Jump to content

User talk:Winston365/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

February 2008

All right, but I felt that the Yeti article was basically saying that the yeti was not real. If most of the mainstream scientific community dismisses the yeti as a myth, then we can basically say that the animal does not exist, because those are the experts who are all smarter than us and know the truth. There are still many people who believe in the yeti, and sightings and footprints continue to come in, so the article is being highly dismissive towards the animal's existence, yet there is legitimate evidence, so the article should keep a neutral point of view instead of simply saying "Most people dismiss the yeti as legend." "Most" basically means 95%. Elasmosaurus (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well currently I have not been paying much attention to the Yeti articloe at the moment. I'm going to let other people edit it and then see how it's going in a few days. Elasmosaurus (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

WARNING

No prob Dlohcierekim 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

I see from your profile that you seem to be from the Northern US. As such, you may not be aware of the many uses of gravy. That's fine, but I would suggest you yourself get off your high horse before you undo obviously factual changes. Have you ever had ice cream and gravy? No? Perhaps gravy on duck or goose? I hear the Blue-footed Booby tastes quite similar. In fact, everything I contributed has been eaten with gravy, and I hope you and your northern aggression types can get over yourselves. And for the record, your contributions are retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.81 (talk)

Yes, we Yankees are well known for our underutilization of gravy. Personally I prefer my blue-footed booby with a nice pesto sauce, but that's just me. :) Winston365 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

March 2010

A PIG who won't eat JEWS!? What are you TALKING about!? Dlohcierekim 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Cleanup Barnstar
For your work in fixing broken anchor links Sole Soul (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! :) Winston365 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GTA

explain to me how my edit was not productive?

129.49.100.212 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, sorry about that. I didn't look closely enough at it. My bad. Winston365 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

?

What's the story mate?

I made a legit addition, but you need it stay static and have less info rather than more?

Stub-lover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropbear79 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dropbear79. If you think Dropbears have legitimate subspecies you will need a better source than the one you provided, which fails on WP:SPS and WP:RS as was pointed out in the edit summaries. Even if Tom Hodgson(Tommo) were an expert on cryptids, and there's nothing from that reference to suggest he is, it is still original research. Winston365 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

gIrl. you Iz iGNOriNT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh3tt0queenB (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox Hurricane

It works for me, when clicking on the link clicking on it via Cyclone Tracy and Cyclone Lin (2009).Jason Rees (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem.Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm still getting used to Twinkle. Had the left and right sides confused as to which was current. Thanks for reverting. (Feel free to delete this section after reading.) Ryankiefer (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Happy Twinkling! It's a fantastic tool. Winston365 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks for the barnstar! elektrikSHOOS 02:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Hocken Knight

An IP overwrote the existing article. I reverted it back to the notable individual. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I should have looked closer. I jumped the gun...I should have at least glanced at the history. My bad. Thanks for fixing it and sorry for the noise. Winston365 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. There are a lot of useful links there. I have a lot of reading to do. The first two pages I tried to edit said they were protected, imagine that! Baron Von Tarkin (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Music, yah, it is semi-protected, as it is a highly visible and important article. Once you are autoconfirmed (which happens automatically after an account is four days old and has at least 10 edits, which can be anywhere, even the sandbox) you can edit it freely.
There is quite a bit to read, but don't be put off by it, you don't have to read all of that before you edit pages. Remember, be bold. Happy editing! Winston365 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to March 21

I will read the guidelines to editing March 21, but I am sure it will not change my stand in whether my life is not worthy of addition to births on March 21. I plan to continue to edit this page so get settled in. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bec32173 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok so having a wiki page is clearly subjective, so you decide (many others like you). I will start my campaign today to become "subjectively" significant enough to be included on Wikipedia. This should be fun.

Thank you for rejecting me initially, I will be sure to included you in my wiki page. Bec32173 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly free to try and become notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. You probably shouldn't write the article yourself though, see the guidelines. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Winston, I leave a reply in my talk page. --Rochelimit (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

and also in here [[1]]

Barnstar

The Recent changes Barnstar
Thanks for speedily catching that bit of vandalism on the John Mayer page. Little catches like that one go towards keeping Wikipedia in fighting shape.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Winston365 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Micronations

Hi Winston, I've left a reply to your message in my talk page. I agree with you, micronations shouldn't be placed in the holidays section. By the way, I am a little busy this week, but I'm planning to move the guideline for Holidays and observances section to a separate page in my talk page, as you suggested. The thing is, I don't know how to do it. Do you have a wiki link about how to do this? Sorry I abbreviate wikipedia :) --Rochelimit (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, but note it's a separate page in your user space that you want (all user space pages are prefixed with User:). Your talk space is a completely different namespace, and is prefixed with User talk:. Let's say you wanted to call the page guidelines. Just type "User:Rochelimit/guidelines" (note the forward slash) into the search box. It will then take you to a page explaining that the user page doesn't yet exist. Click on the Start the User:Rochelimit/guidelines page link and then you can copy/paste your work from your talk page to the new page.
As long as they are related to your wikipedia work in some way you are allowed to create as many pages as you like in your user space (within reason), so you can have lots of your own little sandboxes to play in. Wikipedia:How to use your user space, Wikipedia:User pages, and Wikipedia:Subpages have tips for working with you user space.
I hope this was clear, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Also it's just fine to use the word wiki as you did (Wikilinks is what they are called, although internal link is also popular). WP:DAW goes into detail about this. It doesn't actually bother me, I just think the Wikipe-tan pic looks cute on my user page . Winston365 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Winston, thank you for your guide! I will follow this soon. Very busy with non-wiki job these days.
By the way, you're right, it's Užupis. I'm planning to remove it if I found out that the day is not notable.--Rochelimit (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For any other day I would remove this, but being it's April Fool's Day I would lean towards leaving it. WP:OTD feeds off of DOY pages, and I always look forward to seeing the main page on April 1 (old versions are linked at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page). This year's page had a link to Edible Book Festival (see Main Page (1)), which is another observance I'd normally be against. I'm inclined to let the notability requirements slip a bit on this day, as long as we keep strictly enforcing the holiday's verifiability. I suspect this shouldn't be mentioned in your guidelines tho, WP:BEANS and all. Encouraging silly holidays is not something we want to do, but I think having a few (I see three that strike me as rather silly) isn't a bad thing. Winston365 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the OTD. I'm actually planning to put something like this in the guideline, roughly saying: that Main Page is the absolute approval that a holidays or observances can be Placed in holidays and observances section. I just have to find a better word to describe it. --Rochelimit (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. The OTD criteria explicitly refer back to the DOY criteria. If the DOY criteria were to then refer back to the OTD criteria it would be circular reasoning. DOY can't pass the buck back to OTD. The requirements to be listed on the main page selected anniversaries are stricter than the requirements needed to be listed on a DOY page. Note criterion #2 from OTD The event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance (relative to the other historical events that occurred on the same day of the year), which implies that there are always going to be events on a DOY page that aren't notable enough for OTD simply because there are too many other more notable events on that day. The same is going to be inevitably true with some Holidays as well. I don't think being notable enough to ever appear on the main page needs to be a requirement for an entry on a DOY page. Winston365 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but thanks for showing me WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages. I thought that since the requirement of a holiday to be placed in OTD is stricter than in DOY, a holiday that passed OTD is an indication that the holiday is in fact notable. In the past, some - you thought it is an - UNnotable holidays are placed in OTD, e.g. Edible Book Day and Dia del Amigo. These days always have issues with some users/moderators, but turns out they are notable, because they passed thru OTD. That's what I thought. But if you think otherwise, I think I have to agree with you, because I'm not very sure with my idea on this OTD-DOY thing. --Rochelimit (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see what you are saying now. What I was suggesting is that the notability requirements for DOY pages shouldn't depend on whether a particular entry is likely to end up on OTD eventually. DOY has to set it's own notability guidelines. I think you are referring to when something has already shown up on OTD, and in this case it's very likely it should be included on the associated DOY page. Have you ever seen an event/holiday on OTD that wasn't on it's associated DOY page, or at least not soon added? You are right that if something passes through the OTD filter it should pass through the DOY filter as well, but that is largely because the DOY filter is explicitly the third and fourth step in the OTD filter. Hope you enjoy Ruhr. Winston365 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

June 20

Thanks a lot for noticing my very embarrassing mistake on the June 20 article! I guess I was just too brain-dead and tired to think properly... Sorry and thanks again.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 07:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. It was rather amusing... Winston365 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD G-1

Just a heads up that CSD G1 is only for patent nonsense, so text like "lasjlosajgslajfsajf;lasjflsfiowue8923789r" and the like. In the case of International Musical Day, the proper criteria would've been G3 which is for vandalism/hoaxes. Thanks, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Holidays and observances section guideline- finished

Dear Winston, I would like to invite you to gives me opinion or suggestion on the Holidays and observances guideline that has been created for the Holidays and observances section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rochelimit/Guidelines). You could perhaps gives me any suggestion about how to proceed with this. I will also invited other Wiki moderators like Mufka, Spaceflower, etc. --Rochelimit (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am taking a close look at it now. I'll leave any comments about its content on the talk page to keep things in one place. As far as how to proceed, it would probably be best to bring this up again over at Wikipedia talk:DAYS. Getting in touch with a few individual editors is ok in this circumstance (details are at WP:CANVAS), especially if you are just pointing them to the central discussion at WP:DAYS, but probably not necessary. Most interested parties will presumably be watching that page anyway.
I'm excited about this, it appears to be an invaluable resource when it comes to maintaining these sections. Great work! Winston365 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you may edit the proposed guideline :) --Rochelimit (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Winston, I love your revision, even before it is finished. Thanks a lot! --Rochelimit (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand

Thank you for your message. While it is true that the Beatles recorded hundreds of songs, "I Want To Hold your Hand" holds an unique significance. It was the song that broke the Beatles in America, the first song by a British rock and roll band to reach number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Its success started the "British Invasion" of 1964, opening the North American market to the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Dave Clark Five, Animals, Searchers, and other UK artistes. As such, it had a cultural significance probably greater than any song recorded in the last fifty years. For these reasons, the recording of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on October 17, 1963, was a significant historical event, certainly more so than the opening of a lake by Australina Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies, which was the next event noted in the October 17th list.

Ron Thompson (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Ron Thompson

(I removed a bit of whitespace from your comment as it broke the formatting)
I certainly agree that the British Invasion is culturally significant. I don't see why the date the song was recorded should be the significant one though. It would make more sense to me to add it to December 17 instead, which is the date it was first played on the air in the US. One could also make the argument that the more significant date for the British Invasion is February 9, when they played the Ed Sullivan Show for the first time (already listed on that date page). Winston365 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Hello. Yesterday I edited the May 20th page. I added the first Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to the list of events. You deleted it saying that it was not a note worthy event. I don't know if you clicked the link for Everybody Draw Mohammaed Day or not, but how is it not note worthy? Pakistan shut down it's internet for the whole day because of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. If an entire country shuts down the internet because of an event going on in another country, it's a note worthy event. Who makes you the judge of what's note worthy and what isn't? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just wanted to ask you what your reasoning is for the deletion? I am going to put Everybody Draw Mohammed Day back onto that page. Please respond. I respectfully think you are wrong on this one. Thank you in advance for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.50.4 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, my edit summary diff was a little terse. Sorry about that. I didn't revert it because Everybody Draw Mohammed Day itself is non-notable. I reverted it because the the first occurrence of even a notable holiday or observance is generally not considered a notable event. The observance should instead be placed in the Holidays and Observances section, preventing duplication. The reason it is not currently in the Holidays and Observances section is mentioned on the article's talk page here. The problem is that it isn't yet clear if this is something that is going to recur every year or not. If it does then it is likely suitable for the Holidays and Observances section, but I'm not sure there is any way of knowing if it will recur until next May 20. If it doesn't recur then it might be notable enough for the events section, but would be need to be written in such a way that makes it clear this was a one off event. I'm not convinced it is clearly notable, countries shutting down facebook is actually fairly common. I probably wouldn't remove it though, it's certainly not clearly non-notable. I think it's borderline, but probably does have a place on the May 20 article. It's just not clear where that place is yet, and since next May 20 we'll have much more to go on, it makes some sense to wait. After all there is no rush. I hope that makes some sense, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

reply

I replied to you at my page. thanks!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I made an additional change to the draft which you posted at my talk page. please let me know what you think. i would like to utilize this revision. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I like the version with your edits. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ready to publish - H&O guideline

Hi Winston. I'm planning to publish the H&O guideline to wiki community (although I'm rather sure that the only person that will give feedbacks is you and Mufka). The guideline has stayed too long in my talkpage. What is the best way to show the guideline to the community according to you?--Rochelimit (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yah, if you post to WT:DAYS only a handful of people are going to see it, although that doesn't mean you shouldn't post there. If you are looking for more eyes on it WP:VPP is the general place to go to discuss proposed guidelines. I would probably start a new thread at WT:DAYS and add a post at WP:VPP pointing to it and inviting any interested parties to come have a look. Winston365 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OK I'll do that, thanks--Rochelimit (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Britton/July 29

So yeah, was there a reason for that reversion? Some policy I'm unaware of? WP:RY doesn't appear to apply here, and if it did, Bibhutibhushan Mukhopadhyay, Vean Gregg, and Bill Todman, for example, who also don't fit those criteria, would also have to be removed. Are assassinations better placed under "events" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscelese (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 January 2011

Yes, WP:RY doesn't apply to these articles. The notability guidelines for Days of the Year pages can be found at WP:DOY. Some more guidelines can be found at WP:DAYS#Style, including References are not needed in Wikicalendar articles. However, references to support listed entries must be found in linked Wikipedia articles and not external links. It is one of the few bright-line rules when it comes to births and deaths, although in reality it's a custom more honored in the breach than the observance. I scanned through the external links but didn't see an easy ref for the date. The Time article actually implies he was shot a week later, referring to "last friday", but published Aug 8. I assume that's just a mistake due to publishing times. The NYT has a similar "last friday" phrasing, but was published on July 31st and so points to the correct date. As it doesn't actually explicitly give the date it could suffer from the problems the Time article does (I'm sure it is correct tho.) It was this verifiability issue, combined with the fact that this individual only seems notable for having been murdered, that caused me to remove the entry. I'm happy to discuss it, but those were my thoughts at the time. I know the edit summary could have been clearer, sorry about that. Hope this makes some sense. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The date's confirmed by the cited book, an encyclopedia from 2006. Should I add a ref to the date for that? (I also added a reference from before he was shot - and the assassination has come up again when Slepian and Tiller were killed, so there's some degree of enduring notability which also extends outside the USA. Also that his killer was the first to be executed for the murder of an abortion provider, though I suppose WP:INHERITED might apply.) Thanks for directing me to WP:DOY - but it seems to me like the criteria there apply... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can add a ref for the date of death that would be great. That would make it improvement over many of the entries on these pages, and I wouldn't remove it again. It is interesting that the killer was the first to be executed for the murder of an abortion provider, but I think you are right about WP:INHERITED, and it isn't something that should be mentioned in a mini-bio on a date page. The criteria at WP:DOY are great for Events, but essentially useless for Births and Deaths. The guidelines state the notability requirements are stricter than just having an article, but provide no help as to what these stricter requirements are. It makes them rather difficult to apply, and lead to seemingly ad-hoc removals like the one we are talking about. Unfortunately neither I nor anyone else seem have any great ideas on how to improve the guidelines. Winston365 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll get on that. Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BS :D

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For efforts in cleaning up the Days of the year pages. -- Rochelimit (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

reverts

Hi -- you just reverted revisions I had made, deleting an entry I had added (I assume inadvertently, as you did not refer to it in your edit summary) and re-linking dates.

FYI, please see WP:YEARLINK. Year articles should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For example, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The format for these pages is based on formatting guidelines found here and a template found here. The WP:DAYS project exists to keep the formatting of these 366 pages consistent, and the formatting is a result of long-standing consensus. If you think the years should not be linked in these articles the best thing to do would be to bring it up over at WT:DAYS where it can be discussed. If there is consensus to make the change it should be done to all 366 date pages, not just one. These sorts of changes should not be made without discussion however.
As for the entry you added, my apologies, I simply missed it in the diff displayed. I should have looked harder, I was concentrating on the year links. In general it's a good idea to do something like that in two separate edits, one adding an entry and the other making the unrelated format changes. About the addition itself, in general only professional athletes are listed on these pages. the guidelines don't specify this explicitly, but the reasoning behind it is once college athletes start being added that opens the door for a vast number of non-pro athletes that might start to swamp these pages. Gabe Carimi is certainly notable as college athletes go, but at least in my opinion it would be better to wait until he reaches the NFL before adding him. That is just my opinion of course, although it is shared by most WP:DAYS members. I hope this all makes some sense...sorry for any confusion. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. WP:YEARLINK, which appears to me to mandate that these dates be unlinked, is a wp guideline. Wikipedia:DAYS is a project. If the project wishes to turn the guideline on its head, I would think the best thing to do would be to gain community consensus at the guideline, where it can be discussed by the community that indicated that such linking is overlinking, which is more unhelpful than helpful. Does that make sense to you? If so, either of us could raise it there. As far as it being a good idea to make separate edits, one adding an entry and the other making unrelated format changes, I'm not aware of that being the case -- some editors personally prefer separate edits, some prefer combined, and in general either is fine as far as I know. As far as the athlete in question is concerned, not only is your view not reflected by consensus in the guideline (as you pointed out), but as you know if you've read the article he is far more than a standard non-professional athlete, having been voted the top in college football of all offensive linesman, as well as indicated as a likely first draft pick in the NFL draft. He appears to already be far more notable than many professional athletes -- such as the last-round-drafted ones at the lowest levels of their professional leagues, who have no articles about them. We measure notability first of all by RS coverage, and he clearly blows away those athletes. Finally, if the project is seeking to keep the formatting of years consistent, it needs to add inlines to first mentions (and only have it for first mentions) of years of all of those date articles once it obtains consensus support for that change in guideline -- even the date in question was dramatically inconsistent in this respect. Thanks, btw, for your efforts to bring consistency to the articles -- I think that is great.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
By good idea to make separate edits, I mostly meant it's a good idea so ham-fisted editors like myself don't make silly mistakes and revert more than we meant to ;-) Of course you are free to do it however you like. As far as WP:YEARLINK goes, this may be one of those WP:IAR moments. In a similar vein, these pages use an explicit – in each entry as well, despite this being against MOS:DASH. There is a good reason for this, it has been discussed a number of times and consensus is for making the exception. It is true that many of these pages are inconsistent in their application of the "link only the first year" rule, but the attempt is made to keep them consistent. It is just hard to keep up with, as these pages are edited frequently by fairly inexperienced editors. Periodically someone will go through a page fixing the year links and alphabetizing entries, but it's a pretty tedious job. Winston365 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, no need for TBs ... thanks for asking. Some thoughts. 1) I hate for helpful, constructive, well-intentioned editors like you to waste time on application of the "link only the first year" rule. Not the sort of thing that, on your deathbed, would make you smile I imagine -- I devoted 999 hours of my life to enforcement of said rule. I would think it in the interest of the project to have your hours focused on more productive matters -- policy, adding content, whatever. So if that could be addressed by a bot, I think it would be a wonderful thing. But then again, maybe I misread how you want to spend your time, and am being to presumptious. 2) IAR is, to my mind, only to be honored in the breach, when common sense impels one to apply it. Here, the precise rationale of the guideline is the one that impels my view that IAE is wholly inapplicable. It is a balancing test. What level of benefit do we get from inlining here? To my mind, and to the mind of the scriveners of the guideline -- nearly none. Certainly not enough to warrant the "sea of blue" distraction, or the edit warring over it, or the inconsistent application, or the "we can never catch up" issues, and the enormous time-such it engenders. The guideline I believe "trumps" what a smaller coterie of editors might come up with, in the distant corners of the project, that is directly at odds with the consensus. Again, I think that it is a good issue to be brought up on the guideline talk page. Do you agree? If so, do you want to raise it, so you can best explain the project's view as to why the guideline should have an exception for date articles? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think bringing it up there is probably a good idea. I don't mind who raises it, but I'm gonna be away from my computer for most of the rest of the evening (still on vacation...flying back tomorrow night.) I'll give it a closer look later on. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Enjoy your vacation (anyplace nice?). Forget about this till you have a desire to re-visit it. I defer to you, if that is OK, on raising it, as you can do a better job than I can I imagine of describing the project's thinking as to why the guideline should not apply to its articles. I can always chime in after, but think it better to allow you to set the stage. Thanks for handling this with such a high level of civility -- modeling the wp goal of "civility in discussing differences of view". Too much of the opposite takes place, I find. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I wrote the Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items guideline on WP:MOSNUM, I have a lot of familiarity with this subject. Am I to understand that dates are being linked for the purpose of allowing that autoformatting feature to work?

    If so (big *if*), this is absolutely verboten and no sub-project on Wikipedia can turn that principal on its ear. *If* it is true that links are being done for the purposes of autoformatting, then there is an extremely good reason for not doing so: Autoformatting works only for readers who A) become registered editors, and who B) go to their preferences and set their preferred date format to something other than “No preference”. The effect is that editors can enter dates in an article in a variety of formats, including all-numeric dates right alongside of dates with spelled-out months in the same article (or same paragraph), and all they will see is nicely formatted dates that—for some magical reason—appear just the way they like. But I.P. readers and registered editors who didn’t touch their date preferences (some 99.99 percent of our readership) see a hodgepodge of inconsistent mess.

    Try turning setting your date format to “No preference” and leave it there; that will ensure you—an editor who is keen on dates and their formatting—can see the goofs and inconsistencies in dates that we make all our I.P.s look at. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg -- I assume you followed the conversation to here from my talkpage, as you are one of my most thoughtful talkpage watchers. While I think I tend to agree with you on the substance of your comment, I have some points which differ from yours. To wit, I would think it best to: a) let our colleague first enjoy the remainder of his vacation; b) let him have a chance to further explicate it on the guideline page; and c) offer any further thoughts there, so the entire community can see everyone's thoughts and consider our colleague's view. Not intending to be POINTy with my remarks, and I hope you will take them as they are meant. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Like every other editor on Wikipedia, including admins and ‘crats (for those who really want to follow the best action on this crazy planet that is Wikipedia), you also have a User contributions link so I can quickly see whether you are bogged down in quicksand somewhere (or otherwise involved in something that interests me). This interests me. Go figure.

    As for Winston being on vacation, he clearly won’t see the latest on this thread unless and until he wants to. That’s what’s nice about being a wikipedian: it’s entirely voluntary. Greg L (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I thought that it was my talkpage, but six of one, half a dozen of the other. In any event, I personally don't mind it at all, as your contributions are always (even when contrary to my views) carefully thought through and highly constructive. Apologies for any terseness in my note.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with date autoformatting. We are talking about links to bare years, ie 1963, which aren't subject to any kind of autoformatting as far as I know. I do have autoformatting turned off in my preferences, although it is just because I never saw the point of turning it on. That is a good point about seeing what the IP's see however, and a good reason to keep it turned off. I've always thought the point of linking the years on date pages was to provide links to the associated year pages, as people interested in what happened or who was born on a particular day of the year may be interested in what else may have happened in that particular year. The style guidelines for date pages were worked out long before I started working on them however, so I'm not sure if that was the original logic behind the decision.

@Epeefleche, I've been cruising around South America and the Antarctic. It has been great; I'm not looking forward to going back to work. Oh well...back to the grind. I'll try and bring something better thought out to the table after I get back home. Thanks for being so friendly. I agree, civility is too often overlooked these days, but it is something I firmly believe in. This is why I try not to read ANI, WQA, etc. too often...it can be depressing. Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Hope you don't mind

I removed the holiday/vacation notice because it was stale.--The Master of Mayhem 19:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Proposed deletion.

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winston365/Archive_1&oldid=1142686926"