User talk:Admrboltz/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Admrboltz. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
3RR warning
I'm aware of 3RR, and the warning was a little premature since I'd only reverted twice. But thanks anyways. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- As a side note, your sig was messed up. You may need to turn on/off raw signatures in your preferences to fix that. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Image:Tito.marshall.post-war.J.J..jpg
Please be more careful - if you read the image history, you will note that I merely moved that picture from another place:
- 21:44, 6 November 2004 . . Joy (from Image:Tito.jpg: 08:52, 13 Aug 2003 . . J.J. (36592 bytes) ("Marshall Tito") {{unverified}})
Hence, please direct your questions to that user instead if you wish to get a response. --Joy [shallot] 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Fun Fun
I made a stub!!! And you deleted it, why? Isn't stub about creating an article which others can update? Cyrruss 06:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.--File Éireann 21:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I will tag {{Db}} after finishing a page. Thanks for notification. Shyam (T/C) 22:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hoary's RFA
Yet another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2
|
|
3RR
Regarding: PHenry (talk · contribs).
Per WP:3RR, an editor can make up to three reverts, it's the fourth revert which triggers a potential 3RR block. While I strongly disagree with his use of a rollback-style edit summary, I don't believe he should be blocked for 3RR (unless he reverts again on the article and all four reverts occur within a 24 hour period). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article '88 Games for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Utah
A quick search turns up no specs online - is there any chance you can get a copy? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I looked through some of those - nothing. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Susanne Ljungskog
Concerning the cleanup tag: I'm not sure what your concerns are. The Palmares section could be prettified a bit, as in, say, the Diana Ziliute article. The biographical section is extremely brief and could certainly be expanded. However, please note, a curriculum vitae is not a biography. On very many of the cycling pages, the biographical section is merely a summation of the rider's curriculum vitae, and nothing more. Problem is, we don't have a true biography yet. That is not a cleanup issue. It is an article stub issue. I tagged the Ljungskog article, and many other articles on women cycle racers, with stub tags a few months ago. Then the stub tags were all removed.
I believe it would be best to re-stub the article. To supply a fake biography which at this point can be nothing more than a summation of the curriculum vitae would simply disguise the real issue. This issue is discussed in more detail on the talk page of the Women's cycle racing category. JFPerry 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: Take a look at Sayuri Osuga. It is stub-tagged. Suppose I were to add a detailed Palmares. Would that then result in the need for clean-up for the Osuga article? No, it would still be a biostub. A biostub with a detailed curriculum vitae. And by the way, one way, way less impressive than Ljungskog's. Ljungskog has been one of the top riders in the world (two time World Champion) for several years now. Who can say who Osuga is? Why don't you go tag that article? Or AfD it? Remember, I stub tagged Ljungskog earlier, but it was removed. JFPerry 23:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
List of Washington State Routes
I'm confused by your revert. You mention that you're "avoiding useless redirects"; if this indeed a problem, it can be solved by moving the targeted pages to the correct names. You also cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions#Table of current conventions, however this only documents the current naming convention, it does not indicate there was ever consensus for the current naming convention (just as a thermometer only reports the current temperature, not the temperature desired by people). Finally, you cite WSDOT, however, they refer to them as only "State Route X" or "SR X" (never "Washington State Route X"). On the other hand, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic (a guideline) seems to favor placing specifiers within parenthesis, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (also a guideline) insists we use "the most common name of a person or thing" (and "Washington State Route X" is most decidely not the common name). So please, if you can explain why the version with incorrect names is preferred, I would appreciate it. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. First, can you point me to the part of WP:BLOCK which allows for blocks in cases of page moves without consensus? As this is a Wiki, I find it hard to believe we'd have a rule that effectively disallows edits without prior discussion (and a move is basically just an edit; it changes the title of the article and can be undone by almost anyone). Second, regarding guidelines, I disagree with how you're treating guidelines. As there's no consensus for the present names used, yet there was obviously consensus for WP:D and WP:NC(CN) (pages don't usually reach guideline status without some consensus), it seems clear to me that we should be correcting these names. Can you explain why you're ignoring WP:D and WP:NC(CN)? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are you planning on responding to my second point? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's not really a helpful response if you seriously want to resolve this dispute. Do you have a legitimate reason for using the current names besides "I don't like that consensus decided the other names should be used"? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am specifically asking for your justification. Obviously you feel the need to revert; please don't tell me it comes down to "because everyone else is" (please note: I've been assuming good faith in you by asking these questions at all, please don't read anything into that last bit). Do you or don't you have a justification for your reverts? I've given you my reasoning for believing the other names are appropriate, now please give me yours. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, now we've degraded to circular reasoning. You don't like the page SPUI prefers because it "has redlinks and redirects". But you won't let the pages be moved because...? Again, my justifications apply to both the page reversion and the page moves, but so far you haven't provided any justifications for either.
- I am specifically asking for your justification. Obviously you feel the need to revert; please don't tell me it comes down to "because everyone else is" (please note: I've been assuming good faith in you by asking these questions at all, please don't read anything into that last bit). Do you or don't you have a justification for your reverts? I've given you my reasoning for believing the other names are appropriate, now please give me yours. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's not really a helpful response if you seriously want to resolve this dispute. Do you have a legitimate reason for using the current names besides "I don't like that consensus decided the other names should be used"? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are you planning on responding to my second point? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding SPUI being whitelisted, it is inappropriate for Curps' bot to block him for vandalism when his moves are done in good faith. Also, someone should not be punished for being efficient (which is what blocks against SPUI are doing). There's no harm in whitelisting him; if he slowed down his moves, nothing would change. They'd still be moved, just a little slower. For the record: SPUI does not need to seek consensus before every edit he makes (moving is another form of editing), so "mass moves w/o consensus" is ridiculous. This is a Wiki.
- Final parting note: I'm not being a dick. A dick wouldn't even be talking this over with you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome!
First day actually doing wiki-ish things, but I hope maybe I'm doing okay. You know that "Be Bold" thing? Yeah, that's gonna take some work. I tried to take you up on it, though. Please pop by that Revol (Cell Phone Operator) article we talked briefly about, or my own userpage. I tried to pretty it up a little. Can't figure out how to get gigantic pink animated flowers to appear in the background though... (j/k)
lilewyn 05:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions's RfA
| Thank you, Admrboltz/Archive 5! | ||
 |
...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |
Self initiative
You know a little self-initiative on your part could have been extremely helpful and reduced annoyances. It wasn't hard to determine the origin of that photo. Netscott 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
edit summary
Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm aware of the "edit summary" box. Unless I have something meaningful to say in the edit summary (beyond "fixed typo" or the like), I usually don't fill it in -- I tend to make a lot of small edits, and I'd rather not take the time to add a comment with little descriptive value. Certainly I agree that when the edit is non-trivial or controversial (most of mine are neither), an edit summary is worth the time to add. Cheers. Neilc 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
3RR
You can stop leaving 3RR warnings; I'm well aware of the rule and if I choose to violate it, it will be knowingly (and likely as a result of your direct provocation by abusing rollback and/or javascript-based rollback copycats). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Hi Admrboltz. I saw you're on wikibreak because of real life stress. I hope everything works out and you're feeling unstressed soon. :) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk Ex-Yugoslavia
Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.178.31.243 (talk • contribs) .
Thank you for your lightning response, much obliged. :) Green Giant 22:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your cleanup of Washington State Route 704. I wasn't sure how to get the routebox looking right, or where to get the 704 shield. I also wasn't aware that the "future road" template existed. Cool. Travisl 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This user has posted some changes on Revol (Cell Phone Operator) and Northcoast PCS that I feel are not NPOV and potentially smack of original research. If you have the time, could I get your opinion on the matter? If you feel it requires a revert, please let me know, as I feel somewhat responsible for the health of the article. :D
Thanks much! Kylu t 02:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Map's done. I'll upload it when the servers stop puking. --phh (t/c) 15:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please use proper capitalization - "Legal definition", not "Legal Definition". --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, which proposal are you referring to? phh (t/c) 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
User furry?
Mm, not that I'm saying much myself but I noticed the "user furry" userbox and just had to ask...
...what kinda furry? I'd guess vulpine, but that's a rather cliche first guess. o.o;
Anyway, ttyl if you feel interested in asking me. n.n ~Kylu (u|t) 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
subst:
(re: note on /wecome)
So, is there any difference between subst: and tl|? I notice subst:qif doesn't work, whereas tl|qif does. Some of that is somewhat confusing.
On WP:EDIT I noticed it mentions for categories that you can precede a category by a colon to link to the category without adding that page to the category, I can't tell for sure if it would do the same thing to a template or not, or how that would be done. When I try it, I end up with what appears to be a link to an empty article-namespace article.
I'm not even going near {{qif}} :D
meow. ^.^ ~Kylu (u|t) 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Just another RFA thank you note
|
Dear Admrboltz, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
My RfA
|
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk |