User talk:Lendorien/archive2

de Havilland aircraft

It's a person's name- Geoffrey de Havilland not "De Havilland." Bzuk 23:18 25 January 2007 (UTC).

That may be so, but in using the second style with the upper case D, I was following the standard used for 90% of the articles related to the subject. I can go in and move the category and relink the articles, but keep in mind the main cat uses that style, as do most of the ariplane articles. What do you suggest? We could move all the articles I suppose. Your help and advice appreciated. --Lendorien 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's a problem in identifying the de Havilland Company and its products that has led to some variance in approach. The limitations that are inherent in the Wikipedia system is one of the issues. Although it is acknowledged to be "de Havilland Aircraft Company," this is the note that pops up when anyone keys in "De Havilland": The correct title of this article is de Havilland. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions. In order to get around this problem, merely indicate all your changes as "de Havilland" and the article automatically changes to the correct spelling. By using the "De Havilland" designation, it simply compounds the problem and leads others to consider this as the correct spelling. The easiest way is to use proper names and spelling conventions. I would shudder if there are 90% of the entries using the incorrect designation but that would not surprise me. Better to use the correct name and leave it at that. :>Bzuk18:51 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Regarding edits made to Ukrainian Lutheran Church

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Lendorien! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Current projects

This is Lendorien. put this here for my reference.

{{Articleissues | advert = August 2007 | blpdispute = = August 2007 | Citations missing = August 2007 | citationstyle = August 2007 | citecheck = August 2007 | cleanup = August 2007 | confusing = August 2007 | context = August 2007 | copyedit = August 2007 | criticisms = August 2007 | disputed = August 2007 | essay = August 2007 | examplefarm = August 2007 | expand = August 2007 | expert = topic name | fiction = August 2007 | globalize = August 2007 | laundrylists = August 2007 | long = August 2007 | Nofootnote = y | Notable = August 2007 | OR = August 2007 | orphan = August 2007 | POV = August 2007 | primarysources = August 2007 | quotefarm = August 2007 | refimprove = August 2007 | rewrite = August 2007 | sections = August 2007 | synthesis = August 2007 | technical = August 2007 | tone = August 2007 | trivia = August 2007 | unbalanced = August 2007 | unreferenced = August 2007 | unverified = August 2007 | weasel = August 2007 | wikify = August 2007 }}

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I grant you this barnstar because of the effort you spent cleaning articles. Rjgodoy 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie today

You deserve a cookie for cleaning out unsourced trivia on Goblin. Keep up the good work! Buddhipriya 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks Lendorien for you suggestion on using In-text citations. I am an amatuer "Mob historian" in that I have never been published and I am really an aspiring screenwriter more than a "true crime" writer. I started contributing to the Wikipeida site because I noticed so many incorrect statements in various organized crime articles and some articles that were basically not true and sometimes completely false in regards to organized crime members, events and histories. I only started writing articles on Wikipedia about a year ago so I had no prior experience with quoting sources and all that other stuff that needed to be done to meet "Wikipedai Standards", but I have since been siting all my sources, along with the exact pages of the books that I get my information from and have learned the basics in Wikipedia article writing, but I still have some issues regarding the so called Wikipedia standards and certain people who control the organized crime section! I haven't contributed to greatly to the Wikipedia site lately because I have been busy contributing to the "American Organized Crime" website and I have been asked to help re-organize and create new articles for the "Mafia International" website.

I have decided to take my more than 15 years of research, along with all the materials I possess and create a "North American Mafia Encyclopedia", my project is broken down into 5 parts or "volumes" and will take at least 4-5 years to complete, but the first part should be finished within the next year and hopefully I will find a publisher who is interested! I was never impressed with the work of Carl Sifakis and Jay Robert Nash and their "Mafia Encyclopedia's", they tried to cover to much, they included every organized crime group in America and it's members and by doing so they had to exclude so many important organized crime members, they had no choice in that the book would have been the size of a whole set of encyclopedia's all in one! So I'm gonna keep my project based on the American La Cosa Nostra and the 26 crime families and affiliates within North America. 5 Volumes - the East coast families, the mid-West crime families, the West coast crime families, the Southern crime families and the Canadian crime families. Of course I'll only complete the first volume because if there is no publisher interested in the first volume they obviously won't pick up the rest of the project! -- Little Joe Shots 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hey again. This is in responce to the note you left on my user page. You'll want to reply on my talk page as I moved your note to there. I want to wish you best of luck with your project. It sounds like it would be a worthwhile one to do. You might consider looking for a manual of Style, perhaps the Chicago Manual of Style. It's a style guide the covers how to use punctuation, Citing references and the like. Since this type of writing seems to be new to you, a manual of style would be a great asset to have while doing so. I have one myself. It's quite useful. Again, best of luck! --Lendorien 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you once again for the advice Lendorien, it much appreciated! As I stated in the past I'm really an aspiring screenwriter more than an aspiring author, but I have the opportunity to use years worth of reading and research in a book project, so why not, what do I have to lose? I have a number of books on screenwriting and have attended a workshop in the past, but your advice on purchasing a style manual in regards to my book project is very constructive and well taken, thank you, hopefully it will be very helpful and increase my writing skills as I'm not all too familiar with the writing style and format of books and novels, except to read them! Respectfully, LJS --Little Joe Shots 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a Question

Thank you for the kind note you left on my talk page about the Word Of Life article. I see all the great cleanup work you do, so it means a lot coming from you, seriously. One question: I just noticed that the article still has several tags. Would you mind having a look and seeing what you think about removing some or all of them? In my opinion, it still needs citations, but I'd like to think that the neutrality and tone have been much improved. I know I could remove them myself, but I'd really appreciate a second opinion, if you don't mind. Thanks again for everything, and keep up the good work! --edi 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie

Thanks Lendorien for the cookie in regards to my work on the Minnesota Vikings, it tasted real good! :) RyguyMN 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nalanda College

Hey! Your edits to the article were reverted. I find the article as it is unacceptable, almost a mockery to WP. Just wanted to let you know I am with you on shortening it as you have and possibly taking other measures in ensuring it isn't turned into a list of unnotable people again and again. Cheers, Krankman 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I made an entry on the talk page about it and also reverted it to the previous version before the revert, including a summary explanation. The reverter was an IP with only two edits. Hopefully the talk page note and summary will slow someone from being so quick to revert it again. --Lendorien 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, they've done it again ... :-) I think the editor(s) in concern don't even know there is a discussion page! We should contact an admin and ask for the page to be semi-protected. I am now sure that that will be the only way to keep the page halfway encyclopedic. What do you think? Cheers, Krankman 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted it again, but if it gets hit again, we'll hit the three revert rule. This time they didn't even bother to transfer any of the aditional information provided by another user (though said content looks like copy-vio fromt he tone). I would suspect that the user in question is the same one, working from a dynamic IP address or something. As far as protecting it, I'll let you do as you see best on that. --Lendorien 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your work

on cleaning up articles. Just wanted to let you know that someone noticed :) cheers, phoebe/(talk) 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Prawn farm massacre

Thanks for your feed back, i will look into expanding the context. Also there uis adiscussion going in about removal of RS sources. Thanks Taprobanus 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleanup/2006

I've moved this article from the WP:PROD deletion process to the WP:MFD process; MFD should be used for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Cheers, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

POV and cleanup

I am responding to the message you left on my talk page. Cleanup for language issues can be done by anyone. Cleanup for POV requires knowledge of the subject and is therefore not a valid area for the cleanup project. I have participating in the cleanup project for almost two years now and the massive addition of POV articles to the cleanup project is a relatively recent phenomena. There used to be POV issues but they were usually secondary issues. Maybe a separate project needs to be set up called POV removal. The whole AFD/RFD process is set up to some extent to deal with intractable POV issues. --- Safemariner 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

KOTOR 2

Hey dude, I noticed that there has been a second edit war over KOTOR II. I hope you're having luck with finding the articles on the KOTOR 2 mod, and am pissed that fanboys/fangirls are defending the flawed P.O.S. by deleting the info. Dibol —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

9/11 - terrorism?

Thanks for your input on the 9/11 talk page. Funny thing: your quote that Besides, just because there are groups out there who believe the US government was behind it does not make it any less terrorism is an argument I used several times on the talk page, but the wacko conspiracy theorists still don't go for that argument. Go figure.

Have a Wiki Day. Timneu22 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ankur group

Dear Lendorien, Ankur Group is not only consisted of programmers (me not a programmer, though working towards Ankur's main goal ) and not all the members are from Bangladesh, there are members from India as well. Please see this page; I would request you to refrain yourself changing that page without you discuss it in the discussion page. --mak 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In responce to your comment. If you check the edit history, I simply normalized and cleaned up the grammar and writing of the text on the page. Nowhere did it say that only Bangledeshi programmers worked on the project. I simply created a proper intro and did some text edits to clean up the article. If you feel it needs more clarification, be my guest. As for dicussing the changes, I did not feel it necessary as nothing substantial in terms of information was removed from the page, I simply refined it. Thanks for the comment. --Lendorien 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ward Beecher

Hi Lendorien, you recently made references inline which is fine but I had used the MLA style which is similar to the Harvard indicated at [1] because it may "can be simpler for the reader than flipping back and forth to footnotes or endnotes full of "ibid" citations."

"For a quotation that is within the text and marked by quotation marks, the citation follows the end-quotation mark ("), and is placed before the period (.), "like this" (Smith 2005).

No problem just curious about our different motives. Daytrivia 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After further review of the article and having read several of the referenced books and material I am of the opinion that most of the content, not just the quotes, comes from them. With this in mind I believe it would be misleading to use a referenced book just for a quote. Naturally a quote should be properly cited (see above). I would prefer using MLA over Harvard because of the clarity of page number. A page number that is in the reference full citation section could be misleading beacause it refers to that particular quote when in fact a large portion of the article may come from that source and therefore the entire book stands alone without specificatioon to page number except after the quote itself. Daytrivia 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CU

Hi Lendorien, you and I seem to be the only editors patrolling WP:CU, and to that end I wonder what you thought of my comment on the talk page, that is, if there are only one or two things "wrong" with an article, eg. need for citations and a copyedit, whether it would be better to tag them and remove them from the list, as a) this would shorten the list substantially, and b) my impression of "Cleanup" is that it's the overall term for these things, but only until more specific improvements can be specified. What do you think? Cheers, Cricketgirl (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Will do (once I do some other stuff...). Cricketgirl 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)