User talk:LonelyMarble

I just registered this account so feel free to drop me a line if you see me around Wikipedia. --LonelyMarble 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld WikiProject Invite

Hey there. I couldn't help noticing your recent edits to Seinfeld-related articles. Just so you know, a Seinfeld WikiProject has been set up here. Feel free to join anytime! Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House characters

Thanks for bringing the Thirteen/Remy Hadley issue to Talk:House (TV series). FYI, it's not that I was the "only one advocating" my case; it's that the dispute only existed between myself and one other user. He was the only one advocating his case as well. Also, the arguments I laid forth on my talk page were not written clearly enough, I feel. I have laid out my case on the talk page. Again, thanks for taking the initiative in determining what the community's consensus is. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discussion to the talkpage regarding your wish to have three unrelated T.V. shows included in a "See Also" section. Bellwether BC 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster

I am not sure that there was a discussion but I saw the {{R from merge}} template and thought it was discussed Alexfusco5 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know I just found it when I was RC Patrolling and thought there was a discussion because of the template Alexfusco5 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. —dgiestc 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priština / Prishtina

Histories fixed. —Kurykh 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football (word)

Stop pushing your American agenda by vandalising the article to give your own personal world view. This is about the use of the word in the English language world, this is en.wikipedia.org not us.wikipedia.org. Promote your sport elsewhere. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Constitution of Belarus

Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny

I'd just like to say thank you for your contributions to the Bugs Bunny page. You're truly appreciated, so keep up the good work! :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-)=)

You really are quite philosophical, seeing the world as on little, lonely marble in space. I like it! :-)--Editor510 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS feel free to explore my userpage and reply!

DYK for Berton Roueché

Updated DYK query On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berton Roueché, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BencherliteTalk 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes

Your recent changes to Template:Infobox Writer broke all the other articles using this template. Out of 3700+ articles your change for one article caused all others to break. Testing should be done in the sandbox Template:Infobox Writer/sandbox. Your comment "the problem with making notable works always in italics is that if you want to include the year after the title like, Book (2008), you don't want the year in italics too". Well then don't enter the year of the book. The majority of articles that use this template now do not have notable works displaying properly. Please reply here. --pete 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my change that simply reverted the template back to its state that it had been for a long time break articles while the change that was made to italicize it, that was only made 3 days ago not break any articles? The change that italicized was only made 3 days ago, I don't see why my reversion broke articles while that change didn't? Also, if a writer's notable work is a short poem or story or something it would require quotations and not be italicized, another good reason to not italicize this parameter. I'd suspect your change probably made a lot of articles not display properly because the already italicized titles now have been made bold, so I think either way there would be things to clean up. (Also, ignore my other edits, I was just testing why the template was not updating properly, but the only thing I did was remove the italics.) LonelyMarble (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth: See also

A long time ago we used to have a "See also" section for the Earth article. That was subsumed by the "Earth-related topics" infobox at the bottom, which was then moved to the end. Now I noticed that you are re-establishing the "See also" section. I would ask that you put your additions into the infobox and remove that section. Otherwise we may as well move the entire infobox contents back under the "See also". Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth changes

Hey, where is the consensus to have that creation myth link in the top dablink? I looked at the discussion archives and found nothing about it. So I looked through the article history and it seemed it was put there because of one user who was causing trouble and that no one agreed with. If this was talked about on the discussion page could you link me to the discussion and if it wasn't I really think it should be deleted. It does not help for navigation purposes at all and it also does not help to clarify anything, which is all the top dablink should do. It basically just gives undue weight to creation myth, which is already mentioned and linked in a section of the article. So I really think this should be taken off.

We have had many discussions pertaining to the Creationism topic. For example: Talk:Earth/Archive_8#About.com_link_removed. So no, I don't think it should be taken off, in part because it reduces the need to keep endlessly debating the topic. If you don't like it there, I suggest you raise the topic on the talk page first.—RJH (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I read the whole archived section above that one you just linked earlier but I didn't think the hatnote would be mentioned in the section below. Anyway, I was right about what happened though, one user was making trouble so one user just decided to add that into the hatnote. There wasn't really any big discussion or consensus on it. In fact another user deleted that addition to the hatnote in just the same way I did a couple days after it was added. The user complaining was just asking for the religious beliefs to be mentioned in the article some way and they certainly are, in their own section. Adding that creation myth link to the top is not an appropriate response, dablinks at the top are for navigation and clarity, not to settle disputes. I think it should just be deleted right now but I'll copy this text into the Talk:Earth page in a new section if you want me to. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expressed my opinion.—RJH (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marsupial Lion

A recent edit war concerning a page you recently edited (but may not have been involved with the war) is being resolved via a poll. If you have an opinion, please voice it now by voting at Talk:Thylacoleonidae. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did take it personal as you only put it on my page when I was going against what you were saying. A warning template was left long before the numerous reversions by both me and Uther to stop edit warring but because he didn't and because I did all I felt I could do, I felt I had no choice. You did not care about Uther as I saw the comments left on his page, you only cared about me because you were offended by me (even though I made it quite clear that no offence was intended) and as you mentioned on his talkpage you wanted me blocked. Please be honest and sincere and people will respond better. Cazique (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know why you did it, and so do you. I have nothing more to say to you. Cazique (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by population

The Minor Barnstar
For improving the look and feel of List of United States cities by population Shereth 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to revise some of the images and help out with the formatting of the page. Small little things like that often get overlooked, wanted to let you know some of us most certainly notice! Shereth 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

Regarding the above, I would like to know which part of the summary was addressed to me. I went through yesterday and delinked all dates per MoS. Also, regardless of who it was addressed to, I would like you to keep this pesky policy in mind. Have a good day :)  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm ignorant, but I don't see what I did wrong. Please tell me. I would like to note that the article should be in international format.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's what I thought I did wrong. I forgot to do that completely. Sorry. You're right.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" Asher196 (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:NON-FREE
  • Unacceptable use

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

Note that I am in the process of re-tagging these images a replaceable fair use images. I'm not going to add a template here for each image. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...

...sorry [1]. Appeared to be new. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which editor deleted it and when exactly? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kastle deletion

Thanks, "lonely marble from earth"! I changed my "Delete" to "Note". (It's my first time to try an AfD, and I'm still sifting through the rules! Appreciate the help!

Best, Prof.rick (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

Nothing boils my blood more than some random editor who has no past involvement with an article at all imposing their stylistic whims and demanding their changes be accepted. This article has been through a very through review process already. Please list on the Talk:Indonesia exactly what you want to change and why and we can work through this one step at a time. (Caniago (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is of impact to the whole project - please take it to the noticeboard of the project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and please note the latest item SatuSuro 03:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply - both the lists mentioned are wholly unsatisfactory relative to the 5,000+ articles in the WP Indonesia project, and are a problem. I do not think they should be linked to - but hey nothing is perfect :( SatuSuro 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky - but I too easily digress about the issues of WP Indonesia. Do not let me start - they are complex and many. Let hope the best comes from linking - but I have my doubts. Thanks for your interest anyways - it is appreciated SatuSuro 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathu La

Hello, about this edit, the reason I added it in was because it seemed as though a vandal had removed it, and I hadn't read the history section to know it was linked. Regards, --DFS454 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that several proposed replacements have been offered for the current software system, all of which would enable date autoformatting for anonymous users (albeit in the form of site-wide and/or per-page default formats) and that the RFC is asking about date autoformatting in general, not necessarily how it is currently implemented. --Sapphic (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some users may not like having their vote questioned like this, Sapphic. I'm sure this user read the statements perfectly well and made an informed decision. Tony (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my comment that went along with my oppose vote might have been a little vague but I do oppose date autoformatting in general. Even if anonymous users can enable date autoformatting it still seems most of them won't, and even if we somehow make it a really obvious option, I still don't think that's a very good thing (I might not understand how the autoformatting would work for anonymous users exactly but that doesn't change my opinion and vote). I personally like having different date formats to match the subject, just like we have different spelling variations. About simply giving users more options, I think it's unneeded and unwanted code to be implemented, plus as my original comment stated, it seems a small minority would use it anyway, most people don't seem to care or want date autoformatting since most don't currently use it. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

n-dash vs hyphen

Hi, where did you get the idea that compound nouns should be "hyphenated" with a n-dash instead of a hyphen? I've never heard of such a thing being done; and it's a very bad idea to use characters in article names that aren't available on a keyboard. Please explain. Thanks. Millstream3 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of when I did this? Also, usually if I change a hyphen to an en dash the article name with the hyphen redirects to the en dash article, or I make sure it does, so the en dash not being on a keyboard isn't a problem. What examples are you talking about though? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your contribs history shows several tens of examples of this in recent days, all with the change comment "en dash used to connect a compound modifier in which the first half is spaced". Millstream3 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those are the changes I figured you meant but I wanted to make sure. My explanation you quoted is the reason I did it. See the Wikipedia article here: Dash#Compound adjectives. It makes sense to me to use an en dash so that it's clear the whole phrase is part of the compound adjective/modifier even though it is spaced. I'm not hung up about this though and I've only done it to about 7 articles and they were all just list/index articles for countries. Do you have a problem using an en dash in this manner? It's grammatically correct but not necessarily mandatory. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with your point about grammar, but my advice would be NOT to do this with article titles - I have never seen this done before, and the character is not on most keyboards. Alternatively, you could set up a bot to do a global replace, but I don't think it's sensible to introduce this variation without discussion on the talk pages of the Manual of Style. Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've come to notify you that I reverted your move of Index of Trinidad and Tobago-related articles, as endashes are to be used "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November) and where movement is involved (Dublin–Belfast route)." See WP:MOSDASH for more info. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Bostonian, I appreciate your recent renaming of these articles. Please look at Boston College. I just moved it back from Boston College (United States), but the talk page couldn't be moved because it already had content. I hope you can figure out how to correct this. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comment for me at User talk:Clariosophic#Boston College (United States), but I'd encourage you to see Talk:Boston College#Recent name change of article. The move was contested by above user, who started the conversation after I'd moved the page per WP:UNIGUIDE, then apparently abandoned any efforts at consensus to make a move that he couldn't even complete without your help ex post facto. It seems an attempt at fait accompli to me, and the discussion that Clariosophic began should have been, and should still be, allowed to continue. This all seems rather uncool, particularly in light of the fact that, again, my move was per guidelines and the move back was done in what sure looks like bad faith to me. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of the State of Massachusetts.svg

I made the requested updates to File:Seal of the State of Massachusetts.svg.

Cheers, --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House

Hi, you appear to be one of the main contributors to the House article. I will take it to FAc somewhere next week, if you have any comments on the article before it's nominated, please notify me. Thanks.--Music26/11 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This is very low priority change. The guidelines for infobox naming would now encourage the lowercase for "settlement", and most of the infoboxes will be renamed in time with that case. Since I was aware of that and going trough a lot of articles over the last few days it seemed worth changing them at the same time. As you say its very minor. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05 22 May 2009 (UTC).

DYK for List of United States cities by population density

Updated DYK query On June 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of United States cities by population density, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 09:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

House episodes

Hi, I'm thinking of maybe creating a House featured topic, and have been working on the episode list see this. I haven't fully seen the fifth season yet, and I wondered if you could write the intro for that section. Thank you.--Music26/11 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there

Hi, I would just like to thank you for all your help with the House FAC. You're taking all the work out of my hands, and I think that is very kind of you. Thank you. Also, have you given any thought about helping out on my House episodes sandbox, I would really appreciate it.--Music26/11 13:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great!--Music26/11 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House season articles

Hay i am jsut wondering if you liek help on the seaosn articles once the episode list is at feature lsit status? my english is poor ot mince due to dsylexica but that only effects my grammer and spelling not my abilty to write and thinking of things to put in writing, i will be glad to help where i can :)--Andy (talk - contrib) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now set out the layout for the season pages, as per Lost FL season pages and per television MOS page. I am jsut wondering if you want me to start the intial clean up (which i tihkn there wont be much), referencing where need for example coloum headers again and the episode dsecription, maybe diagnostic coloum. Also do you think we should merge the episode ratings into the season articles to?--Andy (talk - contrib) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way, way overdue barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For superior work writing, editing, and maintaining House (TV series)

I'm not given to handing these out—I'm lazy, forgetful, and cheap—but what a job. It was a pleasure contributing my little bit.—DCGeist (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Yankees-Red Sox rivalry

As far as I'm aware, there was a consensus to leave this article as "Yanks-Sox" regardless of alphabetical order because it's almost always referred to that way in reliable sources. I'll see if I can find the discussion, which I believe I participated in, but you might want to consider undoing the move. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your move for the alphabetical order part; however, the spaces added seem to go against precedent as set by the other rivalry articles listed at the bottom of this one, ie. Mets–Phillies rivalry. Perhaps the move could be redone to leave out the spaces? GlassCobra 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HouseSeason5Cast.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HouseSeason5Cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Earth and Young Earth Creationism

The notice I added was in response to a recommendation and request by Evice, concerning the fact that there are so many editors who have made complaints on that talk page trying to promote YEC point of views. The message is not "dumb and pointless", and please take greater care with your words so as to not be taken as assuming bad faith or ineptitude. That said, I have taken your "there is no science supporting YEC" comment into account and have improved the notice accordingly. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mayumashu

I saw the comment you left on User:Mayumashu's talk page regarding his incorporating excessive and completely unwarranted whitespace into articles underneath hatnotes. I completely agree with you, and even left a sub-note under yours saying how I, too, think it's ridiculous. He has clearly made more edits incorporating said whitespace after the messages you and I left. That, coupled with his overt ignoring of these messages by not responding, is making me consider discussing him in a community sanction. I've never done it before (and I'm not entirely positive how to go about it), but Mayumashu is doing more harm than good right now. I just wanted to drop you a message to let you know that I agree with your sentiment on his talk page and that I will inform you if/when I bring him up for a Wikipedia editors' review. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#User:Mayumashu, just so you are aware. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional and misanthropic medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton‑Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey. The show's premise originated with Paul Attanasio, while David Shore, who is credited as creator, was primarily responsible for the conception of the title character. It is largely filmed in Century City. House often clashes with his fellow physicians, including his own diagnostic team, because many of his hypotheses about patients' illnesses are based on subtle or controversial insights. His flouting of hospital rules and procedures frequently runs him afoul of his boss (and, later, girlfriend), hospital administrator and Dean of Medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein). House's only true friend is Dr. James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard), head of the Department of Oncology. Critically acclaimed for much of its run, House maintains high viewer ratings. Distributed to 66 countries, House was the most watched television program in the world in 2008. (more...)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]