User talk:TinyMark/Archive 2

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.

Contents 1 Blanking talk page 2 Punctuation 3 Anticipation 4 Kingham Hill School 5 "German Wikipedia is not a valid source for references"? 6 Mr. T 7 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 8 The Matrix 9 You Tube links 10 December 2007 11 Whoops 12 Fifth Element 13 camels 14 Sorry about that 15 a note re: dates 16 Patriot Games 17 Order of the Chrysanthemum 18 Presumably accidental deletion of content in Rabbit 19 BLESSED FRANCIS XAVIER SEELOS 20 Keeping Up Appearances 21 Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards 22 Table layout 23 Thanks 24 Existenz 25 Life on Mars 26 Cornelia Funke 26.1 Wilde Hühner / Wild Chick(en)s 27 Idioma-bot 28 Courage (brewery) 29 Reverts on NS Germany page= 30 New Message 31 Re: FYI 32 Gilding 33 WikiProject Germany Invitation 34 Re: The Bank Job 35 Flagicon removal 36 You Have Been Ban- Smiled! 37 Helicopter escape 38 Kangaroo 39 AfD nomination of Spring Break '83

Blanking talk page

Agreed. You cannot blank your talk page if there are warnings regarding disruptive behavior. You can removed nonsense but not warnings. 128.241.46.232 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I thought the problem was resolved anyway. TinyMark 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove content from your talk page.

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

(Per content guidelines.)

Mdbrownmsw 15:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

There are two systems. Use whichever you find comfortable, but be consistent within any given article. Unfortunately, WP:MOS has a handful of editors with strong and unwarranted feelings on the subject. Ignore them, as you would ignore any other Wiki-bullies; they are not consensus; and, despite their high opinion of themselves, they have no more authority than any small congeries of opinionated editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Its amazing, I'm mentally exhausted after my little edit war. What I was trying to preach to these people was "live and let live". All I wanted to do was add one small nugget of information and got a "slap in the face". As you saw from my slight rant on WP:MOS and also here, all I want is for everyone to accept that others grew up and were taught in different countries/cultures/times and that mutual respect for each other is a prerequisite for working with Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sure their critical attention couldbe well put to use on the many articles containing substandard text from non-native speakers.

Thanks again for your comment. I really needed it ;-)TinyMark 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You will probably find WP:PRO an appealing approach to these matters; I know I did. (It deals with process, but guidelines are quite similar.) Unfortunately, WP:MOS draws a high percentage of editors who want to reform the English language to their taste; and an interpretation of "live and let live" as "Do it this way, or you're being culturally insensitive!" is all too common (and not unknown elsewhere on Wikipedia). I suppose it all instills a feeling of virtue; this may well be a pleasant substitute for actual political activism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anticipation

Thanks for the quick copyedit. I attribute the errors to an overly-generous sampling of the product during my "research" :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kingham Hill School

greeting from fellow alumni. Yes, I agree, I don't know why severn even involved in that sentence. That's why I removed it. :) --w_tanoto 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"German Wikipedia is not a valid source for references"?

On 11 November 2007 you edited the article Thomas Mann. You comented "The German Wikipedia is not a valid source for references." Why do you say that? Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline to this effect? -- 201.53.4.206 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see here for details. It states that wikis (in general) are unreliable sources, but can be used to locate (find) valid references. Thus, if the German Wikipedia article contains a reference for this point or statement the refence from the German Wikipedia should be used, but only if there is no comparable English refence available. In this case, the German Wikipedia article does not cite a source for this statement. In fact, both the English and German versions are seriously lacking in sourced material.

If you look at my changes you will see that I made the effort to cite a valid source in English - which was not hard to find. Grüße TinyMark 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. T

Blah. I double-checked it in preview and after making the edit to make sure it wouldn't throw off any formatting, but didn't consider how it would look in the Monobook skin (I still use Classic). Perhaps it could be moved to the bottom of the list? Situated as it is in the middle of the links, it leaves a blank line (At least for my skin). --Xanzzibar (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Little Nicky (film) Lists of films Brian Yuzna Flush toilet Isle of Jura Single Malt Grant Fox Blended whiskey Glenfiddich Food and Drink Awards Royal Brackla Speyside Single Malts Assault on Precinct 13 (2005 film) St. James's Gate Brewery Scapa Lauren Phoenix White Chicks Arran Single Malt Dirty Love FV438 Swingfire Bridgette Kerkove

Cleanup Mr. Deeds Scrum (rugby) Merchant du Vin Merge Diageo Murphy's Brewery Murphy's Add Sources Wee dram Black and Tan Campbeltown Single Malts Wikify Mr. Marcus Dude, Where's My Car? Sigrid Undset Expand Die Hard 2 Stuart Gordon Planet of the Apes (1968 film)

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 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Matrix

Please understand full date linking is perfectly fine. Something like January 1, 2005 is fine to link, but January 1 or 2005 on their own isn't. Alientraveller 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSDATE, it should help you understand the situation better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You Tube links

In response,

In general when linking to a site such as You Tube, which can contain multi-topic varied content, it is recommended to link to a specific 'legitimate' clip, which is within the context of the topic the article concerned is about. (The same would be true of linking to a newspaper site, where the context is a specific article, the specific article is linked not the main page of the newspaper)

Linking to the main page of You Tube would thus be appropriate from say an article like You Tube or Video clip sites because the context is the site/service concerned. It would be less appropriate from say Oasis because the context of the link would likley to be a specfic clip as opposed to You Tube generally.

In some places, where there was a link to the youtube.com main page, the external link was replaced by an internal link to the Wikipedia You Tube article. This is felt to be a better approach, and is one I have used in places.

However, where there was no specific reason apparent for including a link to You Tube from the context of the article, the links were removed entirely, in the interests of tidying up external links sections.

I know this may not be 'official policy' but it does help tidy up articles...

Many thanks for removing any copyvios, though :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

When you reverted me in Elephant, you deleted a valid link to another language Wikipedia, which I had restored in the previous edit. Judging by your edit summary, and knowing how mistakes can be made (I've done it), I'm assuming you thought you were restoring the link. -- Donald Albury 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake ;-) TINYMark (Talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry! I sporadically do check but I should make it more of a routine when reverting. Thank you for reminding me :) Have a nice day! Nengscoz416 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fifth Element

I was considering reverting that book reference myself; it seems that it exists, but only in an overseas (i.e. European) edition, and would probably not have an ISBN. Googling it produced only 7 references, some of those as a collectors' item, so I guess it would not be regarded as a verifiable source. However, I think the comparison is worthy of retention, if it can be sourced. Any ideas? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Loooks like a pseudo-ref to me! I'll have a look around. Maybe it's only available in French (Besson's English never struck me a good). Perhaps it's from a special edition DVD package. I spent ages trying to find out if "Laureline" is the correct spelling (seems Anglicised" to me), but to no avail! At least there is an article for it now. TINYMark (Talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

camels

camels article origins section is unsourced , if you are fimilar with wikipedia, unsourced material can be removed at anytime and i had rasied the issue already in the disscusion article a while back,now if you can find a "legitimate" source that says camels originate from africa you may change it back until than if you revert my change once more you will recevie a edit war warning and after that you could be blocked--Mikmik2953 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, would you please slow down. I reverted it once. That does not constitute edit warring. I reverted it because the text has been the same for so long - albeit unsourced. Now I would say to introduce your change would require a source. In particular, after looking at your user page, where your state "This user recognizes the importance of citing sources"! Anyway there is a difference between removing unsourced material and simply changing it.

Perhaps you are confused? I did one revert and then two edits where I changed soomething else and provided a source. The problem is that nobody knows whether the previous statement or your statement is true - no sources :-( Regards TINYMark (Talk) 08:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i did not add to the article i just removed the unsourced material.Have a great wikipedia experiance--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Es tut mir leid dass ich habe dir früher gestorrt. Auch für meinen schrecklicken deutsch. --John (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keine Bange ;-) TINYMARK 07:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

a note re: dates

Earlier today you removed a comma between the month and year in a date. These are actually supposed to be there - if someone has their dates set to month-day-year the comma will be visible, but if they have their dates set to day-month-year the comma disappears. Natalie (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According the MoS, here and here, a comma is only used in the American format, separating the day and year (either "January 21, 2008" or "21 January 2008"). As far as the functionality is concerned, I have no idea but I suspect that it is parsed with or without the comma!

Unfortunately, that article is a complete mess, heavily biased and the date formatting is not consistent. Greetings TINYMARK 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what the MOS says and I'm aware that DMY doesn't use a comma. My point is that it doesn't really matter how something looks in the edit screen, as long as it has the month, the day, the year, and a comma between the year and the rest of it. The date preferences set it no matter what. They actually will not add a comma if one doesn't appear in the edit window - I checked last night. I have no idea why this is, but for some reason it is. Anyway, someone rearranged the order so the comma doesn't look so odd in the edit window. I don't especially care about that but if others do than that seems like a good solution. Natalie (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After a couple of experiments, I found out that it doesn't matter whether the comma is there or not. Even with "no preference" selected the comma is removed for the "British" format. Of course, this only applies to linked dates, which leads me to question whether we should link every single date in an article ;-) TINYMARK 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, when I checked on my userpage, the comma was not added if it wasn't typed in the edit window. Not sure why that's happening. Natalie (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The comma should not be added for the "Commonwealth" format. I created this to test it. If preferences are set all three appear correctly (the same), if not the first two are without a comma (as it should be) and the third with a comma (as it's in American format). TINYMARK 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very strange. When I tested it myself, the date that appeared as [[21 January]] [[2008]] in my edit window did not get a comma when I changed the preferences. I'm not sure why that happened, but it did work when I tested it on the page you made. Natalie (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriot Games

Hi, I've reverted the revert(?!) you did to the Patriot Games. I can't believe that you don't think that Bergin and Bean had a major role in the film. Indeed, they actually have more screen time than Anne Archer. Thora Birch has a large enough part to be included in the infobox as does James Earl Jones (who appears in the other two infoboxes). The dynamics of Richard Harris's and James Fox's parts move the story along (a la Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love). In fact the infobox is probably missing actors (Hugh Fraser, Samuel L. Jackson) rather than having too many. (Quentin X (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Sorry. I've edited again (before seeing this). My point is that the infobox is there for the actors starring in the film and not a cast list, which makes the infobox too long. Obviously didn't have my thinking head on when I shortened it before. As for the James Earl Jones, maybe he shouldn't be in the other two either! If you consider the parts of Fox and Harris to be significant to the film then it should be mentioned in the text body, or not? Greetings TINYMARK 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see your Fox,Harris and Jones and raise you a Bergin(?) (Quentin X (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

You're on ;-) Unfortunately I messed it up a bit and we had two Bergins, one of which was replaced by Anne Archer, who really doesn't have much of a role in this film (definately a more important one in Clear and Present Danger). TINYMARK 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Chrysanthemum

Your message really struck a fine chord. I didn't laugh really -- more of a chuckle, I suppose. Please scan my contributions in a similar vein: (a) Order of the Rising Sun, (b) Order of the Sacred Treasure, (c) Order of the Golden Kite. I guess I didn't give a thought to the fact that someone might respond as you did.

As it happens, my primary focus is on an more complicated, multi-month project having to do with pre-Meiji historiography; but sometimes I feel like taking a break. There are a number of little projects like this one which work nicely when my time is limited, or when my ability to focus is a little bit compromised. Eventually, I plan to find a specific citation for each name on the evolving lists of those who've received Japanese honors ... ergo, my previously unstated expectation that two columns will make more sense in due course. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, more than one column for any article is going ot look messy (unless you have a resolution of greater than, say, 3000 pixels). A lot of articles with just one column have references that take up more than one line, and almost all have references that extend more than halfway across the page (at res. 1280). Happy editing TINYMARK 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably accidental deletion of content in Rabbit

I have restored my edit which you presumably accidentally deleted in this edit (rm blog and duplicate sites). Feel free to discuss this if you like. If you followup, perhaps you could comment here to keep the thread of conversation in one place. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! It wasn't my intention to delete that text as well, sorry ;-) TINYMARK 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Good call on the blog stuff... - Neparis (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BLESSED FRANCIS XAVIER SEELOS

                             Thank you for correcting this article.I am still

trying to find the reference about titles not being bestowed before they have been given.It would be helpful for future edits if you could direct me to the exact part as I couldnot find it on the page you mentioned and with 6 young children to look after I am short of time.Thank you for your help and positive attitude in this Rosenthalenglish (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look here, although there is no specific information on religious titles. He was born Francis Xavier Seelos and references to his early life would be as "Seelos". Later he was Father Francis Xavier Seelos and would be referenced as "Father Seelos". "In 1851 Father Seelos was appointed superior of the Pittsburg community...", from The Catholic Encyclopedia makes this, hopefully, clear—his title is that as he was known by at the time of his life mentioned.

P. S. Does "Seelos" mean without soul ???? Happy editing TINYMARK 11:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that.You make an important point.Although the article on Blessed Seelos is out of date I decided to look up some books about him and your use of titles is correct.We learn something everyday.Thank you for bringing this to my attention.You ask a very interesting question.My wife who is Deutsch says the word has no meaning.I mentioned that in the past many were called by their profession.She agrees that Seele is soul and Los is without!or LOT! so could mean lot of the soul!.We are looking into it and will try and get you the correct answer Rosenthalenglish (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was rhetorical! While a lot of German names do have a meaning, many others don't or have really silly meanings, i.e. Wichser, Kreideweiß, and I once had a student called Erbenich (inherits nothing)! Los doesn't have all the same meanings of "lot" in English but, in this case, it could mean "fate" (as in; "are you happy with your lot?"). "A Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" ;-) TINYMARK 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Up Appearances

Hi, I’m an editor of the Keeping Up Appearances pages. I just wanted a second opinion. You see, user “Updown” believes the layout of paragraphs before the episode tables on the episode page is better, than my idea of bullet pointing the important information like this:

• Network: BBC 1
• Number of episodes: 44
• Length of episodes: 30 minutes, unless otherwise stated.

(etc)

And then having the remaining information in a paragraph below. What do you think? If you contact me on my talk page I’d be most grateful. Thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but what I meant was the paragraph layout on the episode list. I personally think it would look better the way I’ve suggested above, because it allows users to find information quickly, at a glimpse. If you could have a quick look at the K.U.A episode list when you have time, and tell me what you think it would be most appreciated. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards

Hi. I noticed that you tagged Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards for deletion after I'd questioned its notability. An editor has removed the tag, saying they've added notable sources. I'm not sure how notable they are as sources, so do you think you could take a look at it? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Table layout

Hi, Just would like your opinion on the Keeping Up Appearances episode table layout. Do you think the old yellow tables were better than Collectonian's new format? or not? Your opinion is appreciated, thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

well, the yellow does tend to poke me in the eye;-) Are there no project guidelines for this sort of stuff? TINYMARK 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the greeting. I seem to be having trouble with multiple articles including The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards and the biography for Cameron McCasland Any help is appreciated. Joe Wallace (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry,but I predict this article is going to be deleted for numerous reasons. 1. Notabilty 2. Appears to have been (partly) written by the subject (autobiography/self promotion) 3. The "Filmography" section looks linke and external link directory. If you know this person I would strongly recommend that you distance yourself from this article. TINYMARK 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Existenz

Might be a different IP but it's still me. No worries about that. I deleted original research. Lots42 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Life on Mars

I've just seen your reversion of an edit to the Life on Mars (TV series) article where you say "No second series, for sequel see Ashes to Ashes (TV series)". This is incorrect. There certainly were two series, each of 8 episodes, broadcast on the BBC in 2006 and 2007. The part you reverted contains the broadcast date of the 2007 series in Australia. -- Arwel (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. TINYMARK 10:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cornelia Funke

What do you mean with "bad references" and "not about subject"? A writer is defined by writing, and it is important to know how and why they write stuff. The info is from Funk's own webpage, which is legit according to WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Look at the pages of Trudi Canavan, Marion Zimmer Bradley or Chris Paolini, they also contain much info about how they write books. BTW, I have written 2 featured articles and 18 good ones, I know what I am writing about. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some writers are defined by how they write and other by what they write. The bad references would not be bad if there were more independent references. I see you have now rectified this. And I see you have added a lot more to the article. There was just too much emphasis given to her ideas on writing compared to the rest of the article. Perhaps the section should be called "On her writing". She is not known as a great writer (hard to tell in English), but known as a writer of great stories! Wouldn't it be better to reference simply http://www.corneliafunke.de/en/questions/ rather than inflating the list with the individual questions? I reverted because I assumed that your edit was a stand-alone change. The article looks a lot better now, but did you ever think of using the {{inuse}} template? By the way, I spent a lot of time de-Germanising this article. Anyway, happy editing TINYMARK 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. It was a stand alone edit indeed, I was just in the progress of writing her "bio" section and suddenly, the "on writing" section was gone. I will add more veriafiable and hopefully relevant info as time progresses. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilde Hühner / Wild Chick(en)s

Yes, it has been translated into "Wild Chicks", not "Wild Chickens". [1], you can also see the IMDB translations. Funke herself acknowledges it here. [2] I also find it odd, but well, it seems to be the official translation... —Onomatopoeia (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Idioma-bot

Hi. I have tried to resolve interwiki conflict between Rabbit and European Rabbit using my bot. As you see Duitch article nl:Konijn (dier) is about European rabbit (see interwiki links and latin name) so I was right this time. And there is this link from European Rabbit to Konijn (dier) (it shouldn't be same links from different articles to any wikipedia). Please be carefoul before reverting something :) Hugo.arg (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Courage (brewery)

Hi, you've just reverted my edit without explanation. Why, and why? If you read the first paragraph of "History" in the article the reason for inclusion in the category is self explanatory. The subject of the article (to judge from the contents of the remainder, and lack of other articles on the subject) is the brewery company known as Courage, not just the Courage brewery in Reading. Therefore, given the company's London origins and its presence as a brewer in London from 1787 to 1981, I would say it is perfectly reasonable to include this article in the category Category:Brewing in London. Pretty well all the other articles in this category are also historic. Pterre (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've waited 3 days for the courtesy of a reply. Do I take it you won't mind if I restore my edit? Pterre (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on NS Germany page=

Please explain why you find these edits to be POV, rather than just saying "that's POV." Give an example, because I am fairly confident that my edits neutralized the tone in both directions. Moreover, a number of the things said on the page were completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.131.205 (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New Message

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Thank you! I didn't know there was such a thing. Good idea. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilding

Please can you not revert my changes. Using, for example "iron sulphate" is preferable as opposed to "sulphate of iron." This is not about being a chemist, whcih I am not, but about using modern terminology, and ones that are much more widely regonised. Also please note the articles which these links to one to. For example the article is not "sulphate of iron" but "iron sulphate." Also the "nitre" link is to "potassium nitrate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.129 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes Wikipedia more interesting to have various forms of English-in much the same way as we have the regional variations. As far as I know, we still say bicarbonate of soda-even though this is apparently incorrect. I have never heard or seen anywhere that "Wikipedia is for the 21st century." Where is this stated? I also think the the old terms are apt at least for the section on the history of gilding.

I'm not going to revert your changes, but, if you see an edit from me, I have fixed the "framemaking" link again (which you also deleted in your enthusiasum). Greetings TINYMARK 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, TinyMark! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Bank Job

--Pixelface (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon removal

Just to let you know, I had earlier this month removed the flagicons from Drake Hogestyn and James Scott (actor). They were reverted by User:KellyAna pretty quickly so I would not be surprised if she did it again. I have been trying to discuss her reverts on her talk page only to have active discussions either archived or deleted. I hope you have better luck than I did. Aspects (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been having some connection problems today, I intended to contact you earlier. John's talk page is on my watchlist and I saw your message to him. The removal of flag icons particularly in infoboxes and especially when they have to do with people is my "tick". You asked John for some help, and I thought I'd have a look and do a revert or two before you start getting into trouble for 3RR! Greetings TINYMARK 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why they were reverted so soon after my message to John. I actually only removed the flagicons once because I did not want to get into an edit war. I thought I could explain why the flagicons were removed, but obviously I failed to do that. At least it will be nice to have someone explain it to her if needed. Thank you for helping me out. Aspects (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You Have Been Ban- Smiled!

-WarthogDemon 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! But why??? TINYMARK 23:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just random. :) Every now and then I go and give a random wiki smile to a random editor. I pick by going to Recent Changes and selecting whoever is the first blue user (who isn't a Bot) at the top. :) -WarthogDemon 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea. I first saw your username recently (I seem to be watching more userpages than articles at the moment!) Thanks TINYMARK 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Helicopter escape

Thanks and no problem. I blame myself for copying and pasting from the source without checking if they'd spelt everything correctly... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo

Just wondering why you reverted my removal of a reference link (#25) which points to a story that no longer exists on that newspapers servers (or at least it may be but if so the link is in the wrong format as it returns a database error. Doesn't seem much point in keeping non working links for references. Mfield (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia page on references states that dead links in references are not to be removed. The removal of dead external links is fine. References may be found elsewhere or fixed if they are in an Internet archive somewhere. Until such time they should remain as dead links so that, hopefully, someone will fix them (in the same way that red links tell people an article needs creating)! Greetings TINYMARK 07:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you learn a new thing every day, thanks :) Mfield (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Spring Break '83

An editor has nominated Spring Break '83, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Break '83 (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)