User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/008

Archive	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Giano

You seem to be a Giano supporter. It would be very nice if you came to my talk page and help me understand that viewpoint. It seems to be somewhat common, but I have still not found any explanation.

While I'm here, you just claimed that two different ArbCom decisions either "don't stand up to even casual scrutiny" or "Of course it's invalid!". Do you have any proof of this, or do you just not agree with with the sanctions?

Third, there isn't supposed to be long threads under the RFAR statements. I'm not the right person to control that of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not a "Giano supporter", only a "bullshit opposer", so please avoid stereotyping.

I am referring to the way in which words have been twisted around to fabricate a prolonged history of admin abuse.

Did you read the case (link)? Slim was cited for positive contributions to articles and policy pages, being the victim of harassment, making personal attacks when provoked, private discussion/coordination of editing disputes, and misuse of the "minor edit" checkbox.

Note that there is nothing here about her use or misuse of administrator-tools, yet she is one of five people given the same admonishment regarding use of administrator-tools.

At the same time, FeloniousMonk's administrator-tools were removed, and Cla68 has never had administrator-tools. This leaves the two "peripheral" users Viridae and JzG as the only users to whom this admonishment might rightfully apply.

I have other issues with this case as well, but it's an emotional thing I know. Arbcom and the community cannot bring themselves to vacate a decision in which they've invested insane amounts of time and energy. Ignoring it might be the best hope.

This is why it is unhelpful to paint everyone in the same brush, so please don't do that to me either. Thanks, but I have no wish to participate in your talk page. — CharlotteWebb 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"See you on election day?"

[1]. I respect your opinion and right to disagree with someone else's opinion but I don't think you should have said, "See you on election day." Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will agree that I could have chosen my words more carefully but his antidisestablishmentarian approach to the enforcement of arbcom sanctions, in particular those which have demonstratedly done more harm than good, is something I now intend to consider during the elections, and I want everyone to know that. In fact this has inspired several questions for me to ask of the candidates in the remainder of this week.

Obviously I did not mean this in the sense that I intend to run against him (it was probably already too late for that when I made that comment, plus I'm not that foolish/naïve), nor I did not mean this in the sense that I intend to use torpedos to sink his candidacy (trust me, we both know that's not cool). If should be considered a warning or a threat of any kind, it would only be due to the possibility that other people share my opinion on following bad process and will similarly, be more hesitant to support him based on the views he has expressed. On the other hand if everyone thinks I'm completely nuts it will be nihil novi sub sole. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		CharlotteWebb/Archive, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Is there any particular reason ...

... that your contributions to the Manual of Style talk pages are made by hitting the "edit this page" button rather than the particular subsection's "edit" button? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User talk:Proteins#Is there any particular reason ... Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason ... (follow up)

... that you have elected not to reply to my question? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been nice not talkin' with ya'. Buh-bye. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thanks for your editing work on Stuttgart. I completely overhauled the entire article earlier this year and have been crying out for someone to go into some of the detailed stuff. Your input is much appreciated! Maybe one day the quality of the article will be upgraded, I certainly feel it matches the other major German cities, but who knows who decides these things. BuzzWoof (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Vested contributors

I saw your change to the photo on Scott MacDonald's essay. I think you've hit on a regional varieties of English issue. See vest. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Most football ("soccer") referees wear yellow. Per Brad: regional varieties of English.
Just dropped by to say you've made a very fair point on the ACE'09 voting page.
Best, AGK 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:kenneth sikes

This username is a fake and slanderous page about me and needs to be deleted imediatly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrane1138 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenneth Sikes, WP:AN/I#Allegedly "fake and slanderous" userpage. — CharlotteWebb 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes

[2] Indeed :) --Alf ^melmac 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

The page that you just restored needs to be deleted it is a totaly fake page writen about me and needs to be deleted permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrane1138 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

Hi! interesting comment but the bit about real names is out of context. In the question, the individual has already self-disclosed their real name: the issue was whether to oversight it retrospectively cos they'd changed their mind. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts about fixing broken autoformatting

The issue of whether it is acceptable to remove links that have been incorrectly hidden within 'autoformatted' dates (thereby breaking autoformatting) has cropped up again. Your thoughts would be welcome. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Broken_autoformatting_e.g._.5B.5BApril_11.5D.5D.2C_.5B.5B2005_in_aviation.7C2005.5D.5D. Lightmouse (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have just commented. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I figured that's where you pulled my name from, or that maybe you wanted me to give more thoughts. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive176#Resolved.3F and it impressed me. That is where I got your name. Lightmouse (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP flagged revisions

The !vote at WP:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey#Oppose Flagged Revisions for all BLPs is currently 51 to 8; my sense is that it's going to pass. However, as always, the opposition has legitimate concerns. Your concern was that if we approve this for BLP, we won't be able to stop it from spreading to the rest of Wikipedia. Your vote was the first in opposition, so that was a perfectly reasonable position, but I think if you look at how the vote has turned out on that page, it may be a little reassuring ... a roughly equal vote against extending to all pages, with probably insurmountable arguments on the negative side. The argument that we're trying to protect Wikipedia against legal liability is probably the only reason we're getting 51 to 8 in favor for BLP pages.

If it does turn out that this is going to pass, I think it would be helpful if we got overwhelming support (so that people who enjoy vandalizing BLP articles can't claim that what we're doing is "illegitimate"). Would you consider switching your vote to the support column, based on the reassuring results of the poll so far, and making it clear that your support is conditional on never, ever extending flagged revisions to non-BLP pages? (I'm watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This user has multiple issues, too :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I thought I made it clear that I support flagged revisions for all content pages, and oppose making BLP even more of a special case. Give me a moment to proofread and make sure that's what I said . — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I screwed that one up! Thanks very much for the clarification you just added under your oppose vote. I think there's a chance that, otherwise, people might have made the mistake I did, because we've heard the argument many times that "You should never allow flagged revisions for BLPs, because then there will be no stopping flagged revisions from spreading like kudzu". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

May I tempt you to support (with a strong statement that your support is conditional on looking hard at the data and building a case for extending to more articles) with the argument that, given the political realities (currently 51 to 8 in favor of the proposition you're opposing, and roughly even for extending FR to all articles), the only way to get what you want would be to support FR for BLPs, so that we can give people actual data on the results rather than spend another year hand-waving? Or, might I tempt you to support with the argument that, if it passes anyway, we don't want the typical people this is aimed at ... people who make false accusations in BLPs ... to be able to able to play wounded victim by quoting back various positions from the opposition to prove that the process is "illegitimate"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, what kind of politician do you think I am? 51–8 are supporting a helpful but inadequate measure, and they don't need my help. Maybe the process is illegitimate, but I really don't care. This is what we should be doing for all articles anyway, not because we're worried how readers will react to a 10–15% subset of them. — CharlotteWebb 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits

Are you aware that in this edit, you changed "≥" to "=" where the former quite obviously made sense and the latter just as obviously did not, and you changed π to p, and you changed a proper minus sign to a hyphen in violation of WP:MOSMATH?

Despite the concern that the article is likely to be "original research", those edits are quite rightly deplored by the article's creator on the talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits

Are you aware that in this edit, you changed "≥" to "=" where the former quite obviously made sense and the latter just as obviously did not, and you changed π to p, and you changed a proper minus sign to a hyphen in violation of WP:MOSMATH?

Despite the concern that the article is likely to be "original research", those edits are quite rightly deplored by the article's creator on the talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Plane tickets not included, am I right? Doesn't look like any place I could drive to. Nice to meet you, by the way! — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits

Are you aware that in this edit, you changed "≥" to "=" where the former quite obviously made sense and the latter just as obviously did not, and you changed π to p, and you changed a proper minus sign to a hyphen in violation of WP:MOSMATH?

Despite the concern that the article is likely to be "original research", those edits are quite rightly deplored by the article's creator on the talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The diff link gives me an error but I'll take your word for it (though I certainly don't know how or why I would have done any of those things). I've been gone for a while but hopefully you'll believe me when I say I wasn't deliberately ignoring you. Happy holiday(s) and thanks for the heads-up. — CharlotteWebb 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit count tool

Hey, I saw your comment on AN about this... can you tell me where to put that information in to make use of it? (feel free to respond here or on my talk). thanks, umrguy42 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

much obliged, thanks! umrguy42 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format on Disambiguation pages

I noticed that you changed the "-" to "–" and "b." to "born" on disambiguation page entries. I can understand that for articles those are the appropriate usages, but for disambiguation pages, it seems to me, there is an emphasis on the searcher finding the article they want, and extra characters are not necessary. What do you think. --Bejnar (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The n-dash is correct for ranges of dates or any other measurement. Anything that could be read as "from A to B" or "between A and B" etc. would be written as "A–B" whereas hyphens are properly used for compound adjectives, adverbs, affixes, surnames, etc. Also in at least a handful of cases the incorrect punctuation is part of an article title, making it more imperative to correct. Personally I like spelling out the word "born" because it is four letters and most of the years are four numbers so they end up being visually the same size, making it easier to spot-check for errors. Also in a very large list it is easier to visually distinguish "born" from "died" than "b" from "d", so people might be slightly less likely to click the wrong link in haste. (I'm hesitant to self-diagnose as mildly dyslexic but it wouldn't surprise me). Doesn't really matter what I think though. I just checked and both of these changes are consistent with the examples given at WP:MOSDAB#People. — CharlotteWebb 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff to do with Category:Living people

Sorry to bother you, but you looked like you new something about the category.

Basically I've got myself a bit confused about how to help with it. I've created a bot which has been handling the obvious stuff; it will soon need something else to getting on with. So, where would bot help be appreciated, and, specifically, should all the pages in Category:Living people have {{WPBiography |living=yes}} on their talk pages?

Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be incredibly helpful actually. If a talk page has no meaningful content, I'd like to know before clicking on it. Once upon a time, the blue link meant "somebody has discussed this page, you might want to check it out before editing". After we reached the point where most talk pages were created only to place a silly little template, people started paying less attention to talk pages. I for one quit reading them. Time and again I've suggested adding a third "banner-space" page for each title (see mw:Manual:Using custom namespaces).

If you want to help the most, you can use a bot to look for articles which probably belong in Category:Living people because they have a birth-year category but not a death-year category. Or maybe it has the birth and death dates in the lead sentence but the categories are missing—you should fix that too. Or maybe the article mentions no years of lifespan at all so you have to pay close attention to pronouns: does the article say "So-and-so is a Welsh actor" or "So-and-so was a Welsh actor"?

A bot can handle this, sure. Just design something to approach this the same way you would as a person. — CharlotteWebb 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. Actually, I've decided on a quick, easy task for a bot: making sure articles labelled ___ missing (living people) are also members of Living people. Thanks for all the above suggestions, I noted them all, and I'll try to get round to them as soon as I can. The bot people are quite keen on simpler bots getting more advanced, so don't hold your breath.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for creating Lofa River. Much appreciated. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: George H. W. Bush

Just FYI, I reverted this edit since there was no citation for the change. Additionally. a quick perusal of all dates at news.google.com shows 1310 uses of "Bush the Father" and only 810 uses of "Daddy Bush." Moreover, the uses of "Daddy Bush" tend to be belittling, sarcastic, and non-NPOV than former. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Bentley

Re: your edit to Alfred Bentley, while links on disambiguation pages can follow redirects, why not just use the article title? Much simpler. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll propose a rename of the articles in that case. --Jameboy (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been done . — CharlotteWebb 14:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CharlotteWebb/redirects

What does this list mean? --Closedmouth (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It means on Oct. 8 there were 2405 redirects last edited by you, whether you were creating a new redirect, putting a redirect in place of a proper article, or changing the target (or category etc.) of an existing redirect. Redirects which were later edited by someone else, even those which still remain a redirect (or even were vandalized and reverted back to your version) are not included. You can remove your name if this bothers you. — CharlotteWebb 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just curious (I was exploring your collection of links on your userpage). I figured it was something like that, but I couldn't work out how I'd gotten so high up there. Then I remembered that I'd tagged a whole bunch of redirects with {{R from...}}-type templates. Which I'm sure you find fascinating. Have a nice day. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Im just...

....Wondering why you removes mt last edits on the Latvia article ? ScottishGunner (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As requested . . .

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 26#Actors by state — Neier (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Crazy flying red woman

Hi! How can I put this red woman on my talk page, like on yours? I'd love to enhance my talk page with beatiful art like yours has. --Voletyvole (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see how it is possible. --Voletyvole (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Denialism

Hi, when I added Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks to Category:Denialism I was thinking of the ongoing denial by a large proportion of Muslims that extremist Muslims were behind the attacks. It seems to me that it would be encyclopedic to make this connection. Is there a better way to do it? (FWIW, despite my user name I'm not into POV-pushing; the name refers to a pop star.) - Fayenatic (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

I see that you spent some time with Template:Sortname. I am working on List of suspects in the Ergenekon investigation which makes use of the template.

Turkish alphabet is a bit different from English. There are a few extra letters. These are ğĞüÜşŞöÖçÇ. The capital of i is İ and the capital of ı is I. Neither ı or İ are letters in English. All these foreign letters are put after Z with ASCII sorting.

Alphabet order is as follows:

A B C Ç D E F G Ğ H I İ J K L M N O Ö P R S Ş T U Ü V Y Z

a b c ç d e f g ğ h ı i j k l m n o ö p r s ş t u ü v y z

I want Template:Sortname to be able to handle this order. I was thinking of using {{sms}} to solve this problem. However I do not want to mess with the complicated template.

I was wondering if you could add a new optional parameter. I can easily put I İ in proper order using this new invisible parameter. For example İsmail (a Turkish name) would become IZsmail. This would place the sorting of things starting with an İ in front of J but after I (correct order in Turkish). I am basically exploiting the mechanics of ASCII sorting.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need something a fair bit more complicated than that template. If you have [[White Çat|Çat, White]] it will sort by the right-hand side of the link. The only way to make the sorting order different from (the most important thing which is) what readers see would be to put invisible matter in front of it, e.g.

<span style="display:none;">Cat, White </span>[[White Çat|Çat, White]]</nowiki>

or to re-program the table-sorting code to change the sorting order of extended latin sets, see [3], about halfway down. Obviously each language would have its own rules so there would need to be different instructions to get a lexicographical re-spelling of each name, sort those alphabetically, then put the originals in that order. This could be specified by class="wikitable sortable" lang="tr" or class="wikitable sortable-turkish" or something like that, just needs to be a standard for the sorting functions to recognize. — CharlotteWebb 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can make the relevant adjustments for me? :) -- Cat ^chi? 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NBA Sportsmanship Award

On your edit summary, most lists still use † to symbolize something besides death. Your edit didn't bother me in any way, but I just want to clarify on that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 10:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS ellections

Good catch. I've replaced to vote, indented just to keep things consistent, and put my generic message to avoid drawing attention. Feel free to replace my sig with your own if you wish.

Thanks!

--Tznkai (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, you're taking this all way too seriously. — CharlotteWebb 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Microformats

Elements containing classes which cause microformats to be emitted cannot be collapsed, or the microformat is not produced. I've therefore reverted that part of your edit, and amended microformat-documentation sub-templates accordingly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your assistance in getting Template:Bullpen‎ to work properly. Keep up the awesome work. Kingturtle (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for your help at village pump, best wishes. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edwards Rail Car Company (1997–2008)

Your recent move of this article has me perplexed...why the nonstandard (unicode??) dash between the dates? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not "non-standard". The hyphen is non-standard in this context. The MOS pages will explain this in greater detail and patience, see WP:YEAR, WP:NDASH, etc. — CharlotteWebb 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

By "nonstandard" I meant "...not found on any keyboard I've ever seen". As I have said several times before, after Wikipedia talk page discussions; "...Ya learn something new, every day!" Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC) _{Em dashes, and En dashes, and Negation signs, oh my....}

edit summaries

Thanks for your contributions to the technical village pump. As a frequent and helpful contributor, it would be great if you put some effort into edit summaries. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&action=history and see what I mean. Most editors put a synopsis of their addition into the summary—as well as preserve the section name so, in most cases, it isn't necessary to read the page to follow the general gist of the conversations. It's totally up to you. Also, I'm curious what reasons there might be for removing the section name in the edit summary? —EncMstr (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)