User talk:Abtract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abtract is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia may pop in occasionally. I have just started a new job and I am taking a Wikibreak to concentrate on earning money for a while ...

/archive 1 first 6 months 1 May - 31 Octobe 2006; thanks for all the editors that were patient with my stumbling beginnings.

If you talk to me on this page, I will reply here. Abtract 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Abtract! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just archived my first 6 months but couldn't resist keeping this warm and useful welcome on this page.

[edit] Ruan Lanihorne

Thanks for spotting the mistake in the name - I'd previously edited the page without noticing it! As you will see, I've made the move (there's a 'move' tab at the top of articles, if you find other articles which need mooving, just click on the tab, and fill in the new name, and your reason for moving, eg correcting mis-spelt name). DuncanHill 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem ... and thanks for the info. Abtract 00:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

I do apologize for seemingly getting Adriaan90 so worked up on the black people discussion page. I do not believe I insulted him, but if I did, I apologize. I also think we should cut him some slack because he is only 15, and full of all kinds of energy (as he so aptly characterizes himself, "uncivil and aggressive"), and positive that what he has been taught at home and in his church is correct. It is not really his fault; I place the blame at the feet of his family and church and school. He only knows what he has been taught and exposed to. And also, it is of course a bit of a shock to go out into the world at large and realize that what you believe and have been taught might in fact be a minority viewpoint with little or no evidence to support it. I can imagine he will struggle with this for a few years at least, but I am reasonably confident he will eventually come around once he knows more about the world.--Filll 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I like to encourage youth.Abtract 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etc.

Thanks for that extremely useful comment, glad to be able to return the favour. I hope it's come to your attention that we are building an encyclopedia and my userpage is not part of the encyclopedia. Cheerio, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could as usefully point out that your username is mis-spelled. Hope you have a useful evening. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I presume this is you being annoyed with me? If it is, I apologise; I was making a very small joke but it obviously misfired. Incidentally my name is deliberately spelled that way; it means something to me and, judging by others I see on here, it isn't out of place. Anyway, sorry if you've had a bad day, I won't bother you again. Abtract 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. You caught me on my way out of a heated argument with User:Ideogram at WP:FAC#Natural_selection. So back into friendly administrator mode. If you need advice on anything, let me know. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem ... it was a pretty feeble joke anyway :) Abtract 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Last 3 copied from Samsar talk page in order to see the full thread here.Abtract 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

Please look at the talk page before reverting my edits. It is a tenet of Islam that the Torah and the Gospels are highly corrupted to the point that they contain numerous falsehoods, so that sentence was highly misleading. Arrow740 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I always read talk pages; I suggest you take your edit there before making it, since it is quite significant.Abtract 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So respond to what I wrote there. There is no "uncorrupted" version of these books, Muhammad didn't really know what he was talking about, and hence the differences. Look, it's illegal to sell Bibles in Saudi Arabia. Arrow740 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad claimed that the Quran was in the same tradition as the Torah, Gospels, and Psalms (though it's clearly not: it is a huge step backward from the Gospels in terms of moral teachings). That's the only place those books have in Muslim thought. Muslims don't even look at them. Arrow740 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previewing

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please use the “Show Preview” button rather than saving every edit all the time. It is extremely difficult to follow the change history of articles such as “Cribbage” with the number of edits in the ”recent changes” page for that article. Happy editing! Agent 86 00:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks ... I use it all the time but you will note that I have been editing section by section to make it easier for you and others to follow just what I have been doing. Of course if you want to see all the edits at one go you only have to click on history and compare my last edit with the one preceding my first :)Abtract 00:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Par

I see from your associated pages that you are a conscientious editor. I also see from a quick look at your last thousand contributions that you don't spend a lot of time reviewing disambiguation pages. I wanted to let you know before I do it that I'm going to revert most of your formatting revisions that you conducted at Par so as to abide more closely with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose you are technically correct but it says here that when the list extends to more than one display page it may be split the way I did it and on my laptop this list does just that. Admittedly it also suggests that this limit is reached with a list of 30 items and par has only 24 but surely life's too short to worry about 6 items? I won't change it for now but I am going to make a small edit the style manual to see how that fairs. Regards back :)Abtract 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Before making an edit to the style manual, bring up the change on the associated discussion page, please. Direct changing of style manuals without prior discussion is an invitation for troubling displays of irritation and anger on the part of many folks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ... so far I have only received a courteous response. As you will have seen, I did mention it on the talk page but I used the actual page to show my suggestion. Surely no reasonable editor or admin or whoever could take offense at that? Did you? Abtract 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just speaking from experience and observation, not personal reaction. What I've found is that any change to an official page without prior clearance can be met with pouncing hounds and harsh words. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning but as you no doubt realise it is too late ... time will tell what reaction I get. Abtract 20:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolution (disambiguity)

Hello. The article (now: Devolution (disambiguation)) was kept. Please see WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB for more information on how to use and format such disambiguation pages. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will certainly look; I am still prettyy new although I am using what I know constructively but with a few hiccups along the way.Abtract 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E/He

"Why not change your site?"

Because I use the Spivak pronoun e and some of our players are female. sic-ing is a fair solution to prevent a reversion war though; good call. --Gemini6Ice 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I won't war ... this is interesting, I have never heard of it. My first impression is that it'll never catch on, but good luck. :) Abtract 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I always forget to sign my comments. A lot of people oppose a "new" pronoun, so it's difficult. However, the only way to bring it into acceptance is through continual usage, which is why I use it for all personal (not necessarily private though) writings. :) --Gemini6Ice 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you. :) It seems my English spelling has declined steadily since I left school. Inge 13:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] theophylline in tea

Please revert the revert you applied- nowhere in the website you supplied does it actualy say how they determined the theophylline content of tea. I have both personally measured, and seen a reference published in a reputable journal that claims almost no theophylline (e.g. below detection limit) was found in tea upon careful analysis. The fact that people have made claims of this in the past is likely due to less reliable analytical technique. MatthewEHarbowy 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More info here, while theophylline is sometimes detected it is not in significant quatities (about 1mg per liter) whereas for treatment for asthma typical doses are 20mg/kg/day or about 900mg/day for an adult see this. It is misleading to mention this at the top of the article- it could be listed in a lower section among the other trace components. MatthewEHarbowy 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly what you or I may have measured is of no account in WP terms - this counts as original research. What does count is Verifiability.Abtract 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied here because you opened the discussion here but it would make more sense on the tea talk page so I am going to copy it to there and I suggest you continue there if you have more to say on the subject :)Abtract 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Ireland

Hi there -- I called the 'AD' after 800 redundant only because the earlier date reference to '600 AD' established the shift from BC to AD. No offense intended. Dppowell 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

None taken. After my edit I looked around and it seems that AD isn't used much in WP though it still seems a little odd to me prior to 1000. I have altered the earlier one to say "in the year 600" which I think makes it clear and removes AD consistently. Thanks for coming here to explain :)Abtract 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP manual of style is a little ambiguous about the use of BC/AD/BCE/CE, saying only that once the use of one convention has been established in an article, it shouldn't be changed without a good reason. My reference for things like this is an old edition of the Random House Handbook, which says that notations like "AD" are only necessary when the era has not been established by context, and then only the first time (until the referenced era changes). Suffice it to say that it's not something on which I have especially strong feelings.  :) Dppowell 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)Abtract 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

British Isles is a different matter; see Talk:Ireland. Dppowell 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point but I am going to take it to the talk page since others may wish to discuss it also (I could find no reference there so I will start a new section) :) Abtract 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though the most recent discussion I tried to encourage on Talk:Ireland about how to acknowledge the British Isles term was far and away the most civil to date (check out some of the anonymous barbs I received for even suggesting that it be talked about). Just be advised that it's a touchy subject and could get ugly if not handled delicately. Dppowell 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, oh and I did find the current discussion in the end:)Abtract 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC

Why revert to puposely advoid having UK and Britain in the article? Is it wrong to say Northern Ireland is a province of the UK? As it is under British law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somethingoranother (talk • contribs).

Please see Province / Provinces of Ireland / Ulster, etc. The word 'province' is massively ambiguous and confusing in this context, not to mention politically loaded - Alison^✍ 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godalming

I see you've added a list of schools in Godalming. Is it maybe generally best to avoid such lists in a page like this? Perhaps you may want to make a separate list of schools in Godalming and make a link to them on the page. Also most of the schools are red links which doesn't look very good unless you're thinking of adding a word or two about them. Perhaps the answer would be to put in only the ones in Godalming and put those in Farncombe in that page & the same with Milford. SuzanneKn 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts :) Abtract 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume you continue to watch here ... I like your edits on Witley ... as you see I have been making progress on Godalming, as have you. Comment whenever you like I am open to suggestion - of course I don't always follow them but hey ... :)Abtract 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Re. your comments on my talk page, is there anything I can help with? - Alison^✍ 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No on second thoughts I don't think there is but thanks for replying. I got a bit carried away I think on BI, another editor made some big edits that wiped out stuff and replaced it with unsourced material some of it "well known fact" and that phrase got to me a tad. Howver I have reconsidered and apologised for going OTT so all is well now (I hope). I am going to take a break fromn that article and work on other areas. Thanks again. >) Abtract 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kewl! No problem ... - Alison^✍ 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

That was sneaky vandalism on my userpage. Thanks for catching it!! :) - Alison^✍ 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure :)Abtract 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And thank you yet again for reverting the USF vandal. Appreciate it :) - Alison^✍ 11:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again my pleasure Abtract 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate it - Alison^✍ 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK :) Abtract 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge clubs

Give the length of time you have been contributing, I am very surprised that:

• you created such a non-standard title as List:Bridge clubs in the UK
• created Category:Bridge clubs in the way you did
• thought that British bridge clubs are notable in Wikipedia terms.

Wikipedia is not a directory. We most definitely do not want contact details. Furthermore I doubt whether articles about individual bridge clubs (unless they have some very special feature) will be accepted.

(Just for the record, the usage of the category would have been to put [[category:bridge clubs]] at the end of each club article.) -- RHaworth 09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you would like to see second and third opinions on this, I would be willing to restore Chapel Lane Bridge Club and send it to AfD. But I am confident that it would receive a strong "delete" vote. -- RHaworth 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take you word for it, please delete them. Apologies for not being as knowledgable as I should be for someone who has been contributing for such a long time ... Abtract 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The English Bridge Union article is a bit stubby and if there is something like a national federation of bridge clubs separate from the EBU then I think that would be acceptable for an article. -- RHaworth 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Thanks for correcting the error on my userpage! For once, it isn't vandalism!! Its much appreciated - I hope your there to correct my 300th and 400th edit :) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure: call me sad but I get a kick out of spotting obvious errors that other have missed. Abtract 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

that should have been others not other :-P RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

and it would have been so much better with a semicolon rather than a colon ... but sorry it doesn't count on talk pages :) Abtract 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

this kind of technical mistake happens, no worries =) Wooyi 20:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Abtract! You claim to have close connections with Ireland. Well, you have omitted that on your user page. Have you close connections? Or, are you codding? 86.42.166.50 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I claim nothing of the sort; my interest in the neolithic era and in politics has led me to Celt and Ireland among others but I have no close connections to Ireland ... though I have high hopes of a Dub I met recently, but that's another story :) Abtract 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Abtract , my apologies. It's Arcturus whom I was thinking of. I must take a rest. Cheers. 86.42.166.50 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem Abtract 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just make sure to do it in the future. This happens all the time, so I wouldn't worry about it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Orcadian articles

Because they don't suit his view of things, Mais oui! has started a campaign for the deletion of Orcadian articles. You may be interested in contributing to the following debate: [1] There are more to come, I can assure you. 81.153.151.63 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... you should get a named account, it's easy enough. Abtract 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) this comments was removed (probably accidentally) by Mai oui, and reinstated by Abtract 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was accidental Abtract: I edited an old version of your Talk page by mistake. By the way, you are actually breaching WP:NPA by hosting personal attacks on your Talk page. I strongly advise you to immediately remove any personal attacks you see, per WP:RPA. --Mais oui! 09:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me Abtract 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mallimak, just stop the ceaseless personal attacks. --Mais oui! 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

And actually, you've already broken the 3RR at this point. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the time stamps I see that I am mistaken, you have not reverted more than three times, but you are still close to going over the 3RR. -- Ned Scott 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear that won't do ... could you give me a clue as to which article you are talking about? Abtract 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see that you must mean Justin Cook where I have reinstated a notability tag 3 on Feb 17 22 23 (twice) that same tag which you have reverted three times in the last 21 hours (05.54, 20.48 and 02.37). Wouldn't it be easier to demonstrate his notability than to revert again? :) Abtract 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I keep trying to say, reasonable notability is made already on the article. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, if you really want to tag that article then tag it. This is too minor to get in a dispute with someone such as yourself, who has been far more reasonable than other editors I've been coming in contact with. I hope you will still consider what I brought up, but I should have faith that you have good reason to feel the way you do about it. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As you will have seen, the tag elicited new information and I have removed both tags. It was a pleasure to do business with you :) Abtract 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Sorting

There are actually two ways to sort articles within categories. The "older" way is to add the name to each category. Recently, they added the {{DEFAULTSORT}} mechanism. Therefore, if you see an article with that template, you don't need to add the name to each category as you just did. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... I just wanted them in alphabetical order :) Abtract 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It confused me the first time I saw it as well. It would be nicer if Wikipedia had a better way to announce such additions in functionality. -- JLaTondre 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert it again? I thought from your response my note was clear. The {{DEFAULTSORT}} already places it in alphabetic order! -- JLaTondre 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. We're talking about different things. You're talking about the order of the categories & I'm talking about his name within the categories. Sorry. I'll fix that. -- JLaTondre 14:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I thought we probably were :) Abtract 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just passing. I see you update stuff on the page for Ilford County High School. Do you go there? Comment back on my page :)marc 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I used to many years ago. Abtract 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Do come back soon. We miss ya! And good luck with the new job :) - Alison^☺ 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)