Jump to content

User talk:Kingturtle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 23 November 2003 (Chip Row). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Kingturtle/Archive1 User talk:Kingturtle/Archive2

I don't mind The Exorcist fact to be in there...it just doesn't go with the flow of the article. She died a very short while after she turned 18 and got the apartment and started dating the guy. This is all in 1976, whereas the Exorcist thing would be in 1972/73. So where should it go then? Shawn

Fair enough, but I still think her school info should stay...agreed? How did you find out where the quote was from by the way? Becuase I couldn't... Shawn

Who says what the right format is? User: Shawn

I was under the impression that using a flag purely for indicating grammatical and spelling changes, such a notion had been rejected by the general mailing list community. LirQ

Could you unprotect your user page? Martin 14:19, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I do use preview. Are you biased against "social science textbooks" in general, or do you have some actual complaint against the data? LirQ

Well, if you find something constructive to say in criticism of Fisher's book -- feel free to let me know. Otherwise, have a nice day. LirQ

Please note that I never said u did touch anything in the article. LirQ

____

Hi Kingturtle,

I put"KRÜGER 1993" back in the Phelsuma quadriocellata lepida article. The scientific name of a plant or animal consists of its Latin name + the author who first described this species + the year in which the species was described. Sometimes the name of the author is abbreviated (like L. for Linaeus). Please do not remove the author in other articles on animals!

Cheers,

Jurriaan 06:48, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Kingturtle, great editing!

  • < removed unnecessary, etc...>

Wednesday, 2025-June-11, 00:49 Universal Time, 7,007,012 articles in Wikipedia, and growing, growing...

  • "Remember! United we stand... Divided we fall... Well, well, well... well... Well, Stanley!"

Frankly I am much puzzled.

Would you care to name which entries I removed from Votes for Deletion. Please look carefully at my edits. I just did that; in the fear that I might have done some inadvertent damage. But the edit history at least does not show any such deletion of entries by me. So what are you talking about? I only inquire, because I want to clarify things. Respectfully. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 19:53, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology but it wasn't really you that I was accusing of attacking me, although I did see the time-stamping of each of the entries as an insult, as if I should be the one attacked for listing them there. I was not even the one proposing these for deletion. The people listing them on Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary were suggesting that. I just moved them because the Wiktionary list has fallen into complete disuse. Everyone lists stuff and no-one does anything about it. I try to solve it by putting them in a place that people will comment and everyone just complains that I listed too many things at once. The reason I removed them wasn't so much because of what you did but the comments from others: "This is ridiculous". (Wik). "I agree with Wik" (Adam Bishop). "Listing Dowager for VfD is crazy". (Jtdirl). Patrick suggesting that if I wanted to list it on VfD it was up to me to take it to Wiktionary. So much for it being a collaborative project! And then Schneelocke's ridiculous complaint that I had listed them all at once. What am I meant to do? Save them up and post one per day? I've put them all in my sandbox instead. Angela 01:38, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Requested articles

Moving the maths stuff was a good solution for the requested articles page. Thanks. It's a lot more manageable now. Angela 22:51, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Bruce Sterling picture cropping

cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Kingturtle

You said:

photo needs to be reduced

... for Bruce Sterling; do you mean in colour depth, size, compression, noise, or something else? I'm happy to crop the picture (which, personally, I think you mean, but can't be sure), but don't want to do something others don't want :-)

James F. 11:03, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

i was referring to the size of that image. thanks for asking. have a good day :) :Kingturtle 14:03, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Right. Done (uploaded to Media:Bruce_Sterling_cropped.jpg and altered Bruce Sterling). Thoughts?
James F. 21:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

American arrogance

Hey, King T. Got a question for you about American arrogance at Talk:Baseball. It seems to me that making allegations about stereotypical national traits inferred from what was probably marketing hype is a bit dangerous. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it needs to be done properly. Certainly as a Canadian I'm not above thinking Americans are arrogant, but I don't know that i could prove that. Trontonian 22:41, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll wait and see what you come up with. I'm interested in the mythic dimensions of sport, as you tend to get when you listen to both American and Canadian sportc commentary. Trontonian 02:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please see if 3' UTR makes more more sense now. If not, I can try again. -- Someone else 23:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was toying with the idea of trying to make that clearer<G>. It gets so involved, though. Here's my brief version:

The carbon molecules in organic chemical compounds are numbered by chemists, for ease of reference according to established convention. When a chemical bond is made, such as attaching an "-OH" group to the #4 carbon atom, the number is used to indicate which carbon atom it is being attached to: in this case, the molecule would be said to be "4-hydroxylated".

When talking about nucleic acids, which are made up of bases (purines or pyrimidines) attached to ribose molecules, there could be confusion as to whether you are talking about the carbon-structure-numbering of the base, or of the ribose. By convention, when you are talking about the ribose structure, you add a 'prime' to the number, and a number given without the prime designation refers to the structure of the base. In practice, the only interesting sites on the ribose molecule are the 3' and the 5', so these are used as part of the jargon of chemists without giving much thought to them.

Why are these the interesting places? Because the chain of nucleic acid forms by connecting the 5' position on one ribose molecule to the 3' position of another with a phosphodiester bond.

So by specifying the direction (5'-3' vs. 3'-5') you can indicate what direction you are reading the nucleic acid in.

Whew! -- Someone else 23:49, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd be glad to adapt that into something like Prime (ribose structure), though I'd like to think about it for a bit to see if there's not somewhere better to put it. It seems to be that part of the problem is that our current explanation of DNA structure (at DNA, and possibly elsewhere...) uses very big words and still doesn't manage to get specific about details like 3'. I wonder if we don't need an explanation that avoids scientific jargon in favor of a clearer explanation for a more general audience.... I'm just not sure where it belongs. -- Someone else 01:00, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC) (If I had a graphics program that would draw chemical structures, it'd be easier, but alas...)


I removed your vote from this, but kept the listing, because the article has now been renamed to List of locales in Britain where ant species have become locally extinct. If that's still not short enough, or if you think it should still be deleted, perhaps you could re-add your name? I wasn't sure if the long title was your only reason for suggesting deletion... Martin 20:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kingturtle. I notice you're interested in old reference works. Do you know anything about the Oracle Encyclopædia? I have the five-volumn set in beautiful condition, but I know almost nothing about it. -- Stephen Gilbert 10:55, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kingturtle, It is my plan to add information to the different articles I started on animal taxa. However, since my spare time is limited, my idea was to get the "taxonomical structure" in place first so it will be easier for others to add their knowledge of these taxa to wikipedia without creating "orphans".

Jurriaan 09:09, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think procedure dictates folks involved with disputes should not protect the page. Perhaps get another admin to go in and protect it? Perhaps safer to unprotect to avoid giving more conflict. Fuzheado

Regarding Intact dilation and extraction, there were some complaints on the mailing list about it. I'll try to summarize the disputed portions and copy them to the talk page, but until I get to that you can look through the mailing list archives for October [1] if you'd like. The person objecting is "Eileen", and her three posts are: [2], [3], [4]. There's also a bunch of discussion in the threads entitled Major Correction, "partial birth abortion"..., (no subject), Following up -, and a few other threads with partial birth or partial-birth in the subject. --Delirium 20:06, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not a problem! I was testing my talk page notification. Sorry, Angela1 is just the account for checking things work without being logged into my normal account. Most people would just log off and do this, but I don't have a floating IP like most so I have a separate test account in order to avoid giving out my IP. Sorry if this wasted your time. Angela 07:24, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe (and i think you are referring to my accidental intermediate version with ===s instead of ====, so refresh and see if that's any better) but i think it is worth the pain for easy navigation. Morwen 11:19, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And do you understand what All the way to left means and why it doesn't apply to my latest version of the change? Morwen 11:26, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And now? with Geography: %s?

Morwen 11:36, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary to add again the details about Anissa's schooling history? Thanks Dysprosia 06:48, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kingturtle, you just put a redirect on the page Cambodia: A Book For People Who Find Television too Slow that I created. I'm new, can you point me to an explanation of what you did and why? (I do know that the article where I created the link I used (Brian Fawcett) now has a broken link, and I'd like to avoid this in the future. Thanks, vanden 08:03, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Again, thanks for the explanation on my talk page. Clear as a bell. (I had been worried that it was to do with italicization of book titles or some such.) Thanks again, vanden 08:19, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I unprotected User:Kingturtle/sandbox - assuming accidental/old vandal/etc. If deliberate, please re-protect and drop a quick line of explanation on wikipedia:protected page and/or on the page itself. Thanks.

I left user:Kingturtle protected, and copied the explanation you gave on my user talk page onto wikipedia:protected page. Martin 18:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit

I have been chiseling away at what I originally found on "anal sex" ever since I started editing here. I'm still pretty shy about deleting, so I had been trying to subtley reword what at first was a rather striking POV against female recieving anal sex. Anywho, I just wanted you to know I think your deletion was great, thanks. JackLynch

Fungus

Please revert your removal of the reference to butt rot. This issue was discussed on talk:Fungus and a decision was reached that the reference is genuine. You have my word, for what it's worth. -Smack 04:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am deeply honored by you adding me to your watchlist. I do do a large volume of high-quality work (to the best of my ability) and hope I can meet your esteemed standards. Thank you. NightCrawler 23:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've sent the information you asked for in Wikipedia:Problem users via email. - Hephaestos 00:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Titles of Works

Play titles are usually italicized. Sadly, it's easier to find in the Chicago Manual of Style than it is on Wikipedia: 8:172: "When quoted in text...tiitles of books, journals, plays and other freestanding works are italicized; titles of articles, chapters and other shorter works are set in roman and enclosed in quotation marks." You're probably thinking of song titles: they are in quotations, not italicized. -- Someone else 10:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Am I right in my other thinking?
  • novels, "short stories"
  • movies, "television shows" - KT

Oooh, cool way to show it!. Basically, yes, but television series. My attempt at a table showing italics, "quotes", and neither.

  • novels, "novellas", "short stories"
  • book of poems, "poems", cantos
  • operas, "arias", "songs"
    • instrumental works have rather complicated rules, so I'll leave them out<G>
  • movies
  • television series, "episode title"
  • recording (album title), "song title"
  • plays, scenes, musicals, "songs"
  • paintings, drawings, statues (though CMS makes an exception for works of antiquity)
  • journal, "journal article"
  • newspapers, regular comic strips, "articles"
    -- Someone else 11:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, thanks for stepping in and letting me know. This is one battle I really don't want to fight. There are more productive things to do here. *sigh* --Minesweeper 06:25, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Hey King of the Turtles. Just a note: Entries in the Selected Articles section on the Main Page need to be listed on their corresponding theme page. Specifically, anniversaries need to be listed on a recent day page before listing on the Main Page. For example Birmingham Six and King Biscuit Time were not listed at November 21 at the time you put them on the Main Page. This is part of the minor price we ask in order to get things listed. I'll go ahead and list the items (they are otherwise good choices). See Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page for details. Cheers! --mav 04:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No prob. on the Who album. Glad to be of help Tuf-Kat 05:02, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think you meant to go to Special:Lonelypages, not Wikipedia:Orphaned articles. Angela 23:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That old version of the page was just for when Special:Lonelypages was disabled. Now it is usable again, the Wikipedia:Orphaned articles has to look like that so it can feed the Special:Lonelypages. Angela 00:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I undeleted Radiological and turned it into a redirect to radiology. *shrug* Martin

I was trying to express "it's not important" or "it's just a redirect" or "no matter". Sorry if it felt belittling. Now, do I owe you a wiki-kiss for that flower? Unfortunately, I've cashed out at the WikiBank... Martin 02:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Nothings's wrong with Wikipedia:Orphaned articles. That's not a "real" page, it's a cache page for Special:Lonelypages. --Brion 04:49, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I removed 4 but the other 4 are still true. Angela 05:48, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

VfD notices

The VfD notices added to articles are the only way we have to notify those who are interested and watching an article that it's listed on VfD. Giving those interested in a subject notice is a key part of the deletion process. That's why I'll usually move an article to the day when the VfD tag is added - it gives those interested some chance to participate in due process before the process is over. Jamesday 16:14, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chip row

Hi Kingturtle, I'm afraid I disagree with you that Chip Row is resolved and I have relisted it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I can't see any reason that chip row should redirect to Cardiff. A lot of towns have a Chip Row, so why redirect there? It's like redirecting cat to Brighton because you once saw a cat in Brighton. If you had some reason for it, could you mention it on Redirects for deletion please? Thank you. Angela 22:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingturtle&oldid=1809697"