User talk:Wangi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is an administrator
This user is an administrator.

Archived comments:


Contents
Info If you leave a question here, then I'll leave my response here...

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Louisville, Kentucky:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about blocking

I thought that when a user evades a block by coming in here with a different IP, they are to be immediately blocked. Why didn't this occur for 76.177.1.141? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest because I probably didn't look back into the history too much. IP blocks are a real PITA, especially when the folk behind the IP's have half a brain cell and know a thing or two about how to avoid things (which wasn't really the case here)! I'll keep an eye on things... As long as you remind me to lift that semi block on the article :) Ta/wangi 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

RE: [2][3][4]

I was just rewriting my speedy deletion tag, when you redirected the page:

Page created by User:Mobile 01 who is the other party in an edit war at Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Page was protected by User:Robdurbar Instead of discussing this page protection, User:Mobile 01 created Firestone, then redirected all links: Bridgestone-Firestone, LLC, Firestone Liberian controversy, Firestone Tire created new page Firestone 100 Years of History, also up for speedy deletion.

If you are an admin, can you protect the Firestone page until the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page protection is resolved?

Have a great weekend, I wasn't planning on an edit war tonight but "Life is what happens when you have other plans" Thanks Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already deleted the 100 years page before I read this, will look into the others, thanks/wangi 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:Robdurbar/Protection#Please_initate_these_four_requests_on_the_ANI_board Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsection

It's just something I'm trying out, seeing how it goes. The idea is it'll make my archives more relvant and will allow someone who's asdking me about, say, deletions to see how i've acted about them before. --Robdurbar 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

What bothers me is you trying to tell me I need to be more civil. I have been nice time after time and the one time I do it, you tell ME of all people to get a grasp on myself. If anyone needs to do that, it's User:Huaiwei.--Golich17 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're referring to exactly but, but trying to force guidelines onto other editors as if they are policy is not constructive - you need to work with other editors and talk through contentious edits to achieve consensus. Thanks/wangi 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Which I have, for things such as the fleet tables. Many editors have discussed what should be the correct fleet table and we have implemented these changes into many of the airline tables. I am attempting to do so, but he is resisting me to. I am not forcing anything, I am making things look and work better. Take a look at Northwest Airlines and Singapore Airlines, which one do you believe has a better layout and which one do you believe looks better. I prove my point.--Golich17 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] belugas

???...you even removed stuff directly referenced???...anyways as i say go read "marine mammal medicine"...i could have put 100 references in this article yet i have not the time to further refer to all the experiments that the book refers to. the book is referenced at the bottom of the article. I dont want the article to be cluttered and filled with a hundred references... have fun reading...its a 1000+ page scientific book! unless ur a veterinarian or doctor or professional biologist u might want to study up a bit first to understand it all...and i feel quite justified in a brief outlay of the threats (both natural and not) to the animal...its on a threatened list even...yet taking out the starburst thing was a good move...i was loathe to do it...it seemed like a starburst executive put it in there to get a link to his page...yet i didnt mind the beluga sponsorship so i didnt edit it immediately...ill work with starburst if i have to...and theres worse things out there than starbursts...benji

[edit] Firestone

Please dont try and take sides in a edit war. The new page I created Firestone International is not a copy to push my POV. It was supposed to be a NPOV article because the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article is being used to push a political agenda. The editor has had that article locked and all Firestone related articles in Wiki regardles of their relation to Firestone tires have been redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I have been trying to return this to NPOV and had created a higher level article named Firestone which had links to this new article Firestone International which would tallk about the Global Company Firestone and not just USA. Also on the Firestone article it pointed to other firestone related articles such as Firestone High SChool, Firestone Golf Club and others. Please take the time to look at articles and find out facts before you make comments or accuse people of trying to push their POV. Mobile 01 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As another admin responded to you... I am not taking any sides - I am not involved in the disagreement. The article is currently locked due to an edit war, you need to discuss the changes on the articles talk page and reach consensus. Creating a content fork is not the correct to proceed. Thanks/wangi 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand why you keep calling it a content fork. There is nothing forked about it. The article under edit dispute is Firestone Tire and Rubber Company the article you are referring to is Firestone. As you know the word firestone refers to more than just tires. There is a firestone high school, a firestone golf club, a firestone train tunnel in the UK, plus lots of people named firestone. I am trying to create a page that is the primary starting point for firestone where users can then branch off to all firestone related articles. By continually reverting this page back to a forced redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company you stop people using wikipedia properly and force everyone looking for firestone related information to go to the tires page. I have sent you and the other admin a message to the talk page but the other admin does not even respond. Please explain why you belive this is a content fork as I have provided links to all firestone related wiki articles including Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Mobile 01 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your creation of Firestone International was a clear content fork of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. A disambiguation page already exists at Firestone (disambiguation). Thanks/wangi 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the response and explanation, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. Firstly The new article I created Firestone International was not meant to be a content fork, I copied the existing Firestone Tire and Rubber Company to use as a template as some of the info there was relevant to international, this was going to be a new article focusing on the international company rather than just firestone USA. I never got a chance to finish the article as it was deleted. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company no longer exists and is now Bridgestone Firestone Holdings North America. Bridgestone is a multinational company with plants worldwide. Bridgestone still operates several plants in Europe and New Zealand under the Firestone Banner and these were the companies I wanted to write about. I do not believe they belong to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article as this is basically about Firestone in USA.
Secondly, now that I understand the concept of the disambiguation page, do you think it would be correct for me to update that article with the information and links I was putting into Firestone. Perhaps then the Firestone article should redirect to the Firestone (disambiguation) page.Mobile 01 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

[edit] Great minds think alike

See Talk:Shetland! --Guinnog 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanday Light Railway

I have edited the article to put it into the past tense. I'm not sure now about the categories, however. Is there a former railways category? I have given a link to one of the myriad media articles on the closure, but I leave it to others to fill in the details in the article.Scrumpo 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom map

Hi, can you say why you have changed the UK map to yet another version without a meaningful comment? There is currently a discussion on Talk:United Kingdom about it - wouldn't it be better to have the same base map across EU countries? MarkThomas 10:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only fixing up the messed caused by User:12345e who uploaded dupe images they found on Commons and didn't tagged them properly. I deleted the duplicate maps and replaced the ones that were being used on articles (as the UK one was) with the Commons version. In some cases there might have been minor format differences. See also User talk:12345e#Maps. There's also a similar discussion going on on Talk:Scotland. Thanks/wangi 10:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info, does this mean then that we shouldn't (for some rights or commons reason) upload the "EU harmonised" maps at present? Or are those OK at least on those criteria? I still think it would be better to have standardised maps across the EU. MarkThomas 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
These maps should really be uploaded to Commons rather than the English Wikipedia - this allows then to be used both here and on other Wikipedia languages and projects. And they need to be tagged properly (like the originals they are derived from). Thanks/wangi 12:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS!

Thanks so much for your help with my picture problem! Greatly appreciated, and FAST! Prof.rick 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis and Clark Expedition needs semi-protection

The vandalism has really been getting out of hand lately. Please semi-protect to save us from having to do all these reverts. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:163.167.129.124

I appreciate your good intentions but it is the anon user's right to remove warnings from their page once they have been read. I am watching and will block them if they vandalise any articles but the warnings remain visible in the user page history anyway do this is not worth fighting over. Best regards, --Guinnog 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are continuing to maliciously place "discussions" - this time between myself and another user - onto the page associated with this computer, despite being asked to STOP...have you got nothing better to do with your time!?

Please spend the time to read the page before you blank it - I have added a comment. A discussion between yourself and at least three other users is best place on the talk page of the common party - i.e. yours. Thanks/wangi 17:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kindly restore the following pages

I request that content of following pages be restored for temporary basis. I have some very important information that i compiled over last few months. I'll highly appreciate your assistance.

  • India
  • Australia
  • Paintings
  • others
  • Chandigarh

Please send me an email when the pages are available so i can get the content. I promise i'll get rid of the pages immediately after. Also i apologize for ignorance.

Thanks/Sameer

reply/wangi 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armadale

Is it possible you could have a look at the Armadale, West Lothian article as a contributor keeps adding a link to their blog to the article. Fraslet 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real tennis

Hi, you've just done a cut'n'paste move here, please don't do that again :) Have a look WP:MOVE and WP:RM for more details. I'll fix it up just now, so don't edit the article for a bit, thanks/wangi 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wanted to move it back quickly after a new editor referenced Encarta to move it originally from the most common term - to be honest, I have never heard of Court Tennis! Can you then as you have now removed the information place a message on BlueLotas] "advising him in a friendly manner" not to move articles without first a discussion on the talk page! Rgds, - Trident13 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, have left a wee note on their page. Ta/wangi 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - look after yourself! Rgds, - Ian 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I saw your last one was from October last year! In awarding you it I was taking into account your solid behaviour with that user we both offended by correcting on the Shetland page. I seem to see you cropping up all over the place, always level headed and always doing good work. All the best from Leith --Guinnog 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Guinnog 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England

  • It's NOT the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, either. The United Kingdom IS Great Britain and it 'includes' Northern Ireland. You wouldn't say 'Great Britain and Wales', would you? In any case, the phrase has been on the article for a while, so check first before laying blame on the last editor !!!!! 80.192.242.187 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
    • You changed an instance of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into United Kingdom of Great Britain, a phrase which is not used (and was not used in the article) and is inaccurate. And have a look at the front of your passport... Thanks/wangi 13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just in case you haven't read it, this is what I wrote in talk:England, after reading about it... 'I've just read about it and I am wrong in what I thought! I understood Ireland to have been part of Great Britain and that Northern Ireland had remained so after the separation. You learn something new every day! Whatever will they think of next? 80.192.242.187 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.'

Regards, 80.192.242.187 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Hi Wangi

It's Sba2, Scott Williams. Chalmers Butterfield was my father. I was working on my user page and decided to clear the talk/discussion page, which detailed the relationship.....perhaps I should revert to that previous explanatory page, until I have finished creating my user page, which will explain it all. Thanks for looking. User:Sba2

[edit] Mail

I just send you an email. --ST ○ 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highshines

Thanks for doing the work on the images, I think it helps if an administrator steps in. I'm afraid that Highshines has already made an undiscussed and a completely uncalled for page move. I don't know if you are familiar with Chinese history, but the person referred to in the article below is known as the "Fragrant Concubine" in English and nothing else.

I can't undo this because I'm not an administrator. More is to come, I promise you. He will probably start moving more pages and start changing standarized names until someone says "stop" again, and we will see discussions like this one

Also, I do not know if this qualifies as vandalism, but I want to call your attention to the fact that Highshines has taken away the sock puppeteer tag from his user page and deleted all warning messages from his talk page.--Niohe 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Yeah 3RR means don't revert a page 4 times in 24 hours. I have one left. Jooler 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

reply Thanks/wangi 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Look again. I changed the page twice.Special:Contributions/Jooler I might also argue that only 1 is a revert. Jooler 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You should have checked your facts before you left your heavy handed note. The page survived a deletion vote some time ago, but Dieter Simon had effectively deleted almost the entire content. To me this seems very anti-wikipedian. I restored the content once and when it was reverted, I restored it again with an explanatory note. If someone else then took up the baton then that is their lookout. You should have dealt with the actual 3RR violator and undone his edits and not left the page as he left it. Bedtime for me. Jooler Goodnight. 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was simply looking to stop the edit war... Having two people on "your side" doesn't makes things right... We work using consensus after all, not mob rule :) I didn't block you for 3RR, I didn't even really warn you... PS: Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. Night, thanks/wangi

[edit] user you've warned still violating 3RR

See Special:Contributions/193.219.28.146, Talk:Ass to mouth, and the user has also stated intent to sockpuppet to evade block.[7] — coelacan talk — 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to watch this one for now, thanks/wangi 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland (protected)

Please see Talk:Northern Ireland#Protected. You were right to protect the article but not at the point you protected it. The infobox as it currently stands does not reflect the present legal status. Using the description "the former" seems to be the best compromise between those who say that the flag and coat-of-arms should be shown without qualification, versus those who say that no emblems whatever should be shown. Could you look at this again, please? --Red King 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always the wrong version :) I'll give it a look later on tonight when I'm less busy, thanks/wangi 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the flag / arms descriptions to the previous stable version (from a sample of previous versions), hopefully this is suitable. Thanks/wangi 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know (there will always be someone who will object to whatever is there or is not there!). The current version has the advantage of "equality of misery" - it upsets both sides in equal measure. Thanks for your understanding. --Red King 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] font

I am simply raising the font size by a couple of notches - so that people actually see the link more clearly. I did not use 40 point font or "hot pink" . Please keep things in perpective. Jooler 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's truely a great shame the <blink> and <marque> tags don't work, they'd really make folk notice your link! ;) /wangi 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh: Transport

Oops - my mistake on Toronto; now removed. I've looked at Edinburgh Airport, but the US destinations get lost in the crowd there. These are just as noteworthy as other destination info in transport I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Fourman (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

One thing that needs addressed on all airport articles is to move away from the dry lost of destinations to including note worth destinations and the history of their development (with refs of course). /wangi 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Ban - Thankyou

Thank you for the speedy block on User talk:Hi, i dont sp am. They were giving me the run around, vandalising as fast as I could rv ! Pedro1999a |  Talk  14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver

If you think I am incorrect on my WP:3RR please say so on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Mais_oui.21_reported_by_User:Mkdw. I don't understand how you can 'take this on' with out doing it through the admin noticeboard. I've read WP:3RR and I still feel I have justification. As far as your comments on Talk:Vancouver I agreed to stop editing awhile ago to avoid getting into an edit war. My first edit on Jan 23 was to move history section back to History of Vancouver and Mais reverted the flags section before I had a chance. My second edit was immediately reverted by him for 'not having an edit summary' which I thought was a simple misunderstanding, but he did it again after that. This user is exceptionally rude and I find it hard for anyone involved to advise ignoring his comments, insults, and reverts to an article you've spent 3 months working on including a Wikipedia:Featured article review. Anything else that I would only guess could be labelled as disruption would be our argument on the Talk:Vancouver, but I thought that's exactly what its for, discussion? Mkdwtalk 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're free to ignore my advice, I was just trying to be helpful and diffuse the situation - I'll offer a full refund :). By not editing the article I meant not editing at all, the matter is trivial and it does not damage the encyclopedia if the article is stuck at either of the versions until the matter is resolved — it's more productive to focus on discussing the issue. Having a thick skin and backing away from a confrontation are the best ways to get progress on these sort of issues. You're both good productive editors.
Admins aren't tied to only working through the Admin Noticeboards and other such pages, we can try to help outwith them. And when reporting 3RR it's within a 24hr time frame. Ta/wangi 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Undelete Clara Hemphill

hi,

i appreciate that you're trying to keep wikipedia free of crappy content. but i don't understand why you undeleted a page i started on clara hemphill. you cited as a reference in your talk post on my page (thanks for doing that) that "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead."

it seems that your decision must then be based either on the understanding that; 1. no assertion has been made of her importance OR 2. the assertion of her imprtance is likely to be controversial.

clearly, stating that she won a pulitzer and authored a book and is a project director for one of the major NYC education websites is an assertion. do you feel it is a controversial one?

i'm a little bit surprised at the zeal to purify wikipedia. this is the 2nd article i started that's been deleted in a week. is the concern that wikipedia doesn't have enough hard-drive space to host a 6 line stub? that other, more famous, clara hemphills will need to be disambiguated? i'm curious about your motivation and thinking.

if you put it back up, i'll try to expand it when i get time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juggleandhope (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If you're going to write a stub, then write a stub. Don't write "according to xxxx.org Xxxx Yyyy is ..." and then go on to quote verbatim from another source:
"According to InsideSchools.org Clara Hemphill is the project director of InsideSchools.org, and "author of New York City's Best Public Elementary Schools: a Parents' Guide, Public Middle Schools: New York City's Best, and New York City's Best Public High Schools. Ms. Hemphill was an editorial writer and reporter for New York Newsday, where she shared the 1991 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting. Her children attend public schools in Manhattan.""
I cannot confirm the Pulitzer Prize award: 1991 Pulitzer Prize, http://www.pulitzer.org/cyear/1991w.html. I only find references that are obviously sourced from the InsideSchools.org page. You're best move is to probably rewrite the article in your user space at User:Juggleandhope/Clara Hemphill, making sure it is well referenced from reliable sources and it asserts the notability of the subject. Also have a look at our manual of style so it's formatted right. Thanks/wangi 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another edit warrior on the loose - yet again

Bearing in mind your recent advice, I would just like to request that you watch the Scottish Labour Party article which is being repeatedly targeted by a well-known POV edit warrior. --Mais oui! 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

reply, thanks/wangi 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ta. It is just the bloody cheek of it that really gets right up my nose. I just cannot stomach this character, and I find it impossible to do all that pseudo pleasantries crap - it is so transparently false. --Mais oui! 11:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm utterly fed up with you, too Mais Oui! You are completely incapable of reasoning with. Simply because I edited something of yours, you looked my last edit and reverted it. Pathetic. What you describe as "pseudo pleasantries crap" was me attempting to develop something a bit more constructive. That's clearly impossible, so I suggest you simply stay out of my way. I'm not ever going to descend to your level of refusing to discuss my work, but if you ever follow me around and revert my work again I'll use every means within Wikipedia's rules to have you held to account. How dare you speak of the "bloody cheeck" of me editing a Wikipedia page. I've every bit the same entitlement as you or anyone else. Get over yourself and stop acting like you own the pages you edit. You don't.
Wangi - sorry to reply through your page in this way, but he deletes my messages on his talk page. That's how infantile the situation has become. Normalmouth 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minimin

Thank you for putting it out of its misery - I was watching these reverts and inadequate warnings or checks- and main wikipedia pages as well - floating through it all... thanks for that SatuSuro 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we get the art in australia constant vandalism, cripes I have two to thank you for tonight - I thought it was never going to be checked! Phew, thank you for being there! SatuSuro 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries ;) /wangi 13:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for banning that spam bot

I was wondering if you could tell me how you reverted all of its changes (if it's a program of some kind, that is). Thanks. Yonatanh 14:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I simply went to the contribs page for the IP and then used the middle mouse button on the "rollback" link that Admins have and loaded each into a new tab... Firefox is great for that! Ta/wangi 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I love Firefox too :) Unfortunately I'm not an admin so that wouldn't help me too much. Yonatanh 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. I like the fact that you can do that, and I am grateful that you rescued a page that I created. Paul 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD for Scottish Airports

Good Afternoon- I am curious to why you nominated Template:Scottish Airports for TfD? There appears to have been no discussion on this matter except for notification that this Template was being nominated. This appears to be a sudden TfD without warning, can you provide information as to why to made such a sudden nomination? Thanks! Rob110178 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was created without warning or discussion too ;) The listing at TfD generates discussion and the template will only be deleted if there is consensus to do so. I have posted a pointer to the TfD discussion to the creators talk page along with two other related projects (WP:AIRPORTS and WP:SCOWNB) - so it should get enough discussion. Ta/wangi 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, when I nominated the template it was a complete duplicate of the Scottish content in the UK template, it was only later that the GA and RAF fields were added in. Being a member of the appropriate category should be enough for those fields. Thanks/wangi 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Semi-protection not working

Hi. The semi-protection set up for Lewis and Clark Expedition isn't keeping out anonymous edits. Just thought you might want to know in case the protection was somehow not fully implemented. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, there's a new feature of timed protection - when you set up the protection you can give it an expiry time, and that's what I did... So, it's actually no-longer protected (even though it still has the template). /wangi 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input?

I started a discussion on the airport wikiproject about the Midway Airport name change (the proposal was to add International and/or Chicago to the name). I said it violates policy (common names) and extended it to a WP-wide question of how airports should be named. I think ridiculously long names are clearly not in common use, even if they are "official", and should not be used in article titles. Your past comments on various issues seem more rational than those of many others, so regardless of which side of the debate you're on, would you care to comment? The discussion is here. DB (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have noted my opinion there/wangi 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tips

You seem to be one of the more involved members so let me ask you some stuff....

  1. how do you report a member that clearly is promoting his own website?
  2. how do you flag an article for someone to look at on the basis that its an advertising page?

Cheers! Thundernlightning 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the full detail take a look at WP:SPAM and WP:WPSPAM. The specifics are mentioned at WP:SPAM#Warning spammers and once you've warned them up to the fourth level then leave a note at WP:AIV and an admin will pick up on it and take care of it. If you let me know the IP/username I'll give it a look. Thanks/wangi 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TX.

well it was general question as i keep coming across this sort of thing and apart from deleting i wasnt sure what else you can do to flag abuse. For example today i deleted an addition by [|gomax]and when looking at his contributions he seems to be only trying to promote a company called Nozio. Perhaps this isnt a good example of abuse though. Thundernlightning 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your two blocks of 193.219.28.146

Hi, there's some discussion at WP:AN/I over the behavior of this anon user, and I noticed that you have blocked him/her twice, with a one-week block the last time. I don't think these blocks are at all warranted by the underlying behavior - the talk-page comment is inoffensive and makes a valid point about what is and is not an appropriate subject for the project to tackle. It may be a minority view, but we need to respect that. What's done is done, but I'm asking that you recuse yourself from blocking this user in the future. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page comment had nothing to do with the article is was attached to, it offered no suggestion on how to improve the article. Talk pages are not soapboxes, nor are they forums - they are here to help us write articles. I stand by both blocks, and would be surprised that anyone would disagree after reading the user's talk page. I will deal with any future disruption or 3RR violation by this user as with with any other account. Thanks/wangi 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well this admin strongly disagrees with you, and I think the weeklong block was out of proportion to the offense. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
From 24hr, to 48hr and then 1wk is a natural progression where the first edit the user does once the ban is lifted is exactly what they were banned for. The user got banned for 3RR (by another admin) and then returned and made the very same revert. While this is a school IP the contributions show it is being used by only one editor.
But it's is lame as hell! Thanks/wangi 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And it's happening again. The same comment added, as the user promised, as soon as his block expired. Mallanox 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, ignore this, you clearly know already. I see you've taken some flak for your actions but I support them 100%. He flauted rules, admitted he'd tried to evade the block and promised to do it again. I think you showed great patience. Mallanox 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom map

Not sure what's going on with the infobox map. Is it not the case that infoboxes partly serve to show common elements between related pages? I am responding to TharkunColl's POV (check out EU talk for example where he equates the EU with Nazism) and seeking to defend Wikipedia by looking for a harmonised map that fits the other EU country pages. Clearly you differ but what rule have I transgressed? The discussion on the talk page seems inconclusive only because TC has persistently refused to give in to a view put forward by a number of editors. MarkThomas 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

reply /wangi 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can well accept that the projection is wrong, and your skills and experience in the matter, but the alternative of TC's EU/EEA map really annoys me, not least because it is all just based on his anti-EU bias. And they may be poor, but the fact they have been widely adopted and cross the EU surely implies we should use it and await development of a better EU-wide map as discussed on project countries? Obviously I also agree about the print cyclopedia comparison, but then again, there's an awful lot of WP stuff that wouldn't hold up! MarkThomas 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see any anti EU bias in TC's map - after it does show the EU. Personally I think the reason the map is there is being misunderstood - it's there to describe the location of the UK, not the UK within the EU. There is no reason at all why another map cannot be included in the article to show the UK's relationship with other entities (including the EU), but lets be honest the EEA is immaterial. Thanks/wangi 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
And the consensus for the UK article is the editors of the UK article to be honest, not a Wikiproject. /wangi 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well quite, on the first point, agreed about the EEA. I think one problem is I lack map design skills! Don't we need a nicely formatted EU map - and my reasoning for the latter is that the UK has, for good or ill, partially given sovereignty and decision making over to the EU - therefore the EU has some of the dimensions of a state, and is recognised as such internationally. There isn't another supra-national institution like the EU anywhere else other than perhaps the CIS (Russia+ex-soviet-states) and this is surely worth map displaying in the infoboxes? Most other EU article pages seem to have "accepted" this. Hence the reasoning that it's POV to reject it on the UK page. And on your second point, don't infoboxes on related pages go to more than just one of those article's set of obsessed editors? :-) MarkThomas 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huawei

About refraining from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, I have no problem if the other users (it's really one user: CJK) add fact to the article about Huawei. However, I do have problems with CJK who is using Wikipedia as a tool for the right wing propaganda, and presents accusations against Huawei as fact! I did have discussions with CJK, but he is clearly not willing to back off. Vankenta 01:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the Huawei and Iraq with Lord Yaar, but CJK is NOT interested. It is his way or his way! Anyway, I don't like the idea that you "reverse" to CJK's version at all! HWDEF 15:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My only involvement in this matter was to block Vankenta for a period due to 3RR violations on the article. This has nothing to do with the editorial disagreement, just how to proceed (and that is by discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus). Thanks/wangi 17:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunfermline East Expansion

This was changed uneccessarily. I only reverted it back to how it was previously.

I was unaware that a description of a Commercial Leisure Park which forms a major part of a wider town expansion was a "Shopping Guide"? I apologise. McWesty

[edit] Sectarianism

Any chance you can have a look at the recent edits by user:Winterbottom with a view to balancing the POV images and edits relating to Sectarianism in Glasgow. Fraslet 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rutherglen railway station

User:Doc glasgow has decided he does not the Infobox associated with Rutherglen railway station. As he is an adminstrator, I am currently reluctant to revert this edit, however it has remove quite a bit of information previously added by myself and others, and is going away from the infobox arrangement that has been developed for railway stations. Thought? ==Stewart 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no strong opinions myself - however I feel it's always best if infoboxes offer a quick summary of information presented in full in the article itself. Probably best to bring something up at WP:TIS (with pointers to the discussion at other related portals/projects) and invite all interested parties to a discussion there? Thanks/wangi 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you've already done that - sorry for teaching you to suck eggs :) I guess I do agree with what Doc' is saying... The infobox is a summary, not a replacement for content in the article proper. Thanks/wangi 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wanki

you gotta help me they (nasty ppl) try to kill Maggie May (dog) :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2007.

[edit] User page

Thanks for the revert. Wasn't sure if you wanted the above removed or not so I just tagged it as unsigned. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Please see Talk:Edinburgh#Flags. Thanks/wangi 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted there. Pedro |  Talk  14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments. It took some time as I was dicking around making the presentation look acceptable. Pedro |  Talk  15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As you have not responded, I have edited the following articles, as per your concepts, to see what happens. Hopefully it will provide ease of reference.

Articles with flags removed:

Alas, I did these logged in. I would guess for an objective test I should log out and leave no edit summary. Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. Pedro |  Talk  21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be interesting to see! I'd have replied, but have been super busy with other things. I agree, it's probably worth taking this up somewhere "central". Thanks/wangi 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't say that just because one admin — me — thinks it's a good idea, doesn't mean it's the law. After all the consensus of all editors is what drives Wikipedia. Thanks/wangi 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I do wonder if the IP edits will get a different response than "your" edits? /wangi 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
More time? Blimey, I'd have thought dicking around on Wikipedia would be your first priority! smile! Seriously, yes, an open debate there seems good. And I agree - how interesting will that be with regards to editing anon ..... give the RC patrollers (me included!!!)something to think about possibly...Pedro |  Talk  21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bordeaux (logged in) and Glasgow (logged out) got reverted, the rest are still there at present. One comment on Talk:Munich agreeing with you. I guess if you have time to set up a debate it would be courteous to invite those who either revert / support my removal of the flags to join in. This will help get some consensus (or at least an all out war!) Let me know when you have time. Best Regards.Pedro |  Talk  08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Request

Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.

Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks! .V. [Talk|Email] 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord preserve us - the WP:FLAGS imbeccility continues

Further to the recent stramash at Talk:Vancouver, courtesy of User:Lofty, we now have a Lofty No.2, in the shape of the delightful User:Enzedbrit. Please see:

--Mais oui! 11:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We probably need a centralised discussion about this, but I am not sure where the most appropriate place is. I actually quite like what they have done at the Kiev article, where this (frankly rather tedious) crap is confined to the Infobox, and not splattered all over the flippin article! --Mais oui! 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color in episode infoboxes

Hi Wangi, you contributed actively to a discussion of the use of colors in Infoboxes for television episodes. In a drive towards limiting the amount of spin-offs of Template:Infobox Television episode, this issue has again come up, and I was wondering if you would care to comment on my ideas to come to a "best effort solution". Thank you for your time. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:81.155.34.127_reported_by_User:Mais_oui.21_.28Result:.29 --Mais oui! 11:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wangi, You say "If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate." Please tell this to Mais oui!. I have been forced to contribute via IPs as Mais oui! constantly accused me of being a sock puppet and the administrators (you, maybe) blocked me. 81.156.63.168 12:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

[edit] Block

And why do you not have the common courtesy to discuss a block with me first? Can you not read the part where it says "Remember, there was probably a good reason for the person to be blocked. Please discuss the block with the blocking sysop before unblocking." I consider your actions extremely rude. I was going to unblock anyway, after the expalnation came. pschemp | talk 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, read what you just wrote and then apply it to the admin you blocked. Where did you discuss it first? I unblocked because what I saw was a clear escalation of the issue, the frequency of edits was nowhere near that to warrant such a strong arm approach. I did leave a discussion on the user's talk page, but unfortunately that took a good few times to make it onto the page due to other edits!
Can I leave you to clean up the IP autoblock? Thanks/wangi 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned before, I did discuss it first, you just didn't know. That's why you fucking ask people before reversing their blocks. I 'm sorry, but you wheel warred without even asking me *if* I had discussed it. That kind of hubris is rude. pschemp | talk 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't make blocks which cannot be verified simply by others. We don't carry around crystal balls after all. You really need to make a distinction with editors in good standing, you can't just slap an indef block on them to get their attention - would you do that with a new editor, or would you put a wee 15min block on them? You've demonstrated some of the reasons why people are against IRC (and I'm not one of them). If you want email me about this, thanks/wangi 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I didn't slap a block on to get attention, I *posted* a note about why I blocked. That can be verified. Plus, there is no rule that people running unauthorized bots have to get warnings first. Second, all this information could have been had if you had asked. Then you could have said, hey I don't agree I'm unblocking, but you didn't even try. I don't know why you can't admit that you directly violated the statement on the unblock page. There are no excuses for that, no matter how bad you think the block might be. There is not a 'Wangi' exception to wheel warring anywhere I can find. I understand that you didn't have all the information. That doesn't make your action correct, or even defensible. pschemp | talk 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing match here - consider for starters that your block was for POINT, not BOT. Anything else please email, ta/wangi 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Email? and you just lambasted me for not doing everything on wiki? You are wikilawyering about the block reason, the block was for both POINT and BOT, and that was stated. I'll just leave you with Taxman's response, since you didn't seem to see it.
"Yes, it is rude to assume bad faith on an admin action and reverse it without discussing first. No, that does not mean it deserves drama. You of course took the high road and didn't replace your block when it was removed, which if we had more of, we'd have less wheel wars. Discuss first people. It's extremely simple to avoid wheel and edit wars. Simply don't revert. Precious few things are urgent on Wikipedia. - Taxman Talk 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)"
Note nowhere does is say there is an exception if you think the block was bad. pschemp | talk 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked for email because I'm extremely busy (as in look at my recent contribs) and by that way I can remember to respond. However I'm not interested in droning on-and-on about this. Thanks/wangi 09:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax!

While I am certainly non-notable, I am pretty sure I exist. :P--§hanel 06:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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