User talk:Knobbly/2007-2009
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Knobbly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You must find a category for it poste haste (if I dont beat you to it - and also give it a Tas project tag on the discussion page - otherwise the recent change mob can paste more tags on it than the average politically challenged can put stickers all over their car rear windows) - also if you dont know about it its worth putting on the australia project new page - and also extract something from it for a DYK candidate. SatuSuro 03:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- You have a couple with no cats! arrgh sin of sins, wash your mouth out - they become orphans and even more tags if you leave them like that!!! SatuSuro 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Take a long and very hard look at Category:Tasmania - look all around it and in the nooks and crannies there - and find something for the list of events - and dont assess your own articles by the way! SatuSuro 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well that should be enough harrasment for the day - trust you are not fazed by a bit of online terror - have a good sunday - cheers! SatuSuro 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Satu, trying to fix the categories in haste turned into a bit of a dogsbreakfest, thanks for cleaning up after me! Knobbly 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Festivals in Australia - hey anytime - feel free to ask - best to use the main tas cat for anything tas - and then try to find something australian rather than wikipedia wide generic - looks good so far - might come back and fiddle with your tas lit sometime - if you havent seen it (I have my own copy) Alexander, Alison The companion to Tasmanian History is very good reading - and could help on some stuff I just havent got around to workng it with the tas project anyways - enjoy and leave a message at my talk page if you ever get stumped - cheers (again - gotta get off to do things) seeya soon SatuSuro 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Satu, trying to fix the categories in haste turned into a bit of a dogsbreakfest, thanks for cleaning up after me! Knobbly 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably should be for your recent edits - no rush - but 'tighter fit' as some eds call them :) SatuSuro 09:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- You don't think all Tasmania articles should be in the Tasmania category as well 'tighter' topic relevant catagories? Knobbly 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:Overcategorization for that - also your Tas lit has been moved to correct upper/lower denomination SatuSuro 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Knobbly, generally if a more suitable subcategory exists, an article should be placed in the most specific category. The existence of articles in Category:Tasmania means that either it is an article which does not have a suitable sub-category, or that the user who created the article was not aware of the sub-category, and therefore put it in a more generic category, and no-one has gone through and recategorised it yet. (I do it occasionally, such as here) -- Chuq (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the idea is that all Tasmania articles should eventually go into a sub-category inside the Tasmania category unless they don't have a sub-category? (There is no opposition to this policy?)Knobbly 10:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks right to me (well wait for him as well) SatuSuro 10:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the idea is that all Tasmania articles should eventually go into a sub-category inside the Tasmania category unless they don't have a sub-category? (There is no opposition to this policy?)Knobbly 10:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Knobbly, generally if a more suitable subcategory exists, an article should be placed in the most specific category. The existence of articles in Category:Tasmania means that either it is an article which does not have a suitable sub-category, or that the user who created the article was not aware of the sub-category, and therefore put it in a more generic category, and no-one has gone through and recategorised it yet. (I do it occasionally, such as here) -- Chuq (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably should be for your recent edits - no rush - but 'tighter fit' as some eds call them :) SatuSuro 09:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Finally someone to contribute to the Tasmanian article, keep it up. :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 03:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Knobbly. Do you go to Ridley? I see you've edited the page a lot. I know a lot of people at Ridley. Tonicthebrown 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Cheers. I note that the one who listed the article has done just under 200 edits to the Wikipedia namespace and 85 edits to the main article namespace. My personal opinion is we should ban anyone who has under 1000 main namespace edits from submitting AFDs. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the work you're doing on this article, but in the table clean/unclean animals you mention quadruped insects (unclean, apparently). I must admit you've got me stumped there. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, it helps with Exam prep to put it down in a clear referenced way. Yeah quadruped is an odd expression, I thought so when I typed it up from the table I have in my notes so I'll change it to all except Grasshoppers.--Knobbly (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
Nice work on Ordo salutis--Firefly322 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- thankyou--Knobbly (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Question
- I started the article Orders of creation. Any ideas on this topic? In theology, I think Orders of creation and Ordo salutis both have an Eschatological dependence and can be related in this way, but I don't know if there is a standard and referencable view of this. Might you? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- By 'Order of Creation' do you mean decisions within the Trinity prior to creation, such as the 'pactum Salutis'? --Knobbly (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Gender roles
Hey buddy, watch this one-- Women in Christianity. Periodically comes under feminist attack. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 02:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)