User talk:Slysplace/Archives/2007/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slysplace. 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. |
NFL moves
Discussion Slyspace, I did not discuss before moving the articles; I simply moved them in accordance with similar examples (e.g. United Nations Security Council, not UN Security Council or UNSC.) If the main article is at "National Football League" then I figured all such articles containing "NFL" in the title should be consistently moved with the main title's name. Exceptions include NFL Blitz, for instance, whose name is just that. As for the NFL draft redirects, I sincerely apologize for the hassle. I personally looked at the "What links here" for every move, and fixed several hundred double redirects. I found several of the NFL draft redirects after the fact, when I accidentally looked at "What links here" for the article NFL Draft itself. Somehow, these did not show up after I initially moved them, and I am grateful for your assistance. I find it doubtful any of the other moves resulted in unfixed double redirects, but I appreciate your every effort to assist and dialogue. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Round two I just looked at "What links here" for NFL Draft again and I didn't see any redirects. Again, let me know if there is anything screwy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- What links here, etc. Too true, but the double redirects should show up in the "What links here" pages. You are correct that it is better to check for any redirects to the old page, and that is precisely what the MediaWiki software started doing yesterday; the day before, it actually didn't provide any links, and I had to go to the actual page and proceed to "What links here" from the article itself. Consequently, this should not be an issue in the future, but, as always, thanks for your heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh Slyspace, I am honestly at a bit of a loss here... As for redirects, I figured that I would probably go to the main templates and fix them, but not every single page; I would just let the market figure out that one. As for double redirects, I had assumed those were all fixed. If you are *still* finding double redirects, that is distressing. I could have sworn I was much more careful than that. If you are talking about your standard old redirects, I suppose I would help you out with those (especially on templates transcluded into several articles), but I am personally not very invested in fixing every simple redirect. If you think there is some special priority on fixing normal old redirects, again, I'd be willing to help, but I don't see how it is critical. Double redirects on the other hand, break the functionality of linking and are pretty important to fix. If you want to fix the redirects pretty easily, that can be done with WP:AWB. Again, please let me know if you need my assistance, and let me make clear that I take no offense with your suggestions and your understanding tone. I look forward to the prospect of editing alongside you, but I'm still not sure exactly where you need me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- AWB What I would recommend is, for example, make a list of articles to amend based on "What links here" from NFL draft. Then, make a rule that replaces all instances of "[[NFL draft" with "[[National Football League Entry Draft" (or whatever the proper name is.) You may wonder why I would say "[[NFL draft" instead of "[[NFL draft]]" My example will catch instances like "[[NFL draft|He was drafted third]]" whereas the second example I gave would not, since the ending brackets are around the word "third" in this instance. If this is too confusing or you need further assistance, please let me know. I would actually be happy to do this myself, but my AWB account has been closed. Also, don't make more than one edit per minute or so, or else someone will block you (usually just for a few minutes to slow you down.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh Slyspace, I am honestly at a bit of a loss here... As for redirects, I figured that I would probably go to the main templates and fix them, but not every single page; I would just let the market figure out that one. As for double redirects, I had assumed those were all fixed. If you are *still* finding double redirects, that is distressing. I could have sworn I was much more careful than that. If you are talking about your standard old redirects, I suppose I would help you out with those (especially on templates transcluded into several articles), but I am personally not very invested in fixing every simple redirect. If you think there is some special priority on fixing normal old redirects, again, I'd be willing to help, but I don't see how it is critical. Double redirects on the other hand, break the functionality of linking and are pretty important to fix. If you want to fix the redirects pretty easily, that can be done with WP:AWB. Again, please let me know if you need my assistance, and let me make clear that I take no offense with your suggestions and your understanding tone. I look forward to the prospect of editing alongside you, but I'm still not sure exactly where you need me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- What links here, etc. Too true, but the double redirects should show up in the "What links here" pages. You are correct that it is better to check for any redirects to the old page, and that is precisely what the MediaWiki software started doing yesterday; the day before, it actually didn't provide any links, and I had to go to the actual page and proceed to "What links here" from the article itself. Consequently, this should not be an issue in the future, but, as always, thanks for your heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Page Move Cleanup
Near completion of a project I've spent a great deal of time on, Imagine my frustration to find an entire series of pages had been moved and was now riddled with page redirects. I Immediately brought this frustration to the attention of the party responsible for the moves and attempted to open a dialog within the parent project discussion group. I Appealed to the user moving the pages to assist in cleaning up his mess and pointed out the depth of each page moves effects. Eventually I just became blinded by my frustration and went right into cleanup mode. Many of my cleanup edits however also included a little expansion of the article. And As each edit exposed more effects of the initial move my edits were not limited to the NFL Draft series and also included many player pages, Templates, and other related articles. I will do my best to assist in the roll back effort now underway but the patience and understanding of the community will certainly be appreciated. Slysplace | talk 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Hi Slysplace. I'm sorry that you felt frustrated over the whole page move thing when it happened, also sorry because I didn't catch this sooner. If theres anything I can do in terms of redirect fixing that you did before that may be correcting, feel free to let me know and I'll help you in the cleanup process after I'm done page moving.
No deeper seeded parent project. Actually, it was really first disputed at a project level over on the Hockey WikiProject, I guess the Football WikiProject either didn't dispute it or thought the mass page-moving was a good thing. *looks at Koafv's talk page* Well, I guess there were some disputes about the Football edits, but nothing was brought to the attention of admins until it was too late. — Moe ε 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, please can you do me a favour there has been an anon vandalising the Sikh article can you keep an eye on it and keep on reverting it back to a wiki member version if this anon keeps on striking the article, cheers.
vandalising anon (ip addresses all begin with 68.2 or 70.2)
- 68.241.119.18
- 68.241.250.155
- 70.2.247.160
- 70.2.251.18
- 68.241.119.18
Demographics of Norway
Is there a specific reason you reverted my edits? I updated the data for different ethnic groups and edited the table to make it more readable. 193.71.100.137 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, wasn't logged in. Well, it was me.
Virgule82 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- REVERTED - you edited the demographics of Norway as an IP User, with less than 10 contributions, and removed a major portion of the article (10,000 bytes +) your edit started with 3 strikes and fits the description of vandalism therefore I saw no need to verify that you may have only consolidated the table data, A quick glimpse of the diff showed an IP just whacked a major chunk of article. Slysplace | talk 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I should have been logged in, and there's too much vandalism out there to check it all. Virgule82 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- REVERTED - you edited the demographics of Norway as an IP User, with less than 10 contributions, and removed a major portion of the article (10,000 bytes +) your edit started with 3 strikes and fits the description of vandalism therefore I saw no need to verify that you may have only consolidated the table data, A quick glimpse of the diff showed an IP just whacked a major chunk of article. Slysplace | talk 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Slipknot (band)
Vandals vandalise a little bit, and before it is reverted more vandals go and vandalise, and then the vandalism piles up and the recent vandalism is what is reverted. I dislike expanding or adding more sources to these sort of articles, because in the end, faithful IP fans of the subject vandalise, change information, and just end up wrecking the article. Thank you for your concern, though. Kind regards, Sebi [talk] 03:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)