User talk:EGGS

Welcome!

Hello, EGGS, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Hello!

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipeidia. The previous welcome note was posted by TheRingess. From your contributions, you seem to be very familiar with editing. Were you a long time anonymous IP before? Anyway, keep up the good work! --HappyCamper 19:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... Have you been spying on me? --EGGS 14:34 14 January 2006 (EST)

Of course not! I just happened to come across your edits during RC Patrol and from there took a look at some of your contributions here :-) --HappyCamper 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You can just never be too careful- usually Internet communications are just monitored automatically, but you never know.

Well, it was a good question to ask. There is a log of all the edits you make on Wikipedia, and if you become an administrator, there is a log of all the admin actions you do too. It's just Wiki software's method of checks and balances. --HappyCamper 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFL players

Hi mate, don't know if you're up with this, but as part of WikiProject AFL policy, the official stub for Australian rules footballers is {{aflbio-stub}}, not {{sportbio-stub}}. I noticed you've done this with Jay Burton and Ben Rutten. Rogerthat 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Why isn't it listed on the stub types page? EGGS 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Hendren

Could you please explain why you added an NPOV tag to this article? Tintin Talk 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Elias Henry "Patsy" Hendren (5 February 1889 - 4 October 1962) was one of the finest English batsmen..." is at the top of the article. This is obviously not NPOV; does the article on say, Montreal, say "Montreal is one of the finest Canadian cities..."? I think the solution here is to follow the NPOV and weasel terms guidelines, and replace this with "Patsy Hendren was one of the highest scoring batsmen" or "Patsy Hendren was one of the highest ranking English batsmen", or better yet, "Elias Henry "Patsy" Hendren (1889-1962) was a professional English batsman" or something like that, which would serve as an introduction and defining statement to the article. EGGS 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be on the Patsy Hendren talk page? Johnlp 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't have any particular involvement; I just stumbled across the page via Special: Random. EGGS 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So shall I remove the npov tag then? Johnlp 11:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs for you

Here are some eggs for you. You obviously like them so much, I knew you wouldn't mind! Find them on the User Page. Enjoy! ;-) --Shultz 01:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice pictures. EGGS is actually an acronym (hence the capitalization). For more information, please fill out forms FWEFV-245, RVR-573, and QBERT. Expect a reply in 6-8 weeks; don't contact us, we'll contact you. EGGS 01:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What does the acronym stand for? I looked on WP and Google and found no company with it. --Shultz 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's WP? And I should hope it's not on Google; I made it up! Such things out in public would indicate spies were at work... EGGS 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP = (shorthand for) Wikipedia. So, you made up the Acronym? Interesting! What does it stand for? --Shultz 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come across this page? EGGS 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you visited "4th degree murder" and pointed out that the more common term is "Contract killing". Someone deleted it because there was a speedy template, but I think I'll make it again, just for it to redirect to the above article. --Shultz 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't point out anything. I didn't even know the term. EGGS 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's where I saw you. Maybe I got confused and really saw you at a section of the WP:RD? --Shultz 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the article and RD. I don't remember editing anything. EGGS 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if it wasn't 4th degree murder, then I must remember seeing you in a list of previous edits when I was editing an article not too long ago. Oh well, I can't remember that well when I need to be getting to bed. Good night. --Shultz 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Schulerud

Thanks for correcting my stupid typo on Ingrid Schulerud. I am you eternally grateful EGGS-san. Eixo 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Eternal gratitude is not necessary, although flattering. You're the one who wrote the article. And thus civilization advances one step further, through specialization and productive use of time. EGGS 02:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrachnie

Please read articles before you tag them as nonsense. Barrachnie is not by any stretch of anyones imagination nonsense. Furthermore you tagged the article less than one minute after it had first appeared - for goodness sake give people time- you may have frightened the contributor off. -- RHaworth 15:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I couldn't make sense of the original article version and assumed it was just standard l33t-spam, and I'll take notice of this in future editing. As to the timing, it is standard practice to speedy nonsense, l33t, spam, and other such articles as soon as they appear, as this stops them from entering into the massive article corpus where they may lurk for weeks or longer (see RC_patrol). EGGS 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. EGGS 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GWR 4073 Class 7027 Thornbury Castle

Hello, EGGS, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

FYI: GWR 4073 Class 7027 Thornbury Castle is a GWR Class locomotive! Medcroft 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly- most people will have no idea what a "GWR 4073 Class 7027 Thornbury Castle" is, so the article needs to say "is a locomotive" or some such thing. I couldn't make heads or tails of it; I thought it must have been a house or something.

Precisely - if you don't know what it is - then best left to those that do to make informed changes. Medcroft 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to edit it; I just tagged it as confusing, which it was. There's no point in having an article that people can't understand. EGGS 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a mind to type "GWR 4073" or even "7027 Thornbury Castle" in the search box you would have understood clearly what this is all about. Regards Medcroft 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the point of an article is to display information, not to make people go search for it. EGGS 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously new to this so I am being very patient - what is the purpose of the search box if you don't use it? The provided references clearly explain what the article is all about. Medcroft 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight- you think it's fine for articles to not bother defining their titles, not bother linking to any explanatory material, give us a grand total of one reference to the subject that people unfamiliar with the subject can understand ("railway"), and use obfuscated terms like "shed allocation", as long as you can find other articles somewhere on WP which do explain all of this? EGGS 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered to pursue this discussion with you - please do not vandalise any more of my contributions - why not concentrate instead on making your own useful entries. I will make no further comments. Thank you. Medcroft 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages patrol

Thanks for helping out! Melchoir 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know what I was doing? EGGS 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do it too! I saw that you beat me to the punch on several articles, so I thought I'd just let you know that your efforts are appreciated. There's actually an institution for patrollers in general: Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. I see that you're relatively new here, and you obviously know what you're doing, but if you ever need more information, that's the place! Melchoir 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, reading your talk page, I see you already know about it. Never mind then! Melchoir 23:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would delay something like one hour from the last time a human made an edit to the new page. Heathhunnicutt 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I would, but there's only a page that displays all new pages, not one-hour-old pages, and keeping track of which pages were created when would be a ton of work, with hundreds of pages created every hour. EGGS 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGGS, I think your detractors are being unreasonable. However, there are ways to scan over pages created a while ago; for example, this link will usually take you back a day or two. I'm not saying you should switch to that patrolling style, but the option is there. Cheers, Melchoir 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But those pages don't need editing (for the most part). What needs to be implemented is a way to scan through all of the made-up neologisms, spam, and other garbage lurking in the article corpus; is there some way to search Wikipedia with a script? EGGS 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly there is, but I have no idea how to do it! Melchoir 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who would I ask? EGGS 01:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Melchoir 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Hangman/yes

Hi, I noticed you put Wikipedia:Hangman/yes up for speedy. It's used in Wikipedia:Hangman inside the template, to highlight the used letters. Thanks. -- WB 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which template? EGGS 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, my mistake. But is it really necessary for this to be in an article? EGGS 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes Hangman moderators to moderate easier. For example, our template currently looks like this:

{{Wikipedia:Hangman/Template|
|gameNumber = 29
|guessLeft  = 4
|a= wrong
|b= no
|c= no
|d= no
|e= yes
|f= no
|g= no
|h= no
|i= no
|j= no
|k= no
|l= no
|m= no
|n= no
|o= no
|p= no
|q= no
|r= wrong
|s= no
|t= wrong
|u= no
|v= no
|w= no
|x= no
|y= no
|z= no
|right      = 1
|wrong      = 3
|total      = 4
|imageSize  = 150px <!-- Change this value to the size you want -->
|note       = - = Space _ = Letter
|answer     = _ _ E _ - _ _ _ |}}

And merely changing yes/no/wrong does the job without worrying about CSS, etc. By all means though, if you have something against it, let us know.-- WB 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smedskjaer's Law

The vanity page you refer to was at one point well known within a community site of around +900k users. Although it has become old, it was relevent at the time of creation, thus does not count as a vanity post or spam. --OrbitOne 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it, and all I saw was a broken Tripod site and Wikipedia copies. Shouldn't something used by +900k people have more references than that? EGGS 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Your concern to straighten some things out is admirable, but please stop doing speedy tagging, for maybe a few hours, while i figure out what you think you're doing and what should really be done with those cases. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ OK, without doing a full review yet, of your CSD-taggings that i've rv'd, i can say that you may have exposed a deficiency in the CSD page: it tells admins, but not others, to lk at the history. Perhaps it should say

If you don't yet know how to use the entries on the history page, don't tag anything for CSD whose history page has more than one line beginning "(cur) (last)".

tho such additions deserve some extended thot. And there probably needs to be something (unless i missed it) saying that each criterion refers to the full content, over the history of the page, and not just to the most recent version.

I looked at the history pages to see if they had been deleted or blanked accidentally or by a vandal, but I presumed anything that was blanked deliberately, such as old VFD's, was meant to be deleted. Are old VFD's normally deleted? EGGS 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I think as a general rule, tho, things that people consider worth blanking should usually instead stay & have a note saying why they are obsolete. Even where the content should not appear in future versions, merging the history with a related page is likely to be a better disposition than deletion. What goes along with the ability to edit anything, pretty much like BACON goes with you know what, is a fairly compulsive preservation of history.
_ _ Thanks again for taking an interest in the housekeeping, and i hope you'll continue tagging. No doubt you'll be more conservative in such cases as these, and save admins from having to sort thru ineligible noms.
--Jerzy•t 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you shouldn't speedy tag anything that has a substantial history? Shouldn't this be on WP:CSD?

I am concerned

That you are somewhat over-zealous in in your objections to various recent articles/contributions. I find little or no evidence of your own contributions. Please be a little more circumspect in your offerings. Thank you. Regards Medcroft 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You tagged Johanes Franzen on the 12th. Turns out that was a slanderous attack page; the person is not a Nazi (not even notable) and the party mentioned does not exist. God help us if there are more pages like that.... We need to be more critical of pages that come in. --mav 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a communcation theory

I'm looking for the biography of "white,D.M" who is the theorist of the "gatekeeping theory"in communcation theories,i wonder if I can get help to find more about it and also about the theory mentioned above217.218.80.15 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chremonides

Hello! I noticed that you have put the {{context}} template on the article Chremonides. I don't really understand why. It only contains a few lines of text, but those lines provide a very good summary and explanation of who Chremonides was. The article is clearly a stub, but somebody who has no idea of who Chremonides was (like myself before reading the article) will get a very good idea of who he was, by reading those few lines. Secondly, it was that good even when you put the template there. I haven't removed the template, because I would like an explanation from you, but I'm very much inclined to remove it. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insula of the Brain

I am currently a first year anatomy student with a question. I was on Hugh Ross' site and found this. My professor was explaining the Insula of the brain as having occured only because of evolution. He said that when monkeys began to evolve into higher primates, their brains expanded, forming the Insula. Since I believe in intelligent design, I was wondering if there was another explanation for this. I am not a fanatic in my beliefs,but, would like an answer beside the only one that he could give me. According to my professor, the Insula could not be explained any way besides evolution. Does anyone have any other answer's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.26 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]