Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 9 December 2008

Archives

1: August 2008 – October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008

If you leave me a message here, my habit is to post a response at your talk page. If you would prefer that I respond here, just leave a note in your original message and I'll respond to you here. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

QC Twitter triviality

You reverted the section I added regarding the Twitter pages Jacques has created for his characters citing that "this is trivial until it gets covered in a 3rd-party source." By the same logic, the "Easter Eggs" section of the Dinosaur Comics page is also trivial. Are these things trivial or are they not? (I'd rather you just respond here) Matterson52 (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They might be trivial; I haven't looked into it closely. But the status of the DC article has no bearing on this; you can take a look at WP:Other stuff exists for an essay regarding this kind of comparison.

But please don't go and delete information from the DC article to prove a point. If you believe the Twitter information should be included in the QC article, the best way to go about it is to start a thread at the discussion page. —Politizer /_contribs 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to take into account is that the Dinosaur Comics easter eggs have been around for many years and are pretty commonly known part of the comic (I don't have a source handy for this, but I would venture to guess that a large number of DC readers read the easter eggs just as religiously as they read the comic itself), whereas Jacques only started doing the twitter thing a few days ago—there's no way to gauge how long it will be around, how significant it will be, or how much it will be seen as an integral part of the comic. —Politizer /_contribs 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lee-hom Wang

thanks Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Actually I made the edit because I'm trying to keep searches for Alexander Wang the designer from redirecting to Lee-Hom Wang. Any ideas how? Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Thanks for getting back to me!! Good point about the chinese/american name dilemma but I definitely think the designer will get a lot of searches as he's getting more well known. is there some way we could get a page where it lists both links when you search Alexander Wang? Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Marmaduke

Hello. You have repeatedly changed my edits to the Marmaduke page to not include an entry I wrote about a relatively popular blog named Marmaduke Explained, which is viewed by many people and is very relative to the topic of Marmaduke. I find it truly unfortunate that although I took the time to include a link to the blog as well as information about its content that you did not bother to check it, but rather mark it as insignificant and delete my posting. I do not mean to be antagonistic, despite deleting all your information, but I was frustrated by the ridiculous hierarchy here on what is supposed to be a website which is editable by all who visit it. Of course, I understand the neccessity of preventing spam, but this is one of my only contributions to this website (despite my joking creation of a page about a friend of mine) and I would appreciate it if my addition was not lost to backwoods, clusterfucked internet bureaucracy. I assure you that my posting is not spam, but it extends beyond your myopic view of what should and should not be posted on the Marmaduke widipedia page. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and after all, who are you to dictate what knowledge reaches people? I have included a link in my posting, and have kept this posting for several months previously before it was deleted. I know my actions subsequent to the edit were fairly childish, however I enjoy wikipedia and its spirit of democracy, and wish that you would not crush it with some bizarre ego trip that involves maintaining the integrity of the Marmaduke page.

Thank you,

Yournumbertwofan (talk)

As additional information, I have provided the following links to website which expound upon or make reference to the content of the blog I mentioned in my post:

• http://roflcon.org/2008/04/26/bonus-rofls-joe-mathlete-marmaduke-explained/
• http://www.lesjones.com/posts/005176.shtml blog
• http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1723880 only minimal mention
• http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/12/marmaduke_expla.html blog
• http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D216520%2526a%253D216536%2526po%253D62,00.asp?p=y
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6153865
• http://roflcon.org/2007/12/20/breaking-news-joe-mathlete-of-marmaduke-explained-at-roflcon/

My assertion was not that "alot of people read the blog" but that it is a relatively popular blog, meaning that it is popular enough to garner articles on the websites of Collegehumor, PCmag, and NPR. I apologize if a simple checking of blog hits is not enough to endow something with the long coveted "notable" status which you so graciously endow. You misquote me further: I did not call Misplaced Pages a "clusterfucked internet bureaucracy." I was referring to the system which allows certain users to override others simply based on their own personal experience, without any further insight. Listen, I understand that you do have to prevent spam on this website. I know that anyone could come in here and edit the page of a noted dignitary or president to say "FUCK FUCK BBOOOBIES POOP", but my posting was relevant enough to instigate investigation and your deletion of it amounts to an ego trip in that it simply regards the information I posted as irrelevant, despite the fact that my previous posting of it on this website lasted for months before being taken down. I assure you, I am not trying to spam up or fill the already expansive page about Marmaduke with misinformation. I simply want to let people know about a blog I enjoy which is critical of Marmaduke. I am acting in extremely good faith, and have all the freedom to call the levels of bureaucracy on wikipedia a "clusterfuck" and to call your edits an "ego trip." God forbid I should question your authority on the subject. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to condescend me.

Thank you,

yournumbertwofan

Good lord. I mentioned the clusterfucked bureaucracy but I did not anticipate your adherence to it. You deleted my post and it was regarded as "vandalism" when I tried to repost it. One of the editors which removed my information was on trial for being a bot. I'm not sure what "edit war" you are referring to, other than my own additions to your page, which you state at the top that you welcome. Your immediate removal of my edit was very suspicious to me, as it seemed pretty authoritative. Are you on the edits to Marmaduke subscription list? I don't understand. I do not think I am acting like a child. If childish behavior to you is using bad language, then call me a a child I suppose. I did not call you any personal names and only referred to what I thought of as a hierarchy on Misplaced Pages as a "clusterfucked bureaucracy." I can call your edits an ego trip, which they increasingly seem to be, as you want to talk to me like I am a child, even calling me "childish". It seems as if you didn't even consider the several links I included in my last post, inculding NPR. I am trying to tell you that I made a reasonable edit to a page, one that I made before and which lasted several months before I noticed it was gone tonight. You assertion that "I am willing to bet no one will show you more sympathy than I will" is further proof that this process is an ego trip for you. If users are all equal, than I would prefer it if you left me alone. My edit is not inflammatory, and included a link to the website. If needs be, I can include all of the links I provided on your page if that is enough to validate my claim that marmaduke explained is a relatively popular blog. If all users are equal, then why does your designation of my writing as "non-notable" brand me with vandalism when I attempt to re-post the content? Please explain yourself.

Thanks,

yournumbertwofan

GODDAMIT MAN LISTEN TO ME FOR ONCE JUST PLEASE READ THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND. DON'T TRY TO REFUTE ME OR NITPICK ABOUT THINGS I HAVE SAID. I HAVE PROVIDED AMPLE PROOF THAT MY POSTING WAS RELEVANT, YOU STRUCK OUT 3 OUT OF 7 OF THE WEBSITES I PROVIDED. EVEN IF YOU STRIKE OUT THE REPEAT WHICH I JUST NOTICED I HAVE PROVIDED 3 SOURCES OF PROOF, WHICH IS ENOUGH TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN A FUCKING NEWSPAPER. I SAID BEFORE THE POST HAD BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE IT WAS DELETED, AND THAT ONE OF THE THREE EDITORS YOU CITED WAS ON BOT TRIAL. PLEASE EXCUSE MY ASSAULT ON YOU AND THAT OTHER GUY, I WAS MAD THAT MY RELATIVELY INANE POST WOULD BE ASSAULTED SO QUICKLY. AGAIN, I BELIEVE YOUR HASTINESS TO INFORM ME OF THE WIKIPEDIA RULES AMOUNTS TO AN EGO TRIP, BUT HONESTLY IF YOU THINK I AM BEING AN ASSHOLE ABOUT IT PLEASE STOP TAKING IT SO PERSONALLY. YOU CALLED ME CHILDISH TWICE AFTER I USED IT ONCE. YOU REGARDED MY PREVIOUS EXPLANATION OF MY ACTIONS AS CHILDISH, WHICH I DO NOT FEEL IT WAS. WHATEVER THE FUCK AN EDIT WAR IS IS IRRELEVANT, AS I TOLD YOU MY ACTIONS AFTER THE POST WERE OUT OF FRUSTRATION. I WISH TO CONTRIBUTE WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY. I WOULD NOT TAKE TIME TO WRITE THIS BULLSHIT OTHERWISE. I HAVE EXPLAINED MYSELF TO YOU AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU QUIT ACTING THIS WAY. DESPITE YOUR IMPRESSION THAT I, A STRANGER ON THE INTERNET, THINK YOU HAVE A PATHETIC LIFE, I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS IS UNTRUE. GOOD GOD 400 PAGES?!? YOU'RE WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. I WANT TO EDIT THIS PAGE TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION WHICH I HAVE POSTED. WHY IS YOUR DELETION OF MY POST NOT VANDALISM IF WE'RE ON THE SAME LEVEL? I WOULD LIKE TO REPOST THE INFORMATION WITH MY PROOF IF YOU DON'T MIND.

THANKS

YOURNUMBERTWOFAN

Once again, you are taking this way too personally. My apologies if I have offended you. I do not care about edit warring, nor do I think I ever will. This is the internet, learn how to chill out. Not everything here is serious business. If I was blocked from Misplaced Pages, it would not end the world for me. As it is I have posted a ton of sources validating my claim that there is a relatively popular blog which criticizes Marmaduke on the internet which is read by people in the talk section, as you requested. If people do not believe me after this I will think people have gone defunct. You have still not answered my question about how you have designated authority over me, and I am getting tired of asking you. Why was my posting deleted after several months of being up on the page? Why was a user who is on trail for being a bot allowed to delete my posting? You know, I came here to do one simple thing, not argue on the internet like an idiot. But this whole thing has done terrible damage to my self esteem. I am sorry you do not wish to work with me again, as I think I have eloquently and passionately stated my points, which you have attempted to refute by pointing me to some rules page. I hope that the links I have posted are proof enough, and that I will finally be allowed by the grace of the Misplaced Pages editors, to post one chunk of information which is true and not inane regarding critcism of Marmaduke. Good fucking lord. I did not think things would be this hard.

Again, I apologize for what I did to your page and that other guys page. I was mad, and a little drunk.

Thanks,

Yournumbertwofan

One-child policy

Thanks for putting in the hours to help rationalize this article. Episodically over the last few years I've tried to intervene by providing documentation and citations to scholarly literature in place of or to augment point-counterpoint "opinions" (sometimes documented) I think the article will continue to ne a focal point for ideological battles but gradually some of the more tendentious claims are being toned down or weeded out. Unsigned comment by Mack2 (talk) (contribs)

Hey Politizer

I sent you an email. \ / (⁂) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoonerism

>Please go back and add more information about the sources you added in this edit. As it currently stands, all you wrote for the source is "Kermit Schaefer recordings," which is not enough to be useful to any reader—no one can tell what source you're referring to and no one can track it down to verify, unless you give more information. If you don't add the necessary information, your additions will have to be deleted. —Politizer /_contribs 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. One of my references is caught up in a blanket blacklist of squidoo. I have requested a whitelist for the reference which you may notice in the source is comment out at the moment.

(Except for one specific article on squidoo, it's not clear to me by they blacklisted all its articles, but I simply asked for a whiltelist of the one web page I need.)

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copying

I have tried to answer you question on my talk page. Could you please explain. Maybe I am overseeing somehing. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also referted your edit to the Gregory Balestrero article. How can there be plagiarism when the source is directly mentioned. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Thanks for the support. We have had considerable problems over plagiarism at DYK in the past, and I've long taken the view that plagiarized articles must be disqualified on sight. I think it's the very least we can do, especially given that some users have pushed for outright DYK bans for any user caught submitting plagiarized or copyvio material. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think disqualification is fine for a first step. If a user continues to submit plagiarized material after warnings, we can think about taking stronger action. But I think most people who get an article or two rejected for plagiarism will soon get the message. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Train melody

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Train melody, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A reply

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers

Note this article was recently created as an almost exact copy of Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China. I've started a sockpuppet case as a result, but not sure if you'd want to formally add it to the AfD. --ZimZalaBim 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prod of Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers

This does look more complicated than I thought. I would recommend adding this article to the AfD, with a link to the sockpuppetry case, as they did have almost identical content at the beginning. If the deletion discussion is closed as delete you probably could tag the article as G4. Hut 8.5 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Hirschfeld

I agree with you that the Pet Trust and pet protection agreement have real problems. The Hirschfeld article had real problems when first written as well. That said, with the work done by ChildofMidnight, myself, and you also, the Hirschfeld article is actually looking pretty good. We've got actual verifiable third-party sources for most of the content now, and most of the flowery, fluff has been eliminated.Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I don't mean my response to you to be an offense. I mean that you don't have to worry about the progress of it. I am working on the pages non-stop, and I have a large body of notes, books, entries and the rest. One of the people I was expecting is sick, and another is currently not around, so lead work, copy editing, and the rest is slow. I don't expect you to give special treatment. I just think that the statements are better suited to the talk page discussion. Could you please move them over there? I'm just concerned getting the sets together right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I rearranged the DYK - from Milton's (birthday) item to item of Milton (birthday) to avoid the awkward apostrophe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton at DYK

Note: This conversation originally took place at Ottava Rima's talk page, and has since been removed. I am duplicating it here to make it easier to find until the dispute is resolved.

Ottava Rima, please try to be civil with other editors at DYK. I understand that you have put a lot of work into these Milton articles and it may be frustrating to see people criticizing them, but the people at DYK are here to help you, not to attack you. I have not responded to your apology at my talk page because I didn't feel ready to communicate with you yet, but after seeing your comments to Suntag I had to chime in, because I think you owe him an apology. Remarks such as "Sit and watch WP:FAC for a few weeks and you'll learn a lot" in the context where you made them are quite condescending, and this message in particular was pompous and rude—"I work on FAs. I know how to build them and how to build the encyclopedia," as if the rest of us don't know how to build an encyclopaedia and should do what you say?

The DYK page is for discussing how to improve an article to the point that it can be featured on the main page, not for arguing and attacking. It's not an AfD discussion where one person wins and one loses; it's a collaborative effort. Please try to restrict your comments there to comments about how we can work together to get your articles ready for the main page, and not to attacks and debates. —Politizer /_contribs 06:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"as if the rest of us don't know how to build an encyclopaedia and should do what you say?" The absurdity of this statement lacks any ability to truly respond, but here - the person was new. He obviously doesn't understand how articles are built when dealing with complex biographies. If he watched FAC, he would see the types of articles that are established and created on said topics. Telling a new person, someone who hasn't been here that long and has obviously not made that many articles nor took them to such a state, is not "condescending". It is blatant fact. Furthermore, this statement is blatantly wrong: "The DYK page is for discussing how to improve an article to the point that it can be featured on the main page, not for arguing and attacking." The page is not for a discussing. Talk pages for articles are the discussion, or the talk page of the WP:DYK page is the appropriate place. The fact that there are people willing to clog up the DYK is a troubling event. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Suntag has been around for nearly 5 months.

Your assumption that anyone who hasn't been on WP as long as you somehow doesn't know what they're doing, is quite rude and uncooperative. So is your assumption that you have the right to boss new users around; Suntag is not new, but if he were I would remind you of WP:BITE, and of the fact that numerous policy pages (as you already know) reiterate that high edit counts and a long time at Misplaced Pages doesn't automatically mean an editor is better or more respected than a newer user with a lower edit count. Three DYK users now have asked you to be civil; with all due respect, you weren't at all like this last time I worked with you at DYK.

As for whether or not the DYK page is meant for discussion of improving hooks, you can ask more experienced DYKers like Gatoclass and Borgqueen if you like, but they will tell you the same thing I have; for at least the past two months, we have been using the T:TDYK as the unified place to discuss and verify DYK hooks when they're on their way to the front page; the talk page of WP:DYK, which you mentioned, is for talking about the DYK project, not for improving hooks. —Politizer /_contribs 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (you may respond here, I am now watching this page)

"Actually, Suntag has been around for nearly 5 months." 5 months is an extremely short time, especially with the imbalance of the individual spending time with DYK instead of looking at the opposite end of the project - finishing pages through Peer Review and the FAC process. "Your assumption that anyone who hasn't been on WP as long as you somehow doesn't know what they're doing, is quite rude and uncooperative." Your assumption that people have equal experience and don't need to actually involve themselves with all processes of the encyclopedia before claiming to have the right to know how pages operate is presumptive and absurd. "So is your assumption that you have the right to boss new users around" Logic would state that you have things completely reversed, as Suntag claimed that there was an error, which was demonstratively false. "Three DYK users now have asked you to be civil", and I would suggest that you look at the guideline, which would show that I am being civil. If you want, I can easily start cussing, throwing person attacks, and the rest. However, I have other tasks that are more important than responding to this all night. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much a user can learn in five months. There are lots of extremely talented and respected editors who have been here for a shorter time than that, and your assertion an editor with 5 months' experience somehow doesn't know what he's doing is a slap in the face. So is your assertion that an editor's work at DYK somehow doesn't count towards that editor's experience. Maybe you think the work you do on Misplaced Pages is more valuable than the work other editors do, but that doesn't give you an excuse to shit all over them.

And if you really want to go the route of judging editors based on their time at Misplaced Pages and the places they make their contributions...sure, let's do that. While you have been on WP longer than Suntag, he has made more edits, including more edits in the article namespace (which is what WP is all about, isn't it? Building articles and improving the encyclopaedia? I figured you would know all about that, since you "know how to build FAs and build the encyclopaedia")—here's him, and here's you. He has 75% of his edits distributed over 5 namespaces, while you have 75% of your edits distributed over 4. So if editors "need to actually involve themselves with all processes of the encyclopedia before claiming to have the right to know how pages operate," as you claimed at my talk page, then you aren't really much better than Suntag. And, while you technically joined WP in September 2007, you didn't start making over 100 edits a month until March 2008, before which you were largely inactive, meaning that you've only been a major contributor here for 9 months...not a lot longer than Suntag.

So there you have it. I tried to ask you to be respectful of other editors, and instead you've decided to be a pompous ass and to belittle good editors' contributions. I didn't want to start a fight before, but I do now. As far as I'm concerned, you can take your arrogant attitude and shove it up your ass, because I'm done trying to reason with you. —Politizer /_contribs 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but that toolserver doesn't count how much content is added to a page. It only looks at edits. When I make contributions of up to 60k at a time, that is far different than something that he does. If you want, I can go run a bot, rack up 1,000 edits quickly, and inflate my numbers. However, I don't work that way. And for your information, I've been a member of Misplaced Pages for over 6 years now and I also spend quite a bit of my time admining and working at other projects. Now, for this: "to be a pompous ass and to belittle good editors' contributions" Actually, he is new, he doesn't have experience within content editing, and you can pull out as many figures as you want, but he hasn't spent hours in negotiating with dozens of editors to put together a large article while going through all the MoS standards and other guiding principles. Few people can say they have. One of them is myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not start a flame war. I suggest you both take a step back and not continue this conversation, as it is hardly likely to produce anything constructive from this point. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pet trust

I removed all the text that looked like it might have been copied. The topic itself is notable, so I removed the speedy tag. I hope this is okay with you. Thanks for your efforts to crack down on improper advertising. What do you make of the lawyer's article? She has been interviewed quite a bit, but I havent' seen an article on her. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I lean towards putting her article up for AfD on principle as none of the coverage is of her as the subject. But I guess it would survive. Probably doing a COI report would be good. It's not a subject area I'm that interested in, but I stumbled on these articles doing new page patrol, so I've tried to take some responsibility for them. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lovely picture on your user page. Very calming. Thanks for your help dealing with some article issues. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have been best to delete the whole thing and start fresh as you suggested. On the other hand my interest level in that subject is such that I wouldn't have wanted to write the article. My dislike for the promotional quality of the articles, however, was such that I was inspired to try and fix them as best I could. It does seem to be an important subject. It was actually fairly interesting to investigate. I guess we're supposed to call them animal companions now, FYI. It makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of dogs take their companions for walks. Peace out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit count

Weird you have twice the amount of edits I do but you've not even been here as long... – Amicon (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See this, sing this, and take this. -- Suntag ☼ 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-took the Wikipediholism test several days ago (the first time I took it was back in October or so) and my score went up several thousand points. Woohoo! —Politizer /_contribs 04:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GoodSearchResult

Since you are tangentially titillated by templates, the instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult might provide material for you to generate a template or two.

Thanks for the tip! My latest project (if you don't count {{DYKwelcome}}, which I've kind of given up on for now) is thinking about creating a multi-page how-to-cite-stuff tutorial (complete with a sandbox for "exercises"!) in my namespace, to send people to if they really need help learning how to recognize good sources, how to format references, yada yada. But once I either do that or get bored and move on (as usual, it's pretty much a toss-up which one of those it'll be) I'll definitely look into these! —Politizer /_contribs 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Suter

Hi, I've addressed your comments regarding the Steve Suter DYK nomination. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply: 简体字 and 繁体字

Thanks for the tip. But which is overall more preferable on Misplaced Pages? 简体字 or 繁体字? I've noticed that the Chinese Misplaced Pages is a mess because of the differences. Some parts are written in 简体字 and others in 繁体字. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunixgeek (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Hirschfeld (attorney)

I think the article is in good enough shape now to qualify for DYK. I have not only eliminated almost all reference to self-published sources. I've also stricken links to the problematic articles on pet trust and pet guardian by the same original author. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about the "profiled" reference and changed it to "either quoted or profiled." Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I hope the lotus field works its magic. I have an image of my own that I use in such times -- a rock-walled garden in the middle of a barley field in Scotland that I visited several years ago. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Ottava now says he's going to take me to AN - this after I just spent another 45 minutes of my time promoting 20 of his articles to the queue. I have had enough of this guy, but unfortunately it's way past my bedtime, so would you mind keeping an eye on the AN/ANI pages and letting people know that I won't be able to participate in the discussion until tomorrow? I would appreciate that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flyable Heart

User:Cloud668 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Honestly, I don't really think it's your fault. I mean, I am not quite that bold too. I appreciate that you took your time and reviewed the hook, and pointed out the lack of secondary sources, which motivated me to look for another source (albeit print magazine). Thanks for the cookie, it was really great, here's a piece of it, which for some reason I didn't eat. I was just thinking that you'd want to take a look at that piece (or not), for some reason. -- クラウド６６８ 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lotus field

Are they farming them for lotus root in the pic? Why do you think Buddha is often pictured on a lotus flower?ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I finally put on my DYK-talk-page-promised nominator hat and listed some DYK suggestions. If you have some time, please review them. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the note, Politizer. I'm aware of the problem user. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

computational lithography discussion page

Thanks for your inputs on the computational lithography page. Can you visit the discussion page and give me some feedback on improving the article? Please respond there rather than either of our talk pages. Again, thanks. bill devanney (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hi there, I just realised that an article I nominated for DYK is in the wrong section. I thought the date referred to the nom date, not the creation/expansion date, thus Fleet Foxes should be in December 3. Does that matter at all or is it OK to leave it as it is? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it now. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect mathematics

Your comment on DYK was proven false. There is 14,000 characters on the current page. The fact that you would put it at such a low number, in addition to your recent actions as of late, is highly incivil and very questionable. I have also received many complaints in my email box about you from people who feel that you are doing a disservice to DYK. Must I proceed to having a topic ban of you from reviewing? Or will you cut this off now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)