User talk:Ginkgo100/Archive01

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ginkgo100. 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.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Ginkgo100/Archive01, 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 to help you know what's going on at Wikipedia. If you still need help, just put {{helpme}} on your user page.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Some Nice People To Help You
• Generalized Rules

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Karmafist 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado

Hey, Ginkgo100. I'm Editor19841, and welcome you to Wikipedia. See my talk page; User Talk:Editor19841 for answers to questions, and thank you for your contributions. Editor19841 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to helping this WikiProject. Wow, I've only been here a month, and already a project. Ginkgo100 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ginkgo100. Best of luck, fellow Denverite. And be sure to vote in the USCOTW race for Denver (click here!) Editor19841 00:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Collaboration of the Week

You voted for Denver, Colorado as US Collaboration of the Week. Please help improve it to Featured Article Status.PDXblazers 01:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Budgies

I generally am less strict on howto stuff than some other editors. But I do move it to the end as much as possible. And I remove what is really not needed. There are many pet lovers that come along, and accomodating them to a degree is not wrong. But maybe the best reason not to work on those is that it is does not has my interest. I cme from the science corner to the pages, and work from that side. In that sense, working together can be a very good thing. KimvdLinde 03:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also take a scientific approach, by and large. There are lots of sites on the Web available to pet lovers, but far fewer with information on budgerigars that is not pet-oriented. My next step was to track down reliable sources to cite for the information in the article. I look forward to your feedback! Ginkgo100 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your revision of the article. My compliments! I had it on my watchlist for a while, and had edited some of it way in the past, but you've really cleaned it up very well. Let's hope it can stay this way (or that it'll be expanded to more, but in the same style :)). --JoanneB 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. KimvdLinde helped a great deal as well. There is room for expansion; for example, I eliminated the non-encyclopedic sections on breeding and buying budgerigars, but they can always be re-added by someone (perhaps yourself!) willing to put some time into the necessary research. --Ginkgo100 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Substrate help

Thanks for making the substrate (aquarium) stub and putting it on the substrate disambiguation page. I didn't really know exactly what the substrate for an aquarium was, I only had a vague idea, so this will really help me with working on disambiguating links to the substrate page. Thanks again. J. Finkelstein 02:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's a work in progress, but I'm keeping the drafts on a subpage at User:Ginkgo100/WiP01. Even though it's my user subpage, you're welcome to contribute to it. I'll post the full article, expanding the stub, once it reaches what I consider an acceptable degree of Wiki goodness (by my own standard). Right now it sorely needs references; I was just writing off the top of my head. --Ginkgo100 02:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs African Arowana Hardy fish Covenant running with the land Illuminus Osteoglossum Equitable servitude Colorado Western Slope Ecclesiastical government Nemo dat quod non habet Colorado Eastern Plains Nonpossessory interest in land Joe Hamilton London Aquarium Restraint on alienation Adrian Peterson (Chicago Bears) Ovoviviparous Equitable conversion Bona fide purchaser Estoppel by deed

Cleanup Live food fish trade Rule in Shelley's Case Neal Horsley Merge Self-Maintaining Home Aquarium White beer Saltwater Aquarium Add Sources New World Order (conspiracy) List of U.S. state fish Crucian carp Wikify Escape Velocity Nova Roth 401k Flosser Expand Colorado Piedmont List of religious radio stations NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What is verifiable to you?

RE: Editing article on New Belgium brewery.

Ginko100

What is verifiable to you? Anything that is written on a corporations web site? If only New Belgium would provide some verification of their claims, we would not be having this discussion. But they won't. In a pattern of behavior resembling the Bush administrations aproach to going to war (with us or against us) the company refuses any validation of their claims.

Using your standards anything a corporation wants to portray to the public is gospel as long as it appears on a corporation controlled website. If you would like evidence that NB falsifies information it provides to the public I would be happy to provide it. If ou want proof that they have no intention of being completely wind powered, I can provide that to you as well. But hey, you are in Colorado why not call them yourself and see if you can get some straight facts.

What's next for you, defending Shell Oil in the Niger Delta? Newmont Mining in South East Asia and Indonesia? They have lots of material for you to use on their corporate website.

Until you can verify, using some independent source, how much energy New Belgium uses from renewable sources, I will continue to post my factual information. I will give it a rest for a couple of days so that you can get back to me with some verifiable figures. Don't forget to let me know if you would like some proof of their lies. Post here or on the discussion for NB article.

Sutherix

If you and other editors consider information directly from a company to be insufficient verification (even with a qualifier such as "NB's promotional materials state that..."), then I have no problem removing the information altogether. So far I have seen no verification at all for your claims that they are maliciously lying to the public, either.

In particular, putting unverified, controverial claims about cover-ups and lies in an article, thus demonizing the company, is a violation of WP:NPOV, as I have stated several times.

I have actually toured the NB brewery twice and seen some of the equipment they have installed to make the operation more energy efficient. However, since the company is primarily notable for being a large microbrewery, not for its energy practices, I would prefer to see the article emphasize the craft brew aspect of the operation. Another editor commented to that effect on the talk page, as well.

I have absolutely no desire to engage in an edit was (in this case or any other case), as I edit Wikipedia for fun. I therefore think neutral observers can help with this controvery.

Ginkgo100 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aquarium external links

Why are you removing my aquarium database link????? You probably think you're God or something else...

Nope, just a Wikipedia editor who recently did a lot of work cleaning up those external links. There's extensive discussion on Talk:Aquarium. --Ginkgo100 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You should visit each of actually linked sites and you will see what are they about...I don't understand how you're deciding if a link is good or not! You'd do better if you stay away from Wiki!!!

Your opinion is noted. --Ginkgo100 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not much of an aquarium/fish expert so I didn't want to be the one to decide. I only have this article on my watchlist as I have contributed an image to it! Obviously there are an excessive number of links and must provide a lot of redundant information. I do support the removal of the external links down to perhaps a few key (perhaps 4-5 in total, and preferably non-local, which the South Texas site obviously was not) aquarium related sites. Good job though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the links are to "forums" and other hobbyist sites. I removed the blatantly commercial sites some time back. I'm going to visit them all again and make some tough decisions. --Ginkgo100 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pets

I posted some time ago a question here, and if you like, I would like to hear your opinion. Kim van der Linde ^at venus 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! --Ginkgo100 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Kim van der Linde ^at venus 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fish Measurement

The old fish measurement article/stub is in the history of Ichtyology Terms. Did I do the move wrong? As for the terms page in its current personification, the reason I moved it is that the entire thing is now how I originally created it to be, a listing of terms for Ichtyology not found in any of the articles, I was in the process of writing said listing when you came along and redid it the first time around before I could get more than three entries onto the page. →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And I thank you for providing the Link, if you could also help with the glossary page in pulling out terms that are indeed found in articles and helping merge some of the terms into the anatomy page I would really appreciate it. →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Once you create an article in the main namespace, it's fair game for other editors to try to improve it. If it's a work in progress, those other editors may not realize that, and will take the article in their own direction. I use work in progress pages (user subpages) to avoid that. --Ginkgo100 19:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I learned that afterwards too :) Also Talk:Fish measurement still redirects to Talk:Ichthyology_terms I don't know how to fix that, can you? →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. All you have to do is remove the REDIRECT script. It's a blank page right now. --Ginkgo100 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I move the discussion found on Talk:Ichthyology_terms to Talk:Fish measurement where it was first asked? →ΣcoPhreek_▼ 21:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. The section about the "redtail" is pretty random. --Ginkgo100 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Less Than Jake

Hi I was just editing the entry because Less Than Jake didn't get to #1 in the official UK chart. --172.143.138.67 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It looked like a good faith edit but I just wanted to let you know it was reverted, mainly because of a syntax problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! You might consider creating a username, which gives you the abilities to create pages and upload images. --Ginkgo100 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sea water

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your change of "seawater" to "sea water". The latter is now redirected to the former. In the context in which it was used in the fresh water article, I thought using the "seawater" form was not incorrect, especially as it was wikilinked. Anyway, thought I'd better explain my revert as it might have seemed rude. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In researching why I think it is better to fix links to redirect, I came across this, which took the wind out of my sails. Since fresh water is two words in the article, it does make sense to leave sea water as two words, which is the other reason I changed it back; however, this is a very minor issue, so I will let it be. --Ginkgo100 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha. Actually, thanks for pointing this out - I'll definitely bear it in mind in the future. From experience, I'm aware that context can be important on this issue. Which isn't to say I've not steamrolled right over said experience in this case!  :) By all means revert me. Thanks again for the pointer. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I've also decided I've gotten too prone to reverting lately ... I'm trying to cut back! =) --Ginkgo100 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

fresh water

hiya! Glad to see a fellow citation-stickler :) Nice collection of templates! It looks like we have other interests in common; I like the aquatic sciences articles as well, and I'm hoping to learn (more) Spanish and (any) Japanese... As for fresh water, occassionally I go through and choose a random science-stub to work on, which was how I found it. Seems silly that the sentence about fresh water being necessary for many living things had been taken out :) Anyway, nice to meet you. Brassratgirl 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding neutral p.o.v

I was looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Stack article and I think that it is p.o.v but I am not sure...is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johndoe_111 (talk • contribs) .

Definitely P.O.V. It also has MOS (Manual of Style) issues. It could use some rewriting to make it more neutral. If this is your first Wikipedia project, I would be willing to help you as best I can. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pink Monkey

Fine by me, although I would also consider it as probable spam. Cheers V. Joe 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the template then. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^talk ·

contribs 04:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Overstock.com Auctions

Hi Ginko,

Thank you very much for the welcome. I understand that Overstock.com Auctions, the page I have just edited, was up for deletion. I am now seeing that it is being considered to merge with Overstock.com. And while they are both more or less the same company, I would urge you to reconsider the merge. There are several reasons I would like to share with you regarding this:

Overstock.com and Overstock.com Auctions have different customer service representatives. They are two separate websites, even though you can get to Overstock.com Auctions page from the Overstock.com site You have to have different log ins for each site----

And I also noticed that the very second I uploaded the page (which I spent a long time on--I'm a huge fan of Overstock.com Auctions, and did my research someone else did three lines. Very disappointing! [e-mail] 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[e-mail] 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angeleyezz%40poetic.com"

Hello! As with all Articles for Deletion, there was a debate here about Overstock.com Auctions which has since been closed. I have no say in the matter, as I am just another user (equal to you). In fact, on Wikipedia controversial decisions are reached by debate and consensus, so even an administrator would not be able to change the decision. The first link above might give you some pointers if you think the debate should be re-opened. I have never sought to have a debate re-opened, so I don't know what the process is. The article was merged into Overstock.com and changed to a redirect by an administrator, User:FreplySpang, following the consensus that was reached.

I hope you are not discouraged by this outcome. It happens a lot on Wikipedia -- that's the way the site works. I myself have had problems like this with articles I have put a lot of effort into, only to see the effort apparently gone to waste. Everyone has. Please don't let it stop you from editing and participating in our community! If you want some words of encouragement, visit Esperanza. We are happy to help. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link?

Thanks for your message! Are you referring to the link currently associated with footnote No. 54? It works with me. Nothing missing in the URL. Sorry cannot be more helpful. 81.159.185.200 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(referring to Roman Catholic Church Yes, that's the one. The link actually works, but my browser displays the "broken image" icon and I can't view the chart. It may be that the link works on your computer (perhaps in the cache of your browser) but does not show up when someone tries to load it fresh. Try hitting "reload" and see if it still works. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitting Reload? Will Refresh do? It is still ok, though it is a bit slow. If the problem persists, why don't you just delete the link. I thought the chart useful; but it is not really important. Apologies for my ignorance! 81.159.185.200 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I use Refresh and Reload interchangeably, but I think Refresh is the more common term. If the link works for you, I will leave it. It may just be a quirk in my browser. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Ritter (politician)

Hey, how's it goin'? Thanks for the help with the Bill Ritter pic. I hope this works out, being this issue has really plauged the article (particularly at USCOTW), like it has the John Hickenlooper article. Anyhow, thanks again. Have a good one. Editor19841 18:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I got a two-word response ("Permission granted") which is probably good enough, because my e-mail explained the GFDL; however, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, I e-mailed back to make sure they understand they're releasing the photo under the terms of the GFDL. So far I haven't heard back, probably because it's the weekend. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How'd it go? Editor19841 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No response to my second e-mail. I'll submit what I've got to the permissions group and upload the image in the meantime. I think it is adequate permission to use the image on Wikipedia even though I had hoped for something more explicit. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job. Editor19841 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Budgerigar

Hey, nice to see you around Wikipedia besides on the Science Reference Desk. =) Thanks for putting the {{fact}} template on the sermony comment in budgerigar; I did one better and deleted it outright. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wasn't entirely sure whether to leave that comment in or not (it's something that I've heard mentioned before - one of those 'everybody knows'-type statements). You're probably right to be bold and get rid of it until someone can cite a source for it. Yeah, I do occasionally do other stuff on Wikipedia, besides hanging around the reference desk asking stupid questions... ;P --Kurt Shaped Box 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Colorado River cutthroat trout

Excellent job with this article. I just minted it with Project Colorado, and got a chance to take a look. Good work again, Ginkgo. Editor19841 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was in response to a requested article and fish articles are easier for me than many others. --Ginkgo100 ^talk · contribs 03:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)