User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 5
 | 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. |
Ugg boots
Thanks for pointing out the German and Spanish ugg boot articles - that's changed how I feel about some issues. :( I'm not sure how to proceed, but the Spanish article in particular is of interest, and I'll need to keep it in mind. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hodwy TMCk, I've just semied
Thanks for the assistance
I was struggling to figure out how to undo my edits that broke the CRU emails page. I think I have it right now. --News Historian (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Reverting
please go to section I have started explaining the rationale for the edits on MoMK at the talk page HERE.Overagainst (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- You gave a rational only for one of your edits there but neglected to at least source this edit within the article. Another problem with Follain as source is that he is the only one using that term and every single other RS is not. If you check on the translation of the Massei report (which is of course not a RS either but still helpful in determination of facts) you'll find that the Italian legal term of "Concorso" was translated to English as "Complicity" with a footnote that explains the term further. The English term of "complicity" in legal terms doesn't fit the more correct term of "murder in company". there is indeed a big difference and we don't want to confuse our readers with giving a false impression, don't we. So either show that more RS's reported it using the same translation or [what I think would be possible and the only way to go into a detail not reported as such in the mainstream media] use the Italian term in the article with a footnote explaining it.talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For this. I just went back to check his contributions, saw he'd over-written an existing reference and when I got there to fix it, you had done it already. --GraemeL (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I actually was edit-conflicting with you when I tried to undo those edits and so I just replaced what was missing. It's always such a hassle when spam or vandalism doesn't get reverted right away. Cheers, talk) 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
 
|
Happy 2012 !!! | |
| Dear TMCk, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot SMM. What a nice surprise. Same to you,
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dana Loesch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, curious I see where you want to keep the nasal irrigation section free of unintended advertising and I guess that makes sense but than why are both Alkalol and Nasaline advertised in the content. These are both commercial tradenames and not product descriptions. Nasaline is simply a manual syringe irrigation device and Aklalol is a herbal saline based mucolytic irrigant. If you are to be consistent the decriptions of the products should be used an not the tradenames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubdrink44 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article needs indeed some clean-up re promo and other. You can fix it yourself (that is what WP is all about) but if I find the time, nerv and "lust" I'll work on it. At the time I just removed the most recent and most obvious promo-spam but were reluctend to go further.
BTW, you seem to have edited under at least two different accounts (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've checked and removed the promotions you've mentioned.talk) 01:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've checked and removed the promotions you've mentioned.
I understand why you reverted my change to this article, but I was trying to fix a much larger flaw. If you read the "Movements on 1 and 2 November" subheading of the Rudy Guede section, you could draw the conclusion that Guede never went to Kercher's home on those two days. But DNA evidence indicates he was there, as does the court decision. Is it relevant that Guede went to Kercher's home during the time period that the subheading purports to cover? It is so misleading as it stands that perhaps that section should be removed entirely. (BTW, I leave this message here because the article's talk page is protected, although not the article itself, which seems quite strange) 66.66.149.221 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Responded at IP's talkpage.talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Watch article
Hello. You reverted, without discussion, a book reference I had added to the watch article. Although the published book is called "Practical Watch Repairing", it's got a lot of historical, technical, and background information useful to the article. I've put it back in with explanation. I also explored WP:EL and didn't think it prohibited this particular case.
- De Carle, Donald, (Illustrations by E. A. Ayres), Practical Watch Repairing, 3rd edition, New York : Skyhorse Pub., 2008. ISBN 9781602393578. Significant information on watches, their history, and inner workings.Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts I'll leave it there. Also not much about clocks history itself, I think that enough readers are interested in the inner workings of a clock (like myself) and this seems to a very interesting book to cover this side. And sorry for the late response.talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts I'll leave it there. Also not much about clocks history itself, I think that enough readers are interested in the inner workings of a clock (like myself) and this seems to a very interesting book to cover this side. And sorry for the late response.
Jewish Defense League
Hi,
When I deleted the source backing up the claim that "Members of the JDL have put graffiti on the walls of Palestinian houses with the words "Gas the Arabs" and "Arabs to the gas chambers", you referred me to
Regards, LevelBasis (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with the reliability of the source it will be determent at the RS-noticeboard. You being most likely a block-evading sock will be dealt by other means. Cheers, talk) 22:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- And what if there is no response at the noticeboard?
- I am no sock.
- Grtz, LevelBasis (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
9/11 RfC
Since you contributed to discussion on this issue please comment at this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Two years in a row
You got me two years in a row! However, this time, I have an additional defense. When I looked at the edit it was not April 1st in my part of the world, and I had way too much wine for dinner.
I am surprised, though, that you bothered. My last attempt to be nice to you was met with not so nice edits. [1]
Having said that, we seem to by on the same side of issues more often than not now that the trial is over. (see the Martin shooting article).
Cheers for getting me again.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- (passing by) Funny as hell...
<snickers>
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's way easier to be nice, for both of us, when article content isn't involved. Cheers, reliable sources. Granted, it's a judgement call, but I've never argued that reliable sources shouldn't have reported on something because I personally don't feel that they're connected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The issue discussed lately and leading to the RFC mentioned two sections above.talk) 23:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Sorry, I didn't understand before that direct/hot references are not allowed.
Thanks
Howdy TMCk, thanks for cleaning up after me on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Was_gesagt_werden_muss
Could you have a look at that page's talk page, and let me know why it's under arbitration? doesn't seem to make sense.
Question re excessive edit
Could you have a look at the recent edit of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Must_Be_Said by SlimVirgin , deleting 10 references and basically destroying work of others Thetilo (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Santorum
Could you point me to where the source says that? I looked for it. Thanks! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just a sec.talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you couldn't find it; It is right after the 62% claim. Quote from the source:
"He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure."
This seems very clear to me.talk) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) - ...and of course, you're welcome :) talk) 00:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I couldn't find it because I clicked on the wrong link. After finding the correct one, it is indeed very clear. Regards. talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman Polanski
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Roman Polanski". Thank you. --Psalm84 (talk
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I couldn't find it because I clicked on the wrong link. After finding the correct one, it is indeed very clear. Regards.
Selmedica
The link to Mike young is not advertising, it's to provide legal substantiation that Selmedica as a company constitutes a criminal enterprise with Perry Belcher as the felon in charge of the scheme to defraud people with medical issues through the sale of fake medication by impersonating a medical professional.
A better link would perhaps be to http://mikeyounglaw.com/perry-belcher-criminal-records/ where the arrest and conviction record itself is available. It seems important to cite a verifiable and authoritative legal source on the nature of Selmedica as a criminal enterprise.
HealthyHabit (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. As a start you might want to make yourself familiar with our talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)- would bypass the advertising issue entirely, but direct linking to PDF documents is a poor practice. The news reports of Belcher's arrest, his guilty plea and the asset forfeiture seems to have vanished from most media outlets, leaving Mike Young maintaining his court documents publicly available as one of the major substantiations of Belcher's criminal record. HealthyHabit (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Facts do not get a lot more substantiated than a lawyer acting in his role as an officer of the court presenting the legal documents of an individual's case history, even if the lawyer in question also advertises his services around the presentation of fact. The direct link to the PDF of the criminal record in question - http://mikeyounglaw.com/belcher-criminal-records.pdf
Солнцезащитные очки
Вы русского языка не понимаете, чи шо??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.169.162 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- E voce nao fala portugues etc. Your point?talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Was wondering...
...why you mark all your edits as minor. Thanks, Shearonink (talk
- Not all but I mark maintenance edits which I judge to be uncontroversial as minor. I must do something right there since I barely get reverted, (vandals and "disruptors" excluded.) Hope that helps. BTW, I'm wondering why you suddenly pop up here on the same subject... but you're asking nicely and I react to nice with nice.talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I can't remember how I ended up here...probably another one of my Wikipedia 'rabbit holes'....you know, when you are editing an article and then you read something and then you click on a link and then another link and before you know it you look at the page and think "now, how the hell did I end up *here*?"...therefore, a 'rabbit hole'. As to the minor edits, I'm very sparing with the minor edits box myself and only use it for simple spelling corrections or a single missing bracket...stuff like that. I figure if anyone could question my edits as not being minor, then my change (correcting spelling or adding that missing bracket or whatever), regardless of what *I* think?....heh, I guess it ain't minor. So when I come across an editor who seems to use it differently I wonder about it. talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I suppose so...you do have a different style with the minors than mine but heh, I guess maybe I try to mostly edit/revert softly and not carry any (open to interpretation lol) "big" sticks ;)... talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)) 10:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Clean-keeper. I've got to say, I'm a more than a little concerned about this too. The minor edit box checkbox is designed to make things easier for other editors, for simple, obvious changes (like spelling corrections) that no one could object to. Many editors will remove minor edits from their watchlist, just as they remove bot edits. I worry that you think either adding new content to a BLP is minor or removing content which has been there for 2 years could be considered minor edits. This is far beyond "interpretation", those two edits are clearly covered in Help:Minor edit, as are half a dozen more edits that I've found. Please stop marking edits as minor, if you continue to flout this behavioural guideline, it is likely you will be blocked from editing. WormTT(talk
- Hmmmm, I suppose so...you do have a different style with the minors than mine but heh, I guess maybe I try to mostly edit/revert softly and not carry any (open to interpretation lol) "big" sticks ;)...
- Heh, I can't remember how I ended up here...probably another one of my Wikipedia 'rabbit holes'....you know, when you are editing an article and then you read something and then you click on a link and then another link and before you know it you look at the page and think "now, how the hell did I end up *here*?"...therefore, a 'rabbit hole'. As to the minor edits, I'm very sparing with the minor edits box myself and only use it for simple spelling corrections or a single missing bracket...stuff like that. I figure if anyone could question my edits as not being minor, then my change (correcting spelling or adding that missing bracket or whatever), regardless of what *I* think?....heh, I guess it ain't minor. So when I come across an editor who seems to use it differently I wonder about it.
- You had to dig deeper to find something and yet you got only the second one right. Take a closer look at the first dif and you'll see that I didn't add that content in the first place, I removed it as vandalism, reverted back when I realized I was mistaken and simply added a missing citation to it. If you'd like to block me or go to another venue to get me blocked, that's your decision and you're free to do so, but please don't post threats on my talk. Also, I've been here long enough and enjoyed myself but if the bureaucrats are closing in on me, I have no problem to leave the project for good (it's not worth a bottle of Xanax). If that is your intention, go ahead, b/c that is what you'll get out of it. Cheers, talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've no intention to block you and losing a good editor is he last thing I want. I just ask that you edit within community norms. You are aware of the problem, if you carry on then that's your choice, I'm just pointing out the consequences. talk) 18:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've no intention to block you and losing a good editor is he last thing I want. I just ask that you edit within community norms. You are aware of the problem, if you carry on then that's your choice, I'm just pointing out the consequences.
- The issue discussed lately and leading to the RFC mentioned two sections above.
Hey, I noticed...
that you've edited the Johnny Cash article in the past, I found this pic on Commons the other day (looking for a "thinking" pic)...
- Enjoy, talk) 02:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Enjoy,
- Heh, I didn't even know where it was used. Thanks for pointing that out. Ghormeh Sabzi where he removes the link to Afghan cuisine and Pakistani cuisine, even though that dish is an integral part of both: Afghan and Pakistani (cf. Korma). The fact that he proclaims Afghans being "Mongols" while celebrating the originally Turko-Mongol Ghorma Sabzi ("Qaurma" is a Turko-Mongol word and was introduced to Persia by invading Turks and Mongols; the word is variously pronounced accross Asia, "Korma", "Qurma", "Ghormeh", etc, all going back to that original Turko-Mongol word meaning "grilling of Azid") as an "Iranian dish" related to "Mediterranean food" shows, that he does not have much knowledge but only has a political and maybe racist agenda. His claim that Iranian food has no relation with neighbouring foods but is instead related to Spanish, Italian and French food is - to be frankly - ridiculously stupid. His campain and attacks against and on theHazara people has a racist tone. He is ignoring and rejecting scholarly opinions, and tries to force an unacceptable racist element to purely scholastic and linguistic classifications (such as Iranian peoples and Iranian languages). I did try to explain it to him, even added links. But he ignores that. Those articles need to be protected in the versions BEFORE this user began to vandalize them. The list includes:Hazara people, Iranian peoples, Iranian cuisine, etc. If you need real and reliable scholastic articles about these subjects (I have full access to the ) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: You can ask for page protection yourself at Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA); see map). In fact, going by this specific Haplogroup, the Hazara are more "Indo-European" than the Persians of Iran. It's funny that they are still being excluded by this user (who claims to have knowledge) while these large Persian-speaking populations of Iran (who are - in terms of genetics - not any different than the Hazaras) are considered "Persians". What a racist double-standard ... only because most of the Hazaras have Mongolid physical features ... --Lysozym (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: You can ask for page protection yourself at
- The highest frequency of Y-DNA types found in Hazara's in C3, which is associated with the Mongols and Kazakhs. Pointing out therefore that Hazara's are of Mongol descent is a fact, and is merely keeping in line with what is presented elsewhere anyway. Also, what Iranians know as Ghorme sabzi is not the same dish as those you posted above. The Afghan dish is close, but not the same. The Pakistani one looks completely different. Separate articles can be made for these two. Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) in other populations and does hint to a genetic link with Mongols. But that does NOT mean that they are NOT related to neighbopuring peoples, as you claim. Of course the Hazaras are frelated to neighbouring peoples. Their relationship with Tajiks and Pashtuns is closer than with Mongols. As this map clearly shows, the Hazara have more West and South Asian genes than East Asian. That proves that there is an important East Asian - maybe directly Mongol imprint - but it totally rejects your ridiculous claim that the Hazara are not related to neibouring peoples and that they are not Iranian. In scholarly literature, they are always identified as Indo-European and Iranian: [2]. As for this edit of yours: could you please explain to all of us which part of that paper you relate to Hazaras and where exactly the Hazaras are mentioned?! --Lysozym (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- As i've already mentioned, the most frequent Y-DNA chromosome type found in that sample of Hazara's who were tested in that study was C3 as you can see here - [3], which is an East Asian type associated with Mongols and Kazakhs. Also, the study from which you picked that pie chart from has this to say about the Hazara's:
- "A good, although surprising, example of concordance between the two systems is the Hazara, who claim to be the direct male-line descendants of Genghis Khan’s army. The presence and time depth of the Y-chromosomal haplogroup C* (xC3c) in the Hazara, along with its absence from neighboring populations, has been interpreted as the genetic legacy of Genghis Khan and his male relatives (Qamar et al. 2002; Zerjal et al. 2003). Our results indicate that the Hazara are also characterized by very high frequencies of eastern Eurasian mtDNAs (35%, table 2, fig. 1), which are virtually absent from bordering populations, suggesting that the male descendants of Genghis Khan, or other Mongols, were accompanied by women of East Asian ancestry." [4]
- So even according to a second study, one which you kindly provided above, referring to the origin of the Hazara's as a people of Mongol descent is both factual and keeping in line with what is presented about them elsewhere. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)are related to neighbouring Non-Mongol peoples and may have ultimate origins among the original Indo-Iranian population of Afghanistan?
- So, do I understand you correctly that 1/3 of the Hazaras genetics (= genetics of the samples tested) defines their origins and that the 2/3 rest do not have any importance?! Is that correct? Do we all understand you correctly that you categorically reject any relationship of Hazaras with their neighbours - despite a 2/3 (= ~60%) match in genetics - and reject any kind of (partial) origins from native Iranian and Indo-Iranian populations?! You deny the FACT that these Hazara
- And I am asking you once again: you claim that I am "lying" and that I should read THIS article in order to understand. Since you seem to have read it and fully understood it, as you claim: could you please explain to all of us where exactly it talks about the Hazaras and what it has to say about them?! --) 04:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
Baking in a quote in a already long article is not easy, but reverting with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page was not really helping. It would have been better if you tried to respond with your own BOLD edit. With no civil discussion on the talk, I can only do a few attempts at baking the quote in and then blindly hope that "it works". Belorn (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I said what I had to say about the edit and there was nothing more for the talkpage left. I see no problems with the edits you made since though.talk) 14:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Please go here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016:_Obama%27s_America#Who_paid_for_it.3F
There is a question about your peremptory deletion of my question. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.143.112 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)