User talk:Lisatwo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

DNFT

I'm not sure yet. She doesn't seem to be intentionally trolling. We'll find out in a little while. As it is, she seems more like an aggrieved and rather juvenile user, than an actual troll.

The Rhymesmith 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, I've answered your question there. Giggy UCP 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, Lisatwo, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Jones (disambiguation)

Thank you for tidying up. Your edit summary mentioning MOS:DAB was very helpful. Thanks again. Conrad T. Pino 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links

Good work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Initialisation, have youself a Image:WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.png - TB 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Trampformers

Thanks for the advice about The Trampformers' page. Suggested lead section now added. Grateful if you can please spare the time to have a look at it and see if it works ok. Think the Contents list needs to be after the lead section but haven't yet managed to do this, I will try to find out. 80.229.33.175 09:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit on the intro for The Trampformers's page, much appreciated. I see what you mean now. 195.195.236.106 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

External links by Frontierblog and Neuber hia

Hey. Thanks for dropping me a note. Frontierblog requested unblock by e-mail, but I declined due to the promotional username. I asked him to get a new account and start a discussion on whether the links could be added. He has that new account now, but continues adding the links as before. There is an unquestionable conflict of interest, but it seems that his edits haven't still been reverted by those who watch these pages, so I'm a bit hesitant to remove them all the links now. I'll keep an eye on this and this. Prolog 11:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

my reply

Sorry, I must have accidentally deleted the {{advert}} text while editing. It was not done intentionally. Feel free to delete the page if you deem that it may not be suitable for wikipedia or may be an advertisement of the company. Thanks.

Thank you for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia -- it is new territory, but it is what the World Wide Web is all about!Wcrl1 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted redirect

Hi Lisa. I deleted Wang Hao(Table Tennis) after it was listed under WP:CSD as an implausible typo - I doubt anyone would forget to type the space between Hao and the bracket. I also fixed the links on the only page that linked to it (Table tennis at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's singles‎). The other pages that linked there were CSD listings rather than articles. Hope this explains my rationale, Number 57 14:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

re: [changes to the warning format

Good afternoon and thanks for your question. I have to admit that I've not participated in that WikiProject (and probably don't have time to get deeply involved) but I'll be happy to explain my thinking. I made the changes I did for the following reasons:

  1. The advice to always substitute in the warning templates is good advice but not something that we want the user to read or comply with. It did not seem appropriate on this page. If you really think that's critical, build it into the code of the warning template like the AFD notices do.
    • And I have to admit that this was the first place I'd ever seen that template on a user page. If it's the new standard, it is not at all well-known.
  2. The template at the top did have links to the block log, et al which could be useful but seemed premature in this case. I prefer the layout and wording of the {{repeatvandal}}. But that template isn't appropriate until the vandal's been blocked at least twice. Really, until they've been blocked twice, I don't see the need for those links.
  3. All the commented-out code in that top template makes this a very messy template to use/read when working on the edit view of the page. The same goes for all the fancy formatting and parameters. It makes the template look slightly more pretty but at the cost of badly clogging up the edit view. And since so many of us review pages via the diff function, that matters a lot. Pages should look clean in both views.
  4. The endless repetion of the "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't do it" warning made the page far harder to read. I was looking for a pattern of warnings to see whether or not a block was warranted yet. It took much longer because I had to mentally edit out the junk.
  5. That particular disclaimer was also inappropriate in that particular case because a review of the user's contributions showed no recent valid edits. This is a vandal through and through. We ought not to be so deferrential when the edit history is clear. I know a bot can't make that call but it still bothers me.
  6. The numbering of the warnings is non-standard in my experience. If that's the new standard, I strongly recommend abandoning it. It also made scanning the page to look for patterns harder.

I hope that helps a little. Thanks again for asking. Rossami (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the warm welcome. --Abuk78 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have a couple questions. How do you post photos in articles? I created the article T. C. Puck and wanted to post a photo of the dog. Also, someone posted a “tag” on my user page User:50Goals, I removed it but then they just reposted it. I then posted an additional “tag”. What is this?

Cheers 50Goals --50Goals 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I am fairly confident that 50Goals is a sock of User:VaughanWatch as he edited International Hockey Hall of Fame in his fifth edit (the page is a favourite target of that vandal - just check the article history) and then added extra info about the IHHOF to the Stanley Cup. This is how he operates - he pretends to have an innocent account and makes some constructive edits, and acts all outraged and innoncent when he's tagged. -- Scorpion0422 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello again

I looked through the history of article International Hockey Hall of Fame. It appears that every user that edits this article is accused of being a sock puppet of User:VaughanWatch. In fact from my perspective, the only vandalism to this article is that every positive edit gets reverted and then accused of being a sock puppet. By the way the only edit I made to this article was that it should be expanded because it is lacking many details and now I can see why. I’m not one to jump to conclusions and make accusations, but it appears to me that there is some personal vendetta against this either this article or the organisation the article is about. The edit to the Stanley Cup article was just correcting a statement in the amendment of the Stanley Cup trustees agreement. The statement was already in the article four lines above my edit! (#6 of the 1947 agreement with the NHL). Even in article T. C. Puck that I created, someone rightfully put a tag that it required references. I then proceeded to provide two references; this user then removes my references, re-posts the tag and accuses me of removing the template with out fixing it. By the way thanks for providing me the information on how to post photos, however I am still having some problems trying to figure that out. I have a great photo of T. C. Puck with Ballard and leaf players that I wanted to post.

Cheers 50Goals --50Goals 07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Daito Islands

Hello Lisatwo, the historic material about the Daito Islands may have been copyrighted, but it is from my own article which was published in the 'Journal of Pacific History'. So I think I myself as the author should have the right to insert passages from my own work.

With kind regards, B. Welsch [I am sorry if this is not the correct way to use you talk page] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.166.15 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

German military ranks?

Hi, Lisatwo, thank you for wellcoming me onboard.
How are the the commond way of solving this issue on enwiki: (example)

On dewiki you will find Großadmiral Dõnitz. How to give him rank on enwiki? Possible options:

Personally I like the two last the better, but I see a lot of confusion on enwiki on this matter. Any "rules" or opinions, regarding this? KjellG 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Dönitz was just an example. If he should be mensioned as Grand admiral Dönitz, why do enwiki then have an article: Kriegsmarine not "War Navy"? Another example: The article Munich, why not "München". Now Munich is the english word for München, ok, but the article has a number of german names in it, e.g. why not "German museum"? My feeling is that there is no clear answer to this question. Regards KjellG 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: forwading a question about German military ranks

I don't usually work with WWII-era articles all that much, so I'm not quite sure what the current practice is—you may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force instead—but I'd think that "Grand Admiral Dönitz" would be the correct form of a first mention everywhere outside Dönitz's own article; compare the typical use of "Captain" instead of "Kapitän zur See", for example.

(Obviously, subsequent mentions do just fine with merely "Dönitz"; it's typically not necessary to give a rank more than once.) Kirill 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of the B-day Calendar! --User:Piotrus

For taking care of the B-day Calendar! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for the welcome! Happy Holidays! --UncleverOnion (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Don Cartagena (song)

I have nominated "Don Cartagena (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)