User talk:Gavia immer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous content has been archived to User talk:Gavia immer/Archive 1
[edit] List of the day
- I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:---- (book)
Apparently, if you find this redirect useful, many other people may think the same and use ---- (book) when searching the item. Harmless redirect at worst, has been restored. Never mind me. :) Regards, PeaceNT 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. The target article's topic is a weird one any way you look at it; I can understand people thinking it just came out of left field. Thanks for reconsidering yourself. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "MOS:" shortcut namespace
Please stop deleting those shortcuts; that pseudoname space has been around by consensus for a long time, and there is nothing "non-standard" about them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not actually deleting the redirects, of course (I'm not an admin). All I'm doing at the moment is delisting them from shortcut boxes (and making an incidental fix related to the #ifexist issue). There's a current discussion of these at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion#MOS:_and_related_non-standard_shortcuts|]] (which the nominator has unfortunately not done the proper tagging for), and I happen to agree that these can and should generally be replaced by shortcuts with the WP: prefix instead. If my edit summary was what got you riled up (seems like that was part of it), then I apologize. I'm done with these changes; feel free to change them if you see a need, though. Meanwhile, please do be aware of the discussion going on about these redirects as well (and feel free to contribute your opinion, of course). — Gavia immer 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The issue is that you are pre-emptively depopulating something up for XfD. That is a big no-no. Similarly, we do not remove articles from categories that up at CfD in hopes or anticipation that the category will be deleted per a deletion nomination we support, nor blank-out or redirect articles that are at AfD because we think they should be deleted (or in a broader example, we do not execute murder defendants before trial has concluded because the alleged crime was terrible and we think the accused is probably guilty). :-) In the Wikipedia context, such depopulations have an unfair sway over the outcome of the XfD (as in "oh, someone's already deleted it, so we might as well close the XfD as 'delete' to avoid the bother of undoing the pre-emption", or even "I wasn't aware of this page, and now that I look at it I see that it is blank/unused/empty, so it must serve no purpose, so I will !vote 'delete'". So, I'm not "angry" or anything (much less about an edit summary; my point there was that because a XfD nominator labels something "non-standard" does not make it automatically so), it's just an important procedural point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS: I have listed at TfD some redirs you created just now that do not follow the / and # conventions for redirects. Just want you to know that it is not punitive or personal in any way (I didn't even mention you, in fact). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay. In case you're currently watching this page, I wanted to let you know that my internet connection is currently in meltdown, so I'm not likely to be too available right now; don't take this as avoiding communication, please. More of a response if my connection stablilzes.— Gavia immer 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Cobain
Yeah, I guess it was your lousy edit summary that caused me to do that. I haven't been looking at the article much, but as I recall the whole "possible" suicide section as made for cases in which the suicide was disputed. I recall Cobain being repeatedly removed from the article because some insisted it wasn't a suicide. I guess I thought you were one of those who not only thought he didn't kill himself, but that it wasn't even a possiblity. There should be some entry for disputed suicides, though I really know little enough about the issue to know if it's only the complete crazies who believe it was murder or if there actually is some legit doubt. I guess I don;t care anymore. In any case, having his suicide disputed does not per se accuse Courtney Love, if that is a concern. Do what you will with the article; I won;t revert anything. -R. fiend (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just a couple of notes: 1.) Yes, the possible suicides section is there for legitimately disputed suicides, but in this case, it doesn't seem to be legitimately disputed. Absent evidence to the contrary, it's just an example of everything being disputed by someone, somehwere. 2.) It happens that the version you restored did say that Love "might" have murdered Cobain, which is an accusation right there. I don't blame you for this, I blame my lousy edit summary - but you should be aware of it. 3.) The whole list, in general, could stand to have more eyes on it, if you have the opportunity. It's better than it used to be, but still needs work. Thanks again for reading. — Gavia immer 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. I guess I didn't notice the Courtney reference; you have a good point there. I care little enough about the Cobain controversy to know whether there is a legitimate dispute; I just know there is a dispute (maybe that's worth a note somewhere? I really don't know. Do I recall there being a book published on it?). I'll try to keep an eye on the list in the future, but lists like this are always full of problems. -R. fiend (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your last sentence is entirely correct... — Gavia immer 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. I guess I didn't notice the Courtney reference; you have a good point there. I care little enough about the Cobain controversy to know whether there is a legitimate dispute; I just know there is a dispute (maybe that's worth a note somewhere? I really don't know. Do I recall there being a book published on it?). I'll try to keep an eye on the list in the future, but lists like this are always full of problems. -R. fiend (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] M-1 Carbine Revert War
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008#Gavia immer. RFRBot (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have granted you request. ONLY use it to remove obvious vandalism--Doc g - ask me for rollback 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you (seriously). I do plan to use it only when necessary. — Gavia immer 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Hi. I noticed your votes in the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Can you please vote in the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#January 8 cases as well? It's been 2 weeks and for some reason the cases don't close. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. I didn't realize those were still open. — Gavia immer 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFD Closures
When closing a RFD nomination as keep, please remember to remove the {{rfd}} tag from the actual redirect. I've taken care of these. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gleep. Yeah, I completely spaced on that; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Shan't happen again, though of course in general I don't close keep results anyhow, only housekeeping stuff. Thanks for cleaning up my mess ... — Gavia immer 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HP MfD
My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Just be aware for the future that redirects in general go to RfD. It's legitimate to delete project-space shortcuts, by the way, but the standard is relatively high, because they are useful to the project in general. If you choose to nominate such redirects in future, do please be aware that you need a thorough rationale for doing so, otherwise it turns into a mess like the one we saw here. I've got no comment on the dabpage issue in general, except to say that edit wars are always bad, and that's an edit war. Hopefully all of the involved editors can bring it to a resolution. — Gavia immer 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of old threads from village pump
Hi, Gavia immer. I see that you removed some very old threads from the village pump pages that were not signed, so they had not gotten automatically archived by miszabot. Thank you for doing that. I noticed that you did not drop the threads you removed into the associated archives. I took care of the vpa stuff, but then it occurred to me that maybe this is something that should be done. As I am not familiar with accepted practice for this situation, any clarification that you could provide would be appreciated. --Gwguffey (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can only tell you my practice - in general, when I see threads like those that have sort of percolated to the top, I rarely archive them, for two reasons. Firstly, since those threads only stick around if there are no timestamps at all in the whole section, the majority of those old threads are trivial - no responses, no evidence that anyone cared to respond, and no indication that the thread creator even came back to their original posting. I don't personally feel we need to keep an archive of those. Secondly, I don't do this on any kind of regular schedule (I do it when I get annoyed by the accumulated threads at the top of the page), most of the threads I delete have been up for longer than we guarantee they'll be visible in the first place, even in the archives. So I personally don't worry about it. You'll notice that I did leave the foundation notice in place, since it was clearly meant to stick around - so long as one observes common sense for things like that, I don't think archiving is needed. However, please remember again that that's just my practice. There's no blanket policy on this kind of cleanup, so others may disagree - and if you want to put things in the archives, it's not going to break the project, so you should go ahead and do it. — Gavia immer 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ZuluPad
Thank you for your comment on the Deletion Review of ZuluPad. In response to your recommendation, the reason I've brought it to deletion review is that an administrator is refusing to allow it to be re-added to Personal Wiki unless it has it's own page (ZuluPad), which that administrator deleted. That is why I am asking here to allow ZuluPad to be re-created, so it can appear in both places. --Omeomi (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comment "Speedy close" on the Deletion Review of ZuluPad, I have just posted a new draft version of the ZuluPad page here, complete with sources cited: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. I would appreciate it if you would review this page, and consider altering your recommendation to allow the ZuluPad page to be created. --Omeomi (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
