User talk:SQL/Archives/2007/August
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | 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 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Srcutoffnotice.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Srcutoffnotice.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The relevant information was/is available on the image page, albeit, not condensed into a template for ease of digestion by a bot. I've fixed it, to make the bot happy... --SXT4
19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | 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 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to non-existent talk page
Hi there. A bot left a message for me about your nomination of Template talk:Thread retitled/doc for speedy deletion. I thought you might like to know the history behind this, which is explained at: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Allow redirects to empty template talk pages, from template doc talk pages, including my reasons for not opposing the speedy deletion. I had left the example in place as a demonstration for anyone reading that discussion, and was still hoping some people might add to the discussion, but as I say there, I think enough time has now passed. Thanks for spotting this and dealing with it. I maybe should have left a note in the edit summary about this (a talk page doesn't have a talk page, and messages can't be left on redirects), but one other way to find out what is going on in a case like this is to (a) ask the creator of the page, and (b) to follow "what links here" for the link: see here. This shows that the page you nominated for speedy deletion was linked from two places (and later from my talk page after the bot left the message): User:SXT40/BRedir (the list you are using to find redirects that need deletion) and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (where you would have found the discussion explaining the existence of the redirect). Using "what links here" to investigate the history of a page is a much under-used trick. Anyway, hope that was all helpful. Carcharoth 08:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- See also User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Your_proposal_about_CSD_R1. Carcharoth 08:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Huh. I didn't know about the doc thing, sorry! Thanks for the tip on 'What Links Here', by the way. I used to do that a lot more, and, as I found it previously to be of very little use (it often turned up very little, if anything, in the past), I'm guilty of slipping on utilizing it as much as I should be :) Glad to see, that you caught it, before it got removed. (As the /doc thing is a matter of policy, I'd have expected the deleting admin to catch it as well... Now that I know about it, /doc shoulda been pretty obvious...)
-
- Thanks! --SXT4 08:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It never got deleted, as you've probably found out now, but I think it should eventually get deleted. The thrust of my argument at that discussion is that it is more logical for the creator of the redirect to create the destination talk pages, rather than leave links that take editors to a broken redirect page. In other words, I'm rejecting the proposed change, and as you run a bot that detects broken redirects (a very useful function), I think you should add your views to the discussion! :-) Carcharoth 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! --SXT4
-
-
-
- LOL! Glad to see, that I was part of a successful 'experiment' :) A lot of times, I see that, users will often create (and, really, should) the destination page... I might re-tool the bot (WP:BOTS willing) to create the destination page, in limited instances, say, for /doc and template_talk... BTW, thanks for linking me to the discussion! :) Glad you like the bot... I can't stand Special:Brokenredirects, it's really rather hard to read... --SXT4 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! Glad to see, that I was part of a successful 'experiment' :) A lot of times, I see that, users will often create (and, really, should) the destination page... I might re-tool the bot (WP:BOTS willing) to create the destination page, in limited instances, say, for /doc and template_talk... BTW, thanks for linking me to the discussion! :) Glad you like the bot... I can't stand Special:Brokenredirects, it's really rather hard to read... --SXT4
-
-
Re: WOW!
Hehe. But for every one person who agrees with that, there are probably ten who do not. By the way, I do not think RfA is broken; I think we are broken. So I believe there is nothing anyone can do about it. :) - TwoOars 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | 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 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment
Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Any time! I'm glad you succeeded! :) Congrats! --SXT4 06:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Broken redirect not broken
Hi, you might have seen this, but your bot is reporting User talk:Zy26 as broken. (Well, arguably, cross projects redirects don't work). Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing! :) However, the bot just scrapes Special:Brokenredirects, and, posts it in an easier-to-read format... Just makes it easier than poking through 10-20 pages of 'may be broken' redirects :) --SXT4 06:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bias
Thanks for responding to my concern about the bias Bush/Cheney label. It does not matter how late you responded, just as long as you put your imput! Politics rule 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem! --SXT4 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
USRD Newsletter - Issue 11
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case | WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations |
| WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat" | News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| 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 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Request From Lib Democrat
Hi SXT40, This is a gentle request for help regarding the edit war going in Frontline (magazine) article. The neeed for mentioning criticism about following subjects in the article Frontline) is being contested by another editor 1. Dubious stand Human.Right 2. Freedom of press vis - a - vis the pro chinese stand . How ever the contrarian opinion editor is not ready for the same , in due process they have invovled certain Partisan administrator (User:Hornplease) into this ,who has issued threat of blocking this writer. I will be really grateful , if you can spare some time on this issue .Just by seeing the Difference in Edits of the article you may get a better idea of what this is about. Thanks & Regards -- User:Lib Democrat —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
- I'll be honest with you, I'm not very knowledgeable at all on this subject... I'm just not sure how I can help. I can point you in a few general directions:
- The article's talk page. I would REALLY try this first. Try to get some discussion going, about the problem. You could also contact the other editors involved directly, on their respective talkpages. This is really probably the way to go. Just remember to keep it Civil, which, I think you've done pretty good at so far. I bet you guys could come to an agreement on the content if you give it a try.
- Requests for Page Protection, It might not be a bad idea, to ask that the page be full-protected, for a couple days, to let everyone cool off.
- Request for comment, You could ask for community comments on the article, and, see what the community thinks. Don't file about the editors, file about the article.
- Administrators Noticeboard, MIGHT be the place to go, if you're looking for an admin to help you, however, they're not supposed to be content referees, so, there may not be much at all that they can do for you. I'd probably advise against this route, however.
- I'd probably go forward, in that order. The issue most likely won't resolve itself overnight, but, I bet you guys can come to an agreement, and get a darn good article going. Still, if you have any further questions on the processes I've suggested here, I'll be happy to answer them. I pretty much ripped them off from WP:DR, which you might also want to review :) --SXT4 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, Hornplease is not an admin. --SXT4 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi SXT40, Really grateful for your arbitration, I didn't use the talk page as most of the issue raised by me was aleady presented out there, but the contrarian opinion maker just had threshed out his ideas over there,and the only attempt under the Wiki principles
- By the way, Hornplease is not an admin. --SXT4
was to preserve that entry , but now it seems well edited, Thanks a ton : Lib Democrat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 12:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- About your note on User:LibDemocrat's page: First, WP:EW is, indeed, a guideline, but 3RR is policy. Certainly, editwarring is unacceptable without discussion. Second, do note that this article has been at AN/I in the past, where I volunteered to keep an eye on the article: I specifically asked that the page be unprotected on the understanding that I would let the previously protecting admin know if it needed re-protecting. Third, a look through page histories and the talkpage establishes that LibDem has never used the talk page, as well as continually reverting. Under such circs, I don't think a preventative block is unlikely, as an alternative to protection. This is precisely what I pointed out, saying that his behaviour, if continued, would lead to a call for his blocking, unless he used the talk page or followed steps outlined in WP:DR. I really don't think that's incivil at all: its a reminder of how WP works. Finally, I attempted to point out exactly why one of his resources, for example, might be more useful elsewhere, if he really wanted to push his POV. I really don't see the point you're making. Hornplease 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've noticed, that he's not using the talk page, simply referring to the garbled mess that's there. I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to help a new user, whom asked me for assistance. I'm also not taking sides. I also know, that 3RR is a policy, and, I was just about to let User:Lib Democrat know, that they're skirting it, which, isn't a good thing.
- No one, on that article, seems to be using the talk page much. I think it likely needs protected for a while, in order to force them to work together, via the talk page, and, the talk page needs cleaned up, badly. I might do just that in a bit.
- And, as an aside, I still don't think it's really appropriate, nor constructive, to threaten a user with a block, on first contact. This is a fairly new user, and, probably didn't/doesen't really understand how to use the talkpages well. A little good faith would go a long way. However, my opinion and $5 won't even get you a latte these days :)
- Either way, thank you, for taking the time, to respond on my talkpage, and, for trying to help with the edit war over there :) FWIW, I know, you're just trying to do the right thing. --SXT4 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- About your note on User:LibDemocrat's page: First, WP:EW is, indeed, a guideline, but 3RR is policy. Certainly, editwarring is unacceptable without discussion. Second, do note that this article has been at AN/I in the past, where I volunteered to keep an eye on the article: I specifically asked that the page be unprotected on the understanding that I would let the previously protecting admin know if it needed re-protecting. Third, a look through page histories and the talkpage establishes that LibDem has never used the talk page, as well as continually reverting. Under such circs, I don't think a preventative block is unlikely, as an alternative to protection. This is precisely what I pointed out, saying that his behaviour, if continued, would lead to a call for his blocking, unless he used the talk page or followed steps outlined in WP:DR. I really don't think that's incivil at all: its a reminder of how WP works. Finally, I attempted to point out exactly why one of his resources, for example, might be more useful elsewhere, if he really wanted to push his POV. I really don't see the point you're making. Hornplease 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Personal attacks by User:Natedogg252k3
your a douche... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natedogg252k3 (talk • contribs)
alright i take it back...your not a douche...but i do think you need to get laid...this is a dumb thing to do...help out with an encyclopedia...go to a strip club or something...
Wow...if your ever in ohio look me up and i will personally hook you up dude...
grow some balls and ditch this dumb stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natedogg252k3 (talk • contribs)
haha you see...were already making some ground here...you wouldn't happen to have an aol name or ne thing would ya...im sorry for causing problems before...
Your pretty kool...and i wouldn't mind doin what you do...i just don't have time for it you know...
sorry about the whole wife thing..not that i think having a wife is a bad idea...but hey you know how it is...
Anyways..forgive me? haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natedogg252k3 (talk • contribs)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent" | News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| 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 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
