User talk:71.234.215.133/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi - thanks for your comment on the talk page - I hadn't realised that Other Ranks wasn't linked in the article, so have now rectified that. Apologies that it wasn't immediately obvious to you and for the frustration, and thanks for letting me know. Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not an ignoramus - just stymied by one of the many differences between Br Eng and US Eng! For me here in the UK and not knowing that much about the Armed forces, a soldier or a sailor could be a member of the Army or Navy of any rank, from a Field Marshal down to a Private and an Admiral of the Fleet down to a Seaman (I won't go into the Air Force ...!) I dare say a Field Marshal might bridle at being called a soldier, but that's his job, after all, just with a lot of pips on his shoulder! Jasper33 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the copyvio is actually the Coffee Digest plagiarizing from Wikipedia. Hold on and I'll have a look. --NellieBly (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The removed text never read as a Wiki article. Plus the removed text had pic captions included. Thank you for looking. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho! You are absolutely 100% right on this. Poor Cluebot - bots don't have much of a clue. --NellieBly (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything. I wanted to stop other editors from assuming that Cluebot was correct and simply reverting without looking, which is why I put that message on the talk page, but I couldn't actually get the Coffee Time link to load for me - I kept getting a Code 500 error message for some reason. So I just wrote something on the talk page that would allow other editors to see that a real person was checking up on the bot's reversion. I didn't mean to confuse you, so I apologize. --NellieBly (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't lie. I'm sorry you feel it necessary to attack me about such a minor item. I won't respond to you again, as I find your response inaccurate as to my actions and intentions and refuse to get involved in drama over it. I have also removed our conversation from my talk page (it's still in page history) - it's my opinion that your attack was unfair, and I have the right to remove anything from my talk page (as you can with this). I was trying to help you - I even went into the page history for Pele and found that link to Coffee Time and read the article - and you attacked me. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

And the reason I felt uncomfortable last night was that your tone appeared combative to me. I couldn't figure out why you kept replying to me over and over again and trying to get facts straight when I was trying to help you. I was trying to reassure you that I wasn't about to report you and you became unpleasant - anyone would be a bit uncomfortable and tend to walk on eggshells in that circumstance, or at least I would. Did you not realize that each page on Wikipedia contains a history that allows editors to look at previous versions of the article, including, in this case, the URL to the Coffee Time website? --NellieBly (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a liar because of this (quoting from your own talk page posting):

• '"I couldn't actually get the Coffee Time link to load for me - I kept getting a Code 500 error message for some reason. So I just wrote something on the talk page that would allow other editors to see that a real person was checking up on the bot's reversion."

I verified what I was reading and asked:

• 4. You could not log on to X site
• 5. You put in the discussion page of A article that my edit was legitimate "to stop other editors from assuming that Cluebot was correct and simply reverting without looking"

You responded in the affirmative ("That's right.") and added:

• "At the point I saw your edit, I didn't notice that you'd pointed out that the captions were an obvious clue. I just wanted to prevent other editors from automatically reverting your removal and sending you a bunch of warnings that you didn't deserve for making a good edit."

Where am I wrong to call what you did lying?

But you are not reading this, so it does not matter. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You spent 7 edits and 30 minutes making sure I knew I was an ungrateful editor. Why are you wasting that time and effort? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page.

I looked over your archiving of Talk:Celestial spheres and noticed that you did not increment the archive counter for the bot that automatically archives the page to remove material older than 60 days; I incremented it myself and hope it works. It's probably not a good idea to manually archive pages that are archived by a bot. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not see the archive would happen automatically. I will not manually make an archive again. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you said about hemostasis versus haemostasis. The difference is negligible. But <<namaskar>> and <<namaste>> are NOT American-vs.British 'spelling' differences. They are different forms of greeting in Hinduism with different meanings in Sanskrit. Namaskaar means "I salute [your] form" and Namaste means "I salute you". Namaskaar and Namaste are very different, so whoever joined the two articles doesn't know what he/she is writing about and I would think that in Wikipedia such a glaring difference in denotative value would be fairly meaningful. --68.175.38.243 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your vigilance and patience!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. The original source of the file (Jerry Dougherty at fotki.com) attributed it as the Carroll Building and I had assumed the photographer had labeled the building correctly. I will remove the picture from the article. Thanks for pointing it out. --Polaron | Talk 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone changed "show 'dancetty...'" to "show a 'dancetty...'". There's no such thing as a dancetty, so rather than revert I inserted the necessary noun. Fiddle with it as you see fit. —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for the article, but the original IP seems to be one of those "post official looking information" vandals, so I'm going to just remove the information since there are no sources for it. (I added the tags in a "don't bite the newbie" move, but should have checked their history first- they already have one talk about not editing articles in that way, so my suspicions are now aroused. Yeah, assume good faith, but now I'm somewhere between that and bad faith.) SmallCheez (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks For the Help!

Especially for fixing the reference links. Referencing was the one thing I was terrible at in school- I just don't get how it's done. About some of the content, I was looking at WP:MOSTV. One of the things it says can be listed is reception, and so I added Chris' quote about how the show had been received. (Mind you, I'm not saying it makes it any less wrong for it to be in there, I'm just explaining why it was there.)

The one thing I am concerned about is this:

On December 30th, 2011, the SCETV channels 29.1 and 49.1 replaced the original airing of "Ker-Honk" with an episode of "Riverbanks Round-Up".

According to WP:ITALIC, longer works (such as entire series) are italicized, and the titles of individual works (such as episodes) are in quotations. Riverbanks Roundup is indeed a series, not an episode in itself. Shouldn't it be in italics, or is there something I misread? (LOL, my money's on the latter.)

Just my thoughts. :) SmallCheez (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I learned Wikipedia refs by doing WP refs, and reading WP Featured Articles. WP:REF can be a lot to take in, so seeing the refs "in action" in an approved article's edit window does wonders for me. I also bookmarked Wikipedia:Citation templates as a shortcut to all the citation templates I will ever need, and Google is my friend.
• WP:TVRECEPTION states "Reception" is for an analyses of critical reviews, listing of awards, show-inspired crazes and/or games, etc.. Unless the creator panned his own show, I think it is assumed he is happy it was renewed.
•  Fixed You were right, Riverbanks Round Up should be italicized. I read it as an episode of Wild Kratts and "quoted" it. I was wrong.

I almost corrected the section title to conform to WP:CAPS (===Thanks for the help!===) but I find jokes are difficult to carry off in print. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Heh, I'm too silly to know how to do things like that. I'll see the "in action" example and still have no idea what to do.
  • I wouldn't have noticed if you had corrected the title, joke or not, so it would have gone over my head anyways, LOL!

SmallCheez (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me the reference thing, it makes a lot more sense now! (In case you didn't see the ANI I sent about 74.127, it took me two hours just to DIFF [turns out you surround the url with square brackets *eyeroll*], so I can only imagine how long it would have took to try to figure out reffing on my own!) SmallCheez (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit[1] whilst contributing a great deal, also wiped out' certain helpful sections completely from the article. Hard to tell whether that was deliberate, but you should not have removed the proper modern list of the birthstones as it had been listed beneath the "Modern" section.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please userfy the page you had deleted "Koala Country BBS" thank you. Warrenlead (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I am not an administrator, I cannot see the deleted page to copy it. As an IP, I am unable to create pages anywhere other than here, my talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 71.234.215.133. You have new messages at SwisterTwister's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, 71.234.215.133. You have new messages at Weylin.piegorsch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Keep in mind that these two terms are not the same. Gender refers to psychological orientation while sex refers to genetics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I got a msg and have no idea what you're talking abt, and I don't care. 75.150.52.162 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not undo an edit just because it was made by an IP, as you did at Play-Doh. The edit is a valid challenge of unsourced material, not vandalism or test editing. Instead, supply reliable sources as to the importance of the material, and remember that IPs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"unsourced material": I saw the movie and the story about Play-Doh plays a significant part. Watch the movie yourself and see for yourself.

Please provide sourced material which proves PlayDoh is NOT mentioned. Phil Konstantin (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Play-Doh‎; 00:47 . . (+1,081)‎ . . ‎Philkon (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Cultural impact: I added about a dozen references to the story told about Play-Doh in this movie, so 71.234.215.133 / Fat&Happy will stop deleting it as unsourced and irrelevant){{subst:unsigned|Philkon|00:51, 25 April, 2013 (UTC)}) Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments on user talk pages. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC) - Why don't you sign your name? Oh, that's right, you name is 71.234.215.133. Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Phil Konstantin

This message is from Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon:

Something being mentioned in a movie does not make it notable enough for an encyclopedia.

• Did the movie mention of the item drive up sales?
• Did the makers of the item pay an outrageous amount to have it mentioned in the movie?
• Were the makers payed outrageously so the item could be mentioned in the movie?
• Did the makers use the item's mention in the movie as a selling point in a major ad campaign?
• Has the movie's mention of the item become a phenomena, sweeping nations and/or hearts?

Any of these things could be included in an encyclopedia article, as long as it was covered by a reliable source - blogs, clip sites, and real estate agencies are not reliable sources about overall social impact, sales, product placements in movies, or movie production costs. ("I saw the movie" does not make either one of us a reliable source.) The rules about original research also forbid us from saying, "It's mentioned on so many sites, it's got to be important!" Find a single reliable source and the mentioned-in-a-movie statement is no longer trivial, and I will be very happy to leave it alone (I cannot speak for User:Fat&Happy).

All of the above also holds true for "The Simpsons" mention/use.

You might benefit from reading this section of the WP:POPCULTURE essay, especially paragraph 3. Also, please sign your comments on user talk pages. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and my assessment remains true. The mention of Play-Doh to make a very specific point (and what some feel is the best part of the movie) does make it a relevant point. Why would someone buy the product because it was mentioned in a movie make it relevant? And yet quite a few bloggers have used the story in the movie to illustrate a point. I do not understand your mentioning of if Play-doh paid to have its product in the movie. Do you know this happened? How would it make sense without the story being told as a part of the movie. Are you saying Play-Doh went all over Hollywood seeking out a writer who would write a story so Play-Doh could be used in it because it has an interesting story? First you accuse Play-Doh paying to have it included, and now you say they should have an ad campaign because it was mentioned? Those seem contradictory. You said it was unsourced. yes, I saw the movie. You said it was still unsourced. So, I provided clips of the movie showing the story. Now you offer contradictory justification, or the lack there of, that it is not culturally relevant. I do not support the Simpson's TV inclusion as having much significance. But, many people have blogged about the story in the movie. Gee, is it as culturally significant as the bombing in Boston? No, of course not. However, it would be significant for anyone looking up Play-Doh.

If the movie had only shown a can of Play-Doh on a wall, in a box of toys, or even a child playing with it without mention (perhaps product placement), I would agree with you. It is the story behind PlayDoh and its detailed story, and how the story changes the outlook of the movie, and how many people have blogged about it that make it more than just a tiny blip of info.

Finally, please provide a detailed and annotated definition of "reliable source." You keep moving the goalposts.

By your definition, PlayDoh itself should not be in Wikipedia.

If you feel this inclusion is so abhorrent, please submit it for arbitration.

Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon

"Three editors have removed the same material in the past month with you restoring it;"

I only see two editors who removed it: yourself and "Fat&Happy". I was working under the hypothesis you were "Fat&Happy" and had finally identified yourself by something other than a number. If there was a third editor, I will humbly stand corrected. However, without a third name, that would make you an unreliable source (jest intended).

Having read Identifying Reliable Sources, it appear primarily interested in the determination of facts and the veracity of the facts presented. The fact that the story of Play-Doh is in the movie is beyond question, unless you feel the links to clips I provided were faked. If you mean has a anthropologist done peer-reviewed research on whether the story has affected society, I will grant you I am unaware of this happening. My contention remains that numerous bloggers and reviewers have mentioned the Play-Doh story as a significant part of the movie. That is a verifiable fact, which I provided links to just a few. Being a television broadcaster myself, I have mentioned it on the air. Sorry, but I do not have a video of it to prove that I said it. You can verify the fact that I am a reporter in San Diego either through my own website ( http://americanindian.net ), my YouTube Channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cherokeephil/ ) which includes copies of many of my stories, or this following link to my most recent story for which there is a video available (this week: http://www.cbs8.com/category/155799/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8811034 ). I will stand by the results of the review if more than just a few people respond. Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon

The RFC I started lists all three. (There were actually four, but the fourth (first?) was in December.) It does not matter what hypothesis you were/are working under. What you think about other editors matters not a whit unless such thinking spills over into Wikipedia.

--

I see the other one now. That did not show up in the history when I looked at it. I stand corrected.

What I "think about other editors" only applied to the counting of editors, not to their value. I mean you no ill will.

My dispute here is that I consider the movie itself to be the "reliable source." It was released by a Columbia. It featured four of the most well known actors in Hollywood at the present time: Reese Witherspoon (Academy Award winner), Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson (Academy Award winner). It was directed by James L. Brooks (Academy Award winner). It was not just a casual mention in that movie, but a significant plot point.

We seem to disagree on that point. Phil Konstantin (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a nick name yet. Why do you think you are profi in this niche "Birthstones". The link which I've been provided is not a spam. This is additional information by the subject. Open google.com and type "Birthstones". Look at the top 10 and show me any site except Birthstones Online, which provide more information about the subject. If you will.....I'll accept your edition., because Wikipedia, itself, provide scanty information about this subject. This is a free encyclopedia and anyone can edit it. But you must to study SUBJECT, before delete external links. Please find any source better than http://www.birthstonesonline.com/!?!?!?!?! Find, and I'll delete this edition by myself!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The external link you added is to a blog or personal website by unknown author(s). As such, it fails the Wikipedia guideline for external links and the Wikipedia policy for reliable sources, and thus appears to be spam. Please use the original journals and/or books when adding information to Wikipedia. Be sure to <ref></ref> them with the year of publication and the page number you are taking the information from. Paraphrase it so as not to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. DO NOT COPY TEXT DIRECTLY FROM A SOURCE TO WIKIPEDIA.

By following the guidelines and policies I have linked to above your time editing Wikipedia will be much more productive and a lot less frustrating. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So, this way, at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_flower

Jump up ^ "Birth month flowers". Birthstones.org. Retrieved 2012-09-16. - This is not a proof link...Where is the source??? Private site. Jump up ^ "Birth month flowers". Birthmonthflowers.org. 1999-02-22. Retrieved 2012-09-16. - Private site...Where is the source??? Book or Journal???? This is just a link to a private site...Besides this is MFA (Made for Adsense)...Look this site content: Birthstones this is birthstones and birthstones of course are birthstones, but birthstones bla...bla...bla... Why didn't you delete these links??? I can add same table with birthstones from http://www.birthstonesonline.com/ but you'll delete it...Where is the justice??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: This link http://www.flowerstation.co.uk/delivery/birthday-floral-gifts-delivered/ is promotional. Look at it - there is flowers shop...There are not any informative articles. I can also add 1 string and add link to birthstones online as source...because there are information about birth flowers too, but you'll delete it again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read this essay. To sum it up, just because "something" is in another article, does not mean a similar "something" should be in any other article. If someone added links to non-reliable sources in the birth flower article then those links should be removed (as they have been) rather than adding more links like them in the birthstones article.

Please note that reliable sources are Wikipedia policy; if information is not reliably sourced, that information – or links to unreliable sources – can be removed until such a source is supplied. You added an unreliable source as an external link to an article and it was removed. I would suggest looking for the reliable sources you say the website is based on, culling those sources for information, and adding that information and their source(s) directly to the article(s). It would be a more productive use of time and make the article(s) better than the "scanty information" they currently contain. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the Russian History? Are you an expert in Russia? I'm from Russia and I know its history! Do you know who is Alexander? Where the Alexandrite was found? I know this, it's a history of my country. The source, which I've been added to wikipedia is reliable. I know the primary source of this page. This page was translated from original russian book about Alexandrite. The Wiki page is "....", because it is wrong. This source is better. So, please, stop delete reliable links! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.66.68 (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So? Why did you stop the discussion??? Let's discuss...You just don't have any arguments. You've added the source (I've been linked) in a black list? I see an unhealthy preoccupation in a birthstones niche...May be you have a site about birthstones...???

Let's discuss if you're an expert. Forget about rose cut diamond. Let's discuss about an Alexandrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.66.68 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha! Wikipedia have no reliable sources. Look at the example for a 5 minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January, look at the link to http://www.birthflowersguide.com/january-birth-flower.html !!!! Is it a reliable source??? This site have 13 links indexed by Google!!!!! 13!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February, link to http://www.babiesonline.com/flowersbirthmonth/ Please, tell me why these sources are reliable?????

---

Is this site (birthstonesonline) a good source or bad, you have no right to add this site in a spam list of wikipedia. I traced the entire history! You have a biased attitude to all links from this site. What right have you to judge the webmaster of this site and add it to the spam list? You never know who put a link to it! It could be friendly or an attacker!

This way, why don't you trace all pages jan, feb, march, april, etc...to delete these links...Why did you delete only this one??????? You're still wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.66.68 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2014