User talk:Msgj/Jan2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I'll look through those articles :) --Firehazrd (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation links to redirect pages

Hiya. Re your comment, it wasn't really related to redirect pages. Just to be sure we're talking the same terminology here, I refer to a redirect as a page with a #REDIRECT line which jumps to another article, and an alias as a 'piped' link - i.e. 'Fred Bloggs and his Amazing Chipmunks#1970-1980|A load of Nuts' - in this case, I'd call 'A load of Nuts' the alias. What I was trying to explain in this case was that the last editor of the article had set up a piped link (an alias) for the Scott Kannberg article, and this is (apparently) not the approved method according to Piping. The link should actually refer to Scott Kannberg, and not the nickname - which is what I changed it to. Of course, I could be wrong !! :-) I agree with you about redirects though - assuming it avoids a double redirect. Let me know if I;ve misunderstood what you were saying :-) Regards CultureDrone (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi CultureDrone, thanks for your reply. There was no piping here. Before your edit the link was as follows:
You changed this to
Spiral Stairs is a redirect page to Scott Kannberg. The former *might* be argued to be slightly clearer since, although it links to a redirect page, it consists the disambiguation title. Anyway it's splitting hairs. MSGJ (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And I want to keep the hair I have thanks ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rayspan metamaterial inputs

This was our first time adding content to Wikipedia and didn't know the guidelines. We still think that your readers are entitled to know that Metamaterial is not a research concept like your website is currently reflecting but rather it has been accepted by leading industry companies as viable technology to improve the performance of certain consumer products. All the "Development and applications" examples your website provides are primitive and based on pure research. This is why it is a big deal when the first consumer products based on Metamaterial appear in stores. Even the University Research institutions and grateful that Rayspan took the risk of innovating in this space to meet consumer requirements.

Do you think adding the paragraph below under the statement "Metamaterials have been also proposed for designing agile antennas [13]." is acceptable. Please note that we removed all links because I certain that interested readers can find us and our products easily on the web.

"Rayspan Corporation is the world's leading innovator of Metamaterial air interface solutions for commercial wireless communications. Rayspan air interface solutions provide breakthrough improvements in antenna and RF front-end component miniaturization, performance, cost reduction and ease of manufacturing. Products with Rayspan proprietary Metamaterial technology have been successfully adopted by consumers."

Please let me know is this works.

Thanks, Ajay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayg rs (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Borat

wat do you mean? can you please give me an example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by U-borat (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Mcguire

Melanie Mcguire was 38 weeks pregnant and married when she started an affiar with Bradley Miller. It has been quoted in every major newspaper in NJ.Why would my post be editied to say otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Army4all (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I do not know how to site a source on here. This is from teh Home News which states Melanoe Mcguire was pregnant,married and had an affair at teh same time.

During the trial the state presented as a witness Dr. Bradley Miller, with whom McGuire worked at the Reproductive Medicine Associates office in Morris town.

The two had a sexual relationship that began in 2002, when McGuire was pregnant with her second child. The state argued that she wanted her husband dead to begin a new life with Miller.

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70423012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Army4all (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Essex County pages linked to esseximages.com

Hi,

Regarding adding external links to towns in Essex County (Gloucester, MA, Marblehead, MA, Salem, MA, etc). The esseximages.com site offers an amazing collection of Historic Photographs of each town not available anywhere else for people to see.

I was not trying to spam un-related links, just trying to point folks to what I think is an amazing resource for historic photographs of their area. I tried to readjust the link to go straight to the relevant section of the site (Marblehead photos for Marblehead etc).

Please let me know if the new link helps?

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbr08 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muse Invincible Edit

Sorry about the lack of cite on my edit, I unfortunately don't have any physical evidence of this =( I guess it isn't that important anyway =P Sorry about the inconvienience.

Lewis

[edit] Scottish Rugby Union

You reverted an edit about the CEO of SRU, saying this was vandalism. This was in fact a genuine and correct edit, with more up to date information than was displayed previously. It doesn't help the community if you revert changes without even thinking about it or checking.

Sorry I was a bit hasty here. Your IP address does have a history of vandalism and I jumped to (wrong) conclusion in this case. MSGJ (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

{{helpme}} Can anyone tell me, in which situations should I tag page with {{copyvio}} and when I should use the speedy delete tag {{db-copyvio}}. I have used the latter a few times now, but am not sure if the former is more appropriate. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use {{db-copyvio}} if the page is patently (that is, without any question) a copyvio; there is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving; the material was introduced at once by a single person; and there is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license. Note that saying the page is "my own," is not such a credible assertion. For example, a user's myspace page is copyrighted. Even if they say "but it's my page", the page remains copyrighted. Likewise if they say "but it's my website", and that website doen't release it into the public domain or the content under the GFDL or contains a copyright notice on it, you can still tag it. If it doesn't meet these bases (the vast majority of copyvios do), and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, then blank the page's content, add {{copyright}}, list at that day's copyright problems page (instructions and a link will be in the tag, today's, as an example, is here) and warn the user (such as with {{Nothanks-drm}}).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed answer. Much appreciated. I can't envisage any situation when it would be more appropriate to use {{copyright}} rather than {{db-copyvio}}. It's either a copyright violation or it's not, and in all cases you would check the history for a better version before tagging. (I see you've said that the vast majority of cases would be the speedy tag.) anyway, thanks again. MSGJ (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. They do come. up. For example, a few months ago I came across a page tagged with db-copyvio during CAT:CSD patrol, but took it to copyright problems when I discovered that the website had released the material under the creative commons license (the question was, was that comparable to a GFDL release, and thus usable?). Or you may come across a page that is copied from a government site—sometimes such content is free, and sometimes not. A third (and probably most common) situation is when material has been edited for a few days or longer before the copyvio is discovered--the content has been changed but has it been changed enough to no longer be a copyvio? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals and blocks

Thanks for your efforts to fight vandalism! Could I make a suggestion though? When you have given a last warning, the next time we have to see a block. Otherwise we are making a mockery of our warnings! I'm talking about [1]. This one may have just slipped through the net! Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. However, if you'll check the dates on the original edits, you'll see that my later comments were about edits I discovered the person had made before the level 4 warning. Doczilla (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, though, I rearranged the order of the warnings.[2] Doczilla (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay fair enough. It's arguable that there's no point giving warnings for things in the past when they've already been warning more recently. Anyway, cheers, keep it up! MSGJ (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Arguable - definitely. In that particular case, I was concerned that someone might feel the level 4 warning had been too strong. In fact, I was concerned about it myself and was contemplating lowering it to level 3 when I saw those previous edits which had been vandalism also. So posting warnings about them bolstered the need for a level 4 warning (which brings us back to the fact that, yes, the level 4 warning looks better positioned under those other warnings). Incidentally, it's nice to cross paths with you. Vandal fighting is a weird way to pass our time, and a huge portion of the communication related to it comes from the vandals. Doczilla (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know what you mean! I'm not sure how worthwhile my time spent on this is. Personally I think only registered users should be allowed to edit; this would cut down on vandalism by 50-75% I reckon. It would be better if we were contributing to articles instead of just reverting. MSGJ (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Something else we agree on: One of my userboxes states flatly that I think only registered users should edit. That would vastly reduce impulse vandalism. Doczilla (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am returning to the margin because it is becoming almost unreadable when I use my PDA (one word per line)! Yes, that's a nifty box. I haven't gone in for these boxes yet, but if I ever do, this will be the first one I use :) Do you think, that by helping with vandalism-fighting we are sustaining the project on its current anyone-can-edit policy and just delaying the day that this stops? Part of the magic of the project is the anyone-can-edit policy, but I still think that reverting it will be of enormous benefit overall. We would certainly get fewer edits, but not so many fewer conctructive edits, I believe, for if anyone is keen to contribute then a 5 minute registration is not going to put them off. MSGJ (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Weber

In answer to your question [3], Kurt Weber has opposed many self-nominated RfAs. For an example, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKeen. Cheers, Darkspots (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Now I see what you mean in this case ... but you wouldn't go along with his rationale in the situation of AKeen, would you? MSGJ (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't know, I paid no attention to that RFA. I just pulled it out of Kurt's user contributions. I answered your question because you left it on an RFA that had been closed [4], so I figured a good chance existed that no other editor would see it. Darkspots (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology of vandalism at a page of Tsutomu Miyazaki

Hello, Mr. MSGJ. I'm very sorry to have vandalized page of Tsutomu Miyazaki. I'll never vandalize again. Please forgive me. Thank you. --210.237.34.201 (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry about it. I look forward to seeing some constructive contributions in the future! Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

) --The.Filsouf (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: 142.X editor

142.X is an IP sock for blocked editor User:Mark753. He has been stalking my friend User:KnowledgeofSelf for quite some time and I have, on several occasions, had to revert his trolling from KOS's talk page along with several other pages. Perhaps you should have taken the time to ask me why I removed the trolls comments rather than restoring them... just so KOS or someone else will have to go back and remove them. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But unless you can prove sockpuppetry you can't treat 142.x any differently to any other editor. Is this just a suspicion you have? MSGJ (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You can ask KOS about it. He is more than familiar with Mark753 and has assisted myself and other editors in picking off both his IPs (all from the same range) and his bogus accounts simply because he frequents the same pages over and over... especially KOS's talk page which is always a prime target. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Msgj, you should've assumed good faith and asked why 156.34.x was reverting the edits instead of using an imperative term such as "stop". It is better to ask rather than assume authority, friend. ScarianCall me Pat 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep out of this. It seemed on the face of it a case of one user bullying another, but I'm willing to accept there may be much more going on here. So, apologies to 156.34.208.112. MSGJ (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you were mistaken with your revert on my talk page. User:156.34.208.112 was removing comments from a banned user who was circumventing his block to troll my talk page. No he wasn't blocked yet, but he is now. User:142.162.196.74 is Mark753. Anyhow I suggest you retract your warning to 156.34.208.112 as he was correct to remove those comments. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I missed the discussion above. My apologies for starting a new section. You can merge the sections together if you like. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Beaten to it by 156. MSGJ (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing your John D. Rockefeller revert.

The difference between July 8, 1839 and May 23, 1937 is 26 months shy of 100 years. Aliby22 (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right; my apologies. I see that this was changed by a number of anonymous editors yesterday. It went through the following stages:
26 months shy of 100th birthday
26 months shy of 98th birthday
2 months shy of 98th birthday
2 months shy of 100th birthday
Personally I think the third one is correct and the clearest. MSGJ (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you on that. Feel free to change it if you haven't already. Aliby22 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhaïl Bezverkhny

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mikhaïl Bezverkhny, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newconsonantmusic.com/performers/bezverkhny.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From 211.30.68.97

Sorry about that

hmmm i looked at the stuff is a huge list of people really needed?

loopa is removing a whole heap of info but not saying why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.68.97 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing revert on H&M

Did you read the section you reverted? Please see the talk page for explanation on why section "Controversy" was removed before reverting and restoring it. Thank you! Elysianfields (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it too closely and no I didn't read the discussion page. I was on RC patrol and it just looked like a large portion of the article removed without an informative edit summary. Therefore I reverted it. Having read the discussion I completely agree with you. MSGJ (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:cleanup-reorganize documented as you requested.

It's now in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I noticed too late that it might overlap/conflict with Template:Cleanup-restructure, although I think that sounds more forbidding. The cleanup-reorganize message is designed to encourage WP:BOLD editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I read through all those templates as well before creating the new one and didn't notice it! Anyway it gives editors more choice. MSGJ (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Goldstein

Dear MSGJ, - Thank you for approving the article. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.244.78 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Swim Lake

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Enemy Swim Lake, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sdglaciallakes.com/AboutUs/Legends/EnemySwim/Index.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:AFC

Sure, it depends on if i am using the script (which can be found here) or not. If i am using Firefox or IE then i use the script and it auto closes the submission for me. But when i am not using the script i close it myself, and the form in which i do that changes (it depends on which template i can remember off the top of my head). I would recommend using the script as it does it for you nice and easy. If you have any more questions, or if i just confused you even more let me know and i will do my best to help. Cheers! Tiptoety talk 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wow, that's so cool! MSGJ (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, glad you liked it. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to add an extra comment, you just go in and edit it again I suppose. I notice it even leaves an informative edit summary. Very impressed. MSGJ (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I have never really found a need to go back and add a extra comment, the ones the script places on there are very good. Yes, the edit summary is nice too. Tiptoety talk 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes if someone has put a lot of effort in, but it doesn't quite make the grade, I'm tempted to give more feedback than just the standard message. But in most cases the standard one is fine! MSGJ (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thank you for helping me become a better vandal fighter. Your tips came in very handy! If you have anymore tips for me, I would really appreciate the help. Dragana666 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just requested the rollback tool a few minutes ago. It seems very handy, but I'm not sure if I'll be allowed to get it... But even if I can't get it, I'll still help out on Wikipedia! It's a great site. Dragana666 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I have no idea what the article is about, but you seem to have it under control... I'll help out when and where I can, though. Dragana666 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I was really surprised to have recieved it, but it has made my job simpler. Dragana666 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

I'm a frequent listener to WNST and I know Nestor personally, and I want to know what he did to cause THIS? Seriously though, you're welcome for the heads up! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did, read my talk page where I'm talking to Caknuck about it. As for the terms, they are both insults, and rather crude ones at that. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole "douche" thing is certainly an insult. "Babyarm", however, is a catchphrase used by hosts/listeners of KTCK that's evolved into a bizarre greeting. Don't ask how it came to be that way, because it loses a lot in the telling ;) Caknuck (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Asrok

STOP' I'M THE BEST I WILL BE GOOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asrok (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Take care! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for the star! MSGJ (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The person was blocked and has made a new user account. It's your name, plus an "a." Msgja.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal?

Thanks for your comments on my removal of text without comments. I wanted to remove comments that had been rejected. Please let me know th eproper procedure. Thanks. Also, can I undo your undo to retrieve my correction which was fully commented on and which you also deleted with the undo - it takes a lot of work to get the math comments correctly done and I don't want al lthat time to go down the drain. Thanks!!!! TwPx —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwPx (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)