Archived messages from 7 April 2005 to 8 September 2005 in date order.
Greg, I've just been looking at your experiments with election result templates at User:GregRobson/sandpit. I like what you are doing - I've been working on something along the same lines (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template_for_multi-row_table).
I think we should combine our efforts.
I'm currently looking at a couple of ways of (a) making these templates easier to use and (b) achieving more consistency. I'll put something on my talk page when I'm hwqappy with the ideas. 80N 19:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
|candidate =
Oona King
for exampleWhat's your criteria for shuffling around the names on the Battersea constituency? Jooler 23:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why have you moved a number of constituencies away from the common form of the name and to extremely unusual forms (e.g. West Tyrone to Tyrone West)? North Southwark and Bermondsey is given in that order - see for instance [ the House of Commons page listing]. Timrollpickering 11:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
correctly has a stop after the Saint (ie "St."). Reverting your move therefore -- Vamp: Willow 17:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Why was Dorset South moved to a page with brackets in the title? There is no other meaning for "Dorset South". Joe D (t) 23:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Greg, I hope you don't think I'm treading on your toes, by putting some of the early figures in for your allocated area before you got to them. Please accept my apologies. I was testing a mechanism that will hopefully make it a lot easier and quicker to put the results in and do most of the calculations automatically. It's at [1]] but it's still pretty buggy yet. 80N 23:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Greg! I realised yesterday (upon reading the project talk page) that I should have been using &minus —so the final few that I entered yesterday are done that way. Once all the results are entered I will go back and change the ones that I did already. BTW. Do you have any opinion on how far back the historical results should go? Some of the articles have 1997 results, and yesterday I found that the guardian lists the 1992 results too. I added these to the Sheffield Hallam article, but I suspect that this is overkill. JeremyA 16:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello Greg, I turned you down at the RfA. I mentioned that it took you two years to make less edits then I got in a month... My reason for this wasn't about you... it was more AGAINST your first support vote, Denelson83... he votes people in based on how long they've been around which slightly gets on my nerves. With this, I will not only change my vote from oppose to support but maybe get a friend or two to vote you in. With respect, Redwolf24 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently got interested in categories, and I spent some time reading this page [2] and the discussions on the talk pages, especially this one [3] and found this project page [4] and your page about the category map you created [5]. All very interesting stuff, and I definitely want to get involved with categories a lot more. What I was hoping for was some feedback on what I did recently on some categories. In particular, the way I organised the Category:Natural hazards (I think I may have gone too far, especially with the awkward subcategory of Category:Biological hazards, plus I had to work with an existing awkward confusion between Natural disaster and Natural hazard). I also have ideas for similar organising of the Category:Disasters (which I haven't got round to doing yet), plus I also created and populated Category:Wildfires. Before going any further, I wanted to check that I'm not doing anything too wrong, so I'm putting this comment on the Talk pages of several people I saw participating in the discussions I read. I'm not too sure yet how these talk pages work either, so comments on the appropriate page might work better. Plus, is there an easier way to do this categorisation? It is sometimes a bit laborious! Carcharoth 19:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Archived messages from 7 April 2005 to 8 September 2005 in date order.
Greg, I've just been looking at your experiments with election result templates at User:GregRobson/sandpit. I like what you are doing - I've been working on something along the same lines (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template_for_multi-row_table).
I think we should combine our efforts.
I'm currently looking at a couple of ways of (a) making these templates easier to use and (b) achieving more consistency. I'll put something on my talk page when I'm hwqappy with the ideas. 80N 19:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
|candidate =
Oona King
for exampleWhat's your criteria for shuffling around the names on the Battersea constituency? Jooler 23:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why have you moved a number of constituencies away from the common form of the name and to extremely unusual forms (e.g. West Tyrone to Tyrone West)? North Southwark and Bermondsey is given in that order - see for instance [ the House of Commons page listing]. Timrollpickering 11:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
correctly has a stop after the Saint (ie "St."). Reverting your move therefore -- Vamp: Willow 17:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Why was Dorset South moved to a page with brackets in the title? There is no other meaning for "Dorset South". Joe D (t) 23:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Greg, I hope you don't think I'm treading on your toes, by putting some of the early figures in for your allocated area before you got to them. Please accept my apologies. I was testing a mechanism that will hopefully make it a lot easier and quicker to put the results in and do most of the calculations automatically. It's at [1]] but it's still pretty buggy yet. 80N 23:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Greg! I realised yesterday (upon reading the project talk page) that I should have been using &minus —so the final few that I entered yesterday are done that way. Once all the results are entered I will go back and change the ones that I did already. BTW. Do you have any opinion on how far back the historical results should go? Some of the articles have 1997 results, and yesterday I found that the guardian lists the 1992 results too. I added these to the Sheffield Hallam article, but I suspect that this is overkill. JeremyA 16:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello Greg, I turned you down at the RfA. I mentioned that it took you two years to make less edits then I got in a month... My reason for this wasn't about you... it was more AGAINST your first support vote, Denelson83... he votes people in based on how long they've been around which slightly gets on my nerves. With this, I will not only change my vote from oppose to support but maybe get a friend or two to vote you in. With respect, Redwolf24 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently got interested in categories, and I spent some time reading this page [2] and the discussions on the talk pages, especially this one [3] and found this project page [4] and your page about the category map you created [5]. All very interesting stuff, and I definitely want to get involved with categories a lot more. What I was hoping for was some feedback on what I did recently on some categories. In particular, the way I organised the Category:Natural hazards (I think I may have gone too far, especially with the awkward subcategory of Category:Biological hazards, plus I had to work with an existing awkward confusion between Natural disaster and Natural hazard). I also have ideas for similar organising of the Category:Disasters (which I haven't got round to doing yet), plus I also created and populated Category:Wildfires. Before going any further, I wanted to check that I'm not doing anything too wrong, so I'm putting this comment on the Talk pages of several people I saw participating in the discussions I read. I'm not too sure yet how these talk pages work either, so comments on the appropriate page might work better. Plus, is there an easier way to do this categorisation? It is sometimes a bit laborious! Carcharoth 19:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)