User talk:Funandtrvl: Difference between revisions

Hello, Funandtrvl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Funandtrvl, you removed a bunch of redlinks (for stimulant compounds that are still awaiting pages) from the stimulants template, I'm not sure if this was an accident but I have put them back where they should be. Meodipt (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See: User:NicoV/Wikipedia Cleaner/Documentation for WikiCleaner tool to remove red-links.

Funandtrvl (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand, those redlinks on that template are place holders for compounds which do not yet have pages, but will do in the future. So there is no correct page name to link them to, as the page has not yet been created. Nevertheless they should stay on the template for now, to remind people that pages need to be made for those compounds in the future. Good work cleaning the place up though anyway, keep it up! Meodipt (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 204.81.226.151, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Waterden (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for fixing that link, which I had shamefully missed. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when using editing tools. Your program changed the "attack cargo ship" string at USS McCawley (APA-4) to "amphibious cargo ship", probably automatically because "attack cargo ship" is a redirect. But there was no such thing as an "amphibious cargo ship" in 1943. The type was redesignated from attack cargo ship (AKA) to amphibious cargo ship (LKA) only in the 1960s. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks for your disambiguation work earlier today. You may not be aware of it, but you cleaned up more than 13% of the links remaining to be cleaned as part of my personal call sign disambiguation project. Mlaffs (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I hope that most of them were right, please feel free to correct any errors!!--Funandtrvl (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the Wikiproject tags from category tag pages. The scope of Wikiprojects always includes relevant categories as well as the articles included in them; note that the Wikiproject templates will specify "category" as the class of page, so this is obviously intended. Thanks! Postdlf (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, procedure acknowledged.-Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for this courtesy. I've added my support on the Templates for deletion page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was labeled "Repairing link to disambiguation page" but it did a lot more than that. For example, it replaced "high blood pressure" with the less-understandable "hypertension" and it redid the number of columns in "References" and it changed the section header for "References". Were all these changes intended? Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I resized references per Template:Reflist#Browser support and Wikipedia:Footnotes#Resizing references, so smaller size will be reflected in IE7, which I use primarily. Added two spaces after last section to prevent bunch-ups of navboxes. Wikilinks still need to be piped to point to current page names, not redirect pages.--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see the two spaces, but I am still puzzled by the resizing and redirect issues. Could you please follow up at Talk:Vaccine #Reflist and at Talk:Vaccine #Redirect pages? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funandtrvl, you just substituted bad style for good style using the Wikipedia_Cleaner bot to WP:Profanity, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&diff=259122627&oldid=247568609. Bad style is not a problem, using a bot to systematically replace good style with bad style is. Per WP:MOS#Institutions, "The at the start of a title is not normally capitalized". All the major American style guides say the same thing, concerning most proper nouns.

But this is actually bigger than just a style question, it's a question of not "repairing" links that aren't broken, especially not with a bot. I see you asked this question over at User_talk:NicoV/Wikipedia_Cleaner/Documentation in October. The reply didn't come til late November, in case you missed it:

Problems with other users reverting back changes from the WikiCleaner

Recently, after using the WikiCleaner on several pages, I have had other users revert back the changes. Are any of you having the same problem? Any ideas on how to prevent this happening? Thanks for your help! Funandtrvl (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious reason would be in the previous talk section: Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. If you don't like a guideline it should be changed, not overridden, and certainly not overridden automatically by a bot. Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Concerning redirects-I see the instructions at WP:R2D and will keep that in mind for the future, wouldn't there be exceptions for navigational templates and pages with links to disambiguation pages? (2) Concerning "The" in "The New York Times" in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&diff=259122627&oldid=247568609, according to WP:THE#When definite and indefinite articles should be used, my revision was correct and your revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=261740480, is not correct. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. WP:THE is a naming convention, and therefore only applies to the name that should be used in the title of the article. All major American styleguides would agree (if they mention it by name) that The New York Times is the correct name of the paper; all do agree to either lowercase or even drop the "the" for the title of any work or institution inside a sentence, depending on context, as in "Have you seen Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen?" "Yes, I've seen the whole Ring Cycle" (not "The whole Ring Cycle" or "The Ring Cycle", even though that's the name of the work). References on request. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also aware of the American style guidelines; however, considering what MOS:CAPS says about using proper names or trademarks and the fact that the example on that page uses: "The Guardian Manual of Style", with "The" capitalized, there does not seem to be any kind of consistency to which style should be used here on WP. Thus, it is easy to see why there is a difference of usage, considering the confusing guidelines. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the change that you made to the archive header at WT:CHICAGO is an improvement? No one will know which archive to go to without the dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, added the more detailed {{Archive box collapsible}} --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get a gold star for taking an interest in the candies article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when removing red links from dab pages, as in this edit [1] where you removed the link from the comic strip. Note the section of MOS:DAB dealing with red links (MOS:DABRL): "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." In this case the comic is also linked in the blue-linked article Jackie Ormes. I'll grant that notability--and thus the possibility of an article actually being created--is certainly debatable, but it's not out of the question. If in your opinion, though, notability is insufficient, you should remove the red link from the dab page and the article. Otherwise, though, keep up the good cleanup work. I can't believe I blinked on that Soviets entry on the Candy Girl page. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about removing the link from the article page, also. Will do! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edits at Orca (disambiguation) you removed a number of redirects that were, I believe, correctly on the page because they may one day have their own pages. You may disagree and rv my edits, but I thought the page looks nicer this way. Also, I moved a lot of stuff to see also because of MOS:DABNAME, do you agree with this? PDBailey (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the page for me! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a test on Help:Reverting, that page is a Meta duplicate page and all instructions were followed per the paragraph at the bottom of that page, as follows: "This page is a copy of the master help page at Meta (for general help information all Wikimedia projects can use), with two Wikipedia-specific templates inserted. To update the main text, edit the master help page for all projects at m:Help:Reverting. For Wikipedia-specific issues, use Template:Ph:Reverting (the extra text at the bottom of this page) or Template:Phh:Reverting for a Wikipedia-specific lead (text appears at the top of this page). You are welcome to replace the full wikitext of this page with that of the master page at Meta at any time. To view this page in other languages see the master page at Meta." Requesting a detailed explanation of the problem, please. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, my apologizes. I apparently didn't look at all of the edits. =( Sorry. On a side note, do use the preview button when possible. Again, my apologies.Smallman12q (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I always use the preview button, that help page was sufficiently complicated enough, that I was not able to do all the revisions in just one edit, sorry. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear asshole,

If you could read, you would know the reasoning behind my edit -- the training of ministers was not (and never was) a relevant factor in the designation of an institution as a college. Now would you please refrain from threatening legal action because I edited an article in a way that you disagreed with. It's not my fault you're an uneducated Christian fundamentalist half-wit.