User talk:Benc/Archive
Welcome
editHello Ben, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Detroit
editThanks for the dates in the Detroit article - that method of listing voting years has always bugged me. Rmhermen 00:15, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
Law article disambiguations not needed
editPlease stop moving law articles to a US disambiguation unless you can prove that there are other laws with the same name in other countries. RickK 05:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. Didn't mean to step on any feet; I was unaware of the convention of not disambiguating law names. Could you point me to the relevant discussion? And if you want me to revert the few I've done so far, please let me know, I'm happy to fix them. --Benc 05:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Don't know of it being any relevant discussion, but it's certainly a bad precedent. We have who knows how many articles whose titles are the names of laws. Are we going to make every one of those disambiguate to the country of origin? I do know policy is not to disambiguate if it isn't necessary. Yeah, you should probably move them back so as to keep them standard. RickK 06:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Reverted. You're right, it makes more sense to do it that way. Thanks for catching it before I did all the Uniform Acts. :-) By the way, I kept the disambiguation on the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (U.S.) because of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (Australia). The wording is not identical, but is close enough to warrant the disambig. --Benc 06:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Don't know of it being any relevant discussion, but it's certainly a bad precedent. We have who knows how many articles whose titles are the names of laws. Are we going to make every one of those disambiguate to the country of origin? I do know policy is not to disambiguate if it isn't necessary. Yeah, you should probably move them back so as to keep them standard. RickK 06:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
May-December romance
editThanks for the good job on the merge-redirect. I think it's important that "May-December romance" remain as a a redirect; while the new article is more solid, it is also less searchable. I've done a Google search for relevant famous May-December couples, and have not come up with very much outside of Hollywood, yet I know the Upper Class (whatever that may be) are also very much into marriages of convenience or arranged marriages, as are a number of other cultures. Seems no one on the net is talking about it though. Denni☯ 23:05, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
I looked at your sandbox and saw that you were planning on doing a few things to the image, so I went ahead and did them. It should be good now. I also deleted Image:Anarchy_symbol.jpg because it was a degraded duplicate of the PNG version. It was a bit smaller, but the size wasn't worth the lack of quality. The latest version I uploaded is only 6.4 KB anyway. Guanaco 04:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect instead of VfD listings
editHi, Benc, thanks for your patience with my oldermenyoungerwomenolderwomenyoungermen confusion on VfD. (My defense would be that confusion was kind of appropriate.) I was very interested by the comment you made:
In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.
You can do that ...? I've never thought of being bold in just that way, but it would certainly save a lot of time for everybody. You're saying that if I see a clutch of substubs that belong together, I should just change them all to redirects, merge the text in a new article, and send it to Cleanup, (or clean it myself), without first consulting anybody? Wouldn't that outrage a lot of people, who want each information atom to have its own entry? There seem to be a lot of them around. Or am I supposed to start a whole thing on each of the stubs' talk pages first? That would make the procedure even more timewasting than VfD, I think. Not sure I understood your meaning, but I'm intrigued. Bishonen 10:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you certainly can do that — as they say, be bold in updating pages! A lot of time is wasted on talking about changing articles, and VfD is often a hot spot for wasting time, unfortunately. A lot of Wikipedians don't realize that a significant number of articles on VfD don't need to be on there, if someone would only step in and fix them! It took me a little while to realize this, myself, and only after asking explicitly. Check out Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Cleanup on VfD articles: bad form?. Anyway, thank you for your concerns, and good luck rescuing articles from VfD — Wikipedia needs more editors like you who are willing to whip those stubs up into something useful. :-) • Benc • 10:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
editHi there,
I wonder would you consider reversing your decision to delete this article. I have substantially rewritten it. A united EU team is not going to happen. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I believe the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. Please comment on my talk page if you still feel the article should be deleted.
Transparent Aluminum
editGood edits on this page. I didn't even think of the whales part as being a spoiler, so thanks for putting that in. Fuzheado | Talk 04:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Re: Age disparity
editSee User_talk:Sam_Spade#Parasexual.2FHomosexual. Sam [Spade] 22:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Insanity templates
editThank you for nominating the insanity templates for deletion. I was thinking about them on my way home last night and had decided to nominate them myself. You beat me to it. Rossami 13:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anarchist Symbolism
editI thought (I had hoped) that we were coming to a consensus on the anarchocapitalist symbol issue, but an anonymous user has significantly altered or removed (I don't know if "vandalized" is the right term) the section repeatedly in the last day. I'm not sure what to do about this. Do you have any suggestions? --Pmetzger 15:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Responses at: Talk:Anarchist_symbolism#Vandalism and User_talk:213.100.52.73 • Benc • 02:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
adminship
editDear Benc,
Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in (strong) support of my nomination for adminship.
-- PFHLai 03:51, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Flags
editThanks for the tip. Io 14:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Featured article archiving
editBenc - (speaking as the chief maintainer of the featured articles and candidates) - your edits to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log have made them quite a bit prettier, but totally unmaintainable. It took me upwards of 10 minutes to archive 5 nominations (that works out to roughly an hour a week spent archiving). Simply put - I refuse. (for the record, your edits are a form of m:instruction creep, which I oppose in all forms). I think we need to work out something better. →Raul654 05:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- [For my own reference, response at User talk:Raul654#FAC archives. • Benc • 04:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)]
Exploding whale talk page
editHi, I notice you added a FAC contested tag to the exploding whale article. Why? All the objections were dealt with! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The
{{fac-contested}}
tag is for previous candidates; the{{fac}}
tag is for current ones. The tag change was part of a mass update — I changed{{fac}}
to{{fac-contested}}
for all articles that were in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. It wasn't me adding an objection to the article. In fact, I hadn't even read the FAC discussion until just now. :-)
- Looking back at the discussion, it looks like Meelar, Pcb21, and Eequor had objections that were never withdrawn, so that's why someone archived the nomination (it wasn't me). FWIW, I would probably support the article if it was re-nominated.
- See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#A precedent, which is a discussion about your wonderful exploding whales. :-) It looks like there are some folks at FAC who want it re-nominated, too. • Benc • 04:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks / weasel terms
editThanks for the correction ---- Charles Stewart 18:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Olympic mascot
editHello. I thought I should let you know that Olympic mascot, your AOTW nominee, was created a few days ago. It was then featured at DYK on the MainPage yesterday. :-) -- PFHLai 19:02, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
- Nice! It looks like a lot of people are collaborating on it, too... guess I could jump in. :-) • Benc • 20:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wish those people had voted at COTW ... :-( -- PFHLai 20:15, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
- Oh, that's no biggie. I knew I'd nominated the article way too late for it be voted up before the Olympics were over. CotW nominators need to think at least a month ahead, I guess... • Benc • 00:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Todo template
editThank you for your attempt to solve the IE cache problem. I'm not sure how it is supposed to work though, so I could not test it. Could you give some explanations in the Procedure section of the Wikipedia:To-do list page, or its talk page ? Thanks Pcarbonn 21:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fac archiving
editSorry it took me so long to get back to you. Grad school started this week and I've been *BUSY*. To wit - yes, your solution (archiving to a summary spot and letting someone else come along later and clean it up) is fine with me. →Raul654 00:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
redstar2000
editHi, I'm pretty new here, though I'm trying to contribute. Unfortunately, someone made an article which was then listed on VfD, and I've been trying to frantically update and fine-tune it to get it acceptable. I made major expansions to it, but it seems like it's not gonna work. I'm currently working on expanding the history section, the guy's involvement in the SDS and other movements, etc. Do you think you could give it a look, and see whether you think it deserves a chance to be expanded rather than deleted? The page is redstar2000. Thank you. --Che y Marijuana 22:35, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm going to have to continue to abstain from comment. I haven't heard of Redstar2000 until now, but then again I don't generally follow anarchist authors. In other words, I don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the discussion as to whether he's notable or not, which is the whole reason the article is listed on VfD. Also, instead of leaving messages on multiple user talk pages, why don't you drop a note on Wikipedia:Requests for comment and/or Wikipedia:Village pump? Good luck, • Benc • 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Choice of username
editHi, Benc. :)
Wow, would you believe, the thought honestly never occurred to me, which is odd, because I work with admins all day long. Your pointing it out to me, however, makes the matter perfectly clear: it does look like the kind of user name that an Admin would use. The Adm is actually short for Admiral, and is based on an old private joke of mine.
If the world were a nice and safe place, I would have no objection to using my real name, and in fact, I have no objection to giving my real name out to respected members of the Wikipedia community, but I fear the wrath of POV warriors and the annoyance of Trolls too much to make my name available for general consumption.
I had been considering changing my user name to Scripter. I've just checked, and it doesn't seem to be taken. My only concern is that I've read where a change in user name is viewed by some in the community as being suspicious in and of itself. Presumably, I'm new enough and innocuous enough that it won't be seen as a problem.
Thanks for the heads up. :) soon to be Scripter, or maybe something else... let me think about it for an hour or so :) 20:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
func(talk) 21:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) <-- pretty spiffy, huh? ;-)
Sorry about Wikipedia:Trivia
editSorry for that confusion. I'll wait until your designated date (: —siroχo 03:48, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Jello Belt
edit- moved from User talk:Benc/About me
Ben:
Where does a user go to make comments to another user? This is the closest place I could find.
The Jello Belt picture you put up is a kick, but it also needs to be edited. It extends all the way through eastern Idaho to Yellowstone, further into Wyoming (the SW quadrant of the state) and through all of eastern Arizona almost to the border. San Bernardino, CA is Mormon/LDS (founded by Brother Brigham) as is Mesa, AZ.
There isn't that much Mormon/LDS influence in N Central or NW Nevada, nor in Eastern CA across the border from NV.
Thank you, though, for your insight.
Dale Jeffery / rdale444@yahoo.com Wikipedist since 2001/2002.
- Dale, thank you very much for your correction. Being an East Coaster myself, I hadn't ever heard of the Jello Belt, though I had heard of the other "Belts". I made all the "Belt" pictures in one batch. In creating the picture, I just went by the article text, which wasn't nearly as precise as your comment.
- I've updated both the picture and the article text to take into account your corrections. If you see any places where additional corrections are needed, please let me know here on my talk page or on Talk:Jello Belt (which is on my watchlist). (Or feel free to make the corrections yourself, of course.) Thanks, • Benc • 08:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
COTW
editHello, Benc. Just saw the 'inuse' tag at COTW. I hope you are fixing my mistake. Right ? I need to restore the legit. edits by Davodd that I have reverted by mistake, but I don't think I should go in and make changes while your 'inuse' tag is still there... -- PFHLai 00:39, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
Now, I can see what you are doing at COTW. I'll check back a little later to undo my mistakes. -- PFHLai 00:59, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
- I'm finished with the page. Incidentally, it looks like the mistake you were trying to fix (updating the next pruning date) was unintentionally fixed as part of my edit. • Benc • 01:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now, I am done, too. -- PFHLai 01:21, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
Staunton
editHi. I saw your redirect for Staunton. Just to let you know, there are several other places named Staunton. You might want to check this page for some. It would be better off as a disambiguation. Danny 23:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RD header
editI've created Template_talk:RD header as you suggested in Wikipedia_talk:Reference desk#Instruction bloat. Now to hack it to shreds without mercy... AlexG 19:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Template
editSorry I deleted it. I actually very much wish deletions included a reason. I don't remember deleting it--according to the timestamp, I did it around 5am, my local time, which is MUCH earlier than I usually get up. Maybe I was sleep-wiki-ing. :/. Seriously, I think it's another sign I need a serious Wikivacation. And I should avoid editing when I'm not really awake. It looks like Mike Storm is working along the same direction: User:Mike Storm/sandbox2. Niteowlneils 04:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. Get some rest, my friend. :-) The idea of a Template:Deletebecause is being discussed on Template talk:Delete. • Benc • 04:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"wikipedia:trivia" now in thinktank!
editHi Benc,
I added following sentence as 2nd paragraph to wikipedia:trivia:
- For use as "inclusion criteria and NPOV" in the Wikipedia:Policy thinktank - project started by user:Benc (and others) september 4-5, 2004.
If you don't think a good idea, just remove (don't forget in that case to also remove from "policy thinktank" page.
Note that I also provided a link to wikipedia:categorization of people in the "see also" section. Part of the discussion page of that article also has "exchange of ideas" about categories vs. lists when wanting to group trivia (regarding people, but probably more widely applicable). The present (preliminary!) state of the "categorization of people" article mentions only that wikipedians are "divided" over this topic - so I expect that some more clarity might result from the "trivia" discussion.
--Francis Schonken 19:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thakhallus
editI don't think thakhallus will go too much further. In fact, if anything the text under List of Urdu language poets might move here. What say?--iFaqeer 03:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- [For my own reference, response at User_talk:IFaqeer#Thakhallus. • Benc • 19:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)]
Before you get too carried away with redirects... descriptive linguistics has a much broader meaning than simply the opposite of prescriptive linguistics. It refers to the whole tradition of fieldworkers producing descriptive grammars, typically of unwritten languages with no prescriptive tradition to begin with, and prescriptive linguistics has little if any relevance to it. - Mustafaa 07:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. Response at Talk:Prescription and description. • Benc • 07:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
More on descriptions and prescriptions and descriptions and...
editI've done the delete and move as requested by you, however you now need to go and sort out the 'what links here' links. I've also deleted the two user pages requested for deletion by you. Now back to work... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Benc. Actually I suspect that there's a White Power subtext in Skumle humle, though I'm not sure (I'm Swedish, a real Dane might know better) so I kind of don't want to start up about it publicly on VfD or call for a speedy on that account specifically. It's trouble, if you're not sure. See, courtesy of Google, there's a Danish online forum called SKUM, no telling what the acronym stands for, or maybe an online forum for an organization called SKUM. Anyway, there's White Power type chatting on the forum, and Skumle humle's "book title", the phrase "To keep the dirt out" seems to refer on the forum to keeping immigrants out of Denmark. Lovely, isn't it? Oh, hey, I see the link's coming up red now. Good. :-) Maybe you deleted it (not sure whether you're an admin)? Bishonen 20:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's a good thing to have multilingual Wikipedians like yourself so we don't get skunked by joke entries like this. :-) (And no, I didn't delete it as I'm not an admin.) • Benc • 22:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Tack to you both. Bishonen 15:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Category:English pronunciation
editHi Benc, glad to have saved you from spelling-related embarrassment! --Lancevortex 11:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
editWould you accept an adminship nomination? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- done. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benc. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:56, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
beta Systemic Bias section
editHi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systemic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 04:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit of Pirate Radio? A bunch of sections were mindlessly duplicated at the bottom of the page, such as history of pirate radio in britain, france, external links... Why, precisely, do you want these duplications back in the text? I also put the origins of pirate radio at the beginning of the article rather than as the last entry. Why do you object to this? Isn't this sensible? EDGE 04:50, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- This was my mistake; I apologize. I assumed the edit was vandalism without fully investigating it.
I'm fixing it now, undoing my reversion.Nevermind, you have already done so. Why did I think it was vandalism? Several reasons:- Your edit summary was "TAKE THAT RICKK". Please use something a little more descriptive, like "Removed duplicate sections" :-)
- The article has had a recent rash of vandalism. I assumed this was an extension of it.
- Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. • Benc • 04:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. My edit summary refered to RICKK's (or some similar administrator) belief that I cannot contribute anything of worth to this site. I am proving him wrong. EDGE 05:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Longest English Words W/ One Syllable
editThanks! I was kind of hoping someone would take the hint. The longest words I'd been able to come up with were 8 syllables, such as straight or breathed. -Litefantastic 12:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
duplicate categories
editHi Benc, since you just moved the "category side effect" warning, could you also modify it to explain that some of the categories are listed more than once (see Wikipedia talk:Template messages#duplicate_categories)? (I'm relatively new and don't want to mess with such a central page without knowing exactly what I'm talking about.) Thanks. Fpahl 21:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Done; see Template:Category side effect. Also, I wouldn't be worried about messing with a central page if I were you. Your intentions are clearly for the best; if you make a mistake along the way, someone will surely see it and fix it. :-) Thanks for pointing out the fact that it needed additional clarification, by the way. • Benc • 22:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for the encouragement. Fpahl 22:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To-do list for CoTW
editI'm wondering why you are using the to-do list for previous Collaboration of the Week articles (e.g. for astrophysics). The task you propose "Improve this article to featured-standard" is so vague that it can be put on any article. Wouldn't it be better to be more specific, or to not use the to-do list at all ? What do you expect from the readers of that to-do list ? (I believe that there are already enough ways to promote the CoTW collaboration mechanism, if that's your purpose; I also believe that this presumed misuse of the to-do lists reduces their general attraction by generating bad will) What do you think ? Pcarbonn 21:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Your point is well-taken; this is somewhat of a misuse of the to-do list mechanism. I wasn't necessarily trying to advertise COTW, but it definitely appears that way. More than anything else, the "Improve this article..." was meant to be a temporary placeholder, to be replaced with actionable items. Actionable to-do items have been added to a number of COTW graduates (see Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/To do), but the "Improve this article..." message hasn't been removed in those cases, which it probably should.
Thumb twiddling
editThanks for the improvements to the article, and for your good words. KeyStroke 14:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
The move to RfC
editThe reason that I posted the question to the village pump was that there wasn't an edit dispute going on, which is what RfC is for. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:45, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Your bookmark table
editHi there, I stumbled upon the bookmark table on your user page and I like how you managed to put it all in a clear outlined table. I've currently linked to yours on my own user page. Would you mind me making a copy for my own use? :) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
BTW, how did you make the box around
- "Older discussions are
located in the archive.
—Benc" on top of this page? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
You're a sysop!
editI'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 00:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you — I'll do my best. :-) • Benc • 17:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Ben! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
An open thank-you
editAs of 27 September 2004, I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. This message is for everyone who voted on RFA/Benc (including the neutrals). I didn't want to spam everyone's talk pages, so I'm doing it here instead:
I'd like to send out a big thank you to everyone for their kind words and the support for making me a sysop. I'll do my very best to use these powers sparingly and appropriately. Thank you for your trust — I will be sure to "guard the keys to the WikiJanitor mop closet." :-) • Benc • 17:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey! I've created this new notice board specifically for articles related to people from the U.S. South. If you are interested in contributing, leave a message on the page and add articles you feel need to be reviewed, contributed to, or started. Mike H 21:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
The Southern Collaboration of the Week board is now up. Please vote or nominate other articles. The first voting ends on October 3. Mike H 14:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Category
editNo objections. However, I am getting ready to go clubbing. :-D So...can you do it for me? Mike H 23:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks!
edit- Benc - many thanks for supporting my adminship, and congratulations on your own! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And also a thank you from me, for directing me to Meta-wiki (Wiki addict article), I'll take a look at is! regards, --georingo 08:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! + better GFDL -> GPL linking
editHi benc, thanks for helping on eigenplane. If you're interested in something else maths related in wikipedia (and i thought i wrote a long rant on this, but i'm not quite sure where...), IMHO it's rather self-defeating to have GFDL encyclopedia articles writing about mathematics (or science), containing text and formulae, without at the same time strongly favouring external links to GPL or GPL compatible software. Of course, the software doesn't always (yet) exist, but often it does, and IMHO it would be good idea to make people writing or correcting articles feel that they should search for some free software equivalent. In fact, surely just about any article could be associated with some sort of free software which does something which enables the reader/user to do more with that idea, to test it, integrate it with other info, etc etc.
As someone with a job in science, i can say that most practising astronomers use some mix between free software, not-quite-free software and outright-commercial-closed software, and are generally not quite aware of the diffferences between free and non-quite-free software. The feeling is often "the ends justify the means". If wikipedia only gives people the end results of knowledge without giving them the power to test that knowledge themselves, then we will only have a small-r revolution in knowledge distribution, not a real big-R Revolution which will help save the planet. :)
My feeling is that something could be added to the basic template for writing/editing articles to encourage links to free (as in speech) software. However, i thought that rather than trying to campaign for this (i'm sure that any change to the basic editing form would be very strongly debated :), it makes more sense simply to do it for the subjects where i think i can contribute - people are more likely to take this seriously if i do some work myself. So for eigenplane, i've submitted an article to a scientific journal, it's freely available as a preprint (external link on eigenplane) (but not GFDL - i need to get brownie points for my dayjob), and the GPL software is downloadable. If other people like the idea, then maybe it will spread.
As a short term step towards this, if anyone has any ideas for a better free software template, please see:
- Talk:Computer algebra system and Computer algebra system for how it works
- Template talk:Free software
These comments, are, of course :), GFDL, so feel free to cut/paste/modify/extend/debug/reuse on a more appropriate page of the wikipedia than your talkpage. :) Boud 13:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
suggestion
editI read User:Benc/Feature requests, and I think you have really good ideas. In fact, I think you should add another request: that hovering on a link would open a little information box, just as happens when you put your mouse on an image. This little information box should show the beggining of the article that is being linked, or a little summary.
This will help those who are reading an article but are not familiar with a all the concepts (in physics, for instance). But this should be optional, since it might annoy some users.
[132.66.16.12, 13:43, 3 Oct 2004]
Re: BJAODN comment
editBut in the future, let's wait until it's actually deleted, okay? -- [User:Benc]
- How am I supposed to copy the deleted article's content after it has been deleted? After all, I am not the only person to contribute to BJAODN early - there is even one article there which was in fact never deleted. BJAODN is for fun, not for disputes about technicalities. -- Mike Rosoft 10:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but also: BJAODN is for fun, not for hurting anybody's feelings. I was not disputing technicalities — I was just being cautious about this borderline case. How would you feel if a good-faith contribution of yours got sent to BJAODN, perhaps with a snarky comment like this is why you shouldn't edit Wikipedia on acid? I was unsure if the article you're referring to was a "good faith" effort, hence the suggested delay. Whenever we're laughing at other people's contributions — no matter how silly they are — it's important to keep civility in mind.
Anyway, about my comment. I didn't mean to say that we should always wait until deletion. Rule of thumb: whenever there are a fair number of "keep" votes on VfD or wherever, that's a good sign that some people's feelings might get hurt, and the article should only be moved to BJAODN upon deletion, if at all. In this case, the keep votes were sockpuppets, which is why I reverted myself. • Benc • 21:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fine with me. -- Mike Rosoft 11:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but also: BJAODN is for fun, not for hurting anybody's feelings. I was not disputing technicalities — I was just being cautious about this borderline case. How would you feel if a good-faith contribution of yours got sent to BJAODN, perhaps with a snarky comment like this is why you shouldn't edit Wikipedia on acid? I was unsure if the article you're referring to was a "good faith" effort, hence the suggested delay. Whenever we're laughing at other people's contributions — no matter how silly they are — it's important to keep civility in mind.
Images
editTake a look at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), subsection "Risk of inappropriate images appearing". Thoughts? -- Dwheeler 04:07, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
RfD deletions
editWhen you deleted the entry for Sample article title, you also deleted the material about Talk:Sample article title, which had not been dealt with yet. Please be more careful, and only delete entries which really are completely done with. Noel 14:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good catch; thank you. I was closing out old RFD discussions when I saw the first sentence of your response, which was "Done." I didn't read the rest of the comment... my mistake. I'll be sure to read it next time. Sorry about that, • Benc • 14:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Thanks! (No problem, BTW.)
One other thing, looking down the list of stuff you worked on: I was wondering if maybe the list of saved precedents shouldn't be on a page called /Precedents (following the example of VfD), rather than /Archive - in part to follow the example, and also since it's not really a comprehensive archive.
I do really like the way you put the actual debates on a separate page, as opposed to inline, the way VfD/Precendents does it - it makes for a much easier to read page. You might want to suggest on WT:VfD that we do the same thing there - the VfD/Precedents page is really long, and hard to use. Noel 15:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hunh. It turns out there is a talk page for the VfD/Precedents subpage, at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents. So I guess my suggestion immediately above ought to be directed there instead. Noel 00:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You reverted your OWN edits??
editHow could you revert your OWN edits?? Generally, edits of this kind usually mismatch Z and X in "reverted edits by X to last version by Y", but they match in this section. 66.245.126.161 16:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
About meta
editI clicked Recent Changes and looked for an admin. You were the first one I saw, so you get this question. :-) Would you check Typeparameter and see if you can make heads or tails of it. I've never worked with templates here. Should this be on meta or is it about something else entirely? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 02:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Request for Help
editFirst of all, thank you for the compliments you posted re: my article.
Secondly: since you've posted in the Talk:Cross-dresser discussion now, I'm hoping you can help myself and Stbalbach finally bring this interminable bicker-session to a close. It was started and sustained by AlexR - who seems to have a consistent track record of causing the same problems he's now causing in the above discussion. Here's a brief background:
When I attempted to clean up some of the historical information for the "Cross-Dresser" article - specifically with regard to a personage whom I specialize in as a historian - he set off an enormous fight over the changes which I and now also Stbalbach have agreed upon. To give some idea of his argument style, I'll use one subtopic as an example: despite my attempts to point out that many eyewitnesses related quotes from Joan of Arc herself explaining that she wore "male clothing" out of necessity, he keeps claiming that I've instead been citing subjective "interpretations" rather than direct quotes, therefore he thinks we should argue over the ability of others to make such "interpretations". When I try to point out (again) that these are quotes from Joan herself, he ironically accuses me of ignoring his arguments rather than vice-versa. This appears to be his pattern, judging from a remarkably similar ping-pong match he's managed to sustain in Talk:List of transgendered people. Glancing over that discussion, it looks like numerous people have asked that an obscure word should be properly defined in the article for the benefit of readers, but he has been resisting this common-sense change and repeatedly undoing every edit which the others make - all while accusing the others of being the unreasonable party rather than himself.
I would ask that, if possible, you could please block him from further interference, at least in the Cross-Dresser discussion and perhaps others if such is merited. It is literally impossible to make improvements when one stubborn editor engages in this type of persistent behavior, and it would seem to be rather senseless to argue with him when he appears to deliberately make irrelevant comments just to keep the debate going indefinitely.
Many thanks for your time and consideration. I joined Wikipedia with the intent of contributing some historical material, but thus far it has been a rather frustrating process.
- AWilliamson (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 00:56, 11 Oct 2004
- I will gladly do whatever I can to help. I'm very sorry that you have encountered such a difficult opposition to your edits so early on. Thank you for your patience and willingness to discuss in search of consensus. Those are key virtues for any Wikipedian, especially in cases where others forget the civility rule.
- Anyway, no matter how much I would like to, I can not and will not block anyone simply for being stubborn and rude. It's against the blocking policy. Unfortunately, this allows POV warriors to exist. That's why we have dispute resolution and page protection in place. In the worst cases, rude, argumentative editors dig themselves into a hole, with most of the community against them, and eventually get banned by the arbitration committee. It's slow, but in the interests of maintaining a fair, open-minded community, we have to do it this way, however slow and painful it may be.
- I'm sure you've seen this by now, but I've just finished a major edit at cross-dressing to help settle the Joan of Arc issue. I hope this will help; if there's anything that didn't help please let me know on Talk:Cross-dressing. • Benc • 07:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As expected, AlexR has now gone in and completely changed your edits to that page, and has promised (in another place) to keep up an endless "edit war". This is a bit like dealing with an adolescent.
- I had joined Wikipedia after someone posted a note to an academic list making the point, in essence, that historians really should edit Wikipedia articles for the sake of insuring accuracy. I'm finding out why more of them do not.
- Would you at least revert the article back to the changes that you had made, and then protect the article from additional tampering? Otherwise this process will truly never end. - AWilliamson (Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive ) 15:12, 11 Oct 2004
RfA
editNow I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 14:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My nomination for adminship
editThank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Matthew Richardson VfD
editAre you sure putting him on the same sub-page with her is valuable? I am removing the redundant copy of her debate, but i suspect something like an system-resolved edit-conf between the two sections may have gotten her doubled. --Jerzy(t) 00:29, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- It's neither good nor bad to have two related VfD discussions on a single page. I did so because it was quicker and easier for me when I listed the article. If someone messes it up by doubling it, it will be fixed by excellent WikiJanitors like yourself (and I mean this as a strong compliment!) I've fixed doubling-resulting-from-edit-conflicts before, including on the main VfD page. It happens anywhere and everywhere. (Though let me tell you, I wasted quite a bit of bandwidth figuring the VfD doubling out.)
- Anyway, if you really want to split the VfD listing to give Matthew Richardson its own page, feel free to do so. It's harmless either way, but thanks for your concern. • Benc • 00:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it rolls onto /Old in 19 hours, so i'm more interested in the principle than the case. BTW, it does occur to me that editors sometimes add out of sequence within a day, and doubling up keeps the items together (making sense of "the previous item") despite that! (But i sure was confused when i started troubleshooting the doubling; i hadn't conceptualized the obvious model that the transcluded-heading mechanism uses! Glad to do the Janitorial; i haven't got the bandwidth to spare, and felt like a slacker when my own contrib to doublings in the old monolithic VfD was just pulling the fire alarm.) Tnx, --Jerzy(t) 05:22, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
Problem with an administrator
editWhat are the procedures for abitrating NPOV disputes? A Wikipedia administrator, Jayjg insists on inserting his virulently Zionist POV into many Middle East-related pages and he ignores Talk page discussions questioning his actions. For instance, he deletes references to Occupied Territories, insisting that they are "disputed territories" a typical ruse of Zionist propaganda. He insists that Hamas is a terrorist organization and refuses to recognize that the label terrorist reflects his POV and is not universally shared. He constantly reverts edits by users he disagrees with (not just me) and insists that his view is the only acceptable view. He does not seek consensus, he does not discuss issues honestly, he just insists that he is right and everyone else must conform to his view. His behavior borders on vandalism and it discourages objective Wikipedians who are working sincerely to build pages with a NPOV. Any suggestions on dealing with this problem? Thanks! Alberuni 00:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- How about working with me towards NPOV? That might work. Accurate summaries of my edits (unlike the fantasy listed above) would help too. Also, avoiding ad hominem comments in Talk: pages would be a definite plus. Jayjg 00:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You can see that Jayjg is stalking my edits on multiple pages, even to your Talk page. He redirected Occupied Palestinian Territories without even bothering to discuss it on the Talk page. He has systematically tried to revert many of my edits and new page creations of the past 24 hours for purely political purposes. Is this the way Wikipedia administrators are suppose to behave? Alberuni 01:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please, as requested above, try to give accurate summaries of my activities. I did not redirect Occupied Palestinian Territories, I listed it for deletion, which requires no Talk: discussion. And I'm not sure what "He has systematically tried to revert many of new page creations of the past 24 hours" means, I haven't reverted any of your new page creations in the past 24 hours, I've just listed one specific page for deletion. Also, if you have issues with me, the preferred method of dealing with them is to first discuss them with me, on my Talk: page. Why don't you take the discussion there? Jayjg 02:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, as long as Jayjg does not abuse his administrator-specific powers (i.e., deletion and blocking) at any time, the issue of him being an admin is irrelevant in the context of your unfortunate dispute with him. First and foremost, admins are Wikipedians. If Jayjg had abused his privileges, I would be among the first calling for investigation and arbitration. Admins should (and do for the most part, I believe) represent the friendliest, most hardworking and helpful face of Wikipedia. I have seen zero evidence of Jayjg abusing his admin status in this dispute.
About his "stalking" your edits: you're allowed to look at Jayjg's, mine, or any other user's contributions and follow up on them if you believe they are misrepresenting you. Jayjg has that right, too. I'm not saying you misrepresented him or vice versa; I am not yet familiar with the dispute. As long as Jayjg doesn't misrepresent you by editing your comments in bad faith, he's well within his rights to respond wherever and however he pleases within the bounds of Wikiquette and civility, as are you.
That being said, your concerns are valid. Every Wikipedian has a right to speak his mind, so long as he keeps civility in mind at all times. I see that a request for comment about general user conduct regarding yourself exists at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni. I also see that you have responded there. Keep in mind that if you feel Jayjg's conduct is inappropriate, you are free to open an RFC on him, though it must be seconded by another user within 48 hours of the listing in order to be considered. I would also recommend involving a mediator and/or an advocate from the Association of Members' Advocates (AMA).
In short, your options at this point include:
- Try to work it out with Jayjg on your own, without any personal attacks, keeping civility in mind at all times
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment
- Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
- Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance
Please note that I am currently neither a mediator nor a members' advocate. I may apply to be a mediator in the future, but my life is currently too busy, job-wise. Anyway, I hope all this helps in resolving your difficulties with Jayjg. I cannot emphasize enough that personal attacks are the single most harmful factor affecting the Wikipedia. Please avoid them like the plague. • Benc • 01:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you Benc for the comprehensive advice. I really appreciate it and I will do my best to follow it. Good luck with your new job. If your sound advice to me is any indication, I'm sure you will have great success. Alberuni 01:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Admin nomination
editWow, such nice words! I really appreciate your vote and comments on my admin nomination! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can we improve this? It seems a bit condescending at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
MacGyverMagic for adminship
editWell, it's been a long time since our paths last crossed, but I'd like to thank you again for your nifty layout coding and ask you to read the following:
I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
editHi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
RFC pages on VfD
editShould RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just to be sure, is it ok for me to use your footer?
editUser:Sgeo/Footer... --Sgeo | Talk 23:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
anarchism symbols
editI saw your pictures on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Symbolisme anarchiste) and i would like to know if i can use them for the same article in http://encyclopedie.zaup.org, an anarchist encyclopedia... fr:Utilisateur:Doud ~13:00 - 31/12/2004
Is this page a test? I don't see it being used on anything. I was going to TFD it, but if it's a user test, perhaps you can delete it yourself. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
editEh, I was bored and I added about 40 suggestions of new titles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pro wrestling articles
editDo you think there is sufficient interest in the topic to warrant a Wikiproject? — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Libertatis Æquilibritas
editMy reading of the copyright information on was that we're allowed to use all the colors (the email says "images"), so I put the gold one on the site on the libertarianism page. I thought I should check with you to make sure this is all kosher, though.
Thanks in advance, Dave 03:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Benc. I bet the copyright holder of Image:Circle A red.jpg would be willing to license it under the GFDL. Perhaps you could ask him? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 17:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Table suffixes
editTemplate:Table suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Table suffixes. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:39, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
User Categorization
editHello! We are working on a new system that will categorize the users. Please take a moment to move your user page into the category Category:Wikipedians in Virginia and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Virginia page.
To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Viginia|Benc]] to sort yourself correctly.
Birthday!
editUser:Jenmoa/birthday --User:Jenmoa 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:VfD nomination
editTemplate:VfD nomination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:VfD nomination. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 09:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Iceberg2.jpg
editThanks for uploading Image:Iceberg2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thue | talk 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Situation of administrator abuse
editHi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Renaissance
editSo then Ben, what happened to your proposal way back then to rearrance Renaissance where you been? why arent it done?
you fix it! Then I'll buy into it, and write a thousand pages. Pleeese don't put it altogether in one lump or it'll be too long and cumbersome.
Dr Gatchet
editHiBen! 'smee-agen! Don't worry yourself about Dr Gadget. The D'Orsay has the original, no worries!
Proposed Georgia Move
editAs a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Black flag.jpg listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Black flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Benc. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Libertatis Aequilibritas silver.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Benc. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Db-meta
editTemplate:Db-meta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GrooveDog (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Todoedit1
editHi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Todoedit1, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Category side effect
editA tag has been placed on Template:Category side effect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Counting what links here
editHi, I found my way to your script for parsing What links here, but I'm not sure how to use it, since I have no experience with scripts on Wikipedia. I use IE7 on Windows XP, if it makes any difference. Normally I would just copy and paste it to my monobook.js file, but since it's in Python, I'm not quite sure what to do. This would really be useful for us at WikiProject Orphanage. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Tfd-kept has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Wikipedia:IA
editI have nominated Wikipedia:IA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. CTJF83 chat 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Todoedit2
editHello Benc, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Template:Todoedit2, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:WOSlinker. This has been done because the page was created to test Wikipedia (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}
" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:WOSlinker. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of WOSlinker (talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Foundation planets
editTemplate:Foundation planets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Neelix (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Reorganizing
Template:Reorganizing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Map of USA highlighting Bible Belt.png
editThanks for uploading File:Map of USA highlighting Bible Belt.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
editSuspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
editFollowing a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Cotw-todo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice of change
editHello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(delivered by mabdul 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC))
Research request regarding Sunbelt
editDear Benc,
I am a postgraduate student in the UK researching the history of the Sunbelt and I am attempting to track the provenance of the Sunbelt map as appears on Wikipedia. Is it possible for you to shed any light on how it was drawn, i.e. how certain areas were included? I have contacted the Library cited as its source and they will only lay claim to the base.
Thank you very much for taking the time, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
Andy
Web acronym listed at Redirects for discussion
editAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Web acronym. Since you had some involvement with the Web acronym redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Meaning of death listed at Redirects for discussion
editAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Meaning of death. Since you had some involvement with the Meaning of death redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Respect for the dead listed at Redirects for discussion
editAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Respect for the dead. Since you had some involvement with the Respect for the dead redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Political slogans has been nominated for discussion
editCategory:Political slogans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Refactoring
editTemplate:Refactoring has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Seating styles listed at Redirects for discussion
editAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seating styles. Since you had some involvement with the Seating styles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:IA listed at Redirects for discussion
editAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:IA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:History of the English language has been nominated for renaming
editCategory:History of the English language has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
←back to main page | talk |