User talk:Ewlyahoocom/Archive/Archive2

M5 Motorway M5 Motorway (England)
Hi,

I see you have moved M5 motorway back to M5 Motorway (England) after I attempted to restore it last time and I got reverted by a bot. Which is why I did a copy, as I could not fully revert the move.

I've no particular objection to people moving articles provided they do the whole job and they don't trash the links. This time you appeared to have maintained the links albeit via a redirect. The M5 motorway runs the whole length of England and last time I looked there is somewhere between 250 and 500 links to it. Which is a hell of a lot.

The problems are: Someone moved M5 to M5 motorway and ignored the links so 250 - 500 links were pointing at an redirect page. That was partially fixed and then someone moved M5 motorway to M5 Motorway (England) and also changed M5 motorway to redirect it to the M5 disambig page. The M5 disambig page for M5 motorway redirected to M5, i.e the M5 motorway (England) page had no links to it.

Can I suggest that if you feel that it is vital that the article is named as M5 motorway (England) you change every revelant article that calls up M5 and M5 motorway to point to M5 motorway (England)". I've already done all the M5 links to M5 motorway (Ireland)'' there were not very many. Pyrotec 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what gave you the impression I thought the page should be located at M5 motorway (England)? Perhaps you should re-read the move proposal at Talk:M5 motorway (England). If you "move" via cut and paste you lose the entire history of the page. (BTW, links to redirects are absolutly no problem whatsoever, you'd be wasting your time "fixing" them. I did leave M5 Motorway as a double redirect, but it's only got a handlful of links and hopefully some kind admin will move the page before it becomes an issue.) Ewlyahoocom 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Live burial
I now see that you moved "Burial alive" to this new title without even initally posting a request in the article's talk apge. I do not agree with this move. please erturn the article to it's proper name, including links. (as this one is clearly not proper english)

if you still wish to move it, please post a request for it.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I've often heard of somone being "buried alive" I don't believe I've ever heard the term "burial alive". How is it "not proper english"? "Live" can be an adjective, yes? Perhaps "living burial" would be better, but it sounds a little ambiguous, not at all like "living sacrifice". If it has to be a noun, perhaps "being buried alive" would be best? But, no, I don't like "burial alive" one bit. I think Google will back me up on this. Ewlyahoocom 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "live burial" is just misleading and bad english. yet alternative names could be drawn. I support "being buried alive" though. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Live burial.

Redirects text
Thanks for drawing my attention to it—I've been not exactly on a wikibreak, but busy with other things and haven't been paying much attention to my watchlist. I'd like to get your input on the proposed revision versus the current text. Thanks! --TreyHarris 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MOSDAB/Inverse
Could you explain what still needs to be cleaned up on Talk:Inverse? Just a short explanation would be good... as far as I can tell, it's formatted properly according to WP:MOSDAB, so it's not clear what work still needs to be done. --Interiot 21:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply at Talk:Inverse. Ewlyahoocom 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rotation
Sorry for the edit conflict at rotation. I had not been aware somebody was working on it at the same time.

You can reply here if you have any comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?== ==

Could I get a quick opinion from you at Talk:Point on the recent re-organization of the Point dab page? (You commented nicely on the work I had done on getting it up to MOSDAB spec, so I thought you might be interested.) Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn
There's a folder in your user page called Wikiporn. There is a majority that it should be deleted. It is a rule reaker. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. I'm gonna delete it, mmm-kay? --BlooWilt 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not okay. What majority? Which rule? Ewlyahoocom 14:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't checked out the rule but I know this folder is breeaking the rules. Sorry if your ashamed of your folder, but it has gotta go. I'm deleting that folder, weather you like it or not. I must also say that your not the only one with this type of page. And look on my talk page to see the majority.
 * BlooWilt 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BlooWilt doesn't know wikipolicy. I just posted this problem on Administrators' noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Ewlyahoocom.2FWikiPorn__deleted lets see what they say. Let me know how I can help. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Important Person being considered for deletion
Very Important Person is being considered for deletion. When I created the article, you wrote your approval at Talk:VIP. Your comments at the AfD would be appreciated. Simon12 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

chocolate maker vs. chocolatier
Probably best to add a paragraph about chocolatiers to either the chocolate or the confectionery article, and set that redirect accordingly. I may get around to that sometime if no one else does, but it would be great if you or someone else beat me to it ;). 67.117.130.181 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lowercase
I've made your userpage's title lowercase; if that breaks your browser, feel free to revert me. 1ne 08:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)