• User:Acouillard is vandalizing again. -- Curps 04:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An admin blocked him indefinitely. -- Curps 05:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• (70.48.88.110 | talk | contributions) -- Curps 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not quite the same style. Acouillard would delete whole sections, usually starting from the cross-language links at the end of an article and working backwards. 70.48.88.110 is making rather smaller, sometimes partial word, edits. I'll check the contributions again in a couple of days to see whether anything further has developed. Uncle G 22:12, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

• Hi there, thanks for fixing up the copyvio template. It's always great to see someone around who catches my brainless typos :P -- Ferkelparade π 00:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. But there's no need to thank me. Uncle G 22:12, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

• Supercool Dude has reverted it, in abbreviated form. Rather than get into an edit war, you might just want to change your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Finger Test. -- Curps 02:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. *This* band didn't win a Grammy. It is a thing that we here in the business like to call "an example". It was intended merely to point out the untruth of your blithe assertion that "if the band took its name from the movie, the movie is notable." Since bands have been known to name themselves after hated childhood gym teachers and drug dealer's cats, your presumption that the only kind of movie a band would name themselves after must be a notable one is incorrect. The arrogance of assuming that the movie must be more notable than the band shows, mostly, that you don't do the faintest bit of investigation before instituting your big sweeping changes; don't you think that it's odd that a movie that's so (assumed to be) notable has yet to get 5 votes on IMDB? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's actually what we here in the business call "irrelevant", as I did. This band didn't win a grammy, so a comparison with a situation where a band did win a Grammy is a false one. And of course I nowhere said that the movie is more notable than the band. My exact words from the edit history, were "If the band took its name from the movie, the movie is notable.". I added a cleanup tag, one of the ones that asks for the article to be expanded, to the band at the point where the article merely said that "A count of heads of fans in America on the Internet is only about 450 people.". As for the "big sweeping changes", they were in fact nothing more than an ordinary type 1 disambiguation between a band and a movie of the same name, using the conventional Infobox_Movie layout for the movie section. Upon the discovery of a comma, I turned it into a type 2 disambiguation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • I'm to have to concur with Antaeus Feldspar that your holier-than-thou, "big sweeping changes" that are almost always votes for delete can be quite annoying. I don't think you do much investigation and, when you do, it is based on faulty methods that only examine evidence supporting your preconceived notions. --YHoshua 19:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You, YHoshua are, of course the Joshua Claybourn whom I questioned the notability of at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joshua Claybourn, coming here bearing a grudge and latching on to the only negative comment that you could find. My edit record, which involves a very wide range of things, not solely VFD, speaks for itself, of course, and belies your "almost always votes for delete" assertion entirely. Using a sample size of 1, the article about you, is a very poor methodology. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Just to say though that I don't like necessarily to have everything linked and especially dates. There's no reason to link dates normally. Also British people use double quotes for direct quotes, although I know you can use both. WikiUser 21:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like necessarily to have everything linked and especially dates — There are very good reasons to wikify (It's not solely linking.) dates:
    • A wikified date ([[January 21]][[2005]]) will be represented in the reader's choice of date format.
    • A wikified year ([[2005]]) will link to the relevant year article. Not only does this allow readers to determine what else of note happened on the same year, it also allows them to use "What links here" to find out what articles (That have been wikified.) mention that year.
    • A wikified day of the year ([[January 21]]) allows readers to similarly check notable birthdays, anniversaries, and so forth.
  • British people use double quotes — Since it was your single quotes that I changed to double quotes, in line with the Wikipedia style guidelines, I have to assume that at least one British person does not use double quotes. Uncle G 22:49, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

• I draw your attention to the following from Wikipedia:patent nonsense:
  • The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense. Check the Deletion policy for information on how to handle these things:
    • Really poorly written stuff (See Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited?)
• Please familiarise yourself with the CSD rules. Uncle G 02:48, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

• Uncle G I am aware of these rules. Some leeway should be given with interpretation of rules and I still believe that the article in question is borderline nonsense. My original question to you was why are you seeking to protect this article from a speedy delete. Is it just that you want to blindly follow the rules without any interpretation?
  • Your so-called "interpretation" stretches the rules beyond their breaking point. The CSD criteria are deliberately narrow precisely so that articles like this do not get speedily deleted. The article was not nonsense, much less patent nonsense. I did make this quite clear when I unspeedied the article (my exact words being "It isn't nonsense, nor is it random words."), so your original question was answered before it was even asked. I even replaced the speedy deletion notice with a VFD notice an explained a second time there that it wasn't nonsense. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Many articles that make more sense than this article get deleted by admins, so obviously it is not just me that believes that the rules are open to some interpretation.
  • It may well be that you are not the only one that takes shortcuts in this manner. That doesn't make it correct to do so. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• If you look at my history you will see that I am not somebody who just sets every article they think should be deleted to a speedy. I use the VFD process when I believe that it is appropriate.
• One final point, you may want to reconsider phrasing your edit comments to make them less "assertive". I feel that such phrasing can only be counter-productive. TigerShark 10:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When you change a VFD back to a speedy deletion, even when the VFD discussion page explains why the article does not match the speedy deletion criteria, then a comment of "READ THE VFD PAGE", seems eminently called for. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the User:.0/ Uncle G, I'd have never have been able to do it! .0

• Along with your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/João Vieira, I noticed that you wrote:

  If no source for the information on this page other than User:Jvieira xemself can be found, then Userfy. Uncle G 15:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• May I ask what you meant by "Userfy?" Thanks, -Willmcw 10:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's one of the Wikipedia:votes for deletion phrases. Uncle G 11:25, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
• Thanks - I hadn't seen that one before, or the list. I don't go to VfD very often, partly because it seems as if I always vote for Delete. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Can Vfd be made my anon-users?--ZayZayEM 14:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. I've even seen such nominations succeed. They can also vote, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Being anonymous is not of itself evidence of bad faith. Hundreds of people make hundreds of good faith anonymous contributions to Wikipedia every day, and that occasionally includes VFD nominations and votes. (And remember that you and I are ourselves merely pseudonymous, which isn't that much different.) Anonymity merely lends weight to other evidence of bad faith. Uncle G 14:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

• You're going way overboard with your "no personal attacks" edits. Please slow down and discuss. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not. They are exactly as per the Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks remedy. I wouldn't have done anything had I been the only onlooker to adjudge these to be contraventions of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy. But I'm clearly not the only one. Uncle G 04:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • It's somehow a personal attack to say something should not have been nominated? It's somehow a personal attack to refer to a rude and thoughtless comment as rude and thoughtless? Please consider the chilling effect your broad brush interpretation of personal attacks might have on discourse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a personal attack to say "Should not have been nominated. A thoughtless waste of other users time.". I thought about removing just the second sentence, but the first sentence does not stand without it. And the echoing "rude and thoughtless" in the reply was refactored exactly as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks guidelines on simmering down both sides of the discussion. Policy recommends that both the attack and the response(s) in kind be refactored. I suggest that you refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.
        You may want the original attacks and the resultant counter-attacks to stand for all to see, contrary to policy, but I assure you that you will not be doing VFD any favours by doing so. There have been other recent murmurings in this same direction, and by preventing people from putting a lid on it now, and redirecting the discussion back to the task at hand, you're going to allow the situation to deteriorate yet further in future.
        And as for "chilling effect": Exactly the opposite is true. It's the personal attacks that are disrupting the discourse, as is plainly evident from the fact that people have stopped talking about the article pretty much completely, not their absence. I suggest that you consider the reasoning put forth in Wikipedia:no personal attacks. Uncle G 04:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
        • OK. Refreshing my memory about Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks finds this little detail that you may have overlooked: Following is a policy proposal regarding removing personal attacks from discussions. This proposal is not currently policy. (Besides, regarding the article in question, there's nothing to discuss anymore; what we actually need is a quick-removal-from-VfD policy.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • That is somewhat disingenuous, given that the same paragraph then goes on to state that the arbitration committee has suggested that people apply it, and that the page is categorized as Wikipedia:semi-policy. Given that you edited them back in, it is really you who should be answering the questions here. Why did you add these personal attacks? Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did you know your user page redirects to Talk:Euroscience? Gamaliel 20:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know lots of things. I know that adminstrators don't patrol Wikipedia:Speedy deletions regularly. I know that, contrary to what one is told, it's actually quite difficult for a user to get rid of a page in xyr user space that xe doesn't want, even when xe is the sole editor of that page. I also know that you didn't see the edit history of the page, and notice that I was the one who in fact created that redirect, when I moved a page, that some anonymous user had created, to the page where xe should have created it. ☺ Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• You don't need to have the redirect deleted (unless you don't want anything there at all); you can edit a redirect (like I just did, to add the {rfd} tag). You can blank it, or whatever you want. Noel (talk) 22:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
  • I stuck deletion notices on the page, listed it at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, listed it at WP:RFD, explicitly wrote "unwanted user page", and people still questioned whether I actually wanted the page deleted! ☺ Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

If you vote "support", it is unclear whether you are supporting the page's existence or the deletion nomination, and it makes it difficult for administrators to tally the votes. Use one of the standard votes listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases instead, and your vote will be clear to all. Uncle G 13:55, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Apologies, I will use one of the approved phrases from now on. As I proposed the Vfd I thought it was pretty obvious that 'Support' meant support the proposal to delete! However, I am more than happy to use a different word to avoid confusion. Cheers --Etimbo | Talk 14:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your tip to Category:Wikipedia articles of dubious importance! I rewrote Stacey Farber, which you'd tagged there, and will continue to watch it. Samaritan 18:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just as a heads-up -- David Gerard hates that tag, because even though it's obvious that only a very small minority of Wikipedians do not care at all about anything but verifiability, Wikipedia:Importance is still not formally policy. So he hates the tag and shortly after its introduction he went through the entire category and removed the tag from every single article it was placed on. That's why I created Template:Explain significance and have been using that instead -- David may be able to argue that Wikipedians' concerns about importance deserve to be removed if they are posing as official policy, but he'd have a harder time arguing that articles are not improved by better explaining the importance or significance of the subject, or that Wikipedians should not be allowed to ask for such improvement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know. I saw the blanket removal. I re-added the tag on some articles. Much as he may hate the tag, I think that it's only fair to tell contributors what notability is and to warn contributors that if they don't establish it a VFD is only a short time away. His concerns about policy notwithstanding, that is what actually, inevitably, happens in practice. With the tag, contributors at least have the opportunity to clean the articles up to avoid that. Uncle G 20:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article. I'm still a newbie and felt inadequate to clear it all up. Excellent job and a model for me in the future. hydnjo talk 01:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed! I write a stub to start an article, and less than 15 minutes later there's a redirect to it! Quick work! Grutness|^hello? 10:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As others have said before me: Never underestimate the power of New Page Patrol. Uncle G 11:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Now Andries' Andrew Cohen stub has turned into an author bio by our anonymous Cohenite.--Goethean 20:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Since you're one of the most experienced Wikipedians I've come across, I'd like your opinion on something... I've been reading a lot of dead end pages lately, and from what I've understood, once a page is categorized (e.g. bio-stub, or category:video games, or possibly vfd), that page is no longer a dead end and should be removed from the list. SimonP disagrees; he claims that pages are unlikely to be read from *-stub and thus they should remain on DEP until they are valid articles, and he claims to read every DEP article every day to remove those that are. Do you know if there's a consensual policy on this? (see my and his talk page for our discussion on this topic) Thanks for your time. Radiant! 09:33, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, ordinarily I would just merge it. The problem is tha User:John Gohde, a user who has been twice banned by the arbcom for his edit warring, camps that page and reverts... more or less any change that isn't his, actually. It's nearly impossible to edit that or any other page related to alternative health without a binding vote of one kind or another. Snowspinner 14:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not every edit to "your" articles is vandalism that is to be reverted on sight, you know. OAEP is a redirect to Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding, as per the article naming conventions on acronyms, and I'm just snapping the redirects to save time when OAEP becomes a disambiguation page, as it surely will (c.f. SSL). By reverting, you are simply making work for other editors to do, re-doing all of what I've just done, down the road. If you want to not display the full article name in the link, then please extend your editing skills by learning to make piped links, in addition to knowing how to hit that revert button. Please also learn the correct procedure, given at WP:CP, for putting up copyright violation notices. I fixed your notice at Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding to be in the correct form, and did the listing for you, but it was just luck that I happened to be on patrol at the time and spotted the page. Again, please don't make work for other editors. Uncle G 20:12, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Hi UncleG. I have to say that this message is rather hostile. Sorry if I've offended you, but I think you're being rather unfair. First: "Knee-jerk reversions" — not so, I resisted any impulse to do it straight away and waited a few hours. Second: I don't consider articles to be "mine"; while I do spend a lot of time editing crypto articles, I'd prefer have more people working on these articles, and I'm always willing to discuss things. Third: I'm aware that we have a procedure for noting copyvios. However, I noticed it last thing at night (1am) and was too tired to go through the procedure. Rather than forgetting about it, I added a harmless comment to the page, to save me having to dig up the link again the following morning, and then promptly crashed into bed. It's good that you saved me the trouble, but it would have got done anyway. Fourth: I am aware of how to use the piped link syntax. Fifth: I believe that OAEP should either be the name of the page on the padding-topic, or redirect Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding. I don't imagine there's a need for equal disambiguation here, even if we should get other "OAEP" topics at some point. Sixth: The reason I reverted your changes is that we likely want the text to say "OAEP" — I believe it's mostly used in acronym form, like NASA. Before your change they did this; now they don't — I suggest they be changed back. It seems you didn't take kindly to being reverted, but I figured you wouldn't be particularly interested given that the page in question is going to be deleted soon, anyway. — Matt Crypto 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't close the debates, as that is the job for an administrator to review the debate and close it. Also, if you do, please do not forget to sign your name. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm only closing the ones where the conclusion has been unequivocally and uncontestedly speedy delete, with enough people agreeing upon speedy deletion that had it gone through the speedy process it would never have hit VFD in the first place, and the article has actually been deleted. Uncle G 11:10, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
    • Only close speedy deletions after they have been deleted by an administrator. If they haven't been speedied yet, then the debate is still open, and subject to VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I refer you to the last 7 words of what I wrote above. Wasn't the emphasised "and" clear enough? Wasn't the fact that all of my closures have (deliberately, in an attempt to head off exactly this sort of discussion) quoted one or more entries from the deletion log clear enough? I find it disappointing that in WP:AN#Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_and_speedy_deletions you remind administrators that they've been forgetting to edit the VFD pages when they speedily delete a VFD candidate, and then when someone helpfully does this, tidying up after the administrators who forget, you complain. Furthermore: Who was it who just proposed Assume good faith to be given "official policy" status? Uncle G 02:20, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
        • I happen to find an article which you closed, which wasn't deleted. Okay? It may have been overlooked if an administrator wasn't paying attention, and I'm only advising caution. Fortunately, I deleted on your behalf, which is why I notified you about it. I asked for administrators to mark it close, because those administrators who are paying attention to the speedy deletion candidates may not be paying attention to VFD candidates... as they have the power to delete articles. I thank you for your assistance, it is appreciated, but I'm asking you to follow procedure. It is okay for anyone to add the close notice for any VFD article that has already been deleted, as I specified. Furthermore, ((subst:vfd top)) is placed above the section. And, I was very specific: if you see it meets any of the speedy criteria and have already deleted the page. I was asking to add the notice once the page was deleted. I saw the page you placed the notice wasn't deleted. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • No, that's not OK. It's a falsehood, in two ways:
            1. Checking my contribution history for the word "close" I find that I've closed 6 VFD debates so far, 5 as speedy deletions, and the other 1 as Userfy. All of them were closed after the actions were taken. I know this because I know that it was their titles being redlinks in a list of blue, with comments saying "speedy delete", that caused me to even edit those discussion pages in the first place. You should know this because the evidence was staring you in the face. As I've already said, I put it there to head off exactly this sort of false accusation. On 4 of those 5 I pasted in the very deletion log entries. On the 5th, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samuel Baker White, I forgot to do so, but a simple cross-check of the VFD discussion edit history with the deletion log shows that I closed the discussion on 2005-02-17 00:54, which was after Dpbsmith deleted the article on 2005-02-16 18:31 (the previous day, no less!). Again, you demonstrate the irony of nominating Assume good faith to "official policy" status. Rather than assuming good faith on my part, with my contribution history of more than a thousand good-faith edits, you assumed good faith on the parts of the creators of the speedily deleted articles (assuming, for starters, that they didn't simply mischievously re-create the speedily deleted articles after they were first speedily deleted and the discussions then closed by me — even though at least one closure, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Hilary_Mutch, showed authors re-creating speedily deleted articles). You might do well to ask yourself whose good faith it would have been the more logical to assume.
            2. I can find no evidence that in fact you did delete any article on my behalf, as you state. Your first comment here is dated 2005-02-19 04:03. The deletion log shows no deletions at all by you on that day or on the day before. And your deletions on the day before that were all your own closures. Please name the article that you claim to have deleted.
          • I expect an apology forthwith. Uncle G 13:48, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Hello! I've been wondering about something... the most prominent thing that regulargly gets VfD readers into, well, shouting matches, is the issue of high schools. I believe that you'd agree that high school (or primary school) is not inherently encyclopedic. Yet several people vehemently disagree, and it seems likely that high school articles (and lists thereof) will continue to get added. So I figured that maybe such articles need another venue.

Would you think it feasible to call for transwikiing of high school articles, and related ones? And if so, where? Of the existing Wiki projects, the most appropriate one seems WikiTravel. But on Metawiki, there is talk of Wikiteer, which is to include extensive geographical and sociological information, but doesn't exist yet.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this. I've asked the same question of a couple of other users, so please respond on User talk:Radiant!/Schools. Thank you. Radiant! 14:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I have noticed your thoughtful contributions to VfD (both ways!). Could I trouble you to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board. I am not lobbying for your vote either way, but no-one seems to be looking at this one(perhaps because it is a long article, and fairly technical), and I do believe it is worthy of some serious consideration. Thanks. HowardB 03:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the compliment. I'm afraid that I'm right in the middle of a big Wiktionarification project right now, as you can see from my contribution histories here and on Wiktionary. I'll try to get back to the article later. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

• I see you are adding templates to the lists of foreign words, asking that the lists be shrunk and removed. I like that idea much better than deleting the articles. Afterall, there are plenty of encyclopedic stuff to say about the history and etymology and linguistics of vocabulary moving from language to language without providing a list. It seems that your approach is best; change these lists into encyclopedia articles, move the rest to wiktionary. Should I try to undelete the latin list so that it can be subjected to the same treatment? -Lethe | Talk 12:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that, too. At the moment Wiktionary:Category:Latin derivations is rather bare. ☺ As I recall, it is rather a long list. See List of English words of Polish origin and List of English words of Hawaiian origin, by the way. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for giving a good link to read on this topic. I'm more calm now. Although, it's a pity, that these times don't work very well in practice. Cmapm 16:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It would have been nice of you to discuss your hijacking of Rutgers which was a redirect pointing to the predominant usage of the word in order to obtain consensus from the Rutgers University article's contributors. I will be reverting your misguided disambiguation later this evening. —ExplorerCDT 18:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Rutgers University article's contributors" are at Rutgers University, and always have been, not at Rutgers. And this was not "hijacking", it was a perfectly ordinary change of an article for an abbreviation from a redirect to a disambiguation once the abbreviation became the abbreviation for more than one thing, something that happens all of the time here. The misguided act will be your intended reversion. I suggest that instead of doing that you re-familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and open your eyes and take a look around, outside of the one little corner of Wikipedia that houses your alma mater, at articles like Saint John, Darwin, Churchill, Pembroke, and the numerous other examples that can be found, and learn how surnames/placenames and the abbreviations of the names of multiple educational instutions are routinely disambiguated around here. Heck, you could have not wasted your and my time by simply remembering Queen's College. Uncle G 20:22, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
    • You went about it the wrong way. Also, it doesn't look good in your corner by removing negative comments from your talk page just out of fear that you'll look bad. Thanks to Tony Sidaway, your misguided edit at Rutgers was correctly addressed the way I would have this evening. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You went about it the wrong way. — Rubbish. I went about it the same way that it had been gone about in all of those other cases. being bold doesn't require people to "ask permission" of a group of people on a completely different page before putting in a perfectly normal name disambiguation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
      • it doesn't look good in your corner by removing negative comments from your talk page just out of fear that you'll look bad. — Since I'm the one with the talk page going all of the way back to when I first started, and you're the one with "I blank my talk page each month, as is my prerogative" and "If someone wants an archive, their needs are assuaged through a simple search through the history listing and it's up to them to find what I've cleared out" at the top of your talk page, I have to suspect that you are erroneously projecting your own motives onto me. I moved the conversation to your talk page from mine for probably the same reason that Matt Crypto moved a comment from his talk page to mine, above: conversation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Tony Sidaway, your misguided edit [...] was correctly addressed the way I would have this evening. — Again, it was your idea of reversion ("I will be reverting") that was misguided. That wasn't what Tony Sidaway did at all, of course. He simply turned a type 2 disambiguation into a type 3 disambiguation. That, of course, wasn't the "reverting" that you were talking about at all. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Help! Xe's putting all of the dictionaries back in. Uncle G 19:09, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

• Er, yes. I'd be happy to help, but how exactly do you propose I do that? And who's Xe? Radiant! 22:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I thought it was a user name :) I'd seen the Spivaks but I was unaware that there are actually multiple standards for gender-neutral phrasing. Out of curiosity what would then be the gn-form of history? (given that herstory is already a known term - would it be itstory? xestory?) Anyway I'll go and visit the talk page. Radiant! 09:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 hours is more like a slap on the wrist. The typical blocking time which is suggested is 24 hours. Vandalism has 4 strikes, then the 5 stike is a block. You may suggest an alternative you wish. 4 warnings, then 5th as a block for 24 hours. But one should not attempt avoid established consensus, which is kind of the point for the block. I felt that 24 hours is a bit excessive for something so minor. 6 hours seems more appropriate and warning them with referring to this policy allows them to really make them think. The second warning is a stern warning that they should not disrupt the Wikipedia and that prior consensus has already been decided regarding these tally boxes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's the notion of blocking this as if it were vandalism that disturbs me. It's disruption, true. But it's not vandalism. Wikipedia:vandalism is emphatic that "stubbornness", and the unwillingness to follow consensus, is not vandalism. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in this... there are a number of articles on high schools up for deletion, that had a variety of keep-and-delete votes. However, GRider has been contacting a large amount of people to get them to vote for keeping those schools. So, in the fourth or fifth day of the process, these schools suddenly get a dozen additional keep votes. I'm not sure what to think of this myself, I would like your opinion. Radiant! 17:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quote GRider,

• As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

• VfD: Canyon Crest Academy
• VfD: Devonport High School for boys
• VfD: Eyuboglu high school
• VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School
• VfD: Maha Jana High School
• VfD: Robert Frost Middle School
• VfD: Wood Green School

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

In Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering#Confirmation, Ian Kennedy admits to using Wikipedia to create an examinable outcome. This has, as yet, provoked very little comment. What is your view? -- RHaworth 20:48, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

• I'll have a look later on. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm wondering if you'd take a quick look at the rewrite I've done on Babes_in_the_Wood. I based the rewrite in part on your information in the VFD discussion, and I'd be grateful if you'd make sure that, in paraphrasing it, I haven't introduced any errors. I don't know much about the subject other than what you and Google have to tell me, to be honest. If the page does seem to make sense to you now, perhaps you might be willing to reconsider your vote for deletion. Also, Best, --Jacobw 16:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to get those "already in wiktionary" dicdefs out of CSD. I de-tagged most of the ones I don't think should be deleted, is it reasonable to Vfd the rest? I've already done Disfiguration. Kappa 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If they have been properly transwikied (according to the process described at m:transwiki) then putting them through the origin project's normal deletion process (which for Wikipedia is VFD) would be the final step. Some of them haven't been properly transwikied though, and should remain in Category:Copy to Wiktionary with the tag on them, and not be nominated for deletion at all. Some of them aren't transwiki candidates, simply because parallel dictionary articles have grown up independently at Wiktionary. Those latter should be sent to VFD, too (as long as they haven't grown into encyclopaedia articles whilst they've been sitting in the Wiktionary queue, as some have — see how many cases I've closed at Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary). Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

What are you planning to do with Wardrobe? Kappa 23:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01, I've noticed that you currently don't have a userpage. Not a problem in itself, but it makes your name appear as a redlink when signing talk pages, or when seen in Special:Recentchanges. Some users feel that lack of a userpage is an indication that a user may be a troll, sockpuppet, or simply a newbie. One simple solution, if you don't want to create a userpage, is to edit your userpage and insert the following:

1. REDIRECT [[User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01]]

This will make your userpage a redirect to your talk page. If you ever want to create a user page, follow this link:

//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_G/Archive/2006-01-01&action=edit

Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ PS. Your talk page is getting rather long. 15:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• It's getting long in part because of 5 paragraph additions that tell me nothing that I don't know already, and that have already been addressed earlier on the same page. ☺ The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia every day.) Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

• • Is there any particular reason why you don't have a userpage? If you make it a redirect to your Talk page, it's one less page that someone has to load... Alphax ^τεχ 23:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, if the only reason you voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/24/7 was because the process hadn't been followed, it now has and you might want to reconsider your vote. Just letting you know. Kevin Rector 17:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Ahem. Rad Racer moved 3 S's to Shoot, shovel, and shut up, then expanded the article and removed the VFD notice from it. Saying that "Shoot, shovel, and shut up already exists" is rather bizarre, considering that that is the very article that was nominated for deletion here. Similarly, saying that the article nominated here should be deleted in favour of Shoot, shovel, and shut up is bizarre, considering that that is the article nominated here. If you want to delete 3 S's, the redirect created by Rad Racer, then that's fair enough (although WP:RFD is really the place to discuss it). But please be clear about what article is being discussed for deletion. My keep vote for Shoot, shovel, and shut up stands, by the way. I intended to improve the original article myself, but found when I sat down to do it that Rad Racer had beaten me to it by 20 minutes. Uncle G 08:24, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • LOL, yeah, I guess I got impatient with the vfd process. I was afraid all those vfd votes against 3S would end up being applied to the new article, and my work would get lost. For a moment there, it looked like no one was going to figure out what was going on. Rad Racer 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please look at my comments on Category talk:Move to Wiktionary.

Also, please look at Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary and make any changes that you see fit, I'm not good at writing policy and I wrote it at 2 am. Kevin Rector 06:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a wrong comment please. Kevin Rector 03:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, I've only found 2 pages that were wrong. I'm going through the rest of them to check them out. Kevin Rector 03:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle G. You noted on this Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/SAR that it was incomplete, which it was, and you properly got the context and that it was the wrong place to have the debate. Given that the conversation happened on the VfD page anyways, would you care to posit an opinion? I've posted a link to the policy on abbreviations and disambiguation pages that is pretty clear that these should be merged, which shouldn't even have required a discussion to begin with. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you watching out for ICE NKNU by reinstated the VFD notice. Hard to keep those things up sometimes. Thanks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I really appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Words_from_Foucault's_Pendulum. Thanks for taking the time to explain the Wiktionary concordance stuff, and the benefits of moving the list there, in such a positive manner. FreplySpang 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you commented on speedy deletion in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew Alford, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you a question that's concerned me. One of the things that speedy deletion seems to be silent on is slanderous articles about non-notable persons. I've deleted a couple of them on sight, reckoning them to be dangerous to the Wikipedia project and also grossly unfair to the person involved. It's been awhile back, but as I remember, these weren't mild cases - they accused persons by name of perversions, providing addresses and phone numbers, etc. I can rationalize it to myself as deleting nonsense, or deleting vandalism, but I'd feel uncomfortable if challenged on it. Any thoughts? Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• See the last paragraph of Wikipedia:No legal threats. What "call[ing] to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large" might mean when one is an administrator, and can delete the article on sight, is tricky. One way of addressing this is to put the article through the normal deletion process, but to immediately refactor the personally identifying material and attacks (such as has been done by Lee M at Homeless Solutions in Edison NJ). If the article would effectively have no content left after the personally identifying material and attacks were refactored, you can probably justify immediate deletion on the grounds that the article proper satisfies speedy deletion criterion #A1. And you can always just remove the material and tag the article for speedy deletion (like the rest of us do ☺) rather than delete it outright if you want a second editor to review and confirm your decision. Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• • Useful ideas. I think the phrase 'not to be tolerated' gives me soolid justification. Cleanup, then ask for backup seems to be very prudent advise, too. Thanks! Catbar (Brian Rock) 22:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, apparently I just made a lot of work for you, or you did for me, or something, so I wanted to clarify. I'm sure you are the expert here, but this is what I did, in good faith. I searched for articles requested on Wiktionary to see if they had articles on Wikipedia, in which case I added the "move to wiktionary" tag. (e.g. carrion, carmelization, breakdancing, etc) Then you went through and removed the tags saying they were encyclopedic. It was my understanding that if a word is needed at wiktionary, we could just take the encyclopedia article and glean the definition of the term from it. After all, in order to be an encyclopedia article, it must define the term somewhere, usually the first sentence or the lead section. I think you are getting caught up in thinking the tag means I think the article is unencyclopedic, when really all I wanted was for their definitions which were in the context of an encyclopeic article to also be at wiktionary. What is wrong with this? --Dmcdevit 18:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't doubt your good intentions. It wasn't until Talk:Bestseller that I figured out what you were doing. It's a lot more work to transwiki an encyclopaedia article (including all of the various log edits, the tagging, and the cleanup at the Wiktionary end) than it is to simply write a good stub at Wiktionary from scratch. It works a lot better to reserve the transwikification process to those articles that have content worth saving. (You'll notice that in some of my recent VFD submissions I didn't bother to transwiki the article, but simply wrote a fresh Wiktionary article of my own devising at Wiktionary from scratch. This is for similar reasons. The effort of transwikification exceeded the effort of simply growing a Wiktionary article independently and directly.) If you don't want to write the stubs, then make a Wiktionary page of redlinks, as I described at Talk:Bestseller. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Yup, I see your point. Sorry again. --Dmcdevit 19:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I came across the list of admins, and was very surprised to see that you're not on there, given your knowledge of wikicedures and transwikefaction and everything. Would you like me to nominate you? Radiant_* 13:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I could have sworn that someone has made this very comment before. But I cannot find it. I don't regard administratorship as being some sort of élite club. In fact I've sometimes wondered whether "trustie" would be a more apt term than "administrator". Because the rôle is all about being entrusted with extra tools. So it's irrelevant whether I'd like to be nominated. What are important are whether you think that I can be trusted with the abilities to delete/undelete/protect/unprotect articles and block/unblock users; and whether giving me those tools will benefit the encyclopædia. I certainly cannot decide the former for you. As for the latter: I've not yet been in a position where the ability to block users or to protect pages myself would have been useful; and I don't forsee any need for me to be able to run SQL queries. ☺ However, maybe my having the ability to delete pages would benefit the encyclopædia. I tried to think of a case where the encyclopædia would have benefited had I had the ability. (It's not something that I find particularly lacking when doing New Page Patrol, for example.) After much thought, during which I almost came to the conclusion that there would be no benefit to be had at all, I came up with one. If I had had it, I probably would have pitched right in to help clear the backlog at WP:CP that built up a while back. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Okay, let me paraphrase that. I do feel you can be trusted with said tools, and I'm sure you'll be as beneficial to the 'pedia with them as you have been without them. When I said "would you like me to nominate you" what I meant was "I think you would make a good admin and would like to nominate you as such, but I wanted to ask first if you'd accept it." If I understand your response correctly, that would be a 'yes'. Radiant_* 09:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Could you go to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G page and indicate your acceptance of the nomination, answer the questions, and create (even a minimal) User page? RickK 22:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have just transwikied a big group of articles to Wiktionary. There are now only 23 ('bout 15) left. I left these because these are the ones that, for whatever reason, I was iffy about. I was wondering if you could look through them sometime in the future and give me your opinion about their merit. I will do the transwiki-ing myself. Thanks for your help (it's because I respect your expertise). And what is to be done about the talk pages and category listed there? --Dmcdevit 04:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled; can you confirm that you want your User page deleted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is confusing, isn't it? It took some work for me to figure it out, and it was apparently not obvious to you. Stylistic reasons, as it turns out... See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G for an explanation, of sorts. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• On the same lines, if someone helpfully creates a user page for you, do you want it to be tagged for speedy deletion, or should it be left for you to deal with? (I guessed the former, apologies if I'm wrong). Kappa 03:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that is is deleted as neologism, shouldn't it description in the First Lady article removed as well, or at least edited to reflect its uncommon usage? This was the main point of my clumsy question at the VfD with entangled logic (and the very vfd itself): if a term is notable enough to be mentioned in some article, then it deserves at least a redirect there. If it will sit there, sooner or later it comes back unto us, thru multiple mirrors (magic :-). Mikkalai 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, is Second Lady OK to have? Mikkalai 17:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this template on a user subpage has been moved from WP:TFD to WP:VFD as user:Netoholic closed the discussion in its former location with the comment that TfD is only for entries in the Template: namespace. I have taken the liberty of moving your vote from its former location to the present discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools. You may of course change your vote or stikethrough it all together in the normal way. To avoid any allegations of vote stacking I am contacting everybody who voted at TfD and Netoholic who closed the discussion, but not anybody who had not already expressed an opinion. Please feel free to disucss this on my talk page. Thryduulf 14:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Also, please give your opinion on the jurisdiction issue, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Proposal. Radiant_* 15:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-worked the copyvio template to address some problems users have mentioned to me. Please take a look at User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT and tell me what you think. I also posted more detailed info to Template talk:Copyvio Feco 01:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I see many people (8 till now) have opposed you at WP:RfA, simply because you don't have a user page. I find this controversy unnecessary, but then, it's not really troublesome to create a user page. You can probably put something about what kind of work you do at Wikipedia, or probably some bookmarks. :) utcursch | talk 11:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Failing the creation of a user page, would you be willing to copy your explanation from RFA to the top of your talk page (before the TOC), or to a user subpage prominently linked from there? I suspect this would satisfy most of those who are currently neutral or opposing you. It would certainly satisfy me. (I also find it telling that, with one exception, only one person is refraining from supporting you for a different reason than this. I'd have nominated you myself a month ago, had I not seen the thrashing received by previous candidates with minimal or nonexistent user pages.) —Korath (Talk) 21:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Done. It's a good idea for another reason. It will stop the same question being asked yet again. ☺ Uncle G 17:19, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • I was receiving the same RFA opposition because I had made my user and talk page links appear red, and had "This space intentionally left blank." on my user page. Unfortunately, it became apparent that I wasn't going to get much support for those reasons, so I gave in, but I still support your effort. --brian0918™ 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read your reasons and I think they're very good. But - since you want your edit history as your 'official record', couldn't you simply redirect your userpage to your contribs log? Radiant_* 11:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • That would certainly say what I'm intending to say. The problem is that it doesn't work. I tried it in the sandbox. Apparently redirecting to special pages is currently turned off, just as interwiki redirects currently are. Uncle G 12:31, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
        • Hm, interesting. You could go for a userpage with a single [1] link, maybe. It's not entirely blank but still aesthetically pleasing :) Anyway I find the RfA reasoning somewhat disturbing, and it's very tempting to make a support - has a user page vote some time soon. Radiant_* 15:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'vanity' tag is meant to be placed on Talk pages rather than articles (though I can think of a number of reasons why it shouldn't be, but never mind) — but there are two parts to that. Why just take it off the article James Longstreet (security) without bothering to place it on the Talk page? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What user's talk page would one place it on? The talk page of an anonymous user who hasn't made any edits since February? How could one be sure that the original author was even still using that IP address, two months later? In any case, the article has survived a VFD since then. See the article's talk page. Uncle G 00:12, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle. I was going to post a separate note about vanity but found to my surprise that it's a current topic here. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Silly Goose Productions, a defendant of that article cites something written within Wikipedia:Vanity page, a page I hadn't previously noticed. Now that I look at it, this part of Wikipedia:Vanity page seems addled, and I've said so on Wikipedia talk:Vanity page. Take a look if you're in the mood -- and perhaps comment there rather than here, let alone on my page (I hate chopped-up "conversations"). -- Hoary 04:10, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the ((Music-importance)) tag. I totally forgot about it since I saw it used a few weeks ago. I also realize the reason I forgot it: it is not currently listed in WP:TM. So I'll add it the template message listings now. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have messed up the anarchism page - it's now in two bits on the same page - max rspct 19:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've no idea what caused that. My web browsers don't have the article size limit problem, as far as I know. I've fixed it, anyway. Uncle G 19:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I am ashamed that I had to look up Oolon Colluphid. Good one. :-) android↔talk 05:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. I think it is done now. Note that for the content moved from Periscope I do not believe an entry in the logs should be done, because the article itself is still intact in Wikipedia, it is just the section that once was Demo periscope that is moved. -- Egil 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, that the article was expanded by GRider to include the information about the movie. You may want to review your vfd vote. Grue 17:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle G - at Move to Wiktionary you deleted the proposed deletion of Mudita with the edit summary "Mudita has been transferred. This is the third time that you've listed it. Please stop." I find this odd for three reasons. (1) I have only ever listed this once; (2) it is still in Wikipedia, so even if it has been transferred to Wiktionary it has not been deleted - someone has simply removed the "move to wiktionary" template from it; (3) there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary.

Given that you do not want me to add the "Move to Wiktionary" template to this article and seem to think I've already listed it at "move to wiktionary" twice more than I have, and that the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary, what do you suggest should be the next move? Grutness|^hello? 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have only ever listed this once — False. You (plural) have listed it three times once here, the second time here, and the third time here. The latter two of those times were you (singular). By checking the history you would have seen that the edit immediately preceding yours was KevinBot noting the first transwikification. By reading the talk page you would have seen a big notice (two, in fact, because you marked the article for transwikification a second time, causing it to be transwikied a second time) saying that the article had been transwikied. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• it is still in Wikipedia — If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion. Transwikification does not automatically end in deletion. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary — False. The big notice on the talk page provides a link to exactly where the article is on Wiktionary. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary — False. The exact same article has been moved twice now. We do not need to move it a third time. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• what do you suggest should be the next move? — I strongly suggest that it be you reading the article's talk page, the top of Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, where it is stressed to check that an article isn't already on Wiktionary, and Wikipedia:Transwiki log, where you will see the logs of the two times that this article has already been moved. I'm going to make a suggestion for McBot. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

• "I have only ever listed this once — True. it would have been far less confrontational to have use a passive voice. "It has been listed here three times" may be true, but to launch a direct accusation as you did is both false and provocative.
• it is still in Wikipedia — If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion. Transwikification does not automatically end in deletion. - I will do, once the article is transwikied.
• there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary — True - as you will find if you try [2].
• the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary — True. You could also try a search of Wiktionary, which will fail to find Mudita.
• what do you suggest should be the next move? — I strongly suggest that it be you reading the article's talk page - done. it's incorrect, the top of Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, where it is stressed to "check that an article isn't already on Wiktionary" - have done so. The article isn't in Wiktionary, and Wikipedia:Transwiki log, where you will see the logs of the two times that this article has already been moved - it may have been moved, but it never arrived at Wiktionary. I'm going to make a suggestion for McBot - good idea, but first, I'd suggest making sure that Mudita is moved to Wiktionary! Grutness|^hello? 01:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Okay Grutness, I think you are misunderstanding the procedure. When I transwiki any article, including Mudita, it doesn't go directly into a Wiktionary article. It goes into the "Interwiki" area, so that the Wiktionary people can format it before making it an article. (So Mudita does exist at Wiktionary:Transwiki:Mudita). --Dmcdevit 18:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, Uncle G, sorry about that, but there's nothing I can do about it in the program. I usually try to check; I recently had to fix a bunch that had been done before (only because I remembered them). I'll try to check first, although it gets tedious for dozens of articles at the same time (when it could be none of them have been done before). Luckily, when it comes to Mudita, and probably most others, it didn't change at all, except minus a stub tag. Also important is it does not overwrite history or anything else, so they can always be restored. Sorry to trouble you, carry on. Also, I'm interested what you think I'm supposed to do with the category tagged for Wiktionary; should I transwiki all of its articles? --Dmcdevit 18:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No. I've been slowly dealing with the numerical prefixes (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Numerical prefix) and that category is considerably smaller now than it was. The remaining articles in that category are the difficult ones, that need finer attention than blunt transwikification. (The implied etymologies in twi- need to be hand-checked and the relevant individual Wiktionary articles updated, for example, which I'll do when I get the time. And note that Wiktionary already has articles for all of those prefixes, so transwikification won't be useful.) Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

• Ahh... Good. I had no idea. Just had this vague feeling that I was suposed to be transwiki-ing them too, but categories don't show up on my program. --Dmcdevit 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are you unilaterally changing all the constituency articles to match your own disambiguation scheme? I suggest you stop what you're doing and discuss at the WikiProject (which you knew existed) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliamentary_Constituencies - I really don't see why you've gone about changing all the articles to a silly disambiguation scheme that's much worse than before, it's a lot more effort for you. If you're doing it because other institutions such as the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly use the same constituency/same constituency names, and you want to disambiguate them, firstly it because you're changing it to "UK Parliamentary constituency" it doesn't neccessarily exclude the Scottish Parliament, and secondly, what does it have to do with all the English constituencies you've changed? -- Joolz 07:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's not my disambiguation scheme, it's yours. I took it from an existing Scottish constituency, Dundee East, which disambiguates between the UK Parliament and the Scottish parliament in this very way. I'm simply using an equal-weight disambiguation. Also, this is already discussed at the WikiProject. See the very talk page that you pointed to, in particular Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies#Commons_and_Scottish_Parliament_constituencies. I'm running with it for the remaining constituencies because (a) the same thing applies for the Wales and Northern Ireland because they have the same two sets of constituencies as Scotland (It's simply that those two haven't caught up with the problem yet, although they will very soon.), and (b) the same thing applies for England because town/borough names and constituency names clash and a disambiguation is required (See Epsom and Ewell and Epsom and Ewell (UK Parliament constituency).). Uncle G 12:06, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Hey, sorry, I did read that section a few days ago, but obviously I'd forgot! Having read that, I agree with our disambiguation scheme, except for pages which do not need disambiguation (See project talk page) Sorry again! -- Joolz 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you intend to fix the mess you made at Cheadle (constituency) anytime soon? In the middle of a general election, you shouldn't really leave a page in this ugly state. Dmn / Դմն 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The original article was the mess. Its tables were in a hand-crafted format, and it was missing several sections. It now has the sections and the Template:election box tables, ready for the result data to be moved into them, as will happen when the other editors in the WikiProject, who have taken on the task of filling in the results tables, make their passes over the article. Of course, you could always move the data into the tables yourself. You could also have read before writing, and seen from the very discussion that you are joining in to that there's a whole WikiProject, whose project and talk pages describe in detail how we are bringing constituency articles to election ready status, what state we aim to reach, where each article currently is in reaching that state, and the editors who are doing this. Uncle G 02:58, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
        • I'm aware there's a Wikiproject for this kind of thing and I appreciate that the new tables make the page look better. This doesn't excuse leaving the page in some ugly manner. Cheadle has the smallest majority in the country and is likely to visited. I attempted to do it myself but you should appreciate that the tables language are quite confusing with multiple templates here there and everywhere. Why do Wikiproject members presume to own every page they deem to be part of their project. This goes against the wikipedia encouraging anyone to edit pages if they think it helps. And for your information the page wasn't a mess before [3]. There were no misplaced empty tables. I'm sorry the tables weren't particularly fancy - but there was no standard constituency article beforehand. Dmn / Դմն 16:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the above page is being listed as uncertain or "ambigious". I'm not sure if that was your intent or not. Just an FYI - ignore this if you wish. Moncrief 23:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you edit my user page? Uncle G 12:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Because I don't like seeing red. Jooler 12:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not your decision to make. Please leave other people's user pages as they want them to be, thank you. Uncle G 12:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • If you want to blank you user page, then blank it. While your user page remains empty the link to your name is to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_G&action=edit actually prompting someone to edit it. Jooler 12:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of what I could do. This has been discussed before, and there's a prominent notice at the top of my talk page. Please don't waste my and other editors' time by creating empty pages just because you see a redlink, and by not reading before you write. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
        • Your prominent message isn't very prominent, because you don't include your talk page in your signature, what appears on your signature is a red link that when you click on it begins the process of editing your page. This is also true of your name on "recent changes". Why don't you put the prominent message on your user page and edit your signature so that it doesn't show the red link. 12:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • This has all been discussed before. Please don't waste waste my and other editors' time by not reading before you write. Uncle G 13:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
            • You may have discussed it with others, but not me. And again - your page being empty positively invites people to edit it. I did not read - before I wrote, because I did not see your talk page, because I was not directed towards your talk page. My user page is blank and I maintain it as blank. If you want to stop people editing your user page, then get it protected. Jooler 15:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • You've been around long enough to know where user talk pages are without people having to customise their signatures just so that you can find them. You've been around long enough to know that you aren't invited to edit other people's user pages for them, redlink or bluelink. I ask you for the third time: Please don't waste my time. Uncle G 16:30, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
                • New users have red links on their usernames. On seeing a red link on your name I had no idea what length of time you had been an editor here. To my knowledge I've not had any interaction with you before now. When someone clicks on a red user page link it takes you into edit mode. If that's not an invitation to edit then what is? At the end of a day a red link is annoying. I put a single dot on your user page so that the link would no longer be red. I had no interest in having any kind of discussion with you and I did not look at your talk page. If you have had trouble with people before creating a user page, I'm sure that by now you must realise that I am not the only one who thinks that the red link is annoying and that this is going to be a recurring problem for you. The simple solution is put something on there to stop people going into edit mode when they click on your name. Fair enough that you want to make a statement about anonymity and not have a user page with a personal history. Guess what, I feel exactly the same, which is why my page is blank, and in fact my user page was empty before some vandal came along and created it for me. At the end of the day this is an extremely petty issue that would go away in an instant if your name did not come out as a red link, so by not having a user page you are drawing fire on the issue. If you really want to avoid communication with others, then making your name a blue link is the answer. 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I moved Lazaretto/Temp, which I assume you wrote while the main article was in VfD, back to Lazaretto. --Fbriere 19:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uncle G 23:35, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

OK I have added a direct reference to the constituency page, but have also clarified that it doesn't cover just Cleethorpes. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Cheers. TigerShark 15:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your revision is better than what was there originally. There are a lot of articles where there are (at the least) a town, a local government borough, and a parliamentary constituency all by the same name. See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies/Progress and the discussions on both of their talk pages. It's worth trying to come up with a standard, brief, wording to cover them all with respect to cross-linking them to each other. At the moment, the pages have the standard ((otheruses)) and ((otheruses2)) disambiguation templates (see Sedgefield and Selby for examples), which I think should be retained. However one user has suggested, at Talk:Blackburn (UK Parliament constituency), that it might be preferable for the constituency/borough articles to additionally link directly to the towns, and vice versa. There are roughly 200 more constituency articles to create in 4 days, and I don't want to get too bogged down in disambiguations at the moment, however. The details of those will come later. Uncle G 16:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Complete explanation duly found. Shall endeavour to read, mark, and inwardly digest prior to Thurs. next. Doesn't look too difficult. Tnahks. –Hajor 00:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page does not deal with this point at all. Consistant and exact disambiguation is good, but not all pages need to be dabed, and those that do not need to be must not be mistitled. I agree also that getting the content in place is the most important thing, but that's not an excuse for being lazy with page names. Joe D (t) 02:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. They pretty much all do, and the talk pages cover this point twice over. This is not laziness, this is preparation for what needs to be done next (which has been explained on the talk pages). There's a lot of work being done by other editors, who are busy working at a furious rate. Your mucking around with the plan, a scant three days before the election when the rest of us have been at this for weeks, is not helping. Please stop. Uncle G 02:44, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

A lot do, I agree with this and have stated quite clearly that I agree with this, you are avoiding the point. Some don't. And telling people to give them that name means you are telling people to give them the wrong name. I really don't see why my rewording of the policy is a problem, I am simply pointing out that articles do not have to have the suffix in those instances where it is not neccesary. That is not ruining "the plan" or giving people extra work. I have noticed people moving articles such as Dorset South, thinking that the suffix was compulsory: that is a waste of their time, as they will be moved back to the correct page. If I am mucking about with "the plan", it is because "the plan" is wrong. But my "mucking about" is a very minor change that will make very little difference to editors, but will save the confusion of people moving articles that don't need to be moved. Joe D (t) 02:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Sheffield Hallam as my model page. As it is marked as election ready I assumed that this page had been formatted as was required, so I just cut and pasted from it. If this is incorrect then I apologise, and will make corrections. JeremyA 04:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G!

The red link above is currently residing on WP:VFU. Just to recap the events which led to it winding up there:

• The school article was nominated for deletion. (Some inclusionists seem to think this is tantamount to nominating the school itself for deletion.)
• With a large squad of school inclusionists voting, there was no consensus to delete and Dbennben closed the debate declaring it to be kept.
• Dbennben probably saw your comment about the school not existing, and converted the article to a redirect to Erode.
• Someone, unknown to me, nominated the redirect for speedy deletion.
• Mel Etitis deleted this redirect.
• I was sifting through the old VfD debates and found a debate which had been closed with a keep but where the article had later been deleted, and brought it to VfU.

Currently, the debate there is about as terse as all other VfU debates, and part of the question is whether or not the school exists. Can you shed some light on the matter?

Sjakkalle 11:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for slapping a copyvio tag on that ill-bred article. I raised my concerns about it as soon as it first appeared, but nothing further was done. Slac speak up! 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall desist as requested, but something has to be done with this page: the moved to en.wiktionary.org section alone is 122k! Physchim62 08:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We refactored the transwiki log at Wiktionary. We could refactor (again) here. Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. Uncle G 11:02, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Uncle, I completely agree with you that Norhuc is a space cadet who creates nonsense articles. But could you please refrain from sneering at him when you VfD his articles? They're obvious gibberish, so you don't have to work very hard to get a consensus against them. And we really, really need to have VfD discussions that talk less about people and more about content, and every personal comment, even the minor ones, make it that much harder. ---Isaac R 03:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't sneer when nominating any articles. My exact words in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chart-graphing, for example, are "more original research from Norhuc (talk · contribs)". Uncle G 03:33, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • I perceived it as a sneer, even if you didn't mean it as such. Any comment on a person can be taken personally, with resulting offtopic sidetracks. That's why we need to focus discussions on content, not people. ---Isaac R 03:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a VFD regular, I feel that you should be notified of this discussion being held at this template regarding its unprotection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Since you're one of the foremost authorities on Wiktionary, could you please take a look at Category:Names and Category:Given names? It seems that most articles in there are simply a bit of etymology, and would be better off Transwikied. The same applies to Category:English words, although that has a couple of sensible articles. Yours, Radiant_* 10:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• And also, Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Radiant_* 12:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Diderot said at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria:

    Frankly. most if not all of the stubs in that category ought to go to Wiktionary. By collecting them in one place, at least its possible to deal with them coherently.

  • There are a few exceptions. List of Bush administration puns, for example. And there are a few articles where Wiktionary already has an article. Compare honkey with Wiktionary:honkey for example. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hey, I agree now that it's best that articles like List of English words of Spanish origin are transferred to Wiktionary asap. Decius 12:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit suggested I talk to you. I was wondering if there was a consensus about putting ((Transwikied to Wiktionary)) onto talk rather than article pages. I have twice put a transwiki note into articles that had been already transwikied by Dmcdevit who of course is not thrilled to see the same articles again in his in-queue. I think I might be getting the hang of it slowly, that is, checking the talk page first in such cases, but it would be nice to have some reminder on the article page. Creating a smaller template for that purpose would mean more work in the transwiki process (i.e. adding two templates), so that is out. I don't see a problem with adding ((Transwikied to Wiktionary)) to the article page (as we do with ((pov)), ((vfd)), ((cleanup)), etc, especially given that most of these articles seem to be destined for deletion anyway. What do you think? Rl 14:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an anon recreated the Neleh Dennis article you put up for deletion back in January. I deleted it again, but while looking at their contribs, I noticed a lot more stuff. You may want to check out Jennifer Lyon and related pages on contestants linked to from there. Perhaps there's need for a VFD on all those people, or maybe in the months since January you've heard something about precedent on articles on Survivor contestants. CryptoDerk 17:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not having a user page disrupts:

• all talk pages with red links
• lists of most wanted pages
• the time administrators take repeatedly deleting your page

You compare the passive act of users not coming to wikipedia and not creating pages to the active effort necessary to maintain your page in a deleted state What hazardous pedantism! --63.124.185.186

• I've taken the liberty to sign the right anon IP and format this entry. Mgm|^(talk) 19:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are active here and an administrator on Wiktionary, and seem to be an all round nice person. Thus I would like to give you a mention on Silversmith's new Fabdabulous Wikipedians page in the "active on more than one wiki" category. If you don't aprove don't worry, but I feel you are more than worthy of a mention. Thryduulf 20:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My first reaction is embarrassment, to be honest. Thank you for letting me know. Uncle G 23:12, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Article has been rewriiten by User:Sven-ola. I have replaced my delete nomination vote with a "no vote". Can you reread to reconsider or affirm your delete vote? Sjakkalle 08:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took your comment in the Toolshed vfd as a suggestion to redirect toolshed to shed; having done so, I added a line in shed to note that some are called toolsheds. :-) -- BD2412 ^talk 04:10, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

• chuckle. Thank you for letting me know. Uncle G 14:00, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Uncle G, on 28 MAY 2005 an RfC was initiated that was never certified by two people. Since you were the subject of that RfC, I was wondering if you want it kept. If so, please let me know or edit the RfC's talk page to indicate your wishes. If you do not want it kept, I will delete it per policy. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't know that I had any say over it. I admit to unfamiliarity with the details of the policy on certification of RFCs, it having heretofore not been something I've had to deal with. I'll have a read of the policy. Uncle G 13:57, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • The specific section of the policy that applies is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users. The third paragraph gives you the option of keeping the RfC if you wish. Otherwise, it will be deleted. This is one of those times I think it may actually be useful to keep an uncertified RfC. If anyone ever gives you grief over your user page, you can point them to the RfC which, although never certified, produced an overwhelming consensus that you are not required to have a user page and that not having one is not disruptive. The choice, however, is yours. SWAdair | Talk 04:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on either side of the debate. —Lowellian (talk) 23:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Wait until the VFD has formally concluded before moving the article around and splitting it up; it just confuses the vote. Furthermore, in VFD votes, people often write words like "merge" or other actions. I am not seeing those so far, just mostly "keeps" or "deletes", suggesting that other people would disagree with what you're doing. —Lowellian (talk) 01:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • You've got 4 editors saying (in various words) that a better title is needed, and 2 saying that a split is needed, on the VFD page, and more editors suggesting a move, before the article was nominated for deletion, on the article's talk page. Uncle G 01:48, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
    • There are also at least 13 editors who voted keep. And stop erasing my comments. That's against Wikipedia policy. —Lowellian (talk) 02:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Crying "He deleted my comments!" and then pointing to a diff where I clearly did no such thing (but rather merely put them into chronological order), and then turning around and deleting my comment (ironically, the very one explaining to you what I had done and encouraging you to read the diff properly, where you would see quite clearly what I had done), is a sure way to get egg all over your face. ☺ Uncle G 02:28, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
        • My apologies for that. I looked at the top of my page and saw that my comments were gone (not realizing they were moved below) and assumed they were deleted without reading the diff. My apologies to him you for accusing him you of deleting my comments when he you did not. I have stricken out my wrong accusations above. —Lowellian (talk) 03:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

These are both marked for transwiki to Wiktionary, but my bot won't do lists. In any case, there's surely no point in doing the first one (take a look), and in fact, all those pages should probably eventually be deleted. Th Indian names are nothing but a list of words, with no definitions or even language, so I wonder if its worth the manual transwiki. Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion. --Dmcdevit 07:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree about the first one. As you say, the second lacks pretty much any content. Adding a list of redlinks at Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:First names seems the best course of action, and the articles about the individual name words can, when people write them, then turn the links blue. Uncle G 02:18, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Good idea, unfortunately the first name appendix is split by gender, but the list doesn't specify. And I don't know anything about Indian names. I'm still at a loss. Will list the first at VfD now, though. --Dmcdevit 02:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You were kind enough to fix some stray emphasis (I must have been rushed by the wife, I usually preview everything - but she sulks if I come late to dinner!) in the Vfd debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Human_life_begins_at_conception&action=history I direct you into the history, as your change is followed by an anom. contribution that totally wiped out my input. Who should this sort of nasty underhandedness be reported to? Thanks Frank Fabartus 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've treated the blanking of those two comments as simple vandalism, and dealt with it in the usual way, with what I hope is a clear edit summary. Uncle G 02:06, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Excellent work verifying the noteworthyness of Ladonia! -- BD2412 ^talk 21:48, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Uncle G, in case you had forgotten about it, I wanted to remind you of the RfC issue. If you want it kept, you have to indicate so. The best place to do so would be the talk page of the RfC. Alternatively, you can do so here or on my talk page. Otherwise, I will wait until 24 hours after your next edit (to give you time to see this notice, read and decide) and then delete the uncertified RfC. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't know anything about Pokemon. I don't know anything about Totse. Cruft vs. cruft, as far as I can tell. I'd say delete all the cruft, and leave any verifiable article about a real person, vanity or not. But what do I know. I generally don't vote on VfD for precisely these kinds of reasons. But thanks for pointing out the flaws in my analogy. I'll just stick to calling cruft cruft. Guettarda 05:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong to stick my nose into that conversation you had a while ago about that matter. I read your essay on why you don't have one - it's reasonable. I prefer personally to have something to click on if I want to say something that clutters the place where the discussion began - like the Pokemon thing. I suppose you could make the argument that I should have admitted I was wrong in the public forum, rather than on your Talk page - but that logic though making a show of contrition is itself boastful. Guettarda 06:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hereby award you a Barnstar of Good Humour for one of the most lucid, well-reasoned, and funniest votes ever seen on VFD. If only all VFD debates were held in such good spirits! sjorford →•← 13:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uncle, I've just noticed this vote alteration. I've changed it back. This vote alteration went undetected for over one week, an alarming thought indeed. I'd investigate to find more -- however, it's very late here, I'm very tired, and I have to knock off now. I can do no more for at least 12 hours, sorry. I'm willing to get to it tomorrow, but thought that I should alert at least one admin now -- and you might have a quasi-proprietary interest in this VfD, so I chose you. -- Hoary 13:44, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Your attempts to stave off the growth of more tiny articles about splits/mergers are welcome. I could never figure why each article on a variety of English had to include comparrisons to every other variety of English. If people want to know what a particular variety sounds like they could simply read the article about that variety.

Less is more 20.06.05

- from 84.135.38.5 (talk · contribs)

The reason why I'm not citing the MathWorld page is because

1. it does not state the problem precisely, and
2. only gives one of the formulae, without justification.

As the later part of the article suggests, these formulae, whilst interesting, are only approximate, as there appears to be a construction for the square teabag giving results which are significantly better than the approximation. According to the VfD discussion, this page was started by Anthony Robin, the original author of the paper MathWorld cites: perhaps we should cite "Anthony Robin (personal communication)". As a result, we appear to be closer to the source of the article content than MathWorld. We should aim to have entirely independent (and better!) content from that of MathWorld, which has been involved in famous litigation in the past. -- The Anome 17:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• It gives one other valuable piece of information (which would have saved you deleting the formulae only to later restore them ☺) in the two words "(Robin 2004)" beneath the formula, telling us which of the references that it cites the formula came from. I half suspect that it was Mr Robin who submitted the MathWorld article, and that both of these articles are equidistant from a single source. If you check back in the article history, you'll see that I merged MathWorld's citation of Anthony C. Robin with the (informal) citation of the same in the original article. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Hello! I completely agree with you that Mr. Gould is only in Wikipedia because of James Braddock, and the Cinderella Man' movie. You've seen my reasoning, so I won't repeat it, for keeping him. However, I did some research, and have expanded the article a little bit, so hopefully the thought of this article staying in Wikipedia is slightly more palatable with the changes. Best Wishes. --Scimitar 19:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You probably know about as much about bots as I do, :). The one I operate is an exact copy of Kevin's. But on a related note, do you think it's okay for me to continue transwikiing to Wiktionary. Since the Wikipedia articles are capitalized, so will be the ones I put in the Transwiki namespace. But since those are moved to the article (definition?) namespace I figure that can be changed after formatting and I'm okay as is. What do you think? --Dmcdevit 29 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)

• I would think that you are all right (given that the transwiki namespace was only a pseudo-namespace and thus case-sensitive already) as long as the MediaWiki upgrade hasn't broken your 'bot as it broke AllyUnion's. Ask at the Beer Parlour, though. Uncle G June 29, 2005 22:23 (UTC)
  • Well I've done a lot of checking and close-looking, and that update definitely screwed with my bot. I had actually done a few transwikis yesterday, not even thinking to look for changes. Now that I look, the transfer of the article history is not working. It only transfers the last edit (which is particularly unhelpful because it's just the tag). Compare wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Updation the day before the update with wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Aftertaste transwikied the day after. Plus the links to the users are broken. I'm going to have to stop using the 'bot until it can be patched up. Unfortunately, Kevin never released the code to me, and he's not responding to my emails and talk page messages. I'm going to have to wait for the code from him or find someone to write it from scratch. And of course, just to spite me, we've got 35 new articles put in Category:Copy to Wiktionary in a day! That never happens. --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
    • Is the 'bot a script or a compiled executable? I had the impression that it was a script. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:09 (UTC)
      • It's a finished product, a .exe and a .dll that I can't touch. At least that's what AllyUnion tells me. I thought he'd be able to fix it if I just sent the file. Showa how much I know! Any better ideas? --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)
        • Uncle G is blue?! I'm going to faint. Oh, um. I mean, so... did you ever contact any bot makers about Wiktionary? And do you think that one might be able to help me out with the transwiki bot? I'm afraid the backlog will start to grow very large very soon. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
          • The only people I know off the top of my head to contact are the people that you've already attempted to contact yourself, alas! If it had been a script, or had the source code been available, I could have taken a look at it myself. But I cannot do anything with a compiled executable any more than you can. Uncle G 2005-07-02 02:10:05 (UTC)
            • I'll keep trying. But in the meantime, if this user page thing is permanent, I'd be honored to be able to nominate you for adminship. With a user page you'd go through easily. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Hi, G. Long time.

I'd dropped out of the project for a while...so I haven't really taken the time to see what our friend has been doing. I'll see what I can do. Meantime, I'll swing by VfD to weigh in. Keep me posted, 'kay? Thanks for the info. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:17 (UTC)

My, what a tangled mess our friend has weaved. I've voted to delete everything that wasn't already speedied and left gentle word on his talk page. Many kudos and a Barnstar (forthcoming) for keeping the discussion civil. Some folks over on VfD are not too nice about all of this. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've been previously nominated I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. BTW - I originally had you on this list and deleted you per a suggestion on the talk page to delete users who had gone through failed RFAs. Since then, I've changed my mind about who should be on this list. I've left a message for everyone on this list asking them to add, or for previous nominees verify, interest in becoming an admin. I don't know if you've noticed this list and were wondering why you weren't on it, but that's why. You're on it now (with a '*'). Do with it as you will. The whole point of doing this is to attempt to bring some sanity to the admin nomination and approval process. If you noticed you weren't on this list, I profusely apologize. Like I've indicated to a number of other folks, I don't know whether I'll bother to keep this list updated, or if anyone will ever look at it. It seems to annoy some folks (which I find kind of curious). I don't seem to have run into you yet, but given your RFA discussion I suspect I'd like you. Keep up the faith. -- Rick Block (talk) June 30, 2005 04:38 (UTC)

I just wanted to congratulate you on the excellent rewrite of the Tea Sucking article. That topic didn't seem like one which could be salvaged even by a complete rewrite, but you've pulled it off admirably. I've voted to Keep, and I hope that others do the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 2, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

I've commented. I can't understand why someone would think those should be "elsewhere." I'd feel pretty guilty if I had to just list those for deletion, rather than transwiki them. By the way, it looks like Triddle will be helping me out with a new bot. Oh yeah, and maybe you didn't see my comment above, but with a user page, you'd be a certain to pass a vote for admin. I think that was the only real objection. And so it would be my pleasure to nominate you. --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up - I added my two cents to this vote as well. -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 00:13 (UTC)
• Ditto. Also, thanks for the layouting of the CSD proposal. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:41 (UTC)

It seems to me that your recent removal of my comment from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/A2 creates a situation where the case for the change is stated on the page where the voting is, but the case against is stated only on that talk page. If we want to also remove the case for the case for the proposal to the talk page, that's fine, but it can't be that one side's views are readily seen by all voters and the other's aren't. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

• I didn't remove your comment or indeed anything at all from that page. I added your comment to that page, moving a comment (placed in a section entitled "Comment") to a discussion page, in order to keep things in line with the previous Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD polls. If you have concerns about the actual wording of that proposal itself, please take them up with the people who actually wrote the wording (of which I am not one). Uncle G 4 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to tell you that your proposal to fix vanity articles is brilliant, and to personally apologize for voting to oppose it. There's a small controversy over User:Radiant!'s actions in some of the votes, and I cannot, in principle, regard as legitimate any policy resulting from such a tainted process. I'm not trying to involve you in this at all, I just want to tell you that I'm sorry I have to oppose your proposal because it is in my opinion the most ingenius of the lot. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Looks like the issue was resolved so I got to vote for your proposal after all. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

You've been nominated again for admniship, because I'm sure you'll pass with a user page. See here to accept. And good luck. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

Conversely, if you wish to decline, please say so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 8 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Uncle G, would you be kind enough to express an opinion on whetheryou wish to be an admin or not? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 9 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wanted to say sorry this nomination came at an inopportune moment. I had no idea when I was nominating (and it seemed so urgent at the time). I'm not really sure why some others were so quick to feel miffed, but it looks like it will end well anyway. So, anyway, keep up the good work! --Dmcdevit 20:57, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently suggested to merge at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras your proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in your suggestion (as well as some more recently created ones)?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle G! I just wanted to call your attention to (and light up your "new messages" bar) once more to remind you that you've been nominated for adminship. Would you please either accept or decline the nomination (found here)? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

• I see that you've since noticed that I already had. ☺ Uncle G 9 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

but, aside from the new VFD mentioned above, there is also the issue of the source text being inserted into the chapter articles.

I have created a poll at Wikipedia:Bible source text to discuss this.

Also, there is currently an edit war at Matthew 1, Matthew 2, Matthew 3, Matthew 4, Matthew 5, John 20, John 15 between me and SimonP. We have both reverted twice as of 9 July 2005 18:39 (UTC). SimonP has just dropped a note to User:JYolkowski, as he is aware that he is in danger of breaking 3RR and needs a method to get around it. I feel it would be helpful if you could counter JYolkowski's edits to act as a counterbalance.

However, I do apologise for what is essentially a request to join an edit war, though I feel it necessary now that SimonP has tried to cheat the system. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

I have noticed you discussed template locations at Wikipedia talk:template messages.

One user has unilaterally been moving templates from articles to talk pages en-masse (over 100 articles are affected during a spate made by the user last night). I have spent some time trying to resolve this issue.

There is now a poll discussing where templates belong created at Wikipedia:Template locations, and a discussion at Template talk:Expansion. ~~~~ 14:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting, if not incomprehensible, revert of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Spiritual health begs the question of why introduction of a pinch of rhyme and reason might seem intolerable to you. Only detail oriented people would be entirely comfortable with your revert. The reversion to random chaos seems particularly odd in light of SchmuckyTheCat's deletion vote explanation. Not everyone can easily pick out such inconsistencies from a disorderly jumble, and your revert therefor seems ill-advised. Ombudsman 04:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the good advice about not refactoring VFD discussions into lists or tables of votes that is to be found in the Guide to Votes for deletion and please follow it. Uncle G 04:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to have taken up your time, but your explanation didn't exactly inspire a safari into the Wikipolicy jungles; thanks for supplying the link. It took a while to find the exact paragraph, but your appeal to authority has succeeded. The one-size-fits-all alternative appears clearly established, so thanks to you are in order. Ombudsman 04:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop replacing wiktionary templates. That is not desireable. Please discuss first on Template talk:Wiktionary before proceeding any further. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations from me as well! Radiant_>|< 13:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Congrats on your recent win! I knew Wikipedia would put things right this time around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I voted against your adminship nomination, but am nevertheless confident that you will carry out your role properly and carefully. I congratulate you and wish you the best of luck. Cheers, smoddy 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling the nominator about redirects/merging is cheaper and cleaner than VFD's. However, I was wondering if you want to go back and clearly state your vote, since I have no clue if your just informing folks or voting for merge. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to ask an administrator about this- was removing the VfD tag early legitimate? CanadianCaesar 01:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's wisest to leave the tag on until the discussion is formally closed. I'll reinstate it. If there's still a unanimous consensus to keep when the 5 day lag time is up, then you, or anyone else, can close the discussion as "keep" and remove the tag. (See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions.) Uncle G 07:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You probably saved a few batches of muffins! To be sure I looked in my own copy of "Fanny Farmer 1896 Cook Book" Ottenheimer, 1996. A book incidentally that i have always found to be rather ambiguous concerning cooking temperatures. Of course when it was written cooking was done almost exclusively with wood-fired appliances. As a chef of over 20 years experience I would agree that 220C. or 350F. is an ideal temperature for tasty muffins! Enjoy!Hamster Sandwich 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. (The recipe should be moved to a more appropriate section.)[reply]

Hi, Now that you're an administrator (and congrats on that!), I'll ask you this question. Someone has already redirected this topic to 11th Millennium and created the corresponding (number) article to link to large magnitude numbers. This occurred while the VfD was ongoing. Does this mean that VfD is no longer a valid place to handle the matter? I wouldn't have redirected, but now that someone has, shouldn't RfD take up the matter? Also, since "redirects are cheap" is the standard for deleting a redirect a little higher than the standard for instituting one in an instance of a VfD'ed article? Ah, minutiae! Xoloz 10:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Being an administrator only means that the community trusts me to wield certain tools on its behalf. Notice that you are talking about 1000000000000 and 1000000000000 (number), both of which are redirects (as is 1000000000000000000 (number)). The VFD discussion, however, is about 1000000000000000000. Count the zeroes. ☺ That article still stands unredirected, pending the closure of the VFD discussion. Uncle G 10:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, I noticed you voted to delete the article 1000000000000000000. Could you please look into Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)? Thanks. --A D Monroe III 01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Recently, quite a bunch of bible verses were put on VFD. I believe you had some good suggestions on merging them; if so could you please contribute to this centralized discussion? This will hopefully be more fruitful than individual VFDs that end in no consensus. Yours, Radiant_>|< 15:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up--I haven't had as much time to spend on VFD lately. Don't know if it will survive, but at least we tried. Niteowlneils 00:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a "keep" vote right after Niteowlneils. I think it could be an excellent companion piece to the main article. Thanks for thinking of me and leaving word! - Lucky 6.9 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. I'm wondering if you think anything should be done about this. The repeated versions (from both sides) mean the VfD is basically meaningless and, even presuming a keep/no consensus will continue to be reverted. Page protection is not for content disputes though is used for stemming repeated reversions, and I'm not inclined to think the redlink users are actually socks so there's no immediately obvious recourse. Oh, and I imagine everyone is fully aware that you did not break the 3RR as that edit summary suggests. I've left a note to that effect on the relevant talk page, because misuse of policy irritates me. -Splash 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I re-counted my edits, just to make doubly sure. ☺ What we should do really depends from what decision the closing administrator takes when closing the VFD discussion, after the 5 day lag time is up. If the closing administrator closes it as keep, then it becomes a content dispute. Uncle G 19:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I thought that was probably all that there was available. Perhaps they'll get bored by that time. -Splash 21:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I write to canvas you back to see where this article is headed (if not the bin) . I left a note on the discussion for deletion too . I claim that the article is necessary to civilisation and where we are - that otherwise we are running forward blind , even on the WP. I ask you to please arrange me the time to do the article , and that we worry about the sense or otherwise when I get the links in there. Alternatively I would ask you to follow my user history which as I left beside Jimbo on NPOV last night, suffers from good faith is as good faith does . My placing of the obverse Hitler's Pope accorded with Jimbo's own guidelines , but forced out of there against Jimbo guideline -forced into a corner everywhere I try to reason for history . Please spare a few moments - to actually check on this all . I'll show what Pope's Hitler means, in Jimbo's terms , if you let me . Famekeeper 15:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You changed that date on Act Against Slavery back to 1793-07-09. Unless I misundertand how auto-date formatting works, the formatter should be able to detect either the date you used or the format I used. I changed it to July 9, 1793 since I felt that that date format would be easier for most users to read. Any users who are not logged in, or who have not set a date preference will see the date in the format in which it was entered in the article. Pburka 23:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Contrary to the documentation, that is not a format that is detected by the automatic formatting, and is thus not rendered in the user's preferred date format. Try changing your date preferences and viewing the two dates in this section. You'll find that 1793-07-09 varies according to preferences, and July 9, 1793 does not. Also note that ISO 8601 (which is what this is) is the date format that "most users" find easiest to read, given that even before it was adopted as standard it was the date format that was conventionally used by one quarter of the world's population. Uncle G 00:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to work for me. When I change my preference all the dates in this section change. Pburka 00:31:37, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
    • They haven't been working for me. Only 1793-07-09 is displayed in my preferred format. July 9, 1793 is displayed unmodified. This began (for me) with the MediaWiki upgrade. I do know that July 9, 1793 used to work. But for me it suddenly stopped. Perhaps it was a problem that was introduced with the upgrade but that has since been fixed. I spent a while experimenting with my preferences and date wikification when it first happened, but that was some while ago and I haven't checked lately. I'll save my preferences yet again and investigate. Uncle G 00:49:10, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

Much appreciated for the note, I do believe I will add my 2 cents. --InShaneee 02:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your are correct that the article is fallout from an edit war. I had not been aware of this bizarre article when I wrote up Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Famekeeper but will add a reference to this article.

Basically, he thinks that leaders of the Catholic Church were guilty of complicity in the Holocaust. That is a POV that has support from some scholars. He also seems to think that any deletion of unsourced arguments to that effect is censorship, probably by the Vatican. Robert McClenon 16:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me, your absolutely right the article doesn't fall under any speedy category and the only actionable reason for deletion would be notability which you argued fairly well isn't an issue so I changed my vote to keep since it appears to be notable enough for an article. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me we've created a monster. Much as I hate to say this, I think our friend may be a bit autistic. I guess we can look on the bright side, since we've made a rather good user out of someone with similar tendencies. I'll leave word on his talk page. BTW, I'm not signed up at Wikinews, but I'd like to learn more about it for myself. Besides here, I'm signed up at the Simple English Wikipedia and the radio control wiki at Wikicities. Nice changes of pace.  :) Thanks for the update. I'll do my best to help. - Lucky 6.9 15:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the creation of monsters, though. Uncle G 15:43:21, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

• Hello Uncle G

Thanks for this infos concerning copyrights etc...thanks for all . ok dear Uncle G,I see..

• faithfully
• Youssef Rzouga

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.102.137 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-03 07:19:34 UTC

KashidThis Indian location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.pradeepsomani ^{\talk \contribs}

Changes are not necessary to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Current as that is automatic from the software. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't; and yes, they are. That title is wikified on User:Uncle G's 'bot and the fact that it is currently a redlink demonstrates unequivocally that the software does nothing whatsoever automatically with that page. (It wouldn't have. After all, I have only just invented it. It's a new scheme that I've constructed so that the 'bot doesn't end up editing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion at all, for safety amongst other reasons. Go to the test area at User:Uncle G's 'bot/VFD to see how it works.) I know what edits it is necessary for the 'bot to make. They are the very edits that I (and other editors) have been making by hand over the course of the past month and a bit. The elimination of our doing these very edits is what has inspired VFDBOT's creation.

  I suspect that you have confused Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Current with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today, which latter VFDBOT has no dealing with and the tool's description makes no mention of. Uncle G 17:07:59, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Ghost in the machine is marked for a move to Wikisource. The article itself says it is "from Gilbert Ryle's Ghost in the Machine." I have a feeling it is copyvio, but I'm a little unsure about the copyright rules. Gilbert Ryle says he was born in 1900 (if that means anything about copyright). But also, I can't find any book he wrote called "Ghost in the Machine" (though it seems to be a famous quote of his). What's your take on it? Is it copyvio? Should I transwiki it? Or what? Thanks in advance for your sageness. :) Dmcdevit·t 05:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Some of it appears to be analysis of Ryle's work, rather than Ryle's work itself. It only contains 2 paragraphs that are unambiguously Ryle's own. It's certainly not a complete source text, and there's only the 1 definite quotation for Wikiquote to have. Looking at Ghost in the Machine (disambiguation), I suggest simply removing it from the transwiki queue and drawing it to the ((attention))s of the editors of Dualism (philosophy of mind). Uncle G 13:50:09, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
  • Ah I see. Actually, there is an Arthur Koestler book of that name and this article's about that book, so I have fixed the intro accordingly. Also, I wonder if I could ask your opinion on the copyright status of that (it's was written in 1938). In any case, I don't think it should go to Wikisource as it's got a lot of prose and is very cut down. Opinion? Dmcdevit·t 00:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the article the actual primary source text, the book itself, or is it simply a book summary written by someone else? In the latter case, Wikisource almost certainly isn't the place for it. Uncle G 00:18:29, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
      • Wait, okay, I don't know where my mind was. :) I was referring to another article: Nakamura Diary. Let me try it again. Also, I wonder if I could ask your opinion on the copyright status of Nakamura Diary (it's was written in 1938). In any case, I don't think it should go to Wikisource as it's got a lot of prose and is very cut down. Opinion? Dmcdevit·t 01:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • I saw that one when I was looking through the Wikisource queue earlier today. Looking in the edit history, it appears not to be the actual primary source text of the diary, but someone else's report on the source text, which furthermore appears to be an "original contribution to the project" — something that Wikisource excludes. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Articles on Imperial Japan may clarify things. I doubt that Wikisource could do anything useful with any of the versions of this article. Uncle G 02:07:53, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

As you requested I have entered comments on both pages to which you referred. I apologise if my earlier comments have caused problems. --Simon Cursitor 14:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems? What problems did you think that you had caused? You haven't caused any problems. I'm just pointing out that the "wiki way" to "block" unwanted content is for editors to be vigilant. There's no central authority that "blocks" unwanted content (and no mechanism in the MediaWiki software for doing so). It's up to you, me, and everyone else, to "mercilessly edit" unwanted content ourselves. Uncle G 15:28:30, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

I note that you are an administrator. Could I ask for a steer on the Wiki protocols on editing one's own User/Talk page. At what point may I remove what I consider to be "outdated" comments without incurring the wrath of the Cabal (the gentlemen who patrol Wiki looking out for infringements of what they think the rules are, and invoking Dispute Rresolution) ? Thank you in anticipation --Simon Cursitor 14:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a matter of choice. Some users archive their talk pages to separate pages. Some users archive their talk pages to history, with clear notices that they are doing so. Some, as I have so far, just let them grow, and rely upon the magic of section editing. ☺ See Wikipedia:talk page and the articles that it links to, such as Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. By the way, being an administrator only means that I've been entrusted by the community to wield the deletion/protection/blocking/SQL tools, in the belief that the encyclopaedia will be the better for it. Our King and Privy Council will be most displeased to hear you thinking that there's some form of cabal in charge of things, instead of them. ☺ Uncle G 15:28:30, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

• <parrot>Awk -- I knew it - I Knew it - I Knew It :: It's a Cabal -- It's a Cabal !!</parrot> Thank you for the guidance --Simon Cursitor 13:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a response from you on this comment, I thought perhaps you might not have seen it:

I like this article, and I think there might could be a full WikiProject for NewPage triage. I was amused to find this article, as I had been doing pretty much what you described, so I was thinking maybe there could be some benefit from organizing it into a WikiProject. What do you think? EvilPhoenix talk 05:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I've tried to get around to responding on the talk page. I even have it open in another tab. But I've been busy elsewhere. As you can see below now there's bosh to deal with ... Uncle G 18:02:03, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
  • I couldn't help but overhear (Okay, that doesn't really work on talk pages...), but for what it's worth, I found the page helpful as well. I don't know if it needs a WikiProject (any more than RC patrol is a WkiProject) but it would be good to move it to the Wikipedia namespace and link it from lots of places. Dmcdevit·t 18:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Recognize this? It's not recreation of speedied content, but it is probably a WP:POINT since it defies consensus. Can it be removed or must we haul it through VfD again? For the time being I've turned it into a redirect, but that obviously won't stick. -Splash 17:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It occurs to me we could take the redirect to RfD since it is unlikely to help accidental linking, but it is very hard to get redirects deleted. -Splash 17:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not really a disruption to make a point. It's a fork resulting from the content dispute that has been there since the VFD discussion. Today seems to be the day for it. See the fork that has just sprung from the similar situation at Government Warehouse (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Government Warehouse's contents). If the redirect at Bosh (slang) doesn't stick, take it through VFD. If a content dispute resurfaces at Bosh, ping the talk pages of the contributors to the VFD discussion and, if that doesn't help, take it to RFC. Since it is now involved, I recommend adding London slang to your watchlist, too. Uncle G 18:25:44, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Considering it's likely that somebody, sometime will keep removing the necessary material, I've decided we shouldn't keep these articles. Zoe 00:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I infer, since you appear to be thinking that the article is still a fictional biographical article from which reference to the BBC is being repeatedly removed, that you haven't actually read the rewritten article, as I suggested that you do first. Uncle G 00:39:04, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • You infer incorrectly. Zoe 00:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then your reasoning is simply bizarre. We don't delete articles on the sole grounds that they might be vandalized in the future. If we did, we'd be deleting the entire encyclopaedia. Uncle G 01:53:00, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

Excellent edit on the article. --Doradus 15:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Also sorry for the screwed up edit history. --Doradus 15:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Uncle G. Sandbot is well and alive now. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have your bot continue running these tasks:

1. It resets Wikipedia:Test to #redirect Wikipedia:Sandbox.
2. It resets Wikipedia talk:Test to #redirect Wikipedia talk:Sandbox.
3. It resets Template:Template sandbox, Template:X1, Template:X2, Template:X3, Template:X4, Template:X5, Template:X6, Template:X7, Template:X8, and Template:X9 to ((Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading))), an HTML comment, and an explanation of template parameters.

--AllyUnion (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to point out that Sandbot doesn't appear to be touching those. I've disabled the cleaning of the main sandbox and the tutorial sandboxes and changed the edit summary message (too late for the most recent run, which occurred as I was reconfiguring). Uncle G 00:22:42, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

I'll get to adding those features once I get VFD and CFD up and running. I'll let you know when. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following tasks of VFD Bot have been upgraded and should be fully functional:

• Add the section on the new UTC VFD subpage day (1 hour before the UTC day)
• Add the six days ago link on WP:VFD/Old
• Close the VFD discussion, 5 minutes after a new UTC day.
• Update Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday every new UTC day.
• Update Wikipedia:Votes for deletion according to the new shorten format.

This should cover your subset tasks you wrote. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I recommend that you keep your bot in an archive in the event that VFD Bot breaks down again. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I notice that its named VFDBOT, so do you plan on having it add headers to WP:CFD as well? If so, we use "Month Day" (August 21) for the header, as the log file is named "Year Month Day" (2005 August 21). We have another script that Rick Block wrote that parse's these headers, and the change would require the script to be changed, which isn't a bad thing. Just wanted to know if you plan on having it continue to do it, and request that it use the current format. Since the log file has the year, the header really doesnt need it. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 03:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, forgot to leave the diff link. ∞Who?¿? 03:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, it says very clearly that

Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches, lengthy quotations, etc. In an article of a treaty, for example, summarize the treaty and then provide an external link (or, if the treaty is on Wikisource, an interwiki link) to the actual treaty. Smaller sources and samples are perfectly acceptable in articles. Pages on national anthems should contain the lyrics, and short poems are also included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.

You're right the page itself should include more information on the anthem itself, that's what we're trying to fix. If interested, take a look at our mini-wikiproject here. Cheers. -Hmib 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You should read the talk page. It is very clear that consensus is that dumps of words are wrong. And no, you are not, in fact, "trying to fix" anything. Instead of writing an encyclopaedia article on a national anthem, you are repeatedly reverting to a version of the article where the primary source text gets in the way of writing anything. (Many articles have stagnated for this very reason. It's a bad idea.) You aren't actually making an encyclopaedia article at all. You are, rather, performing Wikisource work in the wrong project. Please stop. Please instead use Wikipedia and Wikisource combined, in the manner that I demonstrated. Uncle G 01:02:48, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • There is a guideline on this. Read it. If you have anything against that guideline, raise hell there. -Hmib 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read it. I don't need to raise hell, because the discussion on the talk page is clear, and consensus is as I have said. I've pointed you towards that discussion three times, now. Uncle G 02:39:07, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
      • What concensus? If there is a concensus, why isn't the guideline changed? Please direct me to a specific sentence wherein your 'concensus' is located. -Hmib 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The consensus isn't a specific sentence. The consensus is the large number of editors all asserting the same thing on the talk page that I have directed you to, four times now. Uncle G 03:18:49, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
          • The concensus is that most editors involved on the discussion page supports the guideline on the main page, is it not? -Hmib 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Read what they actually write on the talk page. Uncle G 13:21:21, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
              • They have discussed nothing about national anthems, and thus I will take what is on the main page as the guideline. Even if they disagree with it on the talkpage, the guideline remains the same, meaning it's still in place. -Hmib 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • False. Most editors' comments cover the general case, talking of "source texts" and "static texts", which includes national anthems as well. The text on the main page that you are referring to was a recent addition by User:SimonP. It does not reflect either consensus or existing practice. Uncle G 20:01:17, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
                  • Nobody on that page has specifically rejected that addition. There is no concensus that anthem articles should not contain the lyrics. -Hmib 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There is plenty of consensus about source texts. The only editors who would have national anthems as an exception are User:SimonP and two others. Uncle G 21:59:26, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

If you say so. No one has even started a discussion on whether national anthem lyrics should be retained, despite that clause being added on 2 July 2005. The only discussion of national anthems on that page started 22 Aug, TODAY. -Hmib 01:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been hasty to full-out revert the posted text of The Hyborean Age. Although the text was last published in 2003, the author, Robert E. Howard has been dead since 1936, which, I believe, puts the text into the public domain. Like I said, maybe we should be sending it to Wikisource? --InformationalAnarchist 23:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:The Hyborian Age, where even you yourself said that it was a copyright infringement. Please note that "we send it to Wikisource" translates to "User:Uncle G, or another of the handful of editors who maintain the transwiki queues, transwikifies the article". ☺ Uncle G 01:43:14, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever writing that it was a copyright violation, only that it may be. Otherwise, I would have properly used the copyvio tag myself instead of zealously reverting. And sorry for using the royal "we." I wrote that under the obviously mistaken assumption that Wikipedia and the related wikis are community projects relying on a community effort. --InformationalAnarchist 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have things exactly backwards: "zealously reverting" is what we are supposed to do when there is a prior non-infringing version of the article that can be reverted to, as was the case here. We are not supposed to use the copyvio tag in such situations. What you describe as being proper is in fact improper. Please read the instructions in Wikipedia:copyright problems.

      I don't see the point that you are trying to make with your final sentence. The WikiMedia projects are community projects. That doesn't change the fact that it's only Cryptic, Dmcdevit, myself, and a few others that volunteer to do the actual transwikification, as I pointed out. To many editors, sending something to Wikisource involves just sticking a ((move to Wikisource)) tag on it. But without anyone doing the actual work, that just results in some very well-populated categories. Nothing actually gets sent anywhere. (In early 2005, a backlog of more than 1100 articles had accrued in the Wiktionary queue, for example, because whilst editors had been tagging articles, no-one had been actually doing the transwikifications. I'm currently clearing another backlog of almost 300 articles, having just helped to pare down the Wikiquote, Wikisource, and Wikibooks queues.) Uncle G 20:47:23, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you missed my previous message since a user posted right after me. Could you have the bot use this format "month" "day":

===August 22===

Rather than the wikified "year" "month" "day"? The pages already have the year and date, and we have a post processing script that looks for the header as "month" "day". Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed it. Uncle G 01:51:20, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Does it add it to the cfd main page, or do we still do that manually? ∞Who?¿? 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "add" you mean transclude the day page, then no, not currently. I could arrange for it to do so, but the simplest and safest way to do that would involve creating an extra level of transclusion. What it does do is add a hyperlink to the day page to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/Current (which is now transcluded onto the main page, notice). Uncle G 03:29:01, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
      • Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. It's ok, I'm used to adding it anyways. Also, could you change the comment text it adds to the new page to ask users to post at the top instead of the bottom? Sort of the standard now, and its in the instructions on the Howto page. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 06:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think that was the right thing to do. Dlyons493 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested you to put the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fernanda Abreu reference in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil rather than in Wikipedia:Argentina-related regional notice board. -Mariano 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an entirely superfluous WikiProject. There's no need to reinvent this wheel. Many regional noticeboards and topic projects have had "currently listed at VFD" sections, or have had attention drawn to relevant VFD discussions on their talk pages, for a long time, now. Uncle G 13:14:44, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but it wouldn't hurt adding it to such a list (I know I check the Argentine one!). Actually, the official VFD list of the Argentine Board is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Argentina. -Mariano 08:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you left a title on my talk page, but no message, can I help? Alf 21:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I hit enter to go to the next line after the title, and the web browser decided that it would trigger a save instead. Uncle G 21:21:33, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info on transwiki, I'll bear the trouble involved in mind. Alf 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: [4]. Your bot created the VFD page, I added an entry, then the real VFD Bot wiped it out. ~~ N (t/c) 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• First: My 'bot is no less "real". Second: There's no conflict between 'bots here. Third: Why tell me? I don't run the 'bot that wiped out your edit. (My 'bot is carefully written to not wipe out other people's edits if someone has already created the per-day page and added nominations to it. That was one of the first things that I tested.) Tell the person who actually owns and operates the 'bot that wiped out your edit. Uncle G 12:12:54, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry. Will do. ~~ N (t/c) 13:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy consensus" has been renamed to "Centralized discussion". Could you please update your bot to transclude ((Cent)) instead? Radiant_>|< 13:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• <cough> Uncle G 13:34:17, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • You already did? Great. The reason I asked was that a recent page still used the old link, and I thought it were botted. Another question... on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, a preference was expressed to rename the process to "pages for deletion" (to get rid of the perennial confusing of newbies that it isn't really a vote). I've made a simple start by moving today's log and fixing two templates to point there. Could your bot please make new pages as "Pages for deletion/log/date" and create a redirect from "Votes for deletion" for the time being? If done gradually, the change should be easy. Radiant_>|< 14:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there:

Um, is there some reason why you put a redirect on Talk:Judiciary Acts (US)? (I've never seen a redirect on a talk page before.) I fail to see what value it adds; moreover, assuming I understand how moves work, if people were to decide to move the Judiciary Act article to Judiciary Acts (US), your redirect will prevent the talk page from being automatically moved as well.

Your talk page will be on my watchlist for a few days, so feel free to reply to me here.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assumption is in error. ☺ Please read Help:Renaming (moving) a page where renaming over redirects is explained. Ironically, it's actually the move from Judiciary Act to Judiciary Acts (US) that would be prevented, not the move of the talk page. Uncle G 22:29:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I knew that you could undo a move, but I had incorrectly surmised that the only criterion on that being allowed was an appropriate redirect on the article page; I was unaware of the page history requirement (although it makes perfect sense).

— DLJessup (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were one of the main proponents of moving VfD to PfD. I would appreciate any comments that you might have about the process...if you're interested, please leave a note in the appropriate section on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

See`details at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Incorrect link...? DES ^(talk) 05:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...very nice guideline. Maybe we should mainspace it? Radiant_>|< 09:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have moved the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency page to Wikipedia:Non-main namsepace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I would just like to point out that you misspelled "namespace" as "namsepace". I hope this was a test move and not intended as official Wikipedia policy. — JIP | Talk 16:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started changing the headers on Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion, noticed a few of them where unchanged, and then noticed you were reverting my changes. Why? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, I noticed your edit summaries that said that you were demoting the headers to fit page structure. Old habits die hard, however, and I am fairly certain most nominations will continue to use level-3 headings. I propose that the structure be changed by zapping the Discussions and Current headings (so that there's no structure to keep). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I reverted you because I was three quarters of the way through converting all of the headers when you started undoing all that I had carefully done over the past two days. Nominations will use ((nfd2)), which already has the correct header level. And separation into "Current" and "Old" discussions parallels the existing identical separation that can be found on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Whether we want an "Old" section at all depends from how closers are going to manage old discussions. They could decide just to keep everything listed in Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current until it is closed, and not use Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Old. However, that is something to be taken up on Wikipedia talk:Non-main namespace pages for deletion for a general audience to discuss. Please raise the question there. Uncle G 02:30:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Okay, already done. I'll respond to your objections there. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

"was only unprotected for rewording — Please note that it didn't actually get re-worded. User:Duncharris has been altering both links to point to the same place. Uncle G 14:40:05, 2005-08-29 (UTC)" - I know; I wasn't referring to that, but rather to this: "07:27, August 28, 2005 Dmcdevit unprotected Template:Vfd (temporary, needs fixing)". Unprot was supposed to be temporary IIUC, and I believe you had gotten the wording right (and besides, you can edit it anyway :) ) Radiant_>|< 14:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I could, but where a page is protected I prefer my exercise of my administrator abilities to be the rare exception, not the rule. I'll happily edit under protection to revert obvious and outright vandalism locked in as result of protecting the page, as such editing is uncontroversial. But I'm far less happy to edit under protection when rather there is an ordinary content dispute, that I am party to. Uncle G 15:14:16, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Of course, and so do we all, but this is one of those few cases where it would help to protect against well-meaning but ill-advised people. Note that the VFD template was always protected for high visibility. I don't think this qualifies as anywhere near an ordinary content dispute. Radiant_>|< 11:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A side question. The instruction at the bottom of WP:AFD still refer to the VfD templates for the most part. Is it ok to change them over to AfD templates, which appear to exist? I ask rather than be bold as I know the morass of discussion is still ongoing. -Splash 15:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you referring to Template:AfD footer? Uncle G 18:04:15, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Yes. -Splash 18:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming (and editing) the templates is one of the items on the to-do list at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. The instructions should reflect whatever the current names of the templates are. Uncle G 19:37:40, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Good evening. I just saw the proposal to open a formal vote on the renaming of the VfD page. Thinking this was instigated by user:Philip Baird Shearer, I put a request on his talk page asking that the nomination be reconsidered. He replied that you are the "official" proposer and must be the one to withdraw the RM nomination.

As I said on his Talk page, I understand his (your?) point and I'm in some ways glad that we've slowed the process down a bit. But I can't help thinking that turning the discussion into a "vote" about the pagemove is exactly the worst way to go about making the decision. The discussion on Talk:VfD so far seems to be working. If we continue, we might actually reach a real consensus rather than a polarized vote.

May I ask you to reconsider your proposal to hold a vote on the proposed name change? If we don't see true consensus in a few more days, we can always hold the formal vote then. Thanks for your thoughts. Rossami (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Independent of my request, several people reverted the voting template from the VfD Talk page. On the one hand, my request is now moot. On the other, we now have a disconnect between the VfD Talk page and the WP:RM page. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the templates, I was not certain of the scheduled time frame, and it appears that the templates are not used very often. As a result, I created some reset buttons that resets an individual template.

• Wikipedia:Test Reset
• Template:X1 Reset
• Template:X2 Reset
• Template:X3 Reset
• Template:X4 Reset
• Template:X5 Reset
• Template:X6 Reset
• Template:X7 Reset
• Template:X8 Reset
• Template:X9 Reset

--AllyUnion (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• SANDBOT, running under the aegis of Uncle G's 'bot (talk · contribs), resets every 12 hours. Almost all of SANDBOT's edits to those particular pages are null edits (most of the editors to those templates having cleaned up after themselves when they were done), which is why they aren't recorded. Uncle G 10:38:38, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

The two bots are conflicting. See: First edit made one hour ahead by AFD Bot, second edit made by Uncle G's bot. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverting vandalism to this POS. But why didn't you just delete it? I tagged it as a re-creation - have I missed something here? --Doc (?) 12:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Having already employed three administrator tools with respect to this one article, I was reluctant to exercise a fourth. ☺ I've reverted to Fernando Rizo's redirect. It seems to be a reasonable one, given that it's the title of Willie Mays' autobiography. And I didn't need to use any administrator tools in doing so. ☺ Uncle G 13:50:08, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Um, yup that makes sense - I has assumed this had been deleted. I doubt we'll have heard the end of this yet, though. --Doc (?) 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented. — Xiong熊talk* 17:35, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Good evening. I have been working on a top-to-bottom rewrite of the Guide. My goals were, in order, to:

1. Reduce the size of the page
2. Remove the references to "voting" and return the tone to one of discussion
3. Clean up the order and flow

My current draft is 7 screens long (down from 13 screens in the "live" version. I think that I have kept all the relevant lessons, instructions and good advice. I did sacrifice some of what, in my opinion, were rare or secondary situations.

Before I post this for wider discussion, I wanted to ask the opinion of a few people like you who have been intimately involved with the existing process. When you have a minute, would you mind commenting on the draft? Did I cut too much? Have I changed the actual intent of any instruction? Do you consider this better, worse or neutral? By the way, I'd also appreciate any help with format and clean-up. I'm getting bleary-eyed. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying me up, boy I can be so slap dash with my typing sometimes. Alf ^melmac 00:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware that it's not about votes, ... In fact I argued the name should be changed months ago before anyone would have expected that anyone would agree for that to happen. So, is there something about sections that makes it voteish? Or was it just my text? I admin I should have considered the text a little better, but I was trying to get it in before midnight GMT so it could hit the new days pages. I'll go improve the template:afd2s text now. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the word votes to views in the template, I believe this is more accurate and addresses your concern. I'll go fix any AFDs created via the old one as well. --Gmaxwell 00:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure I covered your objection as best as I understand it, and since you don't appear to be editing right now, I waited 15 minutes and gone and stuck it back in. If I missed something, please feel free to remove it again (or better, fix afd2s). If you do pull it again, please tell me more about your objection because all I had to go by in your previous revert was the edit summary. I think it was enough, but if you still don't like it then it wasn't. :) Thanks for your help! --Gmaxwell 00:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the word. It's the unwise idea of splitting things up into "keep", "delete", and "comment", rather than using normal chronological discussion order. Uncle G 00:45:32, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
    • When I saw your reply I went and pulled it again because it was clear that that wasn't your concern... I too agree that dividing things into keep/delete/comment would be bad. I think the important part of a AFD is the comments. As a result my afd2s template text made it clear that comments belonged inline... the bottom section was clearly labled for other desired actions and for standalone comments unattached to a discussion in the sections above action above. --Gmaxwell 03:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask Rossami for xyr opinion, and have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance. Splitting things into sub-sections makes it difficult to follow the flow of the discussion. Since articles can change as the discussion progresses, being able to easily establish a timeline is important to closing administrators. As an example, consider how much more difficult it would have been to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy*d Upp if people's contributions had been grouped into sections by type, rather than listed in normal chronological discussion order. Uncle G 00:45:32, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
  • Okay, I reverted myself until I address these concerns. I wrote a talk page for AFD2 which explains the basis of this change. Importantly I made this change in order to facilitate discussion and preserve chronological order. The primary problem with split AFD is that the process of splitting them breaks up discussion and disturbs chronological order. However split AFDs are very useful on issues where there are a great many participants. If, however, we start off all discussions split this problem does not emerge. Users are able to comment wherever they like, and the motivation for others to come along and refactor the page is greatly reduced. Also far as discussion flow goes, since each secion will remain in time order within the section, following the flow should still be fairly straight forward. Am I off the mark here? As suggested I'll ping Rossami. --Gmaxwell 00:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention that the Wrong Version has been protected on the Urdu language page. There are biased views in the current article that are far away from the truth. The article reads, "Urdu and Hindi are the standardized forms of the Hindustani language, also known as Hindi-Urdu.

Urdu developed as a vernacular dialect from the interaction between local Indian Sanskrit-derived Prakrits "

This is completely false if one reads the history of the Urdu language from authentic/credible textbooks. Hindustani is a language that arose after the formation of Hindi and Urdu separately. It wasn't a precedent, it is a mix of the two that many people speak nowadays. Also, Sanksrits/Prakrits had very little to do with Urdu's formation.

It is currently on a version that promotes a pro-Hindu mentality. It writes that it was developed in Delhi. In truth, it is not known to an exact location and was developed in numerous areas. The word Hindi is written moreso on the URdu page than urdu itself. If one would like to read about the Hindi page they would go to that language page.

These are two completely different languages if one studies the both of them and knows how to speak them. It is different from Hindustani which is the mix of the two. This is the Urdu language page and discussess the Urdu language, there is a separate page for Hindustani and Hindi. You can see for yourself by using these dictionaries: |Urdu Dictionary and |Hindi Dictionary. (For the Hindi dictionary you must choose English for the first option and Hindi for the second at the top).

Also, a large portion of the History has been cut out, which explains the Urdu development. The most incorrect part however has to be the introduction in which cities are named. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan and JammuKashmir (now considered part of India).

Please revert the Wrong Version to the correct one as soon as possible. One was posted on 1:21, 11 September 2005 by 205.188.117.14 .

Thank you. --JusticeLaw 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wrong Version is a list of the things that you shouldn't do when a page is protected. You've just done the first and second things on the list. The idea of protecting the page is for you and the editors that you are edit warring with to come to an accommodation. It is not me that you should be discussing the page content with. Furthermore, I will not edit the page except as per the protection policy. If you wish a change made to the page, resolve your conflict with those other editors. Uncle G 06:08:47, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
  • The Wrong Version reads: If a page you are working on is protected on The Wrong Version, remember that it is essential that you inform the sysop who protected it that they protected The Wrong Version. You should point out the dreadful consequences of the page remaining on The Wrong Version, and insist they immediately revert to the right version. If they refuse, it is recommended that you ask for them to be de-sysopped. At a bare minimum, you must list them on the problem users page.--70.177.166.200 23:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sry, I know I'm just a silly n00b and I'm idling here cause I'm waiting for feedback, but regarding The Wrong Version, I have to say: Hehehe!Gray62 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G,

I'd like to invite you back to Wiktionary, with an apology (with explanation.) When I viewed the differences, a bug in the difference display/algorythm/whatever hid the terms I was complaining about you removing. At any rate, I've been informally smacked down for that now. Your last revert, by the way, I think is still intact.

If you get the inclination, please come visit Wiktionary, and comment on the current discussion about your inflection templates for English verbs. Wikt: Wiktionary talk:Index to templates#New English verb templates has a lively conversation at the moment.

--Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... well... guess I think people are smarter than they are... nevertheless I should have been more vigilant and shall make sure never to do that again... Sasquatcht|c 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G, Thanks for training the bot to send us these articles. It is exactly what we were hoping for. One small request: is it possible to add a ((stub)) template to the top of each one that is transferred? --Payo 08:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That is so cool, really perfect. Thanks so much. If you email me your postal address and size (S,M,L,XL) I'd like to send you a Yellowikis t-shirt (as worn by Ward Cunningham): paul@yellowikis.org --Payo 19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Is it possible to run the AFD->Yellowikis bot on other Wikipedias? The German and French ones in particular. Don't forget to email me your postal address if you want a Yellowikis t-shirt.--Payo 09:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Uncle G. Is there a reason that the contents of the Miscellaneous Deletion page is transcluded from the day-pages through the Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/Current page into the Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion page? I can't see a reason for the second step and it makes both watchlisting the list of discussions and closing the discussions a step or three more complicated. Can the individual day-pages be transcluded directly into Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there's a reason. It's 'bot safety and 'bot simplicity. DELBOT, running under the aegis of User:Uncle G's 'bot, currently just prepends one line to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/Current. It doesn't edit Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion at all, and so runs zero risk of damaging the entire area. Were the 'bot to edit Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion directly, (a) the 'bot would have to be more complex (as it would have to insert text into the middle of a page, and be able to cope with humans restructuring the page in arbitrary ways) and (b) an error in the 'bot (or a change to the page by a human that breaks an assumption made by such a more complex 'bot) could potentially damage the entire area. Uncle G 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In respect of the mechanics of WP:MD, incidentally: We probably want an archive of past discussions somewhere. Should we mirror AFD here, with a separate list of discussions that are old but not yet closed? My personal inclination, based upon the traffic levels, the somewhat longer lag time, and the natures of the discussions, is not to; and instead simply to keep each per-day page transcluded until there are no more open discussions for that day, and have an archive of links to the per-day pages where there are no more open discussions. This is something that should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Miscellaneous deletion, though, and I defer to the opinions of those editors who are closing the discussions. Uncle G 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the structure of WP:CP over to per-day subpages a couple of days ago. It's going to need some help being made to stick, and I was wondering if your bot that looks after the AfD subpages might call by CP once a day too? I'm not too sure on the rules for these kinds of things, so I could be completely wrong to ask. If I'm not completely wrong, and the bot can do this, the text that currently leads the 16th and 17th would be a useful insert to encourage people to use the new template. Apologies if I'm asking a silly question, but thanks for listening. -Splash^talk 16:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've modified DELBOT. See User:Uncle G's 'bot for details. Also, see Wikipedia:bots and its talk page. Uncle G 00:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks. It appears to have made everything stick in place on its first day, so here's hoping! -Splash^talk 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested. Another potential bartending transwiki. — Phil Welch 00:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps changing this back without any notice on the talk page. I assume you support "move" since you put it in. I also liked that. Could you take a look at it, and possibly change it back. I don't want an edit war. Plus I'm (supposedly) on Wikibreak right now. Thx. Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the comment about you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trap17? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally go for "Foo may refer to:". But this is on disambiguation pages, never articles. What is a good alternative? I see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) seems to think "Foo may mean:", but I object to that, since it seems to be pointing to a defintion, whereas it is refering to an article. --Commander Keane 12:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, I've noticed that other particpants also use "refer" on occaision. --Commander Keane 12:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't worry, almost all of the dab pages I edit are on my watchlist and I'll be happy to fix all of them up when a consensual opening sentence is decided upon. Also, the reason why I quote to MoS has never been for the opening sentence of a dab, but always for my editing of the contents of a dab. --Commander Keane 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started a discussion aobut this at the MoS, here. Also, could you not use &mdash; (—), a comma does the same job and makes the article easier to edit for everyone. And piping is genrally not used on dabs, as it hinders naviagtion (I'm citing your piping of "comics" in Jock). --Commander Keane 16:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G! I was wondering if you could think of a way to write a bot that would automatically archive the reference desk subpages every now and then. Do you have any ideas? --HappyCamper 19:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking briefly at Wikipedia:Reference desk archive it would seem that human intervention is required, in order to determine whether a question has been answered or not. If it were a case of regularly archiving an entire page, it would be standard fare for a 'bot. But from the looks of things it involves choosing individual sections from a page based upon actually reading them. The 'bots that I've written have been based upon automating sequences of edits that I had been previously performing manually, over and over. There is a regular pattern to the edits in question, in terms of the pages edited and what changes are made. Is there a repetitive pattern in the sequence of edits that is involved in archiving the reference desk? You may want to discuss this with a wider group of 'bot authors at Wikipedia:bot requests, too. Uncle G 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I forgot about this thread - I didn't know your preference was to reply on this page. The number of questions on the RD has proliferated to the point where no sorting of questions is done - essentially, this is what I do now when I'm archiving:
    1. Get the current date. From this, determine the date a week ago. Save this as a string. Say "12 October".
    2. Open up one of the subpages, and search for the last occurence of this string.
    3. Archive everthing from the beginning of the page, up to the question that contains this string.
  • That's it! Of course, it is not foolproof - I suppose if someone happened to type in a string which matches the date near the very bottom, then an excessive number of questions will be archived. But in practice, this does not seem to occur. Furthermore, the mistake can be easily fixed by say, a reversion. What do you think? --HappyCamper 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, it's liable to errors occurring (in quite a few ways), but that task as described can certainly be automated. It involves a 'bot that parses wikitext searching for strings and section headings. None of my tools do that. I could certainly write such a tool and run it; but, as I said, asking at Wikipedia:bot requests you might find other 'bot authors who have such tools already written and in operation. Uncle G 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Would it be possible to slow the VFDTOAFD bot down? It's not overwhelming the bandwidth or resources of Wikipedia, but it is overwhelming the ability of human eyes to monitor the pagemove log (more than 5000 edits today alone). Once any currently-being-voted-on VfD's are converted to AfD (I think that happened already quite some time ago), the old archived ones can be converted at much more leisurely pace, no? Perhaps a few hundred a day? Hardly anyone ever really looks at old archived VfD's, so there's no screaming urgency. My worry is specifically that vandals may sneak in some pagemove vandalism in there that no one will catch, in the midst of thousands and thousands of other pagemoves, or a vanity userspace page will get moved to article space and no one will catch it (last time I checked, such a pagemove didn't show up in the Newpages log). How much more of a backlog is there for the bot to do before completion? -- Curps 00:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already slowed down (As said that I would right at the start, I deliberately inserted a delay in between edits.) and I did start off by doing small batches of moves. However, there have already been several renominations of articles that were discussed months ago. It was this that prompted me to do larger batches. There is some need to get the task done sooner rather than later. My list of sub-pages for 2005 has 20445 entries. I haven't yet constructed a list for 2004 (but given that it will only cover the period from 2004-12-25 onwards, it will be somewhat shorter). At the end of the current batch, just under half of the 2005 sub-pages should have been moved. There's always a lull in between batches. (For starters, the runs tend to complete when I'm not near the machine that's doing the work. ☺) Uncle G 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm an user of the french version of Wikinews, and we'd like to know if you could set your bot to replace the date every day (as it does on the english version).
The problem is that we use the UTC + 2 time zone, so the change wouldn't have to be done at the same time.
The pages we'd like to be modified are n:fr:Modèle:Nouvel article, n:fr:Modèle:Soumettre un article and n:fr:Modèle:Soumettre un article.
The date is between ((date| and )).
The format of the date (in French) is "DD MM YYYY" (26 septembre 2005).
The months are Janvier (January), Février, Mars, Avril, Mai, Juin, Juillet, Août, Septembre, Octobre, Novembre and Décembre.
Thanks, Eskimo ☼ 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Scheduling the change to occur at 22:00 UTC every day is not a problem. My scheduler is flexible. It's the code for generating month names that isn't. I'll see what I can do. Uncle G 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. If you can do that, we'd also like you add ((wikinews:YYYY/MM/DD))<br /> every day on n:fr:Modèle:Dernières nouvelles. Eskimo ☼ 05:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the current moment, as I leave this talk page message, one of my bots is generating the master list of pages for the VFD to AFD move. See User:AllyUnion/Sandbox. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You're too late. I've already done approximately two thirds of the moves. Uncle G 09:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... as the sea of blue hyperlinks in the pages that you've just created will tell you. Your 'bot is broken, by the way. It is falling over on certain page titles; and it is erroneously including VFDs for articles in the user and project namespaces, which should not be moved to AFD but should be moved to MD. (I've already dealt with them. You'll end up creating double redirects if you use the lists generated by your 'bot.) Uncle G 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The question I would ask is what is the evidence that this is widely accepted slang. My Google search shows 8 distinct mentions - only 1 or 2 appear to be ad related. The rest are second hand (e.g "or as they say in the industry..."). If this was widely accepted slang, I would expect many maore direct hits. Secondly could this be a back formation i.e. an adaption of Stephen King's termonology by people outside the industry. I feel we should have input from someone in the industry or we may be perpetuating a hoax.--Porturology 12:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Uncle G. Do you mean for /Wikipedia triage to be in CAT:CSD? I nearly deleted it accidentally. I'd suggest moving it to Wikipedia: space if you intend for others to use it – it seems well-developed enough to be a policy proposal. Cheers, android79 13:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That was WP (talk · contribs) not linking to the category page correctly. I've fixed it. Uncle G 14:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace. There's a lot of work to be done, my friend. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I know. But bear in mind that, if memory serves, User:Netoholic has done some of those already. Did you filter out the ones that have already been done? Also: It's best to leave the redirects from the VFD sub-pages in place, rather than delete them, as they will be linked to from article talk pages and transcluded by per-day AFD pages. It might be wise to remove the "delete" links for the VFD pages from your lists. Uncle G 13:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list I pulled is directly from the Special:Allpages; However I did not think to check for the Template namespace. (I will pull stats for VfD votes in the Template namespace once the current list is checked over.) Also, please note, I have caught a few that your bot did not move, due the fact that there was an existing one under AfD. Although your bot is doing the majority of work, my lists only serve as an easy guide to double check against. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • linked to from article talk pages and transcluded by per-day AFD pages.

    I was thinking that we should go ahead and change all the archive pages as well to reflect the new situation. I can easily write a bot to fix that, but only after all the moving is completed. My primary concern is that I hope your bot doesn't leave any double redirects. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, to show you some examples: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Suckage, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ToxicMercury, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Twilightus & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kari Byron. These have their existing counterparts in the AfD subpage, and I think it is best to move them into the archive, and note it somewhere on the AfD subpage. It is my feeling that nothing should be left as a subpage in VfD and that any existance of VfD should be systematically removed from the Wikipedia, with the exception of the shortcut redirects. Interestingly enough, the lists I created caught some orphaned pages of anonymous users comments opposing the deletion of an article. I just went ahead and deleted those. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems in the process of moving the page, your bot blanked all of the comments. [5]. Is that what is intended? Because it doesn't seem right. --Tabor 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:Bots. Uncle G 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this little fellow, clearly modelled on your 'bot of the same name has just been indef blocked by Ed. -Splash^talk 03:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for letting me know. Uncle G 11:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction creep necessary in closing AfDs for speedy deletion is absurd - the closing procedure sucks enough as it is, and we do not leave a record of any speedy deletions except ones that first get AFDed - that's just silly. Snowspinner 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. We keep records of all speedy deletion discussions. Either articles are discussed at AFD and speedily deleted, or they are speedily deleted via one of the speedy deletion tags and discussed on their talk pages as the speedy deletion notices say (hence the qualification in CSD criterion G8). Deleting the discussion explaining why something was speedily deleted is what is actually absurd. Please stop. Furthermore: It is not just the discussions of speedy deletions that you are deleting. You have deleted several ordinary discussions, for apparently no other reason than that you personally disagree with the nominator. Uncle G 22:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I deleted them because they weren't actually nominations that applied any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion policy - that is to say, they never should have been sent to AfD, and at the end of five days should be speedily kept on those grounds. I sped up the process. As for the AfDs, we keep those records because they show why something was deleted. But a speedy has nothing to do with the vote, and everything to do with the CSD criteria, and so the AfD debate has no relevence. Snowspinner 23:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer you once again to the speedy deletion notices and to criterion G8. Speedy deletions have discussions, too.

      "Speeding up the process" is entirely the wrong thing to do. Deciding upon the notability of people like Pierre L. J. Vincent (AfD discussion) and organizations like New Hampshire Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (AfD discussion), decisions which should involve more than two editors, is what AFD is for, and it is meant to be deliberative. It is not what you are doing, anyway. What you are in fact doing, as shown by your statement above, is disrupting AFD to make a wikilawyering point about the deletion policy. Please stop. If you wish to contribute to the discussions, contribute. Explain why another editor's view that a person or a company is not notable is wrong, if you think that it is. (Editors can be swayed by rational argument.) What you are doing is unacceptable. Uncle G 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's your user space, but I made a small correction to your "Wikipedia is not infinite" page. Well, it's a correction unless the continuum hypothesis happens to be true. --Trovatore 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. What I'm really not clear on is how would I do a lookup for a list of say typically Irish names? Maybe there's an easy way, in which case the Tamil list is pointless. Dlyons493 Talk 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The easy way would be if an editor came along and categorized the names that are in the Irish language or that are derived from the Irish language. As I said, there is the potential for many more categories than there currently are. If you want such categories, be bold. There's a lot of work yet to be done at Wiktionary (It has been said that Wiktionary is a far larger undertaking than Wikipedia is.), and Wiktionary welcomes all editors who want to come and build upon the work that has already been done. Uncle G 13:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough - will keep that in mind. Wiktionary is a far larger undertaking than Wikipedia - scary thought! Dlyons493 Talk 10:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your AfD vot for Simson Garfinkel. While he is of somewhat greater noteriety than I (David Mertz) am, there seems to be a common weird bias against academics/computer writers (but a porn actor or indy band of 1/20th the influence is automatically kept). If you feel like voting, thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

		An Award
		I hereby award this to Uncle G for frequently being the voice of reason in VfD. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you're an admin over at Wikibooks now. We've got an article here that's apparently a copyvio from [6], and when googling it, I noticed that there's an almost identical article at b:Cookbook:Arambasici. I've got to leave very soon, and will be off the net for a couple days afterwards, so I don't have time to figure out their deletion procedures at the moment; could I trouble you to look into it? —Cryptic (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've checked the web site's copyright notice and marked the Wikibooks page. Uncle G 14:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G, just a note to say that I tend to reply on my own page. Oh, and this reminds me, I wanted to ask you about your restoration of AfD pages that were deleted in Snowspinner's recent rampage. When you look at their history, there is no indication that they were once deleted (ie. there is no link to see X deleted edits). Why is that? Regards encephalon 10:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just the way that Mediawiki works. I expect that it bases the decision of whether to provide that hyperlink upon whether any deleted edits exist, not upon whether the page has ever been deleted. Uncle G 11:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Thanks. encephalon 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, thanks for that excellent discussion on my talk page. I'll be away for a while but wanted to let you know I've replied your last post. Regards encephalon 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness! How did you happen across my sub-page? Uncle G 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Allpages is a wonderful thing, especially when you're looking to get involved with new-page patrol and recall that someone's written something sensible about triage, but can't remember the exact name. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

when your bot moves a page, would it please be possible to leave [[active links]] in the edit summary for the new location. Sometimes it's a big pain to cut and paste new page name and this would help.. Mozzerati 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to consider an archive for this page. The perfered article is 32 kilos, your's is 195.

Hi,

First, I repost here my VfD response to your latest argument:

I'll respond here to all your points, though some of my counterpoints will be brief. In the case of a Wikimedia board member, WPians are uniquely positioned to maintain a verifiability check on the content that is posted in these articles, as least as it relates to relevant professional details. Zaphod Beeblebrox' autobio was not subject to Wiki revision; patently false claims are likely to be removed, given the dilligence and active interest of the community in its leaders.

As for the rest, I simply disagree that I proceed from a false premise. Experience indicates to me, and the Keep votes here do also, that Wikimedia's board members are more likely to remain unknown if some provision is not made for their information to be listed in article space; if your concern for a double standard is not calmed by a faith in the ability of our board members to be reasonable (and to be overseen by the Wiki editing community), then -- by all means -- tag them with a special disputed tag, highlight them in a caution color, bemark in any appropriate way to suggest that they are different. In the final analysis, though, I find that their special status within the Wikimedia world creates a special need for WP articles. I make this finding based on a firm belief that their biographies should be transparent, and that -- without WP articles -- they are not sufficiently so. Feel free to disagree, but I find the suggestion that my analysis is "false" to be strangely positivistic. We aren't discussing a bare philosophical theorem. We are considering alternatives for the priorities of the WP. You value more the strict enforcement of a guideline; I, an interest in making our leaders' information very easily viewable to even the most casual user. No one has a "false premise"; these are simply competing values in tension, each value with its own merit to recommend it.

Now, in this more slightly more personal context, I will reiterate my dismay that you appear to understand this discussion as a contest of logical premises. From my view, that is simply odd; I'm not quite offended, just bemused. AfD is, I think, rightly the place where the community, working through consensus, is empowered to judge specific cases in light of the various competing policies and interests of WP. WP:BIO is not the only policy worth mentioning and (though worthy of serious respect) is not holy writ, entirely unimpeachable in its universal wisdom. When a real competing concern motivated by a genuine policy interest is advanced in tension, the community is left to weigh the various rationales. This is not simply of case of deprecating WP:BIO "'cause I like my college band", as the vandals do, but an honest difference of value criteria applied. I feel the discussion is not well-served because, as I see it, you don't seem to acknowledge that this argument is significantly different from a vandal's vanity. For those voting Keep, the discussion is about making the board very quickly visible to users. I have suggested some ideas to address your "double standard" and verifiability worries (which are good points) above. I value process and guidelines highly; I also value the ability of a community to appreciate honest differences, and weigh alternatives itself, without resort to language of "truth" and "falsehood". Xoloz 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it is 195 kilos now, it is supposed to be 32.

Thanks for pointing out the MacGregor research on Solkope. I've added text pertaining to this.--Isotope23 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle_G's_NEW_Major_Work_Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I presume this isn't you? It's been blocked. -- Curps 10:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nothing to do with me. Uncle G 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there are folks who would pull out the Manual of Style and hit you over the head with it then say "I'm sorry that hurt, but it says right here not to do what you did". I'm not one of those people, but I'm confident in predicting that your change will be reverted by someone using that as an excuse.

If you do not agree with the Wikipedia:Manual of style (disambiguation pages) on the matter of the "can mean / may mean" intro-line ... and there are hundreds if not thousands who disagree with this particular guideline (some almost violently) ... please say a word on the talk page there (I've not checked the logs to see if you've engaged in a discussion prior to this there yet, so accept my apologies if you've typed yourself blue in the fingers already).

In the end I'll merely ask, "Is there a reason for editing contrary to the guideline in this particular case as opposed to others of a similar type (for instance "fruit loop" vs. "Fruit Loops" or "tang" vs. "Tang")?"

Thanks for the thoughts. Courtland 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I brought it up back in September. See the relevant talk pages and above on this very talk page. Uncle G 21:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up after me on User:Yankees76. Algae 16:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I know you've had people claiming to be your bots in the past (I think), so I just wanna doublecheck that this and this are actually you. Please confirm or deny? We welcome Wikipedians to Uncyclopedia! But we frown on impersonators (And we've had to ban JarlaxleArtemis for slandering Linuxbeak, for example). So just lemme know (here or my talk page on wp, not on uncyc) a yea or nay here, thanks. Splarka (rant) 22:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Splaka@Uncyc[reply]

Could your bot transwiki CPR summary, perhaps all the way to wikibooks:First Aid/CPR summary? -- Egil 16:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Your AFD bot made Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-10-30 a redirect to itself. That seems weird. Radiant_>|< 10:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what happens when connectivity disappears. Uncle G 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, there may be some work left for your renaming bot... [7]. Radiant_>|< 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unknown number of those are redirects, left behind by pages that have already been renamed. Unfortunately, for any discussions prior to 2005 it's hard to find out which ones. Uncle G 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm told you may have a bot that works the miscellaneous delation page, so I wanted to let you know that I've moved it (for reasons briefly explained on the talk page) to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you going to move all of the sub-pages as well? Uncle G 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body parts slang needs to be reprotected, or the ((deletedpage)) stuck on it is pretty meaningless; articles don't remember protection after being undeleted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Uncle G 17:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a couple of wikibook links that you added to Boolean algebra and Boolean logic. I moved the wikibookspar from the former to the latter, but I was wondering whether it should be down in the See Also section. Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What posessed you to move a link to a Wikibook on Boolean algebra out of the Boolean algebra article? Uncle G 00:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the Wikibook, although named "Boolean algebra", is about exactly the same subject as the Wikipedia article Boolean logic. Just because Wikibooks and Wikipedia are run by the same foundation, doesn't means articles with the same name are necessarily related. (Discussion moved to Talk:Boolean_algebra, although Template_Talk:Wikibooks suggests that the link should be down in the external links section, regardless of whether it belongs there at all.) Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have an important comment about phrases of this kind in Wikipedia articles.

Someone who stumbles across the page on a mirror site of Wikipedia, such as http://www.answers.com, might not know what that means. Do you think that such phrases are valid for Wikipedia pages?? 66.32.248.238 00:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Think about it. That they are reading the sentence on a mirror does not change what the sentence means. You are erroneously conflating such phrases with self-references, which they are not. Uncle G 00:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G,

I suspect you haven't been following the discussion at Boolean algebra (and lots of other places) and therefore don't see why Arthur Rubin reverted you. The fact is that the subject discussed at wikibooks::Boolean Algebra is simply not the same one discussed at Boolean algebra. The latter is about a type of algebraic structure, not about the propositional calculus or the manipulation of Boolean expressions. The Wikibooks article says nothing about any algebraic structure, so it's not an appropriate link. It would be appropriate from Boolean logic. --Trovatore 01:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just have Rustication redirect to the disambig page, the standard would be to have the actual disambiguation on "Rusticaton" so as to avoid any unnecessary steps, so Rustication (disambiguation) should either link to Rustication or be deleted.

However, having a disambiguation page at all in this case makes no sense, but there are only two articles in question. By having a disambig page, you force people to click an extra time to reach either article. By having one of the pages at 'Rustication' and linking to the other in a "This article is about X. For Y, see Z." line at the top, one of the pages would still require an extra click, but the other wouldn't, thus reducing the chance that someone will have to keep looking for the page they want by half! So, my recommendation is:

1. Make Rustication (disambiguation) a redirect to Rustication.
2. Move Rustication (architecture) to Rustication.
3. Put a link at the top of Rustication saying "This article is about the architectural term. For the academic term, see" and then a link to Rusticated until that page is either moved to Rustication (academia) (to at least conform to Wikipedia article-naming conventions, if the ideal move fails) or to Suspension (to create an article with potential to become a large, comprehensive, wide view of the concept as a whole, rather than limiting it to a dictionary entry combined with a list of uses of the word throughout history). -Silence 19:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Attribute is a proper noun, and it can be read in every IBM document wrote as Extended Attribute or simply EA. IBM did that to express that EAs are no real attributes (like read-only, hidden, etc), but a different thing. —Claunia 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. For starters, in IBM's own toolkit documentation it is an ordinary common noun. Uncle G 09:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, you are right. In most documentation it is a common noun. —Claunia 11:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember the media chaos that happened when a meteorite that came from Mars had fossilized organisims in it ? One other thing, during my travels, I've ran into people who are devoutly religious who have stated that UFOs/Aliens are the minions of Satan and that the people who run today's world are evil and are cooperating with these demonic minions. I've been all over the whole US. Those bugs in that rock could've been ALIVE, and should there be alien contact, these people may revolt.Martial Law 21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undergoing clean up by the clean up task force. All is verifiable. It is no hoax,etc. or the clean up task force would'nt mess with it. Will you reconsider your vote ?Martial Law 08:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose is good, but do you really think that's possible without sparking a horde of vandalism accusations and a probable revert war? The Literate Engineer 00:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't my proposal. It was Freakofnurture's. But I looked at the article (when I dealt with transwikifying both it and Body parts slang to WikiSaurus) and independently came to the same conclusion. (Notice the list of hyperlinks to WikiSaurus entries at the top of the article.) It appears that Kgf0 and Jacqui M Schedler support such a change, too. Yes, there will be Lost Lexicographers who will be disappointed at the loss of their pet mini-thesaurus, mis-placed here in the encyclopaedia. But Lost Lexicographers simply need to be shown the way to the dictionary. As for edit wars, LOL (Internet slang) already suffers from the sort of constant onslaught that no doubt will occur here. But several editors have taken a firm hand there. The same firm hand was taken in keeping the list of synonyms (slang and otherwise) out of penis. I suggest enlisting the support of the aforementioned editors in doing the same here, too. Uncle G 01:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if this AFD fails, I'll join yall on that. In the meantime, I've got another slang list I've nominated, the Baseball Jargon one, and people are accusing me of singling out baseball, so now I'm probably going to have to do something about a bunch more jargon lists. Gah. The Literate Engineer 05:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is not systematic bias. I am an Indian. I've nominated US lists for deletion as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005). Could you please do a rethink on your vote. utcursch | talk 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the low throughput of this page I would like to simplify it to the structure used by TFD/CFD/RFD/DRV, which means no individual subpages per article. There have been no objections on the talk page; since you run the MFDbot, do you object to this? And if not could you please stop that part of the bot? Radiant_>|< 16:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. your talkpage goes back to january... how about archiving it? Radiant_>|< 16:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Uncle G 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how not being a published stable text and being the product of a wiki editor collaboration would qualify a page for deletion. Maybe a move to Wikibooks should be suggested? - Mgm|(talk) 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource doesn't take texts that are original works by contributors to the project, which is what this (partly) is. See Wikisource:What is Wikisource? Uncle G 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My point was that they could transwiki it to wikibooks where it would almost certainly accepted because they welcome such material. When transwiki is an easy option, I don't see why a delete is neccesary. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite

Would you object if I mainspaced this and flagged it guideline? I think it's very appropriate, and I believe it's a consensual view on the topic of weird number articles, as affirmed by AFD. Radiant_>|< 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not infinite for you. If it's not wanted, simply move it back. Uncle G 11:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop you a comment to congratulate you on the improvements made to Ring size. I was meaning to attempt improvements myself at some point, but you've beaten me to it and done a stunning job :o) _└ ^UkPaolo/_TALK^┐ 22:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The original author worked on the article. I just added some introductory context, a couple of references, and converted the table to wiki markup. Uncle G 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping a cool head about this article and for helping to keep it under control! --mdd4696 16:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

enjoyed your language on the voting page. Grroin 00:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may get few hits on Google and may possibly be invented, but card manipulation (not Extreme) is not only used by magicians but also used as a show of of dexterity, so in that regard the article is right and Card magic needs serious expansion. Would you consider a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. Please note that the new ((Help:Editor)) template you uploaded is almost as wide as the whole Wikipedia page. That is, it wreks havoc on any page it is displayed, which is all, or almost all help pages. I suggest it be blanked temporarily while somebody can see how to make it narrower (a template wider than one fifth of the screen is unacceptable I would say). You can reply here if you have comments.

By the way, your talk page might need some archiving (he-he, lack of stuff on your user page is compensated by having a lot of it on the talk page :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• As you can see by the fact that your link is red, I have created no such template. Uncle G 03:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it is actually an article, used as a template, see Help:Editor.

    OK, I guess you are in the middle of copying a lot of stuff from Meta, so I will not bug you anymore. But somebody's got to go eventually check how things turn out, for example with that thing above. And the other thing, about edit summaries, I left a comment there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Help:Editor is not used as a template, and is meant to be the whole width. It is intended to be the editor table of contents (which is a template) displayed standalone, instead of as a navigation box. Uncle G 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, now it became very very narrow, see Help:Edit summary, on the right. I guess I should have just waited. But it did look every bit as ugly as described above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, it becomes clear now. You are talking about Template:H:h Help, which in turn transcludes the old Template:Hh. Uncle G 16:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G. First sorry I bugged you yesterday. But you are right, it is something with those transcluded templates I never got to the end of. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem pretty active and hard working. How about adding your statement to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements?

I've just made some extensive changes to clean up Meta:Help:Editing and the pages it transcludes. It also transcludes a new page, called Help:Wikitext quick reference, to replace the bloated section that was there before.

Could you get your bot to do whatever it does to propagate these changes onto en: properly?

Thanks, rspeer 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'bot doesn't yet perform the copying on a regular automated schedule. But I've manually started a run just now. The help will be copied to the English language versions of Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource. Uncle G 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant recommended to talk to you about this clean up project. It concerns 100's of articles that are dicdefs and now it's leaning that all of them should to be moved to Wiktionary. Could you advise, if Wiktionary is aproper place for these things? Renata3 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a problem with transwikiing Help:Wiki markup examples. The page is marked for cleanup, but it needs to be cleaned up on Meta. When it gets transwikied from Meta, it ends up with a Wikipedia cleanup tag on it. Which someone on Wikipedia:Cleanup then blithely changes to a correct ((cleanup-date)) tag. And then it gets transwikied again and this starts over.

I replaced the template with an ad-hoc template saying it needs to be cleaned up on Meta; this, too, got replaced in the transwiki, of course. I tried reverting your bot to see if you would notice (I think you say somewhere that you're accountable for all your bot's edits) but it just got transwikied again.

What's the right way to deal with this? rspeer 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. I can think of two ways:
  • We create a special template that is a simple redirect to the existing cleanup template on Meta but a special "go and improve the master copy on Meta" cleanup template here.
  • We augment the system so that project-specific things can be added to the beginnings of help pages as well as to the ends. (i.e. some transclusion of ((Phh:((PAGENAME)))) by Template:H:h Help)
• I prefer the second mechanism. You? Uncle G 01:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'd say I prefer the first. I'm already terribly confused by the whole H:h and Ph: thing, no need to make it even more complicated. rspeer 20:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the point of adding a merge notice for a stub? For all the work your doing placing those notices, you could have added Stab City's one sentence of information to Limerick. Seabhcán 18:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The Article Big Apple is not merged with New York. Seabhcán 18:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that that the two situations are parallels is false. They clearly are not. And both the merge notice and the notice at the top of this page tell you where to discuss the suggested merger, which isn't here. Uncle G 18:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed that you commented on this AfD. Your comment seemed to suggest you agreed with my nomination, but your actual 'vote' doesn't isn't clear. Are you abstaining? Thanks for your time.--JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion that it wasn't article namespace material. Whether that means userfication or deletion depends from the wishes of the author to a large extent. Uncle G 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. Seems like all I've done around here the past weeks has been fight the good fight about this. The Literate Engineer 17:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to Request for Comment. As you can see from this AfD and its related article histor, there was a significant effort made to get the article improved before posting it, and I honestly felt it was too esoteric and should be deleted - but if not - it definately needed improvement. Trödel|talk 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Quality :-) Should be in the official WP:ISNOT. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uneasy about the Rowlett numbering system article. Extensive Googling reveals virtually no references outside the author's own pages and Wiki mirrors. I see you tagged it OR, I wonder how long one should leave it there before AfDing it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Rowlett. Uncle G 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The forum site

Well, lots of things. But the main thing is lack of wider participation in forming this proposed policy. (Hint hint nudge nudge.)
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why nudge me? I wrote the same thing on Wikipedia talk:Websites a week ago. Uncle G 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you did, that was meant as a wider nudge. I think that WEB is suffering from foxes/henhouse right now. I'm pretty desperate for more community input. I've ammended my comments on the AfD to indicate that. Hope I didn't nudge anything tender.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 01:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a discussion page was created. This article was originally named Darkwars, and the existing AFD discussion is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkwars. This is why one should not rename articles being discussed unless one is careful and follows the instructions in the Guide to deletion. Uncle G 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for failing to notice that the page had been moved after Dbchip's nomination [8] to delete it. What I found surprising about this (which I had not previously noticed) is that substing the ((afd)) notice apparently does not also substitute the variables (((PAGENAME)), ((CURRENTDATE)), etc.) contained within. I thought that was at least part of the reason for the "always use ((subst:afd)), not just ((afd))" directive. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you didn't take the time to read my comment, what with all the speed-tagging, but I was saying that I did, in fact, cite my sources. They were named as wikilinks, Philippus Brietius, Tabula Peutingeriana. These are not just references, maybe to obscure or ficticious journal articles unverifiable to a mass reference patroller, they are references notable enough to have their own articles. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You did not cite sources. Wikipedia articles are not sources. Uncle G 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Didn't mean to knock your work (didn't know you had worked) on Wiktionary (which I've probably only consulted for "pikey", "piker", and "chav"). I assumed there was little in the way of quality control there (at the time, there was little in the way of quality control in the corresponding Wikipedia articles), hence my comment to that effect here. Glad to be proved wrong.

By the way: which part of "archive" don't you understand? :-)

chocolateboy 03:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I get around. See my user page. (Indeed, I'm the one that gave you the WikiSaurus entry for chav, so that you didn't have to have yet another mini-thesaurus mis-placed in the encyclopaedia, and the one that gave you the etymology in chav, complete with references.)

  But I wasn't speaking for myself. There are quite a few Wiktionarians who work hard to ensure that unattested words and meanings stay out of Wiktionary. Uncle G 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the WikiSaurus relief: much thanks. Dunno what you mean about the etymology, though. [9] I looked citations up for those myself, and didn't consult Wiktionary. But "let's not bicker and argue about who cited who" :-) chocolateboy 06:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You might care to note that that isn't one of the etymologies that I gave. Uncle G 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry. I'll remove my edit. Monguin61 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You have nothing to apologize for. Uncle G 04:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly agreeing with Ben Aveling's assessment in reading the consensus. I do think this could probably use some other eyeballs going over it, however. Maybe we should contact the others and ask them to clarify their statements, or bring it up for deletion review. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ben said "subject to all the comments that have been made already". Given that at 3 editors in the discussion said "If a list of bankable stars as reported from particular sources [...] was added [...] then it might work." and "Could possibly be expanded to have a list of actors considered to be bankable stars", and an HTML comment in the article itself said the same, and given than Ben himself rescinded his "delete" opinion when exactly that occurred, I'm not sure that "delete" was Ben's actual assessment. I agree. Opinions from more editors is the best solution. How do you wish to proceed? Uncle G 14:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. Deletion review would be the obvious place to go, I guess. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When those were transwikied, links to wikipedia-templates, where reduced to Template:en _→AzaToth 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The master copies didn't link to Wikipedia templates in the first place. The problem with the template help is that it uses template names for its examples that have the potential to conflict with existing templates on the project, and thus aren't copied over. I've fixed a couple of the example templates in the master copiesto use names beginning with "H:", but many more require fixing. Uncle G 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes they have some references, but they are using ((tiw|en|switch)). _→AzaToth 19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There must have been an edit conflict... or something... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-10 01:28

Let's just drop this. I am very familiar with our copyright policy. I completely disagree with you. The article in question was mishandled, etc. It should have been copyvio tagged. It was not. AfD is not a means of circumventing copyright policy here, which requires a holding period to seek GFDL release. It was never speedyable. The closing of the AfD seems irregular. Editing of the discussion- post close- is irregular. -- JJay 19:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly are not familiar with it. Your assertion that the article was rewritten is wrong, as is your assertion that rewriting an article in place, keeping the prior copyright violation in the edit history. Copyright policy was not circumvented. On the contrary, it was enforced. The article was an indisputable copyright violation. Uncle G 20:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I disagree. -- JJay 20:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can disagree until the cows come home. That won't make it true that the article was rewritten; nor will it make it true that we retain copyright violations. Uncle G 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also does not make it true that any proper procedures were followed in this case. Alternatives are there for a reason. They are clearly spelled out in our copyright policy. The copyvio page is there for a reason. The article was never speediable but was speedied. etc. Copyvio dumps into existing articles are reverted, leaving a record in the edit history. You can keep patronizing me until the cows come home, that does not change the fact that wiki copyright policy is far more intricate than you are willing to acknowledge-- JJay 20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The copyvio notice isn't the only way that copyright violations are deleted. And you are also wrong that it was a dump into an existing article. No-one is patronizing you, but you have made quite a few assertions now that are downright wrong. Uncle G 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point of the copyvio notice is to allow time to seek permission for use under GFDL. The fact that permission for use can be granted, means that the copyvio does not have to end in deletion, despite your assertion to the contrary. That was not allowed in this case. As the article was a copyvio from a non-commercial site, it was not a speedy. Yet it was speedied. I did not claim that the article was a copyvio dump. I said that copyvio dumps are reverted- leaving a trace in the edit history of the copyvio material (something you deny). The user who attempted the rewrite of this material did not follow procedure (yes, it should have been done on a temp page). That does not make it a speedy either- because the rewrite can still be moved to a temp page following procedure- or reverted back to the original and tagged as copyvio. This whole episode with the Becker article is a patent case of 1) circumventing/ignoring very clear policy on how copyvios are supposed to be treated; 2) biting the newbies. 3) misuse of AfD-- JJay 23:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said that copyvio dumps are reverted- leaving a trace in the edit history of the copyvio material (something you deny). — What I actually wrote was that rewriting and leaving the original in the edit history is not an accepted way of dealing with copyright violations. Our rewriting mechanism is deliberately arranged so that the copyright violation is not present in the edit history of the rewrite. Once again, I refer you to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

              This whole episode with the Becker article is a patent case of circumventing/ignoring very clear policy on how copyvios are supposed to be treated — Rubbish. Policy is clear: We don't keep copyright violations. This was a copyright violation. It wasn't kept. There was no circumvention. Indeed, policy was enforced, as I said. What is leading you to this utterly bizarre notion that deleting a copyright violation is circumventing our policy against copyright violations?

              The user who attempted the rewrite of this material — For the fourth time: There was no such rewrite. Where are you getting this completely false notion from?

              Uncle G 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again we are right back where we started. There is, like I stated in the beginning, no point in continuing this conversation. Once again, you have resorted to an aggressive and patronizing stance. If you were interested, I could point you to many articles that started here as copyvios. I have been involved, in certain cases, in securing permission for use. I find it a bit strange that you persist in denying this as a possibility. Furthermore, it is a little difficult to point you to the edits in the Becker case since the article and its edits are deleted. As an Admin, you can check this yourself. If you feel that the article originally submitted, was the same as that put up for AfD, then I am wrong. It did not look that way when I checked the edits, prior to deletion. Nevertheless, in the interests of peace, I will, at my leisure, re-peruse our copyvio rules. After long and careful study, I'm sure I will see things your way. -- JJay 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • No-one is being aggressive and patronizing; and I haven't denied any such thing. Finally: Even if the article had not been deleted, you still wouldn't be able to point to the edits. There are no such edits. If you feel that the article originally submitted, was the same as that put up for AfD, then I am wrong. — I don't need to feel it. The text at the time of nomination was, barring some additions of markup and some excised paragraphs, identical to the original copyright violating text. The only reason that you are back where you started is because you keep making that same wrong assertion that you started with. Uncle G 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Right. -- JJay 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the AfD for Non-Muslims Interactants with Muslims During Muhammad's Era; I feel like such a doofus! Zora 04:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Uncle G 04:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that you are an asshole. Cheers. Kobra 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sister projects. Link to sister projects should be placed under the See also or External links sections of the article. --Viriditas 04:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That advice is simply wrong. Links to sibling projects are best placed in the section that they relate to, and in many cases are best placed in the article's introduction. Interwiki links are not external links. Uncle G 11:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for reminding me of the "Three Stepf of a AfD". Severe apologies. --Kilo-Lima 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, hi.

I was about to categorize Stepping razor as ((vocab-stub)) when I looked at the history and realized that it had already been categorized that way, as had Stationary policy (which I had just re-de-un-sorted), both of which you decategorized and put deprecated generic ((stub)) templates back onto. Now, being a stub sorter, I would like to keep Category:Stubs empty, but being a person who cares about accuracy, I would like to categorize stubs appropriately, and being a lover of peace, I would like to avoid battles over matters as trivial as categorization of stubs on Wikipedia. Therefore, I ask you, what cateogories at WP:WSS/ST do you recommend for articles like the above, or do you think there need to be new stub categories to deal with such things? I would like to avoid having articles bounce back into Category:Stubs, which ideally stays as empty as possible. Thanks in advance for your perspective on this issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There really isn't a general answer to what stub category the articles should go into instead. The problem with the category, as I mentioned on the WikiProject talk page, is that it is being mis-used as a miscellany. The articles that I've ejected from the category so far have been about all kinds of things. Kappa has sorted quite a few of them into more appropriate stub categories, and xe has used a wide range of stub categories. My view is that there's only one miscellany in the stub-sorting system, and it is Category:Stubs. Having two just brings back the problem that stub sorting was intended to solve. Designating an arbitrary stub category to be a second miscellany simply in order to keep the first miscellany empty isn't really achieving the intended goal. If the miscellany fills up with stubs that have no obvious hopper to be sorted into, then yes, new stub categories are called for. But that really comes down to individual cases, and, as I've said, from what I've seen so far there is no one single answer for the articles that were and are mis-tagged as ((vocab-stub)). Uncle G 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, your position seems completely reasonable, and I find myself agreeing. Thanks for taking the time time to explain; I feel a little bit silly for asking now. I've probably miscategorized some of those ((vocab-stub))s myself, but you're right, it shouldn't be used as a miscellany category. Keeping the main category empty isn't more important than correct categorization. On the other hand, a good categorization system should have enough coverage at the top level that everything can go somewhere. Until we figure out enough categories to cover the space of possible articles... I guess Category:Stubs just won't necessarily stay empty. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• all of that also answered the question i was about to ask about fire hazard. ill try to be more careful with it in future! :) BL kiss the lizard 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits for the whisper number entry were completely wrong. You based your information on completely outdated information including a reference to a website that no longer exists (getwhispers.com) and has not existed for YEARS.

The original information included the current definition and the historical definition of the term. It included the reference to the firm that started the internet publishing of whisper numbers (whispernumber.com).

What you've done is create an erroneous and misleading document that confuses the issue and provides little if no value to the reader.

I thought you were about facts and proper reporting, not regurgitating outdated and erroneous 'news' reports from 5, 6 and 8 years ago. I am sorry I ever started the category - how can I go about removing it completely?

• The place to discuss this article is Talk:Whisper number, its own talk page. That way, it will be easier for other editors to notice that there is a discussion. As for what we are about, it is Verifiability and No original research. Uncle G 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings:

Unless I am wholly misreading your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Mine, you hold the opinion that Ghost Mine does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, and hence should be deleted.

I mention this only because someone at this AfD has commented "Keep as per Uncle G." Which, if my reading of your comment is correct, is fairly humorous.

Felt you'd wish to know.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see my comments about references relating to the stubs Warora and Ustarana on the talk pages of the respective stubs. I request you to please guide me as regards the references required. Thanks. And, a happy New Year. --Bhadani 14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've provided a hyperlink to our list of citation templates on the respective talk pages. Thank you for being willing to cite sources. If you do this on all of the articles that you create or expand, citing the sources that you are using for your content, you will make our encyclopaedia better both for readers and for other editors (who might wish to come along and build upon your work). Uncle G 15:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly appreciate your advice and guidance, and surely do as required. I once again thank you for the suggestion. --Bhadani 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I'm a bit confused. Why are you telling people that transwikify, which I assume means "give to Wiktionary and delete it from here", isn't a valid option? The Literate Engineer 20:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it isn't a valid option. Hint: Try to demonstrate that it is in this case. Almost certainly the very first thing that you'll do, in trying to prove that it is a valid option in this particular case, is the first thing that editors should always do, before suggesting that something be transwikied to Wiktionary in the first place. For a further hint, see Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary#Marking_dictionary_articles. ☺ Uncle G 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Guess there's a downside to never actually looking at wiktionary or wikisource and just treating them as dumping grounds for stuff that too many people are insisting be kept somewhere even though it's got no place in an encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They most definitely aren't dumping grounds. They are part of an overall whole, that comprises Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikibooks all interlinked and operating in concert. When it happens, it is impressive. Uncle G 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to moving your subpage User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day into the main namespace as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day? People seem to be referring to it a lot on WP:AFD. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those references are mine, of course. I would certainly object to it being moved into the main namespace. But there appears to be a growing number of editors who would like it to be in the project namespace at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Uncle G 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice it. :) Don Diego^(Talk) 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your bot copies pages from meta that reference header and footer templates that don't exist here. As a result, it appears that clueless noobies have been creating very strange articles in the template namespace using the red links. Would it be possible to program your bot to omit references to these templates? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:09, Dec. 19, 2005

P.S.: Could you please consider archiving your 246k talk page? It's rough on dialup. — FoN (T) 17:13, Dec. 19, 2005

• The references to the header and footer templates (Template:Ph:X and Template:Phh:X) are locally generated, and not in the text copied from Meta. They are for allowing project-specific help text to be included in each page. Simply create an empty template (Help:Starting a new page#Creating_an_empty_page explains how.) for any such redlinked template that you see. Better still, in the case of the footer templates, create the template as a redirect to the project-specific help text page that already exists in the project namespace, if there is one. Uncle G 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I guess I'll figure something out. I only notice it because some material had been moved from template space to user space, causing the resulting redirect to be listed on RFD and I thought "wtf?" and worked backward to find the source. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:05, Dec. 21, 2005

That's odd - any idea why it showed up on the Recently Created Pages when the page had existed previously? Sorry about the CSD tag; never occurred to me to see if there was a page under that name already. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A vandal, 71.225.90.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), vandalized the entry. Rather than reverting the vandalism, Chooserr (talk · contribs) marked the article for speedy deletion. PRueda29 (talk · contribs) didn't check the article history and speedily deleted the article. MC Survey (talk · contribs) then created a fresh article. I undeleted the edit history and reverted to the version of the article prior to the vandalism. This scenario is the very reason that administrators are cautioned to check the edit histories of articles marked for speedy deletion. Uncle G 03:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. Thanks for the explanation, and sorry if I exacerbated it. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I guess it must've slipped my mind. Today I've been all over the place with my admin duties, I blocked a user and forgot to add a summary, I deleted two pages without a summary as to why i did, and had to restore them/unblock him and then redelete/reblock. Then I blocked the user for longer than I had originally intended, and I had to block him again. It's just one of those days... you know. Thanks for bringing it up, I'm going to go check my logs for today now to make sure there's no more problems. PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Uncle G 03:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved Dugald Clerk to Dugald Clark. However the correct spelling appears to be Clerk, despite many websites using Clark. Please comment at Talk:Dugald Clark. Andrewa 15:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back to Dugald Clerk. #REDIRECT Talk:Dugald Clerk I am Sir Dugald's great-grand nephew and as far as we are aware - including my 90 year old mother born in Glasgow - the family has always used Clerk. 27 March 2008 Terrybenson (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is this OR? I asked for refs, but the only cite is from the book itself. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G - I've just reverted your redirects of ((dict)) and ((dictdef)), but since I realise you had good reasons for the move I thought I'd better explain. Most of the items marked with these templates are already marked with a stub subtype, so marking them with the general stub template is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive, since there's no way of shifting it from the main generic stub category other than removing the template entirely. Noting on the article that it's due to be moved to wiktionary, however, gives a bit more information, so I've repointed the redirects to ((Move to Wiktionary)). Grutness...wha? 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, they are infrequently used that way, and more frequently used simply as synonyms for ((stub)). Uncle G 06:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism when I've cited the sources multiple times and the edits get reversed. Stanley Ipkiss 04:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what has happened. Uncle G 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. I cited the source several times if you look thru history. I listed urls aswell as secondary sources like searching google or reading the Maxim magazine interview. You and then another guy changed it back despite proper citation, THAT is vandalism. Nonetheless I feel the issue is over now, unless you wish to continue. Stanley Ipkiss 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already looked through the history, and no it is not. You did not provide proper citations at all. (I've already referred you to Wikipedia:Citing sources for information on how to perform proper citations.) Nor did anyone "change it back". The request for a citation was simply repeated, because no citation was actually added to the article. Requesting sources is not vandalism. (I've already referred you to Wikipedia:Vandalism for information on what constitutes vandalism, too.} I strongly urge you to read the pages that I've now referred you to twice. Uncle G 04:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lock pages when you don't get your own way. — Chameleon 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "power abuse" to prevent the repeated re-creation of pages that have been through the deletion process and a consensus to delete them has been formed; and ((deletedpage)) is the normal way of preventing edit wars with users who keep re-creating pages that have been deleted. If you want this template undeleted, request a review of its deletion. Uncle G 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem. Consensus? How many people argued for its deletion? — Chameleon 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the ones who actually expressed an opinion. Uncle G 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be evasive. I shall have to repeat myself. How many people argued for its deletion? Don't lock pages when you don't get your own way. — Chameleon 08:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeating the question will get you the same answer that you got before, because that is the answer. The decision was unanimous. Trying to falsely characterize this as me "getting my own way" or as "power abuse" is just being silly, moreover. This is SOP for repeated re-creations of deleted pages. I've told you what to do, above. You've chosen to ignore that advice, and instead chosen simply to continue being silly. I encourage you to actually follow the advice that I gave to you. I also strongly encourage you to first read what Cryptic wrote. Uncle G 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Silly"? Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. User:Cryptic has a much better approach that you. He's pointed out that I'd missed the pipe trick that makes the template unnecessary. Much better than your heavy-handed blocking. On another note, the answer to my question was "there was only one delete vote", not what you said. — Chameleon 11:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, such behaviour is silly. Moreover, User:Cryptic pointed that out in the original nomination, which you presumably read when you added to the archived discussion, and which I encouraged you to read three times, in both deletion log summaries and yet again above. (Mind you, given that you erroneously think that there was only the one delete vote, it appears that you didn't actually read the discussion, despite my encouragement.) I didn't block anyone, heavy-handedly or otherwise, by the way. Uncle G 12:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]