Revision as of 20:28, 8 February 2008 editBefore My Ken (talk | contribs)42,112 edits →Halesy← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:02, 9 February 2008 edit undo69.91.139.228 (talk) →Information important: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.--] (]) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.--] (]) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Really? I didn't realize I had deleted sourced stuff -- I'll go over it again and check it. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | :Really? I didn't realize I had deleted sourced stuff -- I'll go over it again and check it. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Information important == | |||
Like you, I do not. |
Revision as of 04:02, 9 February 2008
Peer review requested for Duck Soup
I've now submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Input is appreciated. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- So far, there's only been one response to my submission of Duck Soup for critiques. However, the editor supplied some good observations, and even stated that "this article has good potential for Featured Article Status". Well, there's my New Year's resolution: Improve Duck Soup to FA quality and get it nominated. It would be nice to have the Marx Brother's magnum opus as a featured article, eh? I'll need your help, though, in that regard, as well as assistance from others. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for cleaning up my previous edits to the Duck Soup page, as well as clearing up my rather broad inferences. The article is looking better each time I visit it. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- And thank you for tightening that section up. The article might not yet meet the good article criteria, but it's certainly getting there! And I went ahead and reverted "footnotes" back to "notes". :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The color of valor
You're right, it's got nothing to do with whether Miller was black. If he wasn't, he might have gotten the Medal, instead. And he damn sure wouldn't have had to wait 50yrs, like some guys from the 78th? did. Or like the guys of the 442. I'm just hoping putting it in isn't about race, either, 'cause that's no better. I don't want (or intend) to make that accusation (if that's the word). Trekphiler (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd never even have noticed if I wasn't "watching" the page, so my compliments for removing it.)
- No, putting it in has very little to do with race for me. BTW, I regret posting my remark, even for the few minutes before I removed it. My apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- No apologies needed. I was trying not to ask (in all the heated posts I was doing) if it was an issue, & not have it come out like it was for me. Evidently it seeped in it was, & shouldn't have. We're square.
- Let me put this to you. If Miller had been on duty at the comm office where Ward signalled & had said, "A Jap sub at the harbor mouth? Better call the Admiral!", or had taken a bullet that would have killed (geez, I dunno) Rochefort, that would be notable. Manning a gun when somebody's shooting at you, isn't. If there's ever a page for the awards, tho, give him the full treatment there, or on his page, 'cause there, it's notable. It's a matter of...scale, for me. This is too small. If I adopt your standard, every act of valor is worthy of a footnote, it seems, & I don't accept that.
- Maybe we should just agree to disagree. Trekphiler (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Oxford university wine society
A tag has been placed on Oxford university wine society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- This page was not created by me. "Edfitz" is no longer my user name, I changed it to "Ed Fitzgerald" quite some time ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies. Someone has recreated the user name 'Edfitz' and I didn't pick up on the redirect. Sorry. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem -- I just left a longer message on your talk page on the same subject. I've removed the redirects. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Strangelove
"Your edits are not that good"...I understand you deleted that one, but I did see it and it hurt. I hope you understand that I am really trying to work with you here...but statements like that one make it difficult to believe you want anything but to beat me into submission. I did make the mistake of not checking what your edits where before I started, and I appologise for that. Now, according to the discussion page you intended for the section to stand which was why I started editing. What is it you intend to do? Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I apologize for hurting your feelings -- I thought better about it, which is why I went back and changed the comment. My intention is to insert into the article, or as footnotes, material which can be readily inserted without disruption to the flow of the writing, and to leave the rest of the material where it is. I do not find list of miscellaenous facts objectionable. I understand they have the potential to grow like Topsy, but that simply means they have to be kept under control, just like any other aspect of an article. I'm continuing to look at the material and see where it can fit in, but I believe I'm nearing a stopping point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An electronic medium is a poor way of communication, and it has a tendency to amplify...well everything. I know you didn't intend that the way it sounded, especialy judgeing from your last post. once you are done, please post on the discussion page what direction you think the article can go. I look forward to your edits. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding, and your point about electronic communications is a good one, but the fault is mine -- I felt harried and rudeness came to the surface as a result. In any event, I think I'm done with the article for the time being -- I'll take a look at it later today or tonight, but I think I've done what needs to be done. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- it may have been rude, but it was somewhat justified. I took a look at your edits, and they do work alot better than mine did. I do like the direction you where heading in. (I must say that when I was editing I ran into the footnote about the song at the end of the movie and was wondering who put that there). in any case, I am glad we are able to discuss these things and look forward to working with you in the future. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Links on Westchester County, New York
I've copied this discussion to the talk page for Westchester County -- please post responses there and not here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you undid my revert of the links to westchestertowns.com on Westchester County, New York. I feel that these links are being used to promote this website. I have removed these links a number of time and a number of them always seem to reappear. Furthermore, the fact that multiple links to the same site are added at the same time indicate to me that they are added for promotion. Misplaced Pages's external link policy states that links should normally be avoided if they "mainly intended to promote a website." I am open to your input on this subject and I think the links should be removed. Please feel free to discuss this here. --24fan24 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Basically all of the edits of 68.198.203.213 (talk · contribs) were to westchestertowns.com links to various pages. --24fan24 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also all of these edits have been to add this site to Westchester County, New York: --24fan24 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- We've repeatedly asked this person to stop adding his links and he won't stop. It looks like the only way we can stop him may be to blacklist his domains. --A. B. 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see what you have against the websites. I was unfamiliar with this editor's past history, or any conflict with him, but I found the sites to be informative and useful. I see no harm in allowing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Further, I would prefer that this discussion take place on the discussion page for Westchester County rather than here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I represent WestchesterTowns.com. Although we do have a few ads in order to cover our website expenses, WestchesterTowns.com is mostly a non-profit community based information resource for Westchester residents. More than 80% of our information is about community topics such as Town Libraries, Town websites, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, Health information, Post Offices and much more.
This information is presented in a clear and consise format that is not readily available anywhere else. It has taken several years to compile this information and we update regularly to reflect changes such as a school closing.
Many Westchester residents have sent emails thanking us for the "extensive content" of our website. I apologize if I've re-added this information - but because of the nature and importance of links such as: Libraries, Colleges & Universities, Our special Interactive Map of Westchester County, Hospitals, Emergency information and more - I believed my links were deleted in error. I did not read or see any requests to not add our information - until tonight. Many websites refrenced in wikipedia have loud flashing ads - We do not. Our ads are quiet, subtle and confined to a small area of the page. Any pages we have added to Misplaced Pages have contained relevant and important information. We promote many important topics such as Local and Organic Farming, Pesticide Prevention, Children's Educational "approved" websites, Local Historic Sites, History of each town and much more. Our new Demographics Section contains important data regarding the Environment such as Air Pollution, Waste Sites, Clean Water ... We are currently writing extensive information on Environmental Issues and how to go "Green" in Westchester. We strongly promote working together to clean our environment. I hope that you will reconsider your removal of our links.
The reason there are multiple links to www.WestchesterTowns.com is that our information is organized by community and town; each town having its own Home Page. We therefore provided links to the appropriate area. We have over 1000 pages of research and information. We added a very small percentage that we believe has added value to the Misplaced Pages sections as they relate to Westchester.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a favorable reply. Gail JonChuckles (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
CRM 114
Thanks for putting it into a sub-sub-section on the Dr. Strangelove page; that's probably the right way to handle it. I wasn't really happy with the multi-paragraph list item I'd created, but I wanted to put that item in its proper place (a page for a program named after the device wasn't it), and figured either I or somebody else would fix it up later. Guy Harris (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've probably noticed that I moved the non-Kubrick part of the CRM section into a footnote. There were several reasons for this -- not only was it looking a little too big for what is basically a sidebar subject (worthwhile to include, yes, but not to spend a lot of space on), but also having it there in what some people will insist as seeing as a "trivia" list would just attract the attention of people who'd be quite happy to delete it entirely. I felt that by pushing down the off-topic part into a note and leaving the part actually relevant to the article's topic, I was, in effect, helping to protect it and avoid a fight over its inclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 10:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
John Adams
On your user page, you have a line that links to John Adams, as well as to Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and Terry Riley; was he the John Adams you had in mind, or did you have another John Adams in mind (or were you trying to separate the sheep from the goats :-))? Guy Harris (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- No -- good catch. I put that section up recently, and obviously too quickly. Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Red Shoes" references re-org
I am planning on doing them all, I've done a few already - because I like it as well It wasn't my original idea though, Bzuk started it by doing a similar operation on the pages about Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, WP:LAYOUT is the guideline concerning end-sections. --Jtir (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Theatrical adaptation
Hi, I noticed you removed the {{dictdef}} tag I had added to theatrical adaptation. Please leave this tag until the bot has taken care of it. This will not result in the deleting of the article, simple the transfer of the phrase to Wikitionary, as its current form would be useful there. After this is completed the bot will replace the template and it will be as if nothing happened.--Oni Ookami Alfador 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It was unclear what would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Brustein.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Robert Brustein.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Duck Soup
Sorry. I've done some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."
Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. See other pages like Night at the Opera, Monkey Business, and The House That Shadows Built for more such links. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Blimp
Thanks for your good work on the Blimp article. I may go in and make a few minor tweaks -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) The Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society
- No problem -- I hadn't gone back to look at the totality of what I did and make whatever adjustments I thought necessary. Probably, you'll find some of them and fix them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, wonderful film, isn't it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly a classic. For me, it's just beaten by A Matter of Life and Death, but only just -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with that -- Red Shoes, Matter, Blimp are, I think, my top three P&P films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Continental United States
Ed,
Don't have time to give a fair response right now. My quick reflex reaction is that the article as of this minute appears on the whole to be factually accurate but aesthetically (by which I mean, ease of reading and understanding) wanting. I'll try to address this later.
You know, the easiest way I can think of to do this would be to place the article in a Microsoft Word article and attach comments (assuming you have Office 2003 or later—I absolutely despise Office 97 and earlier versions). I don't normally exchange email with fellow Wikipedians, but this might facilitate an explanation of my feelings. If you are interested, provide me an address to mail my suggestions. Unschool (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another way would be to create a subpage somewhere you both agree on. Editors who are making major changes to an article sometimes put the drafts in a sandbox under their user page -- e.g. User:Unschool/Sandbox/Continental United States. --Jtir (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
links on dab pages
Hi, this doesn't mean that I really understand the reason why. --Jtir (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you don't understand the reason why, please don't do it. We're not automatons blindly following pre-programmed instructions. As a heavy user of the encyclpedia, I can tell you quite definitely that it's better with the links then without, no matter what a manual says.
For instance, sometimes I'm searching for a reference to something, and I can't latch onto it, but I've got an idea about something it's related to, and I go to that article and I find there a reference which puts me on the right track. It makes no sense to denude Misplaced Pages of what makes it so valuable -- links -- on a page whose entire purpose is to act as a guide to where to go for the confused.
So do me a favor, leave it be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your cleanup of Bridge
Hi, thanks for your cleanup of Bridge. I especially like the way you handled the "unplanned uses". I came across the article only recently after I got bored and decided to skim the recent changes. What is your opinion of the "visual index" in Bridge? --Jtir (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Decisive (re:Pearl Harbor)
== Are you in, decisive? ==
I've notice your comment on my watchlist a couple of times, now, & keep forgetting to say this. FYI, I was using "decisive battle" not as descriptive, which got disputed (with reason), but as a technical term, in ref to IJN doctrine. If you're at all interested in how it's meant, have a glance at Imperial Japanese Navy, Alfred Mahan, & War Plan Orange. Trekphiler (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore me, it's been a long day... Trekphiler (talk)
Plane
Ed, Bzuk is a Dumb Ass and makes use of every oppurtunity to prove it. I would prefer that you use the terrm "plane" as you see fit68.244.171.75 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hardly require this kind of impolite, uncivil and anonymous support to do what I intended to do anyway. Kindly refrain from posting this kind of message in the future. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ed, this is the work of a notorious vandal, wikzilla and the accounts that were used have been suspended. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC).
- Yes, I've read some of the record in various places here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ed, this is the work of a notorious vandal, wikzilla and the accounts that were used have been suspended. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC).
Ed,
You are correct. I was impolite uncivil and anonymous. I will refrain from making posts, as you wish.
Disclaimer: The ‘Refrainment’ is limited to making such comments on your talk page or on other pages when in discussion directly with you. Comments may be made on the mentioned pages as long as all three requirements are not simultaneously achieved. That is: The comment may be impolite and uncivil as long as it is not anonymous, it may be uncivil and anonymous as long as it is polite, or it may be impolite and anonymous as long as it is civil. This agreement is limited to visible print, entered in English, and does not include hidden text, comments in the edit summaries, links to other pages or encrypted remarks within the text. This agreement is non-transferable and subject to cancellation at anytime by written notice.
I hope this is acceptable. BTW, I appreciated your non-refute of the facts of my statement (which I construe as an endorsement and agreement of the comment). I understand that by directly mentioning this, you may be forced to refute it to avoid a charge of PA, which would be an insult against your heretofore unchallenged good character.
Please continue on, as you have in furthering the project and admonishing those that do it great harm.
Again, I believe this encyclopedia is for the users, not the editors. Plane is most appropriate. 70.4.9.235 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
One of Our Aircraft Is Missing
Ed, I've begin to tackle this landmark film. Please tell me if I am on the right flightpath, glidepath, bramble path... Bzuk (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
- Gee, I haven't watched it in years. I'll take a look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is an interesting one. Not as "high drama" as some of the other P&P films. It's more "British understatement" throughout. The women do play a significant part and get some good speeches about being in occupied territory. Some of it is decidedly weird, like Hugh Williams deciding to disguise himself as a Dutchwoman - despite his great height -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr Strangelove
Hi. You reverted my edit to Dr Strangelove concerning Slim Pickens not knowing that he was acting in a comedy. I think the idea that anyone could act in a film without learning of the genre of the film (regardless of a lack of access to the script) is ridiculous. He must have been interacting with other actors and crew on a regular basis. It is worth noting that this sentence contained no citation. In any case I'm not interested in an edit war so I've just left a tag in the article. Cheers. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked around actors for 36 years -- it's quite believable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
your reversion of User:SmackBot
Hi, why are you reverting User:SmackBot edits without explanation? As the documentation for "undo" says, only vandal edits are to be undone without further explanation. Further, SmackBot puts a date on the {{fact}} tags. If you really want to disable SmackBot, there is, I believe, a way to do that. --Jtir (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Geez Louise, I'l bet you never, ever jay walk! Thanks for the info about SmackBot, which I didn't know - I'll look into it. In the meantime (1) the Bot undoes spacing which I find desirable in making a page more readable, and (2) the dates on tag should never be updated, since they provide a record of how long a tag has been in place, a valuable piece of information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The first space has no apparent effect, and the second two have some, but not significant. (I have been known to add one just above the footer navboxes, myself, though.) As you may now realize, formatting for your particular display may or may not affect what anyone else sees.
- BTW, SmackBot was adding the date, or have you been riffling through my contribs again? --Jtir (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- User:SmackBot has a link to {{nobots}}, which is what I was referring to. --Jtir (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not impossible the SB might hange a date, but it certainly is not intended to. IIf you find an example, please leave me another note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
- P.S. reverting SmackBot is generally a waste of time, as it will mindlessly re-apply the changes. If there's a problem stop the bot, and tell me. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
- P.P.S. the Big Red Button will stop the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
- I'm not sure I want to stop all bots. I wish there was a specific switch. And, are you saying that it doesn't update tag dates, just add them if they are not there? If so, that's good, and thanks Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe there is a way to get SmackBot to leave certain spaces alone by putting in special markup. I don't believe there was a problem with the date, it was a new {{fact}} tag that I added. --Jtir (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I want to stop all bots. I wish there was a specific switch. And, are you saying that it doesn't update tag dates, just add them if they are not there? If so, that's good, and thanks Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
NRHP infobox
Hi, I noticed your changes to Template:infobox nrhp. The changes are causing the images to display at full size. Altairisfartalk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey. I reverted back to the original format. I know you meant well, but the template can be tricky, so please to be careful about making adjustments. Nice work on the Flatiron Building article, btw. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry about screwing up the template. I just made another change, can you see if I screwed up again? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks OK now. And believe me, I've screwed up way worse in my time. In any case, keep up the good work on the articles, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know why it's larger than the others, that part of things is way over my head. The new changes seem to be fine though. Cheers! Altairisfartalk 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks OK now. And believe me, I've screwed up way worse in my time. In any case, keep up the good work on the articles, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry about screwing up the template. I just made another change, can you see if I screwed up again? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
anonymous users aren't
The term "anonymous user" is so misleading that I have stopped using it, preferring "unregistered user" or "IP user" instead. Clicking the "WHOIS" link at the bottom of an IP user's contribs page will return more info than can be known about a registered user who does not say. These two are pertinent to 23 skidoo: contribs1 and contribs2. --Jtir (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Guardian Angel. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Halesy
Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Really? I didn't realize I had deleted sourced stuff -- I'll go over it again and check it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Information important
Like you, I do not.