User talk:Alai/Archive 9

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8

lmo, Brèsa and so on

Hi Alai, many thanks for your kind answer. My Lombard is not so fine. Seemengly there is no 'Brèsa' article at Lombard wiki. According to lmo main page, that version started on september 2005, so maybe it's too soon. As far as I have understood, there is a certain effort of standardisation about ortography. My Italian is much worse than my bad Lombard, so I didn't read the Italian article (I am afraid I should admit I don't like that tongue at a first glance). Moreover someone told me about massive use of (not manually revised) machine translation there. There seems to be something strange within this question, but, if Lombardy is far enough from us, Italy is far away: some hysterical reactions from Italy seem nomothetic. But: nomen omen, so I should study a little about Lombardy. Cheers, --Lombard06 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS See also the Lombard disambiguation page: it's very interesting.

Fine, many thanks. I do not feel ready contribute there, but I could register, though. Cheers, --Lombard06 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 10:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

{{diplomat-stub}}

Hi - I created this a while ago after it was approved, and I asked for help at StubSorting but no one ever got 'round to it. What I was wondering is where to put it on the list of stub templates, and what categories other than Cat:Diplomats it should go in. Ideas? Aelfthrytha 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

labour/labor/trade/worker stubs

Yeah, I agree.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 10:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Organized labour stubs

Hi Alai. The Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/2 discussion has been closed. I re-started it at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/11. I hope you will re-join the conversation. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 17:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

American football kickers

Given my previously stated distaste for renaming the stub category at SFD to using the word placekicker, I would have appreciated some notice being given that you were nominating the non-stub parent for renaming at CFD, either in the SFD notice or on my talk page. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I was using the permacat to support my view that the stub category was correctly named. Still, the difference in terminology is not so great as to cause me to attempt to reverse what I consider to be a mistake. Placekicker isn't incorrect, it's just that kicker is more correct IMO, given that K and not PK is the usual abbreviation for the position. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarah's RfA

Thread reproduced from :- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarah Ewart

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of editing experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

   5000 edits isn't enough for you? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

   What Mcginnly means by that, I believe, is that Sarah hasn't significantly contributed to featured content. While experience is important, I do not believe that simply not editing featured articles is "lack of editing experience". --Gray Porpoise 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   There had to be one. No matter, we can see by the timestamps that Sarah reached her century before anyone opposed. Back to the point, however, agree that participation in featured articles is not an important criterion for admin. In any case, Sarah has written her share of good and consistently well-referenced articles. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Mcginnly has made over 6000 edits and is putting in a lot of work to raise article standards. He has earnt the right to his view, which merits respect, as it can only serve to improve the project by focusing attention on the primary purpose of creating a world class encyclopedia. (Nevertheless, of course, Sarah should still be an admin!) Tyrenius 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   If Mcginnly believes that 1FA is crucial to being a good admin, it's necessary to point out how flawed reasoning that is. If he's doing it to "focus attention" on anything accept the suitability of the current candidate in each case, I refer you to WP:POINT. In the absence of any clear statement from Mcginnly that it's the latter, I'm going to AGF that the former applies. The point of RfA is to reach a consensus, not to log "votes" that fly in the face of community standards. Alai 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Editors are entitled to apply such standards as they see fit, and this has previously been accepted, provided that it has been done in good faith. Consensus does not require unanimity, and community does not require conformity, or it could not evolve. 1FA has been applied by others in the past, but, as yet, not widely adopted. Further discussion would be best on RfA talk. Tyrenius 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   It's true that editors may apply their own standards. I just believe, however, that the 1FA rule should not be the only thing to influence one's vote. --Gray Porpoise 10:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Then that is your standard. I dare say Mcginnly has other requirements in addition to that. Other people have different sticking points, some over edit summaries, for example, even if the candidate performs well otherwise. Consensus is arrived at through the sum of individual contributions, not through requiring conformance of every single one. Tyrenius 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Shouldn't we let Mcginnly speak for himself before having this debate? For all we know, he's referring to lack of edits on Image talk.--Holdenhurst 12:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Read question 6 above. Tyrenius 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Hi there Alai, it says at the top that I'm allowed to 'Voice my opinion' on each candidates request for adminship. I must say I find it a bit of a stretch to suggest that because I register an oppose vote this is "fly[ing] in the face of community standards". I'm a member of this community and vote according to my conscience. I'm an editor, I contribute content; my conscience says that if I have a vote for those who will police me, then I would like to satisfy myself that the candidate understands what editing involves.
   

   If I were an apple farmer in Somerset would I vote for a Aeronautical engineer from Papua New Guinea to be my Member of Parliament, or another apple farmer in Somerset? The answer is I might well vote for the engineer if the field of apple farmers is scant or if he had a great insight into issues relating to Somerset, but I'm much more likely to vote for someone who understands how to grow apples and can sympathise with the difficulties and joys of apple production. For clarity I was refering to the number of quality encylopedia building edits, 1FA is not my only standard, but is my main standard (I'd even go for a few GA's or a good portal or well anything that shows this person can sit down with a book, type it up and help with content.) I'm really not interested in WP:Point (and I'm actually quite annoyed at the suggestion) and I think that Tyrenius's suggestion to continue this on the talk page is a good idea.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Please see my comment to Auroranorth below. Tyrenius 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Mcginnly, we're not trying to deny you the right to your vote, we're just pointing out that the standard is, when used alone, flawed. Regardless, a single vote is not going to change the high likelihood of Sarah Ewart becoming an admin. I believe that she'll be a great admin, and that you may be happy with the outcome. --Gray Porpoise 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Mr Porpoise, I think you're the second person who has pointed out that an FA standard is flawed but not explained why. I can imagine that single issue voting is flawed, and I can imagine other reasons why this person will be a great admin (see below), but I can't see why asking for evidence this user can contribute meaningful quantities of quality work to the encyclopedia is a flawed position to take. Perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply. It's not flawed to ask that a user can contribute meaningful quantities of quality work. However, what I'm saying is, the thing that is flawed is only looking at featured content contributions. Sarah has performed countless good reverts, restorations of content, interactions with users- important things that should be looked for in an adminship candidate- and occasional quality additions of content in the midst of those. I'm not going to bother you until you change your vote; I'm just sharing what I think. --Gray Porpoise 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Let me first of all reiterate what I already tried to express, that my WP:POINT comment related to Tyrenius's "focusing attention" rationale supplied on your behalf, and not to your "vote" as such. Your MP comparison is far from the mark however: firstly, you're not selecting a legislative representative, in any sense whatsover; secondly, you're not electing a fixed number of positions, but filling a pool (or declining to) for which there's ever-increasing demand. If apple farmers only vote for other apple farmers, we'll have not just a highly undesirable degree of factionalisation, but before long, too few active admins. It's rather more like "voting" for a special constable and/or part-time roadsweeper in a city where the citizens are regularly rioting in the streets, and the litter has piled up to be about hip deep (and rejecting them on the basis of failing to have an apple tree). You should not be asking yourself, 'how much like me is this person as an editor?', but 'will they put the tools to good use?', and balance that against 'is there a significant risk that they will misuse the tools?'. It's one thing to ask "that the candidate understands what editing involves", but to equate that with being a major contributor to a FA is an entirely different matter. (Bear in mind that the FA process is at bottom a contest to get onto the main page, and thus subject to periodic ratcheting up of standard to reflect current best work -- as is reflected in the fact that for some time, we've had more admins than FAs (and nor can we be alleged to have too many admins).) Your suggested alternatives are less unreasonable as such (I was going by a second-hand characterisation of your criteria), but similarly fail to address the job description: why is the writer of several GAs better qualified than a "wikignome" to perform the many essentially wikignomish tasks on our many backlogged admin tasks? Or put another way: would you rather have admin tasks done by someone you consider to be an inexperienced editor in articlespace, or left undone by people you consider better editors in that regard? Or at best, to divert from from continuing to do so. Alai 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   Ok Alai, at nearly 138 votes for 2 against, I'll call time on this thread here and pick it up on your talk page (If anyone's interested). This lady clearly has the support of the community, and I'll defer to that. Good luck Sarah! --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose on the grounds that Mcginnly pointed out that Sarah Ewart has a lack of quality editing experience. Auroranorth 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   She has over 2000 article edits. I've always been impressed with her accuracy to sources and clarity of expression, e.g. Intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Where do you find the quality lacking? Tyrenius 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   I like Intravenous digital subtraction angiography and also the Mechanics' Institute, Sorrento, but these few, short stubby articles don't put this person over the bar for me. Please don't get me wrong I am not belittling all of the excellent vandal fighting, copyright policing and all the other wikignomic tasks that people do, we all do them to greater or lesser extents, I'm just concerned that admins should have had the experience (and delight and horror) of having one of their articles go through WP:PR and WP:FAC, they're no picnic and the experience is character building in my opinion. I'd be much more likely to vote for a candidate that has at least attempted this.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation. You make a point which merits serious consideration. Tyrenius 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, thank you. I now understand your vote. No further discussion is, in my opinion, necessary, unless someone wants to debate on it some more. --Gray Porpoise 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per 1FA concerns. Yes, I know people up there are sharply divided. But that's my criterion. -- Миборовский 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello Alai, there seemed little purpose in continuing our debate on the RfA page (and all from one little vote). In future I'll be modifying my question, not to insist on 1FA but to demonstrate some kind of commitment at some stage to the business of writing an encylcopedia, as you say "that the candidate understands what editing involves". I'll explain why in a moment, but first I'd like to comment on your last response:- The nub of your argument appears to be, that in taking this approach (Or a strict 1FA approach), we risk 1. some sort of factionalism 2. an ever falling number of admins. Well firstly I don't see the mechanism by which the factionalism will arise - there's plenty of admins out there now who don't have much interest in editing, and plenty that do, my argument is that Administrators needs to understand and have experience of the wide range of activities permissible within wikipedia because whilst they may stake out their turf at say "stub proposals" they are inevitably drawn into other areas of wikipedia and so they need to be generalists. Secondly, Adminship is often portrayed as a benign janitorial drudge, but my concerns stem from an increasing awareness that the admins are also our police force. Category deletion, page un-deletion and most of the other powers which admins are given I'm pretty ambivalent about but the power to block and ban users it seems, can cause serious problems for the project if mis-used. I wouldn't like to see the numbers of admins decline, but I'd like to see the quality of admins increase and if a decline in numbers is the result then so be it. I disagree with you about the level or severity of that consequent crisis in any event - particularly weighed against such crisis and ill feeling as were engendered at say the Carnildo 'events'. So there's my position staked out - I'd like to see intelligent calm generalists that can have some understanding for every contributors positions - not just RC patrollers who bring their 'take no prisoners' vandal fighting attitude to bear on established (and powerless) editors just trying to plough their furrow. Mostly for laughs have a chuckle at this diff. (Damn can't find the diff! give me a moment) Hypothetically if this person was a great wikignome (I'm sure he isn't) would you support his adminship? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

and vs. or...

I see your point, and I had considered that. However, I figured "or" was the lesser of two evils. The vast majority of the stubs pertain to Ottawa itself, where, as you said, the "and" makes sense, but I would also suggest the "or" would not. For stubs pertaining to topics outside Ottawa, the "and" arguably makes a little less sense, unless one views it as pertaining to Ottawa since it is in the Ottawa area. I figured "and" made sense in more cases than "or" (and made more sense on the face of the template itself, since the two are not mutually exclusive). Having said that, maybe using a backslash (Ottawa/National Capital Region), or an "and/or", would be the best solution? I'm not too bothered by the issue overall, if you believe "or" to be the best. Skeezix1000 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this? http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php this is the official site of Galatasaray here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Alai

Hey Alai, thankyou so much for supporting my recent RfA and for defending my lack of a feature article. I really appreciate the contribution you made to my RfA. I will do my best to ensure I don't let you down. Thank you Alai. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity?

Re [1] - I'm interested to know in what way are they ambiguous, that they have to be renamed, but not the similarly named UK stub templates. — Instantnood 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree uniformity is important, but why shouldn't it be HK in the first place? HK is, in my opinion, more usually associated with Hong Kong than UK is with the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 15:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way was your experience proven or substantiated in the previous discussions? There are far more non-United Kingdom-related returns by searching UK on Google, than non-Hong Kong-related returns by searching HK. — Instantnood 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What I compared was the number of returns (2,370,000,000 vs. 175,000,000). Google detects one's IP address and language settings and sort accordingly, therefore it's a bit meaningless to test in the way you did. Re a) and b), was your experience or the consensus in the previous SfD discussions ever substantiated or proven? Re c), again, was it ever substantiated or proven? — Instantnood 15:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I never believe that Google is entirely reliable, but it provides some sort of ideas, which is at least comparatively more reliable than personal experience. — Instantnood 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't declined to respond to anything (please kindly specify if I've in case missed anything, so that I can respond to). Rather, you've yet to tell whether your experience or the previous consensus were supported by any actual evidence. — Instantnood 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't create confusions

Re [2] - " I note that User:Instantnood is on one of his "Hong Kong is not part of China" kicks " is effectively an unsubstantiated accusation and is putting words into my mouth. Hong Kong is, undoubtedly, constitutionally stated to be " an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ", as according to the Basic Law which has been effect since July 1, 1997. Yet it remains a separate economy from the rest of the PRC, and it has its own teams and delegations to international organisations and events. As for the company stub types, it is important to note that no Hong Kong company would say it is incorporated in the People's Republic of China, since "Incorporated in the People's Republic of China" would mean it is incorporated in mainland China (a term meaning the PRC excluding Hong Kong and Macao). Please don't oversimplify the matter and effectively confuse other wikipedians. Thanks in advance for your attention. I'd be most willing to explain to you in case you're interested to know more about the details of the current political arrangements. — Instantnood 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alai. I've proposed that we open a public discussion about 'mainland China', and when referring to China economically and in sports events etc., whether China needs to be renamed to 'mainland China' or not. As far as I'm aware, only Instantnood is advocating distinguishing these too (is this violating WP:Undue_Weight?). In my discussions with him I've proposed that a footnote be placed next to the statistics, where in the footnote, the full reference and explanation will be placed. This way it won't detract from the flow of the main encyclopedic article, yet those who question the statistic can easily seek a more full explanation. What do you think? I do fear that Instantnood is launching an unencyclopedic, HK-is-not-PRC-in-almost-every-area crusade which may damage Wikipedia's credibility as a NPOV and encyclopedic source. Jsw663 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

TRNC-stub

Hi Alai

I noticed that the discussion about {{TRNC-stub}} has been archived as "do not create", however, this template had already been created. What do we do in such cases? SFD? Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Urgent request for help

I just restored Empress Dowager Cixi to its original place, after an completely unwarranted move by a suspected vandal, Highshines. However, I have been unable to restore the Talk page though. Please help me to restore the talk page to Talk:Empress Dowager Cixi.--Niohe 04:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Robot: -{{[Pp]harma-stub}} +{{psychoactive-stub}}

Your Robot: Automated text replacement Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{[Pp]harma-stub}} +{{psychoactive-stub}} replacements make no sense for many articles (e.g. see Metaraminol or cannabinol, just to name two). I suggest that you undo all these changes and reinstate them by hand where adequate. Thanks, Cacycle 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now reverted most of these automated edits by hand and I think that your edits were pretty thoughtless. Cacycle 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub Macro

Alai, I looked in vain for an hour for where Wikipedia lists the program you used to help me count ceramics and pottery the other day. Please point me to it? And, shouldn't it be mentioned as a good tool on the stub main helping pages? Goldenrowley 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you for "stub sense" today. Goldenrowley 18:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alai, I am so sorry that I accidentally deleted one of your stub votes/comments the other day! Not intended, of course. I value all your comments. Goldenrowley 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Colors

I'm not sure why but since I started using my laptop in a new location I've been having a lot of trouble telling blue links from purple links in the default skin. Honestly, I hate all the other skins, so changing isn't an option. Is there anything I can do to make the links change to the colors I specify in my browser so I can tell the difference between where I've clicked and where I've not? It's been affecting my ability to work. Aelfthrytha 15:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked over at helpdesk and they set me up. If you're curious, here's how to do it:

   For each user skin there is a CSS file you can edit. If you edit the CSS file you can change the default color. For example, to go your monobook(the default skin) CSS file enter User:Aelfthrytha/monobook.css, edit the page with this:

A:link {color:green;} A:visited {color:orange;}

   This will change the new and visited links to green and orange, respectively. You can either write the name of the color, or use a hex triplet (e.g. #ff0000 = Red) if you want to try a wide variety of palettes. —Mitaphane Aelfthrytha 03:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

stub spelling

It's been agreed that titles for Macao stuff will use the -u spelling for consistency. Old Faithful created Template:Macao-geo-stub with his spelling. Can you consistentize this? I don't do stubs. SchmuckyTheCat 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I myself almost always type it in the way I spell it unless I'm paying special attention. I won't object if anybody insists to move it, but IMHO its usage on Wikipedia shall reflect the reality outside of Wikipedia that both are commonly used, and in some places and for some organisations -o is more commonly used instead. The colour/color rule may perhaps apply. — Instantnood 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How does it being used "in some places" has anything to do with wikipedia? Which place, specifically?--Huaiwei 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

what is normal fashion?

HI Alai I am not an administrator, the instructions say once we empty a stub category (with approvals) to do a speedy delete. Please advise what is "normal fashion" for a speedy delete of a stub category? I am really lost on "craft" stubs, tried 2x to request its removal, using the instructions. Goldenrowley 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

oKAY thanks for your "speedy" help today. I think I'll make some proposed changes to the stub instruction page, one of the things it mentions is to propose speedy deletes, but let me review it in full as a newcomer I can see where its not easy to follow. You seem very experienced can I send you suggested edits for comment? Goldenrowley 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Building and structure

Further to the recent discussion regarding Building and structure stubs - where the stub categories were renamed to the singular (or are in the process of being renamed). Do you think the root category Category:Buildings and structures should also be renamed (and all sub cats) or is it normal for the root category to be plural (because it contains buildings and the stubs to be singular - becuase each article is about just one buildings? By the way I never thanked you for our productive debate regarding adminship you made some good points which I've been chewing on.--Mcginnly | Natter 10:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Albanians

I created the Albania-bio-stub and as I am stubsorting, I have encountered an even more significant problem than the one I stated on the proposal board. What should be done with Albanian diaspora? For example, Arbëreshë are ethnic Albanians that live in Italy. They are quite ethnically "Albanian", but not from the Republic of Albania in the modern sense. Should they be included under Albania-bio-stub or Italy? Neither one fits quite appropriately. Also, was there even a consensus as to a Kosovo-stub?--Thomas.macmillan 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

{{US-Congress-stub}}

I created the stub template and category (I hope I did it correctly). Could you do you magic with the 'bot on the articles here: User:Alai/UScongress? Thanks. --G1076 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The 'bot was magical--thanks for setting it loose against the multitude of congressional stub articles. Quick question: the Category:United States Congress stubs page is maxing out at 200 articles (not all tagged articles are included) and they are not alphabetized. Is there a problem in the wikicode on that category page or is this just a temporary glitch?--G1076 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Presov Region

HI please set up new stub category for the Presov Region in Slovakia. There are hundreds upon hundreds in this region probably far more than nitra and banska bystrica. I will be going through them all so please set it up for me. Please do it is advance just look at all my entries for the Nitra region- the whole region to show that the category is well worth setting up. It will save time later changing from slovakia=geo-stub to presov-geo-stub Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK mate. Promise you will count the number of stubs exactly one month from now and I bet you £1 million that you will find well over hundred!! OK but I am not going to be the one going through them afterwards and changing them from slovakia to presov. Trust me. OK you have been told in advance. THis is like wondering whether it will ever rain again .It will inevitably happen Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey if I create 32 new entries this will allow it to have the new stub cat. agreed. I will use the main tag for now but shall I tell you when I reach 60. I am not just going to stop there. Please look at List of villages and municipalities in Slovakia and see all of the entries up to the beginning of Presov. This is how far i have come. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. No offence intended. I appreciate your help and itme. THankyou. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean e.g Bardejov-geo-stubs etc. hmm. I don't know I think it may be less confusing to have regional categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

HI again no at the time I dind't realise I had set up the presov geo stub what I was going on about was the fact that there will be almost 1000 entries fro the presov region and that it wasn't created only under Slovakia geo stub. That is what I meant!! I know it will be cluttered at the end but I shouldn't waste to much time on districtizing the stubs. After all its only meant to be a temporary category to write them into fuller articles quicker. All the best mate Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Some districts like Popov District I think only have like 10 villages. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

American rock musicians

I was following the permcat. My bad. What now? Her Pegship 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a little tantrum a couple of weeks ago and removed almost all the personal preferences from my account. I'm better now, and thanks for pointing it out. Let's see if this works now...Her Pegship 04:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)