This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jeandré du Toit. 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.
Hello. You edited the Gus Grissom article after I did. I returned to that article today to re-read something in Gus's history and discovered you had used the default sort template. I've never seen it before, I think it is way too cool, and most useful. I'd like to start using it on the pages I edit. Are there any rules or restrictions I should know about? Thanks so much! CRKingston10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping clean up the Angie's List page. I was just wondering though, why you split up the parameters in the citation templates so that each parameter is on a different line? Doesn't seem to matter to the way they function - they seem to work the same either way, so it just seemed odd to me. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your vote was not considered because you didn't provide a correct diff link to your home wiki. Please try again until 2400 14 Feb - Alvesgaspar16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[Knock it off] I've been trying to compromise with another user for some time now that has been trying to add unverified material. I didn't want any of it in there, so don't come to me now telling me to re-read on verifiability, and to leave better summaries, etc. I've been leaving proper summaries and trying to keep the article verifiable for days now. You e-mailed me and could have had all this explained to you, instead you repay me with a nasty message. This must be a proud day for you and your work as a Wikipedian. Chicken Wing17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have something new to say, please don’t use my talk page as a chatroom to regurgitate lame arguments. Don't harass me through e-mail anymore. Don't ambush me. Read the discussion on the Melissa Keller page and other relevant pages rather than stirring up trouble. I think we're done here. Chicken Wing20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have noted on the image description page that I had received permission to use the image from the copyright holder. Is there anything else I need to verify on said page? —YeLLeY51119:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. One other copyright question... If I have a flyer from a wrestling show (from several years ago), what would I tag it as when uploading the image? Would I be able to use the image being that the flyers were mass distributed in the area? --YeLLeY51123:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
NO - they were brothers! John was not as well known as his brother Sir Jeffry, but equally architecturally adapt as well as being a better gardiner. Rgds, - Trident1312:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the purpose of the attribution and biographical material about living people policies, but I'm not sure how to obtain a source to back up a claim that can be verified by 250+ other people, but is not publicly documented. Are there any other source types that might help me out in this situation?
I suppose the main item that needs to be cited is the fact that Karen auditioned in 2002 since it can be proven that Karen wasn't the drum major for the 2002-2003 season and the MMB elects the Drum Major. I have digital photos of her 2002 audition, but they don't have her name on them and since they're digital I of course can't prove the date except for a Shutterfly shared album with an April 2002 date....
I might be able to obtain some kind of statement from the MMB administration, but how might I cite that?
As I've said before, I'm pursuing this because I believe this is a notable event for the MMB and belongs in the article. Any other help you may be able to provide is appreciated. Thanks, Terryfoster19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with your assessment that the link should be removed to avoid self references. While I usually agree that self references can be a bad thing, many pages have similar links at the top and these links are usually useful to the users in the event the link they clicked was wrong. See AIV, CSD, RR, and these are only the first ones to cross my mind. Would you consider putting the link back? (I'm not a revert war kind of guy ;)) -- lucasbfrtalk08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re [11]: I didn't even know the existence of {{selfref}} and used the infamous {{for}} template. I am going to put the link back using selfref, since outside projects can nullify the selfref template and have the links not showing up. Sorry for the confusion, at first glance I didn't realize there was an existing template (but that makes more than sense). Thanks for the clarification! -- lucasbfrtalk11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[Hi FYI] I noticed you just cleaned up talk main page, and you diligently removed the blank lines under all the titles. I used to do this, but the archiving bot (misza) actually puts lines in when it archives. I couldn't be bothered to complain to the bot's master cos it's just a matter of preference. --Monotonehell15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL now you see I didn't put that white space in there, The system did when I used the + "add a comment to this discussion" button. They're all conspiring against us I tell's ya! Terrible waste of space that it is. --Monotonehell16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.305:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm already planning an interview of all board candidates, to be published in two weeks. You're welcome to help if you like, and I'll let you know more on this in the next few days, but for now, please wait until I can draft some questions of my own. Ral315»04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're perfectly free to ask any questions you like :) My big worry is that by specifically targeting one area for a story, that it might run the risk of shaping the election on one specific issue - I'd prefer to have one interview with a variety of questions, and have it by-candidate. If you'd like to do the economic-shaped article for Wikizine, outside the Signpost, that's fine with me, and if it's useful, I'll probably link it from an article. Otherwise, I'd be happy to work with you on the interview - however you choose is fine with me. Ral315»01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My logo differs from Canonical's Ubuntu logo in many ways:
Mine has four main colors; Canonical's has three colors total.
Mine has four "children"; Canonical's has only three children.
My children's heads overlap their "arms" on both sides. In Canonical's logo, not only do they not intersect but they do not even touch; nowhere in Canonical's logo do different colors touch, except due to anti-aliasing.
My children are separated by 90 degrees (a consequence of having an additional child) while Canonical's are separated by 120 degrees.
Three of the four main colors used in my logo are not used in Canonical's.
My logo has additional colors, mainly on the outside edge of the large "circle" (see next reason) where the children's arms meet their "heads." Canonical's does not.
My children align with the directions on a compass; Canonical's do not.
My children's arms are created by dividing a large sixteen-sided polygon; Canonical's are made by dividing a large circle.
My children's heads are much larger than Canonical's and their arms are much smaller and proportionately wider.
My image transitions much less smoothly to transparent than Canonical's.
[A big thank you] Hello Jeandré. I just wanted to say a big thank you for the note on my page about being able to preview categories at the bottom of the page. I don't believe that I have ever scrolled down that far when editing and, while it isn't the most important thing in the world, I do try to have my edits in order before saving so I use the show preview button a lot. I appreciate the time that you took to let me know about this and thanks again! :) MarnetteD | Talk20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[Re: Your proposal] Hi again. I think that your proposal is quite reasonable and well thought out and I thank you for the time that you took in coming up with it. If all of those items can be met then there is little problem with the additions though I am not sure how encyclopedic the entire idea becomes when it is only one critics view of the film that are being expressed, but I am happy to leave it at that. I am a bit worried about this editor in general because a perusal of their edit history shows a great deal of personal opinion about the subjects where they are editing. All of this is great stuff at a blog but a little dicey here. I made some of the same kind of mistakes when I first started editing here (though I wasn't into name calling the way this editor is) so I will keep my fingers crossed that they learn from this situation and become a valuable contibuter. Thanks again for your time and take care. MarnetteD | Talk20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a few things that have come to mind in the last day or so, and be aware that I don't want any of them to change the work that you are doing with Zosar, I just throw them out as food for thought. I think that it should be noted that citing just one film critic/historian is a dodgy thing in an encyclopedia that is trying to maintain NPOV. In the case of criticism there is no better example than Kubrick. Most of his films received harsh reviews, by some, at the time of their release while later assessments found them to be cinematic masterpieces (this is a general statement and does not apply to all reviewers). When it comes to film historians reading various items into the film (ie philosophy, style, deeper meanings, reflections on the human condition etc etc) it is always important to keep in mind that this is just one persons view. Others will have entirely different interpretations. In my case their were certain things that I read into Kubrick films when I was in my twenties that, when I look back on them today, I realize had as much to say about me at that age as they had to say about Stanley's films. I think that the dilemma with only having Ciment's and, thus, Zosar's interpretations of the film on wikipedia's page is that it might (not will as I am not at all prescient in anything) tend to make a reader feel that this is the only way to interpret what they will see/have seen when they watch this film. This is one of the main reasons that I feel that Zosar would be much happier writing at a Kubrick blog or forum page. I hope that your work in trying to get this editor to make their edits more encyclopedic is appreciated as I can think of certain editors/admins here at wikiP who would continue to take all of it out. I also thank you from stopping me from being that kind of editor. Keep up the good work and cheers. :~) MarnetteD | Talk20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Just thought that I would let you know, in case you hadn't already noticed, that Zosar put his edit back on the article for the film. He then took it back out and moved it to the talk page but still did not attempt to meet any of the verification criteria that you proposed. I know that talk pages are handled differently then the main article page when this kind of thing occurs so I will let you decide how to handle it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk12:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are interested today the entire section has been put back in the main page for the article and, again, none of the criteria that you proposed has been followed through on . MarnetteD | Talk12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Glossary of trauma terms, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 221:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Eyes and now The Best of Youth.
Hello again Jeandré. It looks as though Zosar has little or no intention of supplying the requested info. Should we at least slap a "original research" tag on the section the he has added if we aren't going to remove it? Another film that is on my watchlist is The Best of Youth. Today a whole raft of edits that are full of original research and POV have been added by User:Greg Scian. My inclination is to remove the Analysis section and tone down the POV but rather than start an edit war I thought that I would ask that if you have the time and the inclination to take a look at them and see if you can apply some of the same reasoning with this editor that you did with Zosar would you please do so. If you are too busy I will understand but if you can give some time to this it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeandré du Toit. I changed the code in the Ubuntu template because when I first accessed the page, the text in the Userbox said "Template:User OS Ubuntu no logo uses ubuntu" - Now that struck me as being a little bit wierd, in that the {{Basepagename}} attribute was causing it to display its own pagename as a user of Ubuntu as it included the template! All I did was took out the {{Basepagename}} attribute and left it as "This user" which makes sense, and matches what most of the other Userboxes and templates look like. I suppose it was just an attempt to standardise it a bit and stop it from looking strange. Regards, Thor Malmjursson13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you have changed the 'website' for the Apollo Theatre back to www.apollo-theatre.co.uk and I thought I should talk to you before changing it again. I do not think that it is right that apollo-theatre.co.uk should be in the info box as it is a url owned by a secondary ticket agent and whilst it does contain an amount of information for the theatre it is not 'official' and it's primary purpose is to sell tickets (& why promote that agent above above any of the others??). It does seem that the only reason it is in there is because it has a url which is like the theatres name. I do think that an info box should if possible point to an 'official' page - i.e. one owned and maintained by the venue itself and therefore my suggestion would be that it should point to http://www.nimaxtheatres.com/apollotheatre.asp which has as much, if not more, information as the ticket agent site and is also the theatre's 'official' web page. What do you think? I do agree by the way that pointing at the main Nimax home page was not ideal. Kind regards, • nancy • 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and sorry for my sloppiness: I didn't read the fine print at the bottom of apollo-theatre.co.uk. I've put the www.nimaxtheatres.com/apollotheatre.asp link in the box. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-22t09:51z
No problem, it's an easy mistake to make as they do make it their business to look like they are the proper theatre homepage & not just with the Apollo. Thanks for getting back so quickly, kind regards, • nancy • 10:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
!SineBot incapable of recognizing ISO 8601.
[Your recent edits] Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[Your recent edits] Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[Your recent edits] Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know: when US place articles were created, they were sourced to the records of the United States Census, 2000, the last census to be taken. These results, as can be seen on this page, give the legal status of the city. That's what the {{GR|2}} tag is for: a way to tell the user how to find the information. Because the introductions to articles such as Vandalia are based directly upon official governmental records, the only way that a properly worded intro can be wrong is if the governmental source is wrong. This is the way that it is for the thousands of incorporated places throughout the United States. If nothing else, there's no more reason to tag it than there is to tag the intro to Cape Town, which has no reference for its first-paragraph statement that it is a city. Nyttend18:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you define suburb? Here in the United States, it's a smaller community outside of a large one, whether incorporated or not, as if it's a moon around a planet. By Ohio law, it's a city. It doesn't matter what South Africans call it, any more than it matters what I call a corresponding place in South Africa. Please understand that there's a difference here, and please don't disrupt articles on places in the USA. Nyttend19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you template addition regarding the authors list. The problem is not how represantative the list is, but that it is a list of authors, or a list at all.
I have already gone over it with some care, and it could be better sourced if necessary, since I was adding and subtracting from the standard books on the subject. There is a deeper problem with definitions of genre here, which won't be settled by adding to or subtracting from , or even sourcing, a list.
But in any case, those discussing the matter are aware of the problem you were trying to raise. But your solution (or the one mentioned on the template) is unlikely to work. --Pleasantville19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
will do. I removed it because most mail-readers can tell you the date, but I suppose it is a little more trouble to find it that way. -Frazzydee|✍21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the references, I do appericate that. I have a favor, if you don't mind, to ask...since you know your way around all the fair-use mumbo-jumbo, could you find a picture of Pauley that will be in line with fair-use so that it can be used for the page. Several have been added and all removed due to fair-use. If you can help, I would appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomerT:C23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your having removed some content from this article, I should note that I am actually the Webmaster of the Indexing Society site, www.indexers.ca. The Wikipedia article was an initiative suggested by our president, and after writing the article I sent it to all the other members of the Society's executive for their input. All of the content has been approved by the executive, so it is all "legit," and I'd like to revert back to the original version if possible. Thanks, Kehleyr18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Kehleyr
[Your deletion of notable content] I am concerned about your deletion of notable content (the Los Angeles Times is an internationally-recognized and trusted news source) from the article Jimmy Wales. In fact, it was specifically recommended on the Mzoli's Discussion page to enter the cited reference into the appropriate section on the Jimmy Wales article, which I did. I will be restoring it. Please do not revert it again. Better to have a discussion on the Jimmy Wales Discussion page. I note that you are from Cape Town, South Africa, so I am also suspicious of possible WP:COI issues. Enjoyexist00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Jack previously redirected to your userpage, but I recently obtained the username through usurpation, so an admin removed your redirect. Just a heads up. — jacĸ (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The folks at wikiquote added something to the page I scrape from, which killed the script (I didn't have time to fix it until recently). -Frazzydee|✍04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! Redyva has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, Master Redyva (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kaylee Frye. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. - Dravecky19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Saw you added tags to that article saying it needed more references? The article appears to be pretty well-referenced. Can you let me know specifically which parts need sources? Thanks! --plange (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Derrial Book? I had just gone through it a couple of days ago and took out unsourced stuff and added info from reliable third-party sources... the other FF characters probably do deserve to have those tags on there as I haven't had a chance to clean those up... --plange (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance, although I did not understand your comment and had to do some research on my own to see what happened (and I'm still not sure about some of it). My edit was a copy/paste to revert another copy/paste (=yikes=), so I hope that this is "fixable." I will see what I can do. Portia178016:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're concerned that editors are using unreliable sources for this article, you can always bring it to the WP:BLP noticeboard for review. I have had this problem with this editor before, and the article was ultimately deleted from Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed that it had been moved from the prior location, presumably because it didn't meet some requirement for being in project-space (judging from comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, one such requirement is "substantial contributions from non-creator"). Picaroon(t)17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
