User talk:Zingostar/Archive 2

What's up with the small 0 byte changes/undo:s you do just to add remarks in the edit summary? Edit summaries are for informing about the edits you make and not to conduct discussions. [1] [2] --Strangnet 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Headings ==:Forgotten, already? It would make it a lot easier for the rest of us if you at least tried to follow some of the style guidelines, so that we don't have to run around cleaning up the articles on a regular basis. The links that were given to you as an introduction at the top of this page are really useful, and not there just for show. --Strangnet 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Strangnet 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding the expand tag to articles such as Förkväll? It is already marked as a stub, how does it help to repeat this? Rich257 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you use headings in articles you need to use the form ==Text== or if it's a sub-heading ===Text 2===. There's a shortcut button above the edit field if you're unsure. If you look at the Manual of Style that's linked at the top of your discussion page you'll find more tips on how to edit. --Strangnet 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Rich257 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matrix17,

...if you have some time over sometime you can look at the Alex Andrew Kelly article...

Have tried rephrasing it a little and added some formatting and wikilinks. I guess its portrayal on TV and film probably qualifies it as "notable". Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to like names with diacritic marks, so instead of moving the correctly spelled names to the simpler versions, create articles with the simpler spelling and put a redirect to the main article. --Strangnet 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matrix17. Just wanted to let you know that it is not necessary whatsoever to go through articles simply removing blank lines as you did here and here. Such "null" edits simply clutter the article's history and needlessly tax server resources. Thanks and have a good one. -- Satori Son 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to keep on nominating articles for deletion, could you please at least follow the guide for AfD. Thanks. --Strangnet 14:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't funny. Please stop. Otherwise, I will notify the admins that you are purposefully vandalizing articles. --Mhking 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Censure, you will be blocked. The specific edit I refer to is [3]. In addition, your attempt to speedy delete articles like [4] is also borderline vandalism. Finally, please don't remove this warning from your talk page. Doing so is considered vandalism.--Alabamaboy 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, many of your edits have shown your intent to improve Wikipedia. Please follow the editing guidelines at the top of the page and I wish you the best of editing. Just avoid any more vandalism. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this prior to saving. This allows you to check what the page will look like first and to check that you haven't made any errors. It also prevents the need for multiple saves. Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. Sincerely, Strangnet 11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will warn you about adding Youtube links of content with an unclear copyright into articles as you did at Anna Järphammar. Next time you will likely be blocked.--Isotope23 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't. Matrix, if I wanted to block you just to be a WP:DICK I would have done it long ago. I'd rather see you take some time to learn the ropes here so you don't have to be blocked. Please, don't add any more YouTube links unless it is clear they are not copyrighted. You might also consider my earlier suggestions to format your external links section like this: ==External links==, and add tag the Swedish language links as suggested at WP:EL#Foreign-language sites. Those last two things are just suggestions, but the YouTube thing is a must. Please stop.--Isotope23 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you are randomly inserting and removing blank lines in articles? Rich257 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that "people" have been rude to you (User talk:Rich257). Another view on it is that various editors have left you messages asking you to use features such as headings and previews, and explaining how to do it and why you should do it — there is a lot to know on wikipedia and a little coaching can help. However despite these messages of help, you have ignored them and continued as before, which makes more work for other people. Can you understand the frustration?

I think that if you were prepared to take time to get an article "about right", accept suggestions and advice and talk constructively with other editors then you would find wikipedia a more co-operative environment. Rich257 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Do not overwrite AfD discussions. (2) Do not renominate articles that just survived AfD and are on deletion review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you've started sourcing claims and additions to articles, but as I suggested before it's always best to find international sources in English that benefits all readers. If something happens in the US, for example, there's almost certainly articles that write about it locally, as is with Anand Jon. I suggest that if you read something in Swedish news that is internationally based, you check news.google.com to find out more about it. Happy editing! --Strangnet 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit summaries judiciously. Writing things such as this is unacceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Matrix17,

HI AGAIN can you please...

Sorry to hear you're feeling harassed. In these circumstances, I reckon what's best is to follow one or more of the suggestions here, perhaps in this section if you've already tried stepping back for a while as well as trying to communicate. Hopefully it should be clear what can be done, but if not, let me know. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please use references the way they're intended, with <ref></ref> and the corresponding <references />? And adding several links to Expressen and Aftonbladet hardly brings any depth for English readers of the articles? --Strangnet 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't remove references other users make - there are others editing Wikipedia and spending time to make the articles look ok and follow certain guidelines. You also know that it's not acceptable practise to delete things on your talk pages until they have been resolved. --Strangnet 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article Förkväll for you. You really need to start using references in the correct way - the reason for references is to make it easy for the reader to check the information that is provided. When you add dozens of untitled links at the end of an article it's impossible to know what they are about. And adding exclusively Swedish links won't help an english speaking audience the least. Swedish tabloids are also not regarded as the most trusting of sources and more often than not only contains gossip. You should know better by know, Matrix17. --Strangnet 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And still more - references are not external links. They are references and should be added that way - external links are for official web pages or other places that dedicate information to the subject of the WP-article. Please look at how I've referenced your additions and follow those examples. All the info needed about citation templates are found in Wikipedia:Citation templates. --Strangnet 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice with pictures and illustrations in articles, everybody agrees with that. That's why it's not really necessary to add questions or requests to the article talk pages. If there are images available, they tend to be added after a while anyway. Check Wikimedia Commons if there are any available or add ones yourself - just remember that the images must be licensed for distribution or Public Domain. Read more here. --Strangnet 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wilmadilis Blasini Pérez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Andante1980 12:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a human article but we cant put every information there since it'd be too huge an article. Lukas19 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove unsourced tags without actually adding sources like you did here. External links are not the same thing as sources. You need to add citations to the article or leave the tags alone.--Isotope23 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope23, what you said here is not necessarily true. Inline citations are only required for controversial statements that could be questioned as to their accuracy and/ or neutrality. External links and listed sources in the "REFERENCES" section are perfectly acceptable to justify removal of the unsourced tag. If the editor who placed the tag does not agree, he can talk to the remover, re-add the tag, and put up some dialogue on the article talk page. Please review WP:BOLD and the "edit - revert- discuss" cycle. Jerry lavoie 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but external links are not the same thing as sources. Right now there are no sources in the article. If you want to add a references section, please feel free to. I'm not asking for inline citations on every statement. I'm asking for a citation/reference so the article is not unverified.--Isotope23 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matrit17, sure I'd be glad to help out. If you'd like to contact me check out my userpage. ImtiazAA 14:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contest the speedy deletion of Virgie Arthur, you may seek a Deletion review. Talk:Dannielynn Marshall Stern is not the proper place to request undeletion. If you believe that the article on Dannielynn Marshall Stern should be deleted as well, you may nominate it for speedy deletion or regular deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matrix17, I echo Aecis's suggestion to you above. I think going through deletion review is the best for the Virgie Arthur article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you've done so already. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. (See Talk:Robert Bierenbaum.) It should now be obvious that it meets WP:BIO. GregorB 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't worry about potential deletion of this article. An AfD would not pass WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have made a section on the article talk page. Jerry lavoie 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the fact that you wrote the article. Despite the opinions expressed here, Bierenbaum does not meet any reasonable application of WP:BIO. When I get around to it, I will be nominating it for AfD. When I do you are free to express the opinion that it should be kept.--Isotope23 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is for the community to decide; if the consensus is keep then I am fine with that, but there is no credible assertion towards WP:BIO for said individual right now and I don't see evidence that a credible assertion even exists.--Isotope23 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see evidence that a credible assertion even exists"... "exists" refers to the "credible assertion" not the subject. You misread that.--Isotope23 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have just seen this article and reckon that if the case drew national attention (as the external links seem to indicate) then it's by no means alone in the encyclopedia. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned the text because of some grammer errors and all I added was some links, It's not a crime to do this. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ^►talk_►guests 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN Matrix. Your contributions here are subject to editing, just like everyone elses. You may also want to consider attempting to be a bit more civil when contacting other editors].--Isotope23 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between debating content on a page and calling someone's actions "pathetic" as you did above. Per your other comments, yes there are people on Wikipedia who disagree with me and that is fine. I'm sure you could find quite a few people who feel I've made mistakes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; I've never asked anyone to agree with me, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that statement is. I'm sorry if you feel I'm picking on you by pointing out relevant guidelines and here at Wikipedia that you should be following. Nobody is forcing you to do so, but I suspect that if you made some effort to meet our manual of style and better reference the additions you make here, you would not have so many other editors modifying or removing the content you add here.--Isotope23 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you coming up with "bad attitude"? Jerry disagreed with me and he chose to post that disagreement here. That's perfectly fine. I disagree with his opinion on what constitutes a reference in an article. That's perfectly fine too. Nobody said that we had to agree, nor do we have to have the same interpretation of the guidelines. If you read what he said though, he commented on the edit and a relevant policy. I responded. Jerry may disagree with my response and perhaps he will post here to disagree. Neither of us were incivil, nor did we disparage each other. This is civil discourse is here at Wikipedia. Not everyone is going to agree all the time. Disagreement does not = "bad attitude" as you've called it. Like I said above, I think if you made some effort to read & follow the linked manual of style in the welcome message I included on your page a while back, you would probably have less stress with your edits here. Also remember, rumors and such are not good basis for article additions. Content should be verifiable from reliable sources.--Isotope23 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten, already? It would make it a lot easier for the rest of us if you at least tried to follow some of the style guidelines, so that we don't have to run around cleaning up the articles on a regular basis. The links that were given to you as an introduction at the top of this page are really useful, and not there just for show. --Strangnet 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Strangnet 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you used the preview button you wouldn't add redlinked categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reginald_Stephey&diff=prev&oldid=115032821

Note also that categories of people have the person name included so they are correctly sorted, for example [[Category:Criminals|Stephey, Reginald]]. Rich257 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've heard of the preview function, and on several occasions made clear you understand it exists - perhaps you might consider actually using it? It helps from clogging up the edit history as well as it lessens the risk of two editors coming in editing conflicts when just adding small edits to an article. --Strangnet 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding the expand tag to articles such as Förkväll? It is already marked as a stub, how does it help to repeat this? Rich257 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of how you could add references to the articles. At the bottom of the editing box you find shortcuts to the referencing tags if you're unsure. It's both visually more pleasing for the articles as well as easier for the reader when it's made clear what aspect a reference is adding depth to. --Strangnet 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the case of Johanna Sällström I only uploaded the image since it qualified for fair use. The other persons that you listed are alive and anyone could take a photo and upload it to wikipedia. --Krm500 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Paradise Hotel, I needed to fix up some of your work and include Keith Cuda as a winner also. Charla was not the only winner, and Tara Gerard was a runner-up for receiving half of Keith's earnings. Mcoop06 01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you read through some of the manual of style and correct the ommissions in Fool around with. For example, names of films and television programs are in italics; headings are done in the way that has previously been mentioned to you on this page; proper names require an initial capital letter, for example English. Tnanks Rich257 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]