User talk:LouriePieterse/Archive 2

Warning re AF 447?

Hi. I was looking at an IP editor's Talk page for another, not-connected-with-planes reason and saw this from you, warning them for "adding commentary and your personal analysis". Please forgive me for butting in and/or missing the point, but I can only find the one edit on AF447 from this user, this one where they add the "current event" tag, which seemed quite a good idea. So, either I've got it wrong, or you might perhaps need to revise this warning, or something. Please note that since I spend about 95% of my time on Wikipedia confused about one thing or another I am quite probably wrong here - please feel free to put me right on this. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi DBak. It was my mistake, I've got confused. Take a look at this link. To me it looked like 92.4.112.144 added the fact, but he or she didn't. I really get irritated with Boeing and Airbus supporters who constantly argue about which plane is the best, so I've reacted out of anger. I've already removed the warning and said I'm sorry. I think you would have noticed, because you also posted the user a message. Just like you I also spend most of my time on Wikipedia, and I really appreciate the fact that you've shown me my error. This way we can work together to make Wikipedia even more successful! Regards LouriePieterse (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool - you are very welcome, and thank you very much for dealing with it so gracefully. I do see what you mean about how to make this error, so I will also be trying to avoid it myself in future! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (PS Yes, it was my sad obsession with the spelling of Middlesbrough that triggered this OCD-ish episode!)

Lucca Games

Hi this morning I added the page Lucca Games but now I noticed there's a problem with a conflict of interest. I published the same page on Italian WIKI without any problem....what should I do???

Thanks... Bosinic (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bosinic. A conflict of interest refers to: editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Wikipedia editors try to edit with a neutral point of view, so it is advised to rewrite your article to suite these guidelines. I also advise you to source all your facts. I hope this helps you, just ask if you have another question. Regards LouriePieterse (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

re Papillary eccrine adenoma

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KISN (Portland)

Please provide a deletion rationale at the subject AfD. Thanks. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD nominations

Please read WP:CSD carefully; many of your nominations are either using the wrong category or are flat-out not CSD candidates. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of G1

Hi, please remember that CSD G1 only applies to pages which are complete gibberish, for example "gfsfsdf". Please read this article and learn some other criteria. Be aware that warning good faith users about pages which they put time and effort into as being nonsense can be BITEy. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kingpin. Sorry, Ill look into it. Sometimes I find it difficult to place the article, and then I use G1. It wont happen again. Thanks for showing me my error! Regards LouriePieterse (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can't "place the article", that may be an indication it's not a candidate for CSD at all.  Frank  |  talk  19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But if you can't find a critera for speedy deletion which fits a page, then don't nominate it, not every new page needs to be speedied :). Don't let me put you off working in CSD, it's an area which could use more users - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Kingpin. I'm sorry, I am just very tired. When I am tired I usually get hasty and make stupid mistakes. I try to make a difference at Wikipedia, I really work very hard to do all I can. Please forgive me if I sometimes make mistakes. Luckily I learn from them. Thanks for helping me on this polite manner, I really appreciate it! LouriePieterse (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mooger Fooger

Why did you start an AfD when a speedy delete tag was placed on this article. BigDunc^Talk 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi BD. My internet connection is pretty slow. When I viewed the page the speedy tag weren't there. I wasn't sure if I should add a speedy or AfD tag. So I then added the AfD tag because I sometimes know the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I don't know how to place it. Regards LouriePieterse (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked an admin for clarification on what to do in a situation like this, the use of the show preview button might have solved this. What I would normally do is wait and see if the speedy tag is removed/declined before starting Prod or AfD thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. If I had seen the speedy tag I wouldn't have placed the AfD tag. See my above messages to Kingpin. Today just isn't my day. Sorry, this wont happen again. Regards LouriePieterse (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it maybe just take a break and come back a bit fresher happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Parque Ambue Ari

You did not provide a rationale for your nomination of Parque Ambue Ari at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parque Ambue Ari.  Frank  |  talk  19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive added my rationale just now...LouriePieterse (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DPOAE

Dear Lourie,

Distortion Product Oto Acoustic Emission shloud be defined because this term is used in WP several times and that is a very interesting tool to test the hearing of animals or neonates.

May be my definition was not very clear ?

Yours,

Dr Bernard Auriol

http://auriol.free.fr/Psychosonique.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auriol (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bernard. I understand what you mean, and it was an excellent idea of you too create the page. Unfortunately the page you created didn't comply to the Wikipedia guidelines. You can create the page again, or you can even ask one of the administrators to send you a copy of the deleted article. Refer to the posts on you talk page for more information. Iam sorry if this caused any mayor problems. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Layout and reference problems on new pages

Hi Kingpin. I've got a few questions, you look like a friendly Wikipedian, so please help me! I frequently patrol the New Pages and Recent changes, and regularly come across the following: A user created a new page with a total legitimate topic, a topic which belongs on Wikipedia, but the layout of the article is terrible and none of the facts are referenced. What should I do? Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly you need to find out if all the "facts" are actually true. After finding sources (these must be reliable, and independent of the topic (newspapers and similar are normally best)), the way to reference them is the place the Url of the source (or you can use the cite template, try enabling refTools (read more about them here) in "my preferences > gadgets > refTools", which makes adding cites easy). If you are just adding the url, then you can use a ref, add this by placing the text <ref>url of source here</ref> after the piece of text you want to reference. Don't forget to create a new section titled "References" with the content of that section being "{{reflist}}".
Another way you can cleanup a page is by splitting it into sections (there is a page which explains what order sections should be in), often the creator will have added external links to the bottom without a section title etc.
Adding categories is a good way to make the page more accessible, and look nicer. If you are not sure which categories to add, go to a page on a similar subject and copy and paste the ones you think are appropriate. Add a category by adding [[Category:<name_of_cat>]] to the bottom of the page.
While all of that is very useful, I can't explain everything on your talk page, but the best place to look for more is the Manual of Style. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Kangro

I've declined the speedy on this page, as this person appears to be a notable poet. A Google Scholar search turns up quite a bit about him. For example, see this JSTOR extract, [1]. If you have any questions, please let me know. TNXMan 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TNXMan. Ill look into it in the future. Regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it! :) Geologik (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Adil Thathaal

Hello LouriePieterse, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I removed the speedy deletion tag from Adil Thathaal- because: the article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. NW (Talk) 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW. I only undid the user's action where he removed the tag. According to the Wikipedia guidelines the author is not allow to remove this banner. Tim Ross placed the tag, he has over 6000 edits, so I believed that he made the correct decision. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Thandiakkal

Hello LouriePieterse, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I removed the speedy deletion tag from Thandiakkal- because: the article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. NW (Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

re: GFA

Thanks for the award Lourie :). Appreciated - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

It is obvious that you haven't read Paul Humphries' book that I used as the source of the table and the interpretation in the section Riders identified as nations, so please don't spoil the table. When you cite a source, don't make your own interpretations or "corrections". 130.230.31.119 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when you point out edits, don't include intermediate revisions. I've made four edits to the article, of which only one changed facts in the table. I only made two changes; namely removing the Oligarchy?? which just stood there, and I replaced the red with green. There are a few reasons why I did it. Firstly because the section just above the table's section is called Pale (green) Horse. In that particular section there is also referred quite often to the pale green horse. One of the references of the article also handles about the pale green horse. Please be kind. One not making trouble, I am just an average Wikipedian. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you struggle to improve the article, but there is a difference between changing one accurate quotation and improving article by adding some other information. The two question marks and "Red" are in the cited table in the book. They are not typographical errors. The table represents Humphries' interpretation in very compact form. It is not a big part of the article, but it was accurate when I copied it from the book as a quotation. I suggest that you seek for some other way (than changing contents of that table) to improve the article. 130.230.31.119 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This source states that the rider is green. I don't have the book so I can't see the other. And it would seem strange to have two red horsemen no? Maybe you're getting muddled with the second horse? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus

Hello LouriePieterse, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) under a different criteria, because the one you provided was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! SoWhy 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello LouriePieterse, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alcalamari. Thanks, I would use it wisely! King regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

HotCat

does not always provide useful suggestions. The categories Computing, Software, Application Software, and Operating Systems are all tree-tops, the only articles in those categories are the few appropriate to the entire category. Thanks, 69.106.232.171 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that. I'll try to avoid it in the future. Thanks! Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Someone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. Prodego ^talk 05:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Prodego. Yes, I have requested permission for this tool. Thanks! King regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What happend of this conversation Prodego? I don't want to tell you to hurry up or anything, I am just wondering. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed your response when the section below was created, done now. Prodego ^talk 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodego ^talk 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for approving my request. I won't do any stupid things. I am currently busy reading the guide, and if I have any questions I will ask you. I really appreciate the fact that you are willing to help me if I have questions. Kind regards, LouriePieterse (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)