User talk:Stephenb/Archive 1

Hello Stephenb/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 22:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your 'corrections' the the hyphenation of the bombing article are not helpful. The correct hyphen character to use is U+2010 (‐ or ‐). Nicholas 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

• I think you are incorrect, as posted to your talk page: (a) the 8208 code I corrected didn't work in my IE browser (displayed square box), (b) other uses on the same page used the hyphen I used (e.g. double-decker), (c) all your reversions back to the unicode code have since been reverted back again(!), and (d) hyphen doesn't use the unicode version either. Thanks for the comments though! Stephenb 08:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just been visiting and updating the Monopoly page (and localization article) to reflect the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 - for the latter article, I notice you changed the "Delete" to a "Merge". Since I don't see much point in an article on a limited edition of the board game (it's not notable!), I wondered why you did this. Would it be OK if I changed it back to a "Delete" or would a stub be more appropriate (in which case I'll relink it from the main article)? A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as nothing else linked there. I'm fairly new to this chat stuff, so please let me know if I've got it wrong - Thanks! Stephenb 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would discourage you from changing it back to a delete. I disagree that it's not notable; I think that it warrants a one-line mention in the main article (something along the line of In 2005, in recognition of the 70th anniversary of the game, Parker Brothers released a "Monopoly Here and Now Limited Edition" with a modern design featuring new game pieces (such as a cheeseburger) and new property spaces (such as Heathrow Airport).. Once merged, the original article can be replaced with a redirect. Kelly Martin 19:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind that. I just checked the main article and it appears that all relevant content is already in the article. I've replaced the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 page with a redirect. Kelly Martin 19:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

'Thanks. Seems pointless keeping the redirect, but I bow to your experience :-) Stephenb 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

I see the redirect as totally harmless. Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and redirects cost so little. Kelly Martin 20:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I've been to the UK and as far as I remember there were only two roads... course I spent a lot of time in the pubs, but I think I remember enough.... j/k. Good catch on this edit; I got a good laugh. Take care. - grubber 15:18, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

I agree, publisher is better suited the other changes sound good too, how about adding the cover price too?

AdamLondon 20:38, 2 August 2005 (BST) (Talk)

Looks good Stephen, thanks for updating the pages I'd already added the info box to. No idea how you managed that.--Adam 20:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support concern Scottish Baronies, I just don't get the gentleman point for deletion I wrote it some 5 months ago and now these. Thanks Again. --The Baron of Fulwood 15:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is the proper use of categories. Check out the example on the convention page: Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories. Notice that the suggested category for Michael Jackson is not Category:Michael Jackson, but rather Category:Pop singers. It's fine that there's a Category:Gillingham F.C. page, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a link to Category:English football clubs on the main Gillingham F.C. page. A user should not have to click on the Gillingham cat. in order to get to a link to the English football clubs cat. It is unnecessary to have a link to the the English football clubs cat. on the Gillingham cat. if you're looking to pare down the number of categories. - Pal 09:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But if an article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, then why isn't it suggested that Microsoft Office should only be in a cat. called Category:Microsoft Office since that category exists? Likewise, it isn't suggested that the Michael Jackson article should only appear in Category:Michael Jackson.

Here's why I think it's logical for an article on an English football club to link to the Category:English football clubs. If a user is on the Liverpool F.C. page and they want to see articles about other similar teams, how are they to know that to get to this broader page they must first click through the seemingly less inclusive Category:Liverpool F.C. page? That seems illogical. - Pal 15:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point in bringing in the Michael Jackson and Microsoft Office examples was to illustrate that if the an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory takes precidence, then every single article on Wikipedia should only be in its own category (in which case they'd never be in more than one category).

Also, the rule you mention was arbitrarily inserted into the Wikipedia:Categorization page by a user in June. Prior to that there was an exception that allowed categories to be in both categories and subcategories. If you observe the discussion page you'll see that there's still no consensus on the subject. Personally, I'd argue that this rule seems to contradict the spirit of the Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article guideline. - Pal 22:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're never going to agree on this, I figured I'd suggest that if you're very serious about this change, that you first run the changes by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football page. This project was set up to standardize and improve football articles, and what you're suggesting (which is in fact a guideline, not a rule) would require a change to every single football club page for every team from every country. - Pal 13:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. You recently created 'Category:Companions of the British Empire', when actually, CBE stands for Commander of the British Empire. I've corrected the pages of those who were in the category by changing them to Category:Commanders of the British Empire. Happy editing! Craigy (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What sources besides Wikipedia are you referring to? --217.185.31.184 17:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see User talk:217.185.31.184 --217.185.31.184 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours. Hopefully, he won't just go on to a different computer.--Scïmïłar ^parley 17:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish we didn't let anonymous IP's touch Wikipedia. Oh well. Oh, a suggestion- the talk link on your signature goes to User talk:Name, not User talk:Stephenb. You might want to fix that ;). Regards, Scïmïłar ^parley 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this edit --tyomitch 19:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know - thanks, I won't revert such an edit again (although I still think it reads better as singular) Stephenb (Talk) 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The article says that both ways are correct: The Latin plural data is also used as a plural in English, but it is also commonly treated as a mass noun and used in the singular. For example, "This is all the data from the experiment". This usage is inconsistent with the rules of Latin grammar, which would suggest "These are the data ...". However, given the variety and irregularity of English plural constructions, there seem to be no grounds for arguing that data is incorrect as a singular mass noun in English. --tyomitch 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you see, we're up to a kind of spelling war now ;-) --tyomitch 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, looks like you and I are on RC patrol and using similar techniques to spot the idiots...! Perhaps there's a better way to stop ourselves rvv'ing things on top of each other (if you know what I mean?!) - give me a shout if you're interested and can suggest better ways to collaborate. I see you've got some lovely grapes for doing such a grand job! Budgiekiller 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say I've been undoing this guys work (I know him) and I noticed you've been doing the same, well done. Just please don't request teh IP to be banned, as it is my colleges IP address. Is there a way of just banning unregistered users on an ip? this guy is spamming a URL which is his own made up version of our college website. Also-what techniques? I wanna learn. abscond

I know about the policy, and I used to take them out. But I have been told twice (by people who ought to know) that in order for date format options to work, they have to all be links. Let me know if you find out more about this policy (which sounds odd to me). Ksnow 14:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

I checked this out, and it only applies to month/date, so I will be taking out the duplicate links on year-only entries. Ksnow 15:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Thanks for fixing the article link to one of my favourite BBC Radio 4 programmes, In Our Time, in the BBC Radio 4 article ! -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. - Akamad 13:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		I award this Barnstar to Stephenb for heroic work fighting vandals

I came upon your user page and contribution list at random and saw how very many vandalisms you have reverted. I see you already have grapes! Just wanted to let you know that your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the good work! Gaius Cornelius 18:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that barnstar, keep up the good work!! --JoanneB 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the IP vandal you just "test3" warned: I had blocked them a few seconds prior to your edit, so I have replaced your warning with a block notice. I hope you don't mind. -- Karada 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reported them to WP:AIV so hopefully they'll get blocked soon. --Syrthiss 19:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Firefox got them both now. :) --Syrthiss 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. I figured between you and me reverting them I could take a min and go report them. Cheers. --Syrthiss 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. 16:14, December 2, 2005 Syrthiss ({{nonsense}})
2. 16:13, December 2, 2005 Stephenb ({{db-nonsense}})

) --Syrthiss 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the rvv on Randomness. I was in the middle of doing the same rvv; but it looks like you got to it first...  :) Jamie 21:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you too keep reverting the removal of half of the content on the Cult television page. I've created a discussion about it on the talk page Talk:Cult_television, and I'd really appreciate your input; even if it's just an agreement. Thanks HowardBerry 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the agreement... I also considered the account could be someone winding us up, or perhaps a sockpuppet account. Either way, their constant removal of half of the content really should stop! HowardBerry 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelieveable. Sanhedrin has now listed this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation and has totally failed to put forward our side of the dispute. Incidentally, I had already listed the dispute in a more suitable place, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, as I have been going through the correct process of dispute resolution. It strikes me as odd that a "new" user would go straight to a page and edit it defiantly against all reverts, and then have the knowledge to go to the mediation/disputes page. Really smells like a sockpuppet account me. HowardBerry 22:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has begun at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cult television. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephenb,

Since Sanhedrin hasn't responded to the mediation he requested, I'm relieving you and HowardBerry of your promises not to edit the Cult television article. If Sanhedrin does come back, I've requested that he join the mediation before editing the article, and so we'd be able to start it up again.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... I don't know if you saw, but Sanhedrin finally got around to replying to the mediation request; so it could be back on again... Howie ☎ 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reply to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cult television, as - once again - Sanhedrin doesn't have the manners to reply to his/her own mediation request. Howie ☎ 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've closed the mediation. Let me know if you have any further questions, and good luck with any future discussions. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, you're right. Nearly forgot that detail, it's been so long. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits. 72.225.138.173 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you removed the external links to www.lakelandscape.co.uk that I added to various references regarding the Lake District?

These were not spam. www.lakelandscape.co.uk is a useful and thorough, not-for-profit guide to the Lake District, and there are already 'official' Wikipedia links to it (see 'Crummock Water' for example).

194.150.176.251 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I would also be interested to hear your views on this edit please. I have added a little of the content on this page and the photo's are ones i took. Whilst i agree 100% that commercially driven links should be removed i can see an argument for leaving in links which help explain the subject in more depth. Just interested. Collieman

Stephen, thanks for your reply and having followed the links through more thoroughly i can see why you came to the conclusion you did.I had only mentioned that the photos in wiki were mine and that i had contributed to the page to show why i was interested in that page. The external link was not one i had put in.All the best Collieman

Do you see any problem with it other than you feel it is US-centric? Your action seems rash. If you had taken a look at the page history or my recent contributions, you would have seen that I have done tremendous work on these pages to counter US-centrism. However, countering US-centrism does not mean that it is forbidden to add any American picture - this would be ridiculous. Please respect my work on these pages and reinsert the picture. Thanks. Common Man 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC), edited 12:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to you here per your request, if I understand it correctly. After you carried the conversation to my talk page, I replied to you there and you wrote:

"I would have appreciated all this more if you'd replied on MY talk page, instead of finding this here today."

I don't see what your problem is. Please make up your mind where you want the conversation to take place. I'll be fine with consolidating the conversation at any place you see fit, but I actually would prefer to just move on - I'm getting tired of this. Common Man 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reconciliatory reply on my talk page - I agree, we both made mistakes. Regarding location, I guess there are different ideals. I, for one, prefer if a conversation is consistent, and when I post a note on any page I keep that page on my watchlist until I get a reply or I lose interest. (On user's talk pages there are occasionally other reasons to take it off the list: When the user archives it or when he/she responded to other posts and not to mine.)

You're asking why I assumed that you were a seasoned editor: I wrongly gained that impression from your collection of barn stars. I now see the irony that my respect for your achievement actually resulted in taking your question less seriously, and I apologize for that.

We both agreed that we have no interest in carrying this on, but with the reconciliatory turn of the conversation I feel more at ease about it now, and since I feel we can both learn from this I'll just write it here - I completely understand if you prefer to not reply:

There seem to be two remaining issues on either side. As for me, it was being accused of US-centrism, and I would still appreciate your acknowledgement that that does not do justice to my edit history on 1829 or related pages. For you, the problem apparently was that you felt being accused of bullying. I never accused you personally of bullying, but I understand how you could take it that way. Conversely, I now understand that you did not mean to directly threaten me. But do you understand why, when someone says "I'm very tempted to do X", others might take that as a threat to do X? Common Man 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my talk page :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-19 07:21Z