User talk:Gnangarra/Archive18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Discussion Conventions
- Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
- Please sign your comments. Type
~~~~after your text or use the edit toolbar. - Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.
See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.
In a perfect wikiworld there'd be no disputes, no vandalism, no idiocy and no wiki for we'd all grow bored, eventually and move on looking for the challenges... |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
comment
regarding the recent name change of the pallywood article.
i agree with your points, however, i make out the note that each of the major topics to be mentionted in the new article as "alleged manipulation" would need it's own article, including pallywood. hence, the issue of the name change is problematic in my opinion. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. there's nothig neutral about calling the article "in palestine". JaakobouChalk Talk 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the name change is problematic, but at the moment there isnt sufficient sources within policy and guidelines to sustain an article called Pallywood which was clearly demonstrated within the afd. Where as there is enough to warrant discussion within a larger subject, to which one didnt exist. The naming of the article should be discussed and decide between the editors at which time further information can be added and the article focused onto the subject matter. IMHO Ultimately either the neologism or the film will have sourcing to support a stand-alone article at which time the redirect will be replaced. Gnangarra 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) in Palestine or by Palistinian the difference one attribute to a location the other to people.
- "Palestinian territories" is neutral phraseology. "Palestine" is a loaded term.--Mantanmoreland 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this has been resolved with the secondary renaming (which I support) of the article from "in Palestine" to "in the Palestinian territories". -- ChrisO 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- i don't think this is the place for this debate, i just point out that the new, current title is still innacurate to a fault. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this has been resolved with the secondary renaming (which I support) of the article from "in Palestine" to "in the Palestinian territories". -- ChrisO 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Palestinian territories" is neutral phraseology. "Palestine" is a loaded term.--Mantanmoreland 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) in Palestine or by Palistinian the difference one attribute to a location the other to people.
Pallywood
I request that you reconsider this renaming and close this AfD as either a close or no consensus. A few people suggested renaming the article, and a few opposed it. Most of the people who participated in the AfD did not even comment on the naming issue, and most of them had commented before that issue even came up. Therefore, the AfD discussion does not provide a proper basis for renaming the article. If you think the article should be renamed, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to leave it at Pallywood and let people discuss whether it should be renamed, and if so, what the new name should be. Please let me know what your decision is so I can decide whether further action is required. Thanks. 6SJ7 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's closed split AfDs before, I'd just like to say that I think this was the right decision. AfD is, as you know, not a vote and its outcome depends on the strength of the policy arguments put forward, not just the weight of numbers. Your decision was a reasonable interpretation of policy and well within admin discretion. It seems a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- you should start your paragraph with "as someone who tried deleting the article before and failed, i'd just like to day i think....". disingenuous presentations don't make a rightgeous person, only the appearance of one. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I happen to think the title is better, but there was no consensus, nor even a discussion, about a new title. I would urge that we revert to the old title and have an honest discussion about whether to keep it or change it. --Leifern 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | 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 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Garden Variety
They are a really charming bunch, the Prostratae, I'm going to read some more about them. I saw Banksia nivea the other day, fairly certain about that one. I had a couple of snaps on that jaunt in the bush, shame about the weather on the day. The little trigger plants were shivering in the breeze, there was little chance of catching them. I read a tip somewhere, a piece of card used for a reflector can also be used for a mini-windbreak. I will try that next time, I'm keen to get some coastal plants. The sea grass, that piles on the beaches after storms, could be a useful image somewhere. Great time of year for biota, give me a hand with the common cats one day. Cygnis insignis 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood (2nd nomination)
Hello Gnagarra. I see that you closed this AfD with a keep and rename, choosing to rename the article yourself to a name about which there is no consensus. In my experience, AfD closers should evaluate if to keep or delete, and can make suggestions about renaming, that editors can take into account in further discussions but without making these moves himself. I can undo the move myself, but will not want to set the perception that I am wheel-warring. Thus, I would appreciate if you can undo the move, and let editors decide what name to change it to, if at all. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the well reasoned comments you made on the AFD page and especially your effort to reach a solution that would be acceptable to most, I agree with Jossi's statement above. The subject of the AFD was "keep" vs "delete" rather than "rename" vs. "keep original name". As the question of the name of article was not brought up for discussion formally, and thus involved parties did not have a chance to weigh in. I feel the name should be changed back to Pallywood and then if people want to create a formal poll to change the name that could be brought up for discussion. All the best, Bigglovetalk 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think this is a bit misleading. The name of the article was clearly a critical issue in the AfD, and Gnangarra rightly identified the issues raised by WP:NEO. As I seem to find myself repeating a lot these days, AfD is not a vote, it's not dependent on consensus and policy trumps any other considerations. Gnangarra deserves applause for taking the time to think about the issues raised in the AfD and reaching a reasonable compromise which effectively splits the difference between the two sides. It might not be to everyone's taste but what compromise is?
-
- I've already advised Jossi to take this to DRV if he's so sure of his case. Gnangarra, if you find yourself having second thoughts about the closure of this case, I'd suggest that you raise it at DRV yourself and ask for community feedback. Not to put too fine a point on it, the editors complaining on your talk page represent one side of the argument and can be expected to have a certain natural bias because of that; their views aren't necessarily representative of wider community opinion. -- ChrisO 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
AfDDRV is for challenging a deletion. For challenging an admin's action, there are other means. First, I am politely asking Gnangarra to undo a move about which there is no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)- I would also appreciate if ChrisO stops making assessments on editors biases, as these assessments are neither useful nor productive, and are an example of lack of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- WP:DRV (you did mean that rather than AfD, right?) states that it is the place for discussions of "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". It's not purely for challenging deletions and never has been. As for not assuming good faith, I've not not assumed good faith - I've simply noted that all the complaining voices are from one side in the AfD discussion, which one would imagine is a fairly obvious sign that the the complainants don't represent community opinion as a whole. -- ChrisO 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As I've just said over on the article talk page, "includes" is different from "comprises". "Includes" merely indicates that the subjects listed are part of a larger category, which may also include topics not enumerated in the list; "comprises" means that the subjects listed are that larger category. Or to put it another way, "includes" is not exclusive. -- ChrisO 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I just wanted to say that I don't find my comment above misleading at all. Many issues were brought up in the AFD, but the subject was "keep" or "delete". I applaud Gnangarra, as I said above, for trying to reach a solution that would please everyone. I just don't think that any of us had a proper discussion about the name change. Perhaps that debate is one that we should have, and maybe I would even favor a rename, however I don't feel it is appropriate to bypass the discussion. Finally, I feel it is a bit miseading of ChrisO's to point at the "bias" of some while failing to acknowledge his own very strong bias. Bigglovetalk 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- We all do it, Biglove, some more than others. It is called bias blind spot.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
HI everybody for the closure I took almost two hoursdiff to read and review all the discussions, I knew the final result of this afd was always going to be discussed long after the fact. On a pure policy basis the concerns raised should have result in a deletion as Pallywood failed to meet policy/guideline requirements, to do this would have ignored the pure numbers(even with discounted !votes). What I read was that over time the discussion was begining to identify that an alternative naming where Pallywood would be a definate subsection was becoming a agreed compromise, unfortunately the AfD needed to be closed with some form of decision a no consensus would only have everybody back there in a couple of weeks/months. Realising that not everybody would agree the name choice I intentionally closed off the explanation of my deliberation saying ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page.Which where I leave this discussion, I'm quite happy to answer further questions but the naming, the current merge proposal and article direction should be the result of discussion on the talk page. Gnangarra 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hard work in closing the AfD, I am sure that took some guts to do it. In any case, given your comment above please undo the move so that these discussions can take place. The concern raised here is that your renaming is being appreciated by certain editors to be the de facto result of the AfD, which is clearly not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Jossie I'm suprised by this, I expected more reaction from those that want the article deleted as the afd clearly shows that Pallywood currently fails to meet policy/guidelines. Even though deletion based on policy is justified I wouldnt be willing to overturn based on this discussion. Gnangarra 07:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
John Howard RfM
Hi Gnangarra. I have a couple of questions for you. The Request for Mediation was shut down before you could add your opinion. Would you have been one to accept or decline mediation? The other thing, have you perused the list of newspaper articles on the plantation issue? In particular, the PNG Post-Courier coverage of it? The point that bothers me most about the Wiki article is that the information is available from other significant sources: 3 feature articles in 3 different countries solely about J.H & plantations, plus a new biography (June 2007) of Howard at the bookstores that devotes pages 7-8 to plantations, yet our Wiki article doesn't appear to reflect the coverage it gets elsewhere. I don't think most other single facts in the article would have feature articles in multiple countries written about them. The articles themselves (and the 2007 biography) draw a link to John Howard. For weight & length, I calculated that if our Wiki article included plantations in the same proportion as the 2007 biography, our Wiki article would include at least 16 words on plantations. I thank you for your respect of other Wikipedians during the discussions, as even though we have differing views on the content, you have always been very civil and courteous. Cheers, --Lester2 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I couldnt have participated or commented at the RfM because I was never aware that one had been commenced and that I had been listed as a party until I recieved the notice that it had been rejected. Given that it has been rejected what I would have done is now irrelevant, I have noticed the comment about the book from what I understand its not completely pages 7 & 8 but two paragraphs one on page 7 and one on page 8 but due to RL issues I'm not currently in a position to view the book so will reserve any opinion until then. Gnangarra 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gnangarra. The RfC closed down very quickly, as soon as the first person declined. Regarding the book, it devotes just over a page to the plantation issue, beginning Paragraph 2 of Page 7, and finishing two thirds the way down Page 8. It is currently a best-seller, so if you want to take a look at it, go down to your local bookstore and it will probably be in a prominent display. Best wishes, --Lester2 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Barneca RfA spam
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and plan on learning from the experience and keeping the criticism in mind. If, in the future, you see me doing something that still concerns you, please let me know about it. --barneca (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Unilateral overturning of your AfD closure
Jossi has - very inadvisably - unilaterally overturned your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood (2nd nomination). Since he's repeatedly declined to take it to DRV, I've raised the matter myself at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21. Your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Can I request permission to edit WP:AIV as part of my Recent Changes Patrol 'duties'? It gets a pain when there's an obvious vandal and I can't report it. By the way, I am sending this to all the others, too, just in case you're not around. Auroranorth 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| 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. R Delivery Bot 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) & Caladenia flava too!
weeds
If you can bring yourself to do it, you should photograph the weeds as well. I think it would be useful here and there, not as high a priority as the ancient species they are displacing, but I plan to add to the documentation of it. Your photo was excellent, I added another to make it look even better. Pelloe helped with the article stub, a left a touch of her colour in it. Got any Verticordia? KP soon please. Cygnis insignis 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Daisy Bates
Interesting article in page 13 of today's (Saturday's) paper suggesting all sorts of things about her. (What a pity the rest of the paper is so utterly crap and partisan... you'd think today's edition was one massive press release in sections from the WA Liberals.) Orderinchaos 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
B. spinulosa
I know you're bonked (and sorry to hear that, by the way), but if you're around and interested, I've started a referencing discussion at Talk:Banksia spinulosa that could have a bearing on the wider WP:BANKSIA effort. Hesperian 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion
Thanks for the info. -Yk Yk Yk 12:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
I am sorry I do not understand - please gmail if necessary SatuSuro 10:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not much evidence of having the Bonk?! I will post my next question here... Cygnis insignis 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Then, I am the one who must apologize, since I forgot the templates in the first place. Comte0 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- In that case I could get about 80 pictures from my visit the other day from it - we need to talk off wiki aboput my commons problems - some have helped so far - but there are still some issues SatuSuro 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
countries
by "succinct" you mean my edit summaries are too long and you want them shorter? I thought my summaries were quite succinct Hmains 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Gnangarra. It's v good of you to suggest that I practice on a Longhorn, thank you, although after viewing the beautiful, complex, exhaustive contents of the many 'portals' (is that the right word?) on your fantastic User Page I am feeling overwhelmed, out of my depth, and really can't think of where or how to start practicing. I'll keep thinking about this. Meantime, I must return to reality for a while or at least for a day or two. Powderbark2 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
map request (again)
G'day - about to run Banksia spinulosa thru FAC in the next few days, was musing on whether to have all subsp represented on one map but they overlap so would be a real headache I feel. Wondering if you could whip one up - since this one was made here there has been a new collection at Dicks Tableland which is in the northner bit of Eungella NP - I typed in 'map eungella national park' into google images but not sure which gives the best idea where Eungella NP is on the Oz map in the scheme of things...anyway all assistnace much appreicated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Heck I just realised there's no dot for Carnarvon Gorge (here is a map which helps plot it) nor Expedition National Park, nor Isla Gorge National Park...gah!! Am trying to hunt down some locations cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
November
Just a reminder to let you know November 1st is fast approaching, and on that date I will be able to do the following:
- Edit on Wikipedia namespace articles (I will be involved in AfD, RfC, MfD, TfD, etc. and to a lesser extent, in fact hardly at all, RfA - I don't see anything in my unblock conditions regarding that, so please make sure you remember I am no longer under those rules on 1 November). As I just said in the brackets, I have gotten so used to not editing in the WP: namespace, and you would have too, so remember I can edit on that date!
- Edit school-related articles. The same as above applies - we've gotten so used to the conditions both parties (you guys and me) might forget I can edit there.
Thanks, Auroranorth 13:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Auroranorth come 1st November you are open to edit any page you like provided its within the various policy and guidelines. Like all editors you are and have always been expected to observe the same civility, etiquette that we all are expected to do within the community. From the message above it appears that you see 1st as being the date at which you can resume acting as you did before, remember that it was because of those actions you were blocked. In the future if you find yourself blocked again the periods will be for even longer time frames and you may find us less willing to enable early access again. Gnangarra 14:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I meant editing on the blocked pages. Auroranorth 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania
I just wanted to make sure Perth got Wikimania, that's all. By 2009, I will still be unable to enter into a contract, but will be mature enough to help run the event. I will also have some more respect (I hope!) Auroranorth 11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on my talk page, following the warning about reversion. Auroranorth 11:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoderns/Sandover
I think i might need a bit more backgroundwhere we are heading on that one - would appreciate a rrun past it aagain or aa bit more about it - cheers SatuSuro 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
ZZ thanks for that - the poison gully accident was well clear of the zz - there is a plaque in midland for it - will try to find piccie i took last week - btw very impressed by your snake! SatuSuro 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman
 |
Ready to swab the deck! | |
| Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
DRV Notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chitauri. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stabbycat 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chitauri. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | 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 09:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
new words
Nah, WP:NEO. Maybe they should redirects to verbification. Hesperian 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Profound.....another map favour but it is a WA birdy :)
Whoa..profound....I'll muse on that while I'm there. Given I have Superb Fairy-wren at FAC I felt a little bad not working up its western chum the Splendid Fairy-wren which I have now largely done, especially since a few birdos lent some great images showing cool behaviours etc. Only problem WRT a map is there are issues with large zones of hybridization. Can't find a map online so I'll email one if you've got time to whip one up. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- here is a map, though I have the western Oz just stretching over to join the central oz bit. Anyway, given the interzones etc. best to make in just one colour and nix the subsp. for this one I think. thanks! (I put it up at FAC anyway as I was impatient...naughty me) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Offer to block other user name
I think I'm just going to quit spending any time on Wikipedia if it involves fending off insulting and completely unfounded suspicions so your suggestion is moot. I do not see how one can assume good faith and simultaneously want control over the person. That,to me, seems like an oxymoron. If there is an assumption of good faith then there is no need for proof or control of the editor's options. Also, pleaase see "Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." from [1] and there is certainly no indication I was trying to double-vote or increase support for something. In addition, I may wish to revert to the previous user name at some point and why should I have to go through an un-blocking process when I have done nothing wrong? To me it is an important principal that suspicion not be the order of the day on Wikipedia as that is little different from the castration of civil/privacy rights via the argument "if you are not guilty you'll tell us what we want to know". The other problem is that suspicious people can always find another reason to be suspicious. I realize you likely feel it's no big deal for someone to provide information to avoid suspicion but I think it is a big deal. My edits show no grounds for any suspicion whatsoever and as you see, we are allowed to have alternative accounts on this Wiki. However, as I say, I don't like dealing with suspiciousness so I'll say good bye.Meganslaw 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alternative accounts arent forbidden, [{WP:SOCK]] says If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. all I requested was you link the your accounts or alternatively I'd be willing to quietly block the other account. Gnangarra 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I could agree to that, but do you see my point about why I don't like accomodating suspicion? Also I am not really using multiple accounts because I stopped using the other one. If I go along with the block option for the other name, just to make it absolute, what would be required to be unblocked in the future if I want to go back to using that name? Meganslaw 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Colebatch
When you can be bothered, can you cast an eye over the situation at Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch please? User:Graham MIlner continues to insert a rather insultingly phrased but ultimately true statement into the infobox. I raised this with him on his talk page a while back, suggesting that the material has merit but should be incorporated into the text. That message has been ignored; he continues to re-insert the phrase over and over and over again, and I continue to revert. Frankly, I don't mind reverting until the cows come home - I'm not even sure if 3RR applies to parties who have attempted a discussion and been utterly rebuffed. But if you have any better ideas on how to proceed, I'd be happy to hear them. Hesperian 07:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- article protected, to enable discussion. Gnangarra 08:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Discussion? Don't hold your breath. Hesperian 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Help please
Hello, we are Lirdoco. Do you remember us??
We are modifying an article about something of Mexico for this partial and We would like you to check it to give us your opinion. The article is about Pemexgate and there is a lot of information missing. Please check our discussion page to look for detailed information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Lirdoco#Article_we_are_going_to_modify_.28Please_MENTORS.2C_We_need_help.21.21.21.29. We will thank you a lot for your help. Please, remember to answer us in our discussion page because we need to have the conversation there. Again, Thank you. :----- Lirdoco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.26.66 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Avondale Agricultural Research Station
Having read the article, I'm not certain if this is a museum or an active research station. Is there any active agricultural research taking place at 'Avondale Agricultural Research Station' today? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Protocols
You recently redirected a number of pages to The Protocols of Zion (imprints). While this was admirable work in itself, I just want to make sure you realize that when you redirect pages that already have redirects, it's considered your responsibility to clean up all those double redirects.
But never mind. I did it. --Steven J. Anderson 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For your fair comments - and a good suggestion, too. As the list is getting long, it might be a good idea to separate it out into its own article once another editor finishes expanding history - and leave a small highlight list in the article, as per Wesminster School. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
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 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Railpage Australia
Hi, Railpage_Australia has been protected since the 11th of August. Would it be possible to review as to whether full protection is still required? Thanks. Johnmc 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I require your expertise
Gnang, if you have a spare minute, could you please give an opinion on this and a content dispute on Above the Law (group). Thank you good sir. Sarah 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problems, I'll have a look in the morning, oh its morning now...anyway when next the sun rises. Gnangarra 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
User:68.92.207.135
I don't think you can indef-block an IP. Corvus cornix 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Block of user:68.92.207.135
You blocked him for indef... but it's an ip. Shouldn't it just be for a period of time? Gscshoyru 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | 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 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speers Point
Thank you for fixing up this article. I have resubmitted it for GAN and if there's something wrong with it the article won't be reviewed for another few days yet. I believe all the points the previous reviewer made have been met. Do you think so? Auroranorth (sign) 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the submission and will continue to try and improve it. Thanks, Auroranorth (sign) 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Chitauri
I know that Talk:Chitauri was the talk page for a deleted page, but it has since been used to place comments discussing how to build a better entry on the subject. Could you reinstate the page for this reason. - perfectblue 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ola Kamel
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ola Kamel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GlassCobra 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I wanted to apologize for the deletion review. I know that being an admin is often stresful and one can occasionally be hasty, but I shouldn't have assumed bad faith. Sorry again. GlassCobra 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Porcupine
However, my continual use of sockpuppets was unacceptable. I can compare my case with his case in many ways. If you seem to think so, I will remove his template from my page, as it was clearly illegitimate. I will clear up loose ends if he asks me again. Auroranorth (sign) 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, see the ANI thread about the incident.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Glad you appreciated it. :-) You shouldn't be encouraging me though. As an administrator, I believed you're obliged to harangue me with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Hesperian 12:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- who's encouraging I thought you were being civil and assuming good faith. Gnangarra 12:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
How's it going? I feel really strange writing this. There are some things I just don't know. I have been watching the Anthony Chidiac discussion for a while now. I have a slightly different perspective on the sockpuppet case. I added a note. But I'm not very familiar with how these things go. Was what I added proper to the discussion? I am planning on going back through and adding links. Thanks. -- Ben 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to read up before I muck this thing up too bad. Sorry about that. -- Ben 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
GlassCobra's RfA
 |
My RFA | |
| Hey Gnangarra! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. Your support in particular really meant a lot to me, as it came just after a potentially contentious DRV, as well as a very outspoken oppose. I truly hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions with anything at all! GlassCobra 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks
Thanks for all your help in building the Sunset Coast CLC article with me. I will continue using the notes you have provided me. Your help has been invaluable... thanks again. :-) Marv87 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Draws
Aye, that was me alright. Realized that I was on the wrong account after I made the edit. — xDanielx T/C 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up...
Although...I have to admit...I know I'm not supposed to take it too seriously, but I'm a little offended to be someone's "bad faith" target... Smashville 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know...but to merely know the intent is there... - Smashville 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Smashville 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Mark John Currie
Apologies for swallowing up the site you started. No discourtesy was intended. Once I started I found it difficult to stop. Apuldram 18:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
SSP
F.Y.I. - I went through the posts of the SSPs at SSP and revised as necessary. He/they wasted a lot of time for others, but presently there are no lasting effects. -- Jreferee t/c 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
£51,000 in 1910
The Reserve Bank of Australia has a cool inflation calculator. Plug in "1910", "£51000" and "2006", and answer you'll get is $5,382,461.54. Considering the amount of time that has passed, and the problems inherent in trying to nail down a single value for inflation across the whole economy (have you noticed that big screen TVs are getting cheaper while your grocery bill is going up?) you should probably round that figure to "over 5 million dollars".
The book sounds interesting.
Hesperian 10:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate/2nd nom
Hi. You closed the discussion so I kindly ask you to have a look at List of Stargate Command personnel that was nominated in the same discussion, though maybe not very obvious. You may want to delete that one as well. Regards. --Tone 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Australian Ringneck
Hi, I'm sorting thinking the two books (The Atlas of Australian Birds & Photographic Field Guide to Birds of Australia) should be in a separate section from the footnotes... I tried to look for the relevant section of WP:MOS or WP:CITE, but didn't find it after a quick scan. --Ling.Nut 14:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here it is: WP:CITE#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. --Ling.Nut 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The whole Gould thing is a bit tricky to format.. self-published, then published, then published with addendum, then online etc.) so I just gave it my best shot. It's good enough for now, but if perchance you ever wanted to shoot for WP:FA (I dunno how they feel about short articles), you'd have to track down the formatting details more carefully. But anyhow, I think we aided the article, right? later! --Ling.Nut 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS you should do something about the ref needed tag after "aggressively compete for nesting places". Later! --Ling.Nut 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The whole Gould thing is a bit tricky to format.. self-published, then published, then published with addendum, then online etc.) so I just gave it my best shot. It's good enough for now, but if perchance you ever wanted to shoot for WP:FA (I dunno how they feel about short articles), you'd have to track down the formatting details more carefully. But anyhow, I think we aided the article, right? later! --Ling.Nut 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) thanks for the barnstar! refs are a pain; you have to get them perfect. What I did would probably be unacceptable in WP:FAC... but is probablyOK if you don't wanna go down that road. Later! --Ling.Nut 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
typo in your message
Hi,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Achidiac#Page_Protection
You wrote:
- "you have since returned and made accusations here against specific editors violating no personal attacks as such to stop continued harassment the User and talk pages of User:Achidiac have protected."
I think you might have meant:
- "you have since returned and made accusations here against specific editors violating no personal attacks. As such, to stop continued harassment, the User and talk pages of User:Achidiac have been protected."
Minor grammar fixes to make it readable. Want to edit?
Best,
FT2 (Talk | email) 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Perth invitation
Hello Gnangarra,
Thanks for your invitation, though I'm not sure if I have enough time to visit Perth. If I do make it, I'd love to have a tour of the town and get to know your best internetcafé ;-). I'll let you know when I'm around! Cheers, and thanks again, Ciell 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
