Jump to content

User talk:TheRingess/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Thanks for the message. --Striver 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.TheRingess 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I whant to afd User talk:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, but can not figure how to do it. Could you please teach me? --Striver 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are welcomed to edit that article. --Striver 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. You tagged Teresa García de Madero with a wikify tag. In reviewing the article, I don't see what wikificaiton is needed. Could you clarify? Thanks. -- Whpq 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....I looked back at the article. Probably just because it's a stub, and needs to be expanded with sections created and references added. If you think it doesn't need it and I added this tag in error, please remove it, or if you wish, I will. Take care.

TheRingess 16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article ia a stub, you can tag it with the appropriate stub tag. The wikify tag is for cleanup of poorly formatted article. -- Whpq 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I see you tagged Amanda Moore with a wikify tag. What in particular do you think needs to be wikified/improved? Thanks. --Nschloes 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it just needs to be divided into sections and read less like a review. I started to try to create sections, but gave up.TheRingess 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I initially put the article together I thought about sections, but ended up deciding there wasn't enough information to warrant them. Any reason why sections are particularly necessary in an article of this length? About reading less like a review, I am down with working on that - let me know what in particular you think needs rewording or editing. --

Nschloes 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the only reason is to give the article a structure for the future. It seems entirely possible, since this woman is still alive that in the years to come, other editors will wish to expand the article. Having sections might make it easier for them to decide where to add their material. You might wish to take a look at the WikiProject Biography page to see what they recommend for a biographical article. The article reads like a review to me, simply because it uses non-neutral terms to describe the woman's work and accomplishments. I don't have the time to cite specific instances. I would recommend looking at everywhere her work is described in the article and ask if the wording is neutral, favorable or critical. TheRingess 20:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point on the sections and will also have a closer look at the wording. By the way, once I consider the article to be improved, should I say that here or is the article's discussion page the right place? Thanks for your help. --Nschloes 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful. I would recommend that once you are satisfied, you remove the wikify tag, and write a brief reason on the talk page, not here. Something to consider, once you are satisfied, would be to ask for a peer review. Again the WikiProject Biography page will have instructions on how to do so. It usually is as simple as placing a template on the article's talk page. Take care. TheRingess 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating tags

Hi, I know it's confusing, but at the moment wikify, cleanup, uncategorized and orphan take a parmeter like |December 2006}} while notabiliy, unreferenced and merge take one of the form |date=December 2006}} . If you leave the parameter off, a BOT will be along to add it for you. I hope to make them all accept date= eventually. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06 17 December 2006 (GMT).

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from John Bourgeois, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Specifically, I felt the IMDB profile verified the actor's career. Steve block Talk 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Good enough for me. TheRingess 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the note - I don't have an opinion either way, I suppose I could have said neutral. I only wanted to comment on the suggestion to merge. I often make comments on AfD discussions without !voting - is that not a good idea?--Dmz5 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Larson ProD

I removed the tag & proposed a merge in some detail on its talk page.
--Jerzyt 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. TheRingess 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Joke

A as to cleverness; D as to responsibility. I may more anxious than most about "Oh-oh, who's gonna bother me this time?", but even so, IMO it is bad to simulate or satirize fundamental system mechanisms at all convincingly. Hovering the lk, BTW, didn't give me "Aha!", but agita over whether the Pop-up tools were again getting flaky, as i've seen them occasionally "stuck" on a lk previous to the one i'm currently hovering.
--Jerzyt 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...sorry?TheRingess 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the article regarding the Ray quote. Reswobslc 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 3O on the Kingsport article. Would you happen to have any thoughts on whether or not the link provided for Bettini is a reliable source? --Takeel 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the timesnews website. If we can reasonably assume that they do basic fact checking, then I think it can serve as a reliable source.TheRingess 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. To me, it looks like a photoblog that the newspaper offers to the public. --Takeel 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lark Street

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by citing sources. If you dont feel it is a worthy page, you may delete it.

I do feel the street is very importaint though, it's really the only real place one can find decent arts and culture in the city. I found nothing more importaint in Albany than the Lark Street Neighborhood. Evrenosogullari 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man sorry for deleting the joke you've made. Now please check the ultra Fractal article and tell me what you think of it, the infobox ive added rocks, shame the screenshot isnt good enough. --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again Mark, first sorry for answering a lil' late, about Peru, home of half my ancestors, (dad's from there), Ive been there about 3 years ago visited relatives and landmrks, but only stayed in Lima, I would've gone to the andean region as seen on your site pics (those were really good). btw Congratulations for your marriage, Best wishes -- Walter Humala EmperorofWestWikipediaGodsave him! wanna Talk? 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also your fractal art is very good! -- Walter Humala EmperorofWestWikipediaGodsave him!

wanna Talk? 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism collaboration of the week

Hi. You voted for Tantra, this week's Hinduism Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. --Bondego 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You may want to read last week's collaboration article (Sita Ram Goel), which became a pretty long article. (I'm still working on it a bit.) --Bondego 19:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify I came across a Hinduism article that I am unsure how to deal with. I picked your name from a list of participants from the Wikiproject Hinduism as somebody that might be able to provide some expert assistance. There are a couple of articles that might possibly be a duplicate of each other simply due to spelling. They are Bana Shankari and Banashankari. They both seem to be talking about the Godess and the temple. Could you have a look and determine if they are the same subject, in which case they should be merged together. Thanks. -- Whpq 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your welcome. How do you make that practical joke on your user page. I want one! :-) IPSOS 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, right! IPSOS 04:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What is the rule on links? A couple in the Yantra article look very commercial. Specificly the second one and the last one. Are these sorts of links ok? IPSOS 04:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Regarding your comment for clarification of Mahasamadhi - see Wiki definition

Best Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipost (talkcontribs) 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Again:

Have posted my reasons for using Mahasamadhi on the SYDA page per your request. Guess I differ from your views in that:

- Mahasamadhi is an important concept in Raja Yoga and different from ordinary death. Of course, an individual could choose to not believe in this at all, which would be their right

- in the SYDA article there are uncommon words such as Shaktipat and Siddha being used. Surely, not common English words but relevant in context. I do not see why it is a requirement that one use only common language terms. In the extreme, this would lead to saying no new concepts be introduced

- don't see why you say the change is biased

Best Regards

Wikipost 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I learned how to create redirects, but accidently created one with quotes around it, I'm not quite sure how I did that. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22shri_yantra%22&redirect=no

How do I get it deleted? IPSOS 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IPSOS 05:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange article

I ran into this article, Novatron. Do you think it is for real? Or is it just to advertise the two links to the company? What do you do when you find something like this? Is there some place I could ask people to review it? IPSOS 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about...

...an article like this, The Other Press? A community college newpaper? With an external link going to an empty blog? IPSOS 06:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report vandalism

Another user, User:Sithas, keeps adding made-up material to A Moose for Jessica. This is a children's book and I don't think it is appropriate to vandalize it in this disgusting way. IPSOS 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found that if I just put WP: in front of a keyword in the search box I can find the relevant information like at WP:VANDAL. IPSOS 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the info. There is a lot to learn about this place. It's hard to know where to begin! But I'll read that link you gave me... IPSOS 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the two policies you linked. Good to know. By the way, do you know how some people get a talk link in their sig? I notice you don't have one so it is a two-step process to reply to you. I'd like to have one of thise talk links to make it easier for people to reply to me. IPSOS 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It took me a few tries, but I got it. Funny thing is, there was a link for "signature" near the box where you enter it. The page had tons of information on what not to do, but absolutely no information on what to do! IPSOS (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Prem Rawat

[[1]]Closure seems appropriate - there never was any hope of resolution, I am(as is anyone in the same situation) simply forced to go through the motions by the circularity of Wikipedia. Nik Wright2 10:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not forced by anyone to go through any motions. You created the mediation page. It's my opinion that you created the page not realizing that mediation was not what you were seeking. If you created the page because someone else told you to, then I'm sorry. Perhaps you did not make your needs clear enough to them. In either case, good luck.TheRingess (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you seem to be laboring under the belief that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not apply to you nor should they. It's just my opinion, as a volunteer, and not as a person in any other way associated with the WikiMedia foundation that your belief is incorrect. The fact is that you have edited an article in the Wikipedia namespace. It's just my understanding that by doing so, you implicitly agreeed to Wikipedia's content policies and all other applicable policies, whether or not you were aware of said policies at the time you performed those edits. The situation might be different had you not edited an article. But you did. Your problems are self created. The people you contact continually remind you that they will not or cannot dictate the content of the particular article that you continue to mention. I would hazard to guess that their unwillingness to do so is not based on any desire to harm you or impede you in any way, but based on the belief, that dictating content, no matter how trivial, constitutes censorship and/or dictatorship. Try to understand that the community values democracy and freedom of speech through reasoned discussion and consensus building. Therefore, you will only achieve your ends through talking to the other editors who have a particular interest, and not by demanding that someone somewhere make the changes you demand and then dictate to everyone else that those changes are set in stone, never to be challenged/changed/improved. Keep in mind, that everything said above is just my opinion, does not necessarily reflect reality, and is in no way shape or form, ethically or legally binding. Good day. TheRingess (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more information to the above page. If it is approved and constructed, it would host at least one, and perhaps more, professional sports franchise. That would make it a notable inclusion. I have left the prod in place. Leave a message on my talk page about whether you agree or disagree with my recent updates and the prod can be taken off. Thanks. Patken4 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xatrik move

I believe it is wrong. Xatrik is well known in the South African psytrance community. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article needs to establish notability according to WP:MUSIC. I think it would be best if left in the user namespace and worked on until ready for the article namespace. Just my opinion. TheRingess (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be re-written. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to add some references to Dallas Mill, which you prodded recently. I removed the prod. --Eastmain 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]