User talk:Alai/Archive 23
Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 - Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12
Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16 - Archive 17 - Archive 18 - Archive 19 - Archive 20 - Archive 21 - Archive 22
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Bot request
[edit]I'm still hoping you'll have time to help us out. I'd like to replace Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places with Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places for all articles in Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places category with "light" in the title. These all also probably have Category:Light...something also, but there are many different related categories (e.g. Category:Lighthouses in Duval County, Florida). It needn't work perfectly - if it does 90% of them correctly, I'll fix the rest and be happy. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I was able to do it with AWB. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Burkina Faso
[edit]Hi just to let you know Category:Burkina Faso geography stubs has over 600 stubs and counting... We've already split the categories by province, perhaps you want to do the same with the stub cats. Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I quite resent the comment that I don't "do stub proposals". It makes me look like I am lazy. I am extremely busy all across wikipedia and thought you were trustworthy and interested in working in the stub sorting project. We each do work in our roles and I am grateful for your work and proposals in the stub sorting project. Is it so lazy of me to not do everything myself and share the load? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it makes it look that way. I have made many proposals in the past myself ask Her Pegship or Valentinian but seeing how well you handled cases in the past I have come to think of you as one of the most active members in stub sorting group. I apologize if you don't like me notifying you, I wasn't aware it was a burden. I'll try to make the proposals myself in future. I would split Burkina Faso by 45 provinces. E.g Category:Ganzourgou Province now has over 200 stubs alone. Probably you could upmerge some of them into the regions until they hit 60. They'll get there eventually. Thankyou anyway. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Surname disambiguation discussions
[edit]I saw your note on PamD's talk page. Would you be interested in the following discussions? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Alien-stub
[edit]G'day Alai - over at SFD the Alien-stub discussion's been needing closing for a while, but both Pegship and I have been heavily involved in the discussion, so we need someone less involved to close it -could you do so please? If I were closing it, I'd do so as "rename template and upmerge, and delete redirect", but since that's pretty much what my own comments in the discussion were I'm hesitant to do so (of course, if you see the consensus going some other way, that's fine). Grutness...wha? 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
'00s hip hop album subtypes
[edit]Hello, you recently created a couple of stub. I don't see how this is a proper consensus. I don't think this stub templates should exist, at all. That's over-stubbing (if that word exists). I might nominate them for deletion. What do you think about it? Please reply here. Thank you. Tasc0 It's a zero! 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't understand either the problem with the consensus, or with the stub types. The necessity for these was pointed out in the nomination. Alai (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think they don't need to exist. That's all. I came here because I don't see the nomination ending with a proper consensus. Did an admin close it? Because I don't see no sign. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said, the need was specifically addressed in the nomination. See the size criteria in the stub guidelines. Do you have some objection or counter-argument beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I'm really struggling to follow your procedural objections. How much clearer a sign of consensus do you want, than everyone who participated agreeing, and no-one disagreeing? WSS/P is not an admin-closure process, since it doesn't require any particular permission set, but as it happens this one was closed by the person who closes almost all of these, Pegship, who is indeed now an admin. Alai (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think they don't need to exist. That's all. I came here because I don't see the nomination ending with a proper consensus. Did an admin close it? Because I don't see no sign. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alaibot and Babine Lake
[edit]Hi, your bot seems to have retagged Babine Lake as with Template:BritishColumbiaCoast-geo-stub but Babine Lake is nowhere near the BC Coast. I'm not sure why that would have happened, as other stubs from the same area have been correctly retagged. Thanks and good luck. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Great Hunger
[edit]Hi, you participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. Most of the editors that participated in the recent polls were invited to participate in the most recent, but as far as I can see you were not. Your opinion should still be heard. The editor who opened the new poll said this to the other participants. "This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk)". Regards (p.s. by error i also added this notice to one of your archive pages...while checking to see if the notice was in an archive page rather than in your current talk page) Wotapalaver (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- PS. The poll closed 36 hours ago. The result was move to Great Famine (Ireland). I posted friendly notice to everybody who took part in this poll (you didn't), but Wotapalaver apparently "didn't have time" to pass it on until just now. Confused? I sure am! Scolaire (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Polish geo categories
[edit]I don't mind very much, but I don't see any particular need for gminas to be subcategorized by county. At the moment, categorized by voivodeship, they generally fit onto a single category page (I think there are only two voivodeships which have more than 200 gminas and so spill onto a second page). All the articles have been created, so (barring boundary changes) the categories aren't going to get any larger. And having this granularity provides what is currently the only way of browsing gminas alphabetically by voivodeship - browsing by county would not be so useful since the gminas are already listed by county in the individual county articles.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll retune the bot to use the county-level stubs before I run it next time. I'll let you know when I'm close to starting on the other voivodeships. I assume the naming convention is always "Xxx-geo-stub", where Xxx County is the name of the county? (or would it be unspaced "XxxYyy-geo-stub" in the few cases where the county name is "Xxx Yyy County"?) --Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I've just realized that this will be ambiguous in a few cases (for example, there is both an Opole Voivodeship and Opole County), but we can deal with those when we come to them.--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just noticed something: some of the county stub templates place articles in the county-level categories (Category:Aleksandrów County geography stubs etc.), while others place them in the higher-level Category:Kuyavian-Pomeranian geography stubs. I presume the first behaviour is the intended one? I'm also creating a few more templates for the Kuyavian-Pomeranian counties, since the bot is running through counties which don't yet have the stub templates in existence.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- What I can probably do is program the bot to create the stub templates and categories whenever it starts working on a new county. That way we can be sure all the templates exist (though the images will probably need to be added manually later), and there will be no need for upmerging, since the county-level category will fill up pretty quickly as the bot does its stuff.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing there will always be at least 60 per county. The bot skipped some districts at the first pass, so even those counties which have less than 60 now will probably have more in a few days' time. In any case I would think a uniform policy works best, even if some categories end up with slightly below 60.--Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
hello, User:Astrotrain is trying to place the Arms of Great Britain on the Scotland page. This user claims on User talk:Astrotrain that "They are the Queen's Royal Arms, and they were linked to the relevant page. You can find the compromise agreement in the archives of the Scotland talk page." I finally located in the archives [archives] a conversation which involved yourself. My understanding from reading these archives is that there was no clear compromise, and if there was, it was to keep the status quo and not add the arms. I am contacting you over this matter as User:Astrotrain is continuing to try to add the said arms and has today stated in Talk:Scotland "There was a clear consensus, you can ask any of the other editors. I suspect you have other motives for making these changes. If you insist on moving the arms, they will be reinstated in the infobox then.". Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
RE:Huggle use
[edit]Hi. Alai I checked my recent edit and I found out what you were talking about. But I didn't intentionally remove your text on purpose. I ment to remove User:82.34.3.148 edit right before yours which was "EMO".
You must have made an edit a few seconds before I had did that. Please understand that I didn't do that on my own remarks. You should have discussed it with me first before reporting a missuse of huggle :(... Tedmund (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed. Sorry about that.
But how careless you think it was, it's really a matter of fact that it was an accident.
Thanks for the feedback! Tedmund (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of New prog
[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, New prog, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New prog. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? DeletionAccount (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
My user account
[edit]This account indeed has only one purpose. I do not edit Wikipedia with this account; I only nominate pages for deletion. PROD and CSD can be done anonymously. I have other accounts for creating pages and what have you. If the name bothers you, fear not; it has only limited uses before I retire it. DeletionAccount (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alai, I hope you'll look at the two nominations from this account - they both seem like appropriate nominations that wouldn't draw a second thought if another editor made them. That isn't to say they can't be debated, just that as nominations they aren't clearly improper. So I thought there was no real issue of improper use here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have done nothing improper; I merely remain anonymous as is allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. I do not sockpuppet votes; rather, I do nothing at all with these accounts but create pages. And, respectfully, your threats are not welcome. You should consider the comments I posted on CBM's user page about assuming good faith. It's a problem we anonymous editors face rather often. DeletionAccount (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- To respond to your note on CBM's user page, let's see. The page makes references which are not valid. In nominating the page, I issued my concerns as it is proper to do in a deletion debate. Alternatively, I could say "WP:NEO, NN, you guys figure it out" which would be improper at all angles. Also, I don't see that you are "encouraging" anything. The requirements for creating a page are nothing, and I have met those requirements. Since when has Wikipedia demanded that people sacrifice to be able to contribute? I can have my cake and eat it too and the crumbs will feed the masses. DeletionAccount (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And to respond to the following comments, the concern about SPA is about POV and sock puppeteering. I have clearly not shown any problem in this regard. As for username policy, the only question is that which CBM raised about appearing to be an administrator, which has been noted now on my this user page. DeletionAccount (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- And what are these "requirements for being blocked as an SPA" of which you speak? Last time I checked, there were none. The question is whether the user has acted appropriately. From WP:SPA, "One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions." Are you accusing me of being a sock puppet? Of enforcing my POV? Or what is your problem with my existence? DeletionAccount (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Coming in here via the New prog AfD. DeletionAccount is correct that WP:SPA doesn't advocate blocking SPAs automatically, but since it's an essay anyway the more relevant page is Wikipedia:UN#Single-purpose accounts. All that says is that SPAs 'may indicate sockpuppetry' but that editors should assume good faith. So, if there's no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry in this case (and I certainly see none) then DA has done nothing wrong and is certainly not deserving of a block. Or do you believe there is evidence of abusing behaviour? Olaf Davis | Talk 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- This may be relatively low-end (ab)use of multiple accounts, but it's openly admitted, and for my money is very clearly in category of use of such intended to avoid scrutiny and circumvent policy. If we wish the distinction between IP-editing and (meaningfully) signed-in accounts, as regards deletion nomination, article-creation, etc, to have any actual effect at all, surely we should be actively discouraging throwaway surrogates purposefully being deployed to elide them, rather than debating nuances of process with them. (If we don't, then hey, I guess it was good while it lasted.) Alai (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The only reason this account is needed is that the IP editor can't create the actual AFD page unless he/she logs in. That's because IPs can't create any pages, not because AFD is meant to prohibit IPs from nominating articles for deletion. Some editors refuse, for one reason or another, from registering an account for ordinary use. I see it as a very small accommodation to permit them to use an SPA for purposes like this provided their actions with the SPA show no intent of abuse. I don't see any intent of abuse here, just a bad choice of username which could easily be fixed with a user page note. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Since the user "declined" your request that they do something meaningful about their user name, and responded to your user-page note with a mocking meta-comment on it, I'm not hopeful that in this particular case they're in the least inclined to extend us any reciprocal accommodation. I was of the belief that there was an express restriction on anons nominating articles for deletion: that's certainly what I took the old version of {{anon}} to mean. From the current state of our maze of twisty policy pages (all unalike...), I'm not presently sure either way. If that really is the intent, then a technical fix (though doubtless not a quick one) would be possible, to allow anons to create (sub)pages in that portion of the namespace hierarchy. Alai (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's a response to Alai's comment on my talk page. Essentially I said that what DA is doing makes it potentially easier to avoid scrutiny of abusive behaviour, but unless there's any evidence that they intend to commit such behaviour (or have been doing so already) WP:SOCK does not apply; it specifically says "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors...", but I don't feel that that's the intention.
- Regarding whether the restriction on IPs starting AfDs in intentional or an accidental by-product - my understanding was the latter, but I admit that I'm likely to be eaten by a grue before I find a definitive answer in policy. Perhaps suggesting the technical work-around would be a good idea if only because it would reveal what consensus on the issue is; however, I still feel that creating a SPA to start AfDs is allowable. After all, if all the AfDs turn out to be in bad faith the account can always be blocked. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I declined to use a permanent username. I said very specifically "Anyway, you requested that I consider creating a real account, and I have declined your proposal." Obviously, this means that I will not be creating a permanent account (as if I had to reiterate that now). As for sock puppetry, that's a blatant accusation, Alai. Care to back it up? Especially since you do have a full log of everything done with that account (and it is small enough to look over at a glance -- yet another reason why it's then easier to scrutinize for sockpuppetry). You can only blame your baseless accusation on laziness. The anon template simply existed to suggest to editors that they create an account. All editing is essentially anonymous; the only thing registering a username does is assign a single log to a person. Wikipedia does not require any kind of information of any kind or anything unique to create a user account; rather, you simply create a name and a password. Anonymous creation of pages is limited only to limit potential vandalism (increase the amount of time required to create a page). It's not like registering an account generates some kind of shadow accountability. By your reckoning, there must also be a required contribution to weed out vandals (which is a valid suggestion -- many sites have required contributions, such as BeerAdvocate, which requires 20 reviews before a person can submit a new beer). Of course, the point of all this is that anonymous editors are not second-class citizens, though we may often be treated as such. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)