This basically means I no longer have any pages on my watch list, so I move from issue to issue without getting too bogged down anywhere
|
1|2|3|4|5 |
Hi there. I saw your note at the village pump, which linked to the discussion.
It might be worth instead/additionally linking here directly, and briefly explaining on the VP page why you have made this suggestion. I suspect that most people will take one look at the length of the footy discussion and decide to stay at a safe distance, but a shorter and graphic summary may get a few neutral people involved. WFCforLife (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gnevin
I just saw a few edits by you, so came over here to see that your talk page now says semi-retired than retired ... which is great news. :)
I know that you felt a bit overloaded by the extent to which you were involved before your retirement, and I wouldn't try to do anything to change your mind about that, because there's a life outside of wikipedia and that should come fist. But since it seems you have decided to pop in occasionally, I just thought I'd say that it's great to see that your calm thoughtfulness hasn't been entirely lost to wikipedia, and hope you enjoy whatever occasional contributions you make.
Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I 'll tag every article and every category found in Category:Gaelic games with the project banner. Please warn me asap if you don't want talk pages of categories to be tagged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about this edit? If I look at sources such as the Rugby League Europe Federation website, and the Rugby League World Cup 2008 website, they use the tricolour to identify the team. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it went ****-up. Since another user complained that it was causing article corruption, I had to chop back the field to 1%. Since there is so many "bits" to change (and check that it all works) - can I suggest that next time (if there is a next time) that you just ask for those pages to be unprotected temporarily (say 24h) - they are only protected as they are a "high risk" for vandals (change one bit and you can corrupt a lot of pages!), and I would think a 24h unprotection would not cause a problem - you can then change the templates and check that they all work OK in the articles as you expect them to. Either request at WP:RFUP or ask me direct on my talk page (I'm around most weekday evenings). Ronhjones (Talk) 15:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I knew the link wasn't going anywhere, which is why I was in the middle of fixing it. Jack forbes (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The Irish tricolour includes orange for a reason. True, it may not have been adopted by that community, but it is still used by nationalists and republicans throughout the island. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
NB - you do realise that the organisation being referred to as the Celtic League, is NOT the Magners League one? Right? I know that the Magners League has been referred to as this, but it's not the same as the political group founded in 1961, which happens to use the all-Ireland nationalist flag you happen to dislike.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the counting was fixed in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_15#Orphan_tags_part_IV (version 5.0.0.1 rev 6013).
Since WP:ORPHAN gives priority to orphans with no links at all I proposed another tweak in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Another_tweak_for_orphans.
Finally, I requested a new task for by bot to clean the mess in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 11. (You can raise your voice!)
I think all are set. :)
-- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Afaber012 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK they aren't really part of any WikiProject, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums would seem the most obvious place. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
((helpme)) I nominated a image for deletion here because I feel its an WP:OI . The bot says I should take the deletion requestion to commons but I'm pretty sure WP:OI doesn't apply there. How do I proceed? Gnevin (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to remove the images individually. The image is not hosted here, so you can't actually delete it from here. fetchcomms☛ 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah its called a placeholder. That's an idea predating us. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For my information, what is the difference between the IRFU banner and (for example) a town crest? See the rationale on that page. (That crest dates form the mid-20th century if memory serves.) Or these arms. Date of creation is also mid-20th century if memory serves (registered in 1981) but see the rationale. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW Scolaire gave the OK to the propsed rewrite and I added it to the MOS. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!
Nemoi is French, and he begs your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has said here at 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem with the rename "British and Irish Lions from X" (it makes sense), but surely it would make more sense to list them under a single proposal...--MacRusgail (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Great work on all the permutations around ((tl:Fs start)). Sorry if early stages of our discussion got a bit oppositional: maybe we can claim creative tension. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gnevin, Paradoctor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry about the proposal. I know how it feels, that's all I can say. Paradoctor (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any limit to your dumb nominations? It is people like you that drove most serious contributors from Ireland off this site. You are a reminder of why this site is a failure - with ill-informed posters jumping to conclusions about topics they know nothing about. That is why all so many Irish academics who originally were here all left. Thank you for reminding me that this place isn't worth contributing to. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
((helpme)) When i upload [1] I get File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg can you fix it? Also why is IRFU showing the old logo? Gnevin (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Gnevin, can you take a look at [2]. Mooretwin is blocked and unable to contact you, and his appeal revolves around his 2nd edit which he says was made after discussion and consensus/agreement with you. He has asked me to contact you. User:Sandstein has blocked him for edit-warring. If you read his appeal (on his talk page) he states that he was not edit-warring and that he engaged in constructive dialogue with User:Gnevin and reached consensus. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been mulling over the idea of going to ArbCom to have them formally close the Ireland name-dispute process. What's your opinion on that?
I know I responded facetiously to your post at WT:IECOLL but in effect the process was about the naming dispute. Maybe it could be reopened as a venue to address other disputes (like the current slow war going on between some editors). I think though that process
You may also be interested in another page: Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration. I created it now so that it would exist should there ever be a reason to call up on it. Maybe IECOLL could do the same thing (i.e. sleep until needed)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
((helpme)) How does File:Sin bandera.svg work. I'd like to create File:Four Provinces Flag Not Article.svg which redirects to File:Four_Provinces_Flag.svg . So I can see where the 4 prov flag is used in article but not in ((Ireland portal)) Gnevin (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[File:Four_Provinces_Flag_Not_Article.svg]]. You can find some more information on this at WP:REDIRECT. Hope that helps, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Gnevin, arising from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, I have opened a discussion at the village pump about the use (and non-use) of copyrighted images in flag cruft. You will probably want to comment. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For determination, patience, aways-present willingness to discuss and an unshaking adherence civility on the subject of copyright and what flag to use to represent the Ireland national rugby union team. I hereby award you the first Rugby barnstar award. Well done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gnevin (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interventions at AE. They were appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the footnote here, relating to the two all-Ireland teams? I'm planning on nominating the list at WP:FLC in the near future, but thought it best to check that I've covered this appropriately beforehand. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mo ainm~Talk 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you intend to just use club websites as a source then I will have to change my vote to oppose, as I have said before all a club will do is use the birthplace of the player especially on the players who will never be capped. I feel flags should only be used on players who are capped anything else is just using their birthplace. Mo ainm~Talk 10:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I see you're causing trouble again. Do you know why this note appears on each of the "Arabian Gulf" articles? Because every time it gets removed, some Persian/Iranian nationalists turn up, and start trying to change the name, or move the page. Right enough, I do think it's pretty insensitive for the IRB to allow them to have called themselves such a name (not to mention the fact that AGRFU seem to do little to interest the actual local Arabs in the sport), but that's what it's called. Not that I like it myself either.
However, as usual, you seem to be willing to criticise but not to do something constructive here. Either you rewrite the paragraph (which should remain, considering the persistent vandalism problems, which will never go away), or you need to get some kind of protection on these pages.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. Then again, some vandals go by the rule book, don't they now?
As here. Never okay, under any circumstances. Comments can be removed in certain instances, when they violate certain, specific behavioral policies. You can't strike out comments just because you disagree with them, nor alter them in any other way. You could be blocked if you continue. Equazcion (talk) 22:12, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Could I respectfully request that you stop linking this redirect in your edit summaries. These wp:cross-namespace redirects are discouraged and may well be deleted in the future. This would render your edit summaries fairly useless. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Please ensure that any image you de-link is in the public domain. Images licensed under GFDL (including the LPGL), cc-by-sa, or any other attribution-required license cannot be delinked unless the author's name is in the filename or the metadata of the image. Your work on web accessibility is noted and appreciated but your recent edits violated our legal requirement to attribute the source of the images used on at least 30 templates [3]. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
((helpme)) How can I have the alt text changed on the wiki logo on the top left? Gnevin (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Why? —Wiki Wikardo 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Country data World 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. Gnevin (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Country data Earth 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. Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Country data World 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. Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.
Three reverts in eight minutes!—DCGeist (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Copy edit the ball is in your court. -- PBS (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gnevin, you said to let you know when the tighter Words to avoid version was ready. I think it's now more or less finished, if you'd like to look at it here. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Gnevin, I just looked at the history and see you you reverted my striking of the discussion. I did not just strike the comments I don't like, I struck the entire discussion due to reasons I explained. In other words, I accept the consensus, and withdraw the discussion to prevent further acrimony. Your reversal would only allow others to think that the request is still active, and fuel further acrimony. Please do not revert it again. Regards!Victor9876 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd bring this to talk, rather than simply annoy you by forever changing edits! I completely see what you mean about "two meanings", and I have no special knowledge of this slang use of the word "yoke", it was already in the article; but as it stands there really is some duplication going on there, which ought to be compressed - "Slang term … mostly in Ireland". After all, it is only a disambiguation page. I thought I'd covered the "two meanings" aspect with my edit 356011407, which set it out in the format "Slang term for x, also y", i.e., "two meanings". Maybe have another look at that? Or perhaps we can compromise on a more explicit statement? How about:
Let me know what you think. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well fine, yes, that seems to say pretty much the same thing to me, and I can see that it further underlines your concern to distinguish the two meanings! Only, do we need the numbers, it just seems a little inconsistent with the rest of the page - the meanings could simply be indented, with either and or, though I'm not familiar with what the style guide might say about it. Anyway, something like:
Thoughts? Nortonius (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just moved the profanity core to a live page, Wikipedia:Profanity/core. I was wondering if you have identified, or could identify, any pages besides Words to watch where it would be appropriate to transclude it. We should start seeing how the concept works in practice, which we're not really testing unless the transclusion is happening on multiple pages. Or perhaps profanity is not the best example, and there's another one that leaps to mind as calling for multiple transclusions? Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and transcluded it into both the lede of WP:Profanity itself (see Wikipedia talk:Profanity#Copyedit of lede and "core" concept) and the main text of the WP:Images content guideline (see Wikipedia talk:Images#New subsection on vulgar and obscene images). When I realized that, for maximum consistency, the transcluded core should be the lede of the master page, I removed the main link from the core, since we obviously couldn't have that on the master page. It's easy enough to place manually on the pages where the core is transcluded.—DCGeist (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One more, very important, thought for you: I deeply admire this concept, but—in practical terms—for it to take hold, it needs to be broadly applicable. I've identified a (rather small) web where WP:Profanity/core applies. But if you want to make this work, you need to identify, say, two or three additional webs of guideline/policy pages where it would make sense to transclude a core from a different, specific guideline/policy page. I am ready to assist in any way I'm able, but you need to take the lead now if you want to make this happen. If you do, it can.—DCGeist (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as a regular on wp:mosicon could you give your opinion on this edit. See this discussion, more about me than the actual edit actually. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in WP:Words to watch. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Five reverts in 14 hours.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me messing around with your proposed hierarchy at User:Gnevin/sandbox4. I've already been helping myself. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
[4] Your AWB run has a bug. Gimmetrow 20:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that Category:Manual of Style ought to include 'Wikipedia' in the name (so that 'what it says on the tin' excludes anything in article space). Occuli (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned you as the target of incivility at Words to watch, so it's only right that I let you know of the case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Pmanderson_2.
Cheers, Tony (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I notified the Talk page (twice) that I would consult the Thoroughbred Project members which, not only is an absolute right that does not require your or anyone's approval, was politely acknowledged and encouraged by User:Quiddity. If you and one or two others chose to ignore my clear and precise notification, then that was your decision and irrelevant to the much-used right for all Wikipedia editors to revise a guideline by consensus at any time they choose, be it today, tomorrow, next year or whenever. Thank you. Handicapper (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Good work on Category:Manual of Style. I don't think I'll get much of a chance to work on Wikipedia:Comparison of guidelines, BTW: RL has caught up big time and I might be on Wikibreak of indeterminate length from Friday (long story: family issues). Good start though and I'll be thininking about it while I'm away. Hopefully no longer than a month, but... I'll have to sign off the music audits, also. To be frank, the music MoS's are nowhere near in as bad a state as the rest of the MoS. We need to decide where we are going there anyway before the major sub-Mos's are rationalised, IMO. I'll get the audits signed off tommorrow after a chat with Tony (if I get a chance). Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is proposed that summaries of articles be kept in a subpage ~/Sum and that a (to-be-written) template transcludes the summary into (a) the lead after the first paragraph and (b) any other article that needs to summarize the article. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Proposal_for_a_new_template_and_/Sum_summary_pages.
Hpvpp (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Arts (Manual of Style) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (Arts) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RUeyegouge.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
((di-replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Notoforeigngames.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
((di-replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Dublintram.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hi878 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure why you have declared "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)" to be "currently inactive" because it is "no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear". Just because the guideline has been stable for a while does not mean that it is no longer relevant or that it no longer has the consensus of editors working Singapore-related articles. A perfectly plausible alternative explanation is that such editors continue to accept the guideline as correct and are styling their articles in accordance with it. Will you consider reverting your changes? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The MILHIST style guide was, in fact, intended to be part of the formal MoS, not merely a project-level recommendation; it's one of the two WikiProject guides to have undergone a formal consensus-building process to establish that (the other being MEDMOS).
If there are concerns regarding the page title, or anything of that sort, I'm certain that the project would be happy to accommodate whatever standard the rest of the MoS is using now; but I don't think it's appropriate to change the status of the page merely because it happens to be located in the "wrong" place, even though it continues to enjoy wide consensus. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
((helpme)) Can you tell me if Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper is listed correctly ? Gnevin (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Now that the scope of the article has been expanded, do you think this should be included? Its the chaps whos' picture you had in the article and it seems to have gotten a lot of coverage, dunno how notable it is tho GainLine ♠ ♥ 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if "eye contact" is a suitable phrase here, since it tends to mean something quite different most of the time in English, i.e. stealing glances. I prefer the term "gouging", as it describes it to a T... Does the IRB use it? --MacRusgail (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have voted in support of them restoring that picture of the Eye Gouge. I will also ask, why don't you vote in it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[I have copied this to your page as you have seen some of this in progress]
I have put the following person up for a sockpuppetry case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navid83
This user has made repeated edits to the following articles under various sock puppet IPs: Arabian Gulf rugby union team, Arabian Gulf rugby union team (sevens), Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union. At lease one of the IP accounts, User:77.92.95.115 has been blocked and warned. There is a consistent pattern here, which suggests a user with multiple accounts. See also edit history of Rugby union in Arabian Gulf for other IPs.
Editor seems obsessed with changing Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf. It is not wikipedia's fault that these organisations and teams chose this particular name, and in fact I do not agree with the use myself. However, it is disruptive Edits have been occurring repeatedly over a long period, but page protection has been denied for some reason.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
[5] Both the rationale and the change to historical, I mean. I only noticed just now after the MOS cats were renamed. I still think the page contains useful advice but I am reluctant to reactivate it yet. I'll have to look at some actual articles about stringed instruments to see if its advice is followed. Then again, if those articles actually follow the patterns suggested but appear to do so anyway (i.e. independently of the page's existence) then the page could just be good old fashioned WP:CREEP. I'll have a think and get back to it when I get a chance --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I just took a look at King of herrings which is a pretty big fish that popped up in the news today, and clicked on the Taxobox Conservation status link to find out what abbreviation NE stood for. Instead, I get an article about conservation status indexes, and had to click again at the top of the page to bring up Wikipedia:Conservation status which I find this ugly mess. Two problems need to be addressed, the Taxbox conservation status link should go directly to Wikipedia:Conservation status, lots of articles would then link to the appropriate page and, of course, the "historical" template replaced with a cleanup and/or attention tag perhaps. --Modocc (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I left a request dif on the Taxbox template talkpage for someone with the tools to consider changing the link. Once it is established, perhaps the page will get the attention it needs. --Modocc (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What consensus? I think you'll find that WP:IMOS FLAGS clearly says that the St Patrick's flag is used for that time period when Ireland was united while the other policy page you directed me to only explained why they use the current flag on WP due to copyright issues. I was using it in the correct fashion because at the time that was the flag of Ireland. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You reported an issue with the Vector skin, can you please detail which browser you are using (+version and OS) ?
A tag has been placed on File:Rainingmen.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RUeyegouge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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.
Are you planning on fixing this? Or is a bot going to do this? -- Ϫ 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want to check for subpages and talk page archives when you move the pages, I had to move several to correspond with the newly renamed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts). — ξxplicit 05:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Gnevin,
First off, I think it's brilliant the way you've been pursuing this. Unfortunately, it looks like the current RFC won't achieve consensus. But this concept is so productive. In fact, your efforts on this inspired me to rationalize Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Obviously, what those pages can't adequately accommodate is the chaos of all the subject-specific guidelines. Here's my idea about how to move the rationalization process forward:
(1) Individually move to retitle and retag all the subject-specific guidelines currently under MoS titling and branding to SSG titling and branding. I think we'll find this much easier to accomplish than the current universal RFC.
(2) Once that is accomplished, go to the WikiProject-maintained subject-specific guidelines and:
This may sound terribly labor-intensive, but I think we can write up a generic text for the RFCs for the WikiProject-maintained subject-specific guidelines. I think if just a few of them fall into line, we can advertise that fact and the rest will follow suit. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Gnevin, how are things these days? The GAA redirect has been changed from Gaelic Athletic Association (wherre it has redirected for seven years) to redirect instead to GAA (disambiguation). I thought I'd mention it to you just in case you disagreed given that you reverted attempts to do this before. Tameamseo (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You withdraw your nomination (which I commend you for) just as I was putting a finishing touch on a summer reading list of books that I thought might interest you. No nevermind, I'll share it below. It suggests a notability of the intersection (as notability is measured for wiki purposes) that might not have been immediately apparent to you:
--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, we know each other from MoS talk, where you've been active. I've noticed a large number of deletion requests emanating from you recently, particularly concerning Jewish themes. It's a very sensitive cultural matter, and I'm unconvinced that the deletion requests are necessary (although I haven't examined them thoroughly). So I wonder whether you might ... um ... slow down a little? Tony (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, and I see Epifleche has entered a rather long post above. Tony (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I remember you were heavily involved in the discussion the last time this article was renamed. Its cropped up again, with an editor renaming it without any prior discussion. Discussion id here if you want to get involved GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your courteous update - I appreciate that you kept me in the loop. Best regards Bloodholds (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate where you were coming from on this, but I don't know quite what to say about it. When it comes to the religion vs ethnicity thing, Jewishness falls between two stools. About the nearest equivalent I can think of here, are some of the Celtic FC supporting "Catholics" and Rangers supporting "Protestants" in west central Scotland, who wouldn't know anything about the transubstantiation debate, let alone what the inside of a church looks like.
I've always disliked the use of anti-Semitic to mean purely anti-Jewish, as Arabs etc are also by definition Semites. Anti-Jewish is better IMHO, but I can't really get people to use it.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, we've reopened the discussion about the status of MILMOS, and have proposed that the page be split into three separate guidelines (style, content, and notability) to allow the style portion to move into the MoS namespace correctly. The feedback so far appears to be generally supportive.
I have a couple of logistical questions about how we would proceed with this that I was hoping you could answer:
Thanks for your help! Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Gnevin. I didn't want to disrupt the sourcing discussion with further discussion of this, and you say above that you aren't watchlisting pages, so I wanted to let you know that I've started a deletion discussion for National dish, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National dish. Your opinion on the matter is quite welcome - let me emphasize that I agree with your redactions from the list, but I happen to think the remainder is not salvageable. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to drop a personal note here to thank you. Thank you in engaging in a rational discussion with respect to automatic removal of unreferenced material. Despite us not agreeing on the appropriateness of automation, the discussion didn't spin off into stupid-land. It remained on-topic and and about the improvement of Wikpedia. Cheers and thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop deleting the images of the stage types. The images aren't used "per se" but to clarify everyone what kind of stage it is, the text is not enought.
WE ACCORDED TO MAINTAIN THEM AT THE 2008 VUELTA AND 2009 TOURS, SO STOP BREAKING THE CONSENSUS WE MADE OR I WILL OPEN A REPORT ON YOU.
Over and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.201.73 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, what don't you like about File:Lions Badge.png, File:Springbok Original.png, File:Wales Original.png and File:Tuskers.png? There is no problem with them, so please remove the delete request.
Perhaps you can tell me what I need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what "as against WP:FU" means. However, as far as I see it, they are logos, just as File:Lions2009.svg is a logo, or File:Wru logo.png or File:RFU.svg is a logo. Just because they are old logos it does not meant they are of less encyclopaedic value, quite the contrary, they are more valuable!
File:Tuskers.png was used on a page before you deleted it!
Rather than just delete them, couldn't you advise me (in plain English for a Bear Of Very Little Brain) what I need to do to make them acceptable?!
Mbwa mwitu (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How can they not be core to understanding? It would be inappropriate to put the modern version of the logo there; if someone were interested in seeing what the jersey badge of (for example) the Welsh rugby side looked like when they played East Africa, where do they go? Let us imagine that they have found a photo that they believe may have been taken of that match but are not sure, inspection of a Welsh players' jersey in the photo might provide a further clue as to the origins of the photo. As for the Springbok logo, comparison of that with the modern image would provoke further questions in the reader... "why is the springbok facing the other way, when did it chage and why, were there intermediate logos between this and the modern one"? My aim is to provide information on the history of rugby union and provoke interest.
The files I have uploaded and included don't misrepresent the brand as it states clearly that that is how the logo looked at the time... in fact it more accurately represents the brand by showing that the logo has changed over time! And, yes by not using them we are losing information, we are losing information concerning the change in the "brand" over time. By contrast, your deletion of the files has caused a more real "loss of information".
It is my belief that File:Tuskers.png was used only once on the page, correct me if I am wrong. It is stated clearly in the summary why it is there and the article explains why it differs from the "home" shirt patch. What don't you understand about that?
As for me asking somewhere else concerning this subject, I think you should at least have the courtesy to respond to my queries; I'm sorry if I'm taking up your valuable time, but your deletion of work that I have done in good faith is taking up my time! Not just the loss of work I have done, but the time it will take to reinstate the files. Perhaps in future you should contact the uploader and try to resolve the problem, not just destroy what someone has done!
Mbwa mwitu (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, just answer each of my questions and respond to each of my points above one by one. Mbwa mwitu (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And now you are continuing to do the same with almost every file I have uploaded, deleting them from articles for no real reason but supporting your actions with spurious references to Wikipedia rules. Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What you have done to Mbwa mwitu here is completely unfair, and I expect you know it. Instead of deleting all of these files, why couldn't you have done something constructive, and added the appropriate tags?
Mbwa mwitu's edits to pages on East African rugby have filled in a massive gap on wikipedia, and s/he has done some great work. It doesn't help when someone comes along and stamps all over it. Instead of bombarding Mbwa mwitu with Wikipedia jargon, you should have tried to help. It's obvious that s/he is fairly new to Wikipedia, and so should be guided, not hindered.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As the primary contributor to ((Football squad player/sandbox)), I thought you may be interested to know that there is currently an RfC on the template's future at Template talk:Football squad player#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG. Regards, --WFC-- 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:MOSCORE.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Can someone add
to ((cards/core)) per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Non_standard_ASCII Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
|c|♣ = [[File:Emblem-club.svg|12px]] |d|♦ = [[File:Emblem-diamond.svg|12px]] |h|♥ = [[File:Emblem-favorites.svg|12px]] |s|♠ = [[File:Emblem-spade.svg|12px]]
|c|♣ = [[File:Emblem-club.svg|12px|alt=Clubs]] |d|♦ = [[File:Emblem-diamond.svg|12px|alt=Diamonds]] |h|♥ = [[File:Emblem-favorites.svg|12px|alt=Hearts]] |s|♠ = [[File:Emblem-spade.svg|12px|alt=Spades]]
The icon is appearing before the number and after . Can you have a look ?Gnevin (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Change is live. Thanks for your help. Gnevin (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. Just to update you on the situation, User:Thumperward has been working on the matter in small doses off-wiki. I don't have the exact diff, but he stated during the height of the matter that he didn't want to go ahead with a proposal until emotions on the matter have cooled. For the same reason I'm doing nothing; anything I directly work on is now going to receive emotive and irrational criticism because I started the whole thing.
Thumperward also stated an interest in introducing the light/dark shading that User:ClubOranje attempted during the RfC, in preference to the colour scheme in the alternative solution Thumper introduced here. Given that squad numbers are random, that will prove to be a very difficult bit of coding. --WFC-- 13:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)