User talk:Bluap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Bluap and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Fitzroy MacLean

I've made some updates to the article myself, using an earlier DeBrett's Peerage to fill in some gaps. I also upgraded the Clan Maclean page, as people get Fitzroy Donald Maclean (the centegenarian chief who died in the 1930s) confused with Fitzroy Hew Royle Maclean, the subject of the article. Hotspur23 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity Great Court

Hi Bluap,

Sorry not to get back to you sooner. Just wanted to say thanks for your reply to my question at Talk:Trinity Great Court. So it looks like I was told a mixture of truth and fiction, which is par for the course.

Do you know why the clock strikes twice? -- Solipsist 08:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nebula class

Sorry. Just realised I hadn't replied to your questions on Talk:Nebula class starship. AlistairMcMillan 02:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Alistair

This might interest you some. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Klingon_starships#Wanton_Deletion_of_Canon_Facts_as_Well_by_AM Alyeska 08:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Which ones are you talking about? Bluemoose 1 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Sorry, it was because i was deleting the blue links and must have got confused. Bluemoose 1 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

[edit] White Snakeroot

Thanks for helping, i changed it so it says Ageratina altissima or Eupatorium rugosum, britannica and encarta call it Eupatorium rugosum, but i guess they aren't always on top of things, i hope that makes it more accurate! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Support

Bluap ~ Not sure if you have been following, but please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts. An anon has been persisting in deleting a statement he just does not like (and will not correct it if it is wrong; I think you were invoved in correcting it one time). When I advise him (on anon talk pages) that he cannot just delete facts that were true becuse of a POV, he has attacked me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem increasingly irrational. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am some kind of typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, etc.). I finally blocked him after warnings, but his/her abusive responses to discussing why he cannot do what he wants to seem a little over the wall. To do an RfC more than one editor has to be involved, which is fine with me as I really am only trying to uphold the civility of our rules and really have no stake in EU politics of carrot jam. - Marshman 23:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charon

Hi Bluap,

The moon Charon is pronounced as Sharon. The mythological pronunciation is given as a variant in the Charon (moon) article, but is dispreferred. See the talk page for more.

kwami 00:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Different types of deletion

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. R., I think maybe I should explain my vote. Just so you know, the deletion processes are different for redirects compared with articles. For redirects, you should follow the procedures described at Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion. So all I mean by "invalid nomination" is that you took it to the wrong place - it isn't a criticism of your decision to nominate it or anything.

I will say that it's quite rare for redirects to actually be deleted unless there's a strong consensus that they're actually worse than useless. For example, a redirect from an insulting title will often be deleted, but one that's just from a misspelling or an unusual variant of a name will normally be kept. If you think that T.R. is ambiguous, then the preferred thing to do is often to create a disambiguation page instead, that links to all the possible options that people might expect to find from those initials: you don't need a vote for that, you can just go ahead and do it.

(For completeness, I'll mention that there are also Wikipedia:Images and media for Deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion, and Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion, too; AfD really is just for articles and lists.)

— Haeleth Talk 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TeenScreen

I could not find any discussion of the NPOV on the talk page. Is it somewhere else? Eiler7 16:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journals --> list of journals

You may be right. At least until someone writes a paragraph about each one, and perhaps even then. Short is usually better than long isn't it? Midgley 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable point. Will you crosslink them, please, if you think that is suitable? Midgley 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Taylor (

  • Thanks for clearing that one up for me. You got there quick, as I was just about to recomend it for afd. Spyrides 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox ranks

The justification for the WP:TX advice is twofold:

  1. Avoid pages like Large Emerald where the technical classification overwhelms the article.
  2. Minor ranks are often more unstable than major ranks: for example, Large Emerald uses "Metazoa", but few modern classifications use this term. This kind of technical detail is best presented in the articles for which it is relevant (i.e. Animalia), not in articles like Large Emerald where it is basically irrelevant.

Gdr 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move from scientific name to common name

Hi, Would you please tell me why you would move a scientific article from its scientific name to its common name. I do know that we could just redirect the scientific name to the newly created common name but why do it in the first place?? scientific names are universal. My point is that if an article exists with the scientific name dont change it. Ofcourse if it exists with a common name then just redirect the scientific name to it. --Viren 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a college guide that I would buy at Barnes and Noble.

It has been well established that such personal bias does not belong in an encyclopedia. Courier new 21:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

How is it that you could possibly know my gender? Gender bias? Courier new 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But I believe it is only in reference to theoretical persons. Courier new 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aplology

I know wikipedia is not meant for eulogies, I was not thinking at the time --Leopold Samsonite

[edit] Qrrbrbirlbel

Just giving you a quick heads up -- you tagged Qrrbrbirlbel for speedy deletion, and indeed it was a nonsensically-written article. However, it's a fictional place name for The Demented Cartoon Movie, which has a sane article here, so I changed the article to a redirect. I hope you don't object to my removal of your speedy tag in this way. Vslashg (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christopher Wren buildings

Thank you for removing the tag from the photo of the venerable Trinity College, which I used erroneously. May I ask if you think the photos in this category are distracting and superfluous or useful? I'd appreciate your opinion. -- Dogears (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-vascular plant

I was wondering what you found bad about my edit at Non-vascular plant. I'll admit that I'm not a subject expert - I simply rephrased the existing material to read better. If there were any inaccuracies, then they are still there on the reverted page... Bluap 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't simply rephrase the existing material, you added "facts" that were incorrect, such as (1) calling it a generic name, (2) implying there is a single major subdivision of the group, (3) saying that only the sporangium of a bryophyte is diploid, and (4) unnecessarily introduced mention of the ferns and "fern-allies" which are vascular (whose mention in this article could lead to confusion). --EncycloPetey 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've re-examined the original contents of the article you edited, and you were right. The last three items I listed above were, in fact, already in the article. I've now tried my own hand at restructuring the article -- for example using bullet points to mark separate groups -- but I'm still unhappy with it. It really is an obsolete group in terms of systematics, but it appears often enough in textbooks and the literature to make this article a sort of "necessary evil".
  • I've been giving thought over how to articulate to you why it is I disagreed with your revision of the article, and I think I can better express that now -- you unified the article. Normally, that would be a very good thing to do in editing an article on Wikipedia (or anywhere else), but for this particular article, it isn't. The term "non-vascular plant" is a grab-bag of disparate organisms whose only common feature is that they don't belong to the group of vascular plants. They're the leftovers. As such, the article should emphasize the fragmented nature of the "group", so in my opinion disentangling the separate members is the preferred approach (and I say this as someone whose grad-school work was in the systematics and evolution of bryophytes). Thus, your integration of the article to make it flow better was unfortunately a detriment to this particular article, where it would have helped almost any other article.
  • I should also make sure you understand why "generic name" is a problem. You see, the terms "generic" and "specific" have different meanings when applied to biological names and groups than they do in casual speech. The term "generic" in biology means "of a genus" instead of the usual "in general". You may not have realized that when you made your edits. As I say though, you did a good job of integrating existing material, so I would encourage you to continue to make such edits. It was merely in this particular article that your skills led to a result that was undesirable from a taxonomic viewpoint. --EncycloPetey 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Oceanic_climate

Hi! I usually disagree on merger proposals, but think[1] you're on target on this one. 'However, You Should Always' annote the 'recieving talk page' with reasons and more importantly to innaugerate and timestamp the debate window. The old merger tags were ambiguous and the talks sometimes ended on different talks, on these, just click the link on your 'just applied' tag, and there is no question where to comment!

I've seen a fair number of these 'in your face' tags go on for a year and many last six to nine months without 'action'... which just makes us look like saps to the 'customers'. I'm also convinced that they would have recieved more discussion (i.e. serious attention) from fellow editors had the proposal stated a thesis.

You left nothing of your reasoning to agree with, so no one's in a position to agree— at least they aren't going to break stride and do extra work like I did, most of the time. Unfortunately, eventually, someone has too, and without a timestamp, it is harder to find who put such a 'in your face' template on (includes cleans and npovs, etc.) if the article gets a lot of edits. So do use the talks when applying such!

In this one, annote your reasons, watch the newbies activity, and if he hasn't come forth in a week or so, I suggest you just merge the content and make the new name into a redirect.

Best regards, FrankB 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkmenistan stamps list

Hi. Thanks for raising this list with the philately project. Three of us have responded and we think the article should be deleted, especially as the stamps are probably illegal in postal terms. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 13:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA at Schlumberger

I saw you removed the {{convertIPA}} tag from Schlumberger. I put both the IPA symbols and the convertIPA template up simultaneously because I have no experience with IPA symbols, and simply looked at the IPA chart for English and made my best guess. I am fairly sure that it is not completely correct, as I added no symbols for inflection or emphasis. I added the template to have somebody more knowledgeable than I look at it and correct. If it is perfectly correct, please tell me, otherwise I will replace the {{convertIPA}} template to have another person look. Thanks.--Coolhandscot 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imminant?

I got your link, but this does not say that the threat was imminant or critical, only that it was urgent to make arrests that would disrupt plans. More comments:

  • PETER CLARK, SCOTLAND YARD'S ANTI-TERRORISM CHIEF: "The investigation reached a critical point last night when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt what we believe was being planned. As always in these cases, the safety of the public was our overriding concern" -- see comments below... the urgent action was the action to arrest suspects. "What was being planned" was not stated as being imminant.
  • HOME SECRETARY JOHN REID: "We all believe we have taken the necessary precautionary measures to protect the public, both by the actions we have taken and by the means of that threat level, for the time being at the highest possible level. We think that the main players are in custody, but we should always err on the side of caution which is why the threat level is at its highest critical level. --erring on the side of caution does not indicat that the threat was "immanent"
  • TRANSPORT SECRETARY DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: "The seriousness of the threat gave us no choice but to require these stringent measures to be implemented" -- seriousness, but not "immanence"
MPS 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviations

I appreciate your note on abbreviations. The article uses abbreviations for the United States a number of times. For consistency, they should be the same. I am aware of the Wikipedia guidance on style of article — in the case of U.S. and UK, see Wikipedia Manual of Style - Abbreviations. U.S. is the standard Wikipedia abbreviation for the United States, while UK is the standard for the United Kingdom. — ERcheck (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Specifically on point, also see WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations — "When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country." — ERcheck (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The situation of the abbreviation U.S. is specifically addressed as to standard usage in Wikipedia — in the two places referenced above. And, as I mentioned, consistency should be maintained (also mentioned in the MOS). The UK abbreviation, to-date, seems to be consistent in the article. However, the article has both U.S. and US. As the Wikipedia MOS very specifically addresses the use of U.S., I find that clear direction is given on this point. It is not a case of UK English vs U.S. English. — ERcheck (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Consistency, yes. But, as in all references above, Wikipedia has clearly given direction on the usage of U.S. vs US. — ERcheck (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radhanites

I would like to change the color of the map to accomodate colorblindness, but the problem is that the topographic map has SO many colors that most colors (green, yellow, etc.) don't show up very well. Purple and blue are among the few that stand out. I think black and blue might not have enough contrast to use in conjunction with each other. Can you think of any other combinations that might work? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientist Box

Check out [2]bunix 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Z-order (curve)

Hi,

You put a cleanup tag on Z-order (curve) a year ago, when it was a crappy one sentence stub. Thanks to the efforts of User:Hermann.tropf it is now very much expanded. Can you have another look, and either remove the tag or respond to User:Hyacinth's request on the talk page for more information?

Thanks,

Snottygobble 11:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Delinked headings

Regarding the delinked headings on the David Eddings article, The Malloreon was already linked in the introductory paragraph, hence no link in that section. Cheers. QmunkE 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

The passed motion to move dwarf planets to Name (dwarf planet) is currently being finalised at the Talk: 1 Ceres page. As you participated in the original debate, it would help if you could now add your vote there. The Enlightened 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Gulf war

Thanks for that. Its been hit so hard some sneaky stuff does slip thru. Nice spotting :) Glen 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Fioroni

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I appreciate your comments, but, in fact, Wikipedia does not encourage "compromise" versions of English that are, as you admit, correct or preferred in neither the U.S. nor the UK. In most cases, as with Mutual Broadcasting System, the prevailing national association of the subject matter determines the national style of English that is to be preferred in the article. Please see Manual of Style. For ready reference, I quote: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another" and "Follow the dialect of the first contributor: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" and "There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page."

That said, your comments of a broader, more conceptual nature--e.g., that the referenced "golden age of radio drama" reflected a parochial, U.S. perspective--are well taken and I've begun to adjust accordingly. Best, Dan—DCGeist 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susanna Gregory

I note that you have changed the existing link to Cruwys to Elizabeth Cruwys. There is already an existing page for the surname Cruwys which provides information on the name and its pronuncation. As Elizabeth Cruwys is Susanna Gregory's real name it makes no sense to create two pages for the same person. I have therefore reverted your change. Dahliarose 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use and how it works

My understanding is that a lot of "fair use" images were being deleted because their actual use did not correspond to the legal definition of "fair use", and they were therefore being used without copyright permission.

Just to clarify: Jimbo himself has said that he knows of NO instance of fair use on Wikipedia has failed to meet the LEGAL standard for fair use; WP:FU is much more strict than the legal guidelines for philosophical reasons. Additionally, no instance of fair use requires copyright permission; fair use is invoked INSTEAD of obtaining permission from a copyright holder. The problem has been that many items which meet the legal guidelines for fair use - promotional photos, state goverment photos, international logos and the like - are being deleted by those who prefer all information on Wikipedia to be "free" in a libre sense. The German version of Wikipedia is often hailed as a model; they've prohibited the fair use of copyrighted material, meaning articles about copyrighted images are not illustrated with those images, etc. Jenolen speak it! 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance of the 12th century

Oh, sorry, I overlooked that. I have the 1963 edition of Haskins, but without a page number I guess I can't look it up (the quote doesn't seem to be in the introduction, anyway). Adam Bishop 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castles in France

To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pluto

Hello. I noticed you removed a sentence from the lead of Pluto with the edit summary: I don't think this sentence should be in the lead. And it's already mentioned in the body of the article.

I didn't revert it or anything but just so you know the fact that material appears in the body of the article as well as the lead isn't sufficient reason by itself to remove material from the lead. Per WP lead guidelines the lead should represent a stand alone summary of the entire article, an introduction to the subject which prepares the reader for the article. I just thought I would let you know based upon your edit summary. Happy editing. IvoShandor 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I just wanted to make sure we were clear or whatever because of the edit summary and I agree that it is a piece of trivia that doesn't belong in the lead btw, not like if you were, say, writing an article on the smallest house on Earth which was notable solely because it was small, of course. Ah well, it is quite hard to convey correct meaning in edit summaries sometimes. Have a fine day. IvoShandor 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments for Users

Please make comments, like this one, on "Discussion" pages, as user pages are a space for the user's use only (generally).

==Pluto==
I agree that the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. However, the statement that Pluto is smaller than 7 moons in the Solar System is a piece of trivia, which doesn't deserve its place in the lead section of the article. Perhaps my edit summary could have been clearer.. Bluap 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Curran (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chew Stoke FAC

Thanks for all your help with the population stats on Chew Stoke. Is there anything else you think is needed?— Rod talk 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Would you please either undo your revert, or state your reasoning for opposing the change on the talk page. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CADCentre page move

Just a note to let you know that the CADCentre article included on your List of Cambridge related topics has been moved to AVEVA, this being its new name

--Yendor1958 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trade routes WP:FA

I have edited the article and addressed some of the concerns that you raised here.
Could I trouble you to take a look at these diffs and see if you find things to your satisfaction ?
Havelock the Dane Talk 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
Kindly take a look here.
If you can spare the time then please check out these diffs as well.
Regards,
Havelock the Dane Talk 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GOOOH - Get Out of Our House. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres

Hi Bluap,

I restored the Latin to Ceres. The problem is that some people want to delete the English pronunciation, since it's a Latin name, whereas others want to delete the Latin, as it's an English name. The astronomical community isn't in agreement as to whether these things should have a literary English or Latinate pronunciation, and this way we get both. (There are several ways of pronouncing Latin, so it's much easier to add the original orthography than to try to cover all the possibilities.) kwami (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wulfhere of Mercia

Thanks for the comments and the copyedits. I've updated the genealogy chart; please take a look and let me know if this is what you were looking for. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season's Greetings

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a belated thanks for your input on Wormshill which achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Hi, Bluap. I'm sorry that it may have appeared that my once again was aimed at you; it wasn't. Every time I promote/archive, dear Gimmetrow gets queries on his talk page, in spite of WP:FAC/ar being linked all over the place. I just feel badly that he always has to field the queries, which is what I meant by moving in, once again. I'm sorry if my careless remark may have offended you. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CUSU-LBGT

Dear Bluap Just saw what you did, please discuss alterations with the person first, that's what talk pages are for. Lots of love, Sean "Corvidae" Newham ps. As a long time wikipedian you should know better. CorviCorvus (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

check out may week and delete those dates and check out Cambridge University Students' Union and delete those posts--blankuser (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)