can see I did stick to the guidelines while Ecollier2012 just bluntly smeared his website into the article again. He has overwritten other urls before in an attempt to disguise his edits and he has stolen content from official sites. I have taken it up to remove websites that obviously offer no value and his is one of them. Not only that, but due to his total disregard for all the rules, his low quality site is now the only fan site in the article. Please go and check out his site. Compare it to the other one I (mistakenly or not) added a long time ago. This is not right. All I have done is keeping spam off the article and for that some people with good sites get punished? The link didn't even go to the forum of that fan site. I even went as far as giving those Webmasters tips on what to fix on their sites. The way it is right now seems hardly fair.Steve110
- Hello Thespian. Thanks for your comments. I have had a brief word with both editors. Hopefully, that will be the end of if and we can all move on to more productive matters. Do let me know if the edit warring continues, though. Rockpocket 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The Western Investor, the R3-30 and long-range requests
Nicely done! ;) --Paul Erik 03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- *blush* Um, er. Wow. I don't know whether to thank you or faint. Or both. Bearcat 04:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we have met...I did a bit of cleanup editing on the article in the process of doing some LGBT category work, but I've never actually been to a Gaylaxicon as a delegate. Bearcat 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate on my response to your suggestion for the Signpost, I think we'd be happy to look at anything you can produce in that regard. --Michael Snow 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Page 6 / Mentions
Sounds like a good move to me. This could be done along with In the news, or as an entirely separate feature (your choice). I think the best way to make an announcement would be for you to write the first column, even if it's a little short, or if it takes an extra week to get enough material. When it's ready, I'll put out an editor's note with the issue. Don't worry about the time issue - I figure each extra article takes me at most 5 minutes to proofread, move, add the footer notice, etc., and that's not a problem. I'd really like to see upwards of 10 articles every week, but a couple of really good writers have left the Signpost in the last six months. Ral315 » 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
MedCab
I'll try to mediate your case. Dreamguy will just have to indicate his acceptance. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not mediating. Dreamguy apparently has some kind of problem with me being the mediator. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh-oh disambig.
Hey there. I'm just wondering — are you intending to create the two other articles that you created the disambig for? Otherwise, I'm not certain it's entirely necessary (although I can see some value in having it; I'm not entirely certain of Wikipedia policy here). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right you are. My apologies for any inconvenience. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy
For the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)