Jump to content

User talk:Aviper2k7: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Starwars1955 is on the verge of being allowed to return
Ksy92003 (talk | contribs)
Jmfangio's disruptive behavior
Line 46: Line 46:


Hey there, remember this guy? Well, at [[WP:CN]], there is a discussion being conducted concerning the lifting of his ban. Go over there and voice your opinion, if you're interested. &ndash;'''''[[User:King Bee|King Bee]]'''''&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:King Bee|&tau;]] • [[Special:Contributions/King Bee|&gamma;]])</sup> 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, remember this guy? Well, at [[WP:CN]], there is a discussion being conducted concerning the lifting of his ban. Go over there and voice your opinion, if you're interested. &ndash;'''''[[User:King Bee|King Bee]]'''''&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:King Bee|&tau;]] • [[Special:Contributions/King Bee|&gamma;]])</sup> 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Jmfangio's disruptive behavior ==

Hey there. This is a comment I'm leaving in response to [[User:Jmfangio|Jmfangio]]'s disruptive behavior on either [[Talk:Peyton Manning]] or [[Talk:Brett Favre]]. I would appreciate it if you could go to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior]] and help solve this situation; whatever assistance you can provide is quite helpful. If you choose not to be a part of this, then that would be perfectly fine, as well. Thank you. '''[[User:Ksy92003|Ksy92003]]'''<small>[[User talk:Ksy92003|<font color="black">(talk)</font>]]</small> 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:26, 13 August 2007

Attn: If you leave a message, I will respond here. If I leave you a message on your talk page, please don't respond here. No sense in having a discussion in two separate places.

Archives:

May 2006-April 2007 Discussions
April 2007-June 2007 Discussions

Please place new conversations at the bottom of the page.

I recall awhile back you said something about not linking dates. A user brought up the issue, but I can't seem to find anything that verifies the rule. I think WP:CONTEXT mentions something, but it's not really clear. Can you help me straighten out this issue? --►ShadowJester07  23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please refer to WP:MOS about dates. More specifically WP:DATE. Here is the quote from the page.

"If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006, although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination."

This is only a guideline really, but the best thing to take into consideration is to link what is relevant.++aviper2k7++ 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, thanks for the help. :) --ShadowJester07Talk 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open directory project

I clicked the link and it brought me to a page that said something to the effect of "nothing found". When I went to the main page it looked like a spam-ish type website. Sorry for not doing my research before removing it. My apologies. eyeRmonkey 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streelight Manifesto edit

In response to your edit; I was not stating the Mike Soprano announcements as a fact, they are alleged claims that appeared on a forum. I feel that is perfectly acceptable to state this within the article, and that it does not go against standard wiki guidelines; the information is very important, applicable, and relevant to the article at hand; in acknowledgment of the history of lack of credibility, obviously it was necessary for me to state that yes, while this forum is claiming this, these facts are yet to be confirmed. Hence why i did state it. This aside, i don't think we can assume that these claims are necessarily shit solely because they came out of that particular forum; the post was generated extremely close to midnight, meaning not long after the concert would have ended (as any show that ive been to where SM played, they typically end at around 11) the kid got home, was so excited to hear actual definitive news about the new album, that he posted in hopes to shed light on a topic that so many of us have been in the dark for so long. This is perfectly reasonable to assume to be true, in my opinion, especially if you know anything about true Streetlight Manifesto fans. Had I heard the news at concert, honestly i would have forgone the whole forum and just posted it on wiki, regardless of citation. we dont lie about SM. its as simple as that. so i'm undoing your deletion; remember i never stated it as fact; i was merely stating that a known fan forum generated information that may or may not be true. And for a counterpoint; the last sentence says that SM announced theyre done recording while on tour. I certainly see no citation there. 128.2.251.69 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It IS against Wikipedia policy. See WP:VERIFY. A forum is NOT a reliable source. Especially when the source has been known to make up things in the past that are blatantly false. I know people that went to that show and they didn't say anything about the release month. Even if we get the source from some kid talking to some member of the band, that still is not published and could be highly inaccurate and un-published. I'm not going to let information stand from a forum that is known to put false stuff on Wikipedia.++aviper2k7++

Hey, do you think that I'm doing it properly and are satisfied with me correcting them? Check here for what I'm talking about. Thanks! Soxrock 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks a bunch.++aviper2k7++ 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars1955 is on the verge of being allowed to return

Hey there, remember this guy? Well, at WP:CN, there is a discussion being conducted concerning the lifting of his ban. Go over there and voice your opinion, if you're interested. –King Bee (τγ) 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio's disruptive behavior

Hey there. This is a comment I'm leaving in response to Jmfangio's disruptive behavior on either Talk:Peyton Manning or Talk:Brett Favre. I would appreciate it if you could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior and help solve this situation; whatever assistance you can provide is quite helpful. If you choose not to be a part of this, then that would be perfectly fine, as well. Thank you. Ksy92003(talk) 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]