User talk:Littlealien182/Archive1

• Archive 1
• 2

Shq1p

You had the references part right, almost. You only need to use the <ref> tag once, other code is put at the bottom, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes for more detail. Also, a small article, like the one you just made, is called a stub. When you first make an article, you should tag it as a stub, or with a more specific tag if there is one so people can find it easier (see categorizing stubs for more). You might also find taking part in the Biology WikiProject interesting. Good luck with your editing, and feel free to ask even the simplest of questions, everyone is here to help. -Mulder416 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dance Marathon 2008 Stretch.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Dance Marathon 2008 Stretch.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Phi

Thanks LittleAlien for the edits on the Pi Kappa Phi page. I have been wanting a copy edit for a while now.Storkpkp (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Assistance

Hey there, thanks for the note. Hmm, well it depends on what you're interested in. The first thing people do when they come to Wikipedia is either 1.) Create small articles, termed stubs or 2.)Do some copy editing/clean up on any article they have an interest in. My advice to you would be to first take a look at our directory of WP:WIKIPROJECTs. These are volunteer collaborative efforts set up by regular editors on Wikipedia that focus on a general topic of interest. Just pick one that suits your interest. Of course, this is not required. If you wish to create some articles, I'd say the best thing to do first is read over your first article, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR (our core policies) and our general notability criteria. If you have general questions, you may want to visit the help desk as well. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if you have specific questions, or need some additional info. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand template and stubs

You recently made an edit here. Just so you know, the expand template shouldn't be used on articles that also have a stub template. I've removed the expand template from that article.--Rockfang (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Rockfang. I will take this into consideration before I tag an article. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloodshy and Avant

Please dont change the Bloodshy and Avant page! Ol dirty bastard and Lupe are feat on those songs you changed and called it vanalism. I know cuz its my songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.79.219 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In the future, if you wish to avoid reversions of this type, you may want to reference new material. Especially if you are adding it as an unregistered user. Once again, sorry for the confusion. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Great man!! The DNA molecule picture in your page looks very impressive, thx for that. I am trying to complete Northern Cyprus city pages. There are few that missing. Thx for your attention.Lila2021 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you have any questions. I know that wikipedia can be somewhat overwhelming for new users, but I'm here to help if you have any questions. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Turkish philosophers

This article consisted of a {{hangon}} template and thirteen links, nine of which pointed to deleted or non-existent articles. How does this not qualify as an article consisting of nothings but an unlabeled "See also" section? --Allen3 ^talk 09:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asking because I was unsure. Thank you for clarifying things. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 10:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity infbox

Been working on it, check it out here User:Iheartwiki19/Sandbox --Iheartwiki19 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fran.182

I'll do everything to make the wiki page of blink 182, my favourite band look great...i don't know much about editing in wiki...but i'll try to learn. -Fran.182 13:56, 17 June 2008

Speedy deletion of Image:Dance Marathon 2008 Stretch.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Dance Marathon 2008 Stretch.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Dance Marathon 2008 Stretch.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sdrtirs, I'm not sure how this image violates WP:CSD#I9. Could you please explain your rationale. Thanks. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CampHeartlandLogo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:CampHeartlandLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The White Diamond.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The White Diamond.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Before you welcome someone, I suggest you take a moment to actually read what they contributed. The edits by user:Colbert1776 were blatant garbage and lies. DS (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ds, thank you for the suggestion. I actually monitor all of the contribution pages of the user's that I welcome, before I formally welcome them. I guess I just missed this one. Thank you for taking notice and, more importantly, thank you for bringing it to my attention. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 03:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Algae

I have reverted your recent edit to Algae. The second half of scpecies names is never capitlaized, so the original version was correct. The use of antarctica was a Latin adjective in the name of an algae, and not the name of the continent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for double checking my edits. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Preparatoty Schools

Please note that a preparatory school in the UK has a different meaning from that in the USA. Several of the disambiguation changess you have made are entirely incorrect. For a UK person you should normally select the Preparatory School (UK) option. Thanks Motmit (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been selecting the UK option for prep schools located within the UK, but it is entirely possible that I have made a mistake(s). Specifically, what articles are you referring to? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it may be only George Orwell - which was changed previously and then back again which is why the problem was highlighted. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to double-check my edits. Happy editing! ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB silliness

I just called one of your AWB edits "vandalism", (in center frequency) which was an exaggeration, but it was strange that with AWB you'd remove one blank line after a heading. What's up with that? Dicklyon (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm relatively new to AWB. I was not aware that edits of this nature, though definitely not vandalism, are discouraged on Wikipedia. In the future I will try to avoid making "insignificant or inconsequential" edits per the AWB rules of use. Thanks for checking my edits and, more importantly, thanks for keeping me honest. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 09:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem

No problem! Cookies are good. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Man, just going over your user page and dude...that teddy fellow really has issues. Anyways, hope all is well. Call me when you're back in the area. lovdahl (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Smoosh

I added something to this article about this bands collaboration with another because the song they made is pretty popular. This was marked as 'advertising or promotional.' What should I do? Ev1lsp1rals (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it may be true that Smoosh collaborated with another band to create a popular song, the way in which you added this information to the Smoosh article was done in such a way so that it resembled spam (i.e. it appeared to be "advertising or promotional" material). As such, your edits were reverted. In the future, avoid adding external links to the body of an article (look at rule #3 of Wikipedia's external link policy). Instead, in the future, you may consider adding this type of information with an internal link. The information you added by-itself is not "promotional." It was the fact that you added an external link and, more specifically, an external link to the band's website. Let me know if this was helpful and feel free to ask additional questions. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blink-182 discography

Thank you very much! I recently got let go from my job, so I had some free time on my hands... Fezmar9 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:74.176.13.189

I'm familiar with the articles this IP is editing, and I agree their being disruptive. However, I don't think anything will be done at AIV, they deal with more blatant vandalism there. Have you considered reporting the IP to ANI? Landon1980 (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll look into it. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, I'm also going to help you keep an eye on their edits. Landon1980 (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nirvana

Okay, after taking another look I've reinstated the line breaks. Thank you for your polite note, friend :-) Good job. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 07:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

While it is true that information about the Roman Catholic Church can be found in the Christian Church article, the fact remains that people often refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church when using the term "Church." That is why I placed the Roman Catholic Church on the Church disambiguation page. The fact that an article is mentioned in an existing article, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to remove it from a disambiguation page. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you reverted this page without discussing it first? You could have responded to this post or simply commented on the Church discussion page. I thoroughly disagree with your choice to remove the Roman Catholic Church from the Church disambiguation page. I am currently fixing links to this disambiguation page, and the Roman Catholic Church is often the intended destination of these internal links. If this were not the case, I would leave this matter as it stands. But I do not see a good reason (nor have you offered one) to remove this link, given the reason I stated above. I have reverted your edit once again, and I would appreciate a more thorough explanation than POV or "they were removed in the past." Neither of these explanations suffice. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated before the

• Roman Catholic Church, can be found under Christian Church
• it is POV to leave out other Christian Churches and include the Roman Catholic Church -- and to be more explicit, it causes Wikipedia to support the RCC historic cliam that it is the one true church
• these were recently removed from Church. The purpose seems to be a major "style repair, remove entries covered by other list articles and not likely to be searched as simply Church"

I do not see why people are really apt to search for "Church" and mean "Roman Catholic Church."

It you are "currently fixing links to this disambiguation page" then point any to "Roman Catholic Church" that need it, but is you that have the burden of proof to make your change, not I -- but I have posted you comments here for you if you are disputing the link. --Carlaude (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a Protestant Baptist, and in no way am I try to advance my own personal agenda. In fact, I would support adding the Protestant Church to this page to give the overall page a more neutral appearance. Please do not accuse me of POV violations when I have clearly articulated my reasons for adding this link. Also, your first and third points seem address the same issue (remove entries covered by other list articles and not likely to be searched as simply Church). You are asking me why people are apt to mean Roman Catholic Church when searching for Church, and since I will not claim to know the intentions or reasons of others, I will not venture to answer this definitively unanswerable question. The more important question is whether or not people mean Roman Catholic Church when using the term Church (not why?) and a good indication of this can be determined by the internal links that lead to this page. You can check them out for yourself (or I can find a few if you'd like me to). Simply click on "what links here" in the toolbox and you will find that 1:10 - 1:20 of the 5,000 links to this page refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church. This, in my humble opinion, is enough to warrant the addition of this link. And, to make things seem more neutral, we can added a link to the Protestant Church. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take offence. You asked for more detail. If you add a links for other churches I will not consider the overall edit POV-- but an edit can be POV for reasons that are not POV. Please consider my comments to be about the edit and not your purpose.

I be more clear-- the question "why..." is rhetorical. I see it as unlikely that people would search for "Church" and mean "Roman Catholic Church."

Wikipedia editors put internal Wikipedia links for very different reasons than why others-- Wikipedia users would search for "Church". Furthermore the Wikipedia policy on the first is clearly stated at the bottom of each disambiguation page: If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. As for internal Wikipedia links they are often done for such sill reasons as whatever comes to their mind, or whatever is easier to type.

While you note that "1:10 to 1:20 of the 5,000 links to this page refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church." It would seem that is beacuse of the habits of the many Roman Catholic editors, not Roman Catholic users that mistook Wikipedia as a Roman Catholic encyclopedia or that never heard of another broader meaning of the term "church." --Carlaude (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• Your claim about the habits of Wikipedia editors being entirely different from Wikipedia users is rather bold. Particularly, how the habits of Roman Catholic editors lead them to mistakenly mis-link "Church," while the the habits of Roman Catholic users absolve them somehow of this mishap (i.e. the confusion between the terms "Church" and "Roman Catholic Church"). Bold indeed. You assume a sense of intentionality in the user, that you deny in the editor. To me, the opposite seems true: much more thought seems to go into internal linking (as sill as the reasons may be) than into typing text in the Wikipedia search field. I thus thought that if one were to discover the former (i.e. that editors often make the mistake of adding a "Church" link when they mean to add a "Roman Catholic Church" link), they would logically admit to the later (i.e. that users also mistakingly type in "Church" in the Wikipedia search field when referring to the "Roman Catholic Church"). I guess not.
• Secondly, your response to my argument about your first point seems to be off the mark. I am well aware of Wikipedia's disambiguation policy. In fact, I was compelled to edit this disambiguation page after correcting over a hundred internal links to this page, realizing only after, that a large number of them were referring to the Roman Catholic Church specifically. I do not see, however, how your reply (i.e. "if an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article") somehow justifies removing Roman Catholic Church simply because it was mentioned in the Christian Church article. There seems to be a gap in this logic.
• Lastly, when referring to the Church prior to the Reformation, one is almost always referring to the Roman Catholic Church. Examine this scenario: A student is given an assignment to discuss how the Church affected the feudal system of Western Europe during the Middle Ages (note: in most high-school and college European history courses the term "Church" is used, referring to the "Roman Catholic Church"). He, therefore, types in "Church" in the wikipedia search bar, hoping to find pertinent information related to his inquiry. The user's intent, in this case, is to find the Roman Catholic Church article, regardless of whether or not he knows this fact or is informed of a broader meaning of the term "Church." Just think of all of the other inquires that are related to the pre-Reformation Church. You real don't think that people make the aforementioned mistake? Another bold claim indeed.

I really want to resolve this issue, so can we agree to add this link back along with a link to the Protestant Church (and, perhaps, other sub-Churches of the overall Christian Church that are equally prominent)? What do you think? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 02:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your example is interesting, but knowing the articles in question, it seems only to be a reason to include a link to History of Christianity-- rather than a link to the Roman Catholic Church.
• I think it will be fine with me to do as you propose-- Protestant & RCC, depending on how it is done. Please go ahead and try if you are so inclined. If need be, it will be easier to talk about it after I see it.--Carlaude (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone beat me to it. I made some additional changes (in addition to the ones that User:Closedmouth made). What do you think? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gothic architecture

thankyou Amandajm (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome! ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)