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. |
The "Irish Cheeses" category is for any cheese made in Ireland. No probs with the "Northern Irish cheese" category, but why remove the "Irish Cheese" and "British Cheese" categories? Was there a discussion about the new categorization somewhere? -- HighKing ( talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged this for speedy renaming recently. I think the new name is wrong, and the category should be renamed " Category:Solicitors-General of India". The term solicitor-general contains a post-positive adjective (general), so the plural form is solicitors-general and not solicitor generals. See also [1]. — SMUconlaw ( talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, can I ask you please not to challenge every editor who responds at the Sarah Brown RfC? It risks putting people off from responding at all. I understand that you and Obiwankenobi have strong feelings about this, but the RfC has to be run in such a way that people feel comfortable about turning up and expressing disagreement, without feeling they have to run the gauntlet, as it were. I hope you'll consider this. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you created Category:1958 in Benin as a redirect, and was wondering if there was a way I could easily link to the discussion of the issue that lead to the creation of the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advocate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Obi-wan, a non-admin, had no right or authority at all to close a move request that was so evenly divided between support and oppose, that's bull. Tarc ( talk) 00:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, can I ask you again to reconsider your position regarding these requested moves about women? You had commented several times in that discussion and the consensus remained unclear, so it wasn't appropriate for you to use the tools to delete and move it. I hope you'll consider undoing your move. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In other issues ... any idea why Cydebot refuses to work on the Royal College Colombo ones listed from WP:CFDS? Is it the comma in the target categories? Surely not ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I think you recently helped to move all the categories for United Kingdom labour law and United Kingdom labour case law to "employment". Please see me addition to Talk:United Kingdom labour law. Can you please revert all the category changes? I really have no idea why you or someone didn't ask me, considering that I created just about all 195 pages. Cheers, Wik idea 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On June 20, you null-edited a number of templates: Yesno, Nihongo, Namespace_detect, If_pagename, Category_handler/numbered, Category_handler/blacklist and Category_handler. Since then, the English Wikipedia job queue has done nothing except process link updates for those templates, so there's now 2 weeks of backlog. Can you explain why you did those null edits? -- Tim Starling ( talk) 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
On 7 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NI21, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that NI21 intends to be the first official opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NI21. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
You moved The Wikileaks Party to Wikileaks Party.
Unfortunately though, the "The" is absolutely, definitely part of the name. See here.
Any chance you could move it back please? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, would you consider undoing your recent move of the above? There were no riots outside England. Reliable sources, including academic sources, refer to the riots as the England or English riots, e.g. Simone X. Zhang, Constructing the Riots: Interpretations and Consequences of the 2011 England Riots, Havard University Press, 2012.
In addition, the article is part of a series of articles about riots in England, and only two supported the move, plus one conditional support, and an oppose. See discussion on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Although, I guess it has been a few years, so surely you know by now that being a Wikipedia:Janitor doesn't make you an emperor, right? You can't actually close a deletion as keep and then pronounce a new policy the rest of us mere non-Janitors must follow. Anyway, I've cleaned up the mess you left around back in March 2011. Cheers! -- Kendrick7 talk 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was following ANI and ended up at User talk:IFreedom1212. Per Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, aren't users allowed to remove active block notices as long as they have not posted an unblock request? I was under the impression, from reading WP:UP just linked, that as long as the block was not contested by the user, they could remove the block notice at will. But as soon as they post an unblock request, THEN the block notice must be reinstated. So in this case, is talk page removal appropriate? I will ping @ DMacks: @ Taylortbb: @ NeilN: since they too undid the blanking. Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.126 ( talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Timrollpickering.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, the edit summaries you generate when using AWB look a bit odd (for example, most of the ones that can be seen here) It seems that AWB may be truncating the replacement string and leaving off the closing square brackets, and this seems to disrupt link formation later on as well. Of course, it's a very minor issue, but I thought you should at least know about it. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Demographics of China may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to deal with this one: Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber#Title/style confusion D B D 23:05, 22 October 2013 (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. |
The "Irish Cheeses" category is for any cheese made in Ireland. No probs with the "Northern Irish cheese" category, but why remove the "Irish Cheese" and "British Cheese" categories? Was there a discussion about the new categorization somewhere? -- HighKing ( talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged this for speedy renaming recently. I think the new name is wrong, and the category should be renamed " Category:Solicitors-General of India". The term solicitor-general contains a post-positive adjective (general), so the plural form is solicitors-general and not solicitor generals. See also [1]. — SMUconlaw ( talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, can I ask you please not to challenge every editor who responds at the Sarah Brown RfC? It risks putting people off from responding at all. I understand that you and Obiwankenobi have strong feelings about this, but the RfC has to be run in such a way that people feel comfortable about turning up and expressing disagreement, without feeling they have to run the gauntlet, as it were. I hope you'll consider this. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you created Category:1958 in Benin as a redirect, and was wondering if there was a way I could easily link to the discussion of the issue that lead to the creation of the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advocate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Obi-wan, a non-admin, had no right or authority at all to close a move request that was so evenly divided between support and oppose, that's bull. Tarc ( talk) 00:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, can I ask you again to reconsider your position regarding these requested moves about women? You had commented several times in that discussion and the consensus remained unclear, so it wasn't appropriate for you to use the tools to delete and move it. I hope you'll consider undoing your move. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In other issues ... any idea why Cydebot refuses to work on the Royal College Colombo ones listed from WP:CFDS? Is it the comma in the target categories? Surely not ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I think you recently helped to move all the categories for United Kingdom labour law and United Kingdom labour case law to "employment". Please see me addition to Talk:United Kingdom labour law. Can you please revert all the category changes? I really have no idea why you or someone didn't ask me, considering that I created just about all 195 pages. Cheers, Wik idea 12:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On June 20, you null-edited a number of templates: Yesno, Nihongo, Namespace_detect, If_pagename, Category_handler/numbered, Category_handler/blacklist and Category_handler. Since then, the English Wikipedia job queue has done nothing except process link updates for those templates, so there's now 2 weeks of backlog. Can you explain why you did those null edits? -- Tim Starling ( talk) 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
On 7 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NI21, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that NI21 intends to be the first official opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NI21. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
You moved The Wikileaks Party to Wikileaks Party.
Unfortunately though, the "The" is absolutely, definitely part of the name. See here.
Any chance you could move it back please? HiLo48 ( talk) 22:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, would you consider undoing your recent move of the above? There were no riots outside England. Reliable sources, including academic sources, refer to the riots as the England or English riots, e.g. Simone X. Zhang, Constructing the Riots: Interpretations and Consequences of the 2011 England Riots, Havard University Press, 2012.
In addition, the article is part of a series of articles about riots in England, and only two supported the move, plus one conditional support, and an oppose. See discussion on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Although, I guess it has been a few years, so surely you know by now that being a Wikipedia:Janitor doesn't make you an emperor, right? You can't actually close a deletion as keep and then pronounce a new policy the rest of us mere non-Janitors must follow. Anyway, I've cleaned up the mess you left around back in March 2011. Cheers! -- Kendrick7 talk 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was following ANI and ended up at User talk:IFreedom1212. Per Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, aren't users allowed to remove active block notices as long as they have not posted an unblock request? I was under the impression, from reading WP:UP just linked, that as long as the block was not contested by the user, they could remove the block notice at will. But as soon as they post an unblock request, THEN the block notice must be reinstated. So in this case, is talk page removal appropriate? I will ping @ DMacks: @ Taylortbb: @ NeilN: since they too undid the blanking. Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.126 ( talk) 12:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Timrollpickering.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, the edit summaries you generate when using AWB look a bit odd (for example, most of the ones that can be seen here) It seems that AWB may be truncating the replacement string and leaving off the closing square brackets, and this seems to disrupt link formation later on as well. Of course, it's a very minor issue, but I thought you should at least know about it. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Demographics of China may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to deal with this one: Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber#Title/style confusion D B D 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
|