User talk:Mateo SA
|
|
Welcome to my talk page on Wikipedia. Thanks for stopping by.
| Contents |
Venice and cinema news
It sounds to me as an interesting item to report in the news section of a wikipedia. Those were the final prizes. Or do you think only the unavoidable daily bodycount is relevant enough? Thanks for the shortening anyway. ciao --Balubino 01:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I can see your point. Considering the date, I guess a lack of big news is good news. - Mateo SA 04:44, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Abington v. Schempp
I put the explanation in a comment with the NPOV tag. Simply put, the opinion section is still pretty POV. See the sentence about the "unexpected" portion of the decision, for an example. Soren9580 03:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current events
You don't seem to understand the purpose of the Current events page. It is NOT to run detailed stories, it's to give one or two sentences about an event, link to appropriate pages on Wikipedia where more detail can be found, and include a link to a news article where someone who's interested can read about it. Your excesses are being trimmed down solely because they're excesses, not because of any particular political bias on my part. RickK 04:46, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that a brief paragraph makes more sense, and that RickK's beliefs about "the purpose of the Current events page" do not neccessarily represent the consensus. Kevin Baas | talk 17:26, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Kevin Baas | talk 23:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you edited an entry of mine on the Current events section. Not exactly a revert as your edit info said, but anyway. Could you explain what I did wrong so I won't do it in the future? The edit info you gave was a bit too brief. Thanks in advance. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:25, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for the copyedits. They do make the sentence better. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:25, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Fort Bliss page
Mateo: I didn't move the page as such. The Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Bliss pages had existed coterminously for quite some time (and had been subject to separate edits during the same period). Since there didn't appear to be a way of merging the page histories, I decided that (i) taking the information from the former page to the latter, and (ii) informing everyone of the change on the Talk:Fort Bliss page was the best way to go.
Everything that was on Fort Bliss is now on Fort Bliss, Texas, except for the former's page history (and if anyone *is* interested in that history, my editing notice on the latter page should be a sufficient reminder of its existence).
If you think I've somehow done an improper editing job, I won't object to a reversion. CJCurrie 01:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Straton Oakmont Inc. & Daniel Porush v. Prodigy Services Company
I appreciate you looking out for articles that are in need of some help and I hope that you continue contributing to the Project. Unfortunately, this article concerns a case that was heard by the New York State Supreme Court. Since the Project only covers United States Supreme Court cases, this article is out of the scope of the project goals. For this reason, I am removing it from the list of Intensive Care Articles.
Thanks for contributing and I hope to see more from you in the future.
Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.
Skyler 03:52, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Belarus adjective
Regarding your question at [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template%3AIn_the_news&diff=0&oldid=6731799) (assuming you really want an answer) - the answer is "yes". I generally consult Wikipedia's very own list of adjectival forms of place names, which you might find useful as well. -- Itai 17:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Baseball "statistics" (I think that's a little uncharitable) on "In the News"
Hi. I totally understood what you meant when you said the boldfaced article should have been substantively updated; I was just being temporarily stupid: I checked the World Series and FIFA World Cup pages and discovered that they only had statistic-lines on yearly champions, just like the American League Championship Series article. Frankly I found this hard to believe — I know how much Wikipedia denizens like to write! — but in my stupidity it didn't occur to me to discover that detailed articles for annual champions did, in some cases, exist. (Indeed, as you know, in the end the same thing proved to be true for the pennant series; so now the criterion is met and no harm done. Incidentally, the links to these pages from the American League Championship Series page are rather camouflaged, I think — they look, prima facie, like they lead to calendar articles.)
As for my reversion of your reversion — well (as my edit summary suggests), I'm usually pretty meek and don't do that sort of thing; but in this case your reversion was so immediate that I guess I felt a little defensive. :) And, by the way, despite what my talk page probably looked like to you, let me just say that I'm actually really not much of a sports nut — it's just the vagaries of fate that makes it look that way. Doops 05:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikinews?
As you edit Current Events, your input would be appreciated: see m:Wikinews and its talk and vote pages. +sj+ 17:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Template:In the news
Shortly, there's going to be far too much US election stuff to shove into the In the news template. That's why it keeps getting pointed at 2004 US election in progress. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Additionally, this was basically decided back in September, see Talk:2004 US election in progress. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image:Iraq_flag_large.png
Are you sure the correct proportions are 2:3? The Flag of Iraq intro does say that the new flag was "wider". [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 01:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause
Hello, I am soliciting comments from all those Wikipedians whose edits to legal articles I've noticed. I've been editing Equal Protection Clause, submitted it to peer review, and now have nominated it for featured article status. Please tell me what you think of it, and if you support it, please add your support at the page written above (or, of course, add your objections). Thanks so much, Hydriotaphia 01:08, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Missing section in USA constitution
Since you removed my mention from lead, I thought about it more and I agree with you. The article is incomplete. We should either fix it or remove it from FA. See Talk:United_States_Constitution#Entire_section_missing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matters_currently_in_Arbitration
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision
Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.
— Davenbelle 21:58, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Human rights
Hi, how are things in Texas, no snow?
I wondered why the {cite sources} tag was put on this article, if you could clarify this then we could see what has to be done.
Thanks
TonyClarke 19:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Human rights
Thanks for sweeping up my droppings on that article. That was sloppy of me. –Hajor 20:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Supreme court
Sounds good. And it was probably rude of me to revert your change without taking the issue to the talk page first, and so I apologize for that. Take care. --Arcadian 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your translation request completed
- Article: sl:Volitve 2004
- Corresponding English-language article: Slovenia parliamentary elections, 2004
- Worth doing because:
- Material to incorporate into English-language article
- Originally Requested by: Mateo SA | talk 18:37, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Status: "Translated, but review requested by Eleassar777 10:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)".
- Other notes: The English-language version is just a stub, but is featured on Current events.
(and it looks like SteveW reviewed it)
Thank You
Just a quick note to say Thanks for taking care of the strange edit in the Articles of Confederation article. Lou I 16:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
your editing of my comments
please do not edit my personal comments on talk pages (including this one). your "copyedit" and "corrections" were not welcome. if you can point me to a wiki policy that supports you changing personal comments without leave of the writer, please do so. otherwise, i am asking that you leave my comments entirely alone. your opinions on how i type/write or what i say may be put around them, not in them. thanks. SaltyPig 23:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Consitutional Respects
Nice work. (http://lp.org/) --Cuimalo 02:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
stealing
because they stole thier lands or not doesnt mean we should nopt say the US did such, is it because you wish not to show this that you try to put sieze in? steal is not POV it is blunt truth, sieze tries to say in a way that it was justified, which it wasnt.
Gabrielsimon 18:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
WP:RfD
Just out of curiousity, did you notice the line just above where you added that entry, where it said "New entries go at the **BOTTOM** of the page"? Noel (talk) 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)