Look at the history. Where I was redirecting is the original article. Juan Tu only pointed that to the stupid capitalization after I pointed out that he was duplicating an existing article. Would you please self-revert? Ladyof Shalott 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are neither an admin, nor do you seem to be an experienced editor per your edit count, nor do I see that you've done much work in the copyvio area, it would have been better if you had not tried to remove the CSD from this article. Due to the nature of WP:COPYRIGHT, such CSDs should almost always be dealt with by an admin or very experienced editor. In particular, as this article is also the topic of an ANI thread due to the larger issues with this creator (as noted on the talk page), it only doubles the need for it to be handled by an actual administrator. You also incorrectly claimed that it was fair use, [1] when it is not, to take word for word copy from other sites. Listing it at WP:CP was unnecessary, particularly with it already under discussion at ANI, as there is no question on its having had copyvio issues. It had, in fact, been CSDed before not long before its recreation for the exact same issue. I have now completely redone the article to remove all of the copyvio there by ending that issue. Please do not try to restore the copyvio material again, as the actual fact stated is now in the article and sourced to an actual reliable source.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk ~ contribs) 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including
Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters ( talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC).
Sorry 'bout that. I was taking a break from the project andI semi-protected the talk page. I can unprotect that other page for you in the meantime. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The same reasons I used the last time it was removed (as sid in the edit history), and at the current deletion discussion regarding it. The City Terminal Zanoe is not a rail line, but generl descriptor to three separte lines, each of which has a separate article already containing a route digram. It is redundant and unneeded. oknazevad ( talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi David Levy. It's been three years since the last discussion occurred regarding possibly redirecting the old test templates. I think, given the amount of time that has passed, it is time to have another discussion to see whether consensus has changed.
There's a whole range of options to consider for these templates, including (1) deleting, (2) redirecting, (3) userfying, (4) merging if some unique functionality remains for the old template, (5) labelling the test templates as deprecated, (6) keeping status quo. I know the old consensus was that there was gain from deleting them, but I'd like to determine whether anyone is indeed still using these templates, and why, so we might determine whether the standardized templates are not meeting a significant need. There are indeed reasons for not keeping the old templates: (1) poor documentation, (2) indescriptive and disorganized naming scheme prone to errors (test1, test1a, test1article, test1n, test1-alt, etc.), and (3) disinterest in updating or improving them.
In fact, maintaining separate templates defeats reaching consensus, the hallmark of Wikipedia. When users disagree about a given article, we don't maintain two versions of the article. Rather we, resolve the differences in a mutually agreeable way. While that's a rule for articles that may not apply to templates as rigorously, the benefits are the same. The benefit here could be a single, improved template, for everyone's use.
All of these issues could be raised in a discussion, and a discussion is necessary to determine whether there is a new consensus. I'd like to renew the conversation to determine which would be best, and I thought that Templates for Discussion would be the most visible place to do it. Could you suggest an alternative, or do you have your own ideas? Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This template has been superseded and is retained for legacy purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a standardized list of user warning templates. |
Hello Bsherr. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is about a peer-reviewed journal, not a website, blog, etc. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you point me toward the consensus discussion on moving {{ uw-vblock}} to {{ uw-block}}? Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
{{safesubst:uw-block|reason={{{reason|}}}|page={{{page|}}}|time={{{time|}}}|sig={{{sig|}}}|indef={{{indef|}}}}}
As for user talk pages, when you link to files or templates, make sure to add a colon ":" before them so that it's not mistaken for a real one. Or, you can also use curved braces and add a tlx argument before it. mechamind 9 0 04:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Albion Police Department (Nebraska), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 ( talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I set out to userfy this in answer to your request, but the author already has a copy in a user sub-page. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We meet again. I have reverted your changes to the wording of WP:CSD#G11 and {{ db-g11}}. A substantial change like that to a widely-used template needs discussion and consensus, and in this case I do not at all agree with your change - there are many spam pages that would fit "does nothing but promote some entity or product" but are not so bad as to fit "consists entirely of blatant, biased promotion or advertisement of the subject" If you disagree, please start a discussion at WT:CSD and see if you can get a consensus. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you have declined a number of CSD's with "Government agency not an A7 eligible subject" - I honestly was not aware of that, I new schools were not but did not know that extended to other Government agencies. - Can you point me to the full list of what organisations are not eligible ? Codf1977 ( talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the group AfD - I will prod these and leave it a week to see if any one objects. Codf1977 ( talk)
Wikipedia:Coi#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest recommends that "[t]he first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". I saw no evidence that you had done that. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr. I would like to close the discussion as "merge" but am clueless as to how to merge the templates you nominated. If you're willing to merge them and some admin hasn't already done so by the time you respond and I close it, I'll close the discussion and you can merge the templates. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed here that you disputed the speedy deletion of the article being created by a banned user on the grounds that other users have made substantial edits. Could you please point me to which edit you believe is substantial? I'm only able to find very small, minor edits by other users, nothing of substance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(reset) Userfied for you, at User:Bsherr/Featherlite Coaches, User:Bsherr/Jack Creek, and User:Bsherr/Rachel Sussman. If you are ready to move any back to mainspace, please let me know so the history merging can be done properly. If they're not workable, you can just put {{ db-u1}} to have the subpages deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is John Manuel if you don't mind, I would like to keep these pages. I will edit something but not too soon. Now, please feel free to change any categorization that you might find important. Thank you for asking, Bsherr. John Manuel "-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't catch your suggestion about VeblenBot. If you can point me to it, I'll look at it as soon as I can. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Little late for this, but for the sake of things, I support the Autoassessor2 run for WP:WPRS. Should have been the first one to support this, but a TFA and a FA have taken up most of my WikiTime. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in anyway on WP:WPRS as I can normally be found doing some radio or TV station editing on most days (not lately, but most). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Microsoft Hi Ryan Norton. This article properly should be put into Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism, which is accomplished by using {{ pp-vandalism}}, not {{ pp-semi-indef}}. Please note that this follows a repurposing of this category after pp-vandalism was metatized for both protection levels. The small parameter is contraindicated, even though the page is indefinitely semiprotected, because this page is an article. The small template does not explain semiprotection, the reason for the protection, and how new and anonymous users can seek to edit the article. I hope this clarifies the change in template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
Please could you consider revisiting the deletion discussion about the sandbox warning thing,
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-sandbox
I do take your point about possibly rewriting it, but my primary concern is that it is a warning template, and as such overused via Twinkle.
Re. your other concern that the bot does not quickly replace that;
a) I've not seen that myself, and indeed I checked an itemised in history showing that the bot does speedily replace it,
b) I just re-checked (and suggest you might wish to do same);
c) If there are problems with the bot, then we need to fix them, I don't see that this means the template is needed though.
If you'd like to get a copy of the template userfied, and consider rewriting it under a different name, that could be a compromise, perhaps?
I hope you don't mind me asking for this clarification, but I see that the item has been re-listed.
Best, Chzz ► 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, you redirected Template:SharedIPCORP to Template:SharedIP without discussion. Firstly, I feel as if actions like that should certainly be discussed first. Secondly, I don't see how the template is any more redundant than Template:SharedIPEDU, and no one seemed to support merging it with SharedIP when I had proposed such. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, I closed your nomination of the Gblock templates as delete. You mentioned a documentation in the rationale; could you please provide a link? I can't find it. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks! BTW, you have a query at WP:RFPP regarding the unprotecting of Template:SharedIPCORP. Airplaneman ✈ 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It looks like there is an extra, preceeding space in {{ uw-vblock}} now. I always put one manual line-break in order to keep the standardized spacing, but now two are showing up when the template is transcluded ( [4], [5]). Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Kralizec! ( talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw the change you made. What happened with my need for "just a warning, no userpage editing" by the notifying user, which need I write not just once? - DePiep ( talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't any idea. That question is best asked of the admin. who protected the page. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation of my ACC registration. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
regarding
WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 13#Template:Do not delete, can I ask where that CfD discussion was, or what the category was? I'd be interested in the rationale. {{
Do not delete}} never used a template, and only worked through the transclusion list.
Thanks,
Amalthea
12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it could be hidden from the documentation. mechamind 9 0 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template SharedIPCORP. It was created mainly for major corporations like Hospital Corporation of America, IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, midsize and large hospitals, etc., not small businesses like you've described with twenty employees. I'm of the opinion it should be kept for categorization, but I'm open to other ideas, so long as they're not applied only to THIS PARTICULAR template. Perhaps we could add the word "major" in front of business or corporation in the template? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I just added a note on SharedIPGOV about notifying the Wikimedia Foundation Communication Committee (I copied the message from a Senate IP's talk page), and I'd like a second opinion. Approve? Disapprove? Comments? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw you removed the notification templates HERE per some discussion of a merge. Where/when did this dicussion take place?? I came looking for the template to notify an author of an AFD I did not begin and was stymied until I dug through the histories and found what I needed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)"
Unconstructive? Really? Maybe I shoudln't have said that they we're insane, but why did you remove my comment about Jim Bob Duggar from "19 Kids and Counting!"? If he isn't a hardcore Natalist then who is? Come on man, I swear in my opinion there is a conspiracy with the duggar family and their 19 kids, and in my opinion you seem to be in on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 ( talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus. Except, there was significant discussion about rewording the template completely. You'll also notice several comments about not worrying if a new user removes the sandbox header. If the bot has issues, we fix the bot, not warn new users over what is probably an unintentional mistake. If you were trying to update a table, for example, to an article, and accidentally removed some of the code without realizing, would you expect to get a warning notice saying "Hi, thanks for trying to update this table, but you should not remove all this other stuff because it's important"? Absolutely not. If the header is such a big deal, we can just copy it into the editnotice and not have to worry about it being removed. I know I'm sort of rambling on, but how would you reword this to actually make it a useful "warning", not a "Hey noob, don't remove that next time" notice? That would just scare them off from testing again, in case they accidentally removed the header without realizing and thought that maybe them editing the thing at all was the issue, right? I'm just trying to figure out what consensus you thought the TfD had and how you would reword to it be meaningful to a new user. / ƒETCH COMMS / 02:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, i get it now. thanks for your help. i've fixed some other pages where i made this mistake. I now understand the difference between transclusion and substitution a little better. i should have seen that what i was doing was not how the template was listed on other pages. but no harm. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I read your comments in this discussion, where you said, if I accidentally removed some code in an article, I would like to be warned! Warnings are not designed to be punitive, but to be informative.
Consequently, I considered putting a {{Uw-editsummary}} here, because I noticed you have not been using edit summaries.
However, I think that would be borderline point, so I refrain from actually putting the template here; but I do beg you to consider - if I had, how would you have taken it? In all honesty - would you have accepted it, in good faith, as honest feedback? Or might you have felt a little slighted by it?
I hope you understand me; I am just asking that you consider how a warning message appears, to our most precious gift, new users.
I think your views on the necessity of the uw-sandbox warning are incorrect; but that discussion belongs over there. Chzz ► 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
<sum>:1 | This user believes that every edit should have a summary. |
Please could you leave an edit summary, at least when editing articles (e.g. [22]). Thanks. Chzz ► 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You placed a deletion template on the page but you did not actually initiate a discussion at WP:TFD. There are detailed instructions there on how to properly list a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed at Uw-block that you changed a "subst:NAMESPACE" to just "NAMESPACE". I see where you're going, but it would have made "Unblock-hard" a highly visible template by not substing it. Perhaps there's a different way you can achieve that objective. mechamind 9 0 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, hi:) Good to see you around. Now the reason I'm writing. In your edit to the Vandalism page, you left out some critical details on user space vandalism. The next time you undertake edits to such important pages, it's a request, be very careful in not leaving out such details. I have added the details back. If you reply, kindly do so on my talk page. I'm not watching this page. Warm regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I performed the initial steps by converting the backend of the template, and adding the min/max elevation ranks to the parent template. It appears as though the next step is to substitute it, but I personally would not be opposed to leaving it as a wrapper for {{ Infobox commune}}, but substitution would work as well. It calls some other templates for the elevation, population, mayor, and area data, which allows for these data to be updated in a central location. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, me being an idiot. Lucky my bot is smarter than I am!
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
I've marked this task as approved. Please see the request page for details. I've also mark this as approved for bot editing on AWB's check page, and a 'crat should flag the bot shortly. Cheers, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
All the other neighborhoods within the City of Miami are using the comma convention. Looking at other cities, like NYC, all those neighborhoods are also using the neighborhood, city convention. Why did you change Buena Vista, Miami to Buena Vista (Miami)? Now it is the only article on Wikipedia that I can find that follows this. It's not consistent with all the others. - Marc Averette ( talk) 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Golgi apparatus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. — Mike moral ♪♫ 22:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
<-- Sorry about that again. Turns out there was an error with the ISP so my service was cut. I should be able to review the article this weekend. :) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:DASH prior to continuing to edit Foggy Bottom—GWU (WMATA station). Specifically, please take note of the following passage:
“ |
Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem). |
” |
Thus by the guidelines for dashes, the title should be spaced, and will be returned to such. Please do not move the page to an unspaced title without discussion explaining why you believe that this follows the manual of style's guidelines for treatment of disjunctive dashes with multiple words. Thanks! SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, I just reverted your edit to this template as you redirected it to a template which works differently and doesn't give the same information, and the result was confusion as I use this template frequently. There was a recent RFC which changed the icon of the template, and I don't see any evidence that there's consensus to redirect the template. Please let me know if I'm missing something, otherwise take it to TfD. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The category, Subjects of apology by the United States government, does not exist and if I recall correctly was nominated for deletion with approval. I reverted the edit. Veriss ( talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
referring to the article wizard in {{
db-notice}} wasn't an improvement, IMO: It's now showing on pages like {{
db-R3-notice}} or {{
db-vandalism-notice}} where it is inappropriate or doesn't make sense, and it's now mentioned twice on {{
db-a7-notice}} or {{
Db-spam-notice}} where it was already added to the prose. If you want to stick with the box please remove the phrase from the prose and either move it to the few notices where it makes sense, or only show it in the meta template if asked to by the wrapper (via parser function).
Thanks,
Amalthea
13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me why it should be deleted? I declined because you didn't provide a deletion rationale; a G6 tag by itself isn't normally a sufficient reason for deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No one is searching for this. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had my bot remove this template from all of the user talk pages on which it appears, and replace it with {{ SharedIPGOV}} and Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States, thus preserving the existing categorization, as in this example edit. If the category is kept, no further editing of the talk pages will be necessary; if it is deleted, Cydebot will be directed to remove the category from the user talk pages. In any case, {{ SharedIP US military}} can safely be deleted, without waiting for the CFD to be closed. Peter Karlsen ( talk) 03:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason behind the removal of the "will provide" message from the G11 template is because such material is deemed forbidden even in the userspace. mechamind 9 0 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Bsherr,
I have been trying to understand what is the normal Wikipedia protocol for when an advert template can be removed from an article that has been improved since the advert template was added to it. Ranging about with this question in mind, I read similar question from an editor of the Halton Hills Public Library which had been posted on the advert template talk page, together with your answer. I wonder if you would have a moment to review the winnowTag article and determine whether if in your opinion the advert tag can be removed? Or if not, any advice you may have to offer about the article, this question, or a good forum within which to learn more about this, would be much appreciated.
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingiii ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about posting an off topic question on the page I asked about becoming and Admin. Thanks for your help. -- StartrekismylifeJadzia ( talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I will sign future posts. Thank you for the information you sent me. I filed a RfA and have nominated myself. Thanks again, -- StartrekismylifeJadzia ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The article was not protected only because there was one incident of vandalism. If you review the articles history, you will see that the article has been a constant target of excessive vandalism in not only in the month of October, but all throughout. The protection status is necessary to discourage this type of behavior, however it will be uplifted in due time. Tony the Marine ( talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Good work with and . PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. If you want to make these templates consistent, why not design a meta-template that they all use? Also, could we look at a clear and consistent naming scheme for these templates? I've boldly renamed one of them - what do you think? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I just closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_20#Template:Uw-number. It would be great if you could take charge of the merging. Let me know if you want me to help. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I added this template to a user's talk page and was surprised to find that It told the user to go to your talk page to know why the page was tagged for speedy deletion instead of mine. I trust that this is an error of the recent redirecting and rewrite. It it possible that you could fix this? I am not very fluent in the inner workings of templates. Thanks -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my prolonged absence. I'll begin reviewing today, then finish up tomorrow or the day after. — Mike moral ♪♫ 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, lets talk about something other that SharedIPCORP for a change... what are we going to do with Template:ISP? It still uses the old style. I think it should adopt the File:Shared IP.svg. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I find your recent actions on
Template talk:Expand disruptiveunhelpful and have reverted you again. It is much better to keep the discussion in one place so that people do not have to repeat what they have said in other places. As there has already been an RfC started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (article message boxes) it makes sense to continue it. It is certainly not a good idea to open two separare RfCs on the same issue! Regards — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Bsherr, Thanks ... I didn't realize that template was part of my page....sorry!! Good catch on your part! KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join the committee.
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
Why are you capitalizing templates? You have been going around capitalizing the "w" in {{ wikipedia category}} templates on category pages. As these are transcluded templates that aren't really visible, isn't that really non-productive? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not objecting, it just seems an unnecessary work as it is not actual text you correcting but unseen templates that don't need to be capitalized. While Wikipedia is a proper name, these are not instances where it is displayed as such. To me, it would be like going in and capitalizing all of the instances of <br/> in the embedded HTML code. If it is helping run scripts better, that is a logical reason why. I was just curious, that's all. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is for improving the Pat Tillman article by the simple moving of an infobox to its logical location. ~~~~ |
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters ( talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Done Can you point me to how to edit that specific documentation-page? Now it is generic uw-, but I'd like to describe the options (cat=, defer=). - DePiep ( talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are doing and AWB run to add {{ Talk header}} to numerous talk pages, then you should probably stop. The template is only suppose to be added to talk pages of highly visible articles. If it was suppose to show up on all talk pages, then it would have been transcluded through Meta. — Farix ( t | c) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What does "Redirect as redundant" mean? (See {{ Hole (band)}} at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.) Wikkitywack ( talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
The Modest Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded for your efforts during the November Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa ( Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
See here. I looked up the edits that orphaned the template. 134.253.26.6 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You recently participated in a discussion regarding renaming of several pages from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". There is currently an RfC on the naming issue at Talk:The Gambia. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comments at the village pump and I like your idea bout automatic classing and assessment of these types of things. Do you know how hard that would be to implement? -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I had put the backlog notice because there are entries which are older than 48 hours. There is one entry which is even 7 days old.
If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please add {{Admin backlog}} to the top of this page.
The notice doesnot mention about any 'unaddressed' issues. Thank you for understanding. WarFox ( talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have placed the GA review on hold for further action. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You recently edited the AFDNote template, ostensible to clarify the language. However, I would have to argue that the new language is more awkward than that which you replaced, and also no longer contains any information about why a particular user (other than the creator of the article under discussion) is being notified. Specifically, I think that
is much more awkward than
Actually, I think the version prior to that
is actually better than both, and I would suggest a return to that wording. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Template:R help. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
—
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX )
20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Please delete the Nuh ibn Zbigniew thread. I am the person mentioned and don't want unsubstantiated claims and vindictive lies about my life made through wikipedia. I cannot police this thread on a daily basis.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngondek ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Bsherr. Would you mind relaying to me what this IP stated at Talk:Pedophilia? Through email, if you prefer. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to this, you may be interested to see User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder#Cold fusion talk where eventually the decision was made to semi-protect. jps ( talk) 07:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your question on Template talk:Delrev. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Look at the history. Where I was redirecting is the original article. Juan Tu only pointed that to the stupid capitalization after I pointed out that he was duplicating an existing article. Would you please self-revert? Ladyof Shalott 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are neither an admin, nor do you seem to be an experienced editor per your edit count, nor do I see that you've done much work in the copyvio area, it would have been better if you had not tried to remove the CSD from this article. Due to the nature of WP:COPYRIGHT, such CSDs should almost always be dealt with by an admin or very experienced editor. In particular, as this article is also the topic of an ANI thread due to the larger issues with this creator (as noted on the talk page), it only doubles the need for it to be handled by an actual administrator. You also incorrectly claimed that it was fair use, [1] when it is not, to take word for word copy from other sites. Listing it at WP:CP was unnecessary, particularly with it already under discussion at ANI, as there is no question on its having had copyvio issues. It had, in fact, been CSDed before not long before its recreation for the exact same issue. I have now completely redone the article to remove all of the copyvio there by ending that issue. Please do not try to restore the copyvio material again, as the actual fact stated is now in the article and sourced to an actual reliable source.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk ~ contribs) 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including
Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!
Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters ( talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/ My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC).
Sorry 'bout that. I was taking a break from the project andI semi-protected the talk page. I can unprotect that other page for you in the meantime. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The same reasons I used the last time it was removed (as sid in the edit history), and at the current deletion discussion regarding it. The City Terminal Zanoe is not a rail line, but generl descriptor to three separte lines, each of which has a separate article already containing a route digram. It is redundant and unneeded. oknazevad ( talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi David Levy. It's been three years since the last discussion occurred regarding possibly redirecting the old test templates. I think, given the amount of time that has passed, it is time to have another discussion to see whether consensus has changed.
There's a whole range of options to consider for these templates, including (1) deleting, (2) redirecting, (3) userfying, (4) merging if some unique functionality remains for the old template, (5) labelling the test templates as deprecated, (6) keeping status quo. I know the old consensus was that there was gain from deleting them, but I'd like to determine whether anyone is indeed still using these templates, and why, so we might determine whether the standardized templates are not meeting a significant need. There are indeed reasons for not keeping the old templates: (1) poor documentation, (2) indescriptive and disorganized naming scheme prone to errors (test1, test1a, test1article, test1n, test1-alt, etc.), and (3) disinterest in updating or improving them.
In fact, maintaining separate templates defeats reaching consensus, the hallmark of Wikipedia. When users disagree about a given article, we don't maintain two versions of the article. Rather we, resolve the differences in a mutually agreeable way. While that's a rule for articles that may not apply to templates as rigorously, the benefits are the same. The benefit here could be a single, improved template, for everyone's use.
All of these issues could be raised in a discussion, and a discussion is necessary to determine whether there is a new consensus. I'd like to renew the conversation to determine which would be best, and I thought that Templates for Discussion would be the most visible place to do it. Could you suggest an alternative, or do you have your own ideas? Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This template has been superseded and is retained for legacy purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a standardized list of user warning templates. |
Hello Bsherr. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is about a peer-reviewed journal, not a website, blog, etc. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Can you point me toward the consensus discussion on moving {{ uw-vblock}} to {{ uw-block}}? Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
{{safesubst:uw-block|reason={{{reason|}}}|page={{{page|}}}|time={{{time|}}}|sig={{{sig|}}}|indef={{{indef|}}}}}
As for user talk pages, when you link to files or templates, make sure to add a colon ":" before them so that it's not mistaken for a real one. Or, you can also use curved braces and add a tlx argument before it. mechamind 9 0 04:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Albion Police Department (Nebraska), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 ( talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I set out to userfy this in answer to your request, but the author already has a copy in a user sub-page. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We meet again. I have reverted your changes to the wording of WP:CSD#G11 and {{ db-g11}}. A substantial change like that to a widely-used template needs discussion and consensus, and in this case I do not at all agree with your change - there are many spam pages that would fit "does nothing but promote some entity or product" but are not so bad as to fit "consists entirely of blatant, biased promotion or advertisement of the subject" If you disagree, please start a discussion at WT:CSD and see if you can get a consensus. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you have declined a number of CSD's with "Government agency not an A7 eligible subject" - I honestly was not aware of that, I new schools were not but did not know that extended to other Government agencies. - Can you point me to the full list of what organisations are not eligible ? Codf1977 ( talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the group AfD - I will prod these and leave it a week to see if any one objects. Codf1977 ( talk)
Wikipedia:Coi#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest recommends that "[t]he first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". I saw no evidence that you had done that. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr. I would like to close the discussion as "merge" but am clueless as to how to merge the templates you nominated. If you're willing to merge them and some admin hasn't already done so by the time you respond and I close it, I'll close the discussion and you can merge the templates. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed here that you disputed the speedy deletion of the article being created by a banned user on the grounds that other users have made substantial edits. Could you please point me to which edit you believe is substantial? I'm only able to find very small, minor edits by other users, nothing of substance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
(reset) Userfied for you, at User:Bsherr/Featherlite Coaches, User:Bsherr/Jack Creek, and User:Bsherr/Rachel Sussman. If you are ready to move any back to mainspace, please let me know so the history merging can be done properly. If they're not workable, you can just put {{ db-u1}} to have the subpages deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is John Manuel if you don't mind, I would like to keep these pages. I will edit something but not too soon. Now, please feel free to change any categorization that you might find important. Thank you for asking, Bsherr. John Manuel "-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't catch your suggestion about VeblenBot. If you can point me to it, I'll look at it as soon as I can. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Little late for this, but for the sake of things, I support the Autoassessor2 run for WP:WPRS. Should have been the first one to support this, but a TFA and a FA have taken up most of my WikiTime. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in anyway on WP:WPRS as I can normally be found doing some radio or TV station editing on most days (not lately, but most). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Microsoft Hi Ryan Norton. This article properly should be put into Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism, which is accomplished by using {{ pp-vandalism}}, not {{ pp-semi-indef}}. Please note that this follows a repurposing of this category after pp-vandalism was metatized for both protection levels. The small parameter is contraindicated, even though the page is indefinitely semiprotected, because this page is an article. The small template does not explain semiprotection, the reason for the protection, and how new and anonymous users can seek to edit the article. I hope this clarifies the change in template. -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
Please could you consider revisiting the deletion discussion about the sandbox warning thing,
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-sandbox
I do take your point about possibly rewriting it, but my primary concern is that it is a warning template, and as such overused via Twinkle.
Re. your other concern that the bot does not quickly replace that;
a) I've not seen that myself, and indeed I checked an itemised in history showing that the bot does speedily replace it,
b) I just re-checked (and suggest you might wish to do same);
c) If there are problems with the bot, then we need to fix them, I don't see that this means the template is needed though.
If you'd like to get a copy of the template userfied, and consider rewriting it under a different name, that could be a compromise, perhaps?
I hope you don't mind me asking for this clarification, but I see that the item has been re-listed.
Best, Chzz ► 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, you redirected Template:SharedIPCORP to Template:SharedIP without discussion. Firstly, I feel as if actions like that should certainly be discussed first. Secondly, I don't see how the template is any more redundant than Template:SharedIPEDU, and no one seemed to support merging it with SharedIP when I had proposed such. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, I closed your nomination of the Gblock templates as delete. You mentioned a documentation in the rationale; could you please provide a link? I can't find it. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks! BTW, you have a query at WP:RFPP regarding the unprotecting of Template:SharedIPCORP. Airplaneman ✈ 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. It looks like there is an extra, preceeding space in {{ uw-vblock}} now. I always put one manual line-break in order to keep the standardized spacing, but now two are showing up when the template is transcluded ( [4], [5]). Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Kralizec! ( talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw the change you made. What happened with my need for "just a warning, no userpage editing" by the notifying user, which need I write not just once? - DePiep ( talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't any idea. That question is best asked of the admin. who protected the page. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation of my ACC registration. -- Bsherr ( talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
regarding
WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 13#Template:Do not delete, can I ask where that CfD discussion was, or what the category was? I'd be interested in the rationale. {{
Do not delete}} never used a template, and only worked through the transclusion list.
Thanks,
Amalthea
12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it could be hidden from the documentation. mechamind 9 0 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template SharedIPCORP. It was created mainly for major corporations like Hospital Corporation of America, IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, midsize and large hospitals, etc., not small businesses like you've described with twenty employees. I'm of the opinion it should be kept for categorization, but I'm open to other ideas, so long as they're not applied only to THIS PARTICULAR template. Perhaps we could add the word "major" in front of business or corporation in the template? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I just added a note on SharedIPGOV about notifying the Wikimedia Foundation Communication Committee (I copied the message from a Senate IP's talk page), and I'd like a second opinion. Approve? Disapprove? Comments? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw you removed the notification templates HERE per some discussion of a merge. Where/when did this dicussion take place?? I came looking for the template to notify an author of an AFD I did not begin and was stymied until I dug through the histories and found what I needed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)"
Unconstructive? Really? Maybe I shoudln't have said that they we're insane, but why did you remove my comment about Jim Bob Duggar from "19 Kids and Counting!"? If he isn't a hardcore Natalist then who is? Come on man, I swear in my opinion there is a conspiracy with the duggar family and their 19 kids, and in my opinion you seem to be in on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 ( talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There was no consensus. Except, there was significant discussion about rewording the template completely. You'll also notice several comments about not worrying if a new user removes the sandbox header. If the bot has issues, we fix the bot, not warn new users over what is probably an unintentional mistake. If you were trying to update a table, for example, to an article, and accidentally removed some of the code without realizing, would you expect to get a warning notice saying "Hi, thanks for trying to update this table, but you should not remove all this other stuff because it's important"? Absolutely not. If the header is such a big deal, we can just copy it into the editnotice and not have to worry about it being removed. I know I'm sort of rambling on, but how would you reword this to actually make it a useful "warning", not a "Hey noob, don't remove that next time" notice? That would just scare them off from testing again, in case they accidentally removed the header without realizing and thought that maybe them editing the thing at all was the issue, right? I'm just trying to figure out what consensus you thought the TfD had and how you would reword to it be meaningful to a new user. / ƒETCH COMMS / 02:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, i get it now. thanks for your help. i've fixed some other pages where i made this mistake. I now understand the difference between transclusion and substitution a little better. i should have seen that what i was doing was not how the template was listed on other pages. but no harm. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I read your comments in this discussion, where you said, if I accidentally removed some code in an article, I would like to be warned! Warnings are not designed to be punitive, but to be informative.
Consequently, I considered putting a {{Uw-editsummary}} here, because I noticed you have not been using edit summaries.
However, I think that would be borderline point, so I refrain from actually putting the template here; but I do beg you to consider - if I had, how would you have taken it? In all honesty - would you have accepted it, in good faith, as honest feedback? Or might you have felt a little slighted by it?
I hope you understand me; I am just asking that you consider how a warning message appears, to our most precious gift, new users.
I think your views on the necessity of the uw-sandbox warning are incorrect; but that discussion belongs over there. Chzz ► 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
<sum>:1 | This user believes that every edit should have a summary. |
Please could you leave an edit summary, at least when editing articles (e.g. [22]). Thanks. Chzz ► 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You placed a deletion template on the page but you did not actually initiate a discussion at WP:TFD. There are detailed instructions there on how to properly list a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed at Uw-block that you changed a "subst:NAMESPACE" to just "NAMESPACE". I see where you're going, but it would have made "Unblock-hard" a highly visible template by not substing it. Perhaps there's a different way you can achieve that objective. mechamind 9 0 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, hi:) Good to see you around. Now the reason I'm writing. In your edit to the Vandalism page, you left out some critical details on user space vandalism. The next time you undertake edits to such important pages, it's a request, be very careful in not leaving out such details. I have added the details back. If you reply, kindly do so on my talk page. I'm not watching this page. Warm regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I performed the initial steps by converting the backend of the template, and adding the min/max elevation ranks to the parent template. It appears as though the next step is to substitute it, but I personally would not be opposed to leaving it as a wrapper for {{ Infobox commune}}, but substitution would work as well. It calls some other templates for the elevation, population, mayor, and area data, which allows for these data to be updated in a central location. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, me being an idiot. Lucky my bot is smarter than I am!
Rich
Farmbrough,
17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
I've marked this task as approved. Please see the request page for details. I've also mark this as approved for bot editing on AWB's check page, and a 'crat should flag the bot shortly. Cheers, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
All the other neighborhoods within the City of Miami are using the comma convention. Looking at other cities, like NYC, all those neighborhoods are also using the neighborhood, city convention. Why did you change Buena Vista, Miami to Buena Vista (Miami)? Now it is the only article on Wikipedia that I can find that follows this. It's not consistent with all the others. - Marc Averette ( talk) 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Golgi apparatus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. — Mike moral ♪♫ 22:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
<-- Sorry about that again. Turns out there was an error with the ISP so my service was cut. I should be able to review the article this weekend. :) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:DASH prior to continuing to edit Foggy Bottom—GWU (WMATA station). Specifically, please take note of the following passage:
“ |
Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem). |
” |
Thus by the guidelines for dashes, the title should be spaced, and will be returned to such. Please do not move the page to an unspaced title without discussion explaining why you believe that this follows the manual of style's guidelines for treatment of disjunctive dashes with multiple words. Thanks! SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, I just reverted your edit to this template as you redirected it to a template which works differently and doesn't give the same information, and the result was confusion as I use this template frequently. There was a recent RFC which changed the icon of the template, and I don't see any evidence that there's consensus to redirect the template. Please let me know if I'm missing something, otherwise take it to TfD. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The category, Subjects of apology by the United States government, does not exist and if I recall correctly was nominated for deletion with approval. I reverted the edit. Veriss ( talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
referring to the article wizard in {{
db-notice}} wasn't an improvement, IMO: It's now showing on pages like {{
db-R3-notice}} or {{
db-vandalism-notice}} where it is inappropriate or doesn't make sense, and it's now mentioned twice on {{
db-a7-notice}} or {{
Db-spam-notice}} where it was already added to the prose. If you want to stick with the box please remove the phrase from the prose and either move it to the few notices where it makes sense, or only show it in the meta template if asked to by the wrapper (via parser function).
Thanks,
Amalthea
13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me why it should be deleted? I declined because you didn't provide a deletion rationale; a G6 tag by itself isn't normally a sufficient reason for deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No one is searching for this. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had my bot remove this template from all of the user talk pages on which it appears, and replace it with {{ SharedIPGOV}} and Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States, thus preserving the existing categorization, as in this example edit. If the category is kept, no further editing of the talk pages will be necessary; if it is deleted, Cydebot will be directed to remove the category from the user talk pages. In any case, {{ SharedIP US military}} can safely be deleted, without waiting for the CFD to be closed. Peter Karlsen ( talk) 03:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason behind the removal of the "will provide" message from the G11 template is because such material is deemed forbidden even in the userspace. mechamind 9 0 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Bsherr,
I have been trying to understand what is the normal Wikipedia protocol for when an advert template can be removed from an article that has been improved since the advert template was added to it. Ranging about with this question in mind, I read similar question from an editor of the Halton Hills Public Library which had been posted on the advert template talk page, together with your answer. I wonder if you would have a moment to review the winnowTag article and determine whether if in your opinion the advert tag can be removed? Or if not, any advice you may have to offer about the article, this question, or a good forum within which to learn more about this, would be much appreciated.
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingiii ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about posting an off topic question on the page I asked about becoming and Admin. Thanks for your help. -- StartrekismylifeJadzia ( talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I will sign future posts. Thank you for the information you sent me. I filed a RfA and have nominated myself. Thanks again, -- StartrekismylifeJadzia ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The article was not protected only because there was one incident of vandalism. If you review the articles history, you will see that the article has been a constant target of excessive vandalism in not only in the month of October, but all throughout. The protection status is necessary to discourage this type of behavior, however it will be uplifted in due time. Tony the Marine ( talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Good work with and . PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Hi. If you want to make these templates consistent, why not design a meta-template that they all use? Also, could we look at a clear and consistent naming scheme for these templates? I've boldly renamed one of them - what do you think? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I just closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_20#Template:Uw-number. It would be great if you could take charge of the merging. Let me know if you want me to help. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I added this template to a user's talk page and was surprised to find that It told the user to go to your talk page to know why the page was tagged for speedy deletion instead of mine. I trust that this is an error of the recent redirecting and rewrite. It it possible that you could fix this? I am not very fluent in the inner workings of templates. Thanks -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my prolonged absence. I'll begin reviewing today, then finish up tomorrow or the day after. — Mike moral ♪♫ 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, lets talk about something other that SharedIPCORP for a change... what are we going to do with Template:ISP? It still uses the old style. I think it should adopt the File:Shared IP.svg. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I find your recent actions on
Template talk:Expand disruptiveunhelpful and have reverted you again. It is much better to keep the discussion in one place so that people do not have to repeat what they have said in other places. As there has already been an RfC started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (article message boxes) it makes sense to continue it. It is certainly not a good idea to open two separare RfCs on the same issue! Regards — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor ( talk) at 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Bsherr, Thanks ... I didn't realize that template was part of my page....sorry!! Good catch on your part! KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join the committee.
Rich
Farmbrough,
18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
Why are you capitalizing templates? You have been going around capitalizing the "w" in {{ wikipedia category}} templates on category pages. As these are transcluded templates that aren't really visible, isn't that really non-productive? -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not objecting, it just seems an unnecessary work as it is not actual text you correcting but unseen templates that don't need to be capitalized. While Wikipedia is a proper name, these are not instances where it is displayed as such. To me, it would be like going in and capitalizing all of the instances of <br/> in the embedded HTML code. If it is helping run scripts better, that is a logical reason why. I was just curious, that's all. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is for improving the Pat Tillman article by the simple moving of an infobox to its logical location. ~~~~ |
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters ( talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Done Can you point me to how to edit that specific documentation-page? Now it is generic uw-, but I'd like to describe the options (cat=, defer=). - DePiep ( talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are doing and AWB run to add {{ Talk header}} to numerous talk pages, then you should probably stop. The template is only suppose to be added to talk pages of highly visible articles. If it was suppose to show up on all talk pages, then it would have been transcluded through Meta. — Farix ( t | c) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What does "Redirect as redundant" mean? (See {{ Hole (band)}} at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.) Wikkitywack ( talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog Elimination Drive!
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats
Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor Talk to me/ Contributions, S Masters ( talk), and Diannaa ( Talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
The Modest Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded for your efforts during the November Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa ( Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
See here. I looked up the edits that orphaned the template. 134.253.26.6 ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bsherr, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You recently participated in a discussion regarding renaming of several pages from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". There is currently an RfC on the naming issue at Talk:The Gambia. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comments at the village pump and I like your idea bout automatic classing and assessment of these types of things. Do you know how hard that would be to implement? -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I had put the backlog notice because there are entries which are older than 48 hours. There is one entry which is even 7 days old.
If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please add {{Admin backlog}} to the top of this page.
The notice doesnot mention about any 'unaddressed' issues. Thank you for understanding. WarFox ( talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have placed the GA review on hold for further action. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You recently edited the AFDNote template, ostensible to clarify the language. However, I would have to argue that the new language is more awkward than that which you replaced, and also no longer contains any information about why a particular user (other than the creator of the article under discussion) is being notified. Specifically, I think that
is much more awkward than
Actually, I think the version prior to that
is actually better than both, and I would suggest a return to that wording. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Template:R help. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
—
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX )
20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Please delete the Nuh ibn Zbigniew thread. I am the person mentioned and don't want unsubstantiated claims and vindictive lies about my life made through wikipedia. I cannot police this thread on a daily basis.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngondek ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Bsherr. Would you mind relaying to me what this IP stated at Talk:Pedophilia? Through email, if you prefer. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant to this, you may be interested to see User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder#Cold fusion talk where eventually the decision was made to semi-protect. jps ( talk) 07:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your question on Template talk:Delrev. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Season's Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011!
– Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)