![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Silktork, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Wikipedia to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article [1]. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Silktork, I'd like to request if the process could be sped-up so that myself and Jayen may directly work on the articles. It would help a lot as I can put the research I have done to best use in the limited time I get to work on wikipedia. If at any point there is any conflict, we could resort to moderated discussion mechanism which is in place.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Silktork, the entire section pertaining to the KM Reports, teh central portion of the article, and the intro was compiled by me yesterday, taking a day off from work. I had gone ahead with creation of the namespace and planned to leave it for other editors to work on. I had made a mention of my decision to do so in a response to you on my talk.
Jayen has also apparently reviewed the article: [4]. I am waiting for a response from him. I have discussed this with him on his talk as well. I mention creation of the name-space on Talk:Persection of Falun Gong as well. Particualrly, I'd like to point out that PCPP's claim of the article being a copy-paste of an earlier version is baseless.
I request you to kindly review the content. I'd also like you to note hat PCPP has a history of blanking all content related to Chinese human rights abuses and editors have repeatedly raised concerns on his behaviour, and the 50 Cent Party pattern seen in his activities on wikipedia. Dilip rajeev ( talk)
Silktork, I sincerely apologize for having gone ahead with the creation of the page. It was not my purpose to circumvent the moderated discussion process, but was attempting to make the most of a day's time I managed to pull out. Researching the topic for a while had led me to have concerns on why a human rights topic of urgent importance as this was not having its space in wikipedia. My hastiness was driven by concerns along those lines.
I acknowledge it was inappropriate on my part to have created the page without your permission, and I assure you , that, from hereforth, I will work with you on this, strictly adhering to the terms of the moderated discussion process. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:
I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture.
The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.
I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this. SilkTork * YES! 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity why did you depopulate Category:War novels set in Anglo-Saxon England and then redirect it? Sadads ( talk) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am co-editor of an article at FAC. This is the third attempt - it died for lack of interest last time.
Please help me if you can. Any comments will be welcome. Pass or fail doesn't matter. I just don't want a replay of the slow death by suffocation, like last time. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you, or someone else could help with the section in this article to do with Verbal irony and sarcasm? The discussion is getting very long, and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I added some dictionary definitions and suchlike, in an attempt to set out the way authorities have sought to differentiate the terms. The editor responsible for the original text (which I have hardly touched) objects to this on the grounds that all these definitions are wrong in some way. His original text dealt only with the way psychologists have studied the way people understand irony and sarcasm. He wants to remove my definitions and replace them with more psychology citations. I do not understand what is going on here. I hope you can help. Myrvin ( talk) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for taking up the challenge of closing the discussion on the rewrite of the lead of the No original research policy.
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your conclusions. Changes to policy pages should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus that the proposed changes are an improvement, they should not be made.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
My comments were that there was in general a favourable response to the rewrite, but that concerns were raised about some aspects. I summed up by saying that in general neither version had in their entirety full support, and so, to encourage development, I suggested work should be done on the most advanced position, which is the current version. There would be a loss, both of momentum and content, in disregarding everything that had been done, so that therefore it made more sense to move forward on the points of concern. Sometimes things are not completely black or white. I am willing to assist you through this situation, though I am unclear what it is you are asking me. I am suggesting you edit the page along the lines indicated in the discussion, and that I would be willing to support such editing in case of a dispute. Instead of that you appear to want me to keep explaining my actions as though I should have declared the entire rewrite as being inappropriate and out of consensus. I do not read in the discussion that the entire rewrite was being rejected. I see favourable comments to the whole rewrite, and some specific concerns raised about some of the wording. Again, all I feel I can do is suggest you make those edits that were identified as being of concern - such as adding back "or original thought", and moving the Paris example to the main body. I would do them myself, but as I closed the discussion I feel I should not be directly involved in editing the page - there is a long standing convention about such matters! SilkTork * YES! 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As you feel yes or no responses are more helpful to you than my fuller explanations, there you are - I hope that provides clarity. I don't think I can help you further than this, and I feel that if I continue to answer your questions I will be prolonging this to no good effect, and may generate frustration. I am willing to help out on development of the page in relation to the discussion I closed, though I will not respond to more enquiries designed to get me to change my mind. If you wish to pursue the issue of my close, then I suggest you ask an impartial admin to look over my close, as this line of questioning is going nowhere. SilkTork * YES! 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. SilkTork * YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|page=
parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Wikipedia:Talk page layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. SilkTork * YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BoagsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BoagsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite - I'll be watching - Rothorpe ( talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Answer on my talk page. Rothorpe ( talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with all your points. Cheers - Rothorpe ( talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)...Perhaps the MOS should suggest ' The Beatles' for links, 'the Beatles' otherwise? Rothorpe ( talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
When I said that bit about "domineering over lesser users", I did not actually know that I was effectively saying that they should look down upon the users as unimportant, in comparison to themselves. I had meant by "lesser users" merely users with less privileges than administrators, and at the time I thought that administrators were the leaders in Wikipedia, and therefore dominant. To be honest, when I think back on how little I really knew about Wikipedia's system, even just two years ago, I'm very startled. Needless to say, though, I don't believe in that anymore. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The block was not given "for a slight ammendment of formatting," hence I don't think your reasoning for lifting the block is sound. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Moreover I don't agree with the logged reason for the unblock, disruption and wikibattling are indeed covered by the blocking policy. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Only so you know, however, I think this was helpful, it's what other admins and I have been telling him for days. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard is still going at it on Commons, despite your warning, in the wake of nine or ten others, that he stop. Please can you do something about this. ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannator─╢ 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
The Admin's Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision. Thank you for making those tough decisions. Okip 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi there, I have begun a review of your GA nomination and have entered some comments at Talk:Chuck Berry/GA1. Feel free to ask me questions. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, remember me? Anyway, I updated an image on an article
here, I replaced
this image with
this one. I was wondering if you could read over all my reasoning for the change (some on the articles talk page too) spread across a number of places and help me with any copyright concerns and other issues with the change. Thanks!
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link
09:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Silk, the tree shaping page is moving along now with some new eyes. In the previous go round an editor mentioned he had an account password issue, making it diffacult to edit. Because, we have never had a problem with any anonymous edit warring, just a mistaken soap puppet charge, I request removal of semi protection status, at least to see how it goes. Slowart ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the results again, there must be some reason why Almathea received significantly better results than Tiptoety. What is the community trying to tell us with that result? Some may think it is unfair to gloss over the difference. Jamesofur seems to have a lot of people who may not know him.
I listed some additional options, all done in good faith. For example, should the RFC have a Secure Poll component? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCheckuser_and_oversighter_selection&action=historysubmit&diff=366263279&oldid=366261853 Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you change anything? Find anything wrong? What do you think?
Mod MMG ( User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, it turns out you do not have even a basic grasp of the issues involved, let alone the topic itself. I am all for WP:BOLD, but you have been bold, and you have been reverted and told to please do your homework. I am not the main author of the Celts article. But I know enough about the topic to realize when the article defaced by well-meaning but clueless edits. The article has had its present scope and basic structure since six years or more [16]. If you want to change it, you will not only need excellent reasons but also an excellent and stable consensus to go ahead. You don't just shift around major articles on major topics on a whim. To begin with, present excellent tertiary sources to support your proposal of how to arrange articles.
I know you do not propose to act as an administrator at the article, and neither do I, but I am nevertheless dismayed to see ill-advised and erratic editing of this type by a Wikipedian with admin privileges. But I can only assume that you have a history of constructive contributions and that with some patience we will be able to communicate in good faith. The first step towards this goal will be your stopping to edit-war away from the consensus version. I will be happy to see improvements to the article, with the understanding that they will be based on academic references and up to academic standards. Seeing you add random nonsense to the article, such as a description of the Celts as "early Indo-European" does not really raise my hopes that you are capable of such contributions, but I will be happy to be proven wrong in this. -- dab (𒁳) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Silktork, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Wikipedia to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article [1]. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Silktork, I'd like to request if the process could be sped-up so that myself and Jayen may directly work on the articles. It would help a lot as I can put the research I have done to best use in the limited time I get to work on wikipedia. If at any point there is any conflict, we could resort to moderated discussion mechanism which is in place.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Silktork, the entire section pertaining to the KM Reports, teh central portion of the article, and the intro was compiled by me yesterday, taking a day off from work. I had gone ahead with creation of the namespace and planned to leave it for other editors to work on. I had made a mention of my decision to do so in a response to you on my talk.
Jayen has also apparently reviewed the article: [4]. I am waiting for a response from him. I have discussed this with him on his talk as well. I mention creation of the name-space on Talk:Persection of Falun Gong as well. Particualrly, I'd like to point out that PCPP's claim of the article being a copy-paste of an earlier version is baseless.
I request you to kindly review the content. I'd also like you to note hat PCPP has a history of blanking all content related to Chinese human rights abuses and editors have repeatedly raised concerns on his behaviour, and the 50 Cent Party pattern seen in his activities on wikipedia. Dilip rajeev ( talk)
Silktork, I sincerely apologize for having gone ahead with the creation of the page. It was not my purpose to circumvent the moderated discussion process, but was attempting to make the most of a day's time I managed to pull out. Researching the topic for a while had led me to have concerns on why a human rights topic of urgent importance as this was not having its space in wikipedia. My hastiness was driven by concerns along those lines.
I acknowledge it was inappropriate on my part to have created the page without your permission, and I assure you , that, from hereforth, I will work with you on this, strictly adhering to the terms of the moderated discussion process. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:
I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture.
The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.
I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this. SilkTork * YES! 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity why did you depopulate Category:War novels set in Anglo-Saxon England and then redirect it? Sadads ( talk) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am co-editor of an article at FAC. This is the third attempt - it died for lack of interest last time.
Please help me if you can. Any comments will be welcome. Pass or fail doesn't matter. I just don't want a replay of the slow death by suffocation, like last time. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder if you, or someone else could help with the section in this article to do with Verbal irony and sarcasm? The discussion is getting very long, and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I added some dictionary definitions and suchlike, in an attempt to set out the way authorities have sought to differentiate the terms. The editor responsible for the original text (which I have hardly touched) objects to this on the grounds that all these definitions are wrong in some way. His original text dealt only with the way psychologists have studied the way people understand irony and sarcasm. He wants to remove my definitions and replace them with more psychology citations. I do not understand what is going on here. I hope you can help. Myrvin ( talk) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for taking up the challenge of closing the discussion on the rewrite of the lead of the No original research policy.
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your conclusions. Changes to policy pages should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus that the proposed changes are an improvement, they should not be made.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
My comments were that there was in general a favourable response to the rewrite, but that concerns were raised about some aspects. I summed up by saying that in general neither version had in their entirety full support, and so, to encourage development, I suggested work should be done on the most advanced position, which is the current version. There would be a loss, both of momentum and content, in disregarding everything that had been done, so that therefore it made more sense to move forward on the points of concern. Sometimes things are not completely black or white. I am willing to assist you through this situation, though I am unclear what it is you are asking me. I am suggesting you edit the page along the lines indicated in the discussion, and that I would be willing to support such editing in case of a dispute. Instead of that you appear to want me to keep explaining my actions as though I should have declared the entire rewrite as being inappropriate and out of consensus. I do not read in the discussion that the entire rewrite was being rejected. I see favourable comments to the whole rewrite, and some specific concerns raised about some of the wording. Again, all I feel I can do is suggest you make those edits that were identified as being of concern - such as adding back "or original thought", and moving the Paris example to the main body. I would do them myself, but as I closed the discussion I feel I should not be directly involved in editing the page - there is a long standing convention about such matters! SilkTork * YES! 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As you feel yes or no responses are more helpful to you than my fuller explanations, there you are - I hope that provides clarity. I don't think I can help you further than this, and I feel that if I continue to answer your questions I will be prolonging this to no good effect, and may generate frustration. I am willing to help out on development of the page in relation to the discussion I closed, though I will not respond to more enquiries designed to get me to change my mind. If you wish to pursue the issue of my close, then I suggest you ask an impartial admin to look over my close, as this line of questioning is going nowhere. SilkTork * YES! 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. SilkTork * YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
|page=
parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Wikipedia:Talk page layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. SilkTork * YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BoagsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BoagsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite - I'll be watching - Rothorpe ( talk) 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Answer on my talk page. Rothorpe ( talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with all your points. Cheers - Rothorpe ( talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)...Perhaps the MOS should suggest ' The Beatles' for links, 'the Beatles' otherwise? Rothorpe ( talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
When I said that bit about "domineering over lesser users", I did not actually know that I was effectively saying that they should look down upon the users as unimportant, in comparison to themselves. I had meant by "lesser users" merely users with less privileges than administrators, and at the time I thought that administrators were the leaders in Wikipedia, and therefore dominant. To be honest, when I think back on how little I really knew about Wikipedia's system, even just two years ago, I'm very startled. Needless to say, though, I don't believe in that anymore. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The block was not given "for a slight ammendment of formatting," hence I don't think your reasoning for lifting the block is sound. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Moreover I don't agree with the logged reason for the unblock, disruption and wikibattling are indeed covered by the blocking policy. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Only so you know, however, I think this was helpful, it's what other admins and I have been telling him for days. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard is still going at it on Commons, despite your warning, in the wake of nine or ten others, that he stop. Please can you do something about this. ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannator─╢ 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
The Admin's Barnstar may be awarded to administrators who made a particularly difficult decision. Thank you for making those tough decisions. Okip 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi there, I have begun a review of your GA nomination and have entered some comments at Talk:Chuck Berry/GA1. Feel free to ask me questions. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, remember me? Anyway, I updated an image on an article
here, I replaced
this image with
this one. I was wondering if you could read over all my reasoning for the change (some on the articles talk page too) spread across a number of places and help me with any copyright concerns and other issues with the change. Thanks!
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link
09:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Silk, the tree shaping page is moving along now with some new eyes. In the previous go round an editor mentioned he had an account password issue, making it diffacult to edit. Because, we have never had a problem with any anonymous edit warring, just a mistaken soap puppet charge, I request removal of semi protection status, at least to see how it goes. Slowart ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the results again, there must be some reason why Almathea received significantly better results than Tiptoety. What is the community trying to tell us with that result? Some may think it is unfair to gloss over the difference. Jamesofur seems to have a lot of people who may not know him.
I listed some additional options, all done in good faith. For example, should the RFC have a Secure Poll component? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCheckuser_and_oversighter_selection&action=historysubmit&diff=366263279&oldid=366261853 Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you change anything? Find anything wrong? What do you think?
Mod MMG ( User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, it turns out you do not have even a basic grasp of the issues involved, let alone the topic itself. I am all for WP:BOLD, but you have been bold, and you have been reverted and told to please do your homework. I am not the main author of the Celts article. But I know enough about the topic to realize when the article defaced by well-meaning but clueless edits. The article has had its present scope and basic structure since six years or more [16]. If you want to change it, you will not only need excellent reasons but also an excellent and stable consensus to go ahead. You don't just shift around major articles on major topics on a whim. To begin with, present excellent tertiary sources to support your proposal of how to arrange articles.
I know you do not propose to act as an administrator at the article, and neither do I, but I am nevertheless dismayed to see ill-advised and erratic editing of this type by a Wikipedian with admin privileges. But I can only assume that you have a history of constructive contributions and that with some patience we will be able to communicate in good faith. The first step towards this goal will be your stopping to edit-war away from the consensus version. I will be happy to see improvements to the article, with the understanding that they will be based on academic references and up to academic standards. Seeing you add random nonsense to the article, such as a description of the Celts as "early Indo-European" does not really raise my hopes that you are capable of such contributions, but I will be happy to be proven wrong in this. -- dab (𒁳) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)