Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erlang (programming language), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlang (programming language). Thank you. Fikusfail (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the layout of the Typography article was perfect with both images righ-aligned. Please do not mess with layout like that without having a good reason for doing so. Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit, but within reason my friend. Since your edit was unfounded and unreasonable, I changed it back to right-aligned. —Arbo talk 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it looked bad on my screen, because there was {{clear}} and it caused lots of free space. So I removed it and then the edit link of the next section was moved out of its proper place (i have wide screen, it was okay at lower widths). I hate when this happens so I did what I did. Now I added {{FixBunching}} and it looks okay with both images on the right. Svick (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the explanation. You're most welcome to continue making constructive edits to the article. The main goal is to make the process constructive and to move articles forward. For you that involves coming up with solutions which work for your widescreen display as well as the more common 4:3 screens. Thanks. Have a good time, and feel free to make suggestions and ask questions. As the permanent overseer of Typography and related articles at WP I am no longer an active contributor but remain a consultant editor. So you have my ear and unless confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary I will always assume your edits are made in good faith — Arbo talk 20:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't change formulas that are typeset in html to <math> mode without explanation or discussion. Most mathematics editors seem to feel that formulas look better when typeset in html, because of irregularities in the texvc rendering engine. The Manual of Style (mathematics) says that either way is acceptable. In practice, however, inline formulas should generally be typeset in html rather than <math>. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have read the MOS before making these changes. I still think, that is better than e, but I'll avoid editing other people's texts this way in the future. Svick (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the formatting changes you made to other articles seemed reasonable. But I would avoid changing html formatting to <math> formatting. Many people feel that (possibly in their browsers) the html looks better than the <math>. At any rate, the html is sometimes more flexible and lacks the text-alignment problems associated with Wikipedia's TeX engine. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making improvements to the Defrag article, but I would like to know where you got the information about DiskTrix UltimateDefrag being able to defrag all NTFS metadata files. I couldn't find it on their web site. Donn Edwards (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are refering to this edit, but I didn't do that edit. I never even heard of DiskTrix UltimateDefrag. Svick (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your edit to Star Trek. I'm not sure what you intended, but the image was not displaying after your edit. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was temporarily broken because of this edit to the template, so I repaired it. But the template was quickly changed back, so it was broken again. Thank you for fixing it back. Svick (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link, I couldnt quite understand it myself, I appreciate your help :) Neftchi (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Svick (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my question about the "awkward" inline citation. I hope you don't mind, I'm copying your response to my talk page so I can later reference that scripting hint you gave me. Thanks again for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Of course I don't mind. I'm glad I could help. Svick (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Desktop Watchlist Settings.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems I forgot to add the licence. It is there now. Thanks for notifying me. Svick (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's giving me an error readout, even though the only change that was made is yours. Help! :( Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "error readout"? The template seems to be working fine for me after your last edit. By the way, next time when you are creating new ad, you don't have to (although you can if you want) replace previously deleted one but you can instead add it after the last one, so that the same number doesn't represent different ads over time. Svick (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is showing a fact that is an obvious cause of confusion in scientific literature and then characterizing it as "unfortunate" a point of view? It looks to me that using "unfortunate" for something that is clearly negative should be acceptable. I wonder. Not critical though. Always a way around exists... -- Comps (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the confusion is obviously unfortunate, but that, from the point of view of someone who would like SS2PL to be called S2PL and S2PL to be called something else, it isn't unfortunate. But now I realize that this isn't a minor POV, this is nobody's POV, so it undoubtedly is unfortunate. Svick (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for adding multiple selective ads to {{wikipedia ads}}.

-- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad I could help. Svick (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox law school}} is not displaying correctly in many articles. Please see Berkeley Law as only one example. In the header, you'll see two characters, "|-". Could you help fix this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid my edit that seemed to be the cause of this problem. I think it is fixed now. Svick (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it so quickly! :) Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Svick. In a recent cleanup I seem to have taken out one of your changes. Did you intend to remove the page count from the book? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I intended to do, because as the documentation to Template:Cite book says: "These parameters [page and pages] are for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book." Svick (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I restored your change. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, where would be somewhere to put the question? Please. reply on my Talk page.

Tim Tebow ROCKS!!!!!! (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just came here to thank you for your help and kindness answering my problem about the infobox pictures. I know two pictures may look ugly there but since I like both of those players I couldn't leave one of them out. Thanks again. wish you the best. -peace HipHopSavior (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Also, you probably misunderstood me, I meant that the code looks ugly, not the resulting infobox. Svick (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Svick for his incredibly insightful ideas. Thank you for helping so many editors everyday, you are a true benefit to the project. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. My first barnstar! Svick (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you edited Montenegrin political party infobox, and while you edited it, you removed the red color. I am not sure why you changed it as it seemed to work very well. For e.g. the same way it is used for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian political parties. Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 12:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In most other countries' political party infoboxes, the color of the infobox is the color of the party (and can be set by the colorcode parameter), and not the same for the whole country, and I think this makes sense. The change of color was only minor part of my change. If you still think that all Montenegrin parties' infoboxes should be red, I will revert your revert and then change the default color from transparent to red. Svick (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw that on other political parties sites. Well we can do it like that (to have other colors for each parties) but then we need to determine which color to be used for each political party. Rave92^(talk) 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of maybe using the same code as e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Slovenian_Political_Party ? Rave92^(talk) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Montenegrin political party |party_name = My party |leader = Svick |foundation = |colorcode=red }}

{{Infobox Slovenian Political Party |name_english = My party |leader = Svick |foundation = |colorcode=red }}

I'm in the middle of changing all national political party infoboxes to use {{Infobox political party}} (see my proposal), as I did to the Montenegrin infobox and plan to do to the Slovenian one too. I don't like the way these infoboxes are coded, because they contain lots of duplicated code (the same in every infobox) and don't always work correctly, e.g. if you don't enter some parameters or leave them blank, they shouldn't be visible. See examples on the right, their code is:

{{Infobox Montenegrin political party
|party_name = My party
|leader = Svick
|foundation = 
|colorcode=red
}}

{{Infobox Slovenian Political Party
|name_english = My party
|leader = Svick
|foundation =
|colorcode=red
}}

You can see that the Montenegrin infobox works correctly, while the Slovenian one doesn't. Also, I think that the new version of these infoboxes looks better, but that's subjective.

So, the code in Slovenian infobox is essentially the same as the code that was in Montenegrin infobox before my change, and I really wouldn't like it if it was changed to somethink like this. What don't you like in the current version? Svick (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I tried adding colors, but it barely showed it. Try adding colors on some political party (Montenegrin) and you will see what I mean. Rave92^(talk) 13:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

{{{name_english}}} {{{name_native}}}
{{{logo}}}
Leader	{{{leader}}}
Founded	{{{foundation}}}
Headquarters	{{{headquarters}}}
Ideology	{{{ideology}}}
International affiliation	{{{international}}}
European affiliation	{{{european}}}
Official colors	{{{colors}}}
Website
{{{website}}}
{{{footnotes}}}

You're right that the color is much less prominent in the new version (it has 1 pixel lines above and below the party's names and above the links to other related articles). But that's one of the reasons why I like it better. Although making these lines little wider could be a good idea. See the third example on the right. Do you think it's better? And do you think it's enough? (I do.) Also I added colors to previous examples for comparison. Svick (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it looks a lot better like that (3rd one). Rave92^(talk) 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be better to have more lines like older one? Rave92^(talk) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed {{Infobox political party}} to have wider colored lines, so that all infoboxes that use it (including {{Infobox Montenegrin political party}}) will have them wider.

I don't think that more lines would be better. Also it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do that using {{Infobox political party}}, which uses {{Infobox}}. And I think {{Infobox}} doesn't allow this for a good reason. Too much styling is usually bad. Svick (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you are right. You will have a lot of work to change all those codes (All European political parties right?) xD. Rave92^(talk) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Not just European, the whole Category:Political party infobox templates by country (except those that are unused). Svick (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, anyway I added colors, so you can check if you want. Rave92^(talk) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are ok. Svick (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Rave92^(talk) 16:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks on the navboxy template advice. How would I set the table width as you recommended? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Add inline CSS style to the table that sets its width. Also, you have a mistake in the table code now, classes shouldn't be delimited by semicolon. When you do both these changes, first line of your table shoud look like this:

{| class="wikitable collapsible" style="width:700px"

Svick (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks a bunch. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey , i uploaded this File:Qxz-ad196.gif, but i kept messing up the template so i gave up. Could you please add it to Template:Wikipedia ads, I reverted my trials. Eli+ 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea already added your ad. Have you read the documentation? If you did, it seems you didn't understand correctly, what should be done. If that is the case, could you help me make the documentation better, so that other users understood, what they should do? Svick (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		...for solving our WP:VPT conundrum. Silly Brits and their alternate^Hive spelling settings! Keep up the good work, –xenotalk 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		Great work with the Wikipedia ads templates. Rd232 talk 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Peruvian political party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the country parameter. That was a really good idea, which solves quite a few problems. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "quite a few problems"? The only think I know about (and the reason why I did it) is that you don't have to write the three links in footnotes and and still get them. Svick (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After the "Brazil" infobox was closed as delete at TFD, I was trying to figure out a simple way to include the three links at the bottom in the generic infobox. The country parameter is a very simple solution. Excellent idea. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Svick (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Timbits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is article does not meet the standards of inclusion and is redundant to the donut holes section of the doughnut article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hellenic Front Movement for Social Democracy Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand Equal Values Party World Socialist Party (New Zealand) One New Zealand Party Liberal Party of Ukraine New National Party (Grenada) Elections in Ukraine Sölvesborg Party Party of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs of Ukraine New Democracy (Sweden) WIN Party Te Tawharau Kharkiv Democratic People's Party (Turkey) Liberalism and centrism in Sweden Supreme Court of Ukraine Democratic Convergence of Catalonia

Cleanup Constitution of Turkey Roger Douglas Green Party (Brazil) Merge Green Nepal Party Parliament of New Zealand Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party Add Sources New Zealand Family Rights Protection Party Socialist Workers Organization (New Zealand) Elections in Mexico Wikify Patpong Columbia House Old Regular Baptist Expand Politics of Ukraine The Pirate Bay Grand National Assembly of Turkey

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article (along with Meretz) is a long-term victim of vandalism from Sockpuppets of Runtshit. Long-term semi-protection seems to have been the only effective tool to stop it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for the desktop watchlist. If it doesn't do it automatically, would you make it automatically update one's watchlist every minute or so?  Btilm  22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It does update every 10 minutes automatically and I updated the documentation to say so. I think that 10minutes is about the right interval, but I could make that configurable. Thanks for the suggestion anyway. Svick (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to be a general opinion that articles like "Requiescat in pace" are desirable. So I accept it. I had things to write in AfD that were not written because the AfD was closed, but it would probably not have affected the outcome. --Fartherred (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: Stackoverflow is primarily about gaining reputation (points). Questions and answers are secondary to many, if not most, of its users.

Just my 2ct :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.199.118 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about what you or I think, but what reliable sources say. Unfortunately, the are are almost no such sources about SO, so we have to use what the site itself says ("Stack Overflow is a programming Q & A site") or Slashdot article about it ("Spolsky's Software Q-and-A Site"). Do you have any source that supports your view? Svick (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/country/?CountryID=103 http://albania.generalanswers.org/ http://www.consolatoalbanesemilano.org/lalbania_oggi.html

I have the references here, but i changed that because someone is sure that in Albania (the only in the world) have a people 100% religious. So, if you see, albania does'n have a totaly religion.

And, this is the reference of albanian institute: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15738681/Feja-ne-Shqiperi1

Please, keep neutral wikipedia. Thanks!--Albopedian (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Normally it works fine, those music pages don't follow the normal citation reference method and that may have caused AWB to do an error. TJ Spyke 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charla_nash

You see there is a spelling error in the Charla Nash article's title.

The last name Nash is not spelled properly. The letter "N" should be in upper case! Not in lower case!

Please fix the title of the article in the link about so it reads: Charla Nash

Not like this: Charla nash

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.37.227 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do that, but I can't, because the page Charla Nash already exists (and redirects to Travis (chimpanzee)). Because that article will almost certainly be soon deleted or redirected to Travis (chimpanzee) too, I think this isn't worth pursuing. Svick (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All I did was remove the part under the name "famous quote". How is this quote famous? Who says its famous? Dobrica Cosic is the best selled writer in history of Serbian language. When he wrote that quote, it was ironic and it is obvious from reading the whole book that the quote is ment to be ironic.

I dont know why did you revert my change? Do you seriously think that that quote should be a part of that article? Mind you, he is the most important Serbian writer of the last 200 years, so why would a few sentences be more important then the rest?

Someone put it only to say: "Look, if Cosic writes so bad about Serbs, then they must be a bad nation".

I dont understand why you reverted my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at te page after your edits? After your first edit, after your second edit. The page was completely broken, so no, that's not all you did. If you think the quote shouldn't be there, remove it, but try not to break the article. Svick (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But please when you have time take a look and you will see that 90 precent of english wikipedia articles about subject about Serbia are strongly anti-serbian.

I used to improve a lot of articles in 2006, but sadly I was banned by croatian fascist and albanian-bosnian muslim militants, so I couldnt change anything, then I created a lot of other account, but they kept blocking me, so I gave up on improving articles in english Wikipedia, but this one was too anti-serbian for me to just overlook it like I do with the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you were blocked if you only tried to improve Wikipedia and didn't personally attack other editors or something similar (and the way you call them now suggests that this is the case), but it certainly is possible. You should've tried to appeal the block back then, not create new accounts. And you are welcome to help improve Wikipedia now. Svick (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Your positive impact on Wikipedia has not gone unnoticed. Thank you for all your hard work! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you seemed to be in charge... Is there a place I can put my name if I am open to creating ads for others?-- fetchcomms☛ 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of put myself in charge of the technical part of {{wikipedia ads}}. You can add yourself to the Current ads section of the documentation. There are already others who are (or were) willing to create ads for others. I don't know of any other place for this. Svick (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-- fetchcomms☛ 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that the operator changed it. The other ClueBots could've recently assumed that since ClueBot II had a period at the end of "True", (see ClueBot II/Run, ClueBot II is the only ClueBot that's even operating) they all needed to run with a period at the end. A glitch could've caused that to happen. I think we should try, because if that doesn't make the other ClueBots operate again, it wouldn't make it any worse, so I think it would be a good idea to atleast try to do it. --Hadger 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change it, because I see no possible negative consequences of doing that. What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that it won't have any effect (if the bots didn't change). Bots aren't humans and can't suddenly realize something if nothing changed. I don't see any reason why one bot should even look at other bot's /Run page. If the bots started working after that change, I would be extremely surprised. (As a note, I don't know almost anything about these bots and I know absolutely nothing about how they work inside, it's just how computer programs generally work.) Svick (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried, but it didn't work. I wonder why ClueBot II is the only ClueBot operating... I wish I knew why. --Hadger 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Svik,

My only wish to contribute to the article is to correct the inaccuracies contained in the article regarding Herleva's father and her background.

May I enquire why it is apparently OK for the article to describe Herleva's relationship with Robert based on a tour-guide's story and in what can only be decribed as a 'non-enyclopedic' manner (eg 'filled with lust' and also containing factual inaccuracies about the tanning processes of the time), but it is not OK to post an entry to make readers aware of contrary scholarly works that have some basis in facts?

Except for the last sentence, the section 'Relationship with Robert the Magnificant' contains no verifiable facts and is contrary to what research is available. The article is supposed to contain facts, not romantic fiction.

Reciting a romantic legend is apparently acceptable to you. Pointing out the fact that the comments are a legend is not.

If it is OK for me to improve the article, I should do so by deleting that section.

I note that the article states she had an unnamed daughter who married William, lord of la Ferté-Macé. I would suggest that the daughter did have a name, but that the author of that section couldn't be bothered to find out. The article should refer to 'further research required'.

No information is better than wrong information.

I have not deleted the work of the other authors as I believe that people have a right to post what they believe to be factual, subject to the guidelines. But readers need to be made aware when there is dissent amongst even the scholars. Some scholars simply accept the 'tanner' background. The only historical reference to such alleged background was the insults made by the citizens of Alenscon, which attracted William's ire.

Later in the article appears 'Some accounts however, maintain that Robert always loved her, but the gap in their social status made marriage impossible, so, to give her a good life, he married her off to one of his favourite noblemen.' Again romantic twaddle and assumption. Again no citation. Again apparently acceptable to you. Surely the author of that section wouldn't believe that the Duke of Normandy would even for a moment consider marriage to even a chamberlain's daughter, let alone that of a tanner? Noble marriages were dictated by politics. Love matches such as William's with Matilda and Roger de Montgomery to Mabile of Belleme were so rare that they were commented on, and even then were between people of similar social status.

She was Robert's concubine. She later married Herluin. Why read more into it than those facts?

If you wish to set yourself up as a moderator, may I suggest that you undertake the necessary research? I would particularly refer you to:

Montgomery, Hugh ‘The God-Kings of England’, Temple 2007. Brown, R. Allen ‘The Normans and the Norman Conquest’. Boydell Press 1969. Crouch, David ‘The Normans’ Hambledon 2002.

Frankly, the article on Herelva as a whole is grossly deficient, mixing a few facts with much supposition. It can hardly be described as encyclopedic or factual. Unfortunately people accept what they see on the internet as facts. Readers need to be aware when an article, or part of it, is rubbish. The article needs to either be consistent and place all facts in a rational manner, or to present contrary views as such. It currently does neither.

Perhaps the whole article should be removed and replaced as appears below, so that what few facts are contained are accurately stated.

Regards,

Ian BrownIan C Brown (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Herleva Herleva (c. 1003 – c. 1050) also known as Herleve,[1] Arlette[2], Arletta[3] and Arlotte,[4] was the mother of William I of England. After marriage to Herluin de Conteville she had two further sons, Odo and Robert.

She was the daughter of Fulbert of Falaise. There is some controversy as to whether Fulbert was a tanner or a minor court official. (insert references).

Herleve was the concubine of Robert 'The Magnificent' (also known as 'The Devil'), Duke of Normandy by whom she bore William, later duke of Normandy and king of England.

Marriage Herleva later married Herluin de Conteville in 1031. From her marriage to Herluin she had two sons: Odo, who later became Bishop of Bayeux, and Robert, who became Count of Mortain. Both became prominent during William's reign. They also had at least two daughters, Emma, who married Richard LeGoz (de Averanches), and (further research required), who married William, lord of la Ferté-Macé.

Death According to Robert of Torigni, Herleva was buried at the abbey of Grestain, which was founded by Herluin and their son Robert around 1050. This would put Herleva in her forties around the time of her death. However, David C. Douglas suggests that Herleva probably died before Herluin founded the abbey because her name does not appear on the list of benefactors, whereas the name of Herluin's second wife, Fredesendis, does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian C Brown (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say that I know nothing about the subject. I reverted your edits, because we can't have a section of an article that basically says: “Rest of this article is incorrect, this is how it is.” If you think that the information in the article is incorrect, please fix it. In this case it would probably be best to clearly state what are facts and what are legends. My revert wasn't because factual concerns, just about the tone of your addition. Svick (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Any relation to User:ES Vic? You seem to share some similar interests. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know he even existed until now. Also, I'm not interested in politics. The thing with political party infoboxes wasn't because they were about political parties (although I discovered the issue on the article about the only political party I care about: Czech Pirate Party), but because they were a group of templates that was working pretty bad. Svick (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, the overlap is not that great, but the similarity in user name was interesting. You both also keep a todo list on your userpage (but many people do that as well). Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you recently reverted three edits made by an IP to List of Chuck episodes, saying they were vandalism. I personally am having a hard time figuring out why you considered these edits vandalism. They seem to me to be in good faith and at least moderately constructive. Thanks for any help in clarifying the matter for me! —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess you are right that they were nor exactly vandalism, but I really don't think they were constructive and that claims like this don't belong to an encyclopedia. From those edits, I got the impression that the mentioned characters are stupid (the most obvious is “Foregoing all semblance of having evolved beyond a brainless thug”) and we certainly shouldn't publish someone's ideas about how the characters should behave (“In an out-of-character moment …”). To summarize, I shouldn't have said that I reverted vandalism, but I think that the revert itself was correct. Svick (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, very good point - their encyclopedic merit is indeed tenuous. Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated! —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Byl by zájem se dozvědět, proč nelze akceptovat mé nové informace o Davida Napier je "Aglaia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.154.188 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion page, can we please discuss the David Napier article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.154.188 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, like I partially explained on the talk page of your previous IP, you broke the page by replacing braces ({}) with parentheses (()), all your capitalization changes seem to be incorrect, you asked a question in the article (that's what talk pages are for) and the paragraph about Aglaia is incomprehensible to me. That's why I reverted your changes. You also broke talk page of David Napier and talk page of your previous IP. How do you do that? Can you, please, make sure this doesn't happen again? Thanks. Svick (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I just don't understand all the jargon. All that worries me is that your information on David Napier is fallacious and you don't seem to care. P.s. "Aglaia" was not the world's first steamship. Ask Bruce Gittings of the Scottish Gazeteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.160 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your acceptance of my information after you have consulted the Gazeteer for Scotland, your source for your erroneous information. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.160 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about David Napier. I'm not saying that your information is incorrect (or correct), but you break the pages you edit. Compare your version and current version of David Napier's article. Your version is broken. Or see this link, it shows all the changes you made to this talk page, when you were adding you comment that you don't understand the jargon. In the left column is the text before and in the right column after your change. The red words were changed by you. You shouldn't do that. I don't know whether it's intentional or it's some kind of a very strange problem with your computer, but you should fix it before you edit Wikipedia again (feel free to reply here though, i can take care about it here).

Also, I think it would be good if you registered an account, so that all your edits could be seen in one place. Svick (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on. Could you clarify whether this means that the templates will change or the pages that use them will? Your statement is presently a bit unclear, though I think you mean the latter. LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Is the post clear now? Svick (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Centaur Constantine I Saturation (magnetic) Nefertiti Flying Squad Scent gland People Glens of Antrim Dysphoria Bulova Hercules Gross National Income Osteoblast Canis Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation Moldova Ion Nazim Cyclops

Cleanup Climate of Hong Kong Black people Oomoto Merge Breakdance Coordinate vector Mass flow rate Add Sources Homer Hickam Measles Erich Priebke Wikify Patpong Selvagem Grande Island Dinah Cancer Expand Balcones Fault Cool (aesthetic) Youth Day

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised by your seeming assumption that Wikipedia's mathematics articles are in Category:Mathematics. In fact very very few of Wikipedia's more-than-20,000 mathematics articles are in that category. That category has 55 subcategories, and at least one subcategory has more than 30 subcategories, and many of the subcategories have a dozen-or-so subcategories, so we're talking about hundreds of categories. But the list of mathematics articles, on the other hand, has it all. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was a very good job to create this list, if you update list, I can help in fixing these cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the list. I removed all fixed articles and false positives and moved unfixed pages with comments to bottom. I'm going to do this once a week. I also asked about this on Check Wikipedia author's talk page. Svick (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i wasn't aware of that nor was i aware that it was undone. It also dawned on me that what i was doing was counterproductive. Thanks for the heads up. SoCal L.A. (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I could not make head or tail of it - you would have to explain it a bit to me, I am a bit old and slow :) SatuSuro 14:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just in the middle of expanding the article with a new section, so that cite wasn't fixed until the new material was added - which took a little longer than I anticipated. But thanks for noticing :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for inf I will try Mahitgar (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the first word template. I have a question regarding it. Does the template use Template:Trunc or the operation trunc? And how were you able to get it to use what you wanted it to (the template or the operation)? I tried to use this template on another wiki but it wouldn't work and just displayed Template:Trunc as a red link (I also tried to add that template and templates transcluded on it but I also got an error). Thanks in advance for the help! --72.241.13.250 (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The template uses Template:trunc, that in turn uses the extension ParserFunctions. You have to have it installed on your wiki, otherwise the template won't work. I don't know what you mean by “operation trunc”. Svick (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After adding the Template:trunc, I get the following {{#iferror: Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{" | | }}. Do you know what might be the problem? And, yes, the ParserFunctions extension is installed. Once again, thanks in advance. --72.241.13.250 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that error means. Is the wiki you're talking about public? If yes, I could take a look directly at it, if you tell me its address. Otherwise, I don't know. Svick (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By public, do you mean being able to edit without logging in? If so, then the wiki is not public. I think the error is because the template is treating the {{{2}}} as the second part of the #expr 'equation' or whatever it is called. For example, putting the code {{#expr:0+{{{2}}}}} gives the following Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".. Could it be that something else needs to be installed on the wiki for it to work? This will be the last time I'll be bothering you; thanks for the help. --72.241.13.250 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By public I meant whether I can go there and at least look at the wiki, that it's not some kind of company wiki available only from that company's network.

The code {{#expr:0+{{{2}}}}} alone should give the error you specified. But if you use it as a part of a template, it works. Maybe you copied something incorrectly. I don't think there is something you have to have installed. Can you tell me what wiki do you mean, so I can look directly at it? Svick (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can access the wiki right here. --72.241.13.250 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues at [1]

For what reason did you undo my amendment to the Risk 2210 AD expansions sub heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeslow (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the expansion is unofficial and the section is only for listing official expansions. Also, external links should normally be only be in the External links section. Svick (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you that. That's for pointing me in the right direction with this. --Meeslow (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed the duplication. Thanks for catching it. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just delete the entire section on the Bowie knife until I can redevelope the information from a different source? Damon.cluck (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to trouble you, but checking through the history of the article, it seems you've edited the AF article on 19 Jan, from my last recollection of the article, it is now missing quite a few aspects. I know it wasn't you who did it, but the person with the IP address (81.100.86.218), I was wondering if you could help me out, I was wondering who or where I could go to to report vandalism. All the best!

-- Libleft(talk) 14:43, 20 Jan 2010 (GMT)

Hi, I noticed you reverted it back, thanks for the help :)

The anonymous user reverted the article to its old version and then just changed few things (see this diff). I reverted his edit (like you noticed). As for reporting it: If it's just one edit, you should warn the user who did it like I did (you can use standardized warnings from WP:WARN). If it's severe or repeated vandalism, you can report it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and the vandal will be temporarily blocked from editing. If you deal will vandalism often (or want to), you can use tools like Twinkle. Svick (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you VERY much, the template is working now ;) --DzWiki (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here the problem they have this wikipedia page of him in germany de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sante_D’Orazio but it is all wrong an he wanted it to be right so I created a new one. the photos were giving to me by him, and the info i took it from a publish book.

please let me know what changes i need to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santedorazio (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you took the info, but not the text itself from a book, that's okay, but you should put a reference to that book to the article.

As the description pages of the photos now state, if the copyright holder of the photos agrees with releasing them under the license Creative Commons Attribution (or other that Wimedia Commnos accept), he has to send an email about that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Otherwise, the photos will be deleted.

Svick (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up!!! Raj2004 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit. In my way of thinking embryology always goes up front but I could be wrong. I would be humbly appreciative if you would consider editing these lines back in where you think they are more appropriate. My reference is the online text "Human Embryology, Organogenesis, Module #16.4 Functional Development of the Heart". I have additional interest in cardiac autonomic disorders such as Chagas Disease. I welcome further discussion.

Thank you friend. Again, source www.embryology.ch/anglais/pcardio/funktion02.html Embryology is the science of how an egg yolk turns into a human being. You have missed out on some interesting reading. Best wishes.

— Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt reply to your edit filter report earlier; I must have missed it somehow. Anyway, I dont really think there's a good way to optimize this filter such that it would trap email addresses without getting false positives like posting.google.com, aside from adding exceptions manually. If this is something that comes up a lot, we could add an exception, but otherwise I think it is best to leave it as it is now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to ignore just the id parameter of {{cite newsgroup}}? This parameter should contain Message-ID of the cited message, that usually (always?) looks like an e-mail address. Svick (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really an "ignore" function in the edit filter; the closest we could come to that would be to flag any edit with {{cite newsgroup}} as not needing to be checked for whether it has an email. Which would be possible, but I'm reluctant to add an exception like that to a filter that is only tagging rather than blocking edits. I know this may sound like an "I just don't wanna do any work" kind of answer, but every line of code takes up time and the amount of processing time is very limited. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Svick (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Take a look here. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey,
You're in Prague! Why are you keeping that a secret?
The first time I was in Praha was in 1971, and the still fairly recent suppression of the Prague Spring was very apparent in the atmosphere there, even for me as a kid.

Anyway, since you were on the film page already, did you happen to look at it? Am I missing any classic Czech films? The answer is probably yes.

Varlaam (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (in the city of Josef Škvorecký)

I don't keep that a secret, I just don't think it's important.

I don't know about the films, I don't know old Czechoslovak films well. Svick (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(That was a very small joke.)

I just thought I would ask. That's ok.

Do you know the newer films? The ones we see here are Tmavomodrý svět and Želary, but there might be more that are not subtitled.

Varlaam (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! it's me again. You helped me with the collapsible tables on bs.wiki.
The Navbox is working fine, but on other templates it shows two hide/show buttons, take a look at this bs:User:DzWiki/Test/2, What's wrong?
--DzWiki (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The code you use seems to work fine here on enwiki. I think it's because bs:MediaWiki:Common.js contains twice the code for “Dynamic Navigation Bars” (one was there before, one was added on 20 January). Assuming that the newly added code is actually newer, removing the old one should fix the problem. Svick (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!!! --DzWiki (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you check bs.wiki again please, its still shows two hide/show buttons (bs:User:DzWiki/Test/2). --DzWiki (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The line addLoadEvent( createNavigationBarToggleButton ); in bs:MediaWiki:Common.js that was probably meant to start the old version is still there and now starts the new version. I should've noticed that. If you remove that line, it should ix the problem. Svick (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything is OK now! Thanks, one more time! --DzWiki (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Wikipedia_Citation_Style#Technical discussion regarding Harvard Refs on some of the ways that the {{harvnb}} system is broken. It may help you to refine your toolset. LeadSongDog come howl 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Libertarian Movement (Italy). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Movement (Italy). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems you've edited the article on Doug Drexel, which is now inWP:AfD and I'm wondering if you could input an option. It's been a couple of weeks since you edited it, and I'm wondering what your changes were. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)