User talk:Sardanaphalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Please don't edit bot user pages

Please do not edit User:RussBot/DPL/Templates or any other page in the User:RussBot namespace. I guess the LARGE red banner saying "PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE" isn't having the desired effect. --Russ (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I use the User: subpages as a baseline for tracking what has been fixed in the project pages, like Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates. I have added {{bots}} to the particular page that has been causing problems, which should stop AWB from touching it. --Russ (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:C. S. Lewis

I'd prefer to stick to the standard line-heights, it's much more consistent. If we're looking to save space, though, perhaps we could remove the titles that aren't linked? Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer it the way it is now (without any overrides) but it's fine if you want to change it. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template categories

Hi, I notice you placed redirect templates on some of the established categories of Polish navbox templates. Any particular reason for wanting to change their names? The names we have now are in accordance with titles of articles and terminology generally used in all the articles.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The reason is simply that, as far as I'm aware, "powiat", "gmina" and "voivodeship" aren't commonly used in English (at least, not yet!), so, like other countries' subdivisions here on Wikipedia as well as beyond, an English equivalent is used. I checked the articles for what these are meant to be (and, yes, suggest the article and category name are amended similarly, e.g. "Gmina" to "Commune (gmina)", "Category:Gminas of Poland" to "Category:Communes (gminy) of Poland", etc -- "gminas" is a curious mixed-language plural, no?). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know gminas looks strange. We had this argument several times before and generally concluded that there wasn't any point trying to translate gmina into anything else (commune in this meaning isn't much of an English word either; district is ambiguous; municipality is rarely used in translations about Poland). In effect we have simply borrowed the noun gmina (and the names of gminas) directly from Polish, and treated it an an English noun, as is one of the approved ways of dealing with foreign legal concepts (like Russians have their raions and so on). Unfortunately with powiat/county a different approach was taken, so we use county instead (though in this case it's a fairly standard translation so it's more justified). Voivodeship is an established (though uncommon) English word which appears in the OED etc. so it seems reasonable to use it. So all these things have been discussed at length in the past and conclusions reached - not necessarily the ones I would have liked, but reasonable nonetheless. I wouldn't therefore bother trying to change the names of these categories, unless you want to propose and carry out a rename of all the articles and their categories, which a) would proably not achieve consensus and b) would be seriously a lot of work.--Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'potted history'. I guess I'm surprised about the current outcome you report as it seems (1) to suggest an 'original research' kind of decision (to use the unknown/uncommon "gmina" and "voivodeship" terms) and (2) to include an inconsistency (no corresponding use of "powiat"). If there really aren't any reasonably equivalent English terms (which would be surprising, no?) then why do the Gmina, Powiat and Voivodeship articles offer them? I -- and I imagine virtually all other English-speaking users of the English Wikipedia -- would say the same applies to the other unknown/uncommon non-English subdivision names. I'm reminded that Wikipedia is meant to be a general rather than specialist encyclopedia. So, I guess I'm querying how "reasonable" the current conclusion is (and, again, as above, am surprised it was thought sufficiently reasonable -- I wonder if the group of people involved in coming to that conclusion didn't really reflect the wider community of Wikipedia users and editors).

I don't reckon there's a 'break' in the current system due to the new category names, as the new names include the native names. As regards other categories, articles, templates, etc, if there is a consensus to use (or at least add) reasonable English equivalents to the current non-English terms, I'd hope bots would be able to take on the 'donkey work'. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

I noticed that the templates for 3rd and 4th world administrative units had changed - you changed them from a template of those countries with actual articles on wiki (very helpful) to just a link to the world administrative division table. This, in essence, completely negates the very need for all the templates (why have templates for 1st level, 2nd level, 3rd level, etc when you can just put a link to the same table, correct?). So I changed the format back. Please do not change the template to a single link - leave the format as it is with the various countries listed. If you look, I also made sure that the other changes (name, category) were implemented. Rarelibra (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are screwing up the templates with your edits. Please go back and ensure that the countries listed are shown. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just had to fix the one for Template:Second-level administrative divisions of countries in North America. Please make sure that you go back and fix ALL of the ones you changed. Or don't you remember? You change it for Firefox, but then the country information is not displayed correctly. Next time please CHECK YOUR EDITS. Rarelibra (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another - Template:North American first-level administrative country subdivisions by country. Please fix it. Rarelibra (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it isn't a Navbox issue - the templates that you edited were screwed up, the ones you did not edit were not. If it was a Navbox issue, then all of the templates would have been screwed up. Rarelibra (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you plan on 'revisiting' the others, please do not edit unless you ensure that the countries stay listed. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop moving the administrative division templates!!! You are screwing up many links to the templates, and the templates were set up in a particular fashion and order. Please discuss first before moving! Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historic Provinces of Sweden

I noticed that you changed the template Historic Provinces of Sweden to Former provinces (landskap) of Sweden. I'm not so sure it's a good idea. By saying former provinces it sounds like they are not in use anymore, which is not true. Even though they are not used as administrative provinces today they are in many other ways more used than the counties (län). If you ask a person in Sweden which province he come from he would say which landskap he come from, not which län. And you will still find the landskap borders on all maps in Sweden. So despite they haven't had much administrative use for the latest hundreds of years they are still very alive. Narking (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PM template

Your edits have de-standardised the bottom of PM pages such as Kevin Rudd. Rectify one way or the other. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the PM template need any deviation? Did the previous format not work? There is still non-conformity. Timeshift (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's standardised i'm happy. (I don't feel we need 3 flags) Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that this template changed back to collapsed. I have fixed that one, please rectify any others that previously had it in the ones you have changed. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you haven't - my apologies. It must have just collapsed itself due to changes made to the other templates because it has never collapsed before, some templates are better uncollapsed, that being one of them. If you wish to make changes to it, I suggest you bring it up on it's talk page, and/or wikiproject australian politics. Timeshift (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Members templates

I have no problem with moving the templates to the new names (eg. Template:Current Queensland Representatives) but why not leave the old ones as redirects? Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm. Fair enough. Frickeg (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits

Please don't make edits like this where you only change a link from a redirect to the redirect's target, it is not necessary per WP:REDIR. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Sorry, massive move trigger. I knew that blacklisting "http://" wasn't a good idea...

Request handled by: Миша 13 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures time

Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Template:2008 Party for Socialism and Liberation presidential candidates. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Peterpipper (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Peterpipper (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airline Alliance Templates

Before making complete changes to the airline alliance templates, you must reach a consensus with other edits. I am a regular editor for airline and airport articles. I personally like them the way they are, but I'm open for change if the majority of editors feel your edits were necessary.--Golich17 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe someone has edited the oneworld text to be white before, but someone reverted for some reason. I wouldn't have a problem with that. As for the tables in general, I haven't read the details about the firefox thing, so I'll look into it and get back to you. Cheers!--Golich17 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Danish elections

Er, I didn't remove the div, I just removed the <return> between the div and the {{nowrap}} as the white lines are almost double the height they are with it (i.e. mostly whitespace). The only change I see is the loss of the whitespace.

Also, could you move the flags back to the right of the text? I just think it looks nicer on that side. I tried to do it myself, but couldn't work out the code.

Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers for sorting that out. You could bring it up on Template talk:National elections, as that's the base template. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you have AWB, could you go through and remove all the divs from the templates? At the moment, most are still showing large amounts of whitespace. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for that. I watch all of them (as I created most of them), so generally whenever I see an edit, I check it, so over a period of a couple of months I'll check on most of them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Template:Template category

The main point of the edit was to remove the bold markup, as some of the usages of the template didn't account for the added bold and were thus breaking (i.e., they contained their own markup and/or had multiple paragraphs). I don't particularly care about the font size, though I don't see the need for it to be so large. I've never seen any other templates use a larger font size. --- RockMFR 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got anything for me to do?

I notice you work in the same sort of areas as User:Davidgothberg, and as I've said to him, if there's any Wiki-background type fixing up of things to be done that a non-admin can handle, please let me know. Regards! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

When I look at prior versions in the history of my page Constitution of the Roman Republic, I see a pink box at the bottom that says "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions". Is my page, Constitution of the Roman Republic, going to be deleted???RomanHistorian (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Regarding Constitution of the Roman Republic and my question about making it a featured article, can you give me a better idea of how far you think the article might be from featured article status?RomanHistorian (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I made many of the changes to Constitution of the Roman Republic that you suggested, and added the wikilinks. What do you think of it now? How do you think it could be improved? Also, what did you mean by footnote columns?RomanHistorian (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ATT: Sardanaphalus

hi, its kridian again. i just wrote a whole new paragraph for neurofunk so wondering if you can help out once more by adding No U-Turn reference number 3 to the sentence on overview where No U-Turn is found, on "Silent witness & Break began crafting groundbreaking tracks when being recruited by legendary No U-Turn* label founder/producer Nico". hope everything is well with you. thx once again. best, Kridian

[edit] Template:New Zealand topics‎

Do you realise that you left this template in a poor state after your recent edit to it? Adding nowrap templates without including suitable wrap points means that for people with screens or browser windows less than the length of a full line, they will have to scroll to see the full table. This is very poor design. I have added wrap points to fix it.-gadfium 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] att: sardanaphalus

better lock neurofunk article for a short while since it was recently exposed to a very mainstream drum & bass forum which is famous for rudeboys and beer drinking club fighters in london who are now vandalizing the article. its quite normal that they do since they are descendents from mods and rockers and famous for fighting and vandalism in general, in clubs and now on the net. best, Kridian

[edit] Various reconstructions

Hi, Sardanaphalus!

I completely agree with your recent movre of Reconstruction. Actually, by means of the search facility, I found Reconstruction (disambiguation), with a number of links (including the one to Plastic surgery#Reconstructive plastic surgery I probably was looking for). Do you think this disambiguation page should be moved to the name Reconstruction, or the latter redirect to the former; or is it best to leave things as they are, and just add an "other uses" note at the top of the articleReconstruction era of the United States? JoergenB (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally I feel that moving the disambiguation page to Reconstruction should be the best solution, and that anyhow the old organisation was against the globalisation policy. However, I looked a little bit on the links to the page Reconstruction, and we seem to have a little problem. I estimate the number of links to between 1600 and 1700; and from a little sampling I would believe that the vast majority of them indeed refer to the reconstruction era of the US. Perhaps one would need some robot help to correct the links; and I know rather little about wp 'bots.

Thus, in principle, just moving might be the correct thing to do; but in practice I support your suggestion of making a request for a move. If there are people opposing the shift, they should have their say; if the more global way prevails, fixing the links could benefit from the help of other users.

JoergenB (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, do! JoergenB (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAA Fan 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For updating links I awarded you the cookie.--LAA Fan 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:World's most populated urban areas

I just fixed it so that even at 800 wide there is no problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying it is a problem if San Francisco – San Jose wraps onto two lines?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents

Category:Sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{range}} now has trailing dot handling

Hi Sardanaphalus! A month ago we had a discussion about range handling in navboxes on my talk page.

I have added "trailing dot" handling to {{range}} now. See examples at {{range/testcases}} and the change in the code that use it in {{range/nobel}}. The new code for {{range}} is slightly large but seems to work very well.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Many projects dont bother to have 'gate keepers' or 'watchers' - but we at the indonesian project however few (well maybe speaking for myself as an ed in the project) - tend to interrogate and check when basic things inside our major articles get re-arranged by either friendly or not so friendly eds - so regardless of whether its for 'our good' or perhaps someone elses - we tend to try to touch base - as to check whats up - I very often misinterpret some actions - so in this case I probably have - but is there something about our project that someone made too many templates? It would be good to hear whats up as sometimes edits are insufficient to understanbd whats up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Indonesia-related_topics - cheers - when the tough stuff happens we usually try to direct to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia page so that the other two? eds :) can see Satu Suro 11:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at it - it should have been just - thanks for your help - cheers Satu Suro 11:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

{{helpme}} I've just been blocked indefinitely, without warning, by User:Nakon for "pagemove..." [sic]. Help! Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, you have been unblocked, but as Nakon says, "please slow down". Soxred 93 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Thanks for the message, Soxred93, but I'm still being shown a message telling me that I'm "currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia". So, I'd be grateful if you'd investigate further and rectify -- or, better still, I suppose, get Nakon to rectify. I guess something has gone wrong somewhere. Surely moving pages isn't a no-warning immediate-indefinite-ban offense? Is this what Nakon thinks I'm doing too fast? (I don't know where he's said "please slow down".) If so, what's the acceptable rate? (And I wonder why I haven't been "banned" for this before...?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, your block log says that you were unblocked. Try purging your cache, and try again. ~~(It looks like you have edited, so is everything good now?)~~ Whoops, those were my edits I was looking at. Soxred 93 02:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Sorry, no joy. The message now says that I'm unable to edit pages "because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person" and that the "block has been set to expire: 01:46, 28 May 2008". Does this mean I should disconnect then reconnect my modem in order to be given another IP address by my provider, which should then mean I can contribute once again?

Also, some insight as regards my other queries above would be welcome, as, if possible, I'd like to avoid this situation recurring. Perhaps Nakon himself might be willing to respond. (It's okay, I understand if he'd tuned an autoblock setting a little too finely.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a page

Discuss with editors before moving a page.Readin (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the discussion page Talk:Political status of Taiwan. If you believe the page should be moved, make a proposal there.

You make a good point about the first paragraph. But moving the page may not be the best solution. Perhaps we should rewrite the first paragraph, or maybe create a second page called Political Status of the Republic of China. Readin (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is particularly important to use the "(Taiwan)" following "Republic of China" in places where there is no other clarifying context. A list including other states would be an example where using "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is especially important to prevent confusion with the PRC and/or China.

"Taiwan" can be interpreted as either the informal name of the "Republic of China", as a the name of a country (just as "Ireland", "Wales", "Korea", etc. are countries without a current single government) or as the name of an island.

In general the principle is to use "Republic of China" to refer to the government/state and use "Taiwan" to refer to the country/island. However in a situation where the informal names are being used, I would argue that we should use "Taiwan (Republic of China)" and "China (People's Republic of China) to be consistent with the other names in the list and therefor maintain NPOV. We did some source stacks recently on Talk:China and found that overwhelmingly "Taiwan" is the common name for ROC and "China" is the common name for PRC.

Another solution is to look at whether the listed names need to be the names of national governments rather than the names of places. Sometimes simply renaming the list can avoid problems. In the recent 2008 Sichuan Earthquake article we included a section on places where the tremors were felt. We included UN members like the Japan alongside local governments like Hong Kong and Macau. There was little objection to including Taiwan on the list because we neither denied nor recognized her sovereignty.

I think you're right that we don't need to include the "(Taiwan)" after "Republic of China" in template and category names. I think most of the time we don't need "(Taiwan)" in the ROC article names, but article names should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Inside articles we usually include the "(Taiwan)" on the first mention of the ROC to avoid confusion. We also sometimes include it on the first mention within a section.

Readin (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)". I use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" when formal names are used and "Taiwan (Republic of China)" when common names are used. However this is not universally agreed upon. Readin (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Hello. Please do not edit closed AfDs, and particularly not the comments of other people. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)