Contents

User talk:Kostaki mou: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:42, 13 October 2009

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Noticed on your edit summaries you say you had a previous user name -( I have had a name change as well) hope this new one fits you well! SatuSuro 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwoodtree has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You have done some wonderful work on the page Major/minor (tonal structure)! Congratulations --Greenwoodtree 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added comments to the talkpage of the Saki article in response to yours. BrainyBabe 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your note. What did you mean, "no harm done"? I think "Dvořák's New World Symphony" is far more correct than "Dvorak's New World Symphony". How can you say "composer Frank Martin" leads the reader to "where it should"? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're around these days, but if you are, there is a request for comments open at the Lizzie Borden article, which addresses, in part, issues over her name. If you'd like to comment, the link is Talk:Lizzie Borden#Request for Comments. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution as analysis, specifically drawing the conclusion that Poe is "taking a dig", still constitutes original research, no matter how self-evident it may seem. Might I recommend, if you don't mind, a quick mention go into the plot summary? Also, terms like "Poe takes a dig at" is not particularly encyclopedic; it's a little too informal. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the term "spoof" a bit more. A third-party source would still help, I think. If it's under "Analysis" and it's not sourced, it's original research. At least, that's been my experience. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually two vandal edits so when you undid the last one the first was still there.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment re tulip, and I agree re botanical articles generally needing some accessibility. I just commented to that end on Talk:salsify, and you may be interested in doing or saying something in response there, if it falls in your wheelhouse. ENeville (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered if Tragopogon porrifolius should be moved back to purple salsify. ENeville (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think so. Your saying that "Salsify" should be moved to "Tragopogon" seems to be advocating the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The purple salsify is the vegetable, isn't it? The main article already has a reference to that. (You might also want to see my comment on Talk:Euphorbia pulcherrima.) Kostaki mou (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but who cares. Toss in your two cents, if so inclined. I made the point there that the topic of use as a vegetable is the most basic interest, and I think this is emphasized in this case by the inclusion of multiple species in that regard, beyond just purple salsify. It all goes to the broader point of accessibility, IMO. ENeville (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Euphorbia pulcherrima. FYI, WP:LEDE indicates that the title (whatever that might be) be placed at the earliest logical position in the opening sentence. ENeville (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. See my comment at Talk:Euphorbia_pulcherrima#Euphorbia_pulcherrima.2C_commonly_named_poinsettia_._._._. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:TPO which says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning", such as happened here. In the late 1980s, when I visited, there were either the skulls or models of them on display. Whatever is there today doesn't change what I saw and even have photographs of somewhere in a vast pile of boxes of travel souvenirs. If you disagreed with what I said, proper conduct is to post your disagreement, never change someone else's comments. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I knew that I'd seen the skulls in person, but it has been more than a few years now. Back then, there was no internet and it took some effort to find out what to see in Fall River. The Historical Society wasn't a very big endeavor at the time and you could only visit by appointment. The original house wasn't a B&B tourist attraction and there wasn't a lot of other things to see in the city. I was glad to go, nevertheless. It's someplace I'd always wanted to visit. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What forum is it? I've certainly visited several sites looking for source material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to that site before, thanks for reminding me of it! I don't do enough work to contribute much of anything to a forum, but I'll look in now and then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Netania Davrath probably deserves an article written about her. A Wikipedia biography page would satisfy questions about her notability, as raised in the Chants d'Auvergne article. You willing? Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]