Jump to content

User talk:Guettarda/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs)
Race
Metthurst (talk | contribs)
Line 70: Line 70:


There has been a good deal of reorganization of the [[Race]] article recently, and I don't think it is an improvement (although I am sure it was all done in good faith). Since you have made many important contributions to this article I would like to know what you think. If you share my view I would not recommend just reverting to an earlier version, but just doing some strategic reconstruction... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There has been a good deal of reorganization of the [[Race]] article recently, and I don't think it is an improvement (although I am sure it was all done in good faith). Since you have made many important contributions to this article I would like to know what you think. If you share my view I would not recommend just reverting to an earlier version, but just doing some strategic reconstruction... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

==Incivility==
Please do not shout at me about having courtesy the courtesy to explain a change, when I have already explained it on my talk page in response to your question. Please read [[:Wikipedia:Civility]]. Then please stop making disruptive edits. Three item categories do not belong in national main categories and all the other national symbols categories are in the national culture categories. [[User:Metthurst|Metthurst]] 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:53, 13 November 2006


This user supports FloNight for the Arbitration Committee.
Guettarda is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archives

For reading

I stumbled upon this article about the ecology of tropical dry forests. I thought you might find it interesting. Joelito (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please!

User number 82.94.28.98 has been vandalizing the article on "coolies" (which I note you have added to in the past). He/she has been warned about vandalism on other sites in the past but I don't know what to do about it. If you can spare the time - could you give me any advice about what to do? Many thanks, John Hill 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS Hope the sky has cleared for you a bit since I last contacted you. Cheers![reply]

PZ Myers

Fair point re 3RR. I actually held off reverting Larry's second to last revert for just that reason, and promptly forgot it for the last. Thanks for the warning. Tsumetai 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

raggamuffin/ragamuffin

The former spelling is used and appears to be standard in the context of dancehall reggae (being derived from "ragga" = reggae).

From the OED

ragamuffin, n. and a.
  • Freq. in form raggamuffin. = RAGGA n.

1986 ‘JUNIOR DELGADO’ (title of song) Raggamuffin year. 1989 Face Jan. 23/1 ‘It's not ragamuffin,’ says Rob Smith, ‘but it's got a reggae feel to it.’ 1991 Source Dec. 60/2 As raggamuffin lyrics over hip-hop beats become more common, the Fu-Shnickens are right on top of the trend. 1993 Independent 11 June 24/1 It has given an identity to second- and third-generation black Britons who feel no desire to assimilate into the mainstream: raggamuffins pepper their talk with thick Jamaican slang, even if their parents were born in Birmingham. 2001 Ottawa Sun (Electronic ed.) 22 June, Raggamuffin reggae bash with Bingie Barker every Thurs.

Guettarda 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll remove it from my spell list. Cheers, CmdrObot 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black lawyers

I did consider the CfD discussion before I updated those articles. Given that they did not fall under the old parent they did not belong there. Also, there is the technical point that most of them are not lawyers but barristers which is a set of categories, Category:Barristers. The fact remains that those that were removed were not American which is a requirement for that categroy with the initial parent. Vegaswikian 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Clarke, barrister?

The Ellis Clarke, article says he was called to the bar at Gray's Inn. I believe that means he was a barrister. So putting him in that category would be correct since he was one. He may be a lawyer now but was a barrister in the past. Kind of like a politician. They can get another category for each office they hold. Vegaswikian 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove truthfull edits

Hello, you may be new to this society. However, I was doing important work, and you have vandalised this. If you revert my edits again, you will be blocked. Please do not vandalise wikipedia. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.87.202 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. Truth is not the standard for inclusion, verifiability is. You might also want to read WP:NPA, after making this edit. You are very likely to be blocked if you do not mend your ways. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has already been blocked! -- Arwel (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, support block etc. Yay team. (The puppy has seen too many trolls lately and is a bit snippy.) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BWIA/Caribbean Airlines

Regarding this edit - the Caribbean Airlines article in itself is inadequate support, but the two references it contains are adequate support - these references could simply be duplicated on the BWIA article and so a verifiable source would be there. Ardfern 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fix the ref myself as I am amending fleet info on virtually every airline article on Wikipedia and don't have time at this stage to go and repair every lack of reference fault I find in hundreds of articles. It should have been referenced in the first place. Fixed properly now. Ardfern 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergy

Hmm, I haven't ever seen any criticism of emergy in the journals I have researched, but that doesn't mean there isn't any, of course. I know that the NAS warned against misapplying it, but that wasn't a peer-reviewed report, if I recall correctly. If you can find a single peer-reviewed reference that argues against Emergy, I would say that would be enough to justify removing it from the category. Do you know of any? --ScienceApologist 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Good to see you back on deck. I do hope that things are beginning to come together for you again now - I know you have had a very sad time.

Delayed thanks for your help recently in how to deal with vandalism.

Also, I thought you might be interested that I have just added a rather poor quality (but interesting) photo of Will Downs on his page. Unfortunately, it is the only one I still have of him. At least it shows him enjoying himself. He was such an inspiring man! Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race

There has been a good deal of reorganization of the Race article recently, and I don't think it is an improvement (although I am sure it was all done in good faith). Since you have made many important contributions to this article I would like to know what you think. If you share my view I would not recommend just reverting to an earlier version, but just doing some strategic reconstruction... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Please do not shout at me about having courtesy the courtesy to explain a change, when I have already explained it on my talk page in response to your question. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Then please stop making disruptive edits. Three item categories do not belong in national main categories and all the other national symbols categories are in the national culture categories. Metthurst 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]