This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BozMo (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 18 January 2007 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:02, 18 January 2007 by BozMo (talk | contribs) (typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 so I closed the AFD as nom withdrawn and keep.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. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Circled_game&diff=prev&oldid=101536478 --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)