Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 24 March 2010

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|RL0919}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Archives

2005-2006 · 2009 · 2010

Unreferenced stub

As I was closing this, I noticed that you were volunteering to perform the merge. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at it this evening. --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the 'auto' parameter to {{Unreferenced}} and its documentation. Based on the discussion, I did not add the 'type' parameter, because that is only used for categories and my interpretation of the discussion is that the separate categories were viewed as unnecessary. I also haven't redirected {{Unreferenced stub}}, because I wanted you to be able to review first. Let me know if you believe there is anything else that needs to be merged. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it and everything appears to work as expected. --RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Letters of Ayn Rand

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Letters of Ayn Rand, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I never had an article I created on DYK before. I can never think of what would be interesting to submit. Glad someone did it for me. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw

By the way, can you speed close this? Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/National_awakening_of_Macedonians --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Politics, religion, etc. etc.

You haven't done the redirect yet. Got distracted? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, I'm just faster than you. Don't forget High Tech Redneck too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Both done now. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Geolinks-AU-streetscale

Go for it. The easiest solution would be to just change them all to {{coord|lat|lon|region:AU_type:landmark|display=title}}, but it would be even better if they could be merged with the infobox when possible (e.g., {{infobox bridge}} or {{infobox building}}). Let me know if you need any help, and thanks for offering. Plastikspork _―Œ 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, another chance to use AWB. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I finished orphaning it, and went ahead and deleted it since there didn't seem to be anything else to do. --RL0919 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Calculator numeral

Could you userfy it for me so I can improve it? Thanks. 4 T C 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Restored and moved to User:4/Calculator numeral. --RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference templates

If you are interested, see User:Gadget850/Reference templates and the talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  15:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox EastEnders character 2

Hi, I hope you don't mind me approaching you to ask if there's any possibility you might consider withdrawing your deletion nomination of the EastEnders character infobox. I'm not asking because I necessarily think it should stay - I fundamentally agree that there should be consistency with the existing general character infoboxes. After a discussion at the EastEnders WikiProject, I can see that there's agreement that the excessive family parameters need to be trimmed, and there is intention and willingness to work on cutting them down and bringing everything into line. My main concern is largely that 'Infobox EastEnders character 2' is transcluded in over 300 articles, and that working to reach a consensus on parameters and then putting that into effect is going to take a lot of time and effort, and that under the pressure of a deletion discussion isn't the most ideal circumstance for that to take place.

The way the EastEnders template is currently set up, it divides relations by sex, something which neither {{Infobox character}} or {{Infobox soap character}} does - even with the aid of AWB, changing that in all of the articles the template is used in is going to be a very long job. What I'd ideally like is for the project to have a little breathing room to assess how best to go about this, rather than being forced to make quick decisions, laboriously executed within the time constraints of a deletion discussion. I suppose I'm asking for more of a stay of execution, if you will, and of course if you felt that progress was not being made within a reasonable time frame, I wouldn't object to you raising the discussion again. Apologies for the length of this message, I just wanted to fully explain my rationale so you understand my request isn't just a case of WP:ILIKEIT! Thank you for your time. Frickative 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the concern about time constraints is mostly related to implementation, I don't think we have a big problem. TFD is a bit different from, say, article deletion, in that it is already understood that the process of implementing the changes may take a while. There is a "holding pen" for templates where a decision has been made to replace or merge a template, but there is ongoing work to update fields, replace transclusions, etc. So as long as we can form a consensus within seven days as to what to do, the time for doing it is not specifically limited. In the specific case, if the consensus was (for example) to create a new {{Infobox soap character 2}} that addressed some common concerns that people have with {{Infobox soap character}}, and then replace the show-specific templates with that, I would be OK with that solution and it could be implemented over several weeks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware that TFD differed from AFD like that, so that is very helpful. It seems to be something of a common theme that the existing {{Infobox soap character}} template meets the needs of US soaps better than UK ones, so if the discussion flags up the specifics of why that is the case, I'm sure an acceptable compromise can be reached. Thanks again :) Frickative 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My Userbox

Did you delete the template Biased Arabic Wiki from userspace without any prior warning??? Please respond and show me who gave you permission to do so. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did delete the user-space copy, as I explained in my closing statement for the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 27#Template:Biased Arabic Misplaced Pages. The "delete" arguments were based on this userbox being divisive and contrary to the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes and Misplaced Pages:User page. I believed this argument carried more weight than the "move" arguments that thought the box was inappropriate for template space but would be within the latitude allowed for user space. I'm sorry if you thought you were due some additional notification prior to the user space copy being deleted, but I don't believe that was a necessary step considering that you made the copy while it was up for deletion. You chose to interpret the consensus for yourself rather than waiting for an uninvolved party to do so, and as a consequence, when I closed the discussion as "delete", there were two instances of the box to delete rather than one.

If you believe my close of the discussion was in error, you are of course welcome to raise the matter at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, and if the consensus there is that I was wrong, the box may be restored or perhaps put up for a fresh discussion at WP:MFD. But I would encourage you to consider finding a more constructive way to raise awareness about any problems you believe exist at Arabic Misplaced Pages. A more positively worded userbox (perhaps linked to an explanatory user space essay) calling for reform of Arabic Misplaced Pages, without using divisive rhetoric, would still get the point across and would almost certainly survive deletion challenges. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid what you said and what you did is totally incorrect for the following reasons:

• 1. The debate was about the template in the public space NOT about the template in my own private space.
• 2. The majority consensus was move and not delete! So you had no right to delete unilaterally.

So please do kindly restore my userspace template, and then if you don't like it, you can always nominate it for deletion again! Thanks you! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my evaluation of the discussion. Numerically, the comments were divided evenly between keep/move (mostly move) and delete, but I found the arguments for deletion to have greater weight based on the established guidelines. (Note that although the numbers are not entirely irrelevant, interpretation of discussion consensus is not about majority votes in a particular discussion.) The arguments for the delete position were clearly contrasted to the idea of moving to user space, and the concerns they raised would apply regardless of the namespace. As I said, you are welcome to raise the issue at WP:DRV, and perhaps other uninvolved parties will agree with your conclusions over mine. But you are clearly not a neutral interpreter, and I have seen nothing in your comments to make me take your interpretation of the discussion over the one I stated previously. So, I'm sorry but I will not accommodate your request, although I appreciate the effort you have made to argue your position. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a vote, it's not about your evaluation of things! There were 7 people against deletion and how many for it? The votes were clearly not divided evenly! More people said it's a matter of personal freedom. I see your actions as very unfair, and I will certainly ask for re-evaluation of the whole matter. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a WP:TPS, I would point you toward WP:NOTVOTE, and encourage you, Lanternix, take it to WP:DRV if you don't agree. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, a DRV has been started here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Possible Vandalism

Hi, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I couldn't help but notice you deleted the template called Possiblevandalism, this deletion was unwarranted as the discussion was not at a close and the evidence for a keep was not properly listened to. Also, the reasons stated for deletion were inadequate as they had been proven wrong. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached I will be forced to put this up for a deletion review. Remember, befere deletion consider "Is there a reason why I shoudn't delete this?", considering this before deleting anything will result in a much more enjoyable Misplaced Pages-maintaining experience. Thats all,
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, although I have been here for a while! As the administrator who closed the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 1#Template:Possiblevandalism, I deleted the template based on the consensus of the participants. The discussion had run for a full seven days, with only one comment (yours) in the previous two days, so I believe the timing of the close was appropriate. Six editors expressed cogent reasons for deleting the template, and in several cases replied to your comments opposing deletion. The only editor to oppose its deletion was yourself, and I did not find that your arguments outweighed those calling for deletion. You are of course welcome to take the matter to deletion review, but I do not believe my actions in this instance will be in any way controversial. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, however I am now going to consider whether to take this to a deletion review or not. There is this admin who seems to follow and comment on all my edits for some reason, I will see what he/she thinks.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Asking for deletion review is totally within your rights, and I would encourage you to seek the second opinion you mention from the other admin. I've made a few tough calls in closing deletion discussions (see the conversation immediately above this one, for example), where I would understand if another neutral party took a different view of the discussion. But honestly this was not one of the difficult cases. --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Filmyear

The template is now basically orphaned, with the only remaining transclusions on userpages. Plastikspork _―Œ 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

'Tis deleted. Thanks! --RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Bible

I've history merged the two articles, that should fix any attribution problems. The Holy Bible appears to be the more sensible title - if it was at The Holy Bible (album) then the actual Bible article would have to have a hatnote about a rock music album, which seems a bit bizarre. Very few people are going to type "The Holy Bible" into a search engine whilst looking for the article on the Bible. Black Kite 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't have any preference for what gets which name. The cut-and-paste move just had to be fixed. If The Holy Bible is going to be the album, there are some links that should be updated to Bible. The main use of the redirect appears to be links in articles where the bible has been mentioned or cited as a source as "The Holy Bible". --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Domingo

Changed !vote. You can withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the quick response. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

HK-MTR lines

I have basically taken care of this one, but there is a technical reason why I don't think we should entirely delete it. See here. Basically, I think we should just remove the colored text in this template (which I have done), and leave it so it can be used with {{s-line}}. Hopefully this isn't a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

An Organic Conversation

There are several links to other articles within wikipedia in my article. Please stop adding the orphan status. 71.204.141.254 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Orphan" means that other articles don't link to it. It has nothing to do with how many links it contains going to other articles. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will make adjustments. 71.204.141.254 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub deletion

Hi, you recently marked the March 6 entry as complete, but what was the result and where is the log. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The SFD log page for March 6 is Misplaced Pages:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2010/March/6, and the result is explained there. Basically the category was renamed. Let me know if you want any more detailed explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I couldn't see any link to that from the stub deletion page, but anyway you've pointed it out now, and I see the change has been made. How do I go about getting the other stub categories changed that I refer to in the text, preferably without manually posting each one?

You could do a single submission at WP:SFD to cover renaming of all the relevant categories. They would need to be listed and tagged, but it could be done in one discussion with one explanation, and the closing admin would change them all together (assuming a positive conclusion, of course). --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism warning

Hi. I notice you deleted {{bv}}, the blatant vandalism warning template. I've been using this quite regularly for years when appropriate. If this has been superceeded, can you reccomend what should be used instead, and any reason not to redirect to what is now prefered? Thanks much! Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The most commonly used today are the "Uw-vandalism" series, starting with {{Uw-vandalism1}}. The closest in spirit to the deleted template is probably {{Uw-vandalism4im}}. That said, nothing requires you to use a template to warn vandals, or to stop using the language of the deleted template. One of the TFD participants (User:Connormah) said they had made a user-space copy of the deleted content, which I presume they will continue to use instead of the still-templated versions. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. I have turned it into a redirect. I may not be the only person who uses this on occasion not aware that it would suddenly be gone. Thanks again. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf

Please take note of this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)