User talk:Skinnyweed

I think I got the wrong person. My apologies. I did a strike through with explanation. Thanks.--Dakota ~ 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the note on the "Ken Doherty" pages re refs. At the moment I'm more concerned with getting articles as complete as possible but will certainly revisit this and others. Most of the information in the "KD" article is uncontroversial (e.g. when and where he won tournaments, his world ranking, etc.)

ha ha ha TripleH1976 12:47 p.m., 03 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what encyclopedic value this statement has. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Spam. Thank you. Skinnyweed 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To edit a template:

• Click to edit the article in which the template is placed
• The bottom of the edit page will list all the templates on the page, and you can then click on the link and edit it like it any other article
• all template articles can be found as Template:.....

Astrotrain 10:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tip. Skinnyweed 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gamaliel 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. However, someone has recommended that the templates of Nobel Prize winners be deleted. Will it be ok if you just post your opinion at templates for deletion? Thanks, really appreciate it. =) Joey80 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I hope it stays. Skinnyweed 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created part of the Politics of, the Politics series and election results templates. Both are useful and as far as I can see generally accepted. SO I don't think they are ridicolous. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion your breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks was libellous. ReeseM 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am not the first user who has been forced to refer you to that policy. ReeseM 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a highly verbally abusive person. Skinnyweed 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.153.59.184 tried to manually remove some vandalism which you incorrectly reverted. Please strike thru your test2 warning at User_talk:81.153.59.184, and carefully check before leaving warnings. I've explained to 81.153.59.184 how to correctly revert vandalism. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-17t11:44z

Done. Skinnyweed 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You had a question on Talk:Deafness. The intro paragraph of that article should address your question. Excerpt: The word “deaf” used in a cultural sense is almost always capitalized (Deaf), while in a medical sense is almost always lower case (deaf). For those unfamiliar with Deaf culture, this can be an initially confusing distinction. Cheers. --Ds13 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Skinnyweed 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I move the categories? They are a valid part of the article, and help link to others. Chooserr 01:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Skinnyweed 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from blank the entire Sandbox and replacing it with pornographic content. Thank you.—G.He 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -Will Beback 20:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this edit clearly isn't "minor"[1]. You probably have "Mark all eits as minor" set in your preferences. -Will Beback 20:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have that option set but I'll try and remember next time. Thanks for telling me. Skinnyweed 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reinstatement of the picture in the Schoolgirl uniform fetish page. Although you could not know this, there's a conflict between two users over this and the other taxwoman pictures which we are trying to resolve. --Yamla 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What conflict? Skinnyweed 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by Pruneau 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Hi,

Could you please not insult fat people like myself in the edit summaries of the fat acceptance movement article. It's exactly this sort of piece of hatred that necesitates the movement itself. People of size aren't just a dog, we have feelings too, and often come to Wikipedia. See, hateful editing spreads pain only further, and it's mean as shit. You should read the article, it's pretty interesting, and you might get a new perspective on overweight citizens and even make a few new friends. You'd be surprised at the unique experiences some of them have to share; it's not often you get to hear about weight prejudice in a serious manner. I hope you take my advice; maybe you could even suggest an article for me to read to reduce my own prejudice! So, happy editing! - iamen gorged

Iamen gorged 19:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the linked words together. Iamen gorged 13:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above person basically said "you piece of dog shit" to me. He didn't say it outright but if we let these masked attacks go, things can get nasty. For instance, it wouldn't be ok if I said something like that back. Skinnyweed 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you keep cool and remain civil even when you are attacked. In this case I have indefinitely blocked the user, it seemed to be a trolling account.--Commander Keane 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you call adding info on Sydney "vandalism"...well, I'm sorry but the only things I wrote (which are the things you consider vandalism) where "Sydney harbour is world renowned for its beauty" and "Sydney is an important place for finance"! Now, I'm sorry but there is now denying that those things I added are true, so I don't understand why there constantly removed, and no I don't come from Sydney, if it's any of your business! Jackp 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.202.139.108 you accused me of vandalism. Please see my reply on the same page

Well, it might not be you personally but an edit occurred from your IP that vandalised 2006 FIFA World Cup, see here. You're probably sharing an IP dress with other users. I don't actually know what to do. Skinnyweed 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which information is unverified in Helsinki? You should post a list on the talk page. JIP | Talk 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to Hanko, Finland as well. Please comment on talk before tagging again, thanks. --Janke | Talk 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it wasn't that I spotted any false information, just that I tend to add that tag if I don't see any references, in order to encourage people to do so. Sorry if I didn't use the tag properly. Skinnyweed 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the template that is used to dispute the inclusion of the article in one or more categories? It is placed in the article inself. Skinnyweed 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is one, but it would be in Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates I guess. Templates aren't the holy grail, just discuss on the talk page. If there is no discussion after a few days be bold.--Commander Keane 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've found it. Here: {{Disputed-category}}. Skinnyweed 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you are a conscientious objector, does that mean you're doing civilian national service? Skinnyweed 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I hadn't been able to find *any* translation for Zivildiener in English, so I used a literal translation. Is it usually called "civilian national service"? What's the word for one serving his CNS? —Nightstallion (?) 09:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "civilian national service" was just a word I made up to describe it. I suppose the word "conscription" can be used to cover it. Skinnyweed 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .

With regards to your comment in Talk:List of relationships with age disparity, the relationship may well be "disgusting", but try to avoid such blunt language in future. Thanks, Andjam 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor and stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Academy Magnet? You tagged the article for AfD but never completed the nomination, so I don't know why you nominated it. Metros232 12:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I've included sources in the article. Cheers!

To what? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it was Falklands War, specifically this. Skinnyweed 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the same question. What's the point of adding that to people's user pages without saying what article you're referring to? Joffeloff 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Because of the sheer amount of edit summary tags I'm adding, adding any more information would take lots more time. Skinnyweed 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto To what?! Jooler 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, it was death penalty, here. Small thing you might say. (Also when you edit a section and make another section, that's confusing too. The section you clicked on appears in the edit summary.) Skinnyweed 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop, or at least slow down. =) There's no need to spam people with {{editsummary}}, especially people who use them most of the time. Edit summaries are not required for every edit. Powers 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll use it less. Skinnyweed 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life. Who cares about that when adding a comment to a talk page. Jooler 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I can't tell what edits they're making. And don't attack me. Skinnyweed 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You started it mate. Enough. Jooler 15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate saying "Me too", but... "me too". Powers 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lolicon. [2][3] [4] Skinnyweed 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with what Powers wrote above. In this case the change I made to a section automatically named in the history, was to fix a link to a redirect to a disambiguation page. I do not think an edit which changes The Levellers the The Levellers needs a further summary, (any more than I am going to add a summary to the history of your talk page for this edit) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can weigh in; I think the use of the template was unnecessary and silly (though I am sure done in good faith), but, as one who made his first ~1000 edits without even really noticing the importance of the edit summary field, it might be worth concentrating on people who never or almost never use it, as I wish somebody had pointed it out to me early on. --Guinnog 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply adding an automated 'please use edit summaries' to anyone who may not have used one in that exact edit, is not productive. Joffeloff 16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit I was a little trigger happy with that template. Skinnyweed 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnyweed, you added the template to my discussion page too, and I'm *obsessive* about edit summaries [5]. What you did was spamming, by indiscriminately using this template on the talk pages of dozens of users [6]. As was pointed out above, it is not even a requirement to use edit summaries. Further, it is completely unhelpful to tell someone that they didn't use an edit summary, without giving any hint as to which post that you were referring to. You should probably go through the discussion pages where you've added this template, and either remove it or apologize for the spam. --Elonka 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that then. Skinnyweed 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what summary did I forget to put a summary on? Tumble-Weed (Not really sure how to hyperlink this to my talk page, but would appreciate a reply) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tumble-Weed (talk • contribs) .

User talk:Tumble-Weed Powers 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was for these two: [7][8] but there's been some complaints about my edit summary tag usage so ignore it if you like. Skinnyweed 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skinnyweed,

Thanks for working to make the Wikipedia better. Unfortunately, tagging an article with {{cleanup}}{{categorise}}{{linkless}}{{wikify}}{{sources}}{{advert}}{{tone}}{{context}}{{cleanup-tone}}{{copyedit}}{{afd}} (as you did with Loughborough Students Flying Club) isn't so helpful. This places the article in tons of clean-up categories. Then categories such as Category needed get filled up with articles that are likely to be deleted, and it is a waste of time for editors such as myself to work to remove them from these clean-up categories. If an article is a mess, please consider tagging it only with {{new|June 2006}}, which will point out that the article may have multiple problems. Also, {{wikify}} is no longer used, and should be replaced with {{wikify-date|June 2006}}. And {{cleanup}} is no longer used, and should be replaced with {{cleanup-date|June 2006}}. Thanks again for your help! -- Reinyday, 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. - Glen 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

Quick update. I'm working on a reconstruct of the main Neuro-linguistic programming article, and I think it will put NLP onto a regular Wikipedia basis (explanation, balanced coverage, citation). Thing is, it's not a small job. I don't want to get there only to be flamed at for rewriting it without some form of consensus.

What I'd like to do instead is open up the reconstruct article as I work on it this coming week, for comments and criticisms, and to get feedback as it develops, or answer questions on the layout or get improvements and so on. Does thsi sound OK to you? If so please leave a message and let me know, and I'll move the draft reconstruction to a sensible place chunk by chunk as it's ready for review and consensus.

Let me know if this seems okay to you? If not let me know and we can discuss what would work instead. My main concern is to get a balanced prototype written relatively quickly that is in line with basic Wikipedia standards and covers the field appropriately.

Thanks for your help, look forward to hearing back that it's okay! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really help in that article because I know next to nothing about NLP but you seem like you know what you're doing. Skinnyweed 02:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing just to review it and give an opinion if it seems to be okay by appearances? :) I'd just appreciate it since its best to consult :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incapable of reviewing it because I know nothing about it. Skinnyweed 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey skinnyweed, got your message. i couldn't agree with you more on jackp. being new to wiki myself i am not sure if there is much we can do. i actually got told off (although politely) for exceeding the 3 revert rule regarding jack. this is despite my opinion being in line with everyone elses. He's a real pain in you know where. but i am not sure whether he is doing it maliciously. i think he thinks he is acting in good faith. he just doesn't get it. lol. have you seen the Sydney discussion page? look under "what's wrong with this". i don't think he means to be vandal - he just has no idea. i am so frustrated with it all. let me know how it goes --Merbabu 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absoloutly appalled at what you have done! You have humiliated me and made me sound like a total fool on the Sydney talk page, and have made slanderous comments. Have you ever stoped to think why I have removed content from other pages about cities??? No, I don't think you have. Well, let me explain: Months ago people refused to listen to me when I asked if the page on Sydney could be extended, because it was short, and full of bias rubbish, so I added a few things to the page, like a section about Sydney's fashion, and suddenly it was removed, I asked people if they would instead of removing it, update it to fit the proper Wikipedia standards! But no, know one listened they continued removing my edits without a second thought, I did a lot of hard work, and everything I've edited is removed. I mean, can't someone else even consider fixing up my edits? That is pretty much why all this started!!! And next time you should think twice before you create discussions about me without my notification, because if you keep meddling the way you are, you'll just suffer. I just don't understand why everyone suddenly jumps when I add culture or sections about the film industry to the Sydney article, but when it is articles on New York or Tokyo no body gives a damn! I mean well and I don't want to cause controversy among this website, but I'd just like to see somebody actually listening to me for once. If you have anything else to say then leave a message on my talk page! Jackp 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Furniture, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do I add a proper citation to the Prank call article when the source is not on the Internet? I can verify the Jim Florentine information (regarding police showing up at his home) but I didn't get it from the Internet. The source is actually the liner notes from Jim Florentine's Terrorizing Telemarketers III cd. Wikipedia:Citing sources says to provide a hyperlink or a footnote, but it also says footnotes are not generally accepted. What is, in this sort of case, the "accepted" form of citation? Thanks, Wavy G 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually that sure but you could just put the information in brackets next to it. Sorry. Skinnyweed 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Ok, I'll give it a try. Thanks. Wavy G 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what I want to do is file a request for comment against User:Jackp but the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page appears confusing to me and I don't know what to do. Could you help me out in filing this? Thanks. Skinnyweed 14:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Check Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other means to resolve your dispute.--Commander Keane 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you jump to these stupid conclusions, what exactly have I done that is disruptive? Jackp 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the detailed message I put on the Sydney talk page. Do not play games. Skinnyweed 02:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You told alerted me that I had an "inappropriate" edit when I made and anonymous revision of a vandalism on cristiano ronaldo's page (although i suppose thats what it was for) i was just wondering why it was that you would make this alert? as the editing history shows, I removed just one quick offending bit that shone forth. I just want to clear up any mistake and make sure this IP is not blocked. Thanks! 71.224.75.199 03:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk. Skinnyweed 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't know what to do about that para... I think the writer was making the point that American Child Protective Services might take your child away if you are a self-professed pedophile. However, that's just one local department in one case, plus the guy had a child-porn-possession conviction previously, which muddies the waters. A broader survey of cases would be much better, but how many people with children go on the radio and say Hey I'm a pedophile... I hate to remove information but I'm inclined to think that that para doesn't really add anything... Herostratus 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skinnyweed,

You've probably noticed my (probably foolhardy) attempt to resolve the edit war on the Andy Murray page regarding fansites. The protagonists do not look about to resolve it among themselves, so I'd appreciate it if you and other regular editors could express your views on this part of the page, so that we can stop the war going forward, or at least block a protagonist who persists in it. Please come to the talk page here

The questions I've put are:

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Thanks. RobbieC 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by →LzyGenius 11:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.[reply]