User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 6
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Opinion needed
Can you comment at
- I also need your opinion WP:FOUR) 06:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please leave the articles alone
You don't know enough about the subject to be making merges. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot see any evidence for consensus for these moves and merges. I have opened a section at the end of RM Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit"), the question being where is the majority agreement of editors for these edits? If these are purely unilateral controversial edits following your own views over the majority of other views in the RM you should consider self-reverting. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion said "no consensus" by the closing admin, please don't move it like there is a consensus saying "as per discussion" seriously, even Chinese people don't know what you are talking about with "surname meaning X" —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The closing admin said that there was no consensus to move to titles with Chinese characters and that another solution should be found. --talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Rob, could you please stop acting like an expert in a subject that you know nothing about? You've already betrayed your complete lack of necessary linguistic and cultural background in your undiscussed and incorrect move of ) 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- The closing admin said that there was no consensus to move to titles with Chinese characters and that another solution should be found. --
- The discussion said "no consensus" by the closing admin, please don't move it like there is a consensus saying "as per discussion" seriously, even Chinese people don't know what you are talking about with "surname meaning X" —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 10:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of orphaning
- Because that isn't how navboxes are supposed to work - we link to articles, not other navboxes. We shouldn't take the reader out of article space. --talk) 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- In this instance, you are looking at it with blinders on. When they are serving to link templates that arguably could be merged. You can make the case you are making. In the case where the reader is better served by going to a template than no where and where there is no reason to propose merging the majority of the templates, a different consideration needs to be made. This is a WP:FOUR) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that they be merged. This is simply incorrect usage of navboxes. They do not provide links to external sites, neither do they provide links out of article space into template space. They provide links between existing articles, and anything that is included on the navbox should have the navbox transcluded. This means that by linking to other templates, the template should be transcluded on the other template, which is not possible. Only articles should be included in navboxes. I think the guidelines probably need to be changed to reflect this. --talk) 07:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- If there is not guideline or policy confirming this already how do you know that consensus agrees with you.--WP:FOUR) 15:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The use of these kinds of footer templates breaks all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at talk) 15:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I read WP:FOUR) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why the guidelines need to be updated. --talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to believe that there is consensus to outlaw intertemplate links in navboxes?--WP:FOUR) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - as explained, the reader needs to stay in article space. --talk) 18:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Says who? Isn't template space better than no information for the reader who is looking for information that is there?--WP:FOUR) 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace. The guidelines talk about easy navigation between articles. --talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- A link that takes you to another template with links to all the articles that you want is providing easy navigation.--WP:FOUR) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- A link that takes you to another template with links to all the articles that you want is providing easy navigation.--
- A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace. The guidelines talk about easy navigation between articles. --
- Says who? Isn't template space better than no information for the reader who is looking for information that is there?--
- Yes - as explained, the reader needs to stay in article space. --
- Do you have any reason to believe that there is consensus to outlaw intertemplate links in navboxes?--
- Which is exactly why the guidelines need to be updated. --
- As I read
- The use of these kinds of footer templates breaks all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at
- If there is not guideline or policy confirming this already how do you know that consensus agrees with you.--
- I'm not suggesting that they be merged. This is simply incorrect usage of navboxes. They do not provide links to external sites, neither do they provide links out of article space into template space. They provide links between existing articles, and anything that is included on the navbox should have the navbox transcluded. This means that by linking to other templates, the template should be transcluded on the other template, which is not possible. Only articles should be included in navboxes. I think the guidelines probably need to be changed to reflect this. --
- In this instance, you are looking at it with blinders on. When they are serving to link templates that arguably could be merged. You can make the case you are making. In the case where the reader is better served by going to a template than no where and where there is no reason to propose merging the majority of the templates, a different consideration needs to be made. This is a
No it isn't, because it takes you away from the articles, not to mention falling foul of the inclusion/transclusion rules. Read and digest the guidelines again. This is not what navboxes are intended for... --
- You have not provided any guidelines that say what you think at this point. I am going to restore the WP:FOUR) 16:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per talk) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per
Using such a long time, and if you want to remove, please get consensus.
Using such a long time, and if you want to remove, please get consensus.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
nitpicking
You've really got a talent for nitpicking. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not nitpicking. That page should only be used where the original name was rendered in Chinese as 南山 - that's what you've been arguing the point of the page is for. If it translates back to Chinese in that way from an English rendering because it was named (in English) after a Chinese name, that's incidental. The vessel was always called Nanshan, never 南山. --talk) 00:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Templates deleted under false pretenses
You blanked a bunch of templates that were under nomination at
- No false pretences. The suggestion was that it was work that should just be carried out, that it was mostly procedural, without the need for discussions, except in cases where it wasn't obvious that a merge was needed. The reason some are out of place with others is due to the fact that there are an awful lot to do. I'm working on them when I find them, but I'm not seeking them out. Think I already said that. -talk) 17:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Title discussion
Hi. I noticed you're name at the talk page for WP:Article titles and was wondering if you could comment at
Template:The Lodger vs Template:Jack the Ripper media
Do not redirect. The latter template is likely to be a huge template when I am done. It will serve a different purpose than the focussed one.--
- Who are you to dictate "do not redirect"? talk) 05:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at talk) 05:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- At the very least you should wait until I have constructed the template. It is likely to have several dozen links and be burdensome to people who are interested in the more focused Lodger topic. Yes all the links are duplicated, but the purpose of presenting a focused topic is not.--WP:FOUR) 06:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't how things work. If all the links are included in the larger navbox, then you'll end up with two navboxes on each page, both containing the same links as the smaller navbox, thus rendering the smaller navbox irrelevant and redundant. --talk) 06:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't how things work. If all the links are included in the larger navbox, then you'll end up with two navboxes on each page, both containing the same links as the smaller navbox, thus rendering the smaller navbox irrelevant and redundant. --
- At the very least you should wait until I have constructed the template. It is likely to have several dozen links and be burdensome to people who are interested in the more focused Lodger topic. Yes all the links are duplicated, but the purpose of presenting a focused topic is not.--
- Have a look at
Template:Andrzej Żuławski
Regarding
Thanks
For this - I couldn't find that template *d'oh* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "
2009, 2010, or 2011?
Please revisit THIS discussion. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Template merges
You should probably do all the Emmy ones now while they are in season and people will be looking at the pages more closely.--
- Okay thanks - will have a look... --talk) 11:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
chainsaw
Fine, you don't think it should be in the intro. And fine, you feel so strongly about it that you're willing to click the undo button twice. Meanwhile, I'm trying to improve the information quality of Wikipedia.
If you can't stand that info being in the intro, move it out of the intro. Or open a discussion on the Talk page. Or leave a message on my Talk page saying what you think could be improved in my edit.
But please don't just click revert, revert. We need to grow the editing community. That sort of attitude doesn't drive me away (I'm not saying that's your intention). I've been here ten years and I've a thick skin. But others would find your behaviour antisocial and they might leave or be less enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia. Gronky (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Attempt at video game template merger
Those templates were already split off from a single template in 2009 after an
PG-13 category
Hey dude I don't freaking criticize your edits and say "its poorly worded". User:TreCoolGuy
- "The F-Bomb" is a colloquialism. You should have gone with use the word "fuck". But it isn't a defining characteristic of a film anyway. --talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Batman vs.Superman
Hi Robsinden! FYI -
- Yeah - I thought that was probably the case. That's the sad thing with talk) 15:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay so let me get this straight...
Images of box sets violate copyright now? Would it be any different if a picture of a box set was taken and uploaded on Wikipedia by a user? Would that classify as a free file? I honestly fail to see the issue here.--DesignDeath (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's been explained to you on your talk page, but you seem to be ignoring the warnings. --talk) 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing at all has been explained on my talk page. I understand the non-free policy, but I don't understand what the issue is with those files specifically. These overly strict rules are damaging the site (imo) and making articles look like walls of text. There can't be a non-free replacement for almost any of the files.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Declined speedy
With respects Rob, I have declined your speedy on
- I just tagged the author's talk page to let him know I am going to return it to him for further work. Hopefully the work I did cleaning it up will show him the way. Cheers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Robsinden. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just
Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage
Hi there,
I noticed that, in this diff, you deleted the section on Wikipedia coverage from the
- I opened up a survey at ) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not make any more reverts. You need to achieve a clear consensus before making such substantive changes. While discussion in progress, please do not make major changes to the article. This may be perceived as edit warring. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus would need to be for inclusion, not against it, as it goes against the guideline. --talk) 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus would need to be for inclusion, not against it, as it goes against the guideline. --
- Please do not make any more reverts. You need to achieve a clear consensus before making such substantive changes. While discussion in progress, please do not make major changes to the article. This may be perceived as edit warring. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
to help the admin see that these footer templates are no longer used, you can perform a 'null edit' on each article shown in 'what links here'. basically, you just open up the article, do nothing, then save the article, which will clear it from the list. I have been doing this for you on the ones that I see after seeing an admin reject your CSD since it did not look like the template was unused. but, I don't have time to do all of them. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Two people doesn't make a consensus. There should have been a discussion with others before you started fucking around the templates.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not undoing anything. Yes a discussion at the film project would be nice.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You're ridiculous.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thanks
That redirect will just be there for a month - an argument was made its not a good redirect so I wanted to see how many ppl actually click on it daily.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Father Ted sitcom ref
Hi, I see you removed the ref, I was suprised it hadnt happened previous! Its a ref for the authors talking about thier ideas, I added it as it shows they believe it to be an Irish sitcom, but the lead has been edit warred to bits lately, I am surprised it lasted this long. Shows that not many read the refs! Best leave it out for now anyhow. Murry1975 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the lead explains that it was made by a British production company further down, so I think that gets rid of any "controversy". Still, I see the infobox had been changed again - thanks for changing it back. --talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Criterion is one source.
The vast majority of English-language sources call it Le Cercle Rouge. Film Fan 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at talk) 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- That article is about books, paintings, etc. NCF is about films. You have shown three sources -- doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of sources use Le Cercle Rouge, and even the Criterion cover clearly shows Le Cercle Rouge. By the way, if we were going by the French works of art thing, it would be Le Cercle rouge, not Le cercle rouge like your sources suggest. Film Fan 14:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Films are works of art, just like books, so the same rules apply. talk) 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article doesn't mention films. And the rule that you use the title most common in the English-speaking world also applies, and is perhaps more relevant. It's a capital C for Cercle either way. French Wikipedia uses Cercle. Film Fan 14:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've put it back to how it was before you or I started editing it. Would suggest that any move / change of capitalisation should be discussed properly. --talk) 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've put it back to how it was before you or I started editing it. Would suggest that any move / change of capitalisation should be discussed properly. --
- The article doesn't mention films. And the rule that you use the title most common in the English-speaking world also applies, and is perhaps more relevant. It's a capital C for Cercle either way. French Wikipedia uses Cercle. Film Fan 14:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Films are works of art, just like books, so the same rules apply.
- That article is about books, paintings, etc. NCF is about films. You have shown three sources -- doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of sources use Le Cercle Rouge, and even the Criterion cover clearly shows Le Cercle Rouge. By the way, if we were going by the French works of art thing, it would be Le Cercle rouge, not Le cercle rouge like your sources suggest. Film Fan 14:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Les enfants terribles (film)
Hello Robsinden. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either
Hammersmith Apollo
Fair enough we can leave the page as Hammersmith Apollo - it is a more recognisable name. But can we please put in the new corporate logo for the Apollo? As the old one you have restored to the page is no longer in use and I have been requested to remove it by both parties in ownership of the Eventim Apollo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfrench41 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- The old logo is in the "History" section, so it does not imply that it is the current logo. The more appropriate place for the new logo would be in the infobox, but I think this is probably better served by the photo. But we have a problem: You say that you "have been requested to remove it by both parties in ownership of the Eventim Apollo". This shows a clear talk) 11:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- That said, the logo looked out of place where it was, so as it's defunct, I've removed it anyway. --talk) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- That said, the logo looked out of place where it was, so as it's defunct, I've removed it anyway. --
Thanks for this
I was going to do the same thing once the AFD was closed, but you beat me to it . Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tuva Novotny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Trivia sections
I'm very much hoping it won't come to this, but if the editor in question persists in their feeling that the section should be named Trivia and is doing it across multiple articles then an ANI case may be warranted. Hopefully we can talk them down on Soylent Green and it won't be an issue.
Development of Jurassic World
Could you have a look at
Talkback
Message added 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Avoid canvassing
Hey there Robsinden. It's totally fine to notify relevant WikiProjects about ongoing discussions, as with your recent interest in Template:Alfred Hitchcock, but be sure to word the notice neutrally, so as to avoid any semblance of canvassing (see "Campaigning" on that page). Ibadibam (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:The Rolling Stones albums
A tag has been placed on Template:The Rolling Stones albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting
- Thanks for letting me know about the problem. I see what happened - the main RS template was duplicated by this IP account edit: [5], and that had never been reverted. I've restored the main template now. Having a distinct album template makes sense as a stand alone - same as the singles and the videos templates, as this gives more flexible functionality. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
double redirects
it would be great if you could fix the double redirects (e.g., the redirects to the templates you redirect). I just fixed these. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Jennifer Lawrence
If you want to edit war, go ahead and keep reverting: everyone else is managing to discuss it like adults on the talk page. Perhaps you ought to try that out instead of edit warring? - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Well done for your edit warring. Now grow up and join in the conversation and stop being such a
) 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)- talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I completely agree, quite ironic [6]. I did not know article talk pages were where discussions about user conduct took place, instead of on user talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks,
appology
Hello Robsiden, I'm Andy'sedits, in case my signature goes wrong. I'm sorry you thougth I disregarded your comment and instructions you left on my talk page. I saw your post about signatures, and I already had one from another person. I forgot to comment there about makign hte so that was why I removed yours without coming here to mention it. I haven't worked out the signature with the 'talk' & auto link,. I read in instructions to do the four ~ as the signature or use the pencil icon. I know htere is no excuse, but I can only think the reason was becuse I left a space between last . and putting the signature. I am a fan of Zombie films, and take the topic seriously, I would only make contribution comment knowing there is relaible propper source to back it up. would make sure I'd qualify if something is my personal opinion only. Hope you excuse the tardiness of my reply.--Andys'edtits 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
Please cease adding AfDs
As has been already said, you need an RfC if you want to delete/merge all these Chinese surnames. Doing it piecemeal through AfD (a) isn't going to work because AFD is based on notability, including non-English sources, (b) is treading a fine line heading towards disruptive and WP:POINTY - I will only comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Surname (郦). Please intitate a RFC. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- We pretty much had consensus before, except for some systemic bias, which you continually have failed to see, yet the discussion was never closed. Hopefully these deletion discussions will get things moving in the right direction. --talk) 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- "We pretty much had consensus before" even if it was true " pretty much" is not consensus. I counted 5 for merge and 5 against, whether that count is right or wrong, it evidently isn't consensus. What do you mean by "systemic bias"? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just lost five minutes work and source because of an edit conflict caused by you hovering over the article adding a "who" ... do you not have other areas of the encyclopedia to disrupt? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I apologise that my crystal ball isn't working today. Don't you get a notification page when you have an edit conflict? This is hardly my fault. Stop being so odious. --talk) 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The basic element of disruption and harassment aside, a notification is of limited use to an editor trying to work with connectivity problems. It is not good practice to hover over an article immediately adding tags when someone is evidently working on adding material. It does not need a crystal ball to see that someone is working. Let me remind you all you have done to this article is blank it, AfD it, and delete things. When you see an editor who adds a print source, translates it, and improves the article, that is not an invitation for you to jump in with a tag half way through. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your connectivity problems are not my fault! You had added something, it seemed like you had finished. How was I supposed to know that you would add something else. But whether that is or isn't the case, Wikipedia tells you when you have an edit conflict. If you did not see this because of your connection, blame your ISP, not me! Seriously, despite your experience, you need to work on your attitude. --talk) 14:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- How editors know that other editors are working on articles is by looking at the time information on the edit summary. If an editor sees another editor, particularly one he/she knows is experienced in the topic area, adding (+1,498) almost doubling an article to (3,566 bytes) at 12:58, it is common courtesy to give that editor breathing space to continue before tagging at 13:05. Generally speaking edits such as tagging, deleting, templating, blanking and similar contributions are easy to do quickly, while wordsmithing, proofing, sourcing, adding content, and in this case also translating a Chinese source is not quick. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please use the {{in use}} template for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it seems you've been lucky then. You still seem to think it's my fault! --talk) 15:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- A user with the experience of User:In ictu oculi is bound to have suffered hundreds of edit conflicts. Anyway, he should use the proper templates before becoming too sniffy and upset about the fact that we should all be able to predict his editing patterns. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who The Rambling Man is or why he is watching your Talk page, but to have another editor appear on your Talk page commenting and calling me a liar is disturbing. I said "Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more." and what I said was and is the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You need to get over your sense of self-importance. You made an edit that had a talk) 09:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have over 8,000 pages on my watch list. This is just one of them. Now, if you're upset about edit conflicts, use the appropriate templates. If you have a crap internet connection, don't come crying to anyone else about it. That's your problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You need to get over your sense of self-importance. You made an edit that had a
- I don't know who The Rambling Man is or why he is watching your Talk page, but to have another editor appear on your Talk page commenting and calling me a liar is disturbing. I said "Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more." and what I said was and is the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- A user with the experience of User:In ictu oculi is bound to have suffered hundreds of edit conflicts. Anyway, he should use the proper templates before becoming too sniffy and upset about the fact that we should all be able to predict his editing patterns. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it seems you've been lucky then. You still seem to think it's my fault! --
- Edit conflicts do happen on discussion pages yes, but I normally add content to articles without someone adding tags at a brief interval. This is the first experience of this kind for many months, probably a year or more. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- How editors know that other editors are working on articles is by looking at the time information on the edit summary. If an editor sees another editor, particularly one he/she knows is experienced in the topic area, adding (+1,498) almost doubling an article to (3,566 bytes) at 12:58, it is common courtesy to give that editor breathing space to continue before tagging at 13:05. Generally speaking edits such as tagging, deleting, templating, blanking and similar contributions are easy to do quickly, while wordsmithing, proofing, sourcing, adding content, and in this case also translating a Chinese source is not quick. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your connectivity problems are not my fault! You had added something, it seemed like you had finished. How was I supposed to know that you would add something else. But whether that is or isn't the case, Wikipedia tells you when you have an edit conflict. If you did not see this because of your connection, blame your ISP, not me! Seriously, despite your experience, you need to work on your attitude. --
- The basic element of disruption and harassment aside, a notification is of limited use to an editor trying to work with connectivity problems. It is not good practice to hover over an article immediately adding tags when someone is evidently working on adding material. It does not need a crystal ball to see that someone is working. Let me remind you all you have done to this article is blank it, AfD it, and delete things. When you see an editor who adds a print source, translates it, and improves the article, that is not an invitation for you to jump in with a tag half way through. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ask at IP I would guess Esperanto
Dear Rob,
I will give you the fix up later but you sent a message to
I presume you removed a reference to Esperanto which he is always pushing, occasionally under other IPs. He has met his match in me because I and my wife User:Monkap have both studied it at university many years ago and it is useful in the study of lingustics (she being native in finno ugric and me in English) but to pretend it is used in real life is a nonsense. He put in that it is an offical langage in Hungary, which is not true, it is taught on linguistics courses and in the narrowesst sense of the word it is official in that you get one mark on your course for having studied it for three months. I pointed out that English is not an official language in England.
I am just warning you cos he is not exactly a troll but a pushpov. In the AfD, it says so called english si trew you say pushpov. Well pushpov is not English it is Wikipedia jargon. argot in french. I only speak jargon in Hungarian but I don't know the word for it. Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Laura Whitmore
I would prefer the description "Irish presenter on british television" because she has never presented any programmes on any Irish stations. 80.111.172.25 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the change in birthplace. Perhaps I should just keep out of this. Jamesx12345 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Moving pages during AfD discussions
Hello, you recently moved a page that was at AfD ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Clover - Film]); when the discussion was closed as delete, the closing administrator ended up not deleting the actual article but instead the pagemove redirect. While the move was correct, could you either 1) refrain from performing pagemoves while the article is at AfD or 2) put a clear note on the discussion page that you moved it? (See
04:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)November 2013
Hello, I'm
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 1 《风俗通》记载: "齐厉公之后,汉有魏郡太守、义阳侯厉温。" 2 《古今姓氏书辨证》记载: "厉国在义阳县北之厉乡,以国为 ... 【楹联】 1 绩茂循良,勋铭带砺(宋厉汪)。 2 威弭郡盗(唐厉文才〉,名重文坛(清厉鹗)。"</ref>
- Sciences Publishing House 2001 Page 176 "他的子孙以他的官名宰为姓,奉宰邴郦姓溯源主要是以国名为姓。夏禹时封黄帝的子孙于郦,郦古音历,一音尺,即古菊潭县(在今河南内乡县东北〕,虽是一个小诸侯国,却立国一千余年,直到春秋时被晋灭掉。" [Yu's sons took the name Zai from his official name, while
Thanks,
John Wayne films
Extended content
|
---|
The MOS supersedes personal opinions. Please read WP:WAI. Separate tables are better for navigation, one lengthy table is ugly and less accessible, especially for that many rows. Your opinions in the edit summary are purely subjective, whereas the MOS is a tried and tested set of standards. The split tables format has been there for over a year, without disruption – no need for you to start now. Ma®©usBritish{chat } 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking for something similar, I had a look at talk ) 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've told you once already, WP:Filmography does not take priority over WP:MOS, as WikiProjects custom MOS are only meant to WP:3RR by now. I suggest you run along to your Wikiproject and await the conclusion of the discussion you started, as you are jumping the gun by attempting to enforce standards that contravene MOS, reducing the article in question to war editing over lesser-MOS layouts. Ma®©usBritish{chat } 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And, regarding the split of the table into year-by-year sections is against talk ) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|
- (WP:IJDLI. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- (
I know about
- Irrelevant. These are not defining characteristics of the film, and put a talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A belated kitten for you
Wikimedes has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
I was going to give you and In ictu oculi kittens after your first exchange at the latest RfC and got sidetracked. In ictu oculi still looks like he needs one, so here’s one for you too. (How and why would one feed a virtual kitten 3 times a day?)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but to be honest, I've walked away from that issue now, due to a cabal of editors forcing their view through against all policies and guidelines. It's situations like this that make me wonder why I bother. --talk) 09:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but to be honest, I've walked away from that issue now, due to a cabal of editors forcing their view through against all policies and guidelines. It's situations like this that make me wonder why I bother. --
November 2013 GA Thanks
WP:WAWARD ) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit warringSee WP:BRD and use the talk page: do not just revert. Your edit was poor and against the consensus on the article, which was why it was reverted initially. - SchroCat (talk ) 09:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit warringYou are involved in an edit war. Stop. Go to the talk page and DISCUSS. On the way there, you may wish to stop by ) 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Category:Carry On films crew membersCategory:Carry On films crew members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC) False deletion edit summaries, removal of valid templateYour deletions at Gina Torres, Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, and Ron Glass have all been reverted by me and another editor, due to false edit summaries and false deletion reasons. Care to explain yourself here, so there's just one central discussion?
--Lexein (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013You currently appear to be engaged in an try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please arrive on one location for your discussion, refrain from any further reverting and get this matter resolved. Your slow edit warring is disrupting this article and all the other Firefly-related articles where it's taking place. --Drmargi (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC) CoincidentallyI see your editcount odometer just clicked over to 20,000. Got a screenshot. --Lexein (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 5 DecemberHello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator .
Thanks, talk ) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Belated itemHello RS. When your discussion about actors in navboxes came up I couldn't for, the life of me, remember where the past discussions were. Well, as happens around here, I stumbled across it today while looking for something else. So the 2nd item here Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries might be what you are looking for. Other discussion might have supplanted this one but I cannot remember that happening. Another flaw with the A&F wikiproject is that we tend to discuss things but the consensus doesn't always get written into the MoS. I hope this is of help and my apologies if it isn't. MarnetteD | Talk 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prehysteria!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject .
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Film award templatesCan you explain why did you merge some of the film award templates to a single navbox?--Earthh (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just divided the template in three sections. I think it's fine now. Thank you for your patience.--Earthh (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Mic NeumannGreat find, raised this at COIN. That clearly confirms my suspicions that there was promotional editing going on at talk ) 13:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent move Moved to
talk ) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
A Boy was BornRe: [8] So it seems to you. Define dismay (a word that I don't know). The image of the baby was criticised by Bencherlite as not relevant to the article, I acted on that. The title page of the score which the composer dedicated to his own father seems more relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC) ps: Define "correct". A correct name cannot be found by consensus, it simply is correct. An article can have only one name. That name can be found by consensus. If there are different names for the topic, why not show them? I would like especially to see with due weight the name chosen by the creator of the music which happens to be the preference of the creators of the article, the style in more than 90% of the sources used for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) RevertingHi Robsinden, I was asked to comment about the reverting at A Boy Was Born and elsewhere. I'm not familiar with all the arguments, but the way forward is to discuss on talk, or start an RfC if no consensus can be found. Continuing to revert, especially when you're changing a style preference, is not a good idea. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Table changesYour opinion is requested at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix#Massive reverts without explanation. --Lexein (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
|