Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 30 August 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: WP:AGF and defenestrations

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm already on it: . I'm still formulating the post, but it will appear soon.

Cheers and thanks again! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:05

Ta-da! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:27

Archiving

Hi Nickhh, I wanted to offer some archiving assistance? I noticed that your talkpage is starting to get a bit long. Just FYI, anytime a page gets over about 32K or so, some browsers start having trouble with it. Your page is currently over twice that. If you'd like, I'd be happy to set up an archiving bot for you? That would automatically check your page on a regular schedule, and auto-archive any threads that had been inactive for a certain amount of time. You would still be able to access them in archive, but it would help reduce the load of the "live" page. Thanks, and let me know, --Elonka 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just repeating my offer? The page is currently around 100K. I could setup an archive bot for you very rapidly if you'd like. This would not delete any threads, it would simply move the inactive ones off to a subpage, which would help keep the "live" page more manageable. You could choose whatever time cutoff you like. From a quick glance, I'd recommend a one-month cutoff, but this could be easily configured if you want something different. --Elonka 04:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks - I kind of forgot about this for a while. I actually remembered only yesterday and had a quick look through how to do it myself, only to get confused and give up. Any help would be appreciated, one month would be about right I guess as I don't get that much traffic here. --Nickhh (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) I seeded it with the 2007 threads, and it'll kick in sometime in the next 24 hours to archive the rest. That'll be anything that's been inactive for at least 30 days. If things get quiet, it'll only "harvest" down to a minimum of five threads, so don't worry, it won't ever blank the entire page.  :) Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail address

Tried to e-mail you but couldn't - could you possibly drop me a line using my email form so that I can talk to you off-wiki? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris - I may be being thick, but I can't see how to do that (I'm not very good with the more technical stuff here, even though I'm not an IT idiot at all). And actually I'm kind of against off-wiki conversations as a rule - I don't like it when it's clear that others have done it, so would feel a bit odd doing it myself. Plus I prefer to limit my involvement here to those times when I'm actually, well, here if you see what I mean (and I've been on site more often than I'd like recently anyway). Happy to have an open discussion of course though, if that would work--Nickhh (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:EmailUser/ChrisO - you just need to go there and type whatever you want in the form before hitting the "send" button. For future reference, the "email this user" link in the toolbox on the lower left hand side of the page is what you need to look for. I generally agree about open discussions, but this concerns an administrative issue - it's not appropriate for an open discussion at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was looking on the main part of the page. The thing is I never registered my email here when I set up the account, and as above I'm not sure I want to and to start using it for Misplaced Pages related stuff. I'll keep an eye on things when I'm logged in here though if that helps. Cheers, Nick. --Nickhh (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

Hi Nickhh! Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, as you did here to Operation Defensive Shield. I trust that you are well familiar with the dispute resolution process, especiall the sentence Discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. In other words, if an issue is raised on talk and you oppose it, make your claims on the talk page and not in the article itself. I hope you understand and this notice creates better cooperation between the two sides. Good day, Ynhockey 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're referring to the edit itself or the edit summary - the edit was fair enough, as material had been removed without consensus and I merely restored it, as any editor has the right to do. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I was just putting back some detail which made the box more balanced. And I did of course explain why on the talk page before making the edits (you seem to be suggesting I did not?). I do accept though that I could have phrased the second edit summary better - I was just trying to rather clumsily and pithily explain the point about balance, since in my view it read like some kind of IDF/MFA victory press release as phrased. Having said all that, as I've now also said on the talk page, I think Nudve's subsequent version is more or less the right way to go. --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC

Since you were involved in this dispute (and I've cited your words in connection with it), you may be interested in seeing Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka‎. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New section

Nick -- I meant it as a joke about protection my ego (so my comment could be seen). I tried to then make a blank edit with an explanatory edit summary, but it didn't take for some reason. Hope you didn't take offense. HG | Talk 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, not at all. I understood exactly and was trying to be funny in response, but deleted the emoticon wink I had originally put in because, well, I don't do that sort of thing --Nickhh (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

As Elonka already warned you, articles in the relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, are under a ruling of discretionary sanctions.

Your recent edit warring over Nahum Shahaf is unacceptable, and you have persisted despite numerous warnings and expressed BLP concerns. Given that you no longer attempt to resolve the dispute through the talk page, you are hereby banned from editing the Nahum Shahaf article entirely for a period of 60 days (not including the associated talk page).

Please note that further disruption, including persisting with incivil edit summaries or more edit warring, will lead to stronger sanctions up to and including complete topic ban and blocks of increasing duration. — Coren  18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)