User talk:Fourohfour/Archive 16 Jul 2006

This is an archived comments page. Do not reply here. If you wish to raise any issues discussed here with me, please cut-and-paste the appropriate section (including only relevant sections) to my "proper" talk page as appropriate.

The Professionals

Thanks for sorting out the spelling mistake. I du wish I cud spel propurly. (Pally01 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

I still had to look the correct spelling up though :) Fourohfour 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinclair ZX81

You're quite right - removing the wikilink from the body of the article for spark printer was incorrect. I have reinstated the link accordingly. Hope the edits were ok otherwise. --Oscarthecat 16:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem; actually, at a first glance, I had my reservations about some of the link removals, but looking at it a second time, I'd realised that most of them were justified. Fourohfour 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Punch

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Removing the entire article would not be vandalism, frankly. Please try to remain civil even when you disagree with people. Just zis Guy you know? 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear which comment you are referring to now, and I don't intend proceeding on the basis of a guess. Please either quote or link directly to my comment in question (assuming that it *is* my comment) so I can figure what you're referring to. Fourohfour 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Characterising a genuine content dispute as vandalism, as Linnwood did, is incivil. I'm just reminding everyone - including Crawford - to remain calm. Just zis Guy you know? 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see anywhere else where you posted this particular comment (definitely not on Brian or Linnwood's page). Since I was both civil, and indeed actually *discouraged* the use of the word vandalism (at least without qualification) on the Donkey Punch talk page, it's even more out of place here.

In future can you please make clear where such comments don't apply to specific actions of the recipient. It's annoying enough with Brian making groundless accusations that I spoke on his behalf (FWIW I didn't, but since he refuses to provide a link, I don't know what comments of mine- if any- he sees in this way).

Fourohfour 12:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gold standard

Yes, Pixel8's images are great - but there's another contributor that provides computer photographs of similar quality, User:Danamania. Check out the gallery, they're very good, if not quite as large. I myself don't have a good camera either, and coincidently also lack the hardware to make photographs of ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Message Nice to meet you. It came to make a note from the history of the Nissan pao of you.

I : from a Japanese country. The article related to the K10 march is contributed. English is not good but is furthermore a beginner of Wikipedia too much. Page edit of Wikipedia had a hard time unskillfully, too. Thank you for help of an immediate edit. ja, --ek-10st Toyama 18:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)ek-10st Toyama　

Current and Mohinder edits

Your edits to these categories were pointless. These were two very small independent bands that broke up over 10 years ago. I've only been using wikipedia for a couple of weeks, but I already realized what a sham it is. The problem is the one size fits all methodology that seems to rule it. For example, I've been posting and editing about hardcore/punk related topics, I don't mean to be self-promoting but I'm an expert on what I've edited, yet my contributions that are CORRECT are repeatedly taken down (they may be somewhat POV but I'm trying to not do that as much as I can).

The internet needs an encyclopedia that is truly participatory and self-editing (democratically so) not this poor excuse for encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia. User:Morpheus12

Reply at user's page where conversation was started. Fourohfour 17:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ric Romero, comment-removal vandalism

See Here

• I say let the matter rest. It was a valid point, but poorly expressed. Putting it at the top with the long disclaimer looks like a WP:POINT at worst, and you would be better off using {{High-traffic}}. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I didn't like it either. I thought the disclaimer in particular came across as pseudo-legalistic and self-important, but it was added later because a number of people clearly thought the message itself was pro-deletion or something. Ironic, because I voted in favour of keeping the article. Anyhow, the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt at keeping the discussion neutral, so I'll bear your suggestion in mind in the future. Fourohfour 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hindsight being 20/20 and whatnot, I agree with the point that instead of outright removing the message, I should've removed only the attention grabbing bells, chimes,and whistles and relocated what was left into it's rightful place in the chat stream. My apologies about that. - Brother Dave Thompson 2:41, 23 April 2006 (PST)

Could you add your input please?

I have a few questions here that I would like another opinion on. → _ΣcoPhreek^Δ 04:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think mutual understanding has been accomplished. You might want to read the section afterwards to see if it is worded correctly. Thank you for your time. → _ΣcoPhreek^Δ 16:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Re : Deleted accounts and comments

Hi Fourohfour,

Per Wikipedia:Username, no accounts are deleted (not technically possible), at most only the userpage and usertalkpage. Anyone who has left Wikipedia but returned under a new account is considered a sockpuppet of the old account. If you believe that an editor has broken policy/guidelines and is disruptive aganist other editors, consider Request for Comments. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MF

I added it after seeing a video on YouTube where it was about a questionnaire and the question was, what does MF stand for? And the right answer was Max Factor, so i thought it was rather popular.. --Shandris 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... problem with disambig pages is that there are always people coming along and adding an abbrev because they happen to use it, or because they think such pages are meant as complete acronym lists (which they aren't, they're navigation aids). It's hard to judge these things, and you might be right, but I've *never* heard of it personally, which suggests it might not be that common.

BTW, I don't know about that quiz... but if someone asked me what "MF" stood for in everyday usage, my most likely answer would be considerably less polite than "Max Factor". :)

Fourohfour 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, motherfucker it would be ^^ --Shandris 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IHS

*** INCLUSION OF THIS SUBSECTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS ENCOURAGEMENT (either official or otherwise) TO ADD SCHOOLS FOR THE SAKE OF IT. This may be trimmed/split off if it grows too long. ***

I removed the hidden comment because it reads like a dictact from above. If there is a problem with too many high schools being listed then lets tackle that if and when it arises - on the talk page, not by a draconian comment in the article. Thanks/wangi 15:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we could remove the hidden comment, and leave the visible section formatting reinstated without the comment. I agree that the wording didn't come across well, and you're probably right that it shouldn't be there.

I created separate sections for schools, because categorising makes the page easier to traverse in any case, and here it also keeps the low-likelihood school entries from getting mixed up with the more likely search results. Personally, I wasn't (and amn't) convinced that they belonged on the page according to policy. Ironically, I wished to make clear that adding this section did *not* imply official endorsement of minor schools on disambig pages. But looking at it now, it is kind of.... pompous. Fourohfour 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for a "section" when there's only one item in that section, don't you think? And if things grew such that a section was needed it'd make sense to follow the layout guidelines at MoS:DP. Thanks/wangi 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; if (and only if) more related entries are likely to be added to a page soon, it means the page will grow in a tidier manner. Not that I'm advocating creating lots of categories "on the off-chance", but schools tend to be popular (if not particularly useful) additions.

If you really want to remove the category from IHS for now though, go ahead. We can stick it back later if more schools get added. I don't see that the category in itself violates the MoS:DP though; please state which part you had in mind if you disagree. Thanks! Fourohfour 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)