User talk:S. M. Sullivan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Vandalism 2 Move 3 Questions 4 help me 5 Buna Lawrie 6 Aged requests 7 WikiProject updates 8 Erroneous removal of "dead" links

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia as you did here, falsely claiming that you were "correcting" a link in a reference when you were really changing it from the original source being cited to a completely different, unrelated source. Such an action was clearly damaging the encyclopedia in bad faith and such vandalism may lead to you being banned or blocked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, blanking warnings on your talk page is frowned upon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This [1] and [2] (fake block messages) is a no-no, too. Don't do it. --Tilman 08:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Hi. You should move your recent warning to Antaeus Feldspar to his talk page, not his user page. Happy editing. --Justanother 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Justanother.

S. M. Sullivan 05:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)S.M. Sullivan

Whoa, bro. Take that off. Only admins can block. If I can give you a piece of advice it would be to not rise to what you might think is provocation and to not try to "do battle" before you have learned the ropes. Actually, I would really suggest that you not do battle at all but I have been chastised by user(s) for being nosy so I will not. Just put a polite message there that conveys your objection to his action and also don't forget to remove it from the user page. By the way, are you a Scientologist? Because if you are, then I have a special message for you. --Justanother 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that whether you are or are not a Scientologist is none of my business nor the business of other editors either. Would you like to see the message anyway? --Justanother 06:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See User:Justanother/Welcome message --Justanother 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi M. S. Sulivan I'm looking for some Scn specific source/links to include as EL about CoST for instance that you might know. Could you register an email address and email me on Jpierreg Email 18:40, 11 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Questions

Hi. I responded on my talk page. --Justanother 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the sentiment. Please go to my talk page, User talk:Justanother to view my reply and place your reply under mine using colons to intent. --Justanother 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks S. M. Sullivan! I appreciate it. Very much. --Justanother 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help me

I can't get the bio I wrote to sort properly.(Joseph Cressman Thompson, M.D.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sort". Please clarify and use {{helpme}} again so we know to check back.--Commander Keane 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a template on the bio that says US-navy-bio-start, thinking that it would make the bio show up in the correct section, but the template is showing up in red letters in the article. {{helpme}}

S. M. Sullivan 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no such template as {{US-navy-bio-start}} (that's what the red on the article and on my link there indicates). You might be thinking of {{US-navy-bio-stub}}; specific templates like that are used only for stubsorting; for articles better than stubs, just use categories. Hope that helps! --ais523 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buna Lawrie

An article that you created, Buna Lawrie, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buna Lawrie. The reason for the listing is explained there. Discussion will now take place on that page to determine whether the article is deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion; however, please do not remove the deletion notice from Buna Lawrie while the discussion is in progress. Thank you – Qxz 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I deleted the notice and tried to fix the article before I saw your message. I will revert the article to bring back the message. S. M. Sullivan 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's OK. I was just following the policy for proposed deletions, which says if someone removes the "prod" tag, you should assume they disagree with the deletion and list it at AfD. If you're OK with merging the information into Coloured Stone, then that's fine, and there's no need for any deletions; we can just redirect it. You're doing a great job on Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year, by the way – keep up the good work. Thanks – Qxz 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, Buna Lawrie now redirects to Coloured Stone, and the information in the two articles has been merged. There was actually very little in the Coloured Stone article before, so your contribution has been very useful, (just not in quite the right place!) Anyway, if you have more information about Coloured Stone, then of course further expansion of that article would be most welcome. Thanks – Qxz 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Qxz! I will work on expanding that Coloured Stone article.S. M. Sullivan 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aged requests

Good work on the Articles requested for more than two years. One thing you should be aware of is that if you remove a red link from that page, but leave it on the main requests page it will simply be relisted next time WP:AR2 is updated. For instance, Hydrofield is still listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences, and thus still registers as an outstanding request. - SimonP 17:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Erroneous removal of "dead" links

I thought I would drop you a line as I found an instance where you had chosen to delete referenced information because the URL in the reference link was, according to you, "dead". I would like to point out to you that this is in fact specifically contradicted by Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"; it states more than once that removing the reference link is not the appropriate action: "When a link in the References section or Notes section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted." "If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more." (emphasis added in both) In this case, the point is moot, since the supposedly "dead" link is actually very much alive, but I felt you should know for future reference that removing referenced content because you think the URL has stopped functioning is against Wikipedia policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)