Wikipedia

User talk:MacMed/Archives/2011/April

< User talk:MacMed
Latest comment: 13 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 25 April 2011


The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spotlight needs suggestions

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question about name change

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for making the spelling correction to Max De Pree. Last month I submitted a contested request to move Soviet submarine K-222 to "Papa Class Submarine". There was a lengthy discussion, and the editors could not reach a consensus. I thought the change would then be referred to the "change page" for evaluation and decision by Wiki Administrators, but it has never appeared there. What's up? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Not a problem. :) The reason it didn't show up on requested moves is that the template was not transcluded. You have an archived discussion and no move template. In any case, an uninvolved administrator is the one who closed the request as no consensus in the first place. You would have to put another {{movereq}} template on the talk and have another discussion before an administrator would reconsider. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Was the uninvolved administrator supposed to do that? I was under the impression that all move requests without consensus were supposed to go to the requested move page to be settled. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The template you placed on the page automatically put the discussion on requested moves. The admin closed the discussion as no consensus, which defaults to no move. The admin probably came to the discussion through WP:RM. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It was my understanding that if there is "no consensus" that it goes onto the "requested moves" page for the admins to decide. I don't see why "no consensus" among the editors would automatically result in "no move", since that would constitute a decision on the matter. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The article had already gone through requested moves, which is why the admin closed it. Just as 'no consensus' defaults to keep in an AFD, 'no consensus' defaults to no move in an RM. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Snapping Turtle mediation request

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the request to mediate, however, I choose to decline. I have had earlier dealings with Agamemnus regarding this article and have come to realize that we cannot resolve our differences. I chose not to answer his message to my talk page because he did not justify his reversion. There is no justification. You should have a look at what he added. It is generally not suitable to use YouTube videos on Wikipedia. Coincidently, there is a suitable video that shows how to aid a snapping turtle to cross a road. This is from a reliable source. Pigeons are NOT a food source for turtles. As it says in the article they feed aquatically. I have no idea nor care how the video of a snapping turtle catching and killing a pigeon was made. It appears to come from a source called "bannedontheweb.com", which gives some clue to its provinence. By the way, it may not even be a common snapping turtle. The tail is too short but the quality of the video is too poor to be definitive.

An earlier decision was made to keep a picture of a Great Blue Heron holding and potentially eating a baby turtle. In the Great Blue Heron article it specifically mentions that herons eat reptiles although they commonly eat fish. Several other editors agreed that the picture be kept. Agamemus was the only desenter. The photo was evidence that they potentially eat turtles. Nowhere does it say in the turtle article that turtles eat adult birds.

Thanks for agreeing to mediate this issue but I don't want to continue the discussion with Agamemnus. Cheers. Dger (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Turns out the video was of a different kind of turtle. Agamemnus figured this out and the video has been removed. Thought you might like to know. Dger (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I was following the discussion on your talk page. Thanks for informing me. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit test cleanup bot

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump regarding a proposed bot that would clean up the "example.jpg"-type edit tests discussed in edit filter discussion you recently commented in. Your input is invited! 28bytes (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 
Hello, MacMed. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deadendmarker

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, thanks for your feedback, yes the bot does use its own account Deadendmarker and its user page has a bot template stating it is not yet approved. I hope this helps, Jamietw (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Relisting

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I saw that you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Riviera (2nd nomination) for a third time. Just so you know, WP:RELIST states that "debates should not be relisted more than twice" and if you feel that for some special reason an article needs to be relisted for a third time you should write an explanation as to why the extra relisting was necessary. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 19:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi MacMed/Archives/2011/April. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Wikipedia:Abuse_response/74.39.185.26

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Regarding Wikipedia:Abuse_response/74.39.185.26 are you planning on contacting that group (or have you already) or may I contact them? I didn't want to step on your toes. Please let me know on my talk page -- I may not check back here for a few days. Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I just responded on my talk page and said, "Thanks for letting me know. :)" Banaticus (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


That RfA reform thing

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 


This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of my requested move from the project page

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I just saw that you deleted my requested move from the project page and I would like to ask you why. While the subject itself might seem "controversial" to some editors, the fact that the common name of the subject is not "income gender gap" is not. Or did you get the impression from the discussion page that the move (which I proposed one month ago) is "controversial"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I went onto the talk and saw that the requested move template had only been posted today, and you then added it to current requests. I appreciate that it seems uncontroversial, but if it's alright (since it's not based on naming conventions, etc) I think it would be better for the page to wait the 7 days of the requested move template. It may attract external interest from other editors. If, after 7 days it remains the same, then just toss a {{db-move}} template on the redirect and an administrator will get to it shortly. If you disagree, feel free to be bold and just throw the CSD template on the redirect anyways. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying so soon! I can wait, that isn't the problem. I think it is obvious that "income gender gap" is not the common name of the subject (see sources) but perhaps it is less clear if "gender wage gap" or "gender pay gap" is more appropriate. Giving it 7 more days won't hurt. Thank you for your reply! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I just thought it would be worth it to get a couple extra eyes on it, considering there was only one person other than you that commented and there are a couple of possible replacement names. Sorry for any confusion! MacMedtalkstalk 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MacMed/Archives/2011/April&oldid=1044270597"