![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
hI, MY NAME IS DOWRAN, I AM DOWRAN ORAZGYLYJOW, I AM WRITER OF THAT ARTICLE, ABOUT TURKMENISTAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowran ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Peter Karlsen, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Endofskull (
talk)
03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Kartano ( talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Please consider self-reverting this edit, since the discussions on the Talk page prove [1] that your edit summary is incorrect. You are now editwarring this change without consensus, and without addressing discussion or suggestions in Talk. That violates Wikipedia policy. Blackworm ( talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for warning you on accident. I clicked your name on accident when I reverted the vandalism to your edit at Geographic coordinate system. My bad. -- Wolfnix • Talk • 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Wolfnix has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
--I also turned on reviewer while I was there, that allows you to accept edits to page on pending changes or reject them by reverting them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on this article's talk page in hopes with might achieve some consensus. Rklawton ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please find the time to specify which version you prefer ASAP, thanks, and be sure to take a look at the recent comments. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you test that it works on pages where the change was already done (i.e. that it doesn't change anything in that case)? Just wanted to make sure. -- Muhandes ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It appeared to me that you were not satisfied with my response to your questions. I have now provided a more in depth response to your concerns. If you don't see it let me know. It is "stuffed" in there right after your series of concerns. I think you will appreciate the response, because I didn't hold back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Peter. Your bot request for approval has been approved, and you may run this task once the bot is flagged by a 'crat (which will be done shortly). Please see the request page for details. Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you could comment at the pending talk page, which I can't remember or ask User:Courcelles the same question as is involved in that, and will appreciate the detail or will know the best place to ask. they are presently tweaking and writing an improved version , but your comment is very worth presenting, as such as those issues are what we need improving, regards. Also, thirty eight mins is not long enough to get an answer from Jimbo, usually within 24 hours but sometimes other users will also answer, I spoke to the guy that is writing the update and if I can remember his user name I will let you know, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Here he is User:RobLa-WMF - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Rick Sanchez;Please tell me how that aspect of the sourced article could best be included. Also, refarding the photo license for Rob Ford, why do you think permission is needed in relation to that particular(common property) license? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter. The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes, I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think you could do this one too, Template:Infobox digicam with projector. As the closing admin, I don't think we need to open another discussion. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter, sorry I haven't replied to you. I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your support and your comments, it was really unexpected, but in a good way. As such I have a career and a lot of schoolwork to focus on and until then I'm taking a break.. which is probably a good thing. Thanks for all your comments again, Tom my! 04:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't change anything except add an unnecessary hidden message [27]. I had already fixed the template. I briefly read over the discussion at WP Trains, what a mess. On the bright side, I now know I am not crazy and that they were right when I did them a few weeks ago! Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 22:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You were very quick off the mark to fix all of this! Thanks a lot, WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 10:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My bad with the vandalism. I lost my cool over the Chase Utley battle, but that was my first case of vandalism so if you would cut me some slack i assure you it will not happen again. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 ( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Just fyi - I moved your comment up a few lines to this section to keep it with the existing conversation. Thanks. 7 07:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! That's the first time that's happened in a long while, three years, I think. But you caught it even before I noticed it. Silver seren C 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
Peter, could you explain the status of Eon footer in the template holding cell? Your edit summary didn't explain the reason for your move of them to ready for deletion, and the consensus was for a merge, so only one of the two should be listed as ready for deletion. (I'm reverting your edit for now so no one gets confused, just for the time being.) Where are we at? -- Bsherr ( talk) 02:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The documentation for the Karlsenbot is not very clear - the only function that is mentioned (and that is buried in the request for approval) is something to do with football player statistics templates. However that is not all it is doing. It recently made changes to two templates in my user area (templates that had nothing to do with football player statistics). [28] [29]
Is it really appropriate to be making this change on user pages? The page in question was where I was experimenting with these meta-templates. Admittedly I haven't done anything with it recently, and when/if I got back to it I would presumably have discovered the destruction of the underlying templates. But just deleting the template from a user's page seems a bit presumptious, and deleting the template may cause issues with my template's function. If the bot must tinker, it would be more appropriate for it to leave the template there, but in comments, so a person has some clue what is going on and can determine that the change hasn't broken anything.
Since the templates {{ start sidebar page}} and {{ end sidebar page}} were a matched pair it seems especially odd to remove the opening template without similarly handling the corresponding closing template.
If this is part of the bot's function, then that should be clearly indicated on the bot page. Zodon ( talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the Userfy MVO Rambler ( talk) 04:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you made this change on a template talk page. Was this intentional under Task 4, as the wording at the holding cell suggests this is not supposed to occur, and while it didn't in this particular case, this could clearly change the meaning of a similar discussion. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since you aren't an admin I would advice you to state that clearly when closing TfDs as you did in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15. I haven't seen a lot of activity of yours in TfDs and this WP:PERNOM !vote concerns me. Thanks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about all the confusion with the Dad's Army thing. I think it is all sorted now, at least for the time being. While I was going through all the articles, I noticed a couple minor glitches, just in case it helps in the future. First is the bot appears to have had trouble parsing the template when there was another template embedded inside the template (e.g., a citation needed tag) here. The second is that you were using "series" for the series number, when "series" is supposed to be the name of the series. This are really minor points, and my subsequent conversions were not entirely perfect either. I did preserve the viewing numbers (in a currently unused field) and recorded date (as a section of the airdate field). If there is consensus to add the viewing numbers, this feature can be turned on. For the recorded date, if a separate field is added, I can always split these later. Thanks again for all your efforts and for reverting your edits. You are really helping out around here, and I appreciate it. Best regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This chap is here to spread crap about Lerner. Next peep on that subject or any other BLP-suspect editing, he should be blocked indefinitely. -- TS 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what happened, here.
It looks like you (in part using bot?) "moved Securities Industry Association to Security Industry Association," a move I'd proposed and backed Oct. 12. A couple of hours later, yesterday, " User:Anthony Appleyard deleted 'Securities Industry Association,'" which was also appropriate on the face of it. Unfortunately, though, there's no surviving article for the Security Industry Association. As I'd outlined in proposing the change, the contents of the article formerly called Securities Industry Association actually referred to the Security Industry Association and was a modest but from my point of view adequate starting point for a correctly named article on the subject. The Securities Industry Association did also used to exist, but it merged into the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in '06 or so, and it's mentioned in that article.
I'm going to refer AAppleyard here, too, for discussion, since I don't know where something went wrong, if it did from your all points of view. It looks like maybe I could start a Talk:Securities Industry Association page off the Revision history page but that seems to be going in the wrong way. Meanwhile (I'm new to this process) all the work I'd put into the renaming appears to have disappeared from public access, for reference. Some discussion remains here and here.
Finally, I guess the field is now open to start the Security IA article from scratch but (a) that's not my interest; I actually came at this from the Securities side of things and (b) we'd lose the history (lost already now?) of the old article.
Thanks for your attention to this. Swliv ( talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I realize that consensus has probably been reached on {{Sketch comedies}}
, but it would be helpful if you could wait the full 7 days before closing such discussions. I frequently voice an opinion on these starting from the bottom, and you closed this one 6 hours early. Of course, there are exceptions, where there is a tidal wave of opinions being voiced on one side or another, and one can invoke SNOW. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
hI, MY NAME IS DOWRAN, I AM DOWRAN ORAZGYLYJOW, I AM WRITER OF THAT ARTICLE, ABOUT TURKMENISTAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowran ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Peter Karlsen, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Endofskull (
talk)
03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Kartano ( talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Please consider self-reverting this edit, since the discussions on the Talk page prove [1] that your edit summary is incorrect. You are now editwarring this change without consensus, and without addressing discussion or suggestions in Talk. That violates Wikipedia policy. Blackworm ( talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for warning you on accident. I clicked your name on accident when I reverted the vandalism to your edit at Geographic coordinate system. My bad. -- Wolfnix • Talk • 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Wolfnix has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
--I also turned on reviewer while I was there, that allows you to accept edits to page on pending changes or reject them by reverting them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on this article's talk page in hopes with might achieve some consensus. Rklawton ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Please find the time to specify which version you prefer ASAP, thanks, and be sure to take a look at the recent comments. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you test that it works on pages where the change was already done (i.e. that it doesn't change anything in that case)? Just wanted to make sure. -- Muhandes ( talk) 05:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It appeared to me that you were not satisfied with my response to your questions. I have now provided a more in depth response to your concerns. If you don't see it let me know. It is "stuffed" in there right after your series of concerns. I think you will appreciate the response, because I didn't hold back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Peter. Your bot request for approval has been approved, and you may run this task once the bot is flagged by a 'crat (which will be done shortly). Please see the request page for details. Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps you could comment at the pending talk page, which I can't remember or ask User:Courcelles the same question as is involved in that, and will appreciate the detail or will know the best place to ask. they are presently tweaking and writing an improved version , but your comment is very worth presenting, as such as those issues are what we need improving, regards. Also, thirty eight mins is not long enough to get an answer from Jimbo, usually within 24 hours but sometimes other users will also answer, I spoke to the guy that is writing the update and if I can remember his user name I will let you know, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Here he is User:RobLa-WMF - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Rick Sanchez;Please tell me how that aspect of the sourced article could best be included. Also, refarding the photo license for Rob Ford, why do you think permission is needed in relation to that particular(common property) license? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter. The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes, I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think you could do this one too, Template:Infobox digicam with projector. As the closing admin, I don't think we need to open another discussion. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter, sorry I haven't replied to you. I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your support and your comments, it was really unexpected, but in a good way. As such I have a career and a lot of schoolwork to focus on and until then I'm taking a break.. which is probably a good thing. Thanks for all your comments again, Tom my! 04:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't change anything except add an unnecessary hidden message [27]. I had already fixed the template. I briefly read over the discussion at WP Trains, what a mess. On the bright side, I now know I am not crazy and that they were right when I did them a few weeks ago! Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 22:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You were very quick off the mark to fix all of this! Thanks a lot, WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 10:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My bad with the vandalism. I lost my cool over the Chase Utley battle, but that was my first case of vandalism so if you would cut me some slack i assure you it will not happen again. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 ( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Just fyi - I moved your comment up a few lines to this section to keep it with the existing conversation. Thanks. 7 07:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! That's the first time that's happened in a long while, three years, I think. But you caught it even before I noticed it. Silver seren C 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
Peter, could you explain the status of Eon footer in the template holding cell? Your edit summary didn't explain the reason for your move of them to ready for deletion, and the consensus was for a merge, so only one of the two should be listed as ready for deletion. (I'm reverting your edit for now so no one gets confused, just for the time being.) Where are we at? -- Bsherr ( talk) 02:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The documentation for the Karlsenbot is not very clear - the only function that is mentioned (and that is buried in the request for approval) is something to do with football player statistics templates. However that is not all it is doing. It recently made changes to two templates in my user area (templates that had nothing to do with football player statistics). [28] [29]
Is it really appropriate to be making this change on user pages? The page in question was where I was experimenting with these meta-templates. Admittedly I haven't done anything with it recently, and when/if I got back to it I would presumably have discovered the destruction of the underlying templates. But just deleting the template from a user's page seems a bit presumptious, and deleting the template may cause issues with my template's function. If the bot must tinker, it would be more appropriate for it to leave the template there, but in comments, so a person has some clue what is going on and can determine that the change hasn't broken anything.
Since the templates {{ start sidebar page}} and {{ end sidebar page}} were a matched pair it seems especially odd to remove the opening template without similarly handling the corresponding closing template.
If this is part of the bot's function, then that should be clearly indicated on the bot page. Zodon ( talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the Userfy MVO Rambler ( talk) 04:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you made this change on a template talk page. Was this intentional under Task 4, as the wording at the holding cell suggests this is not supposed to occur, and while it didn't in this particular case, this could clearly change the meaning of a similar discussion. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since you aren't an admin I would advice you to state that clearly when closing TfDs as you did in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15. I haven't seen a lot of activity of yours in TfDs and this WP:PERNOM !vote concerns me. Thanks. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about all the confusion with the Dad's Army thing. I think it is all sorted now, at least for the time being. While I was going through all the articles, I noticed a couple minor glitches, just in case it helps in the future. First is the bot appears to have had trouble parsing the template when there was another template embedded inside the template (e.g., a citation needed tag) here. The second is that you were using "series" for the series number, when "series" is supposed to be the name of the series. This are really minor points, and my subsequent conversions were not entirely perfect either. I did preserve the viewing numbers (in a currently unused field) and recorded date (as a section of the airdate field). If there is consensus to add the viewing numbers, this feature can be turned on. For the recorded date, if a separate field is added, I can always split these later. Thanks again for all your efforts and for reverting your edits. You are really helping out around here, and I appreciate it. Best regards. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This chap is here to spread crap about Lerner. Next peep on that subject or any other BLP-suspect editing, he should be blocked indefinitely. -- TS 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what happened, here.
It looks like you (in part using bot?) "moved Securities Industry Association to Security Industry Association," a move I'd proposed and backed Oct. 12. A couple of hours later, yesterday, " User:Anthony Appleyard deleted 'Securities Industry Association,'" which was also appropriate on the face of it. Unfortunately, though, there's no surviving article for the Security Industry Association. As I'd outlined in proposing the change, the contents of the article formerly called Securities Industry Association actually referred to the Security Industry Association and was a modest but from my point of view adequate starting point for a correctly named article on the subject. The Securities Industry Association did also used to exist, but it merged into the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in '06 or so, and it's mentioned in that article.
I'm going to refer AAppleyard here, too, for discussion, since I don't know where something went wrong, if it did from your all points of view. It looks like maybe I could start a Talk:Securities Industry Association page off the Revision history page but that seems to be going in the wrong way. Meanwhile (I'm new to this process) all the work I'd put into the renaming appears to have disappeared from public access, for reference. Some discussion remains here and here.
Finally, I guess the field is now open to start the Security IA article from scratch but (a) that's not my interest; I actually came at this from the Securities side of things and (b) we'd lose the history (lost already now?) of the old article.
Thanks for your attention to this. Swliv ( talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I realize that consensus has probably been reached on {{Sketch comedies}}
, but it would be helpful if you could wait the full 7 days before closing such discussions. I frequently voice an opinion on these starting from the bottom, and you closed this one 6 hours early. Of course, there are exceptions, where there is a tidal wave of opinions being voiced on one side or another, and one can invoke SNOW. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |