User talk:Ego White Tray/Archive 2

WP:CSD
Hello!

Your [ attempt to inject] the text "page that were voted to be deleted in a deletion discussion but not actually deleted" into CSD G6, along with lack of attention, may indicate that you do not understand what "speedy deletion" means. It is namely avoidance of discussions which is its purpose. If an appropriate outcome of a legitimate deletion discussion exists, then CSD is redundant. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what the heck is db-xfd for? I was referring to an admin closing a discussion with "delete" and then forgetting to delete the page. That would be a speedy delete, right? Ego White Tray (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have any opinion on whether &#123;{db-xfd}} is useful or no. Did the sysop "forget to delete" the page or no, but its deletion was (or will be) based on a discussion, anyway. I accept that &#123;{db-xfd}} may put the page into category: Candidates for speedy deletion, but only for the ease of processing. The process actually becomes a "retarded deletion", it is not covered by Criteria for speedy deletion, hence any mention of CSD should be dropped from the template and, reciprocally, &#123;{db-xfd}} should be purged from CSD G6’s list of templates as irrelevant. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Digital Signal 1 technicality
Moved to Talk:Digital Signal 1

WT:GAA
Hello there, I'm contacting editors who have recently contributed to this talk page to let you know about an ongoing discussion to do with the naming and categorisation of GAA counties, teams and players. If you'd like to give an opinion this would be very welcome. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible Treblinka
No, I don't have a photo of the real "Ivan Marchenko," or Ivan the Terrible, Treblinka.Valleyspring (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

my misplaced post
Thanks for correcting me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorenson–Dice coefficient
After you moved Dice's coefficient to Sørensen-Dice coefficent, I moved it from that title to Sørensen–Dice coefficient. Standard usage and WP:MOS call for an en-dash in that context, not a hyphen, and also I corrected the spelling of "coefficient". Michael Hardy (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks for fixing my goofs. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

JJ
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you.

DYK review - Olympic Pipeline explosion
Hi Ego White Tray, I've reviewed your article for DYK, just to let you know I've raised 2 concerns which I believe need to be fixed. 1 is Did you know/Citation (section D5) - you have only one source for the whole article (there are several secondary sources cited within your tertiary source, suggest looking up some of these, or other WP:RS and adding citations (and poss additional material) to the article); and 2 is the hook - as I see it the 60 miles away claim doesn't stack up as Vancouver is closer to Bellingham than that, and Anacortes closer still. Interesting read though, I'm sure with those 2 fixes it'll pass the test for DYK. Don't forget to knock out the stub template too! (Did you know/You knew this section R5) Thanks Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

MFD User:MF88389DTU/Articleraft-Leaflet-bomb
Hi. I think there's some coding problem with your last edit. I can't comment underneath it. Thanks. -- Klein zach  13:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, you can go comment now. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking that closer look. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you noticed it, you should have included that as part of your nomination. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True. In fact I did not realize there was duplication. As I have in the past, I might have C&P'd the material into the existing article. Your advice is well taken – I shall keep it in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Olympic Pipeline explosion
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for your appreciation earlier today. Enjoyed being part of the success story, I always like to see articles improved rather than dropped. Baldy Bill ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

db-u1
Thanks for the db-u1 code! --Abel (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke AfD
I would like to point out that I never put the AfD notice on the Harlem Shake (meme) article itself; check the edit history. Of course, note that I am not necessarily agreeing with actions of others who may come to edit that page directly, either. My point is that I kept it out of article space, which is something I personally agree with doing, by not editing the page "nominated for deletion". I kept everything in the administrative end only, which is inclusive of its entry in the logs and the creation of a page. If you fail to find humour in a joke nomination where no harm was intended, then I apologize for actually following the April Fool's guidelines set forth. I myself am serious about my usage of Wikipedia and such, but please try to find some humour in the things that will be seen today. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone looking at the discussion will see that you didn't place the tag. Also, I think future people looking at the discussion will not realize it anyway, and will create their own prank discussions that do appear on article space. Deletion discussions are a particularly irritating place for this kind of thing because it forces admins into it, like it or not. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even admins. like a little humour from time to time, but it's those admins. that don't that end up ruining it. I do agree it shouldn't get too carried away.  Heck, two years ago I made a proposal to move the Wikimedia servers to Canada which was my main contribution for the year, and closed it myself as April 2 dawned.  People there appreciated the joke and let it run its course.  I think the admins. here should only look to control, not outright halt it, and do the same as my experience at meta.  Some still try to outright halt it.
 * This year, my single joke was the Harlem Shake one, something that became big less than two months ago and thus my attempt to tie it into a joke. It's already been closed.  I'm not making any other jokes, but I do see that others are already closed (or even deleted, like the Religion one), and that just ruins the fun as there isn't any "celebration", if you will, of what this day is meant to be.  I happen to know a Pokémon forum has literally established anonymity by randomly assigning Pokémon to username fields in posts today; yes, some are annoyed by it, but the overall consensus is that it's only for one day and it's funny.  I wish some administrators would think the same here.  Jokes can always be reversed and kept in the history as humourous content.  Some jokes are old and stale from prior years, and I can agree with canning those, but leave the new and unique ones for the day.  That's my opinion, but again, it's only an opinion.  CycloneGU (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is participating in April Fools day, which is obvious from the homepage, where the featured article is summarized as an enormous questions mark. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, ? is in fact a featured article. They do little things like that to make it recognizing the joke aspect of the day; last year, a news article from "The Onion" made it through on April 1 (intended obviously).  CycloneGU (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

May I ask a favor, please?
Hi Ego White Tray. Thanks for all the work you do volunteering on the project. And thanks also for the help at WT:CSD. I've re-added the RfC tag to the G13 discussion. Could you re-add the discussion to Centralized discussion, please? I've already removed the entry from Centralized discussion/Archive, but the template itself is semi'd so I can't do it. You can probably just undo the last edit by and mention "undid good-faith edit" in the edit summary. Thanks very much for your help. I really appreciate it. Kind regards. 64.40.54.202 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The link has been restored to that template. Have a nice day Ego White Tray (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 64.40.54.202 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Butcher of the Balkans
At the latest talk page on that issue, you discussed what was the primary topic for this name. I see now that you agreed with Evlekis and PRODUCER about the matter.

Please feel free to comment on Deletion review/Log/2013 April 19. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NAMB
Thanks for the heads-up on the WP:NAMB discussion. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Pago Pago
Hello! I'm from Russia. Feleti Barstow Public Library — what is the marking thing? Maybe is it somebody's name? Senior Strateg (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The marking thing? I don't understand what you mean. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. When i've said the marking thing, I meant the separate words (the words having black colour). Senior Strateg (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean boldface? If you type this text, it will look like this text. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait - you're not asking about marking at all, are you? You're asking what Feleti Barstow means. I don't really know. Probably someone's name. Barstow is a somewhat common last name in the United States, and I assume Feleti is a Samoan name. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I asked you about Feleti Barstow. Thank you! Senior Strateg (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CSD
I have removed the third of the points you added to WP:CSD; please discuss on the talk page if you want to restore it. My objection is that your words "It is recommended that this criterion be used mostly for pages that are a part of disruptive behavior" imply that G5 should not be used against "good" contributions. That would destroy the whole point of G5, which I can best explain by copying a recent post by JamesBWatson from his talk page: "There is a perfectly reasonable opinion that an article should not be deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user, since if the article is a good one then it doesn't matter how it came into existence. However, there is also another, equally reasonable opinion, that if an editor has been banned or indefinitely blocked, and keeps coming back with sockpuppet accounts, then the net damage to the project by encouraging them to think they can get away with doing so, and no matter how many accounts are blocked anything they write will stay, is more than enough to offset any slight advantage that might come from a few useful edits they may make. The issue has been discussed repeatedly over the years, and each time consensus has supported the second of these opinions. That is why Wikipedia policy is that any page created in defiance of a block or ban can be deleted." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of talk pages
I am a little puzzled by your edit summary for this edit. What other page do you suggest moving it to? The mistake is already documented at Talk:Nicola Mameet 1, and it is beyond me where else it might be appropriate. The edit to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is completely redundant, and I see no reason at all for keeping it on a page where it doesn't belong. However, if you do have a good reason for keeping it there, please let me know, and I will be happy to leave it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to have a good reason to delete it, not on me to have a good reason to keep it. It's about speedy deletion, so it's not off-topic, and that's not usually an accepted reason to delete a good faith post anyway. We don't delete other people's posts without very good reason. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is a very good reason, namely that it was contrary to the talk page guidelines. Nobody suggested that it was "off-topic" in the sense of not being related to speedy deletion, but a talk page is not for any comments related to the topic of the master page to which the talk page applies: it is only for discussions related to changing that master page. If you think that the talk page guidelines should be changed, to allow messages about any speedy deletion nomination that takes place to be placed in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, then you are, of course, free to propose such a change. You are quite right to suggest in your edit summary that normally a misplaced message should be moved to the right page rather than just removed, but in this case the message already does appear on the appropriate page. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? The speedy deletion talk page is only about the speedy deletion page? That doesn't make any sense. So where would someone discuss speedy deletion when it doesn't involve changing the page, then? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This
Please, explain to me how you know better than a successful FL and a number of experienced editors, and why destroying the article's lead was so necessary. Forcing me to come back here, inactive as I am, specifically to revert damage people do to my articles. Res Mar 13:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't read the edit summary, or at least didn't understand it. I moved the content, without deleting anything, to Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain. The article you are complaining about is a list, and as a result should not have a lot of prose content but should be mostly the list. I might also add that I'm quite shocked that this reached featured list status, since the long content violates our manual of style and the list is missing entries even obvious to tourists, such as Diamond Head and Molokini, and also incorrectly stated that Lo'ihi and Mahukona were on an island. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominate the list for removal of feature list status because of the issues I just mentioned. See Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1 Ego White Tray (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I refuse to allow you to throw away content until there is some sort of consensus; you started an FLR for the article so you respect it: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Res Mar 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Notice to significant contributors to the articles that a Merge Proposal from Alp (folklore) --> Mare (folklore) is underway.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557047021 your edit] to Truss bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Re: Time to bring back Damon Dash (from User talk:Philippe (WMF)
Hey Ego,

Just to let you know that I'm going to try and get the the Damon Dash article unprotected as soon as possible. I'm hopeful to do it tomorrow (Saturday) but I want to check with one person (from our team) first and they are, unfortunately, traveling. It should not go beyond Monday at the latest (or I will come back and let you know what it's looking like). I'm generally in agreement with the strategy you proposed on Philippe's talk page and was thinking about the something along those lines already. Thanks for bringing it up, it's been on my mind as something that we really need to get moving forward. Jalexander--WMF 07:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Approximation of pi at 3 (number)
The material you added says that the Indiana Pi Bill would have defined π at 3, but that target article lede says it would have been defined as 3.2. It suggests other possibilities might be included, but I don't see "3" cited as one of them. Could you clarify? DMacks (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right - different interpretation of this guy's math would give pi as either 3.2 or 4. I'll remove that bit. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships abandoned by their captain
Category:Ships abandoned by their captain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

CFD clarification...
I'm not sure I see why a CSD for a given reason can be declined, and then CFDed for that same reason. What am I missing? MSJapan (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories for speedy deletion is for a very limited number of pages that couldn't possibly be kept. Deletion discussions are for pages that aren't so obvious. I don't think the category nominated was obvious enough to be speedy deletion and required some discussion before it disappears. Declining a speedy delete and later deleting in a discussion is routine and a good sign that the systems are working properly. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dioxygen_difluoride#The_first_source
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dioxygen_difluoride. APerson (talk!) 01:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion archiving
Hi Ego White Tray. On 10 October, you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion&diff=576534778&oldid=576482806 removed] several closed MfDs from Miscellany for deletion because did not archive MfDs that day.

Closed MfDs are usually kept on the page so the bot can archive them to the subpages of Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates. For example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mack.G.Blood, one of the closed MfDs removed, should have been archived to 2 October section of Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/October 2013.

I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion&diff=577110746&oldid=577060701 restored] the MfDs you removed so that the bot can archive them. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Doh! And also, Whoops! Ego White Tray (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Eso2005
"If the page is created in the wrong place, you move it, not delete." Unless it's a total copyvio, in which case you speedy delete it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no right place for copyright violations. Is that user talk page one? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cats on redirects for names
I restored a couple of cats you removed here and here, however I wanted to talk before doing any more. These people are mentioned in the article redirected to and putting categories on their names lists them individually. Is there an reason why it shouldn't be done that way? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every single name is a person who died in the Sandy Hook shooting. Since the Sandy Hook shooting itself is in the category, none of these redirects need to be. It also resulted in like 70% of the entries on the category page redirecting to the exact same page. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see that as a completely compelling argument. The category is for people who died by firearms not incidents where people died by firearms. I would think people browsing by category would be looking for people rather then incidents. Also, it could be seen as deceptive to hide multiple deaths under one entry in the category. However, I could see it either way, so if you feel strongly about it I could just leave it as it is. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that Categorizing redirects explicitly states that most redirects should not be in article categories, and this is also an example. Also, "Death by firearms" isn't inherently a list of people, since the Sandy Hook shooting is explicitly an article about deaths by firearm. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear WP:RFD regular
Hello Ego White Tray,

I just wanted to let you know that it looks like DumbBOT, the bot that creates the new WP:RFD subpages, as well as posting the link onto Redirects for discussion, is not functioning. This bot has not made any edits since November 23. I recently had to transclude Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25 onto WP:RFD; they were never there until I added their transclusions. Also, the bot usually creates the subpages a few days in advance, and has not been doing that either; I went ahead and created the subpages up until December 1st.

I let the bot's owner, User:Tizio, know about DumbBOT's malfunctioning. It looks like it might have been shut off, but I cannot be for certain. Either way, I wanted to give you this "heads-up" in case the daily pages might need to be created and transcluded manually. Steel1943 (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent revision to Redirect/Deletion reasons
I have undone your recent revision to Redirect/Deletion reasons for a couple of reasons. First, because this is a high-traffic guideline page intended to document the creation, use of, and maintenance of redirects its wording should generally not be significantly changed without at least a modicum of consensus to back it up. Second, I had a look-through your linked discussion and there has been only two editors commenting about this particular proposal, you and one other, which is not at all indicative of a consensus-based change. In the redirect deletion discussion, the closing administrator noted that the end result was “no consensus”; if anything, this indicates contention regarding your proposed change. And contention requires consensus. Furthermore, you and the one other mentioned have already participated in the redirect discussion, so the proposal discussion you initiated, however in good-faith it may be, has the appearance of you pushing your bias from that discussion in order to prevent deletion discussions from reaching the same conclusion in the future. (Not saying that that is the case, but that’s just what it looks like.) If you still want to implement your proposal, however, I suggest you find a more open channel with which to establish a consensus favoring your proposal, such as WP:VPR rather than reintroducing your edit. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the reasons I feel my edit was valid:
 * 1. Bold edits have been kept and made policy and much busier pages than this one, including Speedy Deletion
 * 2. The delete votes simply quoted the written policy and didn't actually argue against the utility of such redirects.
 * 3. It's only canvassing if you only tell supporters of something. I posted a link to the discussion at the redirects for discussion page in question.
 * 4. What I think to be an obvious corollary to being bold is to not revert something unless you personally disagree with it. Your post doesn't indicate that you do actually disagree. If you follow that corollary, you might find that the unreverted bold edit was something that everyone wanted anyway. That was certainly the case when a bunch of CSD criteria were rewritten and combined several years ago.
 * That said, I might start an RfD on this one. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian government departments
Hi Ego White Tray,

Thanks for your comments on improving articles about Australian Government departments. So far I have included what replaced the department in the infoboxes (see preceding and superseding agencies), but have avoided including the corresponding modern department as these are likely to change at any time and I do not intend to edit every entry when/if this happens. Do you know any way to automatically update? If you do I'd be keen to learn.

Best, Clare. (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a way to automatically update, and I don't think that's even possible, since gov't re-organizations tend to split task into multiple departments. I don't see gov't departments as something that changes very often, though, so I would say put them in, figuring that it's not likely to change for many years - unless Australians re-organize their government as a hobby. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Could probably be described as a hobby! Maybe just feels that way to me, but it does seem like organisations change a lot. Most recent change was September 2013, seems to happen approximately every election (three year cycle, but can be shorter - unfortunately Australia has not discovered fixed terms!), see Administrative Arrangements Orders, very expensive for the taxpayer unfortunately...