User talk:Oscarthecat/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. Thanks for sorting out the references on the Tessa Jowell article. Is there a project page which explains how to use that particular referencing system? Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thought I'd reference-ize is now, before the page grows and grows over the next few weeks, as Tessa gets more and more news coverage.

Take a look at

Wikipedia:Footnotes

for details of the syntax.

Give me a shout if any questions. --OscarTheCat^talk 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding some of your edits to

I figured I'd save you a little bit of typing. Just link them the way they already stand, because no matter what you do, half the world will be viewing it one way and vice versa. The comma doesn't matter either. [[9 January]] [[2003]] will show up as "January 9, 2003" (emphasis added) in the "U.S." setting. Smart software. — Mar. 7, '06 [09:25] <

freakofnur_xture| talk

>

Got the reply. Good. I'll leave any dates as they are for now and wait for the wiki software to catch up. I think the readability test + common sense is probably the best one.HappyVR 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

G'day Oscarthecat,

I notice you added a copyright tag to Image:Calmoe.gif. Good work! However, this still doesn't answer the primary problem with this image: it doesn't have a source. An image's source is the place we got the image from, not the tag (the tag refers to copyright status). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Don't know how that happened, I must have somehow been editing an old version of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please block John oh? He removed a merge template I added to

Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character).--FelineFanatic13^talk

Alas, I'm not an administrator. I've placed a subst:test1 on his talk page. --OscarTheCat^talk 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! For some reason, I thought you were.--FelineFanatic13^talk

Um, can either of you please point to where it says he's not allowed to remove that template? By the way, there are times when {{

test}} and its variants are appropriate, and times when actually saying what you want to say is a better idea, and this is one of the latter. fuddlemark (fuddle me!

) 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette. Removing content without comments? Better to talk it through on the talk page, or at least say why such content has been removed. --OscarTheCat^talk 13:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. If you don't like his behaviour, what's wrong with toddling off to his talkpage and saying "please, don't do that. You should do this instead. And an edit summary would be nice. And why don't you ever call your mother?"? I think that'd be much, much nicer than "test1" and "please block".

By the way, I've protected the article about Moe. This isn't an endorsement of the version that happened to be up at the time I protected, but an effort to stop FelineFanatic and JohnOh from being blocked for silly edit warring. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to help thrash out the direction on the Talk pages. --OscarTheCat^talk 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the protection from the article. Hopefully John and FF can contain themselves. I wouldn't be reinserting the merge tags, since a) that wouldn't exactly be neutral behaviour from the protecting admin, and b) the tags don't really matter. One can merge without the tags. The trick is not to get reverted, and all you've got to do for that is reach an accord with John (if possible); the tag won't help there. Talking will :-) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that if you had set a preference, you would get the date in a single format. However, the last time I tried a casual user without an account would see both 1 September and September 1 which, although nothing serious, may produce confusion in some cases. -- ReyBrujo 20:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This may seem like a stupid question, but how do you get you signature to look cool like that? Thanks! - Mjg0503 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (Hopefully, it will look better soon!)

I got it working! Thank you very much! You like it? I think it looks cool!

Mike"mjg0503"_talk 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted a {{

1. The article is improved, and no further action is necessary;
2. The article is sent to *fD, and decided on in a fair manner;
3. Discussion takes place on the article's talk page, and some later decision is reached.

Don't be tempted to get into an edit war with the author over whether or not the prod should be there; it's supposed to be only for uncontested, uncontroversial deletions. As a personal aside, I'm keeping an eye on Fullofbeans for now, as he's pledged to stop vandalizing and start helping out. Don't want to bite the newcomers! The Maxite stub can be dealt with a little later, maybe FOB will even understand why then. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

- Mike"mjg0503"_talk 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please revert Ibn Taymiah back to normal and look if it can sealed. Otherwise it will be always target for Islamic-political ideological propaganda vandalism, which nobody wants to know if looking at the wikpedia. Thank you.

Have asked the author of this comment to elaborate. --OscarTheCat^talk 10:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oscar. Thanks for your message. At the moment very little is known about the

M^ask

...is faster than I am, I will stop using pop-ups and check history when reverting these topics. Thanks for the heads up --DV8 2XL 16:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your signature occupies a number of lines of wiki markup and could be confusing on large discussion pages or where a user is using a custom skin or is otherwise unable to decipher it. Please consider reducing the use of XHTML tags. Thank you. Rob Church 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. A few people have commented on this, so I've now greatly simplified it. --Oscarthecat 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Rob Church 10:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man, it's nice to be noticed! Appreciated it! AMac2002 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is with regret that I have to inform you that your nomination for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion. Kep up the good work and I look forward to seeing a nomination with your name on it again in the future. --

Francs2000

I voted for you, thought you deserved it. mmeinhart 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What percent of the vote do you have to have? You had 33 for and only 15 against. Too bad. Oh, well maybe next time :) - Mike"mjg0503"_talk 16:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mind me asking, are you the same Oscarthecat who contributes to the free.uk.tv.bigbrother newsgroup? Had to ask when I saw your name!--leaky_caldron 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You put the {{

I placed the {{

Neutrality}} flag @ 21:44 (GMT) with comments on the Talk Page to which you contributed a few minutes later. You removed it in your subsequent edit 10 minutes later. btw, you said you were "not sure" whether you'd met Jowell. Surely you would remember, or do you meet so many politicians that they are just a vauge memory?--leaky_caldron

01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How will the Neutrality issue be resolved? Is it normal for someone to change the title and content of an article with so many links without suggesting the changes first on the discussion page? seems a bit anarchic to me.leaky_caldron 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat, my recent contribution to Gmail was NOT vandalism. Let me give you an example of what I was attempting to explain:

Let's say that you are using Outlook Express (POP3) in conjunction with a Gmail account called [email protected]. If you were to try to email yourself -- the FROM and TO fields are both [email protected] -- Gmail will not allow Outlook Express to download the email. The email that you sent to yourself will only be accessible via the web-based interface. CCing yourself would have a similar result. All of the workarounds that I attempted have failed. The final sentence found at the link below is Google's attempt to describe this behavior:

http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13291&topic=1555

You can also find many references to this issue in the Gmail section of Google Groups. Any ideas you may have on how to improve the wording that I originally submitted would be appreciated. --Ycaps123 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

The text read As of March 2006, it is notIt is not pOne cannot send a CC to a Gmail account via POP3 and then receive texpect to one's own Gmail account and then to send aagiven Gmail account using POP3 a CC and then receive it via POP3.

As such, it didn't make much sense. I reverted with an explanation of why, so that it could be re-entered, without the mistakes. --Oscarthecat 08:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct of course... my apologies. I had been experimenting with exactly where I wanted to put the missing feature in the list. I guess I'll have to start writing my edits in a word processor instead of editing "on the fly". I am still having problems finding the optimal wording, if you'd like to help...? --Ycaps123 17:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying until now. I've been on vacation. Anyway, I tried your [email protected] idea several times and with variations. All of the emails reached my webmail inbox but not my Apple Mail inbox (Outlook Express was just an example). This is because Gmail labeled the sender of the emails as "me". All "me" emails fail to download to my POP inbox. It seems to me that Google does not want people to be able to send emails to themselves and then access those messages via POP. The only workaround that I have found is resetting "Forwarding and POP". Doing so will allow any messages from "me" that are currently in my webmail inbox to be downloaded via POP. Unfortunately, any new messages sent to myself after that point will not download via POP until I do the reset once again -- not much of a workaround. Am I making any sense? --Ycaps123 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Yes, makes sense. Unsure how we're going to word this in the article - it certainly wants documenting in the article, as a shortcoming of the gmail system. --Oscarthecat 20:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been a lot going on with the

Criticism of Gmail. It seems obvious to me that whatever wording we decide upon should be placed in the new article. Should we wait until the neutrality dispute is resolved?Ycaps123

18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourohfour 15:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Oscar, I've noticed your nice contributions on the V for Vendetta page (in particular in increasing the readibility of the article) and would like your expert advice on references.

1. In the symbolism section, there are 5 references in the intro with information pertaining to most of the points for the "Modern American" portion.
2. Some of these articles pertain to each point in the section, some only to a single point.
3. For the ones that pertain to each article, how do I duplicate the very same reference, while avoiding a new numbering? At this point in time, I cannot do that, one reference will have two distinct numbers, when placed in two seperate locations.

(Basically, APA format simply allows) --> (Oscar, 1994), which can be repeated over and over. Is there a way to repeat this reference over and over with only using one number?

(I can't seem to find this in the reference section.) An answer would be appreciated, or maybe an intro to where I might find this info.

Again, thank!

--P-Chan 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi P-Chan. To point at the same reference multiple times, you need to give its first occurrence a name. The article already has such a ref, which you can see as <ref name="imdb2">{{cite web | publisher=amazon.com | work=imdb.com | title=Release dates | url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/releaseinfo | accessdate=18 March | accessyear=2006}}</ref>. Any later parts of the article wanting to point at the same reference can just use <ref name="imdb2" />. There's a good example at

Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Example_Wiki_code

. Give it a try, let me know if you have any troubles with it.

--Oscarthecat 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oscar, I just finished trying out the system you mentioned and (after a couple of errors) got it to work just fine. It really helps to keep things uncluttered. I'll be sure to do this in the future. Thanks!--P-Chan 21:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oscarthecat. I'm going to launch a GA for the V for Vendetta (film) in the next 24 hours, unless there is some objection from any of the major editors/contributers. Is there any imput you'd like to add before we launch it? If you see any red flags in the next little while, it would be appreciated if you could comment on them in the talk page. Your help is always totally awesome. Thanks!--P-Chan 05:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oscar, the V for Vendetta (film) article is currently in a nomination for an FA status. If you feel that you support the article, then by all means. Just an FYI.  :) Cheers dude!--P-Chan 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Oscar.--P-Chan 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oscar, why did you switch the formatting from inline citation to those awful superscripts? Didn't we discuss this once a while back? Further, Harvard referencing is one of the three methods listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#citation_styles I fail to see your reason for changing it and reverting hours of my work for no reason. Can you please explain your rationale? Thank you. -- Avi 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I didn't revert hours of hour work, I merely improved on it. For instance, the web_reference it was using became deprecated [1], so needed fixing. Also, article was being restructured (significantly, many parts moved to separate articles, each with their own reference sections), keeping the original ref style would have made this tricky and rather tedious. What is it you don't like about the reference style that's on there now? It seems to be widely used on many featured articles. --Oscarthecat 06:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to your message the PS2 main buttons are analogue, digital buttons are not pressure sensitive due to binary's on or off nature where as analogue is a frequency enabling the force applied to the button or sensor to be measured. A quick google of ps2 analogue controller buttons will confirm this. I also did research on the 360 controller and as far as i can tell the main face buttons are digital, the only analogue buttons being teh triggers. Apart from the thumbsticks which are again analogue all otehr buttons are digital Hope that cleared that up for you --TheEnlightened

We tend to wikify relevant names in references, that's why I restored the link at

Yeah, I'm aware of that guidance. But on the talk page of that,

Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context, you can see one discussion on linking again in a new section, but take a commmon sense approach. But yeah, I think you have the right idea, what I'm thinking of is stuff like Chuck's comment there You do not need to make a link in a new section if the last time the link appeared was "recently" in the article. If you are 5-pages down from the last time it was linked, it wouldn't hurt to link again. That's a discussion that's been held in numerous pages, but I can't be bothered to track them down, but they all result in the same sort of consensus that you've indicated to me; a common sense approach. Steve block talk

11:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

--P-Chan 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Thanks Oscar! :) --P-Chan 10:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, on your user page, it says "3000+: This user has over 3,00 edits" (three hundred not three thousand). Kernow 15:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Cat. I've added some comments at Talk:Bill Gates regarding the changes to the article this morning. Please jump in! Kuru ^talk 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after this user. I did notice he had blanked a number of F/OSS projects articles. I also cleaned up a few other articles he'd blanked. He stopped for a while but has again removed content from Warez. At least he provided an edit summary this time. Imroy 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy would appear to be a sock puppet. 'Gaoos' just made similar changes to the GIMP article, check out his contributions. Look familiar? Some trouble-maker's creating sock-puppet accounts to carry out identical vandalism as our 'Starship Trooper' friend. Imroy 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

Please respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please come to Xbox 360 to discuss about the subject, thank you. Kenimaru 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

subst:smile3

}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Actually, requests for protection go

No problem. :) I used to patrol the protection request page. It's a Wikipedia backwater. Lots of people don't know about it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you noticed already -- but that wasn't me who was adding the Tescos stuff to Juggernaut -- I was removing it.

~CS

12:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, erroneously put a comment on your talk page, but then realised the error of my ways. Please keep up the good work patrolling the Juggernaut page. --Oscarthecat 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

		A toast!
		To all your contributions and the formatting work you did for the V for Vendetta (film) article. Gave it a nice polished feel. Great stuff, Oscarthecat! --P-Chan 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean plans on the scale of the VFV (filme) article?  :) Not right away. I'll probably work on the V for Vendetta article next, since I already have the subject matter expertise now... but I'll take it slow! (After that... something completely different.) I didn't realize at first just how much dedication the FAs take. But now I do, and I'll think twice before I go for it again.  :) Cheers dude. --P-Chan 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to

Why you delete GROU.PS link in Google Groups page? GROU.PS is an online service that takes google, msn and yahoo's groups approaches one step ahead. it's already available on yahoo groups and msn groups pages.. and this is not an external link; a Wikipedia link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esokullu (talk • contribs)

Because it's a little-known and little-used site. It has an

WP:EL which discusses the use of external links. Eager to discuss this with you, to reach a concensus. Hope this helps. --Oscarthecat

05:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to rename an image, see Talk:Nintendo_DS_Lite#Image_name. Tried the help pages, couldn't find any advice. Thanks --Oscarthecat 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Images can't really be renamed, you need to save it to your hard disk then re-upload it under a new filename. If you do that - make sure you keep all the of the original information (uploader, date, licence etc).

Then you can get the old image speedy deleted using {{db|duplicate, see [[:Image:*******.jpg]]}} or something.--Commander Keane 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell you where I saw it, but somewhere in Wikipedia guidelines it states that unless a date is vital to the context of the article it's not wiki linked. I just watched a bot go around to most of the comics articles that I watchlist and remove excessive linking of dates. CovenantD 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the closest I could find in 2 minutes of searching:

Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context CovenantD

21:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Boy, they like to bury certain key bits of info, don't they? I'll keep that in mind for future use. CovenantD 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I recently came accross one of your edits to a different page and noticed that you have an image in your signature. Images are not allowed per our