This page has been archived, please do not edit it. New talk and comments on this talk go on my talk page. |
Sorry, Fvw, I was just about to add Elbert bill when there was a knock on my office door and I had a long talk. My visitor has just left now. Hold on a few seconds! -- Hoary 09:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Another case of RTFM, I'm afraid ;) Wyss 14:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, you don't need to bother with the extra work of tagging each leftover redirect (after you do the moves) with the "Main namespace cleanup" stuff - that's just making more work for you. If you do the moves for sections of the list, I'll follow behind and do the redirect deletes (and link fixes, as needed).
Would you like to try this on the subpages part of the list (most of which, as you can see from the copious red, I have already nailed)? Just start from the first entry, and work down the list, moving any that need to be moved (i.e. have any history, above and beyond switching redirect targets around). I was originally just skipping around in that section, trying to find big blocks of ones with no history I could delete, but now I've switched to working from the start and deleting the ones with no history, leaving those with for you. (If you get to one with no history that's still there, that's as far as I've gotten.) Noel (talk) 16:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, restored. The author blanked it though, which is grounds for a speedy delete, I think. Dunc|☺ 23:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
to answer yur question about what is it with you people and zippos? is this: we happen to come from lightertricks.com itself and we thought it would be nice to add information on zippo tricking to what wikipedia has on zippo tricking.
As spanish i feel bad because the article of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero you restored, it shows the president as a far leftist dagerous political, and psoe as a leninist party. I would thank you look at the history of the article and see all this false data was introduced by only one user: 138.100.17.69 with crealy political intentions. At least i would like to see the neutral articles, many of the things said there are just untrue, you only have to look at the history of the article and the articles about zapatero in other languages. Please, dont restore articles that infame.
is not only a matter or disagree or not, i dont mind that people can tell here what they want, but something different is changing the oryginal article and saying dirty things about someone just because you dont like he is in office. Is like i sayed you adore hitler and stalin... anyway who knows.
Why sir do you not like Boners Dias? You make friend cry tears like duck. And he likes ducks! But not swans.
Nice comment in db-template :). Thue | talk 15:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heya, I see you've removed the spam link from Oxford. Could you use your shiny admin powers to do the same for all the other cities the link's been added to? It was on my todo list, but since you've shown an interest and have to click less to do it I was hoping to get you to do it for me... Incidentally, congrats on the adminship! --fvw* 16:59, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
what are you exactly doing. You think these studies make any sense ? Don't do that again !!!
Thank you for clearing this up. I understand. It's just that I've seen so many people changing "links" to "link" whenever there's just one link to be listed that I thought perhaps that one was the standard.
Carry on. – Kaonashi 02:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder and for correcting my mistakes! --Viriditas | Talk 10:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what qualifies as sufficiently not judgmental, fandom, and relevant to be kept. Please leave a detailed comment if you think further adjustments need to be made, the last instruction was a bit cryptic for a newbie.
I've advised the owner and other members of the fafblog community about the entry, so hopefully the entry will be further revised to reflect their thoughts.
I didn't mind at all. Good addition. Thanks. :) --J-Star 14:35, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Another case of RTFM, I'm afraid ;) Wyss 14:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the low regard wikipedia holds blogs. I am bitter that I wasn't told this immediately and had expended considerable extra effort to polish and research the final article. For the future, please tell people your intentions more clearly, so they don't waste time and effort.
Hey, thanks for the barnstar - Admin, barnstar and a featured picture - this has to be the best week ever ;-) -- Solipsist 22:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, i still need practice with the sandbox (i apologise for future mistakes if any). This is the first time I have edited a public page on the English Wiki. If you see any pages that need proofreading or translation from French or Italian, please let me know.
Ciao from Italy
--Wikipedius 21:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I choose the number a bit by feeling according to the kind of vandalism and its persistence. If someone just adds an Image:Example.jpg, that's definitely just a test. If someone add "%Classmate% is gay", that's more like a 2, and if that one is done again after being removed before I may go directly to 3. Maybe I am sometimes a bit fast to go to the higher levels, but especially if its a vandal rush hour I prefer to get the RC manageable than to make sure no potential contributor is scared away. But I am quite sure other Admins have their own way how to treat the vandals. andy 21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to nominate you to be a Wikipedia administrator—Trevor Caira 02:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll certainly support you next time around.-gadfium (talk) 08:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First, it's a sandbox. Second, look at the history because you start accusing (if you were refering to the poem of course). Other than that, have a nice day. __earth 02:12, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
There is a reason for the edit summary page. You just edited my text dump into The Beekeeper as "nonsense" when a quick glance at my edit summary would have clarified that I had dumped research text into the article temporarily and that the complete article would be readied in five minutes (as it is now.) Very frustrating. Pacian 03:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...in what way?
Hi Fvw,
I've noticed in a few of your edits that characters such as - and ? get replaced by ?. For example, see [1] and [2]. Possibly it's a problem with my browser (Firefox 1.0/Debian Linux) but I don't think so. Just wanted to point it out.
Dbenbenn 07:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heya, I happened to stumble across Lesya Ukrainka in the course of RC patrolling. Very nice, I think it deserves a . Keep up the good work! --fvw* 09:22, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
A note I didn't feel like mentioning about that particular hummingbird. It is being held by a janitor at our school because it died, unfortunately. I had asked the janitor to hold it for me so I can get a good shot of it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I am sorry if I disturbed anything. I am trying to figure out how to get the ((Israel-stub)) (see Template:Israel-stub) to show up properly in the list of stubs with "images", instead of the "blank column" on the list of stubs at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#Place-related, By Region. Also I am trying to do the same for the ((Judaism-stub)) (Template:Judaism-stub) in the religious stubs at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#Religion, mythology, faiths, and beliefs , and ((Jewish-hist-stub)) (Template:JewHist-stub) at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs#History). Since I created these three stubs, (they all have "images" with them), and they are being used, I would appreciate any help in getting them to appear in the Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs page. If you could help I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.IZAK 09:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added the links to the specific pages of the Law translations - why just one link to the header? The title of the site is not specific enough. The translated laws are commercial laws and not just insurance laws. I beleave the deep links are better.
Thanks for the welcome & feedback. To address your points:
1 - Thanks, I'll remove the copyright notice on the Haystack Rock page (strike that... noticed you already did...)
2 - I licensed under the GFDL, and then added my own "requests" beneath. Consider the GFDL to be formal, and my typing underneath to be a request to the viewer. IMO, 'non-commercial use only' is fairly free, altho not strictly keeping with the GFDL. I've seen user statements "all over the map" on people's picture pages, including no indication at all of where the picture came from (i.e. blank).
3 - All the pictures I added are completely unique (i.e. I took them myself, if that's what you mean by unique?). jkl_sem 18:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep up the good work fighting vandalism!—Trevor Caira 22:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK - thanks for pointing that out. And also thanks for pointing out <nowiki></nowiki> Jeff Knaggs 22:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look, do you really want to leave that nonsense up for five days? Vandalism is a speedy deletion category. Using this site as personal blog is vandalism. Please stop slapping my wrist every time I move to delete someone's misuse of Wikipedia. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 23:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Can't somebody just ban the IP? -- Curps 00:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes
Significant revision in progress. Please consider re-evaluation.
I'm not that lonely loser.--The_stuart 06:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. :) OvenFresh☺ 20:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Fvw. Would you be willing to support me if Netoholic succeeds in getting the copy speedied or lists it on VfD? By the way, thanks for reverting Netoholic's <((db)) notices. Vacuum c 02:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Your argument about the difficulties of organization are also true but many (me among them) don't consider it as strong a justification. 10,000 Warcraft articles would be very, very hard to organize but probably no harder than sorting out our conflicted opinions and divergent articles on, say, the 2004 elections.
I think the reason the "critical mass of editors" argument plays well is that it so clearly addresses new and probably transient cultural topics. I've seen it open the eyes of quite a few new editors when they realize that their pristine article, their "golden prose" may not yet be NPOV and, even if it is, must be protected from vandalism for all time. Many decide not to accept that obligation.
I'll admit, it's not an argument that I push if someone's being irrational. But it seems to work for new editors who want to make a serious contribution and who understand that our goal is to write an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 03:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some one signed in using your name edited my user page. You can check the history and see.--The_stuart 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks mate :) My btrieve article is slowly but surely getting there... Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my slight omission of the beta version at Wikipedia:Announcements and for reverting vandalism to my user page. You caught it before I did! =D --Slowking Man 06:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the vandalism revert... and a merry Christmas! Man vyi 09:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just competely rewrite the article - what is the problem now?
Please note Console game was not a candidate for speedy deletion. --fvw* 19:01, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
That was one hectic event. You seem to have done quite a bit of work with this stuff on other occasions as well, so I hereby "award" you a WikiThanks. -- Kizor 12:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
please
I just used what was in the logs (GMT); I assumed it would be obvious. I suppose it won't hurt to specify, though. Noel (talk) 15:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Vacuum is using that page simply to harass me. I am shocked that you support such an activity. The RFC failed, that means it gets deleted. Why should I, the "victim" here, have to be the one that goes to great measures to ensure that a frivolous RFC gets deleted? Stop removing my notices. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Frank, Could we please leave Einstein in the Category physicists? The fact that is is a subcategory of some other category is - to me - less important then the fact that the category of physicists will be imcomplete without him (and without the other Nobel prize winners). If someone is browsing through the physicists category, they might not think (or want) to look for and check out related categories. If we drop out all of the physicists who appear in other sub-categories, there will not be much left in the physicists category, which will make it far less useful. Michael L. Kaufman 02:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Could you block me?
Hi Fvw -
Heya. Have you seen Wikipedia:Username#Signatures? You're free to use images in your sig if you want to ofcourse, but it is perceived as unpleasant for some people
I hadn't seen that. I use my sig this way for a reason (the horse is how I sign my name when writing). I have made it a little smaller in the last few days bacuase I realised the length of the sig was a bit much. What I'd really like - and haven't found any way to do - is to use the image as the link to my talk page. If that were possible it would cut the size of the sig and keep my 'real signature' there. Grutness|hello?
Hello. Since you disagreed that copyvio-blanked-by-author qualifies as a test page under the current CSD criteria, I wanted to explain my reasoning. I really think it does qualify according to current criteria. Here's why: Someone comes across Wikipedia for the first time. They see these notices that they can edit any page or even create an article. They're thinking "Can I really create a page here? Do they really let just anyone do that?" So they go to one of the last web pages they were looking at, or pull up one of their bookmarked pages or whatever. They copy that page, paste it into Wikipedia and click save. "What do you know? I really did just create an article." A minute or two later, or even an hour or two later, they realize what they did and then try to delete it -- only they can't. The only way they can see to get rid of it is to blank it. "Maybe that's all it takes to delete an article." The entire purpose of pasting the material from another website was to see if they really could create an article. When I see copyvio that was subsequently blanked by the author, without first being tagged as copyvio, I assume that is what happened. It makes no sense to post copyrighted material, then blank it, unless the purpose of the original post was a test. SWAdair | Talk 07:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was going trough the random page button and came up with this page Fazed and as you can see in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fazed, it has been voted by all to DELETE, last vote 19th of december. When do paged listed on VTF get deleted after the tive of voting is passed? Theres no point having this page linger any longer than need be. Fledgeling 12:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
you mean I should not? because, it seems to work. But I do not care, of course, if it redirects to the top of the article. It barely survived VfD, and nothing will ever link to it anyway (it was created as a way to rewrite the Finno-Ugric article from a different pov, which is why I am so adamant about redirecting it). dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate it -- I just thought that a Liger looked like an urban myth, but I'll check things out first in the future;) Take it easy:) Zantastik 20:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)