![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Thank you for your input at the Village Well concerning the use of who? tags. Can you provide me any guidance on available conflict resolution for dealing with this issue?- 32.145.117.65 ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! In case you haven't seen, Planescape: Torment has been nominated as a Good Article, and the review has been placed on hold; some issues need to be resolved, so have a look at the review page and discuss the issues and let's get to work! BOZ ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For clearing out all that crud from the WP:FOOTY page that should have been sorted out ages ago :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
Could you return the broom to the template? I didn't see any discussion about removing it, and I rather liked it. Debresser ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Bbcnews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
meco (
talk)
17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you transcluding it or shall I? Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be in a new paragraph at least. The whole paragraph and the one below it is about BBSes that would charge users for access to content. The line about the Rusty n Edie's BBS seemed out of place in the paragraph. That is why I added the new information about another instance of a BBS in trouble with the law and created that section. I will make a new paragraph. Let me know if there is any problems. Thanks. Quistisffviii ( talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It was a style thing, primarily the smaller text. New version is much better, though I don't see an overwhelming need to have it fit flush with the archive template. No problem though. :) PC78 ( talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris, for taking care of that move situation. I would not have thought to post it where you did, but clearly it was an intelligent way to resolve the situation. I much appreciate it, as I was completely stymied in my attempts to make any further progress. Un sch ool 06:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
since I know you as a much more experienced wikipedian than I'll ever be, (remember our differences on the Shareaza article^^), I would like to kindly ask you to read threw the Lphant article (as well as its sources etc.) and add a comment to the talk page, if you have a bit of time left.
Greetings, Old Death ( talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
i'm a developer at dyne.org
i noticed that you systematically acted on articles related to GNU/Linux software we develop
it is obvious from dyne:bolic page history you annoyed other editors with repeated notability questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dyne:bolic&action=history
also on FreeJ software you recently questioned the notability of the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeJ
is there something you disagree with in general, regarding the notability of dyne.org activity? or any specific issue related to our activity?
ciao jaromil ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Rather than create drama at your RfA, I'll answer your inquiry here. First, WP:3RR is not a right to 3 reverts - it is a means to prevent edit warring and disruptive reversions. A more insightful answer would have been to ask for more information from my question: has anybody been warned, has anybody discussed the changes on the talk page, what did the edit summaries look like, was this a pattern of behavior. In a certain sense, the question was calculated to elicit you to examine the scenario more deeply or to make some assumptions in preface to your response. The answers to the "underconstruction" question sound fine, but realistically few if any admins actually have the time to go off and research notability independently - especially if the article's author can offer none. "Underconstruction" without content or with nothing more than an external link is like planting your flag on some uninhabited island claiming it as your own - WP doesn't allow that; we have user space to which the offending article could be moved if queried by its author after deletion. I have seen you around and you do good work. I think you'll be a good admin at some time, if this doesn't work out this time, then soon. By they way, I'm glad you've asked and not nastily. I'm moving to neutral. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been keeping an eye on the WikiProject ;)
The portal boxes seem to work fine under Internet Explorer but Mozilla based browsers handle the div differently. If you can find an easy solution let me know. Tothwolf ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say just ride it out. My guess is that this isn't a new user, but I don't know who it would be. If you get a feeling on who the account behind this is, email a checkuser and see if they will take a look. Otherwise it is best to just let it slide for a bit. Protonk ( talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You reverted my edit on LAMP (software bundle) to make Perl the primary language. I suspect that you are more knowledgeable than me on the subject (I came to this site to see what all the fuss over LAMP really was). However, the rest of the article still uses PHP as the primary language and currently this article is a mess.
It appears that the article has been using PHP as the standard for most of it's life and was only recently changed to Perl by an anonymous user. So it appeared that the change had been made in order to promote Perl rather than correct information. Do you have any references to back your claim that LAMP meant Perl first, people seem to be claiming the opposite as well?
Either way, you ought to fix the rest of the article if you believe that Perl is the default. Thank you. - Sligocki ( talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And no offense at all as I feel sure you will one day make a terrific admin... and I mean that with all honesty. My oppose came down to your bumping heads with Jimbo... and even though he simply asked you to stop something, declarations from Jimmy Wales have policy status, and ignoring him, no matter the best of intentions, is something no editor should ever do. Then he had to ask a second time. That was the clincher... for me and likely a few others. With best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Your RFA has been closed as no consensus. Please work on the concerns and try again in the future. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sixty people who had no axe to grind supported you, and even in the other sections there's a surprising amount of sincerely positive stuff. You did well! Nevertheless, this might be a good time to step back and think about what you really want to do. All those hours on Wikipedia might be better spent on a part-time postgraduate diploma, MSc, MBA, PRINCE2, ITIL, etc. There's great training around and you need to make the most of it while you can. While your brain's still buzzing, re-boot your education, not your edit counts! Good luck - Pointillist ( talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess you've got to take more pottery classes or something. Oh well. :| Protonk ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the past week off for final exams (you will see a week long gap in my editing from the 10th through 17th), but if your RfA was still open when I decided to take a temporary break from my break this evening (back to school work and logging off Wikipedia again momentarily), I would have at least switched to weak oppose if not neutral. Of course, I doubt my one oppose had much impact (maybe even brought a couple to support you...) and after all, anyone who would have seen my last edit in the RfA with the update that linked to our discussion above where I said my concerns were largely addressed probably took that into consideration. Anyway, they say being an admin is no big deal, so don't lose sleep over it. Take care! Sincerley, -- A Nobody My talk 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
While you may be correct that too many terms were bolded in my recent edit, I think that one is far too few. The club's official incorporated title should certainly be in bold (there is no separate article for the corporate body), and this club is extremely well-known as "Glasgow Rangers"; this is not a nickname but a definite alternative title and should be bolded per WP:BOLD. Three bold terms is not too many. What do you think? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
jaromil may be the project maintainer, but look at the edit history: Very minor input. Out of the last 100 edits, not one was his. That level of involvement (more accuratly, non-involvment) does not constitute a COI by most reasonable people. Proxy User ( talk) 17:19, 17 March 2009 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Thank you for your input at the Village Well concerning the use of who? tags. Can you provide me any guidance on available conflict resolution for dealing with this issue?- 32.145.117.65 ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! In case you haven't seen, Planescape: Torment has been nominated as a Good Article, and the review has been placed on hold; some issues need to be resolved, so have a look at the review page and discuss the issues and let's get to work! BOZ ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For clearing out all that crud from the WP:FOOTY page that should have been sorted out ages ago :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
Could you return the broom to the template? I didn't see any discussion about removing it, and I rather liked it. Debresser ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Bbcnews has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
meco (
talk)
17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you transcluding it or shall I? Oldelpaso ( talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be in a new paragraph at least. The whole paragraph and the one below it is about BBSes that would charge users for access to content. The line about the Rusty n Edie's BBS seemed out of place in the paragraph. That is why I added the new information about another instance of a BBS in trouble with the law and created that section. I will make a new paragraph. Let me know if there is any problems. Thanks. Quistisffviii ( talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It was a style thing, primarily the smaller text. New version is much better, though I don't see an overwhelming need to have it fit flush with the archive template. No problem though. :) PC78 ( talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris, for taking care of that move situation. I would not have thought to post it where you did, but clearly it was an intelligent way to resolve the situation. I much appreciate it, as I was completely stymied in my attempts to make any further progress. Un sch ool 06:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
since I know you as a much more experienced wikipedian than I'll ever be, (remember our differences on the Shareaza article^^), I would like to kindly ask you to read threw the Lphant article (as well as its sources etc.) and add a comment to the talk page, if you have a bit of time left.
Greetings, Old Death ( talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
i'm a developer at dyne.org
i noticed that you systematically acted on articles related to GNU/Linux software we develop
it is obvious from dyne:bolic page history you annoyed other editors with repeated notability questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dyne:bolic&action=history
also on FreeJ software you recently questioned the notability of the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeJ
is there something you disagree with in general, regarding the notability of dyne.org activity? or any specific issue related to our activity?
ciao jaromil ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Rather than create drama at your RfA, I'll answer your inquiry here. First, WP:3RR is not a right to 3 reverts - it is a means to prevent edit warring and disruptive reversions. A more insightful answer would have been to ask for more information from my question: has anybody been warned, has anybody discussed the changes on the talk page, what did the edit summaries look like, was this a pattern of behavior. In a certain sense, the question was calculated to elicit you to examine the scenario more deeply or to make some assumptions in preface to your response. The answers to the "underconstruction" question sound fine, but realistically few if any admins actually have the time to go off and research notability independently - especially if the article's author can offer none. "Underconstruction" without content or with nothing more than an external link is like planting your flag on some uninhabited island claiming it as your own - WP doesn't allow that; we have user space to which the offending article could be moved if queried by its author after deletion. I have seen you around and you do good work. I think you'll be a good admin at some time, if this doesn't work out this time, then soon. By they way, I'm glad you've asked and not nastily. I'm moving to neutral. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been keeping an eye on the WikiProject ;)
The portal boxes seem to work fine under Internet Explorer but Mozilla based browsers handle the div differently. If you can find an easy solution let me know. Tothwolf ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say just ride it out. My guess is that this isn't a new user, but I don't know who it would be. If you get a feeling on who the account behind this is, email a checkuser and see if they will take a look. Otherwise it is best to just let it slide for a bit. Protonk ( talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You reverted my edit on LAMP (software bundle) to make Perl the primary language. I suspect that you are more knowledgeable than me on the subject (I came to this site to see what all the fuss over LAMP really was). However, the rest of the article still uses PHP as the primary language and currently this article is a mess.
It appears that the article has been using PHP as the standard for most of it's life and was only recently changed to Perl by an anonymous user. So it appeared that the change had been made in order to promote Perl rather than correct information. Do you have any references to back your claim that LAMP meant Perl first, people seem to be claiming the opposite as well?
Either way, you ought to fix the rest of the article if you believe that Perl is the default. Thank you. - Sligocki ( talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And no offense at all as I feel sure you will one day make a terrific admin... and I mean that with all honesty. My oppose came down to your bumping heads with Jimbo... and even though he simply asked you to stop something, declarations from Jimmy Wales have policy status, and ignoring him, no matter the best of intentions, is something no editor should ever do. Then he had to ask a second time. That was the clincher... for me and likely a few others. With best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Your RFA has been closed as no consensus. Please work on the concerns and try again in the future. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sixty people who had no axe to grind supported you, and even in the other sections there's a surprising amount of sincerely positive stuff. You did well! Nevertheless, this might be a good time to step back and think about what you really want to do. All those hours on Wikipedia might be better spent on a part-time postgraduate diploma, MSc, MBA, PRINCE2, ITIL, etc. There's great training around and you need to make the most of it while you can. While your brain's still buzzing, re-boot your education, not your edit counts! Good luck - Pointillist ( talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess you've got to take more pottery classes or something. Oh well. :| Protonk ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the past week off for final exams (you will see a week long gap in my editing from the 10th through 17th), but if your RfA was still open when I decided to take a temporary break from my break this evening (back to school work and logging off Wikipedia again momentarily), I would have at least switched to weak oppose if not neutral. Of course, I doubt my one oppose had much impact (maybe even brought a couple to support you...) and after all, anyone who would have seen my last edit in the RfA with the update that linked to our discussion above where I said my concerns were largely addressed probably took that into consideration. Anyway, they say being an admin is no big deal, so don't lose sleep over it. Take care! Sincerley, -- A Nobody My talk 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
While you may be correct that too many terms were bolded in my recent edit, I think that one is far too few. The club's official incorporated title should certainly be in bold (there is no separate article for the corporate body), and this club is extremely well-known as "Glasgow Rangers"; this is not a nickname but a definite alternative title and should be bolded per WP:BOLD. Three bold terms is not too many. What do you think? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
jaromil may be the project maintainer, but look at the edit history: Very minor input. Out of the last 100 edits, not one was his. That level of involvement (more accuratly, non-involvment) does not constitute a COI by most reasonable people. Proxy User ( talk) 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)