User talk:Melsaran

This is Melsaran's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is Melsaran's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

NUMBEROFARTICLES

Regarding [1] and [2]. NUMBEROFARTICLES does not work in mirrors and other data users, so I don' tthink it should be used in mainspace. For example, http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-wikimedia-projects says "Wikipedia is the most popular of the Wikimedia projects, with -1 legitimate articles in the English language alone". Do you know something that supports your edits? PrimeHunter 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! I was wondering why {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} wasn't used, but you made it clear. What about introducing this reason in the surrounding HTML comment? Sala Skan 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might prevent problems. PrimeHunter 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

You are, incidentally, wrong about the spelling. 'Discrete' means things which are separate and distinguishable, binary and not analog[3]; 'discreet' on the other hand means 'marked by prudence or modesty and wise self-restraint'[4]. It's pretty obvious given the context which is right and which is wrong.

As for 'Wikipaedia' - if Wikipedia had in some counterfactual world been named in British English or Latin, that'd be just fine and 'ae' it'd be. But as it is, there is one name, a name devised by Americans, and so the only correct name is 'Wikipedia'. --24.186.239.25 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, how funny, I didn't know that. Sorry for reverting you. Regarding the "Wikipaedia" thing, I know A. B., and he always spells it like that, probably because he disagrees with it being spelt "Wikipedia". And WP:TALK#Others' comments says that "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Although I personally think that this is nonsense (you are only making it better readable by correcting typos), many people frown upon editing others' comments. I recommend that you don't do that. Sala Skan 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Heya! An edit of yours regarding 3RR was reverted at Wikipedia:Five pillars. What the reverting editor didn't explain is that 3RR is included in the proceeding paragraph, and therefore included as a hard rule by proxy. So, what I mean to say is, you were right, but the guy that was wrong was right to revert... Now my head hurts... cya aliasd·U·T 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't see that. Still, I disagree with it saying "WP doesn't have firm rules", because 3RR gets applied at all times, even the edit was in good faith and reverted trolls/anons. Sala Skan 10:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment on the talk page. Good luck on your second RfB! Sala Skan 11:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

idiom?

I usually know (or at least think I know) what interesting turns of phrase mean. But this one: "Bob's your uncle" has me stumped. Clue? Thanks. Jd2718 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go to Wikipedia, enter it in the search bar, and Bob's Your Uncle! Sala Skan 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok! Uncle! Jd2718 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting, how speech between European and American users can be so easy and so confusing ;-) Sala Skan 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirmation

Although I deleted the original article as nonsense, thank you for clarifying the phrase "So i herd u liek mudkipz" and redirecting it appropriately. This was something I wasn't aware of. Bobo . 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Some anons were edit-warring at the article on Mudkip to include info about the meme (it has now been semiprotected, but then they went on and included it in the article on Swampert), so I thought it'd be handy to create the redirect to prevent the article from being made. Hope it'll work :-) Sala Skan 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot

Re: [5]: Does this mean that pages that have the Werdnabot Archival Code are automatically archived by Shadowbot3? Should this information be added to the relevant pages? —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As you can see at the top of this talk page (when editing), it says it's archived by Werdnabot, but as you can see in the history of this talk page, it is in fact archived by Shadowbot3. It'd be a good idea to update the pages. Sala Skan 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

It's good to finally be greeted on here -- Thanks! As for the warning, I just felt a more personalized approach would be fun :) I have one of the tools installed that reverts changes and warns users, so it makes it much easier. Thanks again! Ironman5247 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Of course, personalised messages are always preferable, but I didn't know if you were aware of the User Warning system. I have twinkle installed, by the way, what about you? Sala Skan 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have installed, too. It's an awesome tool! Ironman5247 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my name and about vandalism report

Oh you speak 1337 thats why you find my name suspicous. So I find my name Ok. But If I need to I'll change. I'm not making vandalism. I'm Removing it.

But I've found an IP making vandalism so I reverted the changes and can report you: The IP is:

69.123.33.176 This were the vandalic changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Damn_Thing&diff=143118481&oldid=143118300 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_Damn_Thing&diff=143119727&oldid=143119442 — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00bh4ck3r (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in the struggle against vandalism! I warned the IP, because he vandalised even after he got warned. If he continues, he may be blocked for a brief period of time.

About your username, you do not necessarily need to change it, but names in leet are often looked down upon because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia, and many vandals/trolls have names in leet. You may, of course, choose to keep it, if you continue to make valuable contributions you're very welcome here! But I just recommend you change it (at Wikipedia:Change username), so people will be less suspicious with your edits. That is all :-).

P.S. you can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Sala Skan 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link

You posted a link to a "canvas" I did. I actually didn't, I made a comment there after he made a comment on my RfA (exactly like I'm doing now). Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I couldn't have known that, I just saw the edit. I'll strike the comment. Sala Skan 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's ok, we all mess up sometimes XD. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth

My friend, you cannot have the critique removed from the intro. Removing it only makes the article POV and laughable. --Camptown 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criticism section below. Therefore NPOV is preserved. Srasku 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camptown, you reverted four times without a comment, doing so is prohibited by the 3RR. You ignored my comments, and those of Kerowren, Gakhandal and an anonymous editor. I filed a report here. Sala Skan 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon here, I got the 3RR to. No matter though, but someone still needs to edit that. And sorry to bring the discussion here Salaskan.--Anon 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The edit warrior has been blocked, by the way. I recommend you get an account, it takes only a few seconds and people will be less suspicious of your edits ;-). Sala Skan 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You passed up a perfectly good opportunity for the best edit summary of all time: "Elvis has left the article" Flowanda 00:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sala Skan 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambutan is back!

Thanks for [6], [7] and [8]!--Rambutan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rambutan. You're welcome, I can't stand people who keep using article talk pages as a forum. ;-) Sala Skan 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth - Gore Aid

Point taken. It still seems to be a minority view not that widespread. Approx. 500 Google results. Only 4 "Google News" results of news media. My concern was the illusion of credibility and "widespread-ness" such a phrase gets when quoted. By way of example. Let's say 99% of people think one thing - and a just a handful of writers think something different. Without going into the merits of which side is "correct" - does putting the view of those handful of writers in a wikipedia article - and it taking up much much more than 1% of that section - create the illusion of greater dissent than there actually is? It would be wrong to censor the view altogether. If it has been articulated by someone credible - and has appeared somewhere credible. But if the reporting of it takes up as much space as the reporting of the majority opinion - are we leaving a misleading impression? What do you think? Davidpatrick 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]