User:Nixeagle/Talk/Archive/20
Barnstar
edit
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For two years service to Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. --Sharkface217 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
Betacommand's RFA
editYou forgot to sign :). ~ Wikihermit 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleventyseven. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chubbles 04:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
editThe September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure the best way to begin archiving. I would assume the format would be as it is on meta. Perhaps you could begin the first archive?--Hu12 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would you like me to set up my archiving script on this archive page? (Meta's is done by a bot I wrote). —— Eagle101Need help? 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If its not to much work, the bot would be a great help!--Hu12 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Editwarring
editHi,
You correctly observed that I editwarred with others on List of notable converts to Islam. In one case I think I was justified. Please see Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam#Sana_al-Sayegh. I tried to discuss my edits there, and two users responded. But Prester John who reverted my edits regarding al-Sayegh didn't even respond or making any attempt to discuss. In this case what could I have done, (when a user isn't responding on talk)?Bless sins 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will not comment on whether or not you were right or wrong. (frankly I don't care) But for future information I would suggest that you not revert, but rather leave messages on others talk pages, and perhaps ask for mediation, or just drop a note by any of our 1,000 admins asking them to take a look at things. There are more ways then just reverting, all of which are better options. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- How do I find these 1,000 admins? Are than any ways of resolving disputes besides discussing and finding admins (not including reverting)?Bless sins 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, have a look at Special:Listusers/Sysop. My suggestion, if you have to find a sysop, is to let them know of the dispute, and thats it, I would tell the admin whats going on in a neutral manner. (the dispute is I want to add a tag and another user wants to remove a tag, the other user is not responding to talk page messages for example). Best of luck, and thanks for realizing that edit-warring is not a good thing :) —— Eagle101Need help? 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would also suggest you have a read over the ideal of One revert per day. Its a noble goal, and I see those that adhere to this limit have a much more enjoyable time on this wiki. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- How do I find these 1,000 admins? Are than any ways of resolving disputes besides discussing and finding admins (not including reverting)?Bless sins 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your article scans
editFollow-up on our IRC conversation, it may be useful to have a list of articles with inline citations but no ref section. That way they could be formatted correctly over time. Also, by separating the articles into (short, no refs) (short, refs) (long, no refs) (long, inline, no refs) for example, it may produce lists that have different quality articles in them. I'd imagine the (short, no refs) and (long, no refs) would produce more CSDs and Prods than the others. Just thinking here. Anyway, got to go to bed. More later, if I think of anything. And I'm watching your page, so you can reply here. Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the link to "I" in your original list at VPM is broken. Here it is: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/DA_Aug/decentArticlesI.html Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:37, 10 September 2007
Sohli captain
editSohli captain, which you nuked on 28 Feb, has reappeared as Sohli Captain. Is this the same content as the previous article (hence again CSD a7)? It still "doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles." (as you had noted for the previous article) -- Fullstop 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've started it at the link. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This template does not have any pages linked to it except one that is tracking its deletion progress. It is free to delete. That one link on it (excepting the ones it now has from my and your talk pages) will always be linked to the page, even after it is deleted, so just ignore it. I will fix the remaining links on Template:Succession footnote, but as a note, all of them are userpages or talk pages.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Template:succession footnote is good to go. The remaining links are yours, mine, the tracker, and Waltham's talk page where we were talking about removing the template.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your lists of articles with 10 sentences and 3 references
editHi Eagle 101 -- I'm puzzled. Are you sure that you are calculating these correctly? I checked for two articles I know to have exceeded the >= 3 inline references, >= 10 sentences & no clean-up tags threshold since some time in 2006 (Peak District & bovine papillomavirus) and neither seemed to appear in your lists. Regards, Espresso Addict 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is very likely that some of the articles simply did not show up in my version of the database dump. There are over 1,600,000 artilces, but its possible that a few were left out. I will be doing another scan on a more recent database dump to see if anything changes. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ANI Review Request - Disruptive Editing of David Hicks by Prester John
editHi. You blocked Bless sins but warned Prester John about revert warring on List of notable converts to Islam. Prester John has been doing sizeable non-consensual reverts on the David Hicks page. Can you please review the ANI report for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.lloyd (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have unblock User:Brendan.lloyd he isnt engaged in edit warring on David Hicks he's only made two edits in the last 48 hours to that article. Gnangarra 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
example.com
editon this page on can find all pages which contain a weblink to example.com. As this weblink is one of the things which can be added with the editing toolbar, just like the example.jpg or example.ogg, checking that list helps to find accidental or real editing experiments with the editing toolbar, or by wrongly adding a weblink. Thus it IMHO makes sense to avoid that link, and if really needing an example weblink use the example.org instead. Otherwise it will be difficult to find the pages which need to be checked for editing experiments. andy 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense, I was more or less just curious ;) —— Eagle101Need help? 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Not even a "Hello!"?
editI can't believe this. Honestly. I sit and wait for days on end in #wikipedia-spam-t, even to the point of conversing with... *shudder*... Shadow, and you never even say hello? Wow.
Just kidding. Honestly tho, drop me a line, bro. I'll be around. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? Guess who's got +sysop, my friend. Say it again and watch what happens. Shadow1 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow... did not notice you in the /names (I'm using irssi). —— Eagle101Need help? 22:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion / Reverting policy
editHi Eagle. I'm relatively inexperienced at Wikipedia. I've been watching the decision processes at the Administrators' noticeboard, and what interested me was that you recently presided over some cases of edit waring (I don't need to go into specific cases).
I notice that when you see a revert war, you tell the parties to go to the discussion page and talk about the issues, rather than just reverting. I agree with this very much. However, the Wikipedia rules don't emphasize that clearly enough.
This Wiki article states it very clearly: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting... And the above article suggests an alternative to reverting... to move the disputed content (with references) to the talk page, so it can be seen and discussed by other editors. If this was followed by all, it would be a more civil place.
However, the Wikipedia:Etiquette page seems to contradict this, implying it is OK to revert, adding a brief edit summary. It would be great if the Wiki Etiquette rules said something that would force people to move new content to the discussion page. I made a comment to this effect on the Etiquette discussion page. Anyway, I guess I just mention this in case such issues arise in the future, or Wikipedia reformats its Etiquette guidelines, it would be good to see stronger guidelines, which I think would reduce the incidents of edit wars. Best wishes, --Lester2 06:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- That might help, the key thing to remember is reverting of someone else should be a reletively rare thing, rare enough that you have the time to explain on the talk page why you felt that edit did not jive with our goal of being a free encyclopaedia. Then at least the other party or parties have a chance to talk it out right from the get go. Edit summaries tend to have just "rv" or "rv edit by Foo", when what is needed is for the person doing the revert to explain why he or she felt the revert was needed, and how he/she feels that the revert helps the encyclopaedia. The key thing is just to use common sense, if you think your edit is going to cause problems, take the time to explain it on the talk page. (any edit undoing another editor that is not blatant vandalism is an edit that can cause problems) —— Eagle101Need help? 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Eagle. Thanks for your reply. It's interesting you said that reverting someone else's work should be a rare thing. As we have seen, in practice it happens quite often. I just found some more Wiki policy on this. It's written in the Arbitration Policy regarding NPOV:
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29
- The ironic thing is that many people delete info claiming it doesn't follow NPOV, when in fact the deletion or the revert itself violates NPOV, according to that document. --Lester2 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, reverting should be a rare thing, if you are having to revert people many times a day, you are probably doing something wrong. As far as the NPOV thing, if someone feels that a revert will fix things then thats ok, but the person doing the reverting (on both "sides") need to also make an edit to the talk page as to why they did the revert, and why they think it improves the article. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wated to check with you on the comment here. Did you mean to say "...and if any of the sources are not reliable..."? I'd feel much better about keeping if it could be said what part of the Inuit world she came from. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean is, do we have any reliable sources that show that this is indeed a real God or Goddess? —— Eagle101Need help? 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- THanks. Of course the answer to that is not really as I don't know anything about godchecker. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)