![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Edits like this aren't particularly useful. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:IRC channels#Pending requests for access to channels|below]]
, and since I saw that some of the other links were also redirects, I just changed them as well. I'm sorry if you didn't consider my edit useful, but the main purpose of that edit was to remove the hard-entered link. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)MC10 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Thank you! 7 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've replied at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected|User:Archtransit}}
On
User:Archtransit, change:
{{banned|time=indef|by=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community_ban|the community}}
to:
{{banned user|time=indef|by=the community|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community ban|AN decision]]}}
to fix the broken link on the userpage. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
05:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted your global account, per your request. I apologize for not doing it earlier, I somehow missed seeing your request on my talk page. Regards, J.delanoy gabs adds 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings MC10 – you recently reverted a series of edits by User talk:190.134.54.84 over at the Uruguay national football team. This editor has since made several edits to the article, but I have no idea as to whether they are constructive or not. Assuming good faith, I is leaving them in there, but maybe you could check it out. Cheers!-- Technopat ( talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
For adding the timestamp to my !vote on NativeForeigner's RfA. I hadn't noticed it missing! PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey I moved a chess move. It's world's turn. Activ Expression Sign! 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I recommend just updating the tally on the two RfA's' own pages until SoxBot is fixed; that's what I'm doing, because it's easier than constnatly reverting it every half hour. — Soap — 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As to the ANI, while I agree some may not wish to, at the same time our templates routines invite them to ... so that's what I was doing. That could always have led to the response you indicate -- but its not clear to me why IP wasn't doing so. Also, while some may not know how to create an SPI, that would presumably (I thought) have led to the request pointing to that as the rationale for the request. But perhaps I presume too much. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nineteen_Nightmares
I think you probably meant to support a block, not a ban - it is an important distinction, see here.
Chzz ► 02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have recreated the article in my Userspace as per your feedback. I have tried to avoid any words which may be seen as promotional and/or non-neutral. I have also added further references and links. I hope the article is now acceptible to be moved back into articlespace. Finally I would like to point out that I am not Fiedorczuk or QuietCountry25, although these people are known to me. I look forward to your feedback. Aspland11 ( talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Re-Philosophy, what would you recommend I cut, my inclination would be that the last sentence could go; would that be adequate? Re-links in Programming/Events covered/Artists interviewed: Not sure what to do there because the station does cover a wide array. The Programming list is similar to that on the WFMU page, only smaller, if I left that but cut down the Artists section would that be okay? Again, thanks for your feedback. Aspland11 ( talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I can remove the link you said looks unreliable, no problem. Re- the Brooklyn Heights Courier, the article mentions Radio23 in paragraph eight. I believe I cited it for DJ 9-Eleven Thesaurus, a youth-group collective who DJ on Radio23. Philosophy can go if need be. The list of musical styles reflects the content on the WFMU page, which Radio23 is related to and shares an archive with. Does that need to go? User:MC10 suggested I shorten the list of artists features, which I wrote back to them indicating my willingness to do so, but it can go if you think it totally neccessary. I am ready to undertake all changes that you see fit. Let me know what you think. What can I do? If the page meets the criteria and you see it as fit and valid, can it be afforded some sort of protection? Thanks Aspland11 ( talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 ( talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have a search around for some more sources and leave it in my userspace until I've added them and then get back to you. Aspland11 ( talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I doubled the references. How is this looking now? Aspland11 ( talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
HI,
I added more references again, I'll leave it to your judgements which ones are worthwhile. Thanks again for all your help, I shall certainly be writing in praise of your efforts on your editor review. Aspland11 ( talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::
. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)<-- Yes, that is what I had in mind for the "See also" section. And actually, the article is still an orphan because other articles are still not linking to it—see Wikipedia:Orphan for more information:
“ | An orphaned article is an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Glossary#O |
Still, the article looks better than before. (And by the way, since I restarted indenting, you can start at using one colon again.) Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
<-- Actually, I have successfully nominated Radio23 for DYK. Now, how are you doing with the image? It looks like Fiedorczuk ( talk · contribs) is sending an email to OTRS, so if he gets that approved, the image should be fine. Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed you. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to sepereate the discography to Sinn Sisamouth discography, as it is too long for the article-- 125.25.236.43 ( talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a 13 years old Cambodian boy and I live in Thailand since last month. Now is 6:29 in Thailand, the same as Cambodia. I want to ask you:
if u answered right, I will give you a Cambodian flag award (same as barnstar, but not a star)-- 125.25.236.43 ( talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me on the header of my pages because it is too messy. Thanks! Activ Expression Sign! 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} There are three links on the top right of each of my user/talk pages/subpages, excluding my archives: "purge server cache | edit count (details) | edit summary usage". They should be properly below the line, as they used to look that way; however, now part of the links is clashing with the ads. If I show preview with User:Js/ajaxPreview's "preview", they look fine, but when I use the normal "Show preview", the problem persists. (Note that I am still using the Monobook skin, but I have turned on "New features".) Can someone knowledgeable enough fix this problem? The links are located at User:MC10/Header, and the code is as following:
Click [show] to view code
|
---|
<div style="position: absolute; right: 1.15em; top: 3.2em; font-size: 95%;" id="TemplateUserinfo" class="plainlinks">{{purge|purge server cache}} {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=MC10 <span title="My edit count">edit count</span>] (<!-- -->[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=MC10&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia <span title="My edits' details">details</span>]) {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=MC10&lang=en <span title="My edit summary usage">edit summary usage</span>]</div> |
Thank you. Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Little Thetford flesh-hook - Thank you for your help on correcting the spelling of Artefact to Artifact. As per WP:ENGVAR, I have reverted the change. See also British English or US English -- Senra ( talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the page directly. All that is needed is to adjust the "top" parameter on the main div tag to raise and lower the section of links. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 353° 9' 15" NET 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were
Ian Rose (
submissions) (A),
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader),
ThinkBlue (
submissions) (C)
Casliber (
submissions) and
TonyTheTiger (
submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the
WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to
Stone (
submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn,
Fox and
The ed17
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Edits like this aren't particularly useful. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:IRC channels#Pending requests for access to channels|below]]
, and since I saw that some of the other links were also redirects, I just changed them as well. I'm sorry if you didn't consider my edit useful, but the main purpose of that edit was to remove the hard-entered link. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)MC10 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Thank you! 7 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've replied at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected|User:Archtransit}}
On
User:Archtransit, change:
{{banned|time=indef|by=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community_ban|the community}}
to:
{{banned user|time=indef|by=the community|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community ban|AN decision]]}}
to fix the broken link on the userpage. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
05:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted your global account, per your request. I apologize for not doing it earlier, I somehow missed seeing your request on my talk page. Regards, J.delanoy gabs adds 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings MC10 – you recently reverted a series of edits by User talk:190.134.54.84 over at the Uruguay national football team. This editor has since made several edits to the article, but I have no idea as to whether they are constructive or not. Assuming good faith, I is leaving them in there, but maybe you could check it out. Cheers!-- Technopat ( talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
For adding the timestamp to my !vote on NativeForeigner's RfA. I hadn't noticed it missing! PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey I moved a chess move. It's world's turn. Activ Expression Sign! 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I recommend just updating the tally on the two RfA's' own pages until SoxBot is fixed; that's what I'm doing, because it's easier than constnatly reverting it every half hour. — Soap — 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As to the ANI, while I agree some may not wish to, at the same time our templates routines invite them to ... so that's what I was doing. That could always have led to the response you indicate -- but its not clear to me why IP wasn't doing so. Also, while some may not know how to create an SPI, that would presumably (I thought) have led to the request pointing to that as the rationale for the request. But perhaps I presume too much. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nineteen_Nightmares
I think you probably meant to support a block, not a ban - it is an important distinction, see here.
Chzz ► 02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have recreated the article in my Userspace as per your feedback. I have tried to avoid any words which may be seen as promotional and/or non-neutral. I have also added further references and links. I hope the article is now acceptible to be moved back into articlespace. Finally I would like to point out that I am not Fiedorczuk or QuietCountry25, although these people are known to me. I look forward to your feedback. Aspland11 ( talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Re-Philosophy, what would you recommend I cut, my inclination would be that the last sentence could go; would that be adequate? Re-links in Programming/Events covered/Artists interviewed: Not sure what to do there because the station does cover a wide array. The Programming list is similar to that on the WFMU page, only smaller, if I left that but cut down the Artists section would that be okay? Again, thanks for your feedback. Aspland11 ( talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I can remove the link you said looks unreliable, no problem. Re- the Brooklyn Heights Courier, the article mentions Radio23 in paragraph eight. I believe I cited it for DJ 9-Eleven Thesaurus, a youth-group collective who DJ on Radio23. Philosophy can go if need be. The list of musical styles reflects the content on the WFMU page, which Radio23 is related to and shares an archive with. Does that need to go? User:MC10 suggested I shorten the list of artists features, which I wrote back to them indicating my willingness to do so, but it can go if you think it totally neccessary. I am ready to undertake all changes that you see fit. Let me know what you think. What can I do? If the page meets the criteria and you see it as fit and valid, can it be afforded some sort of protection? Thanks Aspland11 ( talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 ( talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 ( talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have a search around for some more sources and leave it in my userspace until I've added them and then get back to you. Aspland11 ( talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I doubled the references. How is this looking now? Aspland11 ( talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
HI,
I added more references again, I'll leave it to your judgements which ones are worthwhile. Thanks again for all your help, I shall certainly be writing in praise of your efforts on your editor review. Aspland11 ( talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::
. —
MC10 (
T•
C•
GB•
L)
19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)<-- Yes, that is what I had in mind for the "See also" section. And actually, the article is still an orphan because other articles are still not linking to it—see Wikipedia:Orphan for more information:
“ | An orphaned article is an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Glossary#O |
Still, the article looks better than before. (And by the way, since I restarted indenting, you can start at using one colon again.) Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
<-- Actually, I have successfully nominated Radio23 for DYK. Now, how are you doing with the image? It looks like Fiedorczuk ( talk · contribs) is sending an email to OTRS, so if he gets that approved, the image should be fine. Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed you. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to sepereate the discography to Sinn Sisamouth discography, as it is too long for the article-- 125.25.236.43 ( talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a 13 years old Cambodian boy and I live in Thailand since last month. Now is 6:29 in Thailand, the same as Cambodia. I want to ask you:
if u answered right, I will give you a Cambodian flag award (same as barnstar, but not a star)-- 125.25.236.43 ( talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me on the header of my pages because it is too messy. Thanks! Activ Expression Sign! 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} There are three links on the top right of each of my user/talk pages/subpages, excluding my archives: "purge server cache | edit count (details) | edit summary usage". They should be properly below the line, as they used to look that way; however, now part of the links is clashing with the ads. If I show preview with User:Js/ajaxPreview's "preview", they look fine, but when I use the normal "Show preview", the problem persists. (Note that I am still using the Monobook skin, but I have turned on "New features".) Can someone knowledgeable enough fix this problem? The links are located at User:MC10/Header, and the code is as following:
Click [show] to view code
|
---|
<div style="position: absolute; right: 1.15em; top: 3.2em; font-size: 95%;" id="TemplateUserinfo" class="plainlinks">{{purge|purge server cache}} {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=MC10 <span title="My edit count">edit count</span>] (<!-- -->[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=MC10&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia <span title="My edits' details">details</span>]) {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=MC10&lang=en <span title="My edit summary usage">edit summary usage</span>]</div> |
Thank you. Cheers, — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Little Thetford flesh-hook - Thank you for your help on correcting the spelling of Artefact to Artifact. As per WP:ENGVAR, I have reverted the change. See also British English or US English -- Senra ( talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the page directly. All that is needed is to adjust the "top" parameter on the main div tag to raise and lower the section of links. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 353° 9' 15" NET 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were
Ian Rose (
submissions) (A),
Sturmvogel_66 (
submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader),
ThinkBlue (
submissions) (C)
Casliber (
submissions) and
TonyTheTiger (
submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the
WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and
Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to
Stone (
submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
J Milburn,
Fox and
The ed17