User talk:Jnestorius/2007

This is an archive of past discussions with Jnestorius. 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.

2007

All Pages:

... (up to 100)

Nice work on the article: thanks for the refs! Snoutwood 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do it? I read that there is a page to click on to but I cant find it --Vintagekits 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was the right thing to do, and I can't believe people even got that wrong! But I understand what you're saying, and I should do it the legal way. I suppose if it's the right thing, it's definitely going to happen, but you know how pathetic it can be sometimes with justice, and when justice ain't done, it does really take the piss, and I'm sure we can all agree on that! MAZITO - Saturday, 27 January, 2007; 23:04 (GMT)

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, impressive in terms of both rapidity and professionalism. Itsmejudith 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although no-one has actually expressed opposition, and it might have been better if some note had been put on the talk page where it is appropriate. Sam Blacketer 09:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, not everyone watches every relevant page, which can cause discussions to be missed or duplicated rather than cross-posted. I think when adding a point to a given WP: page, it's always wise to check that page's Talk: page. jnestorius^(talk) 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that error. I've removed the incorrect entry from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos and will include a note about formatting cleanup in my edit summaries (I'm just using the WP:AWB standard options there). Rjwilmsi

Nice example for "full stop" versus "period". Much clearer than the previous example! Cyg-nifier 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my mistakes on the article Billion. I don't quite understand what I would move. Also, before I make the move, I asked the community for it's opinions on the talk page. Sorry. --Random ^{Say it here!} 00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request and a question. First, am I write in thinking that if there was a consensus on the subject and I moved the page, I would move it like this. First I would go to the page Billion and move it to Billion (disambiguation). Then, I would go back to Billion and add the redirect? Secondly, I would appreciate if you would take a look at what I have done so far on Wikipedia, and evaluate me? Thanks for your time. --Random ^{Say it here!} 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving: first off, read Help:Moving a page. The procedure would be:

1. Open Billion, select Move, and pick new name Billion (disambiguation). This moves the page and its edit history and its Talk page and its Talk page's edit history to the new name. It automatically creates a new page with the old name "Billion" which redirects to the newly-moved page.

   In this particular case, the target page "Billion (disambiguation)" already exists, so only an administrator can complete the move, as it would require the old target page to be deleted first. This would be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

2. Open (the new) Billion, and edit it to be a redirect to 1000000000 (number).
3. Open Billion, select What links here.
   • You would have to check all the pages that link to "Billion" to see whether it is appropriate that they link 1000000000 (number); some might need to be edited to link to Billion (disambiguation) instead. (Long and short scales is one that should be edited.)
   • If there are any double redirects, change them to redirect straight to 1000000000 (number) instead of through Billion

Evaluation: I don't mind giving you some feedback when I have a bit of time; however, I'm likely to be fairly inactive on Wikipedia for the next week or so (pesky Real World :) jnestorius^(talk) 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I am still waiting for some feedback on the subject of redirecting the article & such. Hope you have a nice break, and I can't wait till you get back so you can review me. --Random ^{Say it here!} 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jnestorius. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FAINos.gif) was found at the following location: User:Jnestorius/Republic of Ireland national football team. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sin bin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sin bin provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sin bin, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why this message arrived. I have constructed a possible sequence of events. Make of it what you will:

1. I discover there is no page sin bin, although there is Sin Bin which redirects to Penalty box. This is adequate for entering "sin bin" in the search-box but not for embedded wikilinks [[sin bin]].
2. I add sin bin as a redirect to penalty box. Problem solved. Wikipedia is improved. Time passes.
3. Much later, some joker replaces this redirect in sin bin with text "Also known as the Fitz Sin Bin"
4. Some time later, somebody adds a speedydelete tag to the nonsense, without checking the article history for a previous good version.
5. Some time later, User:BorgQueen deletes the page, without double-checking the article history.
6. Some nearby time (how does this bot work?), a message is left at my userpage because I created the page, even though I didn't produce the offending version.

I don't know whether this reconstruction is accurate, but it's the most plausible I can think of. There may be lessons here for User:Android Mouse Bot 2, User:BorgQueen, and whoever added the speedydelete tag (not being an admin, I can't identify this last User).

BTW, I've recreated sin bin. jnestorius^(talk) 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is no need to overreact. If you are aware of the sheer number of nonsense articles we admins have to delete every hour, you will understand why admins, being mere mortals, aren't perfect. (And neither will you if you happen to become an admin someday) And it wasn't even a regular article but a redirect page. You re-created it, and the problem has been solved. As for the warning placed on your talk page generated by an automatic bot - you are quite welcome to delete it since it clearly has been misplaced by the bot. Enjoy wikipedia! --BorgQueen 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen: I guess my comments read like a complaint. I'm sorry, that's not how they were intended. "There may be lessons here" was intended not as a sarcastic scolding, but a sincere suggestion. I don't know the intricacies of handling deletions; I thought the Bot might be malfunctioning; my comments were mainly intended for its controller, who might be able to fix the malfunction. Notifying you was an aside. You are correct that in this instance the problem was easily fixed by recreating the redirect; with an article with a long edit-history an undelete might be more tedious (Maybe not: I don't know, I'm not an admin: I have enough of an inkling of the drudgery involved never to want to do be one.) I'm still not sure of my analysis of the situation, but if you're not worried then neither am I. Peace, jnestorius^(talk) 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent change to Daylight saving time. This caused me to look to the original citation again and I found that your doubts about calling "daylight saving" a compound adjective were justified. I changed the text to match the citation. Eubulides 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Of course, I know the MOS advice on this matter. My opinion was that the dabpage was unnecessary as only one of the things listed there is actually called "Britain", so I moved it to Britain (disambiguation) and I wanted to redirect Britain to Great Britain and place a hatnote there, but I forgot, sorry for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Would you agree that the latter option is more appropriate for this article? SalaSkan 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. It is simply not true that only one of the things listed there is actually called "Britain". Check out "Britain" in various dictionaries and encyclopedias: some define it as "island of Great Britain"; some favour "United Kingdom"; some mention both. The articles British Isles (terminology) and British assert, correctly in my opinion, that both senses are current. The Britain article must be consistent with the other articles. Above all, read the Talk page; and note the section Talk:Britain#Request to Redirect: Britain to Great Britain from a year ago. jnestorius^(talk) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For catching my mistake in English respelling. I got distracted with making that disambiguation page and forgo to make the link properly... Circeus 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Rawls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed to the consensus made on the 'Volunteer' mediation discussion earlier this year here. However, some editors believe that a new consensus has been established where "IRA volunteer" is used without the initial mention of "IRA member". Although no discussion has taken place, they feel that because articles were changed from the format of "IRA member (volunteer)" to simply "IRA volunteer" and were not subsequently reverted for several months (until noticed by myself and another user), that this therefore establishes it as the new consensus and that the mediation ruling is now defunct. You can see discussions of this here,here, here. As a party involved in this discussion previously, your commentis valuable, and so it would be apprreciated if you could make any comment you might have here if you have one. Regards. Logoistic 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that Miss Rawls lost her second given name after her marriage with Mr. Thompson. And I don't think, that this needs any evidence. Anyway, the bigger problem is, that her DoB is not June 28, 1917, the correct DoB is June 14, 1918. See: [2], [3], [4], and [5] Thanks and :) Doma-w 00:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in updating this article. The twisitng tower design has been scrapped altogether. It's now a 180m tower. article and picture. Wiki01916 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this. I am a Brit who went to work in the US with cardiologists (I am not one myself) and was startled to find the word uniformly pronounced "ANGina" not "angIna". I never heard a US person use the British pronounciation. I haven't got that episode of the Simpsons, nor have I heard of "The Angina Monologues". Your link to "The Vagina Monologues doesn't seem to shed any light - but any facetious use could be suspected of changing the pronunciation for the sake of the joke Rachel Pearce 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find onelook useful for comparing dictionaries. Both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster give both pronunciations, with the Brit-compatible one first. There's a lag between dictionary updates and current usage, so I can believe your first-hand evidence that ANGina is now more usual; the article's current qualification that both pronunciations occur seems about right to me. PS: "The Angina Monologues" was just a sight-gag in that Simpsons episode, which I listed more because I thought it was funny than as actual evidence. Thanks, jnestorius^(talk) 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting about the pronunciations in the dictionaries. I suppose my experience is rather bias(s)ed - maybe cardiologists (or specialists of any kind in any subject) are much more likely to use uniform pronunciations of the terms in their specialist vocabulary, whereas the "general public" (which is what this article is about) may use the terms with a wider range of pronunciations. PS Finally I get it about the Simpsons joke, sorry to be so dimwitted. Now you mention it I even think I did see that episode! Rachel Pearce 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you give me some more information about what you think is POV in the relevant section of this article?

Thanks,

Rosmoran 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably use your expertise here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Ireland, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, I've reverted your edits to the NI team, as a rule you are right to avoid duplication, but Im not convinced that the Ireland article is sufficiently coherent to merit a content removal from the main article and replacement with a link, It does have some excellent content but some of it's the wording is quite dubious. I have put a comment on the talk page along these lines. Fasach Nua 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]