User talk:Voortle/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Voortle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  V. Joe 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Just so you know, if you make a redirect that points to another redirect, it doesn't work. See Wikipedia:Double redirects. Hope that helps. WikiSlasher 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Digraphs and IPA

I wonder if the symbol you're looking for is this /aɪ/ not /aI/. In the digraphs you've put on, the "i" symbol you've chosen /I/ is not quite the same as the one for IPA /ɪ/. The symbol you've favored, /I/, looks like this symbol | when it appears on the web. For this reason, I was unsure when I made the changes yesterday if I you had intended the close-front vowel /i/ or the near close-near front /ɪ/. Or did you intend to indicate an archiphoneme? If you wanted to show an archiphoneme, I wonder if this should be indicated in the article entry to remove uncertainty about the sound(s) being represented. I'm sorry if I made improper changes to your entries, but I suspected that you had wanted to use different IPA symbols from those that actually appeared. Interlingua ^talk 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the vowel IPA /ɪ/. It was not an achriphoneme or the symbol /i/. Yes, I'm looking for /aɪ/. Voortle 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and change the /VI/ to /Vɪ/ if you don't mind. Maybe you're already found the IPA symbol. If not, it's down at the bottom of the Edit page and is the next to last symbol. Interlingua ^talk 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious

Do you think English should have a spelling reform?Cameron Nedland 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

S-cluster metathesis

This is interesting. All the examples existed in both forms from very early on in English. The big question is whether speakers of AAVE are particularly given to metathesis - which strikes me as unlikely, since I can't see why any particular group would be more prone to it than others - or whether the examples are all survivals from other English dialects (the fact that it's lexically determined points in this direction). I suppose there could be influence of some African language too, in which /s/+C is absent, but that's pure speculation on my part. garik 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the article btw. Hope you approve. garik 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

not encyclopedic?

So where were you when they cried foul in the Big Brother 6 AfD I nominated? /me shrugs shoulders. Just saying hi and good to meet you in the AfD Ste4k 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

username blocks

Hi, I noticed that in a bunch of your recent edits you are adding the Template:Usernameblock, you must have taken one of those from a page that I tagged because you also copied my signature. Please don't copy my signature as it makes it appear that I am the one placing that tag there. Please just use {{subst:usernameblock}} when tagging such pages, and then sign them yourself if you wish. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

American football

Please don't move pages like American football to Football (America) as it is best known as american football here in the states. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Jaranda means "outside of the U.S." Anyway, your interest in the American football article is appreciated, but if you believe it should be under another name, please discuss it on the talk page or follow the procedure spelled out at WP:RM. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Number redirects

Why are you doing this? I hope you have a purpose other than simple vandalism. NawlinWiki 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing it because some of the redirects actually already existed, but others didn't. If we are to include some redirects from certain 3-digit numbers, we should be consistent and include all. I'm just fixing the links that happen to be red. If you look at the linked page, you'll see that it's inconsistent in that some redirects exist, but not others. Voortle 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. NawlinWiki 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example where 298 (number) should redirect to 200 (number) ? (Either an actual article, or something made up: reply here.) Gimmetrow 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. 298 just happens to come after 200 and before 300 Voortle 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it makes more sense for 298 (number) to redirect to 290 (number) (where it's mentioned) rather than 200 (number). I've changed it. Voortle 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you a participant in WP:NUM? If not, you might want to check with that (ask on the talk page) to make sure that what you are doing is in accord with the project. Gimmetrow 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, numbers 280-289 are grouped in 280, and 290-299 are grouped in 290. It looks like there was some movement to split the 200s by 10s, but based on your redlink page, that was not done for 300+. Gimmetrow 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Minced oath

Hi, I noticed you had added examples of minced oaths on Minced oath, I removed them because they were already listed on the list of minced oaths. - ∅ (∅), 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please read and be aware of 3RR if that is not already the case, if you revert me again you will be violating. You are obviously angry at what is happening at cat flap, please dont be as the consensus is that this is the standard, SqueakBox 00:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Life on Mars

See Talk:Life on Mars (theory). I reverted the copy/paste move, but the same user then moved the page to a new name, Life on Mars (theory). I relisted it on Requested Moves.--Srleffler 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

????

I have no bloody idea what the hell you are talking about, mate! Moland Spring 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your move of article IPod

I have contacted an administrator upon moving the article back to IPod, pending the fact that Wikipedia's naming conventions do not allow articles at the beginning of the page name. Since this is a high-traffic article, I would suggest gathering a consensus at Talk:IPod. Thanks. —Whomp t/c 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote on your nomination

Don't forget to vote on your RM nomination at chili con carne. -  AjaxSmack  18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Voortle 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

136199 Eris (formerly 2003 UB₃₁₃)

This dwarf planet now has an official name. Please stop reverting it back to its provisional designation on the Solar System article. Richard B 23:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Arse

I appreciate what you're doing but unfortunately that's incorrect. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) - let me know if you have any thoughts - Glen 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Million, Ten million, etc.

Could you tell us a little bit more about your proposed move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers? PrimeFan 00:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All right. Voortle 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

10,000 AD, etc.

I've nominated your distant year redirects for deletion. Thinking about it, though 10,000 AD should just redirect to 10000 or 10,000. The rest should go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

353 (number)

I have turned 353 (number) into its own page.Math Maniac 19:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good. Voortle 10:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:UtherSRG on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Quakes

I've recommended Category:Quakes for deletion, on the basis that the ground that it could cover is equal to:

1. The ground already covered by Category:Earthquakes
2. A small number of articles on non-terrestrial quakes

I could see adding a category for the latter if there were a sizable number of articles on the topic, but, as far as I'm aware, there currently isn't, and it seems unlikely that there ever will be. You are, of course, welcome to disagree! The page to discuss it on is listed on the category page if you'd like to chime in. Waitak 15:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a very gracious response. Waitak 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters

I notice that you created Category:Extraterrestrial natural disasters in response to Category:Quakes being nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, the category is prone to severe misinterpretation. Anything from moonquakes to gamma ray bursts could fall within the article. All of the phenomena that could be described as "disasters" are so different from each other that grouping them together is not helpful. Moreover, since such processes usually do not affect people, they can hardly be construed as natural disasters. Given the severe problems with the category, I have nominated the category for deletion. While I understand that you had good intentions, I would like to ask that you think a little more carefully about such actions in the future. You may want to discuss your ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects to get other people's opinions first. George J. Bendo 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

References needed on Marsquake, Venusquake, and Sunquake

Rather than using Wikipedia's "references needed" template, I thought I would write you a personal message asking you to include references for the articles that you are creating. While the Marsquake, Venusquake, and Sunquake articles do provide some interesting information, they articles can be made much stronger and more believable if you cite your references. Please look at WP:CITE for more information on this, and please take the time to fill in references. (For an example of what I have done, please look at the Sombrero Galaxy article which contains 25 references.) George J. Bendo 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whining

You have recently re-created the article Whining, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. FreplySpang 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that there was a whining article in the past. Specifically, you created it yesterday and it was deleted then. See the brief discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whining. If you object to this, feel free to bring it up at the deletion review page. FreplySpang 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, you're right. Yesterday's article was created by User:Ariele, not you. Sorry about that misunderstanding. But, as it happens, it was pretty much the same as yours. The people who discussed it decided that there wasn't much encyclopedic to say about it. If you want to reopen that discussion, Deletion Review is the place. It might help if you worked up a draft of the article as a subpage of your userpage - for instance, User:Voortle/Whining. That way, you could take the time to write a more complete article, which would show your point more clearly. FreplySpang 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2005? Geez, I am living in the past. I really did think that was yesterday. I am sorry about that. Still, I think your best plan is to write a complete draft as a subpage (as I mentioned above) in order to show off what you think is encyclopedic about it. FreplySpang 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

Please read the comments on Talk:1 BC#Requested move. You should seriously consider withdrawing this move request. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1500000 (number) nominated for deletion

Hello. Just a courtesy notice that I nominated 1500000 (number) for deletion. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1500000 (number). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Brad Beattie (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

re Fanetiks

I've proposed this article for deletion. You have five days to remove the tag, but if want to do that you should provide some third party citations showing that this is actually notable. Herostratus 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andromeda-Milky Way collision

An editor has nominated Andromeda-Milky Way collision, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda-Milky Way collision and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Quake

Could you explain what your intentions are with all of the quake pages? It is customary to discuss a merge before actually doing so. Personally, I don't think that this is justified, and the "quake" page is just a list of names of what quakes are called on other bodies. The most important, Earthquakes, is just a see also, whereas moonquakes contain some information. I agree that Moonquake is a stub, but I don't think that this is the solution to improving this article. The Moon is the only body besides earth for which we have seismic data. Lunokhod 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss these issues on the the talk page first before making uniliteral changes. I am going to revert you edits, and if you would like, you should propose a merge between these articles. Lunokhod 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

17 March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Year 5,000,000,000 problem. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV 18:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to 2080, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Years beyond the 21st century

Please don't create pages for individual years beyond the 21st century, no useful information can be put on them and they will be redirected or deleted very quickly. --Philip Stevens 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)