en User talk:Nanobot recurve

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1897 FA Cup Final

Thanks for the comment and the results of your research on the talk page. I have taken on board what User:Struway2 said and have extrapolated the table back to the start of Cup Final day and it is now clear that the original comment was correct.I have therefore added an explanation to the 1896-97 in English football article with a link from the Cup Final article. It's a pity that User:Villafancd who added the original statement didn't include a citation when he did so; presumably this is specifically stated in one of the written histories of either Aston Villa or the FA Cup. Thanks again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for adding the ref to Room 101

Thanks! That's perfect (and bizarre, I might add). The para may need some minor copyediting to conform to the source (e.g. he didn't move his office, but had the floors renumbered). I'll do that. Thanks for your help with sourcing articles. BTW, your user page could use some wiki links. (I don't recall having heard of googlewhack or Dave Gorman before.) --Jtir (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. After looking closer, ISTM that the source supports only the first sentence, and not the second. I did a search of Stasiland (ISBN 1862075808) at amazon.com and found Orwell mentioned, but not as a subject of Mielke's admiration. --Jtir (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied our thread to Talk:Room 101 and have replied there. (It's on my watchlist.) --Jtir (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

using named ref tags

Hi, when using named ref tags, only one (usually the first) needs to have the full ref. I made this change with that in mind. WP:FOOT has more. --Jtir (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that, but decided to leave the information in anyway, people sometimes make mistakes and I thought having the information to hand would be helpful in case someone made a boo-boo when editing an article ( having to restart your edit, or open another copy of the article to find what you erased is a pain in the bum when you slip up ). Sorry if this intepretation is causing problems. Nanobot recurve (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't understand the scenario you are envisioning. The "Show changes" button will show you what you have added and removed from an article before you save it. I use it all the time, although it took a while to learn how to interpret the display. --Jtir (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out why duplicating the content of a named ref can cause problems. In this edit, I was trying to convert a bare exlink into a named exlink, but my change had no effect. Then I discovered that the named ref was in there three times, so I had to do a second edit. It was very confusing. --Jtir (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FOOT guideline may need to be changed. I raised the issue here. --Jtir (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A14 Ref Tidying

Thanks for sorting out the reference on my addition to the A14 article, I wasn't absolutely sure how to do that. Useful to learn! Guthrum (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi concentration camp badges

Hiya, I notice that on 4th March 2008, you removed that women using birth control were assigned black triangles from this article, stating that 'referenced article does not mention birth control', or words to that effect. On the first line of the article referenced it states "Lesbians, unmarried mothers, prostitutes, women who had abortions"... Would you not agree that abortion is a form of birth control, if a distasteful one? Nanobot recurve (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not agree with that. Certainly, it is wrong to use a broader term is used when only a narrower term is referenced. Furtermore, an anonymous article in a student newspaper is not a reliable source. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]