User talk:Wangi/archive 06

[edit] Where should I discuss it?

Ssolbergj 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon

We did discuss it, alignment isn't the only reason, and it is the SAME MAP, just linked differently. Aboutmovies 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the {{ussm}} the map is half way usable on the article without clicking through to the full size... The other version isn't - it's basically useles sin the thumbnail size. Thanks/wangi 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To me its useless either way as out-dated, and only good for the outline of the state as everything else is too small. If you'll notice our neighbors in Washington, California, Nevada, and Idaho do not use the template either. As it was in template form it dominated instead of complimented the section. We can try to enlarge it some, but it should not dominate the article. Aboutmovies 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English banknotes...

I note the permission expires at the end of July? Time to put in a new application for an extension? ShakespeareFan00 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And we are now beyond the date where the permission runs. Have you applied for a new licence? Bryces 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dabpages

Thanks for your comment and suggestion, I was not aware of WP:MOSDAB I have edited a few disambig pages and they all vary in style! I will now read the MOS page and conform to the suggestions. MilborneOne 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AllanLake.jpg

You have tagged the above named image. I am unsure how to tag it. I have obtained the image from the subject, with their permission and it is their picture. What tag do I use? Thanks. Adamiow 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

replied /wangi 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just for Wikipedia use. Unfortunately, no other version is available. Any ideas? Cheers. Adamiow 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

replied /wangi 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just remembered that the that the image has been used elsewhere, other than just for Wikipedia, still not for commercial use. Sorry, I didn't have enough time to think about it last night. What tag should I use? Cheers. Adamiow 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

replied /wangi 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very confused with all of this. My apologies, as I have struggled to understand this before. I have been given permission to use this photo in any way I wished. I have used this photo on here, as well as it being used on a website in reference to the person. As this gains money through ads, would this count as a commercial activity? If it does, then what tag shall I use? If not, I have another photo, which has been used as a publicity photo on a website for a radio station, which could be used, but I think this photo is more suited. Thanks. Adamiow 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk page/wangi 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you block this guy?

Can you block IP 86.14.220.47, or just give him a warning? He is one of the most unpleasant IPs I've ever seen, from personal attacks to vandalism, and I'm amazed he hasn't been blocked. Thanks, even if you don't block him. ~Crowstar~ 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you check this out, this editor User:24.203.217.170 has admitted on Talk:British_National_Party#Far_right that he is banned from WP, yet he is editing this article.--padraig3uk 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reblock him, he has attacked me on MY talk page. This guy obviously isn't here to build an encyclopedia, only to make very rude comments to people he doesn't like. ~Crowstar~ 17:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

Hi, I'm trying to understand what "consensus" means in Wikipedia. I know that deletion discussions are not polls but how/why did you conclude in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/christian homophobia that "The result of the debate was delete" when the vast majority of editors argued for keep. I've never seen the userbox in question so please realize that this is a sincere process question and I have no interest in revisiting the arguments about that particular userbox. --DieWeisseRose 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I summarised my decision well on the mfd page:

delete per WP:CSD#T1 and following concerns. Really serves nothing more than fostering a feeling of hate. It may well be appropriate for a userbox to say user X opposes homophobia... But Only brand X of homophobia? Homophobia isn't a defining trait of christianity. Divisive. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny and Wikipedia:Deletion review#User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny.

Let me know if you need any clarification. Thanks/wangi 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MFD

Just a note to say I've reverted your edit as you shouldn't use templates for purposes they weren't designed for, and it looks silly. Also see my edit summary... —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 06:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain why you're so worked up about this! And where you got the idea the {{selfref}} is meant for only the top of an article. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Spoiler Warning"

There is something I want to be manditory on all page with a plot that reveals the ENTIRE plot. I am not an Administrator so I can not argue my case and would love it if you would help me here. I would like a Spoiler Warning to place on all pages that give away the entire or main details of a plot. It would be kind to those who are new to Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you could help me and show me to the page where I could argue my case. Rembrant12 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Best place would probably be the talk page of Wikipedia:Spoiler, and following that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thanks/wangi 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me with this please? Rembrant12 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no time just now (hardly ever even logging on) and I personally I'm not sure it's a good idea! Thanks/wangi 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:

• User_talk:SFC9394#Firm_guidance_to_door_required

--Mais oui! 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bank Of England10.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bank Of England10.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Barliner 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bank Of England20.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bank Of England20.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Barliner 11:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia

You're right, sorry for reverting it. Reinis^talk 11:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made the edit, I admit that the structure of the paragraph was broken up, but it would have been better to fix the new paragraph than simply revert. The changes I made had a advantage - it used a recent scientific analysis of edit IP addresses rather than simply "claims of bias" (and includes important information that the Catholic Church and CIA have also made edits. Sad mouse 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

better would be

Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[49] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism and similar problems. In one particularly well-publicized incident, false information was introduced into the biography of John Seigenthaler, Sr. and remained undetected for four months.[50] Some critics claim that Wikipedia's open structure makes it an easy target for internet trolls, advertisers, and those with an agenda to push.[51][52] An analysis of 5.3 million wikipedia edits showed that groups such as American political parties, special interest groups, major corporations, the Catholic Church and the CIA have made edits to wikipedia. [53][6][54]

removing the Colbert reference means there is no problem in breaking the flow of the paragraph, and as much as I love Colbert it isn't really important enough to make it to the summary page. Also, what was the basis for removing my correction of the EB vs wikipedia reference? My edit better reflected the actual content of the EB vs wiki original paper (which showed roughly the same number of errors between the two, but far more serious errors in wikipedia). I know most people didn't actually read the full report, but to only claim the first part (which made newspaper headlines) is serious bias in favour of wikipedia, which is something that should be avoided. Sad mouse 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color of Tables

The whole point of the table colors being purple is to match them to the oneworld alliance colors. The SkyTeam is light blue, oneworld is purple, and the Star Alliance is lightgrey. It's been talked about before, and many editors see this as a convience.--Golich17 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSA Czech Airlines

"(cur) (last) 22:21, 10 February 2006 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved CSA Czech Airlines to Czech Airlines: correct name) (undo)"

When the airline itself uses CSA Czech Airlines in English? WhisperToMe 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Hmmm, now its website uses "Czech Airlines" - I remember it having "CSA Czech" printed in other areas.. Hmm, this is strange. WhisperToMe 04:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Farlack913

Hi, Can you please have a look at User talk:Farlack913. This user has added an inappropriate section title (badly spelt) to his talk page. His edits today are of a dubious nature. Can you please review. Many thanks --Stewart ^(talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9

Thanks for letting me know Wangi. I feel sorry for the newbie on this one. Meanwhile I'm now getting it in the neck for an out of process deletion - which it most certainly wasn't. The joys of those admin buttons!! Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks....

....for the support [1]. Seems incredible how quickly "admin abuse" gets hurled around these days. Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete of John Toolen

I noticed that you recently deleted the John Toolen article, which is about an officer killed in the line of duty. I have asked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement if there is a policy or guideline about this. Dying in the line of duty seems to assert notability. Truthanado (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one deletion among a few, see others at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=Wangi (12 or so). I do not see death in the line of duty as a notable aspect especially. It's too sad that it happens far too often, but there was no evidence there was anything special about these deaths. Sorry. Thanks/wangi (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It is pretty sad that we keep articles about someone who records a song that gets written about in a music mag (demonstrating notability) yet we don't allow articles about people who give their lives protecting people. I understand the reasoning ... I just wonder if that is what the Wikicommunity really wants Wikipedia to be. Truthanado (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand what you're saying completely - only thing I'd counter with is that perhaps it's a known risk of the job. Officers that die in the line of duty that are notable in a larger context will probably have an article. But saying that putting together a larger discussion on the topic would not be a bad idea. Thanks/wangi (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you offered to put the deleted articles in my userspace. Could you do that please, as some of the text I will use here. Thankyou -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a amalgamation or list makes sense. I have copied the content from the articles to the page you linked to. Thanks/wangi (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the John Toolen page. While deaths in the line of duty may or may not be notable depending on context I do not think they meet the criteria for speedy deletion, since notability may come from the manner of death. Personally, I believe that all murders are notable, except perhaps purely domestic ones. Please take to Afd for further discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing, I think you may be confusing WP:N with WP:CSD#A7. Lack of notability is not grounds for speedy deletion. These should probably all be restored and, if you feel they are not notable, Prodded or sent to AfD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think CSD#A7 fits here. The articles really do not assert the importance of the subject - or is the implication that every police office in world, in all history that has been killed on duty automatically significant? Because that is all these articles were saying. On the deleted articles there was nothing about why the deaths of those officers were specifically significant. See here for all the content of the articles. Let me know what you think, and if you (or anyone else) still think they should be undeleted I will do so. Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all murders are notable enough for a WP article, but I think they all have the possibility to be notable, so no, I don't think they meet the A7 criteria, which are intended to eliminate articles about people with no notability at all and no sensible assertion of notability. A murder of a police officer is generally, I would say, notable and notability is asserted simply by the fact that he was murdered. Are we really that blasé about murders of public servants? As Truthanado says, minor modern "celebrities" seem to be regarded as notable because they get written about a lot in the media - is it really logical to delete an article about a police officer murdered ninety years ago essentially because the internet didn't exist then? Maybe they're not all notable, but I think that's for Afd to decide. Incidentally, there's a difference between being killed "in the line of duty" (such as in a car crash) and being murdered - the former is obviously not notable, any more than anyone else being killed in a car crash is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. All have now been restored, and author notified. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to refer to some of the threads at WT:CSD for more discussion on exactly what A7 means, it isn't entirely clear even to the folks who hang out there debating criteria. You might consider lending some thoughts too to help us all come to a consensus about the meaning of assertion of importance. Cheers.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revereted changes you did to the Germany Religion

I have added back changes you have reverted to the Germany Religion, if you would like to discuss or add something please feel free to do so, in my update I have used lates source with references, also made some clean up and reodering Pakhomovru (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting me mixed up with somebody else. While I did do a revert on the Germany article on the 3rd I actually immediately reverted myself. I've not touched the article since. Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.