User talk:Alai/Archive 17
Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12 - Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16
Australia politician stubs[edit]
I left a request at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/July/9 for Alaibot or some other responsible party to do some sorting these in response to the SFD nomination for {{Australia-National-politician-stub}}. If you also want to do Labor, Liberal and The Greens (the last is an upmerged template, the other two have cats of their own, that would be appreciated, but not needed for the purpose of helping to resolve the SFD. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand wanting to wait for the SFD result, but unless it would be extra work, would you consider doing it for the Labor and Liberal politicans now? Getting the category to a size where a manual inspection would be worth my time would be nice. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What's up with updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes/data? The last update was in May. Od Mishehu 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship[edit]
I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[1]] (Felsommerfeld 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
- Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
personal attacks and mass deletions[edit]
Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:
"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"
As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.
Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.
In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt 05:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Conserbative MP stubs[edit]
Hi Alai, do you think that you might find a moment to reply to my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/June#Cat:Conservative_MP_.28UK.29_stubs_by_DoB? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind?[edit]
I'm doing alot of template cat cleanup work right now. I'm inquiring as to if it's ok if I edit this list. Its useful but it has alot of red links or pages that have since been categorized. I'd be happy to do it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thank you. I'll get a-crackin' on it later tonight. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Bee GNU/Hurd[edit]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Bee GNU/Hurd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Tweedie[edit]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Stephen Tweedie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Bot and dab pages[edit]
Re your reply on my talk page, first, my comment about it being manually run comes from the statement on the bot page, "This is a manually-run bot". This is still true of you bot, is it not? Second, the dab page I was referring to was properly formed, and thus was already cat'd, and third, guidelines allow for an admin to temporarily block a bot that is not operating properly. Bots are a great idea, but if they're not working properly, they can also do great damage, and the owners need to be ready to speedily address the actual issue, rather than trying to brush it off. You have not addressed what you're going to do about the bot, and what you're going to do to ensure that it hasn't tagged other pages improperly. Please address these issues. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional information. It is with egg on my face that I apologize, as I rechecked the dif and realized that the disambig tag was added after the bot visited, not before. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Stalking[edit]
I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:
--Mais oui! 09:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Alaibot's reaction to end-of-page blankings[edit]
I have seen some cases where a vandal will blank the last few sections of a page. In such a case, generally the interwiki bots will re-add the interwikis, and then Alaibot will place a warning that the page is uncategorised, then some human editor will add back the categories without realising the page was blanked earlier (normally the same categories in a different order, but not always), and the end of the article will still be missing apart from the categories and interwikis. This is something of a problem, especially as the bot edits hide the vandalism on watchlists; I was wondering if it might be possible for your bot to notice this sort of vandalism by checking if the page had had categories in the past? This would help a lot in stopping damage caused by this sort of vandalism, which otherwise often goes uncaught for quite a while. --ais523 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles without projects[edit]
I noticed your bot adds articles to a specific category when no category has been placed on them. Would it be possible to do this with talk pages that have not been added to a Wikiproject Category? Almost every page on Wikipedia could belong to a Wikiproject, and it is a simple matter of checking the talk page of articles in the main namespace for a category and/or template, and if none is present (or if the article does not yet have a talk page), placing a {{Projectless}} template on the talk page, which would add the Talk page to an Category:Articles without Wikiprojects. Does this sound feasible? I have been recently frustrated by how many video game articles don't have a {{cvgproj}} template. I always add a project whenever I see a red "Discussion" tab, but it is very tiresome. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Unclosing the two NSW regional stubs discussions[edit]
Sometimes those discussions are hard to follow even when lucid, which is infrequent (for me). Carry on...Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (your overzealous closer)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.[edit]
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Stubs for Rivers[edit]
I have sent several messages regarding the correction of stubs for Rivers of Romania. I keep discovering more and more changes. They are not acceptable, as the rivers for other countries do not have county wise stubs. It creates a non-homogeneous way of treating the entries of the river project Please revert to previous situation. If you disagree, please discuss the matter with the team of the river project, but do not act unilaterally. Afil 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is the classification of rivers by countries. Rivers should not be split by countries. I initially included them in the Danube basin, but this was not accepted. The main category is Rivers of Romania. There are several other subcategories such as the counties, which are meant not as a main category but to facilitate searches. As there are rivers which cross seven or more counties. It does not make sense to have several indicators of stubs for each of these counties. The national organization of water management in most countries, including Romania is by river basins. The agencies are organized by river basins. It would be technically acceptable to have the stubs by river basins, though this would have to be generalized to other countries. The issue is not simply a geographic one. You might notice that the main category is not Geography of Romania and not Romania, but Rivers of Romania.
There is nothing in the discussions of the Wiki:Project Rivers which supports your claims. Also I don't seem to be able to find anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals which refers to the classification of rivers by counties.Afil 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we are confusing the matters. There are two different issues. The first is the one about classifying stubs. The articles we are talking about have no categories regarding stubs, the only categories indicated are the main categories of the articles. In principle there could be several stub categories which could be used simultaneously.
The second issue, is related to the template which is posted in the article. This is the one I object to. Assuming there were several categories of stubs, normally only the most important one should be used for the template. And the template should not refer to counties. While the classification of stubs might lead to oversized categories, this does not apply to the templates.Afil 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally I understand your point. The confusion was that, in all the articles I had posted I never used the Category:Geography of Romania stub, and I wanted to use only the template. It seems that by indicating the template it automatically includes the information in the stub category.
If this is the case, then the entire approach of the classification of the stubs will have to be discussed. I will make appropriate proposals for the new categories of stubs. I you agree with this approach then some issues would have to be discussed before any further changes.
If you consider that, at present, there are too many articles in the category: Geography of Romania stubs (which is correct), then the splitting of the articles by counties (as you suggest) or by river basins (as I prefer) is equally cumbersome. First question: How much is too much? The total number of articles in the category rivers of Romania is about 20,000. There will be counties which could have more than 1,000 rivers. Is this acceptable? The category for the county also includes other information (geographic or not). The number of localities in each county could also include several hundreds more, and of course moutains and other geographic information will also increase the number.
If this essential that the classification be started correctly because future corrections might be complicated. Therefore, what I suggest is the following:
1. Let us first agree on what a reasonable amount of titles for a category is. I leave this up to you, as I have no preferences on the matter.
2. After that I will try to design the categories and split them up so as no to exceed the desired number of articles in that category of stubs, based on the estimate of the articles.
3. I will submit the proposal for the stubs. If you have any suggestions on this procedure please indicate them.
4. After the proposal for the stubs is accepted by whoever is in charge, I will contact you to see how the new categories can be implemented.
I would welcome any suggestions for the improvement of this procedure or for its replacement, if this in not at all acceptable, Afil 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates[edit]
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have 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. master sonT - C 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Template cleanup[edit]
A few templates you created, Template:1992-olympic-stub, Template:1996-olympic-stub, and Template:1900s-sf-novel-stub, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Semantics[edit]
The "and" was to parallel Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates. If you feel the word should be changed to "or" in the deprecation notice, feel free to do so. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- In order for templates to be marked as exempt, I created this page, which will allow Special:Unusedtemplates to be cleared out of templates that shouldn't have any transclusions (e.g., Template:Archwelcome). --MZMcBride 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)