Revision as of 01:10, 1 February 2007 editNight Gyr (talk | contribs)Administrators12,224 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:45, 1 February 2007 edit undoJohn Reaves (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,487 edits ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
*] ] 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | *] ] 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
**Ah, I've been quoting it repeatedly in the debate that just started at ], and I think things could be helped if that was explicit somewhere. ] (]/]) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | **Ah, I've been quoting it repeatedly in the debate that just started at ], and I think things could be helped if that was explicit somewhere. ] (]/]) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
== Reply == | |||
In case you hadn't noticed, that was 11 hours ago, so I am ''obviously'' not going to change it back. Your ex post facto warning is completely worthless. If you had bothered reading the history of this "edit war", you would see that I quote a speedy deletion criterion in an edit summary. You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important. ] <small>]</small> 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:45, 1 February 2007
Notices |
---|
Yes, I am an administrator. |
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. |
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes. |
For past discussions on this page, see the archive. |
hi! Blueaster 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The User:Carlpeterson spammage
Thanks for putting an end to that mess! Could you close the pending AfD on one of them? DMacks 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was right in the middle of doing exactly that. Uncle G 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! DMacks 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to User talk:Navou
I do appreciate your comments and hope that you will allow me to explain my reasoning. My recommendation was just that, only a recommendation. My recommendation clearly did not reach consensus, so no harm done, right? I stated what "appeared" to be an applicable principle and asked if this could be included into another project instead. I might change my recommendation to keep after seeing some debate, and seeing that I might be wrong about the guiding policy, or about the article.
The nominator stated "I humbly ask that the nomination just be ended now." so I closed the AFD as nom withdrawn and keep. I was the only dissent, and I withdrew my recommendation.
Also your text on my talk page appears a little presumptuous and cross, as I did put a little thought into 'What can I do to improve this article" I came up with nothing. Forgive me if I am mis-interpreting your comment. I am very familiar with the process and policy.
You are however correct about one thing, I did not look at the articles age. I'm human. Please in the future help me to improve rather than use comments like "You clearly did not..." Instead "Did you look for sources or try to expand..." might have come across better. You and I have a common goal, we both want to see Misplaced Pages succeed. I hold this project in high esteem, as I am sure you do. Just word your stuff different, if possible. ;P Navou 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Bum Fuck, Egypt
Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the things that the search locates.
- And what indication do you have that I didn't? The last listed item should have been a tiny hint. Or is the above your "Google hits" macro that you click on automatically every time you read the word "Google"? --Calton | Talk 02:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have the very words that you wrote as an indication: "21 hits in Google Books" "24 in Google Blogs". You're counting hits right there, without a mention of what those hits actually are. Uncle G 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Svenska in other languages
In Misplaced Pages:Notability, if you look at the "in other languages" bar, you'll see about 6 links to the sweedish language page that links you here, it began with your edit, I don't know how it got in there, and I don't see any visible code in the source that links to that page. What shall we do? I already made a comment on it on the notability talk page. Thanks RiseRobotRise 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I solved the problem, you can read about it here. RiseRobotRise 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The correct solution, as implemented by another editor, was to edit the actual template to fix the change that was recently made to it. The page itself was not the problem. Uncle G 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- ah yes, I realized that a few hours later. I was going to replace it with the note or ref tags, but didn't have the time. Anyways, I wasn't able to edit the page seeing hour administrators are the only ones who are allowed to edit that page. Well I'm glad that issue is resolved, and we don't have to worry about that anymore. Thanks RiseRobotRise 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Meta's template breaking on en:wikipedia's help-page mirrors.
Hi Uncle_G,
Templates such as m:Template:For & m:Template:tt (from Meta) are broken on the pages that are mirrored at w:Help:Template & w:Help:Advanced_templates and probably at other places too. For instance:
- {{tt|t|efg}} incorrectly gives: efg
Both of the above don't work as they should have on Meta (here & here), since the w:Templates were called instead of the m:Templates. This rendered the mirrored tutorial confusing for readers. And since I learned and tried that cross-namespace template referencing, calling m:Templates from w:, is impossible, I propose placing a "soft-redirect" on the w:Help_xxx pages instead of a mirror copy, what do you think? Any other remedy? Godric/ 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again,
- Sorry, I later noticed 2 notices on the mirrored pages warning about:
- some template-demos not working on these mirror copies.
- and notifying user not to edit the pages due to the transwiki-overwriting.
- So you knew ahead that these 2 scenarios will likely be happening and they did: (editors contributed stuff that will be overwritten next)
- and it also mass-transwikied the "Help: pages" from meta: to wikipedia:. (here)
- Then,
- What is the rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content?
- And given that template-demos do break in the mirrored pages & editors do lose their contributions upon overwriting, then what rationale actually sustains the "rationale of keeping 2 copies of the same content"?
- Finally, would you mind to instruct your bot to do "softredirect" instead of mirror-copying in order to solve the above problems by keeping only 1 page of content in 1 place?
- Thanks for your attention,
- Godric/ 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The system of having the master pages at Meta that are then copied here was created by other editors. I just do the copying from time to time. As for the templates: Go fix the master help pages if the name conflicts concern you. Meta is a wiki, too. Uncle G 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your info. Godric/ 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for kicking a troll
Thanks for taking care of User:Pontius Ethics and his whiny trolling under the guise of "legal threats." I could have blocked him, but I didn't want to be seen as abusing admin priveleges. Thanks again for your help. --Modemac 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Remember when you admonished me to not delete citations?
Now someone is doing this wholesale. I reported it on WP:ANI#71.231.107.188 (talk • contribs). So you see, I can learn ;-) — Sebastian 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Useless, short-term Yahoo News links -- I see no benefit to Misplaced Pages readers by leaving such deadlinks lying around.
I've switched to flagging, FWIW, but two things: I can't explain the discrepancy with the time stamps, but I did stop as soon as I saw the first 'you've got a new message' banner. Also, many, if not most, were bare URLs like "http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061009/481/9310a1bf28d54264b9ed05f6e2f5d359" which contain absolutely no information future editors could possibly use. I see no benefit to Misplaced Pages readers or editors by leaving such deadlinks lying around. 71.231.107.188 20:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also be interested in the answer to the question asked here. 71.231.107.188 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, in the edits that I pointed out, they were not URLs like that. Uncle G 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion Guide
Just read through the linked guide - very helpful! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I need clarification on one point though - in the guide it states that "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice". However, as you said the correct tag should be {{cleanup-rewrite}}, am I permitted to modify the notice in this case? Thanks in advance. Superfurrycannibal 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just let the discussion process continue to closure in the normal manner. Uncle G 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Simple route
Ya, I saw it. I just don't see that much effort in hitting the delete button to get rid of the history, so that some random guy won't revert into that and bring the problem back in 2 months. - Bobet 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're making a rod for all of our backs. Now we have more editors who think that simple reversion to the prior version of the article, which all of them could have done for themselves, has to go through AFD and requires an administrator to be involved in the process. Uncle G 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Boubli
I see you've speedy deleted the above article which is appearing on AfD, is there any chance you can close it for me? Cheers RyanPostlethwaite 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Deleting the right articles
I agree. That's why I removed one from the AfD batch because it looked plausible. I personally always leave plausible links too even if they were WP:COI violations but not everyone agrees. --BozMo talk 12:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review to change name
Hi, there is a undelete review to change the name of the Anglophone/Analytic article, see:
Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17#Analytic.2FAnglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy
regards, Lucas 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox
A few extra eyes ont hat one now, thankfully. I think SB is a decent editor but given to strong opinions. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is very true (nice essay). I came too close to violating 3RR today in trying to maintain the integrity of articles that SqueakBox and another editor are attempting to derail because they choose to characterize the articles as "racist" and therefore they are automatically PoV violations. I refuse to be dragged into bad editing and refuse to continually be characterized as racist or a defender of racism or a fringe lunatic just because the other person refuses to read correctly or accept what they are reading or discuss a compromise or even acknowledge the basics of what's being discussed. Sorry, Uncle G. I may return to see what the state of the article is later, but for now I have given up on stabilizing or improving the article on the term Brown people. Good luck. ju66l3r 00:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have run out of patience with this user as they continue to unwarrantedly mischaracterize my efforts (and your's) as "racist", "OR", and "trolling". After a threat of admin action on my talk page and finally another comment on the article talk page that they will crusade against my editing efforts on the article (and your's), I have simply run out of patience. I began a ArbCom enforcement for their "personal attack and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith" parole which is only halfway through. I just felt that you should know since you are somewhat involved. ju66l3r 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And another thing...
The tireless contributor barnstar | ||
If there were such a thing as a canonical definition of "tireless contributor", then Uncle G would be that editor. The man who takes "sofixit" and makes it so. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
Silly, silly monkey
Thanks for the :-) I'd love to be able to put a "Silly Monkey" Graphic into some of those absolutely nonsensical AfD's (especially the massively lame sock puppeteers! Maybe I'll recruit an artistic-type friend to come up with the "Chewbacca Defense Barnstar" for massively lame & long-winded debaters (would look good on some Discussion pages too!!) SkierRMH 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice going on paper cup
Thanks for the work. It might be even better if you did a merger with Dixie cup--Wehwalt 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Of all the people that understand Misplaced Pages, you are probably my best resource for my question.
- Why are individual video games considered to be "encyclopedic"?
I'm having a bit of trouble, wrapping my Wiktionary brain around that concept. AFAIK, no other encyclopedia has entries like that. Certainly not listed as "Featured Articles" or otherwise advertised as hallmark entries. So, what gives? Is it a concerted troll effort to make Misplaced Pages look astronomically worthless? (If you can answer my question, of course, then I'll ask the same about Pokemon.)
TIA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- For more, see User:Uncle G/On sources and content, User:Uncle G/On notability, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary.
The question assumes a falsehood as its premise. Individual video games are not necessarily encyclopaedic. Some are. Some are not. Facts about video games belong here if they are verifiable from good sources. Whether a game warrants an individual article in its own right, or merely the inclusion of the verifiable facts within a larger context, is determined by whether it is notable. If there is no verifiable information at all about a video game, then it doesn't belong here, in any form. (Misplaced Pages isn't a free hosting service for video game authors to publish their documentation on, nor is it a publisher of first instance for documenting games that haven't been documented already.) If there's only ever going to be a single verifiable fact about a video game, then it doesn't warrant an entire article all to itself.
To explain Misplaced Pages in Wiktionarian terms: Think of Misplaced Pages as being descriptivist. We aren't here to create or to change human knowledge. We are here to document it as it is. Therefore what belongs here is determined by what the world at large has chosen to document. If you look at Bulbasaur#Notes and references you'll see that the world at large has chosen to document Bulbasaur, on web pages and in books. Therefore it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages.
Human knowledge is uneven, unfair, and incomplete. Things that one may consider "worthy" are often completely undocumented; and things that one may consider to be "worthless" may be documented in extensive detail. Misplaced Pages isn't here to right that perceived wrong. (The way to right that wrong is, of course, to persuade the world to write more stuff about the "worthy" subjects, or to pull one's finger out and to write books and articles about the "worthy" stuff onesself. But neither of those involve Misplaced Pages in any way.)
One further thing that perhaps should be included in any "Misplaced Pages for Wiktionarians" guide is this: One thing that we can do at Wiktionary but not at Misplaced Pages is Recognize New Stuff. Wiktionarians can, with enough solid and checkable quotations to hand, demonstrate the widespread use of new words, or of old words in new ways, and adduce and document their meanings. The Misplaced Pages:No original research policy prevents doing such primary research here at Misplaced Pages.
This has some bearing on your question. One easy answer to the question "Why does Misplaced Pages include films/video games/television programmes?" is "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. It should cover fields that one finds covered in other encyclopaedias. What do you expect to find when you look in an encyclopaedia of films/video games/television programmes?". There is a caveat to that. In some encyclopaedias one will find the results of primary research done by the author of the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages can use such research if it has already been done, fact checked, reviewed, and published outside of Misplaced Pages. But, unlike those books, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for such primary research to actually be done directly. Uncle G 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Perhaps I should rephrase my question then. Do you have any idea why the Misplaced Pages "Featured Articles" often feature items that one would never find in a traditional encyclopedia? Personally, I've never seen a "Gaming Encyclopedia" nor a "Pokemon Encyclopedia", but I'll take your word on it, that such things do exist. (And yes, your explanation above was quite helpful.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- What is a featured article depends in large part from both who is willing to work on it in the first place and what editors decide they wish to feature. Featuring things that paper encyclopaedias would not does have a certain cachet with Misplaced Pages editors. For details, though, I suggest reading the present and past discussions at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates and talking to those who are heavily involved in the process. I'm more usually working at the opposite end of the article spectrum, where the articles have far to go before reaching featured article status. Uncle G 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning fi:Misplaced Pages:Hiekkalaatikko
Could you reset also the Finnish Sandbox by your SANDBOT? Some times vandals remove the header template. {{subst:Hiekka}} resets the sandbox. —Iirolaiho 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Space warfare in fiction
An editor has nominated Space warfare in fiction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIO
Hey Uncle G, you took out the old "One day's events count as one coverage" back here, and I've been quoting it lately only to see that it's not in the guideline anymore. Is there any reason it shouldn't be? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2007-01-01#Edit to WP:BIO Uncle G 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I've been quoting it repeatedly in the debate that just started at Misplaced Pages:Notability (news), and I think things could be helped if that was explicit somewhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply
In case you hadn't noticed, that was 11 hours ago, so I am obviously not going to change it back. Your ex post facto warning is completely worthless. If you had bothered reading the history of this "edit war", you would see that I quote a speedy deletion criterion in an edit summary. You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important. John Reaves (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)