User talk:Nobody of Consequence/Archives/2008/May
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Corvus (genus)
The merge suggestion that you removed had not, in my opinion, been settled, and your statement that dismisses all previous discussion does not settle the issue or address the problems addressed in that talk page. I realize that there hasn't been a post in a while, but that doesn't mean the issue has been settled. please read back over it and reconsider the removal of the merge suggestion. thanks! Plcoffey 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Elena Filatova article
Hi, i see you reverted my edit on Filatova article. Why just revert it instead of giving a clue of what weasel expressions I could remove or replace with more neutral ones? I think the fact that she tried to benefit financially from people believing the story was authentic is notable. If you please could go through the trouble of pointing out the fallacies in my expressions (my writing style might be a bit provocative sometimes unintentionally), I'd love to fix the paragraph. --piksi (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The paragraph seems to imply some sort of sneakiness/scandal on her part as it is written. There is no solid evidence to support that she was trying to take advantage of people (therein lie the weasel words) and the truth or fiction of her motorcycle trip is unclear and still debated. If you'd like to include a paragraph saying that she had an online store for a short time there's really no NPOV problem with that but I don't know how notable it is. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- In a way I agree with You, but IMHO it's clear that she tried to benefit from the success of her website. As it started circulating on the forums and urban exploration sites, many people really believed that with special permits it would be possible to freely roam around the zone thus giving the photos and videos she was selling undeserved value as something secret and special even though they were taken from same places everyone taking the tour could go. Besides, I see far less reason to doubt the comments of tour organizers and officials than her words. These are of course just my opinions, but IMO it's not the same to say that she just had an online store selling something unrelated than to say that she had an online store selling material which was closely tied to the popularity of her imaginary story. Hope this helps to explain my point :-) --piksi (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:StandardOillogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:StandardOillogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand
Is there a reason you felt the need to tag User:Quercus basaseachicensis with {{sock}}, create the sockpuppet category, and replace Betacommand's userpage with {{sockpuppeteerproven|blocked}}? I understand that all the items are right, but considering that the situation is being discussed, wouldn't you say it was in bad taste to do all of this at once, considering it's only one account?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame inductees
Category:Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Olfactory (talk) 04:05, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
Dahl FA
I just now realized that I never responded to you. To be honest, I'm not sure about FA, yet -- only because I don't know a whole lot about the process. It's new to me. Maybe it's good enough, but there's a good chance that it needs a lot more work, too. I've been meaning to add more info to it, but I haven't gotten around to it. I'm sure you're aware of it, but here's the criteria for FA articles. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have an article I primarily wrote myself up for FA so far, seems to be going fairly well. Should be a good learning experience even if I don't make it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion
Follow the link please. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Syd Barrett
Old image is back at your request... it appears that someone beat you to the punch, as the 'new' (c) image has already been tagged for speedy deletion over at the commons ;0) SkierRMH (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Help
{{helpme}} I'm having trouble making the date autoformat work for some of my citations using "citenews". Take a look at the following article [1]. I used the ISO 8601 per the template instructions so that the dates automatically default depending on individual user settings. However, it doesn't seem to be working for my two Time Magazine references. Any idea what's up here? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be working for me...? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have my preferences set to display as "January 1, 1900", but only some of the ref dates are displaying this way. The Time magazine ones are showing up as 1900-1-1 for some reason. Maybe it's my browser or something... anyone else? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'd say it's you. I have IE7 on Vista and see this: image under references. Do you see that as well? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) They're working for me too. Have you tried clearing your cache? --Werdan7T @ 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look in your image at numbers 7, 8 and 19. The publish date shows up in numerical form. Now look at all the others that have publish dates (lets use 26 as an example). In 26, it shows up in the written-out form. According to the template directions, they should all be set as ISO 8601, which I did but only some of them are defaulting properly. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I get see what you mean. The format only changes for dates that have been wikilinked. There was some discussion about changing this a while ago, but I guess it wasn't successful.--Werdan7T @ 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the weird part: I didn't wikilink any of them. Oh well, guess I'll just have to play around with it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I get see what you mean. The format only changes for dates that have been wikilinked. There was some discussion about changing this a while ago, but I guess it wasn't successful.--Werdan7T @ 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look in your image at numbers 7, 8 and 19. The publish date shows up in numerical form. Now look at all the others that have publish dates (lets use 26 as an example). In 26, it shows up in the written-out form. According to the template directions, they should all be set as ISO 8601, which I did but only some of them are defaulting properly. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Figured it out: From the template: date: Date of publication. The ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format is recommended, and will be automatically wikilinked to enable date user preferences if used. If the whole date is known and another date format is used, it should be wikilinked (e.g., date=3 December 2007). (Note: for dates earlier than January 2, 1970, ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD automatic wikilinking will not work; instead, wikilink using 3 December 1969 format). Hope that's what you're looking for. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- YES, that's exactly what is wrong! Thank you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit for Madman Muntz
I copyedited it. Hope it's alright. Erythromycin (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Muntz
I've got to knock off for the evening, but I'll return tomorrow (Friday), and I plan to finish by noon. It's certainly an interesting article, and I'm pleased you like the results so far. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you still want me to have a look at this article you'll have to wait a bit. It could easily be a week before I get a chance. JMiall₰ 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Madman Muntz Barnstar
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award you, Nobody of Consequence, this barnstar for your excellent work on the Madman Muntz article. Most editors do not have the courage to improve their articles while at FAC, but you have significantly improved yours and you have also had the courage to consult the help of many copyeditors too. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
More Muntz
I'm done. Muntz was a fascinating character, and I enjoyed working on this article. I noticed one minor thing that I couldn't fix. It's good practice to include the specific page numbers of works like the Morton book that you cite multiple times. Otherwise, a researcher has to hunt through the whole book to find a single sentence or paragraph. Best of luck with the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the barnstar. I appreciate it, and I wish you the best with Muntz and all future endeavors. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Dahl
Hey, looks really good. I haven't had too much time to work on it lately. I'll hopefully get around to it soon. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
