User talk:Wangi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived comments:


Contents

[edit] CacheSyntax vandalism

Thanks for reverting that. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Jarrell

Could I please get you to put some more effort into the closing summation here? Experiance shows that if you carefully explain your reasoning you'll get less flak downstream. (To mix my metaphors.) - brenneman {L} 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Thanks/wangi 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV merge

I was in mid merge! (no prob at all, just thought I'd leave you with the code I was going to use, so you don't have to duplicate my effort :) Thanks. :) (feel free to delete this comment when done, or if not needed). --Quiddity 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - much appreciated because there seem to be somethign up with the history merge / undelete functionality just now... Or we were doing it at exactly the same time... So I was left staring at the old content of POV! Thanks/wangi 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was just writing it

See there was no article for country/pop music and I felt it needed to be made. There are many artists who where in this genre. So if you think it isn't good enough then you should try and help make this article better. please write back very soon!!!!!!!!!!!! --Musicaltheatrewiz 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The infobox lists the main genre (but you could also list pop by using "[[Country music|Country]], [[Pop music|Pop]]"), others are listed in the article itself. I think the Country music/Pop music article is a speedy delete candidate because it's basically lacking in context and content (WP:CSD#A1) - it's not required. Thanks/wangi 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Evans

Sorry but I just couldn't stand to see another country artist labeled a pop artist as well, I'm getting tired of it. I figured that you and the other guy were goin to start it up again soon.

Faris b 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Wajda

It's funny I was just looking up the proper deletion procedure on WP:AfD. I've never done one before and I wanted to make sure all my I's were dotted and T's crossed. Looks like you beat me to it though, =). thanks for the help. Naufana : talk 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to London by 195.93.21.104

Wangi, I see you've been following user:195.93.21.104 on the London article. A number of the things s/he's added are simply untrue. I'm concerned we're going to get stuck with a lot of cleaning up to do further down the line as little bits get left behind. I know there are significant areas of the article that haven't been referenced yet, but I'm inclined to revert all the edits and require references before letting them stay because of the huge exaggeration s/he has aready posted. But I don't want to step on your toes if you'd prefer a softer approach. --Siobhan Hansa 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CT Election link created

I just created the link to the correct election, which you just deleted. Sandy 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

?? I never deleted any link: [1]. Confused. Thanks/wangi 09:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Look again, it's there :-) ... [[United States House elections, 2006|2006 congressional election]] in ... you changed the election wiki link from the valid, correct one. Can you please change it back? Thanks, Sandy 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - you changed one incorrect link to another incorrect link, but what we need is the correct link, which was never there to begin with ... arrrgh ... can you insert the correct one, which is Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006  ? I don't want to revert your change. Sandy 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I never deleted any link - I added an additional link to United States House elections, 2006, while maintaining the Connecticut 4th Congressional District link... I have since (following your message here) changed that link to point to Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006... If you think anything is still amiss then please edit away. Thanks/wangi 09:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Now it's correct: thanks. Yes, I realized you didn't delete the correct link, just added another link that didn't go to the right place. All fixed now. Sandy 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I finally went through the diffs and sorted it out, and wanted to apologize for the misunderstanding. I had inserted the correct link, knowing I was going to write the article. While I was writing it, and before your edit, someone else replaced it, then when you made a change to that sentence, replacing it again. No big deal, but wanted to apologize again for the misunderstanding. Best, Sandy 23:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion cats

I think that IP address is mucking about. See: [2]. Welsh is an Elder in the Kirk (it even says that in the flippin article). It makes me suspect that that IP address is purely on a (rather odd) vandalism spree (but not sure, as quite frankly I cannot be arsed going through the history and Googling to check veracity, cos sometimes life is too short). --Mais oui! 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and give it a look mañana, but like you... Well it does look ona quick glance they're adding cats on a whim... Ta/L/wangi 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
At it again, this time from a different IP: [3]. --Mais oui! 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA

  • Thanks for the nomination! I am sorry but I have to decline at this time. I admit to being interested in being an admin, but I am due to have a kidney transplant in the near future and will need time to recover before I can assume these duties. Thank you for the offer, though; may I reconsider after I have recovered? Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please get better soon. We wish you all the best :) -- Tawker 01:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derry City F.C.

Can you please stop removing important information regarding Derry City F.C. from the page? If you refuse to stop this childish behaviour I may be forced to report you to the powers-that-be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnfullerton (talk • contribs) 2006-10-15T18:54:50 (UTC)

reply, thanks/wangi 20:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting other user's comments

Dear Wangi, The point I am trying to make is to get recognition of my predicament. Particularly that I started out on Wikipedia with good intentions, only to have my efforts vandalised and myself subjected to sockpuppet allegations, all by one contributor in particular (I am loathe to grace him with the appellation "Wikipedian"). Furthermore, other contributors from Orkney have been dragged into this, one even having been blocked permanently from editing. I am not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer and I have explained why at a cursory glance the "evidence" might seem to indicate otherwise. I and other Orcadian contributors have been very effectively silenced by the one contributor already referred to, all to the detriment of the Wikipedia project and the truth contained therein. Mallimak 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:The13end

I'm not sure if he even realized what he was doing was vandalism. I'd probably post a personal note to his talk page telling him that we appreciate his contributions, but unfortunately, we don't consider book releases (or movie releases, or video game releases) to be historically notable events. He seems to be just an overly enthusiastic kid. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was careful to make sure an edit was made before the next warning made, likewise I was concerned with "I WILL DO ANYTHING I HAVE TO IN ORDER TO GET MY HANDS ON THE SNICKET FILE AND SUGAR BOWL! AS, YOU SEE, I AM ON THE BAD SIDE OF V.F.D" (VFD?) and their initial talk page. But saying that 31hrs is probably a bit much, If you agree I'll reduce that to 12? Thanks/wangi 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I was about to send him a personal note when you blocked him, thinking that he just didn't get it. If it was me, I'd reduce it to "time served" along with a personal note explaining why we can't commemorate every book release on those pages...then consider him on probation for the immediate future. But it's totally your call. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks for stopping by! /wangi 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. I'm going on the theory (from his username) that he's an excitable 13-year-old, so I sent him a note explaining what he did wrong, and what he needs to do differently next time. If he does the same thing when he comes back, he won't be able to say "I didn't know." -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your blocks to 203.166.99.248

Your blocks to the IP address 203.166.99.248 keep on autoblocking me :( --wj32 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the hassle, I've remade the block so it only effects anonymous users. Thanks/wangi 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For reverting my user talk page :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Wangi, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam IP 83.26.240.29 Reverts

Thank you for the help; this spammer is getting me overwhelmed. E. Sn0 =31337= 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also three other IPs with the exact same spam MO in case you want to block them or the whole Class B subnet. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Correction: It's now a whole bunch of IPs from the 83.26.xx.xx subnet! Just look down that edit history and you'll see what I mean. Thank you. E. Sn0 =31337= 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh rail maps

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

I'll tone down the green; you're quite right about that.

I wasn't sure about the status of the line at Abbeyhill. There were certainly tracks there the last time I passed. I'll edit it to reflect the changes; I think it is in a state of disrepair in parts though so you are right, it doesn't belong.

The position of the Princes St station is correct I think.

I consciously missed out goods-only stations to avoid (even more) clutter; although on that basis the Caley stations at Leith Walk and Ferry Road were, I think, never opened to passengers and should arguably not have been included on that basis.

I also missed out very temporary halts like the one at Meadowbank for the 1972 Commonwealth Games. I think there were others too.

South Leith; my main source, Edinburgh's Railways by WAC Smith and Paul Anderson disagrees with you and has the Caley station as Leith East (Goods). He also has the present-day Brunstane as having been Niddrie (second station), not Joppa.

I really appreciate your comments; I was already trying to verify the Abbeyhill question when you sent the message so that was very useful, as was the idea that somebody had noticed my work at all. Thanks again. --Guinnog 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

On closer examination of [4] I see you are right about Princes St station. I hadn't realised about the slight bend in the Edinburgh and Glasgow line. I'll amend my maps. Thanks again. --Guinnog 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See what you think. Image:Edinburghrail2006.png Image:Edinburghrailold.png
I appreciate your help. --Guinnog 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I took some pics today which thoroughly back up the Abbeyhill line being unusable. User:Guinnog/trains --Guinnog 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Image:Oct06easterroadrailways-022.jpg would support that! Thanks again. --Guinnog 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future of the BA Connect Article

Hi, I thought I would let you know that I have posted my thoughts on the future of the BA Connect article on the Talk Page. This will shortly become a historical article when the airline ceases to exist, however I feel strongly that the information contained should not be lost. Hopefully my comment on the talk page will provoke discussion before any wholesale changes are made. Regards Stewart 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to IFF disambig page

I'm a little confused why you feel that IIf should be on the disambig page for IFF as opposed to as a "see also" link. The only time I've seen IFF used in relation to computers is as the logical expression "if and only if." IIf stands for Immediate If[5].

You referenced MoS:DP in the revisions you made after my edits, yet section 5.2 of this document recommends that if misspellings are included on a disambiguation page, they be included in a section entitled "common misspellings" or "see also." This is precisely what I did, which makes your spirited comments all the more puzzling to me.

My apologies if I've missed something here; don't hesitate to correct me. My primary desire -- and likely yours, as well -- is to make Wikipedia as good as possible.

-Quintote 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh :) My confusion - I was reading "IIF" as "IFF", sorry! Thanks/wangi 12:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. It's all good.  :-) -Quintote 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Low Visibility Operations at BRS

Your advice please. I can see an edit war starting about the relative merits of easyJet and BA Connect aircraft and their merits as appplied to operations at BRS.

Your thought on the matters would be of use. I have difficulty seeing this a balance without equal treatment being applied to other airlines (and at other airports!!)

Have a look at what I have posted at Talk:BA_Connect#Low_Visibility_Operations_at_BRS; User talk:JulianHensey and User talk:192.149.117.69

== Stewart 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An intersting one, like you i'm left wondering about the relevance of the issue - why compare the EasyJet fleet to the BE one at all - they're use different classes of aeroplanes to start with. The reference used is a primary one (the dry stats) and leaves me thinking of this as original research - is there a source out there drawing the same easyJet vs. FlyBE conclusions from the data? I'll have a bit more of a think about it and then note my comments on the article talk page. Ta/wangi 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deleted revisions.

Can you temporarily undelete Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Airport Vandal so I can obtain the contents thereof for source-use? You can undelete it into my userspace or somewhere like that if you don't want to undelete it in WP: namespace. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Undeleted, and listed on deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 8#Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Airport Vandal. Thanks/wangi 10:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not requesting permanent undeletion, rather I wanted to get the text temporarily, as per points 4 and 5 of "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion" of WP:UNDEL, hence the DRV filing isn't necessary; when I'm done with it (Probably before the end of today) I'll put a CSD tag or it or notify you. 68.39.174.238 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanx dude, I appreciate it. 68.39.174.238 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock by newbie admin

Hi, I saw an unblock request by Evw2k (talk • contribs), who seemed to have been collateral damage of a two-week IP block of a school IP you did the other day, 67.95.199.114 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). The guy seemed to be a bona fide good contributor, so I unblocked. Hope I did everything right by just unblocking the IP, I'm not very firm yet about the technicalities of autoblocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RE: "Web site"/"website"

Regarding [2], no I did not blit away any other major edit - i did check first. The only other edits you made in your original edit were only minor layout issues - things were fine anyway. Please by all means revert to the original lowercase version of the article and remake the minor edits. Given you have made a major change throughout the article to capitalise every use of "web" then it is you that should be getting consensus for this change on the article's talk page - I only reverted to the version of the article which has had the normal/common lowercase usage for a long time. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is where I got my basis from. Please read the discussion page at Website. The section is called The media does NOT use "website." It is also discussed on various other parts on the discussion page, and on discussion pages among other related articles. ~ UBeR 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus there at all, plus many media outlets do use "website". Thanks/wangi 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlternativeAccountK

Don't block me, that is harassment. Thanks.--AlternativeAccountK 09:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Konstable's alternate account. Leave him be.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Konstable / AlternativeAccountK. Looks like a misuse of a sock and the admin bit too... I'll not block again, but this nonsense certainly isn't helping an encyclopedia get written! Thanks/wangi 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What misuse is there? No ban evasion. No block evasion. No abusive sockpuppetry.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wangi, go actually read WP:SOCK. Especially WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. And you should think twice before knowingly blocking another administrator. The sock is legitimate, I have not abused it anywhere. It was created to close of some of my business after I was gone because I did not want to make any futher edits from this account. Ok?--Konst.ableTalk 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not knowingly block another admim, anyway I have turned this over to the community. Thanks/wangi 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What made you think the sock was being misused (that is, specifically, in what way)? El_C 11:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, this is a great photo of goats (question: what is the goat at the bottom right doing? Could it be licking?). Nicely done! El_C 11:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and yeah - I think it is!
One of the edits by AlternativeAccountK is them talking account their other account being blocked and using this account to continue to post. I noticed this and also that all of the other edits by the user were to user talk pages only, and no constructive main-space edits. So while I didn't have any concrete evidence who the original user was (infact I had no clue at all) I felt it was a clear violation of WP:USER - any attempts to get an account unblocked should be done through the proper channels, not by using a sock account.
And to confuse matters further it turns out that Konstable had yet another sock, and that was the reference in edit, not their main account... Ta/wangi 11:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice, my cat also loves licking, so naturally, I'm a big fan (of licking)! Yeah, it looks sorta complixcated. It appears one of (?) the alternate accounts was closing AfDs as delete. How peculiar... El_C 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Please do not tag good faith edits by other users as vandalism. Wikipedia:No original research is an official policy on Wikipedia - please have a good read through it. Remember too that this is an encyclopaedia and articles should be written in an encyclopaedic-tone and have citations. Thanks/wangi 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember you were unblocked above because you indicated that you would stop doing these reverts... /wangi 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This was one -of many- case of vandalism by AMIB. He has removed many well referenced parts, and removing the game that is considered the worst ever by everyone -take a look at the article page, it's overrun with references to it- is vandalism. That entry is no OR, it is well referenced and supported by everyone. JackSparrow Ninja 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

no worries - just correcting the odd typo and messed up reference

[edit] Answer to Deletion Review post

In reply to your post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_13#.5B.5BYehuda_Zisapel.5D.5D :

    • Oh really?? You would have a Bill Gates article but not a Steve Balmer article? Anyway, your answer is not to the point, because, as I said, and I will say it again, the article was indeed bad, and today I started to totally revise it, but they didn't give me time to breath, and it was deleted before I could even make the required changes and additions. Again, if someone says he/she is working to amend a bad article, you do not delete the article before he/she posts the revision. And this was done on the same day. Undelete - I need to post that corrcted article!! —comment added by John Hyams(t/c)
As I said, nothing is stopping you writing a new and improved article. Thanks/wangi 09:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For reverting the Vandalism done to to my page by [[User:200.181.82.179]. Richard Harvey 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webspam in extlinks in London

Hi, I wanted to ask you, if you think, that my site (and few others) are spam. [ http://great-britain.elfineer.cz ] If you think it is, I will not put it back (of course), but in my opinion are these links quite useful, because...: a) this photosite contains my original photos (not some copies from other sites) and the site is noncommercial (only few adsense ads, but it is for hosting, it does not make some huge incomes :)) b) websites with photos are IMHO related to London theme c) everyone who clicked to this link ('London in photos') knew it was photos of London and it was interesting for 320 visitors from London WKP in this half of month. Thanks for your answer :). I don't want to spam the page, but it can be useful for visitors. Elfineer 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)elfineer

Hi there, yes - i'd always consider a site being added by it's owner as spam (see also what WP:EL has to say on this). Granted the site isn't "too spammy", but Wikipedia already has heaps of London photos so we're hardly in need of links to external ones. A better help to Wikipedia would be to upload a selection photos that could be considered for use directly in the article. The image description page could include a link to your site (for example see my photos. For more info on uploading images see WP:UPIMAGE. Any questions, just ask! Thanks/wangi 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking through your contribs I see you've already uploaded images, so sorry for stating the obvious above :) However don't be shy about adding a link to your own site on those image description pages. Thanks/wangi 10:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I think, that there are many nice photos on my site, which are not 'too nice' for encyclopedia. There should be photos like London Eye or London Bridge, but there are not enough space to photos like standard street... Examples: [1], [2]... I think, that link 'London in Photos' may be interesting, but it depends on your opinion :).

[edit] Virtual Processor rename

Freaky deaky. I *just* decided to rename the page Virtual processor to Virtual Processor and submitted the change at 22:55, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia said "no" the target page name already exists. Turned out you already renamed it *within the same minute*.

How weird is that? Duckbill 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Freaky indeed... I was thinking about cleaning up Taos and VP (disambiguation) to meet MoS:DP, unless you want to :) (except bed is calling) Thanks/wangi 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Your MoS:DP razor appears to be sharper than mine, so I will defer that honour to you :-) Ta, Duckbill 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global City

Please sort out the content dispute in Global city on the talk page of the article. It's doing no good if it spills off into the article itself. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novas Software

I saw your comment about Pure Dead Brilliant and have posted a brief reply. Am I right in think you were primarily concerned about the links being potentially {db-spam} or similar? If so, if you have a moment I wonder if you could have a look at the article and talk page of the above, and comment? The original article only had a website link - no references at all. Amazing photographs by the way, perhaps deserving of a link from Pure Dead Brilliant? Do you have any of the Hebrides by chance? Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (I'll watch here for a reply).

[edit] Aer Lingus

I was very disappointed to see your removal of all the very helpful links to Airliners.net on the Aer Lingus article. I found them an excellent picture resource and I am baffled why you took them away. They are not advertising so can you explain your reason for their removal? Unfortunately putting them back is going to be a large job because you made other changes at the same time, I doubt that I can face doing it - Adrian Pingstone 10:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection - thanks!

Thank you very much for protecting Barton Seagrave. I was watching the activity on it and was going to request that it be protected very soon - you were one step ahead of me. -- FaerieInGrey 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, they've just earned themselves a block too/wangi 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XP definition

I am inviting you on my disscusion page User_talk:Littlesal for sorting out the issue.- Littlesal 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Orcadian bias

Dear Wangi, I though you were above Mais oui's anti-Orcadian agenda. I am very disappointed. It is a great shame that you and he don't welcome contributions from those of us who actually know what we are talking about. At the moment a very distorted view is being presented by Wikipedia, particularly by the "promote Scotland" lobby. 81.129.168.39 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall reply here, since it is hard to follow around your IP accounts. I do not care at all about the content, I've little interest in if somebody is Orcadian or Scotland so long as you can cite the change. Your behaviour is disruptive and not the way to proceed - rather than constantly push your point-of-view on articles instead you should be making constructive comments on the article talk pages. This encyclopaedia is built around a number of core policies - one of which is WP:V, so it really does not matter if you know about something because we have to rely on published sources (see also WP:OR). If you continue this behaviour then I will block the accounts on sight since you are using multiple IP accounts to get around WP:3RR. Thanks, and please contribute constructively/wangi 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Several Orcadians are now using IP accounts rather than logging on because of the treatment we have had earlier, including being tracked by user:Mais oui!. We are not pushing our point-of-view, we are COUNTERING an anti-Orcadian point-of-view. Several of us have tried the talk page route, and although there have been contributors who have supported us, the aforementioned user went out of his way to revert our edits and vandalise our contributions ad lib. usually without any censure whatsoever. You are applying a different standard to our contributions that to those of others - I don't see you reverting every contribution that does not cite, which amounts to the vast majority, let's face it. It would be great to get your support on this - think about it. 86.143.58.93 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move NOT Remove

I didn't remove them, I moved them. Dont jump to conclusions... as I believe I noted that I would be moving this section.--Golich17 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do it in one edit :) Thanks/wangi 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on spammer

nvm. blocked already :) User talk:71.80.200.118 is at it again. Block, please and thank you ;) --Quiddity 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 47 20 November 2006 About the Signpost
One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Community Foundation

Hi wangi,

New to this (signed up today). Did not read the guidlines before i added 3 links to (what i thought) were pertinent pages. You're probably right about London page, the link is not directly relevant. But I would like to link to the website of the Capital Community Foundation (in London) from the Community Foundation page. Many US foundations are linked.

How do i go about doing that?

Thanks Rhysmoore 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanday Light Railway

I am concerned that this article exists purely to provide a commercial link to the owner's business. Can it be recommended for deletion? 81.129.175.66 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel Airways

Just to say thanks for your edit, I had tried early to explain it was just a trading name but somebody reverted it. MilborneOne 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cumbernauld Photos

Hi Wangi, yes i am Michael Westwater, and I did take the photos. I have just reduced the size of the pics. I did have original copies which were much larger, however I have misplaced the disc I have stored them on.

[edit] Philosophy Talk

Hi, I'm an avid listener of "Philosophy Talk," a Bay Area radio show hosted by two philosophy profs that addresses a huge range of topics, so I thought that some episodes would make great external links. The show is braodcast from a small public radio station in San Francisco and definitely presents itself as an educational resource. What's wrong with linking to it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defyn (talk • contribs) 2006-11-24T20:55:19 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL for Wikipedia's guideline on external links. While each link you added might concern the topic, it is not a unique resource - there are thousands are other pages on the web like them. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory. Thanks/wangi 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Philosophy Talk is the only professional quality radio show in America regularly devoted to philosophy. The guests are frequently among the leading philosophers in America. They talk about topics about which they are uniquely qualified. The episodes are both enlightening and entertaining. The shows are produced out of Stanford University. So in what sense are they "not a unique resource" an in what sense are there "thoursands of other pages on the web like them?" Many of the articles to which relevant Philosophy Talk episodes were linked also link to the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy -- another public service out of Stanford Philosophy. Why are links to the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy okay but links to Philosophy Talk -- which is just as serious and just as useful and even more unique -- not?? Please explain more fully. Kennetha 08:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)kennetha

[edit] Revert of added link by Defyn

Regarding this link on Animal Rights: "Philosophy Talk" episode Why was this deleted? It looked good to be. --Bhuston 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Defyn - the user was going through many articles in quick succession adding links to the same site - link spamming. Clearly there was not enough time between each for the user to work out if it was a unique resource and useful addition to the article, rather anything that had an "episode" on the website got a link on the related article. That is not what external links are for, remember that (from WP:EL):
  • "Links should be kept to a minimum"
  • "Links normally to be avoided ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article."
  • "Links normally to be avoided ... Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users"
Thanks/wangi 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if you want another opinion you try WT:WPSPAM. Thanks/wangi 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panorama Tools

The NG members kept reverting your changes. Can you put them on a 24 hour ban to cool off? John Spikowski

Hello Wangi, I believe your edits on Panorama_Tools were in good faith. My editing was done in error (but also in good faith) because I thought it was (once again) vandalized by John Spikowski. However his list of contributions and Block log show that he is not interested in adding content other than promotional links to his own web site. My edit that John instantly reverted is based upon a long discussed decision making process. I hope you also accept the reasons and revert your edit yourself.
The reason to delete the link to panotools.info is also discussed on the article's talk page as well as on GraemeL's talk page in two sections. Due to ongoing copyright infringements on panotools.info that link should be deleted from WP. John keeps inserting that self promoting link. See this Request_for_investigation --Einemnet 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl,

Please tell the truth here on the Wikipedia. The PanoTools wiki was copied by your group and I'm mirroring back the edits with credit given. Please read the GNU FDL and you will see that I'm not violating any copyright laws. The PanoTools public wiki is not the property of the NG group so please stop calling it your wiki. It can not be privatize this late in the game. Try adding some content rather then deleting my only entry for the PanoTools non-profit group. You really need to find another way to promote your startup group other then trashing the old group you left of your own free will. Your always welcome to rejoin the PanoTools group and be part of the PanoTools family once again. John Spikowski

Assuming that I don't tell the truth is IMHO a violation of WP:NPA. My links above show exactly every information where John Spikowski's site violates the copyrights of other individuals. It's interesting that he is not able to proof only one of his claims. His content phrase (Try adding some content rather then...) reminds me of something that I wrote earlier to him and is only a bad joke when one compares my list of contributions with his. His newest edits [6] try to alter the history of the term PanoTools in his sense which is a violation of WP:N. --Einemnet 08:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl,

The page is about Panorama Tools not the PanoTools group. I tried to start a PanoTools group history page but the NG folks quickly redirected it to the Panorama Tools page. You really need to read the GNU FDL license before wasting any more of the Wikipedia's admin time with your false claims. The members of your group would appreciate if you would spend more time contributing to your facilities rather then generating page after page of false claim about one link on the Wikipedia.

If you remove your groups link then I will remove the PanoTools group link if that will stop this nonsense. John Spikowski

[edit] United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication

I've updated it with the link to AIS that needs the free registration. What about the reference for Canadian aerodromes such as Ferland Airport? The Template:CFS has the volume date but it's not something the casual reader can check unless they purchase the book (CAN$129 for 7 issues) or happen to have access to updated version (like I do at work). A reference for certifed Canadian airports such as Cambridge Bay Airport can be obtained for free by going to NAV CANADA and clicking on the bottom left link (Airport Diagrams) and d/l a 8 MB file but the majority of aerodromes are not covered by that. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's better. I think we need to think this out a bit more in the general sense - the infobox needs to support the addition of a reference to show where the data has come from (this is even more true for the airline articles). As a stop-gap i've move the ref in LBA up into the infobox as an in-line reference. Thanks/wangi 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that I should have used the AIP valid date (23 November 2006) and not the chart date. Then a template like the CFS one could be used on all UK airports that are listed in it. The other problem is that it would require checking every 28 days but at least there aren't 1400+ like the Canadian ones. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending this

Wangi, you have proposed this arbitration to look at my +sysop, but I have long given that up and I have never oposed going through RfA to get it back (in fact I have no doubt that no sane bureaucrat would have just went ahead and re-sysop'ed me). In fact even if I do come back, I do not wish to seek adminship again. The other issue that is being debated is of AltUser, on this issue no one has even cared to present evidence and even Chacor is against any action being taken. I won't be back any time soon, if at all, and there are no ongoing issues here, so what is the point of this arbitration rather than stir things up and waste time? I am proposing that we all just decide to end this.--Konstable II 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with that, drop me a note if there's anything I can do for you in the future/wangi 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block to fattyfatfatfat

Wangi, I appreciate you blocking the vandlaism from Fattyfatfatfat, but I'd like to say that I saw someone other than fatty on fatty's account. also, the last time when he was supposed to have vandalised User:Lightwhip's page i was with him, and he was doing homework. someone else has his password. sadly the real owner of this account does not know how to change his password, so could you please unblock him and then give him a link to tell him to change it. thanks, DanCrowter

Sorry, but i never blocked any such user. To get unblocked the user should follow the procedure at {{autoblock}} or {{unblock}} templates.
However if someone cannot change their password then their account really should be banned for good... Thanks/wangi 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 48 27 November 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mallimak

When are you admins going to finally ban User:Mallimak and all his blatant sockpuppets (at least 60)? Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. It is just getting silly now, and in my opinion you (that is a collective "you" by the way) are being shown to be negligent in your duties. --Mais oui! 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually away on business just now, and very busy (wont see home till the new year)... The IP accounts cannot be banned permanently due to their dynamic nature, however a block of Mallimak themselves should be discussed. Thanks/wangi 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no intention whatsoever of initiating a discussion of a block of Mallimak, considering that I am just subjected to a torrent of abuse whenever I have tried to in the past. It is up to you guys. When are the Admins going to take responsibility for this utterly pathetic campaign of systematic abuse and vandalism by a blatant, serial sockpuppeteer? --Mais oui! 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport

Hi there. A Mediation cabal case has been opened regarding the dispute at Changi Airport. The mediators, User:Hunterd and I, would like to hear everyone's stand on the dispute. Any input is very welcome at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport#Discussion, could you please indicate your stand regarding the dispute, and why you think the names should stay/go? Thanks, – Chacor 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Church of Scotland synods and presbyteries

I was just wondering why you deleted the numbers for Church of Scotland presbyteries? --Slackbuie 22:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please - Cunninghamhead

There appears to be an edit war breaking out between Rosser1954 and Dreamer84 with respect to Cunninghamhead and Cunninghamhead, Perceton and Annick Lodge. I felt the the latter article was getting too large and unweildy and in response to a comment from Dreamer84 I made a suggestion to sectionalise the article. Rosser1954 is now under the impression that I have editting the article and posted as such on my talk page. Now I have been dragged into this, I would appreciate an Admin looking this over. Many thanks, Stewart 21:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Museum of Ayrshire Country Life and Costume for another article that appears to be creating a little contrevesy that Rosser1954 is adding considerable amount of information. Stewart 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Konstable, now voluntarily desysopped, may not be resysopped without using the normal channels, including a request for adminship and community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/n/User_talk%7EWangi_dad5.html"