This page is an archive of the ninth 20 topics on my talk page, lodged between the 16th of October 2005 and the 27th of October 2005. Please do not modify this page. If you wish to revive a discussion here, please don't hesitate to copy it back to my current talk page and add your comment per my policy.
manchester
editwhy on earth did you protect the results of a unilateral copypaste move?!
copypaste moves should be reverted on sight before they leave a history merege to be done. then if there is consensus to do the move (which was NEVER established in this case) then the move should be re-done properly after the mess from the copypaste move is deleted. Plugwash 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please discuss this in our discussion on the issue in the Discussion page for the City of Manchester article. A consensus appears to being formed that three articles are needed, with City of Manchester for the Local Authority, Greater Manchester for the metropolitan county and Manchester for the central urban area. EarlyBird 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
admin help
editListen - if you are unsure about something or need help you can always ask me :). Also, User:SlimVirgin and User:Fvw are good to ask too :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Manchester situation
editWell, to be honest, when I first looked at it it looked out of process, but when I looked closer (and cleaned up the cutnpaste move) I found out it was definately a closer case then I realized. Its still a pretty close case though as generally we only protect in an actual move/edit/vandalism war, or I suppose in rare cases when an admin is trying to clean up a move, not just one or two bad moves. It can be tempting to page lock in situations like that, but often its best to hold back. Speaking of which I would have only protected against moving and just reverted the redirects and block for 3RR if it comes to that.
As for cut n paste moves, see Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves - it seems involved and its really more tedious then anything else. For example, if someone cut n pasted from Manchester to City of Manchester (as happened here) what you'd do is:
- Delete both City of Manchester and its talk page
- Move Manchester (along with its talk page, which is checked by default) to City of Manchester
- Go to the history of both - you'll see "X deleted edits" - click on that... somewhere you'll see a "restore" button - click that for both City of Manchester and its talk page - this does a "history move" of sorts
- Refresh the history and now revert back to the last version from the City version on both the article and its talk page
(anyway, read the above wikipedia link and it'll tell you about it :))
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Woow. Slow down there :) - there's no need to blame yourself for anything :\ - just take a short break. I already cleaned up everything at the manchester pages, so don't worry about it :). Take a deep breath and try to relax :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, considering the only one protected right now is City of Manchester out of the three and that there have been hardly any edits in addition to actual discussion I just unprotected the thing. So go ahead and take it easy :). Take care now! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Can somebody please tell me what constitutes a consensus? We have quite a few people in the City of Manchester discussion who seem to be in agreement about the restructuring, yet there appear to be three people who refuse to accept the concept. How long do discussions continue before change is accepted and how many people does it take to kibosh the whole thing? EarlyBird 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Consensus is a highly debatable subject. 100% is consensus. As for a level below that, 80% is for RfA, 70% is on AfD. If a consensus looks unreachable then you'll have to go with a simple majority but that is obviously not preferable. Try running a straw poll to try and find the consensus. See also Wikipedia:Consensus. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well since Ryan unlocked the article it seems like the people who were opposing the change have stopped contributing to the discussion. Personally I think unlocking the article was a mistake until this is sorted. Could what we have now not be considered a consensus of sorts? After all, the majority of people who have contributed to the discussion agreed with the change and this system has also been suggested for Leeds (albeit for different reasons) in another discussion on UK districts. EarlyBird 18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- At the time you wrote this, I'd stoppped contributing for about six hours, having told you on the page that I'd be busy for the rest of the day. There isn't a consensus in favour, and I expect at least part of the reason other people have stopped contributing is that it's getting boring. If you want to start a third page, fine, but there's no consensus that Manchester or Greater Manchester should be moved. You can take it to Wikipedia:Requested page moves if you want, otherwise I think the admins will just revert it. It's also worth pointing out that many of those in favour have very few edits on pages other than Talk:City of Manchester, which is likely to count against it. There are a lot of things I'd rather be doing on Wikipedia, so unless an admin supports another page move, I'll probably stay out of this discussion now, as I don't think it's going anywhere. CTOAGN 13:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The discussion may not have reached a conclusion, but those proposing a Manchester = city of Manchester have not come up with a logical consistent method of describing cities, I'm with EB on this, I think we have got as far as we will on this discussion and three atricles will be required - unless someone comes up with a better idea.
Manchester Kurt 15:06, 18 October (UTC)
Celestian, I know you're an admin, but is there any chance of you stating your opinion on the situation? You are a valued Wikipedian and I think your viewpoint would be respected. EarlyBird 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have a specific preference really. Both arguments have merits and I'd prefer to stay neutral. --Celestianpower hablamé 09:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hermione1980's RfA
editThank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou
editThankyou for your welcome to Wikipedia. I am sure I will enjoy the experience, and hope to become a valuable contributor to the site.Mr ed 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Support Thanks
editThanks for the support, I most likely won't get to be an admin from what I've seen (even though its the first day). I guess people just don't think I'm good enough, I guess I'm not, well I hope it passes, but if it doesn't what can I say? Atleast I tried. Private Butcher 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Cats
editI'm much relieved by User:Army1987's addition of Category:User vocals, was starting think that I might have to do that myself, phew. Alf melmac 12:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
How, exactly, did you gleen a "keep" consensus when all of the keep votes where made by trolls who always do this sort of gang-up type of thing, and the article itself is not only filled with POV, but isn't even notable enough for its own article? --FuriousFreddy 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll take another look but they don't look like trolls to me. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- POV is not a deletion criteria. The keepers seemed to have plenty of edit history. I would have said that redirect was the best option persoannly. Perhaps I shopuld have said "no consensus - defaulting to keep" or something. Merging doesn't require a vote on AfD either. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The "keep"ers have a history of ganging up to protect such articles, without good judgement or acceptable reasons for their being kept. I say "trolls" because they bend rules and policies in order to satisfy their desires, without taking into consideratio nthe encycopedia as a whole. They've used this tactic to save obviously mergable (and reducable) articles on the characters from the film Glitter, seperate articles for covers of Christmas songs by pop singers, and such. If the merge were done, it would be very quickly reverted, as would any attempts to clean the articles up. Coverage of popular music is unfortunately overrun with obvious fancruft, and nothing is being done about it. If everyone else is to blissfully ignore the problem, I guess I should follow suit. --FuriousFreddy 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry - I can't do much else but obey the consensus, no matter how much I would like to sometimes. You're perfectly welcome to change it into a redirect and if anyone violates 3RR then come and see me. Sorry that I can't be much more help. Try putting it up on WP:AN? --Celestianpower hablamé 19:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The "keep"ers have a history of ganging up to protect such articles, without good judgement or acceptable reasons for their being kept. I say "trolls" because they bend rules and policies in order to satisfy their desires, without taking into consideratio nthe encycopedia as a whole. They've used this tactic to save obviously mergable (and reducable) articles on the characters from the film Glitter, seperate articles for covers of Christmas songs by pop singers, and such. If the merge were done, it would be very quickly reverted, as would any attempts to clean the articles up. Coverage of popular music is unfortunately overrun with obvious fancruft, and nothing is being done about it. If everyone else is to blissfully ignore the problem, I guess I should follow suit. --FuriousFreddy 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
my RfA
editThanks for the support!Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppet?
editHi,
You blocked User:CowMoo for being a sockpuppet. A User:CatMeow was created a little while ago which looks a bit suspicious.... chowells 17:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- User:CatMeow has just nominated itself for admin by the way! FireFox 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't make them a sock. --Celestianpower háblame 17:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick word of thanks for your vote. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 00:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for banning 216.120.184.163. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:216.120.184.163
I think that they may also be using 216.120.184.162. I suggest you join the IRC room for the cvu. wikipedia-en-vandalism on freenode.net --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 14:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
my sig
editThanx! I updated the sig, but with "</sup></Sup></font>" at the end, so the date was normal sized text. That ought to put a load off the server :).Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 17:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
As requested:
editStick this in:
/**** Add links to the nav bar ****/
function addNavBarLinks()
{
var navbar = document.getElementById('p-navigation').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0];
var afdtime = new Date();
var months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June',
'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
afdtime.setUTCDate(afdtime.getUTCDate() - 5);
addlilink(navbar, '/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/' + afdtime.getUTCFullYear()
+ '_' + months[afdtime.getUTCMonth()] + '_' + afdtime.getUTCDate(), '5-day old AfD', '');
}
Then stick a call to addNavBarLinks(); in your load function. Alphax τεχ 10:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
monobook.js
editHow easy do you think it would be to change the text displayed in my tabs at the top of the page? FireFox 13:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Unblocks
editI have no problem with you doing so, as long as you reblock afterwards to maintain the two-month interval. Sorry that you have to go through the hassle, but the vandal in question is persistent and has definitely earned the block. DS 14:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, you know who it is? Could you break his fingers, then? Or stick a fork in his eye? Or maybe you could surreptitiously leave a lingerie catalogue in his room. That will undoubtedly occupy his two-volt brain for the rest of the year. DS 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Don't want to be expelled". Bah. You're so... so... law-abiding. Humbug! Humbug, I say! DS 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd(?!?) 17:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Indo-Pak war of 1971
editSorry didn't know you were going to delete it. Took me too long to find the correct place to redirect to. CambridgeBayWeather 08:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
63.235.80.159
editI noticed that you changed the genocide bombers to redirect to genocide. Take a look at the other edits by this user. They seem to me to be POV. What do you think? Ethnic cleansing, Abu Abbas, Palestinian, Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin massacre and Israeli Terrorism against the United States. CambridgeBayWeather 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to block. I just wanted to check that they were POV and then revert them. CambridgeBayWeather 09:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Carl Gustav Carus
editVery many thanks for your help. I needed the Carus page for my Timeline of Entomology. Would you be very kind and take a look at this too. Notafly in rainy Ireland.
monobook.js
editWell, the monobook you uploaded started working after I closed and reopened Safari, but it started crashing Safari whenever I'd use my watchpage, so I had to delete it. :/ - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)