User talk:Sijo Ripa/Archive1

Welcome!

Howdy, Sijo Ripa/Archive1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
Find everything in the Directory.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro article edit and OCA article

Good edit. The article has needed a theoretical foundation for some time. Are you really new here? - good summary in euro and the detail in OCA looks like an old hand at work! --Red King 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually I am new here. :-) Thanks for the compliment. Sijo Ripa 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've seen you've made a lot of edits to the Euro article (and others). If possible, could you make less edits with more changes each, rather than one edit per minor change? Having a large amount of small edits makes the history more difficult to follow. You can see what the article will look like without saving it by previewing it instead (see Help:Show_preview). (No problem with the edits themselves, it's just confusing to read the history!) Cheers. MartinRe 12:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew Help:Show_preview. Use it a lot also, but clearly not enough :-) My apologies to you, MartinRe (and all other editors). Sijo Ripa 13:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-established democracies have never made war on one another"

I have a work in progress here: User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". I would like feeback and suggestions. Ultramarine 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 22-Mar, you blanked Fuel rod. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre

gdp

controversies about use of GDP--Ruber chiken 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Al-Waha for speedy deletion with the reason "advertisement". However, "advertisement" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, didn't know that. Sijo Ripa 08:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"British" Royal Navy

Please see my comments on the Battle of Taranto discussion page.Nick Thorne 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Waha

Could you please respond to my comments on the talk page of al fakher and al-waha.

Regarding edits made during July 14 2006 (UTC) to Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. WinHunter ^(talk) 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry :-) I just restructured the talk page, didn't remove anything. Was a mess. Sijo Ripa 09:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore

It is bad manners to delte other people comments:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis&diff=63935402&oldid=63935323

Zeq 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's restructuring, not deleting. Just check my edit after the one you put in the link. Greetings. Sijo Ripa 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving 2006 israel-lebanon crisis talk

Nice work, reason i put it on todo rather then do it is it's now almost 5am here, way too late for me to think rationally... maybe i'll have a look tommorow if no one else beats me to it... --darkskyz 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Picture

Generally, if a picture doesn't have a free licence, we cannot use it. There are exceptions in the form of fair use images, but this doesn't qualify. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warships/Tanks as Casualties

I removed them again. I checked out the articles you referenced but those were primarily naval battles, not the sort of conflict that is being discussed in this situation. Casualties in all media accounts of the conflict refers solely to human losses not equipment losses. Your citation of a tank and warship doesn't even reflect the true number of "casualties", since Israel also lost a Humvee in the initial Hezbollah border attack--so tanks are casualties but Humvees aren't?

So I see your point, but please don't add them in again, it's not the place for it. Perhaps an equipment losses section of the infobox could be created to reflect these losses--although it would be very difficult to determine Hezbollah equipment losses as well as Lebanese equipment losses.Publicus 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point in the Talk section, I agree. I'll try and add the "equipment losses" to the info-box.Publicus 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking comments on talk page

I don't understand why you blanked my comments here? Fishhead64 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I done that, but see: User talk:Cyde#Help - a bug. In case that I done it, my apologies. Sijo Ripa 12:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society

I have requested that the Mega Society deletion be overturned here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! You might like to support a keep for Ronald Hoeflin's page here as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin judgment

Sijo Ripa,

Your argument was based on a literal reading of the guidelines that notability is not a deletion criterion. As Mr. Mestel pointed out very quickly, it is an inferred criterion, on the basis of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information; also, the total absence of notability is codified as a reason for speedy deletion at CSD-A7. There are very, very few serious Wikipedians who maintain that notability is not a deletion criterion, and those few understand the need to argue in a particular way. With respect, from the point of view of regular Wikipedians, your argument's initial premise was fairly absurd. It is understandable that newer users make the mistake of using such arguments: they just haven't been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the actual practice surrounding the literal reading of the policies/guidelines. Every policy has a both a "letter" and a "spirit," as it were; until a user grasps the spirit of policy as well as the letter, he will not argue effectively. I employed my judgment to discount what you (and many of your supporters) said, because you evidenced great unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's actual practice. It's okay: stay around for a week or two, read some random deletion debates before commenting again, and you'll get better at making deletion arguments more relevant to the spirit of policy. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page for a reply. The above comment is not a accurate reply on what I've put on your talk page. (I didn't even mention notability btw). Sijo Ripa 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]