User talk:Fru1tbat/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| ← Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Jesus
I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.
Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.
The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.
Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I just took a look at the article, and it appears to be pretty well written, as far as I can tell. I've generally avoided editing Wikipedia articles on Christianity (among other subjects) because of the arguments and edit wars that often arise with controversial topics, especially those where religion is involved. I've added it to my watchlist, but I probably won't get too involved unless there's a serious need. --Fru1tbat 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
re: mat kearney
cool, thanks for the heads up.
-kaizen@jan10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaizenyorii (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
Re: Vandalism Removal
Hi. The history diffs are actually broken, and I assumed there wasn't another way to revert. But now I see that I can click on a previous version, edit, and save. Thanks.
Here is why the history mechanism is broken: I originally assumed the way to revert was to select two versions, hit "compare selected versions", then hit undo. But after hitting undo, you get a different set of diffs. This only happens when the diffs are more than 1 version apart, so it looks like a bug to me --- or the interface is misleading enough to be called a bug.
Anyway, thanks for the info --- I'll be a better vandal stomper now :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xerxesnine (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Boy do i feel like an idiot
Those Mae cats were already in the Singularity article and i added them, lol. Thanks for removing them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJREJECTED (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
- Heh, don't worry about it! I didn't even notice when you added them, actually. :) I only noticed they were duplicates when Alex valavanis moved them up with the others, and they stuck out once they were grouped together... --Fru1tbat 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comprising vs Comprised of
Regarding your edit to National Hockey League ([1]), believe it or not, "comprises" does mean "is made up of". Using "is comprised of" is seen as incorrect by many (though it's becoming more common). See, for example, thefreedictionary and M-W. Both note that there is a usage problem with the latter definition, hence my edit summary comment that "comprising" is "more correct". "Two conferences, each comprising three divisions" means "two conferences, each made up of three divisions", which is the intent of the sentence. In informal usage, "comprised of three divisions" may mean the same thing, and even though "opposition to this usage is abating" (thefreedictionary), I think we're better off with a non-controversial usage. Maybe it would be even better still not to use the word at all, and to choose an alternative. --Fru1tbat 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I must admit, however, that I find the contention in thefreedictionary relating to the usage of "comprise" vs "compose" while perhaps true, is nonetheless logically unconvincing because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity. For greater clarity (and also to add information on the actual numerical composition of the conferences and divisions) I have changed the text in the NHL article to the following: "The NHL is divided into two fifteen-team conferences each of which consists of three five-team divisions." Centpacrr 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, "compose" is unambiguous. The problem is that "comprise" has come to mean both its original meaning and the exact opposite (kind of like "moot" [2]), so ambiguity is unavoidable, really. Traditional usage would be "the league comprises 30 teams". Modern usage might be "30 teams comprise the league". To me, that should mean "30 teams are made up of the league", but in reality you rarely see it that way anyway. That meaning is always (in my experience) used passively, i.e. "is comprised of". I accept that it's common, but it has become somewhat idiomatic -- I doubt many people who use that meaning would be able to define "comprise" by itself, without the "is" and "of"... In any case, I think the change you made to the article works well.
- Thanks for the note on the railroad article, by the way. I notice you're in the Philly area (as I am). Can't be quite as much fun working Flyers games this season...
- --Fru1tbat 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I must admit that the logic as to why and how "comprise" may have fallen into a state of acceptable "androgynous" usage escapes me. A puzzlement to be sure.
-
- It has indeed been a dismal hockey season in Philadelphia this year (both with the Flyers and Phantoms), but after working more than 3,000 pro hockey games over the past 37 years I don't get too wound up one way or the other about wins and losses. As my friend the late Flyer coach Fred Shero used to say, "I don't really think about the games, that just drives you crazy." The game is still fun for me, just not quite as much fun this year as it has been in others. (For more information see my informal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net.)
-
- I hope you find the Stevens' Camden & Amboy article interesting. While not an engineer myself (I am a writer), I come from a long line of engineers. Both my father and grandfather were EE's, my great grandfather a CE, and great great grandfather a CE and ME. (He was the chief assistant engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad and did much of the engineering and design on for the original construction over the Sierras in the 1860's.[3]) Centpacrr 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSG-Husker-Viper1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BSGMini-00 10 37-part.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
RfC
Just wanted to let you know I tweaked the formatting and added keep/delete to the comments there to bring it in line with other RfC's (and for clarity). Hopefully you have no objection to that, if you do I apologize in advance, feel free to revert me. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! I was considering putting "delete" when I composed my comment, but as the item seemed to be taking on more of a threaded discussion format, I left it out. Thanks for tidying it up. --Fru1tbat 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Sandbox on Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, welcome, and I hope that you will like Wikipedia. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you must be confused. I regularly revert vandalism to that page, but certainly was not using the page to experiment. --Fru1tbat 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry you're right. Cheers. Kamope · talk · contributions 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism?
I have an Internet page blocker (CYBERsitter) on my computer and it blocks certain words, including the URL for MySpace. It's currently installed. I need to know how to remove that certain block (the one of MySpace's URL) only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A&MFan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
- I'm not familiar with the software, but I've seen plenty of other edits where myspace or other URLs have been blanked. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere on the net if it's not obvious in the software's options. --Fru1tbat 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Cars Trivia
I agree with keeping the specious references off the page. Whomever is behind 220.237.181.194 appears to be the main culprit.Skywatcher68 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Abdurahman49
Good job assuming good faith at User talk:Abdurahman49. I was all set to decry the user as a vandal, but when I saw your message, I realized my reaction was a Bad Thing. There could be a good reason for it, and I should not assume malice. The action may look suspicious, but suspicious != malice. I did make a note at WP:AN#Abdurahman49 and mass removal of AMG ID. Anyway, thanks, good job, keep up the good work. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The user's other edits appeared to be well-intentioned at a quick glance, but the AMG ID removals did concern me. I don't like to see useful/harmless content removed without good reason. Let me know if you find anything else out. --Fru1tbat 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Let me first state that currently there is a convention, which you noted, of disambiguating by artist, rather than year. Let me also say that, for reasons I have stated elsewhere, (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Naming conventions, infoboxes, etc.) I am in total disagreement with that convention, and am campaigning to change it. I think it's a terrible way of doing it. And unless I can be convinced otherwise, I am continuing to use the year. -- BRG 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:SpongeBobCharacter
You recently edited Template:SpongeBobCharacter for image size parameter. However, when the image is added to the page in question, the parameters you added show up as text and is not rendered. If you take a look at SpongeBob SquarePants (character), you'll see what I mean. I am not familiar enough with template code to be able to figure this out, and I didn't want to just revert your edits. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I checked the page you mentioned, though, and I don't see the text... I checked using two different browsers, and neither of them show anything unusual that I can see. Where do you see the rendered text?
- Oh, wait, I see the problem now. Actually, the page (SpongeBob SquarePants (character)) has been fixed since you posted this note, I think. The problem was that template instance was being used in a way the template was not intended to be used (the problem was limited to that page only). The image parameter should be just the image name with no markup. If it's used that way, there is no problem (check a version of the page a week or so ago and you'll see what I mean). --Fru1tbat 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
