Misplaced Pages

User talk:Vary

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vary (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 9 January 2006 (→Coburn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:25, 9 January 2006 by Vary (talk | contribs) (→Coburn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello Vary, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Vary my little cousin got on my computer and started editing your site he started adding stuff like cumming in girl's mouths and fucking their big old titties I am so sorry for his offences. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.117.217.115 (talk • contribs)

minim

Hey

Thanks for the feedback I was not expecting such a well thought out response. I am mean that genuinely. I removed the minim section because there is a controversy as to the true identity of the minim. It is interpreted as heretic, apostate, Gnostic, Jewish Christian (like Jews for Jesus), and many other terms. As you may have guessed I am interested in religion, I am currently a theology major. Anyhow I am writing my thesis on the minim, and I removed the term because it is misleading to say they were apostates. I did not however label the page as disambiguous that was done before I got there. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs)


Yea you were right that was a jab at the guy. I changed it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs)

Bush

I was just curious why you deleted what I wrote on the George W. Bush article? I wrote that Jesus was not a philospher. He wasn't a Philosopher, he was a religious leader, a theologian perhaps, but not a philosopher. Why did you delete what I wrote? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sgoldbe2 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Concordia RV

Thanks for reverting the Concordia page, it's nice to not be the only person eyeing it...just a question, the same guy keeps on reverted to the massive POV version, do you know if there's a way to block him (or her I guess)? djheart 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Graham Christensen

Feel free to delete the page. I intended on writing a article, but put that as a placeholder. I left for work, came back and someone took the papers with the information. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Itrebal (talk • contribs)

Popups assisted revert

Can you help me understand how this works? Is it just that when you hold your mouse over something it gives you the option to revert? or does it have a "recent chagnes" kind of list. thanks in adv - Trödel•talk 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I can't seem to get it installed correctly - I'm using firefox - but I'll give it a shot again today. Trödel•talk 11:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pacea lui Cristos

No problem. I only know about WP:PNT because I hang out there. Besides, it's less work to add {{notenglish}} and list it on WP:PNT than it is to go through an AfD nomination.  :) About 1/4 of what we get is copyvio, and gets speedied as such. Some of it is a copy/paste from another language's WIkipedia, and those get speedied as such. Finally about 1/2 to 2/3 gets translated within two weeks. The rest gets sent back to AfD when the two weeks are up.

If you'd like to give this article some time on WP:PNT, you might want to retract your nomination. And andmin would then close it as speedy keep, and the article can always come back here from WP:PNT if it doesn't get translated, or if it turns out to be garbage.

Jamie 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Italian Job (2003)

Thanks for your correction to the figure of $80 million for the amount of gold carried in the MINIs. I had heard the number $80M used at the beginning of the movie - and forgot that Steve spent most of it before the gang grabbed it back again. I've corrected my entry on the page - but there is STILL far too much weight for a real MINI Cooper to carry.

SteveBaker 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the kind guidance about {{unsigned}}. It took a while, but I finally worked out how to do it just before you sent that message. What a messy history I left behind me though... It's still nice to know that there are people here to help us bumbling buffons. :) Thanks again. Dan 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Oh and I must say, you are into the theatre? No doubt I'll be insulting you by discussing musical theatre, but I simply adore "A Chorus Line" have you ever seen or heard it? Dan 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One last thing... I thought US English dictates theater? You wouldn't believe my issues with Noah Webster... Dan 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Oh most certainly bizzare enough. I'm glad to see good english debate hasn't stagnated over there as much as it has here... all we get now is news programmes reminding us of the latest neologisms and slang. Chavs et al. Wow, now I must get back to revising GCSE Biology... oh the boredom! Oh the inaccuracy! Good...um... Day (?) to you. Dan 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

CMC

Hi Vary. I could not find the articles online. Please note that, while you conduct research this week, I will not make any major edits. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.13.145.210 (talk • contribs)

Aurora (astronomy) saga

Thanks for balancing that situation, Vary, but I dont we are through yet, he is the expert after all, and I come from somewhere small down south. It is 100% my own image gifted to the planet and specifically for that page. I'm sad that this stuff can be so divisive, but I didnt think his attitude to 'his' article helped much. I have to learn to be patient with the newbies until they get a handle on it. Paul Moss Mozasaur 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I got around to checking and the current images ( Aurorab ) used to replace the earlier image that I gifted for the purpose is in fact unable to be verified as legitimate public domain content, and on that basis alone should be removed. Th esource is given in the Commons as Public-Domain : The user who delivered that image is unknown and unable to be communicated with, as far as I can tell. It has been relabeled as Aurora Borealis and even that is now called into question; are they possibly Aurora Australis? David Stern asserts (incorrectly) that both North and South Polar aurora have identical characteristics. The other main image ( Polarlicht ) appears to have been delivered by a user 'Photo by Craig M. Groshek' ( Cgros841 that has some small wiki history, but again, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the image, and it should be considered for deletion. I can supply a GREEN aurora image that I can verify as 100% my own work and as the two polar aurorae are identical, it should be acceptable to David. The assertion of "..carefully assembled.." is now clearly wrong at best and outrageous to those contributors who have been trampled on. On another point, the Astromical Almanac for Australia 2006 (Quasar publishing ISBN 0-9756070-1-4 Glenn Dawes Peter Northfield Ken Wallace) has a two page aurora article by Peter Skilton, (Director, Southern Australasia Aurora Alert Network) with 7 aurora images, 4 of which are reddish and 3 green. Hardly a statistically valid sample, but check NASA Spaceweather for thousands of worldwide aurora images. And a third point; the article claims that Aurora are typically a reddish glow, so now I'confused by David Sterns claim that red is not representative of aurora, as a basis to reject my reddish pic at the top, although the first pic is also reddish. Sometimes wiki-ing gets a bit absurd (sigh) Mozasaur 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Mozasaur 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

REMAGINE

Please note on the talk page why you have replaced the advertisement tag. This is a muli-page dispute, which you would see if you looked at the talk page, involving a couple admins, three regular editors, a sock account, and international trademark issues. I suggest you follow Melchoir and not get yourself involved. Not that I wouldn't love your help and input, but it is very complicated. Please comment, or reremove the tag. Alternately, you could list it for AFD, which I will do tomorrow if there is no notability added. WAvegetarian (email) 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Coburn

If you refer to the discussion page on the Coburn site you will see no reason to have the controversies section unless you can make it ubiased. I will be deleting it until someone can clean up the page to make it balanced. If you wish to campaign against Coburn do it on your own, not through wikipedia. If it was just a simple mistake please help me stop biased articles being written on wikipedia by liberal and conservative academic political hacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.219.235 (talk • contribs)

Responding, too, here in case you don't get the message I left on your current IP's talk page. The problem is that you blanked a large part of the page, rather than talking out changes on the talk page. Deleting sections of a page, rather than rewriting them or discussing what's wrong with them, is uaually considered vandalism. If you feel the sections page need to be cleaned up, tag it as POV and start working on it, but please do not just delete it. -- Vary | Talk 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)