User talk:WinterSpw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, WinterSpw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User:Jimfbleak

Hi, on every edit page it says Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You therefore need to provide a reference so that the content of your article can be verified and checked that it meets the notability guidelines. Jimfbleak. Talk to me.16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Minor edits

Yeah, I know that I don't "need" to spend the time making minor edits to articles; in reality, I figure I don't "need" to make any edits at all. But my theory is that every minor edit I make helps an article move that much closer to GA or FA status. If me moving an "s" outside some brackets allows someone using AWB to more efficiently or effectively search articles, it might make a big difference in the end product, just as an example. It's the reason I identify myself as a WikiGnome - I don't make minor edits instead of major ones, but I'm perfectly content to make fifty minors on the way to a larger change. PaladinWhite 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 edits

What? Is there some new rule about how many edits I can make that I don't know about? If there is, feel free to post the link.--Zxcvbnm 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could just use the (cur) button next to my first edit instead to identify all my edits at once. No need to go around telling people to stop editing.--Zxcvbnm 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, I didn't know what it was either until recently. "cur" is short for "current," which means it compares that edit with the current one.--Zxcvbnm 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] magic number 7

I just noticed that you made some changes to the The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two article. We really need to improve that article with some reliable sources. I've added fact tags to that last section. A pdf is linked from the external links that supports most of those claims but the it is not a reliable source. It would be great to find the actual research papers that make those claims and cite them directly. ----Action potential t c 04:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is thoroughbred a proper noun?

Why is thoroughbred, or should I say "Thoroughbred", a proper noun? Just curious. WinterSpw 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a proper noun referring to a breed of horse, just like Morgan, Appaloosa, etc... My citation on this is the article on Thoroughbreds at the International museum of the horse: http://www.imh.org/museum/breeds.php?pageid=8&breed=94&alpha=Five Note the name is ALWAYS capitalized. It is incorrect to refer to a purebred animal as a "thoroughbred" [sic], the term is only to be used to describe the Thoroughbred horse. Very common error, though, especially among non-horse people. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, any use related to horses must be capitalized...a "throughbred Morgan" is a horse that is half Morgan, half Thoroughbred, NOT a purebred Morgan. Misuse of "thoroughbred" is one of those many examples of sloppy language becoming so commonplace that no one remembers what is correct. But, I will also note that the Thoroughbred breed was one of the first written Breed registries in the world, so it is understandable that the term "Thoroughbred" instead of "purebred" has sort of gotten to be like "Kleenex" for "facial tissue" This dictionary link explains it: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA905&lpg=RA3-PA905&dq=purebred+of+thoroughbred&source=web&ots=nXyQjlv408&sig=ReocOrbnIwJ8ZyJV-z9rivrLD5U —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bounding overwatch

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bounding overwatch, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bounding Overwatch. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

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 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was merely moving the context from Bounding Overwatch to Bounding overwatch.. WinterSpw 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  07:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's another handy feature -- and all free! ;-) -- But|seriously|folks  21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rome: Total War

Oh thank you so much, I didn't know how to revert all those edits at once. :) Mallerd 18:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To revert multiple edits at once, you have to click on the green bullets next to the two edits that contain the vandalized context and then click on the upper button that says "Compare selected versions". Once you have done all that, Wikipedia will be able to allow you to undo those edits. Hope this helps! WinterSpw 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Revert to Freelancer

I noticed that you reverted my work on Freelancer (computer game). Since I wish to better myself, and because I would like to avert a potential revert war, I would like to know what I did wrong, so as to not make that mistake in my next attempt. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Responded again. Thank you for you pantience. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Responded again. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Found someone. Details on my talk page. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Heh couldn't help but fix your grammar" -WinterSpw

Thanks, I ususally don't care if someone corrects spelling or grammar. I know certainly that I don't know all of the formal rules of grammar, so I take it on good faith that any edit for spelling or grammar is justified... unless it turns the sentence into nonsense, or changes the meaning. Again, thanks! --Puellanivis (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol no problem, but uhm, which article are we talking about? =P WinterSpw (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yea I fixed some misspellings on your userpage. It was pretty minor, but it was pretty distracting to me. Heh I couldn't help but fix it lol. =D WinterSpw (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed the title again, because I intended it to be a quote. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol. WinterSpw (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert (sniper)

My revert was because you blatantly copy and pasted copyrighted material onto a wikipedia page; which is clearly against policy (not to mention the law). So yes...when you do that I can just revert your entire edit. Batman2005 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I didn't copy and paste, I was reverting some vandalism when I came across this 'Etymology' section that was just deleted altogether along with references. I quickly assumed it was the work of vandals and took the liberty of reverting it. You knew the reference that the text came from, so why didn't you put them on the text? What are references for? They are used to check up on the validity of the text, so you should have cited the text yourself without me having to do it. You can't just go and delete an entire 'Etymology' section because you knew where most of the text came from, and you would be stripping people of their knowledge by deleting that whole thing. I personally did not know where the term 'sniper' originated from, so just cite it if you think it's plagiarism. Thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Lifting the entire text from a page, putting it on wikipedia, and then citing it to that page unchanged IS still against the "no copyright" policy. The common practice on this project, to avoid legal trouble, is to immediately delete potions (or all of pages) that are copyrighted material. That's what I did. I'm sorry it ruffled your feathers, but that's just the way it is. If you didn't originally put it there...fine, then I'm not sure why you're getting all hot and bothered by it. Batman2005 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spogs

They are the bobbly ones out of liquorice allsorts but (I dunno maybe its specific to Yorkshire) its used as a generic term for sweets aswell. Joe p15 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert in Limited liability company

Your (canned) note to me claimed I removed content from the article, though I did no such thing. The "i.e." as used in that bullet point was wrong. If you don't like my change, feel free (obviously) to go with something else. But don't revert the article to a grammatically worse version, especially not if your primary complaint is that I didn't detail the change in the "edit summary" box. (I assume you are in fact examining the changes made, rather than automatically reverting changes without an edit summary.)

Since I do not have a Wikipedia acct, you can reach me at Yahoo - the username is YashaNNNN, where NNNN is the year of the first manned moon landing. (Please don't send another cut & paste note.) 98.199.120.129 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to "Limited liability company". However, you changed "(i.e., see Virginia and Delaware LLC Acts)" to "(q.v. Virginia and Delaware LLC Acts)" without giving a coherent reason in the "Edit summary". I don't know what q.v. is, and neither will most people, so I reverted it. If you see my userpage (User:WinterSpw), it says in the first subsection, first line, "Important: If you're going to edit an article, always remember to give a reason for the edit; otherwise it will be assumed to be unsourced and may get reverted." Thanks again. WinterSpw (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't check your user page before making the first change. The very first line of said page is your claim that you fix (i.a.) "grammatically incorrect ... articles." But if you "don't know what q.v. is," how do you know whether it's correct? Do you go around reverting other changes just because -you- don't know what they mean? The ironic thing of course is that you could check WP for q.v. (and be redirected to the page for Latin expressions). But that's OK - I went back and dumbed down the LLC change - I even included a summary. And yeah, I am being a total jerk about this... but don't present yourself as a grammar maven if you're not one. Speaking of which, why didn't you fix the incorrect use of i.e. in the first place? Didn't you see it was wrong, or are you simply more hung up on reverting changes without edit summaries? That i.e. error was part of the article at the time of your first revisions, which pre-date mine by at least a week.  :-) And with that, I will leave you with the last word. -Yasha PS. You will also find i.a. on the Latin expressions list. 98.199.120.129 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section names

The standard name in Wikipedia for a section with mixed inline citation refs and notes is ==Notes and citations== and the standard name for an alphabetical list of sourced uses is ==References==. --mav (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of pages have bits of it, but Wikipedia:Citing sources is a good place to start. --mav (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of most expensive things

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of most expensive things, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive things. Thank you.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disambiguous The Sniper (disambiguation page)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Sniper (disambiguation page), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Sniper (disambiguation page) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Sniper (disambiguation page), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for creating War of the Rats

You're welcome! It does sound like a very interesting story! Winnifred-Ian-Leonard-Harry-Ellen-Lucy-Marilyn-Ingrid-Nora-Amanda Walter-Ira-Lauren-Lalla (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] response to Emperor Yazdegerd III's death

yes, i read through the article by Frank Wong, Pirooz in China at [1]. you can read it at the first line. thank goodness i got the response quickly though because the usage on wikipedia article editing is complicated. Xmlv (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

so, the reference is approved? that's good. I was saying that it's not easy to use wikipedia using the advanced tools. i could only know how to use the tools in the article editing page. by the time you read this, i had signed in already. Xmlv (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
actually, it's the difficulty of making use of the wikipedia tools like create an article, linking different languages of articles, needing verifications of photos and so on. i tried to find a communication channel directly to the wikipedia management giving the feedback that it is not user-friendly to the user like me; the complexity nature of the wikipedia. Xmlv (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

.... not being user-friendly in the sense that the wikipedia is being complex. let me give you a scenario, there was one time i wanted to create an article about history. as a first timer, i found that i had to read through all those articles only about manipulating article which i knew i had to spend hours or days to do it. so, i gave up.

because of that, i'm not so happy on how wikipedia arranged the tutorial to the beginners. i just wanted to know how to simply create an article, get picture verification, upload picture, the availability of tools on the page of article editing. if you studied IT before, it's like concept of being use-friendly of a software. graphical, simplicity, availability and of course friendly.
Xmlv (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS George Washington revert

You'll notice from reviewing my contribs, that I reverted that edit not for grammar but for unsourced information, as evidenced by the warning I left on the talk page of the IP that made the edit. Perhaps I should have used twinkle instead of rollback, but still, unsourced information doesn't belong. -MBK004 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)