User talk:Calabraxthis/Archive 2007

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Errol Flynn

I am surprised, to put it mildly. Happy to take your word for it, though a source would be great so others don't delete it again. Euryalus 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obscure facts like this that make Wikipedia fun. Now all we need is a source for the 'sex with a maid' claim :) Euryalus 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ICC

If we are talking about how to be polite, then how about you start by getting my name right, can you do that? It's THUGCHILDz not THUG. I responded on the talk page and it was basically removed because it's pov sourced with another pov.--THUGCHILDz 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your addition to the ICC entry. There has been far too much whitewash of the ICC on this entry in the past by the appropriately named "Thugchild" ! PaddyBriggs 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to help you get around with wiki and I know you are doing this in good faith but like me when I was new here, you'll face some hardships but eventually you'll learn it's policies etc. One thing was that the controversies are covered in its' own articles where they are not pov. If we were going to put a section on every cricket controversy because the ICC is the governing body then we would have to put sections starting from the bodyline and so on. The fact that some one is criticized by the media doesn't make it encyclopedic or notable in the matter of the subject and doesn't mean they need to be included. The media and an encyclopedia shouldn't go together. The fact that a media might have reported something wrongly doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. It's already covered in the other articles anyway where it is much more of a notable subject than this. I never said you had an pov on the issue but it's still pretty much pov from one point of view on the matter. Anyways, I really don't appreciate PaddyBriggs accusing me of whitewashing the article and making that personal attack. One last thing, making edits like this people will generally think it's in bad faith, as most including me don't see the point of having this picture on Former president Bill Clinton's article; so I would advice you to refrain from this kind of edits but try to make all your edits npov with providing both sides of a story fairly and remember even if npov not everything is encyclopedic or notable enough all articles so not everything needs to be added. If you need any help at anytime please feel free to ask also if you're into cricket than I'll like to show you our invite, if not just ignore it :)-

Hello Calabraxthis! I noticed that you contribute to cricket related articles. We are a "WikiProject" aiming to expand, improve and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. We would like to invite you to join us. If you would like to help but don't know what to do, please see our project page or inquire on our talk page. You may sign up for the project on our members list. Happy editing!

--THUGCHILDz 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature Formatting

Hey, I'm not really a computer guy either but I'm got the hang of things. Anyways, to change the colors, all you need to do is come up with what you want and then go to # My preferences which is between "My talk" and "My watchlist" on the top right hand corner of your screen. After you get there, put it in the box next to "Signature:" and check the box beside "Raw signature" and save.--THUGCHILDz 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin

Thanks for the useful Latin lesson in your recent edit summary re: Roedean School ;-) – Kieran T ^(talk) 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Shore Old Boys

Hey Calabraxthis,

No worries, I shall look into it now and see if I can find anything. Cheers! Loopla 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrollboxes

Please stop adding the scrollbox to reference sections. Scrolling lists should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers. Please see the citation guidelines for details. I understand that you were just trying to make it look better, but you need to revert every article you've done this to. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calabraxthis. First, my apology for the tardy reply. Second, in regards to the scrollbox reflist, I have to admit that it was my mistake to use it on article CIA since at that time I only saw its provisional convenience and wasn't aware of its function. Although its convenience in viewing is undeniable, this format also demonstrates to be very problematic. From my personal experience, I remember last time when I printed an article using scrollbox, the reference section appeared a blank box on paper. There was already a discussion about it and most of editors agreed that this format must be avoided. So that is. I myself love scrollbox, too, but once it makes too many troubles, we shouldn't expand its usage. Happy editing. @pple complain 10:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)