User talk:Aecis/Messages 61-72
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| User:Aecis' archived messages | |
|---|---|
| Messages 1-12 | Messages 13-24 | Messages 25-36 | Messages 37-48 | Messages 49-60 | Messages 61-72 | Messages 73-84 | Messages 85-96 | Messages 97-108 | Messages 109-120 | Messages 121-132 | Messages 133-144 | Messages 145-156 | Messages 157-168 | Messages 169-180 | Messages 181-192 | Messages 193-204 | Messages 205-216 | Messages 217-228 | Messages 229-240 | Messages 241-252 | Messages 253-264 | Messages 265-276 | |
Contents |
[edit] Dear Aecis
Something seems strange to me.
It appears that we are in much more of an agreement than I had thoght.
Perhaps, If Some of the changes that I was working on were not being deleted as I was making them, but rather- things would have been left for a while for me to put some order into, then it would have turned out that we were both happay with the results.
For example:
Please note that I have created a sub-Category American Scientists, sorted under A in Science subcategory.
On the other hand, I have created a similar sub-category Israeli Scientists, which has been promptly deleted from the page, abruptly puuting an end to a planned series of consistent modifications as I was working to complete them.
You have pointed out the well arrangement of the American science layout, which is exactly what I have also pointed out. So where do we differ? Why delete changes as I am working on them?
The problem that I have, for which I was asking for clues is this:
When Creating somesub-category pages, in that hierarchical process I was workin on, I have found, as expected, that the resulting sub-category page had only the entry I had intended for it to have, say, Scientists by Discipline sorted alphabetically ( I am only familiar with the method - [[category:Scientists by Discipline|D], using pipeline D to put it under D (all, just an example )), as well as that bottom strip of categories.
On the other hand, other sub-category pages had the same
Scientists by Discipline (sorted under D), as well as An Article, titled Categories:Scientists by Discipline, sorted in a bizarre way.
This has driven me nuts (See also Hard Nut :-) ) since I was not able to understand what was going on.
Finally, please allow me to say that the fact that Category Entries sort out alphabetically automatically, is not in any way in contradiction to adding a Scientists by Name parent category, but rather it falls nicely and neatly right into place, and should be considered intuitive and well-organized, rather than Redundant.
Finally, please allow me to note that elaborating on sub-index pages, and having the "by Name" sub-index, allowing you to make it a sub index of more than one "Parent Index", Does not inflate the volume of material, since the actual "End" article-entry is kept unique (i.e. single). Rather- elaborate sub-indexing give you plenty of flexibility in making it possible to find your desired article in multiple "jungle" paths. This also includes the flexibility of leaving sub-indexes- empty, waiting to be populated at a later time, when another editor sees the need for such a population from his perspective.
I have follwed your advice, and am copying Category Talk:Science on this.
please forgive me for being new to "talks".
Best,
--Hard Nut 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maoririder
Hello. I'm here just to note that Maoririder/Jingofetts isn't currently blocked/banned (see WP:SFD nomination of family-film stub). So his unsuitable creations (if any) will have be deleted by SFD, not speedy. (Unless you know otherwise, of course) Conscious 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats on the postion! Deckiller 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats! If you've any questions about your new superpowers, just drop me a note. Have fun! Grutness...wha? 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- congradulations from me too. good to see another stub sorting admin :) BL kiss the lizard 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck! --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations and best of luck. I'm sure that you'll be great as an Admin. Jim62sch 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RFC/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|(talk) 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Congatulations from Eddie
I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Aecis on Your promotion. All I ask is that you support me when I run later this year. Thanks -- Eddie 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Noting responses on Eddie's talkpage which are applicable here... (congrats, btw Aecis.) NSLE (T+C) 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's just innapropriate. Admin voting isn't a tit-for-tat thing; it should be based on merit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Bunchofgrapes. --Do NOT ask things like that--, no carrot sticks. Retract and apoligize for that now or it will be used against you on your RfA. Also, make sure to avoid rallying on vote pages. Rallying is spamming people who you know to vote on something when you already are certain what they will vote for. Take not of these things so you can be an admin, and a good one too.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to offend anyone, especially the above users (Bunchofgrapes, NSLE, and Voice of All) by saying that, I'm sorry for saying what I said. -- Eddie 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
For doing such a good job as a new admin, and being quick to ask for help where needed, I award you this barnstar. Don't hesitate to ask if there is anything I can help you with. -- Essjay Talk • Contact 02:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good one to have to remove; glad I could be the one to kill it off! ; - ) -- Essjay Talk • Contact 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mistle
Oh, sorry I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistle (talk • contribs).
[edit] Congrats
I congratulate you on your new role, and wish you all the best. --Bhadani 07:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats Æcis... I didn't see your RfA, so I didn't vote. Good to see you're so spectacular that you made it without my support. Mazal tov, good luck, and I hope to have nothing but amazing marvelous sparkly spectacular relations w/ you in the future. Kol hakavoð. Tomertalk 09:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your Rfa
Congrats! You earned it. I only support those who I feel are worthy. You certainly qualify. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 18:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well! Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
A belated congrats from me. I also wanted you to know that I prefer messages without fancy layouts. My thank-you messages were lacking a fancy layout much in the way yours was. :-) --Deathphoenix 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch admins of en-wiki
sorry to disappoint you but no, you're not the first. There aren't very many though - User:MacGyverMagic is definitely one, and I'm not sure but I think User:Radiant! might be Dutch. I can't think of any others. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- And User:Jfdwolff and User:Kim Bruning, I think... Tomertalk 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cohabitation
I don't know why Matt Yeager is attacking you. What he is defending is clearly original research. Thank you for defending its removal. This sort of thing was one reason I removed many articles from my watchlist. -Acjelen 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need your assistance again
Hi, I am MilesD. You responded to an inquiry I made on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You posted some type of warning to that user's page for a Pinfo4 template, advising them of Wiki policy re:contacting people employers.
I had a similar thing happen to me on that same talk page by a user calling themselves "Aslan", who I think might also be a sockpuppet name for the same person (T.Barber) who "outed" the other editor to his employer. Or it may be a sockpuppet for someone named TrillHill. In my case, they tracked my IP address and then posted my "real name" on the Wiki talk page and threatened me, a name which is not in any Wiki records, but is on another e-group I belong to.
After I saw that this is how these types of things can be handled, as you did, I posted another request last night on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page titled "Posting personal information about a user" requesting help for my situation. Would you mind checking out my post and also possibly post to that user a Pinfo4 template, so they won't keep revealing my private name again on Wiki?
Thank you very much. MilesD. 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Aecis, here is the info you requested on the Admin noticeboard. I posted it there also:
- Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, Archive #5, Content #4 titled "To the editors and moderators". The link is: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_5#To_the_editors_and_moderators
- Thank you very much. MilesD. 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
