User talk:JonMoore/Archive 3

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 August 2005 and 22 September 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archives: /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

The Salt Lake Tribune[edit]

When definite and indefinite articles should be used. Newspapers are in that list to use articles. Google ranking has no bearing. RADICALBENDER ★ 05:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

disambig[edit]

Thanks for fixing my typo in Bad (disambiguation).

If you look into Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), you will notice considerable changes. In particular the one I especially don't like: forbidding any other wikilinks. What do you think? mikka (t) 21:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared to meet (I did) wery aggressive dab-warriors that run around and remove wikilinks. If you feel that you will want to argue with them, you may as well start doing this now, at the project talk page. My opposing voice was not heard, but I am pretty much indifferent to the issue. mikka (t) 22:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! I've just noticed that just the opposite: my remark stirred quite a controversy: at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Wikilinking and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Wikilinking. mikka (t) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Project[edit]

Thanks for the invite. Considering the hassle I got into over the "Yellow vs. Red Brick Road" question, I'm a little hesitant. Also, although I know the movie thoroughly, I don't really know the books. On another topic, that photo on your page reminds me vaguely of a scene from Monty Python's And Now for Something Completely Different. :) Wahkeenah 03:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the Red Brick Road and got into an argument with somebody who said it was "not notable", meaning (I must assume) that it never caught his attention before. Anyway, if I joined up, what would I have to do? Wahkeenah 03:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would give me a chance to write about something I know something about, besides baseball. For example, I saw some comments about "autofellatio" and was immediately hit with a mental picture of somebody sucking on a car's exhaust pipe. Yikes! Well, it takes all kinds. Here's the larger question I've been wondering about since I first ran across wikipedia this past winter: What does this site offer that others do not? What is it that distinguishes this site? Open, rhetorical questions, perhaps... maybe already answered someplace, I dunno... but the answer would seem to tell us what we could contribute that no other site has, whatever it might be. There are tons of sites about the Wiz. What would this site offer that another site would not? In a related question, (1) why do they allow anonymous yahoos to do stuff to articles and (2) does anyone care how many sites directly rip off wikipedia's data and post it for themselves, with or without credit? Just wond'rin'. Wahkeenah 04:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:oz books[edit]

Jon, I slightly modified the above which you created. Some of the pages that used it rendered a bit oddly. I admit I'm not a full bottle on templates, so I hope I didn't do anything wrong. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 02:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yr message. I remember reading some of the books my Dad had years and years ago and had forgotten all about them until reading your article. Good memories. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oz books[edit]

Jon, that looks great - you've been working hard! As you say, redlinks are the only issue, but you've got plenty there already to cut and paste into new stub articles. Each stub could have a stock intro which would expand it a bit more. Others may be more inclined to expand a stub rather than start a new article. You get a cookie! -- Ian ≡ talk 02:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Go to bed! -- Ian ≡ talk 05:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

portal[edit]

You are a funny guy! (loves punishment) -- Ian ≡ talk 00:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Children's literature[edit]

It's a great idea, but I wouldn't know where to start! Am still quite a newbie here --Jenblower 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User categorization[edit]

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Idaho (Category:Wikipedians in Idaho) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Idaho page. The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Idaho page is scheduled for deletion. Thanks! Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jon. You were listed under both Idaho and Utah. ;-) Please add/remove whichever you deem appropriate. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you correct a change to the ABC4 page...[edit]

So you correct a change to the ABC4 page, but you don't reference the reporter who broke the Olympic scandal in that article.

I bet your the same guy that created the waxing Ruth Todd entry.

So you correct a change to the ABC4 page...[edit]

So you correct a change to the ABC4 page, but you don't reference the reporter who broke the Olympic scandal in that article.

I bet your the same guy that created the waxing Ruth Todd entry.

Adminship[edit]

I have put myself up for adminship. I figured that you would probably support me to become an administrator. The votes are taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bob rulz. Well, that might seem a little pushy, but I might as well tell you that. bob rulz 21:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Oh, and yes, I did notice the Utah WikiPortal. However, I haven't really been keeping much on an eye on it. I can begin keeping track of it and maintaining it, however, now that you mention it. bob rulz 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto template[edit]

Hi. The template was removed because Ido is not simply a branch of Esperanto. One could make the argument that the Esperanto article belongs on the Ido template as well but somehow I doubt that would go over well. However I did notice that there was an article on Interlingua vs Esperanto, so I think a comparison of Ido and Espo on a seperate article would be the best way to go. You'll also notice that some of the other language Wikipedias have a template for constructed languages in general in which all of them appear. IMO that is a better way to go.

If you're still not convinced just remember that it would only result in an endless edit war anyway and I don't think it is worth the effort. 211.37.78.63 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]