Jump to content

User talk:Closedmouth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.117.69.194 (talk) at 07:44, 3 November 2008 (→My edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bearden High School page

Man - how can I get my edit to stick? both names mentioned in my edit are sitting here at this computer. And we are credited with the merit we claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.143.213 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're bold, I'll give you that. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their vandalism may make them badasses but how can they be termed "professional"? Are they paid? I also fail to see Reliable sources in a secondary source, thus I fear OR. ;-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only they had a grasp of our foundational policies, maybe they would be recognised as the badasses they claim to be. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yikes

I wasn't sure what method he was using to spam talks, so my instant instinctual reaction was to post something quickly to make him stop. With a script, or even good old copy and paste, you'd be amazed through how many talks you can get in a few minutes. I did ease up there a little after his apology established he wasn't in fact a vandal, and I even fixed the broken coding on his talk page. You raise some good points, but in my opinion a good-faith newbie would (or should) take the effort to read the rules and comprehend them. As I see it a BITE-vio would in this instance consist of something like a short term block, not a (stern) warning. Even though, good on you for giving me the heads-up, I do appreciate the advice. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Umm..

You reverted my edit on late night hollyoaks but I changed it and corrected it. The band are not called 'The Dirty Deigos' They are called 'The Baby Deigos'. Google it and see for yourself. This should not have been classed as vandalism, Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.146.81 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

Please be careful about who you're accusing of being vandals, as in [1]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the above sample, you accused me and User:Da monster under your bed of vandalism, when we were not vandalizing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for budging in, NurseryRhyme and Closedmouth but I'd just like to explaim to NurseryRhyme what has appeared to have happened. if some one vandalises a page, and you then edit itm the only way to get rid of the orgianal vandalism is to revert all edits up till the last good one before the vandalism. If Closed mouth can confirm this is what happened then there is no call for alarm. cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to the edit summary. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I see what you mean. Huggle does that automatically if you revert more than one person's edits. At no point did I label your edits as vandalism, your username is merely included in a revert. Happens all the time. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Huggle needs tweaking.  :( Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be strict about it, your edit was reverted as it had, unintentionally, left quite offensive vandalism on the page. I don't think anything in the summary assumes bad faith. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date edits in radio station articles

Please be careful when you're using AWB to remove date links, as you did recently on WMXB and WFTH. While bare date links are one thing, the year links in the 'First air date' field of the infobox were piped to 'YYYY in radio' articles that do provide context. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the difference. Perhaps if they weren't hidden behind a pipe it would make more sense. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't see the difference between a generic article, which links to a 'YYYY' article that doesn't provide any context or add any value to the original article, and an article about a radio station, which links to a 'YYYY in radio' article that provides context to what was happening in radio when that station came on the air? It seems pretty straightforward to me. Agreed it's unfortunate that the link is piped, but the field 'First air date' needs to be satisfied visually by a date, so the pipe is unavoidable and certainly common throughout article space. Mlaffs (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't get why, if the link is so important for context, it should be hidden as a generic link to a year "article". I think the solution would be to put the link into the prose, like: "The station first came on the air in 1961 (see 1961 in radio) as a classical music station". I think that works quite well, and it makes the link more prominent and relevant. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mielec

Hello, would you happen to know why do I get these errors after I have added the ref in that article? Thanks,--Adi4000 23:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't figure it out, so I got someone else to fix it :D --Closedmouth (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small formalia question on A26 (submarine)

Hello,

I am slightly uncertain about a point in an edit I made earlier tonight on the page for the A26 (submarine) article, basically the case where I refer directly to one of the sources quoted in the article that constitutes one of the sources used. I am uncertain whether my profession in journalism is causing me to conflict with encyclopaedic practices - a journalist of course always quotes sources by name if they are a person or judicial entity, but in this case I am slightly worried that it makes the admittedly very brief wikipedia stub appear more like a news article than an encyclopaedic entry.

So for the case of clarifying the general practice a bit with a practical example towards my future edits I'd love to have an opinion. This is the diff for the article and edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A26_(submarine)&diff=249316811&oldid=240794535

Also, I must thank you for the time you took way back to message me when I had just only started editing on Wikipedia, it did offer some very immediate aid in improving my editing practices with quite a few "oh woops" moments as I started looking through the material linked.

Cheers, DanielAgorander (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made one more edit with a few additions as well, complimentary diffs if you want quick access to them:

Before topic raised above to after this new edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A26_(submarine)&diff=249332079&oldid=240794535 Between edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A26_(submarine)&diff=249332079&oldid=249316811

Cheers, DanielAgorander (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at that, man, and I'll see about getting some pointers from Tony1 for the future. DanielAgorander (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Why are you reverting all my edits? They are all true! YOU'RE HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Closedmouth&oldid=249359137"