User talk:Gator1

Welcome!

Hello, Gator1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 19:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll

Sure, I'll help. Even better, I'll tell you how you can do it. There's nothing to it, really. First you need to come up with a name for the Ragdoll computer modell article. Let's call it Ragdoll (computer modell). Now you can just click on that red link and get to a blank page where you can cut and paste in the text from the Ragdoll article that you want moved there. In case you want to try doing it your self, I'll wait some minutes and give you time to try it out. If you don't feel like doing it, I can do it for you. But it's really easy.

To make the disamb link, you just edit the Ragdoll article, and put the following at the top:

{{dablink|This article is about the cat. For the computer modell, see [[Ragdoll (computer modell)]]}}

That's it. Shanes 21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But actually, I misspelled model, in the link I gave you. Putting in an extra l at the end. That's what you get for taking advice from a Norwegian. I'll fix it by moving the article to the properly spelled name. Sorry about that. Shanes 21:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And there's one more thing. If you really want to do a good job when splitting an article like this, is making sure that articles with links to the original Ragdoll article are pointing to the right one. It's not a big deal, since people following a link to Ragdoll from a computer-related article, will see the disambig link on the top and click on it, but to save people a click, the perfect thing to do is to go through the various articles linking to Ragdoll (click on "what links here" in the toolbox to the left for a list when viewing the Ragdoll article). And then go through all the computer-related ones and change the links in them to point to Ragdoll (computer model) instead of to Ragdoll. But I'll do that myself now. Just FYI. Shanes 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CAN BELIEVE ME

There are 4 people using this computer and 3 of the post on Wikipedea! What the hell am I supposed to do!? I am NOT a vandal! I thank you! (65.175.173.87 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

1) Use another computer

2)Find out which of the other 2 are doing it and kick his ass

3)Stop posting all together

Is it really everyone else's problem that you have to share a computer? I don't think so. Do you? Do you honestly think that Wikipedia shouldhave to put up with this because some people aren't vandals? The fact is that your computer is compromised, so it should be bocked until you can take care of this. Good luck, I don't envy you, but it really has to stop. Don't you agree?Gator1 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree! listen here great news in fact, Gator I had just sent a text message from this computer to the primary account holder who uses the Wikipedea forum! She immediately called me since then and told me to change the password on her administrator section till we meet on monday! She and I will be the only persons using this system from here will be cathytrek or me!, and im getting a regular screen name in a min!, it will be Landru-Loki, and there will be no others after, and you have my word on that! but also at least this I know, the one troll/vandal we are sure of, will be getting the boot from this house here on tuesday next! in other words, no more trolls/vandals from this place, its gonna be locked down and password protected all the way! (65.175.173.87 17:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

And here I am! no more problems from our place as you shall see! (Landru-Loki 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Question

Sorry about the tone, I had no intention of affending. Actually, the questions were not meant as mean, they all make sense if you look at them through your answer on my talk page. Consider them now: What do you have against the inclusion of Katrina material in the Hurricane Andrew article? Your answer was nothing, you support informational updates, just as long as they are not rumors and guesses. Do you just hate those of us who are updating the information? Your answer says no, you have compassion for the victims and want the end number of deaths compared to andrew as low as possible. Do you want the glory of the Katrina edits? Absolutley not, otherwise you answer on my talk page would have had one of those tones that suggested you already had a claim staked. Lastly, the question of whether you would rather we wait until after new years to update the information? This one would probably be a yes, beacause some news reports are estimating the amount of time it will take to get the city drained and the body count finalized will easily be into 2006.

When looked at like this, your answer says alot about you. Out of respect for those efected by Hurricane Katrina I will refrain from editting Andrew until our numbers - both lives lost and cost- firm up some. Again, I apologize if I came across as rude. Have a good day. TomStar81 19:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merging two articles

Sorry for my late reply. I've been busy with other stuff elsewhere this weekend. When you need quick help or response on things like this, the best place to ask is probably the Village pump, where lots of people are watching and answering questions like this all the time and all the week.

About your question. I see you've been bold and already gone through with the merge, which is fine, I guess. So this is just a late reply about how I would have gone about it.

I don't know anything about the subtle differences between Betta and Siamese Fighting Fish, but assuming they are the same, the prefered way of merging, is to pick one of the existing articles to merge the other content to. I see you chose a third brand new title, like we did when we split the cat-article. But in merging, sticking to one of the existing names is usually the best thing. For one, we then get to keep the talk-page and edit history of that article. Now finding the old talk-pages and edits are trickyer. Second, you save a redirect for other articles linking to that old page. And third, one of the original names are usually better. That's why they were chosen to begin with.

Then when you've desided on what article-title to keep and what to move, you add a Template:Mergeto tag in the article with the name you want to move the content from by typing, say {{mergeto|Siamese Fighting Fish}} on top of the Betta article. And then add a corresponding Template:Mergefrom in the other article, the one you want to keep the name of. Like this: {{mergefrom|Betta}} to the top of the Siamese Fighting Fish article. Then you write a short note on each talkpage with an explanation for your request. Like you did. And then you wait a few (3-4) days. Now you didn't wait very long before going through with the merge, and if it was an obvious one, it probably didn't matter. But usually it's best and more polite to give people watching the articles time to notice the request and comment on it. Just in case there were reasons for why they should be kept seperate. But asuming there were no objections after a few days, you could go ahead with the merge, and when finnished put a redirect on the article you merged from to the article you merged to.

You should also check for any double redirects after a merge like this. I see there are quite a few now after your merge. Example: If you go to the Climbing gourami article, you'll find a link to Siamese Fighting Fish near the bottom. But clicking that link, only brings you to the old Siamesee fighting fish, article that is now a redirect. And the reader will have to click again. This is because the Siamese Fighting Fish already had a redirect to Siamese fighting fish (low caps), and now that page is yet another redirect to the article you made. That's what is called a double redirect, and we try to avoid them. Use the "What links here" link in the toolbar to the left to find more.

Anyway, I don't think what you did was very bad or anything, and if there are people disagreeing strongly with what you did, I'm sure they'll let you know. ;-).

Hope this was educational. On Wikipedia:Community Portal you can find an endless amount of documentations and howto's and what not if you want to learn more about things like this. But please do ask me again if anything about anything is unclear. Or try the Village pump if you want to be make sure you get a timely response. Shanes 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from Paul

Hey, Gator1,

I've not spoken with you a lot, but I have seen you sticking up for BigDaddy. I myself have been coaching/mentoring him. He's a nice guy, he knows what he's talking about, he just needs to learn to fit in with WP culture to accomplish what he's setting out to do -- reversing the trend of glutting as much negative junk from any source on the article about any conservative.

I agree with that goal. There are a lot of reasons for it, which I think are obvious.

Anyway, I have noticed some strange things myself about double standards -- once in a while -- at WP. Also some disturbing observations about a couple of users. I wonder if sometime we could talk in private, and share notes to see how much we see eye to eye?

If so, send me a private e-mail. Regards, paul klenk 12:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent you an e-mail. paul klenk

Cutco and Vector Marketing

Cutco seemed to have a compromise in place. Good job. Vector Marketing had a similar tag with absolutely no discussion. Hopefully, this will resolve the immediate issue or at least draw it out so it can be discussed. Let me know if you encounter more problems and I'll try to mediate. - Tεx τ urε 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't.

No, don't. The RfC, as far as I can tell, needs to follow certain formatting guidelines. It caused me confusion, too. Take no action and say nothing for the moment; I don't want anyone annoyed.

The signatories, if you will, of the RfC "own" a large portion of that page. It is for their exclusive use, and rightly so.

My section "evidence of improved" was created by Hip after I mistakenly added in their section. It really caused confusion, but now I'm beginning to understand it. Check in with me to acknowledge this message, pose any questions, and let me answer your questions in detail.

Looking forward to your reply,

paul klenk ^talk 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I re-read your message and you didn't indicate you were going to do anything; sorry.

It may seem a bit biased, because it is their RfC, and their opinions. However, you are allowed to add content.

The problem is, I don't know exactly how to advise you to format it -- yet. I am working on it, and will share with you when I know.

I do urge you to weigh in on this RfC, though, with a well-rounded view of the situation. You don't have to necessarily do it refute them, unless something there actually needs to be refuted -- in that case, by all means refute. You can give as thorough and thoughtful a view, organized and written well, as you can muster. You should really be honest about valid criticisms about BD as far as they are presenting it with respect to WP policy; but if there is context to that criticism, that will help a reader give BD a fairer hearing, you need to add it. RfCs can be a good mechanism for helping a user change behavior, and tracking efforts to help him do that. By not participating, you are not really making the point you may think you are making. When we respect RfCs and the people who bring them, even if we disagree, we do actually help the whole process. I am becoming increasingly trusting of the process when it is used correctly. If the RfC was brought for the wrong reasons, etc. etc., the evidence will speak for itself. By providing the evidence and trusting the judges to review it intelligently, we are doing what we want all WP'ians to do.

I haven't added more, because I just have too many questions about how and where to leave remarks. Let's both review the rules of RfCs and examples thereof, so we can go about it the right way if we do.

Hipocrite has offered by guidance on this if I come to him, but I want to respect his time and do my own research first, instead of expecting him to do my work for me. I will format it how I think I want to submit it, but place it on a sandbox page for him to review before I place it on the RfC. paul klenk ^talk 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Nightshade, but there does seem to be a view out there that the "motion to suspend" may not even have been okay to do. I don't know enough about the process and rules to comment intelligently on that. Let's both do some reading, and I have additional thoughts for you.

To try to head off some questions - you can do anything you want in any section you want as long as all of the people that have signed that section agree, or could be expected to agree with your actions. The proponents have the responsibility to lay out the dispute, and justify that they have attempted to solve the problem, so they have substantially more space. Because Kizzle and myself wanted to make it clear that our dispute was not about content, we wrote substantially more than is typically included. You can certainly change the section headers if you feel they are biased - Outside View 1, Outside View 2 is a typical convention, but Outside View of X is much more common. The RFC page is currently terribly formated with way too much discussion on the main page, but I do not intend to move anything else to talk at this stage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cutco

Sorry for responding this late. Looks like it's been setled. Never heard about the knives, but I made an edit, moving the simpsons ref down to it's own trivia section (and add what episode it was, hope it was the right one, think so). The intro should be a short description of the subject, and I don't think having been parodied in the Simpsons is that notable.

And, yeah, claims like the ones you were disputing should preferably be backed up by a reference. Not sure if that bulletin-board like reference he added is very authorative, but it's better than nothing. Shanes 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Cutco

Look, I'm sorry I hadn't added any reference material, although later on I did provide a link and the NPOV tag was still disputed. Overall, I feel as if I've been greatly bullied, mocked, and made to look like an idiot.

I'm rather pissed right now. So I'm not going to put it lightly - you've destroyed a great deal of confidence I've had in Wikipedia. I flat-out hate your guts. You're on my shit list now, bitch. Go to hell.

And you really, really need to stick those knives as far up your ass as physically possible.