![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi, a, I had just took an interest, read that article and have now nominated it for a DYK. Willirennen ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 04:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but your in-progress article on Miss England (Speedboat) was raised up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Disambig pages trying to be more. We thought that you should be informed that by the conventions of WP:SHIPS (this article falling under the mandate of the project), individual craft should have individual articles, instead of having several similarly named craft covered in a single article. So when you further expand the article, you might want to consider splitting it into Miss England I, Miss England II and Miss England III and converting Miss England (Speedboat) into a disambiguation page. Not that I'd be trying to dictate what you should do, but following established conventions obviously makes this place easier to use for everyone. Again, sorry for bothering you, and keep up the good work! -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I found your name at Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions. In WikiProject California template, if imageneeded=yes and in=Los Angeles county, California, then the page will be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles county, California. However, if imageneeded=yes and in=, in2=, and in3= are not specified, then the page should be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California. How do I revise the following code from Template:WikiProject California to make this happen?:
|- {{#if:{{{imageneeded|}}} | {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{imageneeded|}}}}}|yes |{{!}} valign="top" {{!}} [[Image:Camera-photo.svg | {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30|40 }}px | center]] {{!}} It is requested that a '''photograph''' or '''photographs''' be [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|included]] in this article to [[Wikipedia:Article development|improve its quality]]. {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{small|}}}}}|yes| {{#if:{{{Imagedetails|}}} |:{{{imagedetails|}}}}} |{{#if:{{{imagedetails|}}} | An editor suggests the following:<br> :'''{{{imagedetails|}}}''' }} }} <includeonly> }} {{#if:{{{#default}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]] }} {{#if:{{{in2|}}} |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in3|}}} |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] </includeonly> }} }}
-- GregManninLB ( talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
not(or(in,in2,in3))
operation. Easiest way to get that is to use the way that {{#if:
evaluates the expression - basically as either an empty or non-empty string. So try some variant of this:{{#if:{{{in|}}}{{{in2|}}}{{{in3|}}}| {{#if:{{{in|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]] }} {{#if:{{{in2|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in3|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} | [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]] }}
Hope that helps. If I've misunderstood your needs, or if it doesn't, then please comment. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
#
or a :
between friends?. Then there's the problem of extensions and whether your particular wiki has that extension installed.{| class="messagebox
is a combination of two things, neither of them specifically Parser Functions.
{|
is wikitable markup for the beginning of a table.
class="messagebox ... "
is HTML markup, passed straight through the wiki and onto the webpage. It's used to attach a CSS rule, by means of a selector in the skinning.css that will have .messagebox
in the selector (any CSS ref. should explain this). Note the leading "."
Couple of other things to note:
{|
is wikitable markup, but it can't be used in combination with Parser Functions, as the PF parser sees the "|
" character as being related to the PFs and will swallow it up before it gets to generate a table. If you want to generate table from within PFs (not obvious, so ask for advice - a good article on this would be worth writing) then you need to replace "|
" with "{{!}}
". This is a simple template call, to a template called {{
!}}. Most wikis will have this installed, a template that simply returns a "|
". Equally {{
!!}} that returns "||
". These templates are also useful for passing table markup into template parameters. See my new
commons:Image:Locomotive boiler sectioned.jpg for an example.
class="messagebox"
is a simple example, with one class name in the class attribute. HTML / CSS also allows multiple classes to be specified together, with class="messagebox woof bark donkey"
This HTML element will have the CSS rules for any of the classes "messagebox", "woof", "bark" 'or "donkey" applied to it.
Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
class="messagebox"
calls the .messagebox in
template:MediaWiki:Common.css to give specific/common characteristics to Messagebox templates. There is a table of classes
here. I do remember reading about the pipe "|" and the need to use an exclaimation point "!" for the pipe in some cases. I need to start with the basics of HTML markup and wikitable markup and work my way up from there. Thanks. : )
GregManninLB (
talk)
02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Hi. I'm delighted to see you support keeping this article I have just created. It is intended as the first of individual entries on all 400+ known Roman auxiliary regiments to link to the main article, List of Roman auxiliary regiments. To be honest, as someone unfamiliar with the editing norms of Wiki, I cannot understand why this can even remotely be regarded as unsuitable for inclusion. The unit in question is discussed in a number of reputable academic publications, so why is it "non-notable"? Perhaps you can explain this term more clearly for me? Regards EraNavigator ( talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I cannot explain this term any more clearly...
...at least not in a way that isn't going to get me thrown into the editorial sin-bin along with User:Sarah777 and a bunch of other editors who value adding new content over measuring reaction times to nit-pick about topics they have no other interest in or connection with. But take a look at Notching. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the article, removed the commercial link and the speedy template. The commercial link was not at all useful in describing notching. It offered commercial services related to notching. Beyond a glossary, there didn't seem any reason to link to it.
Perhaps I made a mistake in agreeing with the Speedy tag (although I decline to say mea culpa.) However, if the text isn't clarified and better focused, I expect it may be nominated again, either for SD or AfD. I did read the article before deleting it and found it almost incomprehensible from a layman's perspective. It uses jargon and words defined specifically from the perspective of metal/materials processing. In other words, what seem to be perfectly clear words are only understandable if one is familiar with the fabrication and metalworking usage of the terms. I suspect this is what the SD nom meant by "lacking context".
I'm putting the article on my watchlist and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring NPA issues, Andy, I will instead attempt to explain that this seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOT#GUIDE material. It's more of a how-to than encyclopedic content, as Pigman clarifies far more eloquently than I did. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
NOT GUIDE is fair enough as a comment, but that's still reason for improvement, not for deletion. Certainly not speedy.
For NPA, then I'm sorry and I must assume that you act in Good Faith, but I don't have to believe that you exercise good judgement. There are two editors involved in attacking this article (and its newbie creator, who we're all equally required to assume acted in equal good faith) - both of you have a talk page filled with queries and complaints noting pages where you appear to have acted over-hastily to delete pages. We're supposed to be building things here, not seeing who's fastest to demolish them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I undid an edit that you made in good faith to Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow removing 7.7mm as the metric conversion of the 0.303 in British round as it is my understanding (and it would seem accepted wisdom on Wikipedia) that this is the correct metric reporting calibre of that particular round. Regards. Emoscopes Talk 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Andy. If an article class is assigned FA, GA, B, Start, Stub, or no assessment, I want the WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. If an article class is Category, template, or some other non-article, then I do not want WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. Will the following code do this:
<includeonly>
{{#if: {{{FA|Fa|fa|}}} {{{FL|Fl|fl|}}}{{{A|a|}}} {{{GA|Ga|ga|}}} {{{B|b|}}}
{{{Start|start|}}} {{{Stub|stub|}}} {{{List|list|}}} {{{|}}}
|
[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}
</includeonly>
GregManninLB ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{#switch:
form that's in the template at the moment.FA|Fa|fa
construct inside a switch (fall-through of matches) doesn't have any real connection to the "default value for parameters" structure you seem to be confusing it with here.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{FA|}}}{{{Fa|}}}{{{fa|}}}{{{FL|}}}{{{Fl|}}}{{{fl|}}}{{{A|}}}{{{a|}}
{{{GA|}}}{{{Ga|}}}{{{ga|}}}{{{B|}}}{{{b|}}}{{{Start|}}}{{{start|}}}{{{Stub|}}}{{{stub|}}}{{{List|}}}
{{{list|}}}{{{|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>
. This was based on the above comment. Will this work? Thanks. GregManninLB ( talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{#switch:
You need to test values of a single parameter here, not multiple parameters.{{lc:
, then just test once. Try this:{{#if: {{{class|}}} |
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{class|}}} }}
|foo= [[category:Foo!]]
|fa
|ga <!-- fall-throughs Note the lack of "=" -->
|b
|start
|stub = [[category:stubby stuff]]
|#default= <!-- Don't do anything -->
}}
|
<!-- No value given at all --> [[category:stubby stuff]]
}}
{{#switch:
syntax is over here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch:
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about this over lunch instead of reading my new Patricia McKillip novel. Should there be an explicit section of WP:NOT called something like, "Wikipedia is not a scratch pad or word processor."? We could start with your phrasing, "editors really should not treat wikipedia as an editing scratchpad, and shouldn't make stuff even remotely visible until it's near-finished." I would add something like, "As an editor of Wikipedia, a contributor is expected to create a new article, however brief in something resembling a finished state. It should not resemble a series of random jottings, a skeletal outline with empty section headings, an essay, or a "data dump" from a resume or similar document. Naturally, many new articles will be stubs; there is nothing wrong with a properly-formatted stub. But at a minimum, an article should, for example, have an opening sentence that makes it clear what the subject is: a place, a thing, a person, a concept, or whatever; and at least enough additional context to place it within the universe of discourse. There should be wikilinks to relevant aspects of the subject, and ideally perhaps a category and/or a stub tag or two." Am I making sense here? -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have a second voice. Been banging my head on a brick wall. Very frustrating.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW I never thanked you for your intervention(s) recently; (and just now! ). I was having a bad week! So thank you, twice! Xyl 54 ( talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's classy...but not a lost cause. You only need about 5 million other spare parts off eBay and voila, your own Cold War bomber.
Dunno if you'll fit it in your back garden though ;)
Compromise on last / only / current - how about "single" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.54.83 ( talk) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Thanks... I made sure I was there for the testing of the Napier-Railton. Every time I've visited the museum before it's been tucked away in the Campbell shed. I had to use the opportunity to get some pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Rogers 100 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've restored Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher). I stumbed across the article as the editor who created it had created a bunch of articles on different people called Mary White, few of which seemed notable from the articles content per the part of CSD #7 which states that articles can be speedied if they're "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and wasn't responding to the tag - the article as it stands doesn't really make any case for why Ms White belongs in an Encyclopedia. I don't see how this person is at all notable, but you are right about there being a very vauge claim to some notability so I've undone my deletion - do you intend to work on it? Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Dingley:
I am new to editing Wikipedia and I thought I put the correct edit for the above book, I realize that I forgot the ISBN 0-9785168-0-X so I would appreciate you undoing your undos as this book has valid and reliable information about the topics it was listed for. If my form was improper in the edit I would appreciate your suggestions.
Sincerely,
scinamon Scinamon ( talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, he sure was busy. A three day block is enough though. The majority of ip's are not static, and we don't want to block non-vandalism ip edits. If he starts again on the same ip he will get longer blocks. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to introduce templates for citations and references when the sources are properly cited. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Thanks SGGH speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you for answering a long-burning question of mine as to why it was called "K7" (where's K5 and 6? I used to think) and what the "infinity" symbol on the badge stands for. Keep up the good work! Emoscopes Talk 13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with Hafod Estate. Have you been there? ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment you posted concerning the subject in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. I looked at your beautiful images and I can understand your POV is that of a photographer/artist. I thought The Citizen photographer had a good eye in capturing the moment. The two images were originally posted by an Administrator with the not free/fair use tag I met on a job over two years ago as I was driving three volunteers for an NDP candidate in my van for hire as they planted election signs in Canada's last general election. There are not many occasions when people are interested in hearing about my 3 runs for elective office as an Independent Candidate with no money or volunteers, but these guys were. One of them took it upon himself to research my talk and confirmed it by creating the article. You might imagine how happy and surprised I was discovering it April 19. Seeing it is about me, I have recused myself from editing it, hoping others would take over. Would you enlighten me on what FUR means, please? Perhaps you might improve on the way the article uses it as you suggest. If you read the history, what is in the article now is only about 5% of the original. The editor who wants both images deleted unilaterally removed them instantaneously on seeing them. After about a week's discussion, they were restored to the article, but he has had a change of heart. I don't understand why an editor/admin. would spent so much time obsessed about these images other than not wanting them in the historic image category. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
LoL ;) wanted to see what would happen. I just merged it... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm kidding. The merge was proposed without anyone participating in the discussion, the reason was explained to involved Users at the deletion discussion. At any rate, perhaps now the merge will be discussed. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
__HIDDENCAT__
of "Articles beyond hope of redemption, don't waste your life on them". Articles like this that have been savaged by a self-appointed cabal, or those like
Duck typing that are simply too inept, or anything involving Ireland, ever. Then I can just remember to walk away and not let it ruin my day, while I get on with something else. Then I'll go and sit with
Sarah777 on the Naughty Chair. This isn't how it was supposed to be, but I admit it's beyond me how to solve it. 8-(
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Re: this edit, [1] with all due respect, I did not blank the page. I restored the redirect to Mare Nostrum that had been deleted by an IP address with an agenda. Your change has been undone by another editor. Many thanks for your attention. Best, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[ [2]] - [ [3]] - [ [4]] - [ [5]] - [ [6]] - [ [7]] - [ [8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here, there is no "deletion" involved here. The Italian usage of the term Mare Nostrum is mentioned at Mare Nostrum. The problem with the Italian Mare Nostrum page was that it is a very poor article mostly filled with irrelevance. How is a photo of a "Macchi C.205 Veltro of Regia Aeronautica" relevant to this political concept? How is it relevant that there was an "attack on the British base at Suda Bay, Crete by destroyers Crispi and Sella, both transporting explosive motor boats: HMS York beached and abandoned and one oil tanker sunk"? Do we need to know that "The Italian fleet also took advantage of the situation and moved onto the offensive, blocking or decimating at least three large Allied convoys bound for Malta" in order to understand what the term means? Or that "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian)"?
What has happened is that the relevant portions of Italian Mare Nostrum (which frankly, there was not much of) have been moved to Mare Nostrum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This was posted to J Milburn talk toady with one subsequent post.
Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote an article about such a person, but it got deleted long ago. Totnesmartin ( talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
i note your comments concerning the lack of references, and i agree that it needs some. there are a number of references in books concerning Sartre and Beauvoir, i will try and dig these out, might take some time! also, i will try and find the NY Times obituary for Powell, which was surprisingly lengthy and quite flattering. also, are we permitted to include actual quotes from her works, or this a copyright infringement?
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.136.78 ( talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I even cleaned it up a bit for him first. I do feel, still, that winning the Weston-Super-Mare Brass Band competition doesn't qualify them under WP:MUSIC; but not biting the noobs is important, even if you're sometimes a bit harsh in your reproofs towards me. We really are working towards the same goal, you know. Yours in good will, -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How did I damage the reference? Did I break the link or something? Please let me know what I did wrong so I can try not to repeat the error in future. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 08:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for the mistake I made in trying to improve the article in question. I will do my best to pay more attention to detail in the future. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that all reality show contestants are non-notable per se? It seems to me that a person's fitting the WP:BIO requirements ought not be negated by the fact that they also happen to be on a reality show. Would you advocate the deletion of a previously authored BLP article if the article subject suddenly became a contestant on a reality show? That is the logical implication of your reasoning. I am not contending that Martin is notable because of PR. I am contending that she is notable because she is the subject of multiple, independent, verifiable, reliable sources. This is a case of Orangemike and others basing deletion decisions on the fact that some people don't like the subject matter. "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." DickClarkMises ( talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no reliable source (e.g. accident report) stating that this flight suffered explosive decompression. Rapid decompression is different. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had any justification for re-adding the link to panavista as it isn't really covered by
WP:ELYES. At least not in a way that overrides
WP:NOT in the way I mentioned. discussion now being held on article's talk page ChimpanzeeUK -
User |
Talk |
Contribs
19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just found this article, and must congratulate you on it. The chronology of the introduction of tinplate has not been clear, but it first appears in the Gloucester port books in 1725. This is after the introduction of "Pontypool jappanned ware" (which would be a better title). I therefore suspect that japanning was introduced as a measn of preventing black plate from rusting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you didn't notice, but Plasma Facts, who is much more knowledgable in that industry than I am, hung a db-inc tag on that article. I didn't agree with the speedy (definitely some assertion of notability there), so I compromised with a prod notice. You've got to stop painting me as the villain here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You know that not everyone likes the CITE template, right? There is no one Wikipedia style as to footnotes. See WP:CITE#HOW. I think the template makes it harder to quickly insert a reference into aricles and the resulting footnote is less readable. It is more difficult to read underlined text, especially large blocks of it as in a notes section. The external link icon also breaks up the text formatting. DickClarkMises ( talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
XL392 was at RAF Valley for a good while [10], but has now been scrapped apparently [11]. -- Bobyllib ( talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your support for this article. What is DRV? If you were willing to make another stand, how can I support you? Regards, Renata ( talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good work on sorting out the text flow around the submarine gun photo - these are the kinds of improvements that we need more of to bring Wiki up to scratch appearance-wise. regards, Rod Rcbutcher ( talk) 14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, it appears you have several misconceptions regarding notability and how it is established and judged on Wikipedia. Having seen your "rationale" on the Leo Blair AfD, and noticed some other issues you have been involved with, I wonder if you might review WP:BIO and WP:CORP? When commenting on deletion-related issues, it is always better to be able to quote policies and guidelines to back up your assertions, rather than follow the "Well, I think..." line that you appear to favour. Deiz talk 06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you across the board. There's a major problem with sock-puppetry and s.p.a. involvement on this one, and I think this is his/their way of shutting it up. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dont think really notable enough for 2 articles, put the question up as it had a business tag attached. I was adding Info boxes to the company articles in the Derbyshire need info box category. - BulldozerD11 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note from your user boxes that you say your a Wiki coder, I'v got a problem with Wiki Templates I was copying to Tractor Wikia and a the UK Roads one, I cannot get {{ Convert}} to work, and others like {{ Navbox}} dont display the box just loads of <xxxx> bits. Convert for example gives "(2,120 mm ({{rnd/cExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"decExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}}} in" when called. Its from page Unimog here, with the Navbox template one Here which also displaying code from the transcluded doc page message box with the logo (icon) outside the msg box (so not forming the box border I think). (not copied the full set of 2000 sub functions of convert as loads of obscure units not needed). If you cannot help can you point me to the right place for help. Think i must have missed something fundamental off that works with the templates. (the more associated doc pages the more templates called & more red links) Cheers - BulldozerD11 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at Talk:Leonard Slatter. Please feel free to jump in and improve the article on Leonard Slatter as you see fit. Greenshed ( talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
come back and check it out. User:Redviking09/Ocean. ( Redviking09 ( talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi, a, I had just took an interest, read that article and have now nominated it for a DYK. Willirennen ( talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 04:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but your in-progress article on Miss England (Speedboat) was raised up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Disambig pages trying to be more. We thought that you should be informed that by the conventions of WP:SHIPS (this article falling under the mandate of the project), individual craft should have individual articles, instead of having several similarly named craft covered in a single article. So when you further expand the article, you might want to consider splitting it into Miss England I, Miss England II and Miss England III and converting Miss England (Speedboat) into a disambiguation page. Not that I'd be trying to dictate what you should do, but following established conventions obviously makes this place easier to use for everyone. Again, sorry for bothering you, and keep up the good work! -- Kjet ( talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I found your name at Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions. In WikiProject California template, if imageneeded=yes and in=Los Angeles county, California, then the page will be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles county, California. However, if imageneeded=yes and in=, in2=, and in3= are not specified, then the page should be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California. How do I revise the following code from Template:WikiProject California to make this happen?:
|- {{#if:{{{imageneeded|}}} | {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{imageneeded|}}}}}|yes |{{!}} valign="top" {{!}} [[Image:Camera-photo.svg | {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30|40 }}px | center]] {{!}} It is requested that a '''photograph''' or '''photographs''' be [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|included]] in this article to [[Wikipedia:Article development|improve its quality]]. {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{small|}}}}}|yes| {{#if:{{{Imagedetails|}}} |:{{{imagedetails|}}}}} |{{#if:{{{imagedetails|}}} | An editor suggests the following:<br> :'''{{{imagedetails|}}}''' }} }} <includeonly> }} {{#if:{{{#default}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]] }} {{#if:{{{in2|}}} |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in3|}}} |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] </includeonly> }} }}
-- GregManninLB ( talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
not(or(in,in2,in3))
operation. Easiest way to get that is to use the way that {{#if:
evaluates the expression - basically as either an empty or non-empty string. So try some variant of this:{{#if:{{{in|}}}{{{in2|}}}{{{in3|}}}| {{#if:{{{in|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]] }} {{#if:{{{in2|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} {{#if:{{{in3|}}}| [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]] }} | [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]] }}
Hope that helps. If I've misunderstood your needs, or if it doesn't, then please comment. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
#
or a :
between friends?. Then there's the problem of extensions and whether your particular wiki has that extension installed.{| class="messagebox
is a combination of two things, neither of them specifically Parser Functions.
{|
is wikitable markup for the beginning of a table.
class="messagebox ... "
is HTML markup, passed straight through the wiki and onto the webpage. It's used to attach a CSS rule, by means of a selector in the skinning.css that will have .messagebox
in the selector (any CSS ref. should explain this). Note the leading "."
Couple of other things to note:
{|
is wikitable markup, but it can't be used in combination with Parser Functions, as the PF parser sees the "|
" character as being related to the PFs and will swallow it up before it gets to generate a table. If you want to generate table from within PFs (not obvious, so ask for advice - a good article on this would be worth writing) then you need to replace "|
" with "{{!}}
". This is a simple template call, to a template called {{
!}}. Most wikis will have this installed, a template that simply returns a "|
". Equally {{
!!}} that returns "||
". These templates are also useful for passing table markup into template parameters. See my new
commons:Image:Locomotive boiler sectioned.jpg for an example.
class="messagebox"
is a simple example, with one class name in the class attribute. HTML / CSS also allows multiple classes to be specified together, with class="messagebox woof bark donkey"
This HTML element will have the CSS rules for any of the classes "messagebox", "woof", "bark" 'or "donkey" applied to it.
Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
class="messagebox"
calls the .messagebox in
template:MediaWiki:Common.css to give specific/common characteristics to Messagebox templates. There is a table of classes
here. I do remember reading about the pipe "|" and the need to use an exclaimation point "!" for the pipe in some cases. I need to start with the basics of HTML markup and wikitable markup and work my way up from there. Thanks. : )
GregManninLB (
talk)
02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Hi. I'm delighted to see you support keeping this article I have just created. It is intended as the first of individual entries on all 400+ known Roman auxiliary regiments to link to the main article, List of Roman auxiliary regiments. To be honest, as someone unfamiliar with the editing norms of Wiki, I cannot understand why this can even remotely be regarded as unsuitable for inclusion. The unit in question is discussed in a number of reputable academic publications, so why is it "non-notable"? Perhaps you can explain this term more clearly for me? Regards EraNavigator ( talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I cannot explain this term any more clearly...
...at least not in a way that isn't going to get me thrown into the editorial sin-bin along with User:Sarah777 and a bunch of other editors who value adding new content over measuring reaction times to nit-pick about topics they have no other interest in or connection with. But take a look at Notching. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the article, removed the commercial link and the speedy template. The commercial link was not at all useful in describing notching. It offered commercial services related to notching. Beyond a glossary, there didn't seem any reason to link to it.
Perhaps I made a mistake in agreeing with the Speedy tag (although I decline to say mea culpa.) However, if the text isn't clarified and better focused, I expect it may be nominated again, either for SD or AfD. I did read the article before deleting it and found it almost incomprehensible from a layman's perspective. It uses jargon and words defined specifically from the perspective of metal/materials processing. In other words, what seem to be perfectly clear words are only understandable if one is familiar with the fabrication and metalworking usage of the terms. I suspect this is what the SD nom meant by "lacking context".
I'm putting the article on my watchlist and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring NPA issues, Andy, I will instead attempt to explain that this seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOT#GUIDE material. It's more of a how-to than encyclopedic content, as Pigman clarifies far more eloquently than I did. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
NOT GUIDE is fair enough as a comment, but that's still reason for improvement, not for deletion. Certainly not speedy.
For NPA, then I'm sorry and I must assume that you act in Good Faith, but I don't have to believe that you exercise good judgement. There are two editors involved in attacking this article (and its newbie creator, who we're all equally required to assume acted in equal good faith) - both of you have a talk page filled with queries and complaints noting pages where you appear to have acted over-hastily to delete pages. We're supposed to be building things here, not seeing who's fastest to demolish them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I undid an edit that you made in good faith to Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow removing 7.7mm as the metric conversion of the 0.303 in British round as it is my understanding (and it would seem accepted wisdom on Wikipedia) that this is the correct metric reporting calibre of that particular round. Regards. Emoscopes Talk 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Andy. If an article class is assigned FA, GA, B, Start, Stub, or no assessment, I want the WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. If an article class is Category, template, or some other non-article, then I do not want WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. Will the following code do this:
<includeonly>
{{#if: {{{FA|Fa|fa|}}} {{{FL|Fl|fl|}}}{{{A|a|}}} {{{GA|Ga|ga|}}} {{{B|b|}}}
{{{Start|start|}}} {{{Stub|stub|}}} {{{List|list|}}} {{{|}}}
|
[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}
</includeonly>
GregManninLB ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{#switch:
form that's in the template at the moment.FA|Fa|fa
construct inside a switch (fall-through of matches) doesn't have any real connection to the "default value for parameters" structure you seem to be confusing it with here.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{FA|}}}{{{Fa|}}}{{{fa|}}}{{{FL|}}}{{{Fl|}}}{{{fl|}}}{{{A|}}}{{{a|}}
{{{GA|}}}{{{Ga|}}}{{{ga|}}}{{{B|}}}{{{b|}}}{{{Start|}}}{{{start|}}}{{{Stub|}}}{{{stub|}}}{{{List|}}}
{{{list|}}}{{{|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>
. This was based on the above comment. Will this work? Thanks. GregManninLB ( talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
{{#switch:
You need to test values of a single parameter here, not multiple parameters.{{lc:
, then just test once. Try this:{{#if: {{{class|}}} |
{{#switch: {{lc: {{{class|}}} }}
|foo= [[category:Foo!]]
|fa
|ga <!-- fall-throughs Note the lack of "=" -->
|b
|start
|stub = [[category:stubby stuff]]
|#default= <!-- Don't do anything -->
}}
|
<!-- No value given at all --> [[category:stubby stuff]]
}}
{{#switch:
syntax is over here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch:
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about this over lunch instead of reading my new Patricia McKillip novel. Should there be an explicit section of WP:NOT called something like, "Wikipedia is not a scratch pad or word processor."? We could start with your phrasing, "editors really should not treat wikipedia as an editing scratchpad, and shouldn't make stuff even remotely visible until it's near-finished." I would add something like, "As an editor of Wikipedia, a contributor is expected to create a new article, however brief in something resembling a finished state. It should not resemble a series of random jottings, a skeletal outline with empty section headings, an essay, or a "data dump" from a resume or similar document. Naturally, many new articles will be stubs; there is nothing wrong with a properly-formatted stub. But at a minimum, an article should, for example, have an opening sentence that makes it clear what the subject is: a place, a thing, a person, a concept, or whatever; and at least enough additional context to place it within the universe of discourse. There should be wikilinks to relevant aspects of the subject, and ideally perhaps a category and/or a stub tag or two." Am I making sense here? -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have a second voice. Been banging my head on a brick wall. Very frustrating.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW I never thanked you for your intervention(s) recently; (and just now! ). I was having a bad week! So thank you, twice! Xyl 54 ( talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's classy...but not a lost cause. You only need about 5 million other spare parts off eBay and voila, your own Cold War bomber.
Dunno if you'll fit it in your back garden though ;)
Compromise on last / only / current - how about "single" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.54.83 ( talk) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, Thanks... I made sure I was there for the testing of the Napier-Railton. Every time I've visited the museum before it's been tucked away in the Campbell shed. I had to use the opportunity to get some pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Rogers 100 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've restored Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher). I stumbed across the article as the editor who created it had created a bunch of articles on different people called Mary White, few of which seemed notable from the articles content per the part of CSD #7 which states that articles can be speedied if they're "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and wasn't responding to the tag - the article as it stands doesn't really make any case for why Ms White belongs in an Encyclopedia. I don't see how this person is at all notable, but you are right about there being a very vauge claim to some notability so I've undone my deletion - do you intend to work on it? Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Dingley:
I am new to editing Wikipedia and I thought I put the correct edit for the above book, I realize that I forgot the ISBN 0-9785168-0-X so I would appreciate you undoing your undos as this book has valid and reliable information about the topics it was listed for. If my form was improper in the edit I would appreciate your suggestions.
Sincerely,
scinamon Scinamon ( talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, he sure was busy. A three day block is enough though. The majority of ip's are not static, and we don't want to block non-vandalism ip edits. If he starts again on the same ip he will get longer blocks. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to introduce templates for citations and references when the sources are properly cited. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Thanks SGGH speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank you for answering a long-burning question of mine as to why it was called "K7" (where's K5 and 6? I used to think) and what the "infinity" symbol on the badge stands for. Keep up the good work! Emoscopes Talk 13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with Hafod Estate. Have you been there? ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment you posted concerning the subject in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. I looked at your beautiful images and I can understand your POV is that of a photographer/artist. I thought The Citizen photographer had a good eye in capturing the moment. The two images were originally posted by an Administrator with the not free/fair use tag I met on a job over two years ago as I was driving three volunteers for an NDP candidate in my van for hire as they planted election signs in Canada's last general election. There are not many occasions when people are interested in hearing about my 3 runs for elective office as an Independent Candidate with no money or volunteers, but these guys were. One of them took it upon himself to research my talk and confirmed it by creating the article. You might imagine how happy and surprised I was discovering it April 19. Seeing it is about me, I have recused myself from editing it, hoping others would take over. Would you enlighten me on what FUR means, please? Perhaps you might improve on the way the article uses it as you suggest. If you read the history, what is in the article now is only about 5% of the original. The editor who wants both images deleted unilaterally removed them instantaneously on seeing them. After about a week's discussion, they were restored to the article, but he has had a change of heart. I don't understand why an editor/admin. would spent so much time obsessed about these images other than not wanting them in the historic image category. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 02:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
LoL ;) wanted to see what would happen. I just merged it... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm kidding. The merge was proposed without anyone participating in the discussion, the reason was explained to involved Users at the deletion discussion. At any rate, perhaps now the merge will be discussed. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
__HIDDENCAT__
of "Articles beyond hope of redemption, don't waste your life on them". Articles like this that have been savaged by a self-appointed cabal, or those like
Duck typing that are simply too inept, or anything involving Ireland, ever. Then I can just remember to walk away and not let it ruin my day, while I get on with something else. Then I'll go and sit with
Sarah777 on the Naughty Chair. This isn't how it was supposed to be, but I admit it's beyond me how to solve it. 8-(
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Re: this edit, [1] with all due respect, I did not blank the page. I restored the redirect to Mare Nostrum that had been deleted by an IP address with an agenda. Your change has been undone by another editor. Many thanks for your attention. Best, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[ [2]] - [ [3]] - [ [4]] - [ [5]] - [ [6]] - [ [7]] - [ [8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 ( talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here, there is no "deletion" involved here. The Italian usage of the term Mare Nostrum is mentioned at Mare Nostrum. The problem with the Italian Mare Nostrum page was that it is a very poor article mostly filled with irrelevance. How is a photo of a "Macchi C.205 Veltro of Regia Aeronautica" relevant to this political concept? How is it relevant that there was an "attack on the British base at Suda Bay, Crete by destroyers Crispi and Sella, both transporting explosive motor boats: HMS York beached and abandoned and one oil tanker sunk"? Do we need to know that "The Italian fleet also took advantage of the situation and moved onto the offensive, blocking or decimating at least three large Allied convoys bound for Malta" in order to understand what the term means? Or that "The Italian Regia Aeronautica entered the war with 3296 airplanes (1332 Bombers and 1160 "Caccia", as were called the Fighters in Italian)"?
What has happened is that the relevant portions of Italian Mare Nostrum (which frankly, there was not much of) have been moved to Mare Nostrum. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This was posted to J Milburn talk toady with one subsequent post.
Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote an article about such a person, but it got deleted long ago. Totnesmartin ( talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
i note your comments concerning the lack of references, and i agree that it needs some. there are a number of references in books concerning Sartre and Beauvoir, i will try and dig these out, might take some time! also, i will try and find the NY Times obituary for Powell, which was surprisingly lengthy and quite flattering. also, are we permitted to include actual quotes from her works, or this a copyright infringement?
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.136.78 ( talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I even cleaned it up a bit for him first. I do feel, still, that winning the Weston-Super-Mare Brass Band competition doesn't qualify them under WP:MUSIC; but not biting the noobs is important, even if you're sometimes a bit harsh in your reproofs towards me. We really are working towards the same goal, you know. Yours in good will, -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
How did I damage the reference? Did I break the link or something? Please let me know what I did wrong so I can try not to repeat the error in future. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 08:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for the mistake I made in trying to improve the article in question. I will do my best to pay more attention to detail in the future. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that all reality show contestants are non-notable per se? It seems to me that a person's fitting the WP:BIO requirements ought not be negated by the fact that they also happen to be on a reality show. Would you advocate the deletion of a previously authored BLP article if the article subject suddenly became a contestant on a reality show? That is the logical implication of your reasoning. I am not contending that Martin is notable because of PR. I am contending that she is notable because she is the subject of multiple, independent, verifiable, reliable sources. This is a case of Orangemike and others basing deletion decisions on the fact that some people don't like the subject matter. "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects." DickClarkMises ( talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no reliable source (e.g. accident report) stating that this flight suffered explosive decompression. Rapid decompression is different. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had any justification for re-adding the link to panavista as it isn't really covered by
WP:ELYES. At least not in a way that overrides
WP:NOT in the way I mentioned. discussion now being held on article's talk page ChimpanzeeUK -
User |
Talk |
Contribs
19:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just found this article, and must congratulate you on it. The chronology of the introduction of tinplate has not been clear, but it first appears in the Gloucester port books in 1725. This is after the introduction of "Pontypool jappanned ware" (which would be a better title). I therefore suspect that japanning was introduced as a measn of preventing black plate from rusting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you didn't notice, but Plasma Facts, who is much more knowledgable in that industry than I am, hung a db-inc tag on that article. I didn't agree with the speedy (definitely some assertion of notability there), so I compromised with a prod notice. You've got to stop painting me as the villain here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You know that not everyone likes the CITE template, right? There is no one Wikipedia style as to footnotes. See WP:CITE#HOW. I think the template makes it harder to quickly insert a reference into aricles and the resulting footnote is less readable. It is more difficult to read underlined text, especially large blocks of it as in a notes section. The external link icon also breaks up the text formatting. DickClarkMises ( talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
XL392 was at RAF Valley for a good while [10], but has now been scrapped apparently [11]. -- Bobyllib ( talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your support for this article. What is DRV? If you were willing to make another stand, how can I support you? Regards, Renata ( talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good work on sorting out the text flow around the submarine gun photo - these are the kinds of improvements that we need more of to bring Wiki up to scratch appearance-wise. regards, Rod Rcbutcher ( talk) 14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy, it appears you have several misconceptions regarding notability and how it is established and judged on Wikipedia. Having seen your "rationale" on the Leo Blair AfD, and noticed some other issues you have been involved with, I wonder if you might review WP:BIO and WP:CORP? When commenting on deletion-related issues, it is always better to be able to quote policies and guidelines to back up your assertions, rather than follow the "Well, I think..." line that you appear to favour. Deiz talk 06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you across the board. There's a major problem with sock-puppetry and s.p.a. involvement on this one, and I think this is his/their way of shutting it up. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Dont think really notable enough for 2 articles, put the question up as it had a business tag attached. I was adding Info boxes to the company articles in the Derbyshire need info box category. - BulldozerD11 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note from your user boxes that you say your a Wiki coder, I'v got a problem with Wiki Templates I was copying to Tractor Wikia and a the UK Roads one, I cannot get {{ Convert}} to work, and others like {{ Navbox}} dont display the box just loads of <xxxx> bits. Convert for example gives "(2,120 mm ({{rnd/cExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"decExpression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}}} in" when called. Its from page Unimog here, with the Navbox template one Here which also displaying code from the transcluded doc page message box with the logo (icon) outside the msg box (so not forming the box border I think). (not copied the full set of 2000 sub functions of convert as loads of obscure units not needed). If you cannot help can you point me to the right place for help. Think i must have missed something fundamental off that works with the templates. (the more associated doc pages the more templates called & more red links) Cheers - BulldozerD11 ( talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at Talk:Leonard Slatter. Please feel free to jump in and improve the article on Leonard Slatter as you see fit. Greenshed ( talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
come back and check it out. User:Redviking09/Ocean. ( Redviking09 ( talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!