User:Who/Discussion log/May 2005

Albertofan
with Rick
 * This time I did all the research (a lot) before I was gonna list the pages on Vfd, tried to give the benefit of the doubt. Although I knew someone would eventually list them, my last few Vfd's made me feel like an idiot after the outcome, so I'm putting more effort into the research. Sorry your the one who had to do all the rest of the cleanup work though. Thanks for noticing, and the help. <>Who 05:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I checked the edit history of the Cynthia Vargas article and that led me to his edit history, and all of the articles he was writing.  He was also seeding his fantasies into other articles, which I think I've cleaned up.   Shadows2005 has been blocked for repeated deletion of the VfD header and of Talk page discussions. RickK 05:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 1
with Sjakkalle
 * Since I was the one who intended on updating this page (and the others), and suggested the Vfd for merge purposes. I have no problem doing the merge, if you have not already started. <> Who 00:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I have started a rough version of the first season page.  When I am done I will ask for a consensus of style, and will start on season 2, if no one has at that point <> Who 07:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and merge them. I tried to make a start on them but there are 26 episodes to bind together, and that is actually a lot more than it seems like. Sjakkalle 06:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice job with the merger! Sjakkalle 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As the one who closed that VfD, I'd like to add my thanks for taking on the dirty work. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Image speedy deletions
with Cyrius
 * I'm sorry, but the images you are tagging as candidates for speedy deletion aren't meeting any of the criteria for speedy deletion for images. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, i did check the Criteria for deltion page on images. it states ( An image which is a redundant (all pixels the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained.) I am only doing redundant images, and no articles pointing to it, with the included research. I am only attempting to help by following the guidelines.  Thank you. <> Who 04:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * However, if you prefer me to use Images and media for deletion, I shall do that. <> Who 05:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, I shall do it the that way with listing on the appropriate page. <> Who 05:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "Redundant" has a very specific meaning in this case, it means the images are identical (except for scale), not just of the same subject. As image deletion cannot be undone, it's best to be careful with deleting them. Cleaning up unused images is a good thing, but you'll need to list them on Images and media for deletion to help avoid irreversible mistakes. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

re: vandalism on Caucasian Albania
See User:Rovoam. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Article on twins
with Redux
 * Hi, Who. I'm sorry, but I had to revert your edits in the articles partaining to the Olsen twins.  I stated my reasons in the edit summary, but I figured I'd drop you a message to explain it better.  I see you've been with us for little more than a month.  That being the case, I thought you might not yet be completely familiarized with some of our procedings.  In cases like this one, we prefer to put the topic up for discussion on the article's talk page before implementing the change.  There, we try to reach a consensus, which basicaly means that we get a reasonable number of editors to agree on a line of action, which is the one that shall be taken in the article itself (how many people may have to agree to form consensus is subjective, it depends on how many people are interested and contribute for any particular article, or just how many opinions happen to have been given to the issue at hand).  In the case of the issue of whether to split the article on the Olsen sisters in two, you will notice that this has been discussed before (as a matter of fact, it was brought up by someone who thought that the article should be broken in two), but the train of thought that prevailed was in favor of keeping the status quo for that article.  That is why I reverted your edits.  I must say that, personally, I too think that it should be kept in only one article &mdash; read the comments in the article's talk page for more details (but you will notice that I did not participate in that discussion myself).  In any event, the consensus was to keep the joint article.  I apologize if I might have erased some new data that you may have inserted in the separated articles.  If that happened, I would ask you to integrate them in the MK&A article.  Cheers, Redux 02:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just getting used to the idea of the referring to the discussion pages. I didnt consider it, and I should have. My main reasoning was the two actresses are eventually going to go on seperate paths, as they already have. A single article would not justify good historical content, and would soon grow to be very large. I will refer to discussion pages from now on. Thank you. <> Who 02:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to be of assistance. Your points about the twins are theoretically valid, but let me sum up what was discussed on that regard (also in other similar instances):  It may well be that the two of them go their separate ways and end up doing noteworthy deeds each on their own, but that has not happened thus far.  Certainly there are facts about each of them that are different, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and most of these facts are not suited for it.  So, when it comes down to what is encyclopedic enough about the Olsen twins, we'd end up with two articles that would essentially repeat the same contents.  In these cases, one of Wikipedia's main features comes in handy: it can be updated constantly.  Biographies of living people are always about "current events", so you could say that separating the articles is something that is "on hold" right now, to be done if and when the situation warrants it.  Right now, the twins' encyclopedic information (and that adjective is key here) is virtually the same ("more than 95%", as one user put it), so we have no basis for two articles on them.  Regards, Redux 03:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. I see and understand your points and concerns. I stated my thoughts on the discussion page, and made the other articles "temp" pages as examples of what they could be, and if the consenus is ever to split them, they will be available. Thanks for your input and support. <> Who 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

with Grutness
 * I feel I have explained everything on my test page for this stub.
 * Hi Who (hi who, it's off to work...)... erm... This isn't really a stub-type operation. Stub is simply a way of saying that an article is incomplete, not why it is incomplete. In any case, there are already templates used for just that purpose - you've created an alternative form of Template:Reqimage. I must admit it looks better that Reqimage, but I'd suggest proposing a change to that template (to make it more like your one) on the Reqimage talk page rather than to WP:WSS. Otherwise, as the duplicate of an existing template, it's likely to eventually turn up on Templates for deletion. Please don't call it "stub", though, whatever you do - an article without an image is still a valid article, not a stub! Grutness...  wha?  01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comments and recommendations. I have updated the proposed template article I created. User:Who/ReqImage <> Who 02:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

stubs
with Grutness
 * Hi, again. I totally forgot about the Australia and Sweden stubs, or I would have posted them on the discussion page as well.  Unfortunately I created the France actor stub before I knew about the discussion page.  You can be assured that it wont happen again.  Thanks for your understanding.
 * That's OK - just make sure it doesn't (sternly wags finger) :) Grutness...  wha?  01:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Abbott & Costello
with Georgia guy
 * Who is the Wikipedian that this user talk page belongs to?? Georgia guy 14:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

User Who
I am guessing that wasn't a pun question (Who is this wikipedian). I'm not really sure what to say, you want my real name, what I do? Name=Brian, disability retired Navy. Bacground in Electrical Engineering, Computer science, networking and telecommunications. Other than that, I'm not really sure what you're asking. Assuming you were serious. <> Who 14:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Brackets in IPA transliterations
with Angr
 * Hi, please don't remove square brackets from IPA transliterations. They are necessary! Thanks! --Angr/comhrá 19:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I was fixing wiki syntax, I could not tell if it required any brackets (double) or (single). But I know now, thanks. Who 20:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Princeton Tower Club
with Sirmob
 * Thanks for picking up on the immature prank, apparently played by one of the other eating clubs, by creating an extremely insulting entry for Princeton Tower Club. I've put some work into the entry, it may lack a bit of neutrality but it's much better than what you found.
 * Unsigned 5 May 2005 see: revision

Caucasian Albania
with Tabib
 * Hi,


 * Just wanted to thank you for your involvement in this page. I have reported his actions to Admin noticeboard. However, I do not believe this person can be stopped by mere arbitrary actions. In my view, the only way to stop him is to have several editors standing against him and neutralizing all his POV edits and vandalism/trolling. Only then, I believe, this person will realize the whole senselessness of his actions and will retreat. Therefore, I am grateful to you and to User:Codex Sinaiticus for not leaving me alone to combat Rovoam's POV and vandalism. Please, keep it up. --Tabib 05:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I just made the wikilink to History of Albania due to one of the reference books (Movses Kalankatuatsi. History of Albania.) was listed. I was actually hoping to link it to the book, but I know now that is a different Albania. Thanks. Who 03:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Gang
with Jmabel
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the article on the overwhelmingly common meaning of "gang" at Gang and put the disambiguation at Gang (disambiguation)? Anyway, if you really insist on doing it this way, are you planning to do something about the roughly 200 articles that you've now left pointing at a disambiguation page? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did read about the forwarding, and was trying to figure out if it was approriate to disambig it. I was looking up more information on the other lesser definition of gang. I did not think putting a see also on such a large topic was appropriate. So if you feel it should be the original way, thank you for pointing that out. Otherwise, I will start working on the redirects. Who 06:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * cont.. Ok, now I see the most functional way to do it. Thanks  Who 06:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)