Wikipedia

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/July

< User talk:AmandaNP | Archives
Latest comment: 14 years ago by DeltaQuad in topic You should have put them together


Bigar

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi DeltaQuad, I have modified the article submitted 2 weeks ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bigar), using the referencing system suggested. At the time I did not understand the method. Hope it's OK now. Best regards and many thanks. Mihaiepopa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiepopa (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep that is exactly how the references are supposed to look. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AR Case

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have completed the edit/abuse analysis, could you have a quick look? Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Could you add the timezone to "Top time segment" (aka UTC) and for the abuse summary, you could analyze stuff like specifc edit times so staff could know what time primarily edits are taking place. Otherwise looks good. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Completed my investigation, do I email pim@virginmedia.co.uk ? Thanks,Acather96 (talk)

Yep, using one of the normal templates. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fabio Capello edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Done -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC) You rejected on 3rd of July an ammendment I suggested for the page on Fabio Capello, stating that a reliable source would be necessary. I have now included a link to a newspaper article containing the information, and hope this is acceptable.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.50.146 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: SPI Clerk trainning

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, sure. Let's dive right into WP:SPI. As you probably knew about the May's checkuser/oversight election fiasco, we're very short of checkusers (and occasionally also clerks to do the reviewing). Have you file any SPI cases before? If so, then I can cut a lot of explaining because you already knew the process. In the meantime, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Also, keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations because we often have updates to streamline the process. As you probably saw the notice on the top of SPI saying SPCUClerkbot is down, users have to manually file a case. Just check once in awhile to see if people added the case in wrong section and help them move back to the proper section. In cases where they want a checkuser to investigate, check and see if they have specified a code letter. For example, this case did not list a code letter (scroll down to the bottom to find that part). Ask that user in their talk page (not the case page because often, the submitter didn't watchlist the case page) to enter the letter code. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not been directly involved in an SPI case yet. I have however been watching the board for the past few weeks and have been reading the information that you have provided above. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me know when you're ready to move to next step. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Usually when I respond unless I note, I am ready to move forward. I have looked over the material. And I will be looking over the template changes today. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Mexico

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Will you check my article again? I cited more sources and added internal links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Little_Mexico

mar71mar@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar71mar (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done by another user, sorry for the delay. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ACC Access Suspended

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have suspended your access to the ACC tool per your incorrect closure of ACC Request #49953. Please don't WP:ABF when you see a company that happens to have a similar name to the username being requested. In particular I noticed that you cited a company that had a ccTLD (in this case .ro, the ccTLD for Romania) when the requesting user's IP address leads to a mobile phone provider in the United Kingdom]. And the Email address in this case was a Gmail that is unlikely to be used for promotional purposes. FunPika 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsuspended. According to Delirious in IRC somehow the username policy effectively tells people to ABF with such names and thats how it works in practice and on UAA. Completely contradicts policies like WP:AGF from my point of view though.... FunPika 11:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

  Resolved
 – by DeltaQuad

Try having a look at the talk page before you make accusations, cheers. Verbal chat 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But what you did was not rational. You don't blank sections saying it's controversial when you are the only one saying it is. If you think it's unappropriate, go to the talk and put your suggestions, but not AFTER you remove the section -- penubag  (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have taken a look at some histories, and they are enough to hand that warning right to you. WP:EW includes just keep reverting even with trying to talk. Now, can we stop the edit warring for now? Discuss it here, or somewhere. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's an essay, and one with huge errors in it. I've made some corrections. I also think you need to review my actions again, and I was responding to your reverts edit summary (also against best practice, you should have joined the talk page discussion). If you think there is an edit war you don't end it by joining in. Verbal chat 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I only joined in to hopefully stop the edit war. I was stepping in as an uninvolved editor to hopefully mark the end of edit warring. Also transfering the essay from one that could help to one that is bad right in a title. It that not insulting the editors who made it or defend it? And your actions:
Here Here Here and Here
All indicate that your avoiding what the community thinks. Community concensus holds above an editor. There is no owning articles by yourself on wiki. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You are quite wrong, I suggest - if you are interested - you look into it further. I am the one pleading with the few supporters of outlines to take it to the community, who have so far roundly rejected their project. I have done my best to improve it, but they are not doing themselves any favours. Also, joining an editwar, when discussion was requested and started, is not likely to bring it to an end but only further enflame the situation. Verbal chat 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop attributing your own opinion to "the community". It is a weasel word, and means nothing. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Verbal, you say I am wrong, how? I have got myself into it. So where is this community rejecting the project? and I didn't join an Edit war as I am going under the WP:1RR regulation. I decided to take a stance to stop the warring. If you don't think that is right, far be it, but that is my opinion, and my best judgement on it. It at least has started to centralize the discussion. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The community has never supported the project and no one but a few individuals have ever expressed support. Those that object strongly outnumber them easily, and the supporters are refusing to take an RfC forward which is designed to bring closure to the matter in their favour if possible. They have had more than a reasonable amount of time to show consensus for their actions. Verbal chat 08:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem with that, I asked for proof that the community has not supported the project, I don't see evidence for that, and "Portals should not be a vehicle for advocacy or advertisement, should not have too many red links, should not be redundant of another portal, should not cover too narrow a scope, and should not be inherently POV." (Wikipedia:Portal guidelines) which settles the fact that it can exist. And for Wikiprojects see: Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project for policy on creating. So my point is here, that only a few people need to support to have it start, and I don't see the opposition. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of opposition. Some of the key threads are listed here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/List of discussions concerning outlines (the last few months are currently not-updated). All of the threads seem to be around these 4 points:-
  1. What to call them.
  2. Namespace they belong in.
  3. Scope: The Requirements/Direction they should be aimed in. (There's a giant effing difference between (more of a "basic list") Outline of science and (large pages) Outline of Buddhism and Outline of Japan.)
  4. Style & quality concerns about some of the existing BasicOutlines.
More detailed version, and the latest attempt at discussion, is at outline RfC#Restart.
I don't like to guess, but if asked, I would suppose that there's a very roughly even number of editors who have thus far voiced either concerns, or encouragements (or edits), for the ideas thus far proposed or attempted. Almost everyone (some grudgingly) agree that Outline of cell biology (for example) is a bloody good page (Thanks to User:Earthdirt). Some think it is too big, some think it is too small, some that it lacks sufficient references, some that it is in the wrong namespace. [Abstractly: Some worry about the present, some worry about the future.]
Personally, in bartender-mode, I suspect that BasicOutlines have the best features of: a disambiguation page, mixed with a topic portal, mixed with a "list of lists" (Did you know? Lists of mathematics topics was a Featured List for 2 whole years! (Oct 2005 – 31 December 2007) Heck, they only demoted it because (imo) TT tried to use it as his comparison/equivalent wrestling point, for nominating Outline of geography for Featured List candidacy, using backwards psychology). So it goes.
I think we'll resolve all the questions eventually, and people will continue to make new mistakes; but currently, there is a lot of saying "yes yes! this is interesting and good!" and "no no! this is broken and wrong!" past each other. So it goes.
(this was just meant to be a pointer, but then I slipped and rambled and edited and grumbled. sorry, and you're welcome. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much Quiddity. This is the first time I have gotten the full round story and links to relevant spaces. I wish you guys the best of luck in coming to consensus, and please let me know if you need further help. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I quite enjoy trying to summarize these things (except for the frustrating part of having to leave out all the context that won't fit in...), though the people I'm discussing things with often don't respond at the length I hope for! (Not meaning you, but rather the other folks in the thick of it all). Talking of which, might I suggest that you remove your brief-remark at the bottom of Portal talk:Contents#Four days full protection, as I'm really hoping that Verbal will reply to some of my points there (or perhaps you could just indent it to the same level as mine? and/or relink it as a thread-link, instead of a diff link?). I'm a bit worried that your 'undent' will nullify that thread. Just a suggestion, and no problem if you object. Thanks again. (and I watchlist, so no need for talkback templates, unless there is urgency :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed my comment as I don't have reason for it anymore. I am going to archive this sooner than later just because of the size and I like my talkpage readable. :P Thanks again. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Clerk Training

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, I'm taking a break at the moment. Can't give you a timeline on when to return. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You should have put them together

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You should have archived this SPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Golan_heights_is_our/Archive

To this archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dajudem/Archive --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the way the CU worded it made it sound like the case was similar, but not 100% related. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/July&oldid=1252452765"