User talk:TableManners/a03

Greetings, friend

Hello there, could you please explain your addition to my page? Does it relate to something? You don't seem to be the type that leaves random messages on peoples pages for amusement but I'm going to need a little more than that. Richard001 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, you seem to be doing okay on your own. I thought you might have been getting bitten. TableManners^U·T·C 07:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a newbie here (though certainly still new to some things). If I can assume we are talking about Orangemarlin (are we?) you may be able to explain his behavior to me. Is he some sort of jokester or does he just not like people editing his page? Or is there some big thing I'm missing here? Richard001 (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I just noticed the brusque treatment you got for your edit, and was hoping you would not be provoked. TableManners^U·T·C 07:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, don't worry about it. Thanks for your concern anyway. Richard001 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Take care. see you in the funny papers. TableManners^U·T·C 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

snubbed

Try not to worry much about being "snubbed". I know that the other editor is in the process of relocating and has some adverse health issues. I would suggest that you continue to edit and develop articles collaboratively as usual and try not to take any less-than-ideal interactions personally. BTW, thanks for all your work on the museums.--Appraiser (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Appraiser. I don't know if the above is about me for sure. TableManners kindly leave me alone for now. You folks are compounding nothing into more nothing in my opinion. I replied to TableManners on Appraiser's talk page and do not plan to revisit this discussion. I am not relocating and have no adverse health issues other than the one described on Appraiser's talk page, but I am perturbed to be talking about myself on a stranger's talk page. Welcome, TableManners. I don't know much if anything about you other than you wrote an article about pheasants. Keep up the good work and have fun. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Can you please explain the point of your edit summaries about not using AWB? Is there really a point to this? Your summaries are making no sense in relation to your edits. I don't know how "no account names not using AWB" relates to renaming a template. Or how "make every account double blind using AWB" relates to another template renaming. Can you explain? Metros (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. TableManners^C·U·T 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning, if you continue your nonsensical edit summaries, you will be blocked. Edit summaries are supposed to inform users about your edit and not be some odd rant or joke. For more information, see Help:Edit_summary. Metros (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, would you mind not stalking me? Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the fact that I am working so hard to fix thing and you thank me with wikithreats is really too much. TableManners^C·U·T 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of stalking you, you might want to read WP:STALK which says that what I'm doing is perfectly legitimate. Metros (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

Hello. It definitely is not controversial. If you will move the category article by article using AWB it should be withdrawn. However, WP:CFD is a standard process. - Darwinek (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Only remaining possibility is to wait several days until WP:CFD will close it and then bot will move it. - Darwinek (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It will move every article in that category to a new category. - Darwinek (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The old category is now empty, so it is no problem for me to delete it. I set up my user page myself. Setting up that bar on the top took a long time and it not display correctly in Firefox but I am satisfied. :) - Darwinek (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you r for the complement it is much appreiciated! :D Smith Jones (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I appreciate your act of kindness! TableManners^C·U·T 19:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your doing this. No sense in continuing the personal attacks against one-another. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It made sense to me, and I am glad you agree. TableManners^C·U·T 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be honorable. That's important to me. But don't worry, I'm not exactly going to support your POV on most issues.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just find reliable sources for verification and summarize what they say. TableManners^C·U·T 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Last stable version

I hope you'll participate at the talk page, regarding the article that you just reverted. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be right over. TableManners^C·U·T 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I really didn't expect to see Turtlescrubber implode like that. If Qworty stops by to give you a concise account from the other side, I'll let you know so that you can see both sides. Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he did. Talk:Mitt Romney#Edit dispute resolution. Somewhat longer than 100 words. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing nav boxes...

Hi, you've been removing the 2008 Presidential Election nav boxes from the pages of presidential candidates. I'm not sure why. I don't think anyone could argue that the election info is irrelevant in an article about Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the nav box doesn't point to an article, it should not be in that article. TableManners^C·U·T 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that policy from? I may not be as familiar with it. Even if correct, it seems to be splitting-hairs in this case as the nav box points to the daughter pages of all those articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The daughter pages retain the articles. If you want a navbox on a page, I'd recommend adding the article to the navbox then the navbox to the page. TableManners^C·U·T 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when the daughter pages were created, the links were changed specifically to the campaign info. But that doesn't mean they don't belong on an article about the candidate. Back to my first question, where did you get the policy that nav boxes were prohibited on pages they do not directly point to? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very busy right now, and can't give you the attention you seem to need. I do not appreciate tone of the question, but you no doubt do not mean anything by it. Which specific article are you trying to drum up more hits on? Maybe you could go ask others if they think navboxes should go to articles where the navboxes don't point. Maybe you'll get some support. TableManners^C·U·T 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am done. I'll go put an RFC on this issue at, because I think I can see both sides of this. TableManners^C·U·T 23:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Rfc on this issue. TableManners^C·U·T 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to get bent out of shape. It was an honest question, politely asked. If such a policy exists, I need to know about it as I'm always trying to expand my knowledge of wikipedia. Accusing me of simply "trying to drum up more hits on a specific article" is an awful quick assumption of bad faith, don't you think? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not bent out of shape, but I was a little frustrated by the new message messages as I was scrambling to fix a problem I created on another template. I stated that "you no doubt do not mean anything by it." I never said it was based on policy, and the Rfc should bring any policy and/or concensus to our attention. Sorry if my honest question about drumming up hits offended you. Throwing nav boxes on articles not included in the nav box seems to me to favor lesser known candidates, but the Rfc should bring a wider range of opinions to the subject. TableManners^C·U·T 00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BillySunday.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BillySunday.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. You're just a dumb bot, or I would be very upset with you. The date of publication is listed as 1887, and the copyright status is clearly listed as "Copyright expired". TableManners^C·U·T 08:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit war notice

Hello, TableManners. A few days ago I explained to you that I am suffering from a bad cold and asked that you please leave me alone. Today I found a notice on my talk page about an edit war that does not exist. Take it easy please, I am on my second bottle of cough syrup and really cannot sustain this kind of conversation. Sorry. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again, TableManners. I asked for help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, not something that I feel well enough to do, but I think is necessary now. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for stopping by. The article you edited was on my watch list. Yes, I noticed that you were "edit warring" with yourself,[1] and placed what was supposed to be a whimsical warning on your talk page.[2] I wholeheartedly support you in your efforts at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, as you will indubitably benefit from other wikipedians' perspectives on these exchanges. TableManners^C·U·T 17:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. If you are interested please join the new wikiproject, WP:USPE. I think you'd be a great help.--STX 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am considering your invitation against other demands and prejudices I have. Can I sleep on it for a day or a week? TableManners^C·U·T 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ID Template

Hi, that template is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design, and matches the other templates for that project. If you think the shell is a better illustration for ID than the watch, please discuss with the project members. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

okay. TableManners^C·U·T 08:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent WP:RFR request

Your request has been accepted. Please follow the rollback feature guidelines, other than that, I don't have anything else to say. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Yamamoto Ichiro. TableManners^C·U·T 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro to Evo

Could you check your email. I'm trying not to light a match around so many gas fumes!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sounds good--don't want to spill the beans. On another note, I did update the talk page at Introduction to evolution.[3] TableManners^C·U·T 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to cause panic. Reading comprehension levels have nothing to do about 'being written by an eleventh grader'. The metric provides a readability score. The score gives an indication as to what grade level an average child must be at in their reading ability to understand the text. Simply put, an average fourteen year old ought to be at a 9th grade reading level. Such a child is unlikely to understand fully a complex text. The concepts are lost in the morass of sentence structure, vocabulary, and jargon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going in the wrong direction. Difficult vocabulary is different than jargon. Jargon should be explained. The definitions of english words used in a non technical instance should not. TableManners^C·U·T 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This might merit discussion on talk under a new heading. The edits did change the lead signifigantly from the version Awadewit composed for us. If I had written it - this would be a no brainer. However, the previous lead was overseen by the Godess herself - not to imply ownership; but I know I would never edit her work - she held my hand through the GA attempt. Anyway; so this dialog does not get spread all over the place; I suggest a discussion on the Evo-talk.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and just created a new section on the talk page. Could we get Awadewit back involved, I am not the best with leads. TableManners^C·U·T 04:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have prayed for her arrivial --- hopefully both of you will conceed to her final judgement! --Random Replicator (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you've been drinking more than I have. TableManners^C·U·T 05:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm standing down from the lead. I will follow Awadewit's suggestion and spend time in the body of the text. Please follow me there and correct my stupidity. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I missed any of her suggestions for the lead, please incorporate them. Also, per the talk page, I think the article is using the word creature way to often, which may result in ambiguity. Organism or synonyms for organism would be more precise. TableManners^C·U·T 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RR has a really good idea. We should bash this all out in a sandbox User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox evo lead before we do damage to our reputation and our civility. TableManners this includes all your edits. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back to it tomorrow. My edits were per Awadewit and discussion on talk page. TableManners^C·U·T 06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious??

I take it that this edit was meant to be a joke? Or are you just trying to waste people's time? And with regards to your AfD - when you nominate an article for deletion, it's a simple courtesy to your fellow editors to spend a minute to two on Google. Because you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two of your time, you end up wasting several other people's time. That is highly inconsiderate. As I asked you the last time: please try exercising some basic courtesy. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox

Sorry, I was off-line when you made your request. I'd rather keep it at the one sandbox. It'll be deleted once the drama is over. It is also better to keep it at a user's sub-page rather than the article's sub-page as once deleted there is no lingering ghost of a discussion. As all Wikipedians tend to discover, resurrection of the dead is a commonplace. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No need

Hey, you didn't need to do this. Sometimes editors have to chill out! By the way, the word is uncivil. I had to look it up, because my spellchecker didn't know. Incivil is not a word. I didn't know until about a week ago. OK, I need to leave your page. Reagan is annoying.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just now noticed this message. I do think he needed to chill out, but then again, he may have felt picked on. And I've been using "incivil" a lot I think. TableManners^C·U·T 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem dude

I don't find working with you difficult at all! Unfortunately, with Wikipedia, we don't get to see each others body language. If we were in the lab together, I don't think we'd have any problem working together. We'd go off to the pub at lunch and have everything worked out by the end of the day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the version in there now? I kinda like it. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Guettarda notifies me of AWB problem, I thank him.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whatever you were doing with the AWD, please stop. You inserted link breaks into every page you edited, while broke the text on every page. Especially when you are editing with the AWB, you still have the responsibility to look at your edits to make you aren't breaking the page. Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Opps, thanks for this notice, I missed it in the crossfire. You are of course correct. TableMannersC·U·T 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your stuffing up of references in Texas Citizens for Science

Kindly get your references working' in a sandbox, before you attempt to inflict them on us in the article. 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments. The problem with the referneces seems to be with the templates being used. I doubt anybody has come across a problem with the same author publishing three stories in 5 days being the only references available for an article. But I will figure out a work around. Meanwhile, please be patient, and remember to sign with four tildes ~~~~. Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Asking you to refrain from wasting people's time isn't "incivility". Your use of attacking edit summaries isn't cool. Try being civil. Try behaving like a member of a community. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing my talk page. TableManners^C·U·T 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this offends you, but incivility isn't acceptable. You made two distinct messes that showed up on my watchlist. You can't react this way any time someone points out that you have made a mistake. Your talk page is for communicating with you. You break a dozen or more articles using the AWB - do you expect me to just follow you around and clean up after you indefinitely? We all make mistakes. But this is a community. When someone points out your mistakes, it isn't acceptable to react with the sort of hostility that you are showing, here and elsewhere. You really need to relax. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no mistake that I wasn't willing to fix. For the last time I kindly ask you to refrain from editing my talk page. Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 06:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

TM. Guettarda is an admin, so he's posting here to keep you out of trouble; and he can give you warnings on your talk page, which you can delete or archive. You might want to be a bit careful. Just a word of advice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks OM. I was trying to fix an article I nominated for Afd and my talk page got caught up in the crossfire. I thanked Guettarda for the notice on AWB. The other "warning" was bogus in my humble view, especially since, when given, I was updating the article I nominated. TableManners^C·U·T 06:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're stuffing up of references in Texas Citizens for Science

[Sorry, this was meant to have gone on your user-talk page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)] Kindly get your references working in a sandbox, before you attempt to inflict them on us in the article. 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are repeatedly posting the same request to my talk page. Please desist. Thank you. TableManners^C·U·T 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Eep! Sorry, I misread a revision history & thought I'd accidentally posted it to your User page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was a bit lost for a minute, thanks for explaining. TableManners^C·U·T 06:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Virus articles

Hi, thank you for your interest in virus-related articles, (most of which are on my watchlist), but I'm sorry to say that a batch of your recent edits has not been constructive. You are over-linking, for example; human only has to be linked at the first occurrance; there is no need to link every human. I've reverted some of your recent edits. Please be careful with that powerfull tool. Best wishes,--GrahamColm^Talk 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostility

Guettarda lies about my response to his AWB notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You said "I made no mistake that I wasn't willing to fix", and yet, your response to my comments has consisted on nothing but hostility and personal attacks. "Your" talk page exists for users to communicate with you, and yet, when I attempt to do that, you respond by instructing me to keep off your talk page. I'm sorry, but you really have to learn to behave like a member of a community. If you behave yourself, there's no reason for me to edit your talk page. But when I point out to you that you are misusing the AWB, it isn't acceptable for you to reply "keep off my talk page". That kind of attitude is unacceptable. Get over it. Similarly, it's very rude to nominate a page for deletion simply because you can't be bothered to google it. If you don't know, you can ask. If you don't feel like typing a sentence, there are templates like {{notability}} that you can use without being disruptive. That's what it means to work as a member of a community. Your time here would be much more pleasant if you could behave in a civil, cooperative manner. Everyone else's time here could be spent much more productively if you didn't waste it with spurious AfDs, with personal attacks and with threats. Wikipedia functions best when it functions as a community. Please don't be so contemptuous of your fellow editors. I realise you're new here, but you aren't that new. There is no excuse to be that hostile, there is no excuse for you to express that sort of contempt for the community. Guettarda (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple internal wikilinks

I see that most of your recent edits to AIDS have been reverted by various editors. Normally, only one internal wikilink is used for any given word in an article, especially if it's a common word, like "human". On a large article, a critical or obscure term might be linked once at the first use and again later at the beginning of an important section, but that is fairly unusual. The actual policies are here if you'd like to learn more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that too many wikilinks were occuring, thank you. TableManners^C·U·T 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead sections

Hi TM. The lead of human is definitely too short. You'd have to rewrite the guidelines for it to be long enough. I don't mind if people want to move the template to the talk page (though frankly I think the issue needs as much attention as it can get; nobody seems to have read the guidelines), but the lead has to be fleshed out. 3-4 solid paragraphs are needed. You might think it a matter of taste, but those are the guidelines, so you'll have to take it up on the lead section talk page if you think they should be different. Richard001 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over a template. Why not fix it if you think it is brokent? No matter what you do, thanks for the notice, I appreciate it. TableManners^C·U·T 06:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Lessman article

TableManners, thank you for your work on the Thomas Lessman article. I appreciate that you are only trying to diffuse a situation and improve an article. And you actually did improve the article, in ways I hadn't thought of. (For example, the reporter who wrote that bit about election records was factually incorrect, but the statement I made about people getting involved was the point of my message there). And it really does improve the article.

Another good link may be the BSI International book, In Search of Fatherhood, which has a good section about me and other fathers. I've got a copy of the book, and you can see some of it online at www.BSI-International.com, though I haven't seen an online copy of the book, only mentions of it.

Also thank you for explaining "diffs" to me. I wasn't sure what LaraLove meant by that, but your explanation cleared it up for me. Thomas Lessman (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas, no problem. The article will probably get deleted, though, in my estimation. This will benefit you because it will get the fact that you edited the article off the article's talk page. If the article is ever re-created, I do not recommend that you edit it directly. If you could collect all of the sources and add them to User talk:TableManners/Thomas Lessman, using the format listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates, it would help. TableManners^C·U·T 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lessman

Thanks for your message. But, the sources provided, and the subsequent discussion over at AfD do not convince me, and I will not be changing my vote. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I see your point. TableManners^C·U·T 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Levin

I'm assuming that is the article to which your comment about sourcing referred. I will repost the info with a cite to Mark Levin's own audio archives, which confirm the remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your AWB edits linking to the Income article

Your links to Income seem pointless. I noticed somebody making small edits to two cities that I watch to "Remove low-value "man from Mars" Wiki-link" (he said), so I followed the trail back here to see that you are doing much of California, if not more. The Income article is not very informative in the context of the Demographics sections of city articles. If you feel that the term is going to mystify some of our readers, perhaps the link should be to Median household income.--Hjal (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which two articles? I did not put a watch on all of them. TableManners^C·U·T 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)