Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 22 December 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yworo/Archive 2025 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

External media template in Themes in Avatar

Yworo, thanks for your imput in Themes in Avatar. May I ask you to refrain from removing the external media template from the article for the time being until we get a broader and more educated feedback hopefully leading to a consensus as to its proper use. As you could see, I have placed a RfC tag there. I am not at all opposed to removing the template if its current placement is indeed against Wiki policies, but I just want to make sure that it is there (or not there) for a reason other than our personal preferences. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, we are awaiting your comment on the Talk page to reach a consensus. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, since there seems to be a weak consensus to keep the template in the lead, and since its inclusion in the article is currently justified by its general use throughout WP, I am going to revert your edit that removed it from the lead until the time when the template is deleted or its documentation amended such as to substantiate your proposed edit. Many thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

founding year

You need not undo your strikeout at the Eastside Sun AFD, but for clarity's sake an article dated October 28, 2009 refers to it as the "three-year-old monthly Eastside Sun...". So even without an exact founding date, as a founding year 2006 seems reasonable. Schmidt, 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Franco-American Portal

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome editor?  :) Student7 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that my sister-in-law's dog's name was Jack. Your note made me realize that it is really Jacques! So seldom does one see a dog's name spelled!  :) Student7 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hurry on over to Notorious Doublewide

Look what your good idea started! I think this is the best use of it yet. I'm hustling you over to it sooner rather than later 'cause I'm afraid the Thought Police will swoop in and take the photos—and me—off to Room 101! Regards. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert on the Astrology entry

Yworo: please do not just revert edits that others make. On Astrology, in the first paragraph, it read "Few astrologers believe that the movements and positions of celestial bodies either directly influence life on Earth or correspond to events experienced on a human scale. More common is the idea that astrology is a symbolic language, an art form, or a form of divination." First, "few" and "more common" are weasel words and have no place on WP. Second, you provided one source for the first claim -- "The Dictionary of the History of Ideas" -- a book that may or may not be an objective, credible source, but given that its author's area of expertise was antiquity, and that his study of astrology seems to have extended no further than Byzantium, I doubt its relevance. The sentence here is parsed in the present -- "Few astrologers believe..." -- and you in no way show this to be true. Unless and until you can show that fewer than 50% of astrologers today share this belief, and you back that up with credible external sources, you should not make such claims. I'm removing that claim. If you revert it, I will apply for that section to be protected against edits.Bricology (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Option

Varna burgas (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Hi, I have just noticed that you deleted my contribution to this page. Recently, I have been working on a paper for one of my classes. Even though Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source of information from an academic point of view, I like checking out the information posted there. Unfortunately, when I read the article about Option, I was quite dissappointed about the lack of information there. Therefore, I have decided to add some value. As you know, if you cite something you have to give credit to the author. That was exactly what I have done. Despite the fact that you have removed my paragraph, I strongly believe that this piece of information is quite valuable. Thanks

Pinto

You are being just as bad as the problematic editor. Chill out. And do note that any reverts by you will be a breach of 3/rr. More importantly: Go Dawgs.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AOR

I would bet the Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians article now at AfD is similar if not identical to the deleted Ancient Order of Rosicrucians, and that User:MentorRC and User:Mentor rc quack appropriately to be socks. MSJapan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't that surprise me at all? Seems these occult guys all think they are the best thing since sliced bread if they manage to get 3 followers and a website. Yworo (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Still a heavy hitter on the undo button I see

Frankly, I doubt you've read one word of any of the so-called religious text from Reformed Druids of North America but if you'd bother to give me a persuasive answer regarding the questions I posed in the edit summaries, I won't just return the favor by announcing you're wrong and reverting you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to change it to primary sources. They are all sources affiliated with the subject, regardless of whether they are an anthology of collected documents. Yworo (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets say you wanted to be affiliated with them. There, it's official. Lets say you want to quit. Done, you did. Even for a neopagan tradition, the subject is particularly subjective. If there was no "unofficial collection", it wouldn't be such an easy assumption that any particular thing is straight from the horse's mouth. In a perfect world, the founder, administration, and official publications would be primary; secondary sources would be found in academic journals; and WP would have one article on Wicca and one on OTO. So no, even if we had the luxury of additional sources, (neglected by the recognized but unofficial collector/editor/publisher), we would still need to evaluate each author's material on a case by case basis. If they aren't official representatives etc., their religious affiliations are immaterial to questions of reliability, primary and secondary. (Would it make any sense if all Catholics are primary sources on Catholicism?) Relative to the sourcing of other specific trads, they're really not that bad, but I think very few of the trad articles would survive an AfD.

Anyway, like I said in the edit summary, well done. If I had known the religious text tagger replaced an October {primary}, I would have just restored the status quo and been done with it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd kinda disagree with that. I've heard of them and suspected they might be notable, so I did a Google book search, which returned a couple hundred books that at least mention them. If only 10% of those go into more depth than just naming them, there should be plenty of sourcing for a decent article that doesn't rely on primary sources. If the primary sources were then used only for a few additional salient points that couldn't be sourced elsewhere, it'd still be a decent article. However, I'm not really interested enough to do all that work myself. If you were to start on it, I'd certainly help out as I have time, though. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good for them. I think they're cool. Definitely, the druids I'd want to go have a beer with, but I was just trying to undo the tagger's crazy making. It sounds to me like you should remove the Notoriety tag so people aren't discouraged from trying a search.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Last Exit on Brooklyn

On 13 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Last Exit on Brooklyn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Seattle's historic counterculture coffeehouse, the Last Exit on Brooklyn, was a noted chess venue frequented by grandmasters Peter Biyiasas and Yasser Seirawan? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SogoTrade

• SogoTrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I appreciate that the AfD exists, however it was closed in Feb. 2008 and that article then deleted. If you check the current article history it was moved from the title SogoInvest and has a continuous undeleted history dating back to 2006 so this is not a simple case of reposting. I could replace the PROD or perhaps you would prefer to now go to AfD? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I guess I didn't look at the full history, looked like a recreation that never got deleted. Probably just needs clean up. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a notability tag but I should not now re-prod as it has been removed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possibly notable, given the (uncited) assertions in the text. I've added citation needed tags. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think it's borderline as I was unable to find convincing sources in GBooks or GNews. However if they are the cheapest or largest on-line broker of their type, then there is a good case against WP:ORG. I'll leave it on my watch-list with a view to AfD in the longer term if nothing pops up. Fæ (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bertrand Russell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bertrand Russell. While I do understand the reasons for your reverts, simply persisting with reverting is not helpful. I see that you have discussed this on the article's talk page. Have you looked at WP:dispute resolution? Perhaps you could try to work towards a compromise wording that might get at least acquiescence from all editors involved. If that fails, then you may wish to post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard. However, Administrator intervention against vandalism, where you have already posted a report, is not suitable, as the edits you disagree with appear to be made in good faith, even if you believe they are mistaken. Also, if after further reasonable attempts to resolve the matter, temporary page protection may be helpful. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page for further help in either that respect or other respects, though I would prefer to hold back from that unless it really seems necessary. I have warned the IP editor about edit warring, including the possibility of a block, and naturally the same applies to you. I hope, however, that the dispute will not lead to such drastic action. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks

I appreciate the wonderful edits and support - please ignore my revert, you were absolutely correct.

I am being recommended for deletion and merge left right and centre so I am a bit 'rushed' to protect my new articles.

Thanks again

--Kary247 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lorre

You have a point, so maybe you can revert, my recent edit made before reading this, but he seems to have considered himself more Hungarian than Austrian, so it might be a grey area. 86.146.195.35 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your constructive suggestions

Hi Yworo,

You seem to be taking a great interest in my editing - it seems that everywhere I go, you go!

• Thanks for you comments and advice re: the below, it is really helpful for me as I learn how things work. I have read as much as I can, but your comments have certainly helped.

• It is interesting to note that we can't cite by example, that must require some lateral thinking at times!

• Thanks again for taking an interest and offering so much detailed advice.

• Could I just suggest that you may want to get your ideas across in a way that is a little bit more supportive of people attempting to contribute to wikipedia, for example "barging in and changing articles" are you referring to the article I have created and develop all of the references for, postmodern religion?? Or are you perhaps referring to the new section I have added to entrepreneur "lifestyle entrepreneur"?

• Are you referring to the heading that you went in and reverted, after I added a new heading? If so, you may have noted that there are in excess of 100 issues with the article entrepreneur, so perhaps rather than fixing my edits( I have done about 20 edits here and added 3 good citations that all obviously passed your eagle eye for editing so we really are only talking about 1 minor slip up), you could work with me to fix the article and we could improve it together - there is some issues with link rot at the bottom and I am trying to read up and fix this but if you could help that would be great.

In terms of the spam issue, I think this was more connected to me citing by example, rather than spamming. I am not sure what you mean by 'this is your third warning about spam' could you perhaps give me an example? I have added your comments below for ease of reference. --Kary247 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again

Thanks for clearing that up about the watch list - I was wondering what was going on! I hope you can see that Entrepreneur is really full of bad content and I am trying to fix it up because I have added a section of mine to it and it is a bit shameful otherwise! Thanks again. --Kary247 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is groovy that you have put rare groove on your watch list. I can dig that you want the discussion to take place there. My soul purpose will be to ensure that you don't need to correct any of my work at rare groove, then you can just beat it, or start to dig it and help out :) It you know how to embedd and audio file - like bird does with the bird song, that would be fun.

--Kary247 (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)