Many many thanks, you hit the bullseye and I can finally sleep again :-)
Big H'wood extravaganzas, they don't make 'em like they used to anymore!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The flow of the article is much better now. Thanks! By78 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you've re-edited this after me. It looks tidier, but you've lost "periodical publication" completely now; was that intended? I was only seeking to put it into it's proper context. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(I’ve moved this discussion to the article talkpage; perhaps you'd like to take it up there. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC))
I apologize about that - I made a bad assumption that the pages listed on your user page were article creations. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
18-Feb-2009: I have tested an update for Template:Infobox_Planet to show the source footnote as "[a]" listed at the bottom of the infobox in a new "Notes" section. That will fix all articles (among those 10,788 articles) to stop the red error message "Cite error:...no <references/> tag was found". Thank you for listing that problem at WP:Help_desk. I had been compiling an essay about news, user-surveys and help-pages when I accidentally saw that problem about asteriod articles. Also, I had worked on some of the lists of the 171,000 asteroids (2 years ago), so I knew about the general situation. Changing the template will avoid the need to edit any more of those various 10,788 bot-generated articles.
Please note that it might take the Wikipedia servers more than a week to schedule the auto-formatting of all 10,788 articles: for over 3 months now, Wikipedia no longer instantly reformats all related articles (as was formerly done within minutes) after a template is modified/saved. However, the anticipated results for a particular asteroid-article could be viewed by clicking the "prev" differences of the top revision (under the History-tab) of an article. The diff-page must reformat the article, to display, using the latest revisions of templates in the text coding. The actual "live" article is a canned page, as formatted when Wikipedia last had the need to reformat that article. Eventually, after several days, each canned page will be updated when slowly reformatting all 10,788 (or more) articles using that template. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Clarityfiend. You posted a comment in this section of the RefDesk, regarding the term broker and its translation into Spanish. I confess I can't figure out its meaning. Am I missing an evident pun? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious? Greetings, Pallida Mors 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clarityfiend, I nommed your new article at DYK. Add or change anything you like, (oops had to change the date started) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Your reply was hilarious! --Thomprod (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Next time: If you see a Copyright violation. You put: Remove copyright material copied from (Website)
By the way, it's not a Copyright violation. I did not copy It.
I will help you out.
My Edit is Here
Yahoo Search for word for word Here
Google Search for word for word Here
By--Michael (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on patrolling pages. Please Go to, Wikipedia:Copyright problems. By--Michael (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...let's see now:
OMG, how silly of me. You have a period after "world", whereas the IMDb summary continues on. That makes it 100% all right ... not. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not mad at you or anyone else..... Don't worry, OK... So, good job on attempting to remove copyright text from Wikipedia… Good luck to you.--Michael (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You changed the redirect Congo region (I created recently) to Congo river. But maybe that is not a good idea. I created the page with this in mind: while cleaning up all the ~260 links to Congo (disambiguation), a lot of links to 'Congo' really meant the Congo region, not being bothered by state-borders (artificial, often) and not by current names of the Congo-states (forgotten Cabinda, Angola, should very often be included). E.g. America-slave-related articles say things like "from (the) Congo", being pre-1880. Or: languages and people-related. So: I needed a page that wound describe the geographical region. The first name I could think of is "Congo region". A link here can always be improved by being more specific (states, etc). I also added "R with possibilities", so someone could replace the redirect with an article (probably along the lines I wrote here?).
Now that the redirect is to the Congo River, it is not a region anymore. Also the link does nothing extra, it does not denote a possible article (just check the links there are to that specific link. All 24 recent made & with the region in mind; else of course I would have linked directly to the river). I propose we restore the first redirect, and try to find someone who would like to write an article in there.
Or maybe you see other Possibilities than I do: then I'd like to read it here. Bye, -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your edit here and appreciate the sentiment. However, "humourous" is incorrect in all spelling variants of English. See User:Spellmaster for details. Best wishes, and thanks for caring about spelling. John (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
To help locate the places, please leave coordinates in such pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles). -- User:Docu
Thanks! I am not sure what happened. My browser seems to have lost part of the buffer when I undid the prior edit. Jehochman Talk 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A proton with fuzzy dice would be great! Instead of spin-states of ±½, it would have roll-states of (1,1)...(6,6). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift and informative follow-up. I must say, though: I defy anyone to visit that site you cited and not think right away of the Great Outdoors' answer to Martha Stewart. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. Mgreason (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Early days at Wikipedia! I haven't gotten around to changing the references to using specific page numbers; right now i'm in the middle of exams so I won't have much time to do anything for the next two weeks. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you create red links for names, titles, etc. that are so obscure they will never have their own articles? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
...as your edit to Walt Disney resulted in an inaccurate statement! Robert K S (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Before you go much further, April 1, 1939 is correct as is 1 April 1939 (note no commas if the day-month-year protocol is used.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC).
No it is correct - D.A.G "George" Parry. Sharp eyes though. Dapi89 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you have been doing a lot of work on the Eddie Rickenbacher article and I wanted to say thanks. I work a lot on Medal of Honor recipients and outside of the lists there are zero Medal of Honor recipients at featured status and only 4 currently at Good Article Status. I think this article is very close to being at GA status and I would like to help. Before I do though I wanted to drop you a line so that we are not stepping over each others edits. I already made 1 edit before I noticed that you have been working on hit heavily the last couple days. I was going to add in some inline citations, restructure the honors section a bit as well as adding some more info to it, add a table displaying his ribbons and A table with his confirmed victories if that is alriht with you. --Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Clarityfiend, I noticed that last week you helped clean up the article about the film series currently in my userspace, I presume based on my discussion with Collectonian last week. Thank you for that. Do you think, with your edits, it's ready for moving into the mainspace? If you have any pointers on what to do next, I would appreciate them, or if you think it's OK to move, please let me know. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to readdress where it says under personal life that she's married. Just found this article published on July 6, 2009, by the Associated Press: [2]
Rwils (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer: "Something that isn't out yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)" Scifiintel (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at La Strada. I look forward to working with you to fix up the site of a cinematic pinnacle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's really accurate where we say that Zampano uses cruelty to train her as his assistant. Isn't that some kind of inference that would qualify as OR? I'm going to try to review the sequence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Bertrade of Laon. What I mean is that we really have no good idea of what year she was born. It was between those years, but we don't have any way to pin it down better than that. You're welcome to try to come up with a better way of expressing it if you wish. Wjhonson (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be a burocreacy, right? Your swiftness to delete my edit is not fair, to say the least. And also as burocreacy it is stated that: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.).
As always, strangely enough, a recomandation became a comandament. Wikipedia is perhaps endangered if the plot raises to 1000 words? Is written 'must' be between? I'd say NOT. So i don't accept your censor. Sorry, your rules even consider that this limits is superable if there is the need. And in this case the need should be. And finally, forgive me, but it's more and more ridicolous that movie has this limit, while there are articles longer than 100 kb and not necessarly with a extreme need to do it. Expecially if there are 837 words, just slighty than the max recommended, we are not talking about 8.450 words. But to make you happy i'll cut it shorter, so we will see if the problem are the rules or to forbid to me to editing at all (it is not the first time.. what is became wikipedia?). Regards--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to build this up, so thanks for the plot summary. I might take the liberty of editing it slightly, but it's good work. You might find lots of details, especially those linking the film to the conflict, in the unformatted link at the bottom of the list. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, In the last pages of Heinlein's "Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" the text mentions that two catapults have been built on Earth, A Chinese catapult in Tibet and another using Mt Kilimanjaro. cheers, -- Rydra Wong (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! It's my intent that this discussion be separate, but it was sparked by the conversation you began on my talk page, and I thought you'd be particularly prepared to dialogue with me as a member of the dab wikiproject. I realise that dab pages aren't search indices, but I've always been puzzled by the fact that a search brings up an article rather than a search index. If dab pages can't produce indices for searchers, then users need to be extremely precise when looking for something. I run into this problem all the time and it's such a hassle to search, discover that you can't find what you want because what you searched for comes up with a different article or a dab page, which is limited as to its content, and then use a separate search function to find what I need. It doesn't seem very user-friendly to me. I already have an inkling that you're an exclusionist (and I'm usually not an inclusionist, either, though I might seem like one today), but I would very much like to hear your thoughts. Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I will find a way to integrate the Premiere Magazine's link into the article, the magazine was a well respected and known weekly and is still published in France.JGG59 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I found and am sourcing some much better assertions of notability. The aleged connection to Hearst is only an interesting by-product. Lake was a major player in the Golden Age of Radio. She was part of an institution when for 5 years played Blondie in the old-time radio show Blondie, opposite her real-life husband Arthur Lake who voiced Dagwood Bumstead.[3][4]. Now that the light is on, care to lend a hand? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A film released in a presidential election year about a fictional presidential election is related to the actual presidential election. How could WP:OR apply to a See also section? It's just links. 96.255.252.189 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it not the purpose of the disambiguation page "mole" to distinguish one animal commonly called "mole" from another? Please undo your deletion of my contibution. Chrisrus (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at the last section of the Mole discussion/talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Four sources, including Mort Walker's own site, say it was in Greenwich, so I changed. Pepso2 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved them as I noticed that there are many "Sirs" listed on Wikipedia (examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Newdigate,_1st_Baronet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Alexander_Cockburn,_12th_Baronet etc.) but if you feel this is contrary to Wikipedia's protocol then by all means feel free move them back. Yourfriend1 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you've been involved, to a greater or lesser extent (yes, this is a form message), on the Iliad article. I'm planning a bit of a reorganisation, and would appreciate any thoughts on the talk page (topic is at or near the bottom). Cheers! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits!! - Did you know that there are over 40 edits (just in the english wikipedia) on each minute? 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not clear as to what you meant by your edit summary. Can you explain, please? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that odd bit in Patton (film). Would you mind chiming in on the thread I started at Talk:Patton_(film)#"Inaccuracies" section, just so we have our bases covered? Ibadibam (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
I added a line to the end of the article about the twilight zone episode "The Fugitive".. it said that the identity of the young man in the photo was Bill Clark, who graduated from University High School in 1960.
I understand the need to verify this, and am more than willing to send a copy of the page from the yearbook that includes his picture if you wish. I don't see anywhere to attach it (your needed proof). I know it's not a big thing, but it does answer the "There has been much speculation about the identity of the uncredited man in the photo." question.
MarilynMizmarilyn (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Hi. I've been mulling over your message for some days now, but I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. What does it mean? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)