| Revision as of 21:20, 28 September 2004 editArwel Parry (talk | contribs)Administrators23,026 edits Wayne's dates :)← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:28, 28 September 2004 edit undoVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits →Wayne Rooney: Reply to ArwelNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| == Wayne Rooney == | == Wayne Rooney == | ||
| Hi. I notice you were watching the United - Fenerbahce match...! :) One thing, I see you changed all the dates in ] to US format -- this is a no-no... see ], we had a big argument about this last year and the result was that users were given the ability to see all wikified dates in whichever format they prefer by making the appropriate setting in "Preferences". The compromise is that articles on US subjects are written with US format dates, articles with UK subjecs get UK format dates, other subjects we generally keep the format chosen by the original author and whatever we do, we don't mix formats in the same article! -- ] 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | Hi. I notice you were watching the United - Fenerbahce match...! :) One thing, I see you changed all the dates in ] to US format -- this is a no-no... see ], we had a big argument about this last year and the result was that users were given the ability to see all wikified dates in whichever format they prefer by making the appropriate setting in "Preferences". The compromise is that articles on US subjects are written with US format dates, articles with UK subjecs get UK format dates, other subjects we generally keep the format chosen by the original author and whatever we do, we don't mix formats in the same article! -- ] 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :I've always written dates the US way because that's what I thought I read the first time I looked at that MoS article. Having reread it it's still not 100% clear which to use, but it should be consistent within an article - it wasn't before I changed some of them. I'll try to use the different UK/US formats where appropriate, but I'm (unfortunately!) kinda stuck in US mode at the moment! ] ] 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:28, 28 September 2004
Say anything you want – I won't edit any comments but I may reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy.
Please note that I will usually reply here, not on your talk page.
Is there anybody out there?
Yep, me. I'm aware of the eclampsia problem. Unfortunately, I know too little about it to properly write it up from scratch. Do you have any information I could fall back on? Nice review articles from good medical journals are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lists of fictional animals
Why delete links to Lists of fictional animals? There has to be a pretty good reason for removing links in Misplaced Pages, which is all about links. Ortolan88 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Because the only content of that article is a failed redirect to Category:Lists of fictional animals and all the relevant articles are in that category anyway. violet/riga 21:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. The words "superfluous and miscoded" in the comment would have warned me off my question. Ortolan88 21:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You're right - I did mention it in an edit on the main article itself but should have done it on each altered article. violet/riga 22:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. The words "superfluous and miscoded" in the comment would have warned me off my question. Ortolan88 21:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Book titles
Hi Violetriga--Easy to check book titles on Amazon.com. Cheers, Opus33 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Took me absolutely ages trying to figure what you were going on about! I presume you're talking about the Grinch books. Well yes, I know it's called "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" but I've always known it as "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and am sure I've seen it that way. Amazon doesn't prove that it doesn't exist as spelt that way. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Robbie Williams
Hello. I appreciate you not seeing The Sun as a reliable source. However, this report has quotes direct from the artist.
Even in tabloid land it is unusual for something of this sort to be fabricated. The way that tabloids usually get into trouble is by using unattributed quotes. ie "a close friend says they are having an affair and are deeply in love..." or "sources close to..." or "an ex-girlfriend..."
This story is all attributed to Robbie's own mouth. The consequences for a journalist (even on The Sun!) of making this up would not be worth the trouble. If it were a story about some scandal about Robbie then all sorts of people might stand to make money, ie "I slept with Robbie and he " might earn the story teller many thousands of pounds. To invent a story about a new character and falsely claim that Robbie said this would be an immediate sacking.
Now... this is not to say that Robbie isn't just having a joke at the expense of the journalist and just being mischievous - however, even this being the case I think it is worth including in the article cos it shows Robbie's playful side.
Also, I gave the source - so people can make their own mind's up. Furthermore, should it later prove to be untrue, then this could be stated.
I tell you all this is an avid follower of the press and a trained feature journalist.
So, I wonder if you would consider reinstating that paragraph. If you don't feel this should be done, perhaps you would paste it into the Talk page and give your reasons for not including it in the article. --] 10:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
- PS: The story is here: The Sun - Robbie's Pure Madness --] 10:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I actually laughed at it saying that he would wear a "false nose and a wig" – The Sun is well known for taking things totally out of context and Robbie, as you say, is most likely having a joke. It is not encylopedia material because it's just not true – I've not seen any other reports of this anywhere – and it is speculative at best. Should it prove to be true, or even reported by multiple sources, the information could be added but if we added everything The Sun said then this pedia would be very ropey. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Further: The google-cached RobbieWilliams-info has the story, but it was evidently removed. violet/riga (t) 09:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I actually laughed at it saying that he would wear a "false nose and a wig" – The Sun is well known for taking things totally out of context and Robbie, as you say, is most likely having a joke. It is not encylopedia material because it's just not true – I've not seen any other reports of this anywhere – and it is speculative at best. Should it prove to be true, or even reported by multiple sources, the information could be added but if we added everything The Sun said then this pedia would be very ropey. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of twins
What is the problem with having the list of conjoined twins in two places? Fred Bauder 15:04, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- The important ones are already listed in the article and if someone comes along and duplication can bring in inconcistency (as was shown by comparing the two lists). violet/riga (t) 15:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Baby transport
You're very welcome Violetriga, I would like to add more, would be nice to have some images of an old fashioned victorian pram maybe? Compared with a modern style one. AmyNelson. :)
- I've had a little look at some online pictures but none of them are free from copyright - I'll try and email one of them soon and ask for permission to use one or two. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Save
Hey, just wanted to let you know that when you move a page, you should check redirects and links (using "what links here"), changing save to a disambiguation page affected many pages, which you should probably modify to link to the proper page. I've changed some of the major redirects, but I don't have the time to update all the pages. —siroχo
- Yeah I've been planning to but got distracted sorting another article. I'm gonna go through them now and sort them out, ta. violet/riga (t) 10:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Swanscombe
Thank you for your good idea, on the Swanscombe page but for the time being a few external links about modern events will have to do. History is my main interest, but I will look into it, cheers Faedra 13:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No problem - you've done a good job with that article so far. violet/riga (t) 13:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for TZ work!
Thanks for your work on the Twilight Zone eps. I was working on those, once upon a time, but never summoned up the will to actually finish them. So thank you for doing it first, doing a better job of it than be, and, of course, for actually getting around to it. grendel|khan 04:43, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
- No problem - I'm going to do the same for season two as soon as I get the time. Nice to be appreciated, so thanks for the comment. violet/riga (t) 07:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wayne Rooney
Hi. I notice you were watching the United - Fenerbahce match...! :) One thing, I see you changed all the dates in Wayne Rooney to US format -- this is a no-no... see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates, we had a big argument about this last year and the result was that users were given the ability to see all wikified dates in whichever format they prefer by making the appropriate setting in "Preferences". The compromise is that articles on US subjects are written with US format dates, articles with UK subjecs get UK format dates, other subjects we generally keep the format chosen by the original author and whatever we do, we don't mix formats in the same article! -- Arwel 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've always written dates the US way because that's what I thought I read the first time I looked at that MoS article. Having reread it it's still not 100% clear which to use, but it should be consistent within an article - it wasn't before I changed some of them. I'll try to use the different UK/US formats where appropriate, but I'm (unfortunately!) kinda stuck in US mode at the moment! violet/riga (t) 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)