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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dear Ego "Great White" Tray: How does a nice person like you get involved in super hyphens? Of course you are right, and I will have to take it from here.-Gwestheimer 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Click
here to shout!
Please make comments at the top of the Shoutbox. It's like an IM window.
|
Hello! I'm writing regarding
your reversion of my edit.
You noted that "in [your] experience, section-merge proposals are always terrible ideas, and usually not even actually merge proposals." You might be thinking of something to which the text that I inserted wasn't intended to refer (the combination of sections within a single article, perhaps).
I was simply documenting the fact that the suggested destination article's merger tag (i.e. the one appearing on the page into which material from another article might be merged) sometimes goes at the top of a specific section (the one related to the other article's subject) instead of the top of the article. This is reflected in the wording of the template itself ("It has been suggested that [title] be merged into this page or section."). It's a longstanding practice that the documentation's authors (myself included) neglected to mention. —
David Levy
17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_23#Murder_Capital_of_the_United_States you changed you're "Delete and salt" vote to "retarget". I think what you're supposed to do when you change a vote is to Strikeout the old vote (Like this: <code><s>Delete and salt</s></code>). This let's people know at a glance that the struckout vote has been withdrawn. There's a slight chance my information is out of date, I haven't been active in a few years. I'm posting this here instead of the RFD, because this isn't relevant to this RFD discussion itself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind. I thought BigNate's vote was you changing you're vote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we also have Blind Spot Information System(unsourced) and Blind spot monitor(one trivial source). Isn't this 3 articles on basically the same subject? Dougweller ( talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been a merge proposal out on The Virginian (character) since June 2011. It needs to be closed one way or the other, I think. MSJapan ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:Washouts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Category:Falling from bridges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw you remove this. If you did a WP:CLEANSTART, then you were not supposed to return to the same articles/topics. If you did return to them, it's not cleanstart and you must therefore link them on Wikipedia dangerous panda 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you've nominated a dozen or so AfD's where I disagreed with you ( list) is indeed material to your bringing a WQA relating to my advice to another user at WT:AFD. Trying to dodge this history seems to me to be an attempt at a WP:SCRUTINY violation, even if unintentional and for good cause. If you don't want your history as ... known, for whatever reason, you are free to request a WP:CLEANSTART, but that would broadly prevent you from interacting at AfD in the future. I will be happy to assist you in this process, should you desire it. I hope it's clear why I believe the past identification of our mutual history of disagreement is relevant and should be visible to any observer when you bring me up at WQA, especially absent any prior discussion of the matter with me. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 04:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
First of all I did not bite a newcomer, you on the other hand seem to think it is perfectly OK to bite me which is not the case. I was right about a discussion and consensus was needed, atleast a discussion was needed to establish that the merge was necessary at all. Secondly I really dont care now if it was merged or not. Third you seem to have sent me that message out of spite or just trying to get some kind of reaction. But honestly I will not give your "advice" a second thought and continue just like I have always done. Sincerely!-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You wrote in the summary box "edit conflict" so I'm not sure whether you meant to remove stuff from "lawsuits" as well ("She concsciously... suicide bombers' houses"), in this diff. If not, I'd appreciate it if you would put it back in.
Thanks! -- Activism 1234 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the merger of the Political gaffe article with Kinsley gaffe was accomplished as a fait accompli and without any notice to any of the contributors of that article. I am not taking a position on whether there should have been a merger. But I am surprised by the method. In my experience, mergers of articles are always discussed first. I note from your talk page that this isn't the way you do it. See Wikipedia:Merging. This should have been discussed first before the merger
If there was anything on the Kinsley gaffe talk page, you've lost it now. The redirect simply comes to the
Political Gaffe Talk page. "There is neither history of content" "There is neither history nor content" This was badly done. it needs to be corrected by you.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Ego White Tray,
I invite you to see my comments about your addition to Innocence of Muslims at the [ Talk page] -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw you post at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#See also sections on category pages and added a reply about {{ Category see also}}. PrimeHunter ( talk) 21:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted on the talk page for Gangnam Style a link to another article, I think it was referred to by another paper, anyway, it has more analysis on the economics of Gangnam district that might be useful to include. AngusWOOF ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ego White Tray. I saw that you added a new option to the Beatles poll, "support having no standard". I think it's fine to discuss having no standard, but putting it directly below the sections for "support lower case" and "support upper case" is not a good idea, because it makes it look like it is a part of the poll text that was worked out during the mediation, when this is not in fact the case. It is also not so meaningful to compare the numbers between your option and upper/lower case, because your option was added much later. Instead of putting it at the top of the poll, would you mind starting a new section about it at the bottom, in the discussion area? That way it will be clearer to other editors and the closing admin that it was added to the poll later. I'll remove the section from the top of the poll now. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Conversion therapy, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Alex J Fox( Talk)( Contribs) 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you completely moved the article Washington Initiative 502 (2011) to the former redirect Washington Initiative 502 on the grounds that there was no other Washington Initiative 502. While this is correct for this article this year, it is not uncommon for referenda or initiative numbers to be re-used in other states and it has been the custom on Wikipedia for many years now to reference Washington ballot measures to include the year they are filed, as a quick check of the "Elections in Washington" infobox on the article shows. If you could please return the main article to Washington Initiative 502 (2011) I would be most appreciative. Thank you. Rorybowman ( talk) 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ego White Tray. When you moved District 8 to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "District 8" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've merged these articles after your suggest.--jcn John Chen ( Talk- Contib.) RA 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The article needs improvement, yes. But all discussions about deleting the article have resulted in a decision to keep. I question the effort to conduct what amounts to a back door deletion. Let's discuss the matter on the article's talk page before proceeding any further. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mitt. Since you had some involvement with the Mitt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Coppaar ( talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.
Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, yes it was a mistake on my part to forget to move the novel article to the simpler name. Sorry about that. I noticed that once the disambiguation page goes the name had to be changed but somehow overlooked it. I think the link to move the article would've worked has I used it. Anyway, I remember next time I come across a CSD G6 article. Gizza Talk © 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
Bloviating ignoramus requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
Belchfire-
TALK
05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ego White Tray. If not, may I introduce Ego Leonard? And ps: Ego Is Not a Dirty Word. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dear Ego "Great White" Tray: How does a nice person like you get involved in super hyphens? Of course you are right, and I will have to take it from here.-Gwestheimer 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Click
here to shout!
Please make comments at the top of the Shoutbox. It's like an IM window.
|
Hello! I'm writing regarding
your reversion of my edit.
You noted that "in [your] experience, section-merge proposals are always terrible ideas, and usually not even actually merge proposals." You might be thinking of something to which the text that I inserted wasn't intended to refer (the combination of sections within a single article, perhaps).
I was simply documenting the fact that the suggested destination article's merger tag (i.e. the one appearing on the page into which material from another article might be merged) sometimes goes at the top of a specific section (the one related to the other article's subject) instead of the top of the article. This is reflected in the wording of the template itself ("It has been suggested that [title] be merged into this page or section."). It's a longstanding practice that the documentation's authors (myself included) neglected to mention. —
David Levy
17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_23#Murder_Capital_of_the_United_States you changed you're "Delete and salt" vote to "retarget". I think what you're supposed to do when you change a vote is to Strikeout the old vote (Like this: <code><s>Delete and salt</s></code>). This let's people know at a glance that the struckout vote has been withdrawn. There's a slight chance my information is out of date, I haven't been active in a few years. I'm posting this here instead of the RFD, because this isn't relevant to this RFD discussion itself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind. I thought BigNate's vote was you changing you're vote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I see we also have Blind Spot Information System(unsourced) and Blind spot monitor(one trivial source). Isn't this 3 articles on basically the same subject? Dougweller ( talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been a merge proposal out on The Virginian (character) since June 2011. It needs to be closed one way or the other, I think. MSJapan ( talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:Washouts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Category:Falling from bridges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw you remove this. If you did a WP:CLEANSTART, then you were not supposed to return to the same articles/topics. If you did return to them, it's not cleanstart and you must therefore link them on Wikipedia dangerous panda 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you've nominated a dozen or so AfD's where I disagreed with you ( list) is indeed material to your bringing a WQA relating to my advice to another user at WT:AFD. Trying to dodge this history seems to me to be an attempt at a WP:SCRUTINY violation, even if unintentional and for good cause. If you don't want your history as ... known, for whatever reason, you are free to request a WP:CLEANSTART, but that would broadly prevent you from interacting at AfD in the future. I will be happy to assist you in this process, should you desire it. I hope it's clear why I believe the past identification of our mutual history of disagreement is relevant and should be visible to any observer when you bring me up at WQA, especially absent any prior discussion of the matter with me. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 04:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
First of all I did not bite a newcomer, you on the other hand seem to think it is perfectly OK to bite me which is not the case. I was right about a discussion and consensus was needed, atleast a discussion was needed to establish that the merge was necessary at all. Secondly I really dont care now if it was merged or not. Third you seem to have sent me that message out of spite or just trying to get some kind of reaction. But honestly I will not give your "advice" a second thought and continue just like I have always done. Sincerely!-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You wrote in the summary box "edit conflict" so I'm not sure whether you meant to remove stuff from "lawsuits" as well ("She concsciously... suicide bombers' houses"), in this diff. If not, I'd appreciate it if you would put it back in.
Thanks! -- Activism 1234 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the merger of the Political gaffe article with Kinsley gaffe was accomplished as a fait accompli and without any notice to any of the contributors of that article. I am not taking a position on whether there should have been a merger. But I am surprised by the method. In my experience, mergers of articles are always discussed first. I note from your talk page that this isn't the way you do it. See Wikipedia:Merging. This should have been discussed first before the merger
If there was anything on the Kinsley gaffe talk page, you've lost it now. The redirect simply comes to the
Political Gaffe Talk page. "There is neither history of content" "There is neither history nor content" This was badly done. it needs to be corrected by you.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Ego White Tray,
I invite you to see my comments about your addition to Innocence of Muslims at the [ Talk page] -- Nbauman ( talk) 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw you post at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#See also sections on category pages and added a reply about {{ Category see also}}. PrimeHunter ( talk) 21:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted on the talk page for Gangnam Style a link to another article, I think it was referred to by another paper, anyway, it has more analysis on the economics of Gangnam district that might be useful to include. AngusWOOF ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ego White Tray. I saw that you added a new option to the Beatles poll, "support having no standard". I think it's fine to discuss having no standard, but putting it directly below the sections for "support lower case" and "support upper case" is not a good idea, because it makes it look like it is a part of the poll text that was worked out during the mediation, when this is not in fact the case. It is also not so meaningful to compare the numbers between your option and upper/lower case, because your option was added much later. Instead of putting it at the top of the poll, would you mind starting a new section about it at the bottom, in the discussion area? That way it will be clearer to other editors and the closing admin that it was added to the poll later. I'll remove the section from the top of the poll now. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Conversion therapy, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Alex J Fox( Talk)( Contribs) 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you completely moved the article Washington Initiative 502 (2011) to the former redirect Washington Initiative 502 on the grounds that there was no other Washington Initiative 502. While this is correct for this article this year, it is not uncommon for referenda or initiative numbers to be re-used in other states and it has been the custom on Wikipedia for many years now to reference Washington ballot measures to include the year they are filed, as a quick check of the "Elections in Washington" infobox on the article shows. If you could please return the main article to Washington Initiative 502 (2011) I would be most appreciative. Thank you. Rorybowman ( talk) 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ego White Tray. When you moved District 8 to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "District 8" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've merged these articles after your suggest.--jcn John Chen ( Talk- Contib.) RA 00:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The article needs improvement, yes. But all discussions about deleting the article have resulted in a decision to keep. I question the effort to conduct what amounts to a back door deletion. Let's discuss the matter on the article's talk page before proceeding any further. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mitt. Since you had some involvement with the Mitt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Coppaar ( talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.
Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, yes it was a mistake on my part to forget to move the novel article to the simpler name. Sorry about that. I noticed that once the disambiguation page goes the name had to be changed but somehow overlooked it. I think the link to move the article would've worked has I used it. Anyway, I remember next time I come across a CSD G6 article. Gizza Talk © 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
Bloviating ignoramus requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
Belchfire-
TALK
05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ego White Tray. If not, may I introduce Ego Leonard? And ps: Ego Is Not a Dirty Word. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |