| Revision as of 23:05, 14 December 2005 editPitchka (talk | contribs)5,085 editsm abortion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:56, 2 October 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Blanked IP talk}} | ||
| | 01:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == disambiguation pages == | |||
| Per ], there are no wikilinks on disambiguation pages except the articles being disambiguated. I've reverted the change to link ]ing. ] 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Acknowledged. ] 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Four perfect minutes on ] == | |||
| I admit 'found success in the English-speaking market' was a bit much (which is to say Britain, Australia and the US), and may have unfairly weighted the translations a teensy bit. | |||
| Thank you very much for editing the article, and putting in the ISBN of the Turgenev book. Your edits were like a shot in the article's arm. | |||
| --] 07:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC). | |||
| ==Actors/Actresses== | |||
| Hi, and thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages! I noticed that you've contributed several articles recently for actors/actresses, with links to IMDb.com. This is great, but I thought you might want to look at Misplaced Pages's ] which details how to add external links (i.e., under their own section heading) and other content to an article. Happy wiki-ing! --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Nice work! == | |||
| Not sure what angle you're going about it from, but you're doing great work cleaning up a bunch of articles starting with C. I'm going through the ] and you've beaten me to everything. There's usually no one but me working on articles that deep. Keep up the good work! --] 06:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh yeah, and get an account! Unless you're trying to become the next ]... --] 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's cool, I try to go through the orphan pages (aka ]) myself every week. If you hit any snags, feel free to talk to me. --] 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sources for Time trial bicycle== | |||
| Hello, good work on ], and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Misplaced Pages accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to ] they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in ]? You can simply add links, or see ] for different citation methods. Thanks! ]|]|] 13:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not write the original Time trial bicycle, I just added a stub cat to it. I have now also added a "unsourced" tag to it. 69.181.82.102 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oops, my error. I've asked the original author for sources now. Thanks for getting back to me! ]|]|] 19:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories == | |||
| Hi there, I noticed you did some work on categorization, thank you for that. But I'd like to request that you take care of two things: setting a stub on a page is not enough to categorize it. It's better to have one or two real categories, plus a stub if it's a short article. Also, if you set a stub, try to make it as specific as possible, as otherwise, you get huge lists of stubs hard to sort such as US-stub. Thanks. -- ] 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : That's grreat, thanks. And I agree with you on the neeed to have sorting options for articles in categories. Just a last point: a stub is just a temporary flag, and not a "real" category. As soon as enough content has been added, that will disappear. This is why I think we should always try to not only set up the stub, but also the real, final categories, when we deal with a page. -- ] 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me give you an example which might make some sense: you find an article about some obscure battle during the American Civil War. You could just tag it "US-stub" or "war-stub" and be done. But if you categorize it under "Battles of the American Civil War", some history buff will be looking at changes in that category, see the new article and start working on it, and the article will grow quickly. In fact, categorization is just that: we filter articles so that people interested in editing narrow topics have their jobs made easier. Makes sense ? -- ] 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: PS: I don't categorize crappy garage bands either :) -- ] 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Zealot == | |||
| Hi zealot! I just love anonymous pro-abortion zealots! don't you? Well of course you do. Despite the facts you like to lie and pretend that every liberal or Democrat is also for the killing of unborn humans. Have fun zealot. ] 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == abortion == | |||
| I simply looked at Category:Abortion and carelessly put the celebs in the wrong category. My mistake and I apoligize. I am sure that you can now see, however, that your new categoy, "Anti-Abortion" is already covered by the "Pro-Life" categories and that the "cfd" tag I added is justified. -- 69.181.82.102 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I'm sorry for coming on so strong with you in my comments above, but I am honestly very perturbed with the situation. Both Sheen and Nicholson have stated publically that they are anti-abortion Sheen even belonging to a group called Consistent for Life or some such thing. But despite these two big named actors making their personal beliefs known they are continually being erased from the Pro-life category and put under Pro-choice because they have made statements where they say they cannot choose for others or put their beliefs on others. So these people who keep reverted the categories use this to say the are pro-choice! | |||
| :I was trying to come up with a compromise with anti-abortion since these people keep parsing words and meanings. | |||
| :But you are right pro-life fits their category better than pro-choice. I'm sorry I lashed out at you but I find it so frustrating. I don't try to label people who are pro-abortion as being anti-abortion so why should these editors? Again sorry. ] 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 2 October 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.