Jump to content

User talk:RG2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 1 January 2006 (→MB fac). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello RG2, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 07:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Texan Collaboration of the Month

Hey there! Have you considered moseying over to the Texas Collaboration of the Month? We're currently trying to select which article should be improved next. If you're interested, you'd be most welcome. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for The West Wing (television)

I have put The West Wing article up as a candidate for featured article status. Your input and support in the FAC located here would be appreciated! Thanks! -Scm83x 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with some of your requests (others may have been dealt with by other members). I added correct copyright data and fair use justifications for all images in the article, but I can't find any foreign reviews of The West Wing... Staxringold 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Man EXCELLENT work with a spoken article addition. I'm on a school computer (which can't play oggs) but I'm sure it's great. I may end up moving the spoken article box further up so people see it before reading all the way through, but very nice! Staxringold 12:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

neat!

I didn't even know (though I probably could have guessed) that there was some sort of acknowledgement system on wikipedia. I'm happy to have gotten a star. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rebelguys, I saw your post at WP:CFD and wanted to let you know: to create a text link to a category (or image) insert a colon at the start of the link: [[:Category:People]] creates Category:People. When you just insert a link to a category without the colon, it think you are trying to add the article to the category and the link doesn't appear. Hope this helps. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot about that. Thanks! -Rebelguys2 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?

why do you want to be banned until december 21st? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewater (talk • contribs)

It's a tongue in cheek joke; don't worry too much about it. A Wikipedia addiction during the final exam period is not always a healthy combination. ;) -Rebelguys2 05:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merit Badge Article

rebelguys2, AKA Robert Chan, I like the Eagle Scout template you made and added it to my own user page. My son is an Eagle too and is still a youth in Scouts. I also love your concrete suggestions on my MB article. They are specific, balanced (not too one sided), and workable. I also feel most of the others who have or will comment on the FAC can eventually agree to them once made--here, I'm separately the wheat from the chaff on the FAC page. My FAC has only been up 1 1/2 days and it has a slew of input. I find this quite interesting.

One question--Someone has been editing the comments on the FAC page for the "Prostitution in the People's Republic of China" article; probably because it's had tons of input. This has made me think: Since I want to concentrate on your suggestions, should I leave my article's FAC page as is, edit it, or what?Rlevse 13:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is easy to find because you have your personal page, which has your name, is linked on your userpage. I clicked on the link simply out curiosity. I guess my FAC page is going to get pretty long. JohnDBuell is helping work on the page and I like his work. I am confident if he, you, and I work together, we can get it to FA. Rlevse 14:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JohnDBuell and I agreed to take the FAC out. I archived the FAC too. We're going to work on it, change the name to "Merit badge design history (BSA)", and resubmit it after we finish your suggestions. I'll ask for your input from time to time if that's okay. Rlevse 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I think we've addressed all of your points but the bulleted lists. I'm sure some of what we did needs more tweaking though. When you get time from studying-;), could you look the article over in general, but specifically suggest what would be good to do with the lists. Many of the lists are complete sentences, but I am not sure what to do with them: remove bullet mark on the left, make each line a separate paragraph, etc. I'd appreciate suggestions. Thanks. Rlevse 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing is now FA

Thanks to your comments and constructive criticism, The West Wing has now reached featured article status. Thank you again so much for your input! -Scm83x 05:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Wing work

Well done! You're quite the wiki addict! Cornell Rockey 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merit Badge Article un-bullet test

HI: Please see the last note in 'merit badge article' thread here one your talk page if you haven't seen it already. I thought of something that might work with un-bulleting this article's bullets. As a test, I've only changed the "badge history" section. I took out the bullets, made a sub-sub section, called it "Examples of merit badge changes", and made it more prosy. I'd appreciate knowing what you think of it and the state of the article as is. If this change to the bullets looks, good, I'll go ahead and change the rest of them. Rlevse 13:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UT Possible Articles

  • The Drag, I can't seem to find article on it
  • Sections of Campus

Boston2austin 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British

Yes, you're right. I used to have those dates off pat, but my mind must have slipped a cog, I was thinking 1701 instead of 1801. Previous links should go to Kingdom of England, back to 927. When a biography, for example, bridges two periods I tned to use the later period, unless the person was obviously retired at that point. Rich Farmbrough. 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasor Elementary School

Please never strike or otherwise edit another user's comments (except in extreme cases of vandalism or personal attacks). Simply place a small comment under their votes/comments for the admin. You may also add a comment to the AFD talk page, and the user/ip's talk page. All admins already know to discount anon votes anyhow, and of course know to discount blatant double voting. --Rob 13:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is blatant double voting from an anonymous IP not a form of vandalism in itself? In Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, under "Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia," it simply states, "Don't misrepresent other people". What I did was not a grammatical change or the fixing of a typo, and I was hardly misrepresenting what the contributor was saying. I don't feel that I violated any Wikipedia guideline in doing what I did; rather, I was fixing a form of vandalism.
If you'll look at Wikipedia:Vandalism, you'll see that the page reads, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." I looked through "Types of vandalism," and all I could find relating to my actions read as follows, "Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around)" I did not turn anyone's vote around.
Of course, we then bring up the issue of biting the newbies. Likely, it was not blatant and intentional vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism even explicity says that something of this nature, "is not vandalism!" However, if someone is to blank an article, in practical terms, are we to consider it vandalism and revert it? Of course!
I didn't change or modify any of the meat of his argument. I obviously did not agree with his vote, and you obviously don't agree with mine. Regardless, I welcomed the anonymous IP's comments, and responded with my own in turn. However, I think what I did has not been definitively prohibited or allowed by any Wikipedia guideline. As a result, I followed the Wikipedia mantra of "being bold" and fixed the section as best I could - without violating any of Wikipedia's guidelines.
Is there a guideline I missed regarding what I did? Thanks. -Rebelguys2 20:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guesse we need to focus on what we agree: the anons double vote is unacceptable, and *all* their votes are to be discounted. Now, if you consider their double vote vandalism, then by all means report it to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and put an appropriate warning on their talk page. If they repeat it, they face blocking. Such steps deal with the problem. Striking out the text accomplishes nothing. No admin would ever count such a vote. AFDs have large numbers of disqualified votes (anons, newbies, sock-pupppets, restricted-by-arbitrators, etc...). We don't strike-out all their votes. Can you explain what striking out the anons vote accomplished? We don't strike-out vandalism anyhow (we remove it). Anyhow, I'll happily concede your actions were done in good faith, which is why I consider the matter over. Note: If I thought you had done something in bad faith I would have reverted you, but I did not. --Rob 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC) When I wrote the above, I didn't realize you resorted to name calling. We will no longer be talking about this subject. --Rob 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my comment. However, what we are now discussing to refers to CalJW's keep vote, while the matter we were discussing earlier refers to how to deal with disqualified votes and anonymous IPs. I have further arguments to support what I did reagrding the anonymous votes, but will not mention them now. However, if you would like to follow WP:CIVIL and "Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.," I will understand and consider the matter closed as well. I hope, though, that this one-time slip of my tongue (or, is it fingers?) doesn't get in the way of any real debate. Happy holidays. -Rebelguys2 21:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no response, I'll call this discussion closed, then, with my conclusions as follows:
  • Regarding the original issue: I think we can agree that the anonymous vote was unacceptable. I have seen and heard suggested the ignoring of disqualified votes, the moving of disqualified votes to a "sockpuppet" subsection, and the striking of disqualified votes - all from various administrators. There is no conclusive Wikipedia policy, and, therefore, there is no wrongdoing you can accuse me of here.
  • Regarding the latter issue: I do not appreciate your insinuation that my actions were done in bad faith. I do not appreciate your closure of the previous discussion based on this completely separate and unrelated issue. -Rebelguys2 23:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics

I'm not exactly sure about it. I just know when my friend made some Japanese pages and used the fansubber styled transliteration he was told to use a more scholarly version. If the word has common English usage that came from other than direct (Arabic in the case of mosque) transliteration then the common word should be used. For like Mosque... should have any diacrtics since it's an English word whereas Masjid should... well, if it had any it should. A good guide I belive is Britannica... it uses diacritics for certain words and we can follow their basic system. Scholarly writing uses it as well... if you read Fazlur Rahman he will use diacritics... but more pedestrian works won't. I don't know of any policy but to make an article a featured article it should have it. There are definitely sticky cases... like Muhammad really deserves a dot under the H but that's less common than macron. So... I'm not fully sure but we should have some system... there might be something about it in Arabic translation. gren グレン 00:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opps

Thanks for putting the tags into the Rock cycle article for me. --ZeWrestler Talk 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorn Template

Yeah, scm83x already hit me up on this. No way to find these existing templates, that's what the Userboxes Project is all about. Thx for the cleanup assist. 1001001 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Frank Ticheli, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 10:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Marshall Fields (White House intruder), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs)

MB fac

Two issues relating to layout. See the FAC and article about how & why I put the MB name in the top bar of the tables. Also, you may want to take a look at this: Merit badge types (BSA)/temp. The user who submitted it talks about it on Merit badge types (BSA) talk page under "writing style". If I do use it, I'd put the background one column to the left. Let me know what you think of this and any other issues you have remaining. I really do appreciate all your help. Rlevse 14:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved stricken issues in the FAC to its own subpage; that FAC page has had an enormous amount of input in such a short time that it's going to become impossible to read soon. I'll be recommenting soon. -Rebelguys2 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructed the tables. Here's what I see is left to be done per the current FAC: a) you said after the re-tabling, you'd like to look over wording, grammar, etc. This is a good time as breaking up the description caused some flux. Maybe it's swing Tony over too. b) I've fixed Nixie's objections, but he hasn't changed his vote yet; except we need to do the re-naming, which we all seem to agree on. Once re re-name it, I guess we can only wait. c) I've fixed Tuf-Kat's objections and notified him, but he hasn't changed his vote either. I guess we can only wait. d) Tony keeps saying he has lots of prose objections (I've noticed he ALWAYS objects to a FAC and it's ALWAYS about prose--I have not yet seen him support a FAC, but that's another story-;)), but he has only told me part of the specifics. I'm sorry, but I can't read his mind and I'm not sure what to do about it. At least this FAC is going much better than the first one--hehe.--Rlevse 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC) PS, when he does provide specifics, they're very good. Rlevse 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See new FAC objection by Tsavage. His objections go to the core of the article and would fundamently change it. Perhaps you could respond and placate him. I don't think merely removing the Errors section would satisfy him. Right now I do not see a way to satisfy him and everyone else. Rlevse 00:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENT retort to to Tsavage. Many thanks. Could I ask you to write the clearer lead? It appears to me you have a better grasp of what he's looking for than I do. Rlevse 01:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RG2&oldid=33437845"