Sidhekin

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Welcome!

Hello, Sidhekin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Fredwerner 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure you didn't mean "Vase, +vat"?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. GrahamBould (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Wish I'd picked up on it first time round. I had just assumed you had written to the wrong person. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

thanks for your note. Yes, it was. Things like that happen. But it all worked out. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to pass comment at Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move

Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ponte

I know I put the db-bio tag on that article. I saw the big red box appear, but, I do agree that it's odd that it is not showing up. I don't really know what happened. Undeath (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Correction, I know exactly what happened. I tagged it first and it was deleted. He re-created the page, so I re-tagged it and it was deleted again. Undeath (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Facebook has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. jon (blab) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. :-) jon (blab) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Lipikaar

Hi Sidhekin

You recently rolled back two edits made to by me to the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devan%C4%81gar%C4%AB and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmic_family

I believe you thought it was a spam link. However if you look closely, I think you will see that is not the case.

I have added them under the correct sections of articles relevant to the tool we have developed. Its a free Firefox extension. Its a typing tool to help people type in Indic languages. Where else would you put such information ?

If there is another way to edit a wikipedia page, other than I have done, any help to point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

In any case please review the edits I had made. On closer inspection I'm sure you will detemine its not spam.

I'm unsure how to contact people on Wikipedia, hence I choose this route. Please forgive me if I crossed some rule here.

Regards Nigel. (for the Lipikaar Team.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipikaar (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Regarding Lipikaar

Hi Sidhekin.

Wikipedia's system of inter user communication could use some improvement :-)

Thanks for the reply. I think the fault is mine for not reading the editing guides more carefully. I really appreciate the your efforts to correct me. I will push the links to the Talk pages and let them move to main page from there.

Many thanks. Nigel

Lipikaar (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism

Thanks for your suggestions. Either version is fine with me. A very strict interpretation of WP:SYN or a broad one. What is important is that the same standard is applied to arguments of both sides. I hope that you agree with this. I think it is best to continue a discussion on the talk page of the article where everyone can participate.Ultramarine (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a break now. Will reply later.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet?

Hey. Take a look at this edit by Rafaelsfingers. The account was made only at the end of last month and has suddenly jumped into to this dispute. Looks like a sockpuppet - do you know anything about checkuser requests? I've made one in the past, but I'm not sure how best to do it - nor who to file against. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit is just a straight revert of a string of five revisions: diff. Nothing unusual, as far as I can tell.

Now, this is just my impression from following a few cases and reading the policies, but I don't think the checkuser crew would take such a case without fairly strong evidence of disruption: The policy is rather restrictive, and the crew does not exactly appear trigger happy.

But even if you are right, and this is a sock, it is not a big problem. Two edits on March 28th and two more today? If only all our problems were this small!  :) On the other hand, if the "problem" continues, we could soon have enough evidence to warrant a checkuser. For now though, my impression is we got nothing. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you.Supergreenred (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

chandu image

Thanks for the tweak, actually I think that was the first image I ever loaded, I am surprised that was the only mistake. EraserGirl (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have yet to deal with images as such, but I know templates. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to an article which explains them? I have been using them, but i would like to know a bit more on the mechanics. I just discovered that the order of the fields in use is overridden by the order of the fields set up in the template. Very interesting tidbit. EraserGirl (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What, do you mean Help:Template (and more specifically, Help:Template#Parameters)? It is not the most accessible of documents, but if you want to know the mechanics, I don't know where else to point you. On the other hand, if you just want to use templates, mw:Help:Templates may be all you need. It won't tell you much of the mechanics though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a geek from way back, I like to know how things work. EraserGirl (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism vandal

Thanks for the invitation. I still think my edits were pure gold, but I'm probably going to skip on the talk page. I looked at it and it's a bunch of people talking about Nietzsche and the meaning of existence and stuff. I'd feel dumb going in there to argue about a minor technicality from The Big Lebowski. Propaganda Kid (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Propaganda Kid

Thanks for the heads-up!

I honestly don't know movies; I don't watch many. I might feel dumb if I were to discuss it. But there's no reason to feel dumb for knowing and caring about a subject, even if it is tangential and arguably a "minor technicality": Most of us don't want people calling Wikipedia inaccurate. :)

My only objection was that "Come on, bring back the quote. It's ten times better with the accent, and this wasn't even said in the movie. Do you want people calling Wikipedia inaccurate?" does not belong in the article. And the invitation to use the talk page is still open, should you reconsider.

Oh, and I'm pleased to see you've registered! Again again welcome!  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously that part had to go. I was only attached to the edits before it.

The editors in the talk page sound like they wear glasses and drink espresso with their pinkies sticking out. I'd feel like a frat boy barging into the middle of a philosophy club meeting at a vegan coffee shop to yell about the football game and Roy's triple kegger. We're all throwing down for a quad and Chad's sister is coming, maaayne.

You should see The Big Lebowski even if you don't watch a lot of movies. The soundtrack alone makes me want to watch it again. Propaganda Kid (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Propaganda Kid

User talk:Inclusionist

Thanks for fixing that, I got fed up with the template and didn't feel like reading the doc anymore! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Easy with that twinkle!

Yes, I realised that too, but couldn't do anything as I'd already clicked Revert Vandal :-() I should have just clicked Revert and given my explanation (that on almost all Pakistan related subjects, e.g. Districts of Pakistan don't show their part of Kashmir (i.e. Azad and N. Areas) as disputed, although India claims all of it). My bad. I'm pretty new to Twinkle and it's really amazing. In due course I'll get the nick of it. Sorry for anything. Thanks for notifying, and have a nice day!  S3000  ☎ 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with Twinkle

Hi, your Twinkle edit in the article Tea truncated the article, but the deleted content has now been restored by another user and my bot. Please be careful with Twinkle until its bug 13 has been fixed. --Silvonen (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to be more careful. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bjørn_Sagvolden

I'm not seeing any soapboaxing... Could you head over to the AFD and answer the question I posted there? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've tried. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Clade

I see you suggested semi-protection of Clade to keep out the banned User:Consist (real name Mats Envall). I considered that a while ago and concluded it would poor tactics, because he'd just make a nuisance of himself in other pages / articles to do with cladistics. I posted a notification of his use of a range of IPs at Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Indef_blocked_user_Consist_still_disrupting but no-one seem interested. In the meantime I'll just revert any changes to Clade from any IP that I've seen him use in the Talk page (as I did a few minutes ago). Unfortunately I don't think the rules allow protection of Talk pages. --Philcha (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that new development is taking place at Talk:Clade#Semi-protected, so most of our disagreement (if that's the word) is probably better handled there. But I'll take this opportunity to note that you are right (and I was mistaken) about the rules: "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time" (Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection). I guess I'll just have to live with it then ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On: 2006_Lebanon_War#Noam_Chomsky

Hi, As I understand, you just deleted a talk sequence here [[1]]. I cannot find in WP:TALK the point you are making. Since I started the topic (section Noam_Chomsky), and I am focusing on my intro of the subject, it is strange to me that the text is removed. In content: e.g. I showed that someone reverted (even completed full 2nd cycle) after I started the talk. I also showed that the 'discussion' (e.g. edit motivations) went astrange. So why delete? This way I am forced into a discussion I do not want. I suggest you revert the text. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly: You talked about how some other user is reverting and discussing. But that talk page is not for talking about users. It is for talking about the article. WP:TALK lists "[s]ome examples of appropriately editing others' comments", including "[d]eleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the [subsection #How to use article talk pages])". Elsewhere it also spells out: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

If you want to talk about some other user, there are places for that. Article talk space is not. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Thanx for this careful reply.
• 2. Please understand (& confirm) that I did not, in any word, criticise the editor (ref in bold above!). Indirectly his behaviour, but never his being. The bold reference is undue, I think, and very uncomfortable to me.
• 3. That said, I referred in my text to the sequence of the edit-remarks of the editor. To me that is part of the discussion (if not essence). If the editor changes his motivation, I am invited to point this out. Part of the discussion. Re-reading the deleted text, I still see the evocative reactions of the opposing editor. Focusing the opposing editor into the subject is clearly aiming to improvement of the article. So: request to replace the text in the talk. I am willing to specify the offending qoutes (e.g. contradictions in the edits). Still a fact: reverted after opening talk.
• 4. I will copy the deleted text to the correct user-talk anyway, as you suggest.
  

Bye, -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not considered whether there was any criticism. The word "criticism" has so many meanings, it is really useful only in context. In this context, I think "discussing", "talk about", and "comment" will do just nicely. Having said that, I can confirm that I am not aware of you discussing (talking about, commenting) the other editor's being.

"If the editor changes his motivation, I am invited to point this out." Really? That surprises me, in particular in light of WP:AGF. Can you refer me to this invitation, that I may consider it?

I may well be "still a fact", but also still not relevant to improving the article, so I am not prepared to reinstate it.

In a nutshell: Use article talk pages to improve the article, not to discuss editors' behaviour, edit-remarks, nor motivation. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:British cricketers

It should be removed everywhere because it does not reflect the real world. The point is that there is no British cricket team and all GB cricketers are officially qualified as English, Scottish or Welsh (NI cricketers play for the combined Ireland team). --Orrelly Man (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, C.B.K. Beachcroft, Arthur Birkett, Alfred Bowerman, George Buckley (cricketer, born 1876), Francis Burchell, Frederick Christian, Harry Corner, Frederick Cuming, and William Donne all played for "the gold medal winning Great Britain cricket team". Not "England". We don't even know that George Buckley was English, do we? (He played for an English club, but that does not necessarily mean he was English, does it?)

What would be a proper category for George Buckley (cricketer, born 1876)? — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Buckley is already categorised in category:English cricketers so someone must have seen a reference somewhere that states he was English. You could request verification if in doubt. All of these players are included in Category:Olympic cricketers of Great Britain which reflects the team's name in the same way that Category:England Test cricketers does (note that many England players are not English). Nationality is another matter. In cricket terms, no one ever talks about British cricketers.

If you want to include these players in a British category you have to remember that some of them could have been Irish.

The Olympic team category is a sub-category of Category:Cricket in the United Kingdom and that is a satisfactory and sensible arrangement for a team that was an exception to the norm. --Orrelly Man (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good answer. I think the problem with Buckley is that no one seems to know anything, but I guess English is as good a guess as we can come up with. I may sleep on it, but I think I'll end up replacing the Norwegian bokmål category with one of English cricketers. Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I would move the interwiki categories from British to English: for example, cs:Kategorie:Britští hráči kriketu to cs:Kategorie:Angličtí hráči kriketu. --Orrelly Man (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

According to CricketArchive via the reference in Buckley's article, "Great Britain was represented by the Devon County Wanderers Club. France was represented by the French Athletic Club Union (called All Paris) and composed almost entirely of Englishmen living in France..." A local league team from Devon at that time would almost certainly be all Englishmen. Regards. --Orrelly Man (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I slept more than once on it, but now I've done it. For the Norwegian project. Natives may want to deal with the others; categories are difficult enough on a single project ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ranunculus nivalis

Hello Sidhekin, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ranunculus nivalis - a page you tagged - because: not a valid reason. Use WP:RFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian wikipedia has hinted, that it does not have an article(-title), corresponding to en:Auto racing.

Re: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dugnadskontor/Opprette_manglende_viktige_artikler

At the bottom of the page, one refers to : en:Auto racing. I believe that the proper name for a relevant Norwegian article, would be: "Bil innen motorsport" or "Konkurransekjøring med bil".

(I do not have an internet connection in my home, therefore I am writing from a network, that seems to be blocked until 13. des 2009.) Could you please place my suggestions on the page (linked at the top of this page), if my suggestions are acceptable? 80.241.84.10 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure the title should be Bilsport, as in Swedish and as hinted in several places on nowp. However, the real shortage is not of a title, but of an article. (We have one for motorsport and several for different kinds of auto racing, but not one encompassing all sorts of auto racing.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree slightly, because there are sporting events with cars, that take place at venues, such as stadiums etc. And some of those events are contested on factors that do not involve travelling fastest over a specified distance. Therefore I suggest: Car racing, translates best to Billøp (bil+løp), or Konkurransekjøring med bil, possibly.

Anyway, I have a suggestion for adequate text, for a stub. Does it violate any rules, or is the text below, seemingly acceptable?

Stub for Billøp: Billøp er en del av motorsport for bil, og inkluderer konkurransekjøring i form av baneløp, rally og rallycross. (Paris-Dakar foregår ikke på en bane). Se også Lyngåsbanen,Rally Viking,Martin Schanche, Henning Solberg (This stub might be adequate, but can definitely be imporved.)

P.S. "Billøp" currently redirects to "rally", and that ought to be re-linked, to a disambiguation page, if an article about "billøp" is not created. Or?--80.241.84.10 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a different stub:Huang Qi

Norwegian wikipedia does not have Huang Qi, yet. (But since the English article is featured on the Main Page, then someone might have written the Norwegian article, even before you see this message.)--80.241.84.10 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential stub

• klima-mafia/klimamafia ( http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3387444.ece ) --80.241.84.10 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Looking into the "crystal ball"

It seems that the bodies of a number of doctors has been found in Afghanistan, as reported in the news today. I expect that this wikipedia has/will have an article. If it obvious to you, what such a Norwegian article might be called, then I would be very interested to hear.

• And if I may ask, if there is not an English article today, then what Norwegian article would be the first place where the reports, might be mentioned? (I expect to write a Norwegian sentence or two, today. But I am not sure if the the sentences will fit into any existing article, on the wikipeda in Norwegian .)85.196.74.30 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know

At least since 27. aug 2011, Yingluck Shinawatra has been president of Thailand, according to the text under her picture in the Norwegian article.

http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&action=historysubmit&diff=9265815&oldid=9264629--Ranti2 (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sidhekin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)