User talk:Graham87/Archive 14

Spitfire move
Isn't it logical to leave the article as "Supermarine Spitfire" rather than cutting it up into parts. Most readers want an overall article which also includes a history of development and not just the type's operational history. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Gotcha; good luck with the move. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire
Hi, I see you've transwikied something to the Worcestershire page, but I can't see what changed. What did you do? Let's keep the whole discussion on this page, for the sake of readability. Thanks, GyroMagician (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I imported this edit. See principles 6 and 7 of User:Graham87/Import to find out why the diff looks the way it does. Graham 87 12:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I geddit. Thanks for explaining (and 'doh' to the Wikimedia for sorting on the wrong key!). GyroMagician (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost interview
Hi Graham87. I'd like to interview you for the signpost as a special story to be featured sometime later this month (the suggestion came from Mattisse). Are you interested? Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Let's shoot for the 29th February Signpost. (I've got a Wikiproject report I need to do for the 15th.) Meanwhile I'll think of meaningful questions! (Suggestions welcome, of course.) RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Appel-related edits
Thanks for your help. Would you mind taking a look at a number of other edits that were reverted by another editor? We've started a discussion here: Talk:Age of consent. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 06:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops...I didn't make any edits to that article...it was one of the first I looked at before starting to remove edits. The editor has pretty much reverted all of them, and I was attempting to discuss sourcing for all edits in addition to that one page. Sorry for the confusion. Flowanda | Talk 06:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please move
Can you please move the article Carl Linnaeus to Carl von Linné. BjörnBergman (talk) 18:41 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? He seems to be called Linnaeus in English. - Tournesol (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I arrvied here by chance, but I also oppose the move. This may be the correct Swedish version of the name, but he is always known in England by the Latin version of his name Linnaeus.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't do the move per the above messages. I don't move pages willy-nilly; I move them to import old edits - see User:Graham87/Import. Graham 87 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Industrial revolution
You seem to have made a long series of moves. I am not clear what you have been up to: I suggest a comment on its talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Unsigned template
Oops, sorry about that. I have my preference for time set to NZ time. In future I will remember to adjust to UTC. Thanks for the tip! Adabow ( talk )  00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Help:Interwiki redirect demo listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Interwiki redirect demo. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Interwiki redirect demo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Uddingston Edits
I would just like to state that the term, "Eat Yer Teacake", was used by Uddingston residents as a joke (due to the Tunnocks factory being located in Uddingston). However, since then this joke has turned into a unnofficial motto due to consistent usage of the term.

Just tying to help.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.62.232 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity
Out of curiosity, what is this? Just curious.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was importing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. In the case of the moves above, I was importing old edits by, who edited many articles about paleontology. Graham 87 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thank you for helping include all useful contributions.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize edit
Hey! You made an edit on the Nobel Prize page which sounded very good when I read the summary but when I looked I could only see that things had been removed so I undid it. Could you explain what you were trying to do? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered on the Talk page on Nobel prize aswell. Sorry for the "undo" and thanks for the advice and help. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User page
delete my user page. --Valdemarasl (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Kudpung (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what just happened with James Monroe?
I saw that you had done some sort of complicated maneuver with James Monroe, but I really don't understand why. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Millard Fillmore
Please don't use articles for tests, as you did with the Millard Fillmore article today. According to the history log your activities today (24 Feb 2010) resulted in no change. --Bejnar (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I guess that historical edit data is worthwhile, but it sure played havoc with my watch list. It did seem like going around Robin Hood's barn to get there.  It would be nice if that kind of activity could be done transparently.  Could the gnomes gin-up a little program (bot)? --Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

La Vieille histmerge
Hi. I wondered if you might do a histmerge for me, please. It's a draft overhaul of an existing article, worked on in my userspace. The merge is from User talk:Whitehorse1/draftspace to Phare de la Vieille. I'd like to preserve the individual changes rather than simply paste in my changed version, to make it easier to see what was changed later on. I'd like the following 3 revisions deleted from the draft before merging:
 * 14:38, 31 December 2009 Whitehorse1 (rv to rev:335000133) [oldid=335109863]
 * 23:34, 30 December 2009 Whitehorse1 (Correcting factual inaccuracies & omissions; some layout adjustment) [oldid=335002820]
 * 23:30, 30 December 2009 Whitehorse1 (Initial translation of remaining material, increasing size by over 50%) [oldid=335002230]

I also want to change the name of the target to the more appropriate La Vieille. Presumably it's better to do this before any histmerge; could you clarify if that's correct? I'll wait to hear from you before doing the page move. Please reply here – I'll watchlist your talkpage for a little while.

I know you tend to concentrate on older histmerging/imports, Graham; you've even done one of my requests. Hope you'll be able to help with this though, as your wikiarchaeology expertise would really help everything go smoothly! Thanks, Whitehorse1. 12:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing—this is bizarre. There seems to be a lost text/link bug. It has a few inline interlang links ( name ), in the general sources section for example. They worked normally while it was in userspace; but now, they don't render at all. Any ideas? No idea if it's related to a different glitch, of the Link FA template erroneously listing all four interlang articles with a yellow star in the sidebar. I tried a purge though that didn't help. And that usually solves any problem! :) Thanks. –Whitehorse1 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Whitehorse1, yes, it's better to move the page before the history merge, so the logs will show the histmerge more clearly. The only complication in your request involves two intervening edits in the main article, which would overlap with the edits in your userspace draft if I were to do a straight history merge. Would you like me to delete them first, or move them somewhere else? Graham 87 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Graham. Okay, target page duly moved. Hmm. ...Could you delete the intervening edits in the main article, please? One's just a bot date unlink, which is fixed in the draft. The other was mainly whitespace type of fixes, along with formatting some infobox params, which have pretty much all been changed in the draft anyway. Merci beaucoup. –Whitehorse1 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps the move first wasn't such a good idea after all. It creates a nul edit which would be confusing when checking diffs. I'll fix it by moving it back to the old title, deleting the bad edits, doing the history merge, then moving it back with your summary. Graham 87 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the move back isn't necessary. I'll put a summary in the deletion log. Graham 87 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Ah well. *g* Presumably the deleting the bad edits part happens over in userspace on the draft? Your plan sounds good to me. –Whitehorse1 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, have we a tidiest option (logs/history) out've the 2 choices, as far as whether to do the move back goes? –Whitehorse1 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters, to be honest, but I've chosen to do it using the logs. Anyway, I've done the history merge. Enjoy! Graham 87 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graham, appreciate it! I'm loathe to encroach on your time further as you've been so helpful. Quick question though, do we delete my userspace page now we're done and all the history's 'imported'? I wondered too if it was kinda similar to transwiki import in that the revision history would omit items linking to/referring to my userspace for tidiness?
 * There's no need to delete the userspace redirect. If you really want it deleted, I can do that, but it's not doing any harm. You need to add a colon to the interlanguage links to make them inline, and I've done that. I'm not sure why they worked in your userspace; interlanguage links to user pages certainly work from the user namespace. Graham 87 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you could delete it please, that'd be great. Actually a benign redirect page being under my userspace is a non issue really. I guess if it were deleted on its own, the article history'd have redlinks, which could confuse newbies too. For me, the main thing's the article history clutter of userspace-link housekeeping steps. Not huge in the grand scheme of things, but I would really appreciate that deleted if it can be.
 * The only other thing is something ideally I should've noticed before, sorry. With the 3 revisions you kindly deleted from the draft, the very first one "initial import" 17 December should've been removed as well. The edit was creating the user talkspace page by pasting the existing content. In the context of the article's history though it doesn't make sense, and is just confusing. Not being that familiar with histmerges unfortunately it didn't occur to me.
 * After that cleanup the History would go straight from 26 November's full-date unlinking botedit, to my 07:37 17 December "first pass"; everything in between remains, up to & including my 26 Feb "markup/link cleanup", then straight to your 14:35, 26 Feb "General sources: fix link" edit. That'd be 4 history items deleted, 3 yours plus one mine, along with the redirect pg. That would really leave everything tidy and take care of all the loose ends.
 * Cheers for fixing the interlanguage links; it didn't occur to me colons are required. Oh and mystery solved by a quick previewing check: as I drafted under my user talkspace, the links behaved differently; previewing the content on a userpage showed the interlanguage links working as you say. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've deleted the userspace redirect. I'd rather not going to delete the edit that you cited, however, because you changed some text. I think the most notable change is with whitespace, but you also commented out the categories and interwiki links; they remained commented out in subsequent edits in your userspace, so deleting that particular edit would cause confusion with diffs. I would have only deleted that edit if it resulted in absolutely no change. If you're really worried about confusing editors, leave a note on the talk page. I should have thought about the fact that you drafted the article in the user talk namespace, and how that would have affected interwiki links. Graham 87 16:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Fair enough about the first edit, that makes sense. Are you willing to delete the three mv-rv maintenance edits? In diffs, the effect is the first two just revert back to the last bot edit, and the third undoes that reverting to the final draft edit. If I haven't got that wrong, it seems in deleting nothing'd be lost yet it'd increase clarity. –Whitehorse1 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, makes sense. Done. Graham 87 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Whitehorse1 11:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Graham 87 11:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Camus
Camus first of all was half French and half Catalan and never considered himself to be anything other than Algerian. I have as a matter of fact more French blood in me than Camus, but I will always consider myself to be Algerian because that's where I and my forefathers before me were born and bred. While I don't expect you to understand the difference between a pied noir and a French, I would expect you to show some respect for Camus and other pieds noirs like myself who have an identity that is not always related to France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.130.64 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything about Camus was Algerian, from his writing to his behaviour, however since you insist on calling him French despite what I said earlier, I will meet you half way and call him French Algerian, although I don't particularly agree with it since he is half Catalan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.130.64 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Graham 87 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Orangina
Orangina originated in Algeria, in a region called Boufarik to be exact, and moved to France in 1962 after the independence of Algeria. If you care to learn more about its history, I suggest you check:

http://www.orangina.eu/en/history/thehistoryoforangina

http://www.histoire-entreprises.fr/he-le-magazine/orangina-la-petite-boisson-secouee/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.130.64 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An Algerian bought the concept from a Spanish in a French trade fair and launched the drink in Algeria, how can you claim that the drink originate in France? If anything, it should be considered a Spanish invention that was marketed in Algeria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.130.64 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything that we say in the lead section is bound to be an oversimplification, so I'll just remove the sentence. Graham 87 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I notice what you've done now. That's fine by me. Graham 87 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Importing old history
I love what you're doing with importing history from the nostalgia wiki! Old information like that is valuable for research, and shouldn't be lost. Keep up the good work! --pmj (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

sha-512 hash on your user page
There is a very long hex string on your userpage that is making the page unnecessarily wide, so that it can't be read (at least in Firefox) without having to scroll horizontally. Do you think you could fix that, perhaps by splitting the string into sections? I can do it for you if you want. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:66.127.52.47. Graham 87 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Snafu with importing old history
When you import a nostalgic edit, the imported revision appears to get a new version ID based on the present moment. Unfortunately, the navigation between versions of a page using Previous edit (or (diff) ← Previous revision) and Next edit (or Newer revision → (diff)) uses the order of the version IDs, which now is all f***ed up. To see this in action, go for example to the current version of Over and under shotgun and navigate through the history using Previous revision. --Lambiam 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Username blocked
I have blocked the user account you recently created, User:Www.jtrapp.com. Usernames consisting of URLs are not permitted per the Username policy. Nakon 04:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia
Is there any way of identifying the changes to articles that you introduce with your nostalgia exercises? When I do a comparison for eg Thames, it just comes up with "4 intermediate edits not shown". Regards Motmit (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your "import" procedure
It has the side-effect of adding a number of useless "MediaWiki:" entries to my watchlist... 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

The dirt on Sanger
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That discussion has been archived at Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 25. Graham 87 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Header information in archive files
See. You removed header information which I put into the archives for Talk:Ordinal number, saying "rm unnecessary note, that's what the page title is for, the archives will be renumbered soon". I appreciate your need to renumber the archives. However, instead of removing my note, you should have edited it to change the number. I put such notes into archives because they are rarely watched and might get lost if the archive is renamed by a vandal or there were a change in the convention for naming archives. When years later, the archive is found by someone, it would help if he knew of what it was an archive. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GGS
If you dont - could you put it on your watch - ta SatuSuro 11:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I understand your aversion - we should dob someone else in for the pain - as for details - I havent the faintest my youngest is now in year 10 - sorry maybe I should have thought of someone else to watch for us...SatuSuro 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling re schools articles. I stick to making (1) lists (2) of them, much easier and the sources are so obscure that the kiddies don't want to touch it. Orderinchaos 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit
I appreciate the thorough copyedit you are giving to Ruffed lemur. I'm not sure how some of those typos were included in my rewrite or how they survived both a GAC and FAC run. Who knows... with all the added traffic tonight, they may be instances of vandalism that have been nested in with all the other helpful edits. Anyway, since you're busy editing (and I'm checking things remotely on a slow hotel connection), I don't want to make any edits that might conflict with yours. If you can&mdash;before you're done&mdash;would you please correct the spelling of "strepsirhine" to "strepsirrhine" (double "r") and remove the "128" in "128 extant species" in the Evolutionary section. One is a common misspelling, and the other is not supported by the reference. (Those numbers change constantly anyway.) But again, thank you! –  VisionHolder  « talk »  06:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; it's a fascinating article - I'd never heard of those creatures before! This is actually my second run through the article; my first was interupted when my Internet connection went down for a few hours.  I've performed your requested edits. Graham 87  06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

/* External links */
"personal website not directly related to the subject" How is it possible for a website named Pond Life not to be related to the subject of a Pond? It is not a personal website it is a website made up to allow other pond enthusiasts to make their own ponds and to use as a reference for anything they may want to find out about during their ponds life. It is filled with pictures of plants, insects and other creatures commonly seen near ponds. It is a small website but I did not put it up for personal gain, it is already listed high in many search engines including the top pages of Bing and Yahoo.

As for the removal from the Common Frog page this is also ridiculous as the website focuses on the Common Frogs breeding, spawn and general life throughout the year.

I think your have wrongly removed this web page from the encyclopaedia. I look forward to your reply.

Stozy10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stozy10 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob Olston
Hi, Can I get an email copy of the deleted page [Rob Olston] I was still constucting it when it was marked for speedy deletion. Thanks, Nathan Nathanburgess (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that. Done now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanburgess (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text discussion
Hi there. There has been a lot of discussion regarding alt text for images lately, and your input at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images would be appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref reform
Hey there Graham87, doing well I hope? I was wondering if you wanted to do a little task, I know how good you are with historical pages :). I don't know what to do with Ref reform. It appears to have been left 'up in the air' without any finale closure or analysis. It would be nice if someone could summarize what the outcome of it was, mark it with an appropriate template if necessary, and categorize it somewhere (it's currently not in any categories, which is probably why it's gone unnoticed for so long. Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls is one possibility but I'm unsure if it fits well there). Regards, &oelig; &trade; 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I don't know of a tag for proposals that were eventually accepted in a slightly different form, so I've just put a historical tag on the page. Maybe the surveys and polls category sounds like a good idea, and I'll add it. Graham 87 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

View deleted pages
Why did you make this edit? The ability to undelete a particular page just by changing the URL still works in the English Wikipedia. Graham87 08:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC) --- Well, that's what i get: http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2285/errorgooglechrome.png

So "Type this in the search box: "Special:Undelete/Target" and replace TARGET by the name of the page;" is a bit dishonest, no?

Best regards, Jakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob5675a (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the screenshot, it says: "The action you have requested is limited to Administrators.". I will update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages to state that viewing deleted pages is only possible if you are an admin. --Jakob5675a (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

MRL Public Sector Consultants
Hi, I recently created a page under the title MRL Public Sector Consultants, and it has once again been deleted. I know it wasn't you that deleted it, but I have literally spent the last week revising it and editing it because it was continuously being deleted. I posted it again on Tuesday of this week and I honestly cannot see at all how one of the editors STILL sees it to be promotional. Please can you have a look at the page and let me know what I'm doing wrong? It is becoming so frustrating constantly having to edit and re post my page only for it to be deleted again. I really don't understand what can be classified as promotional on the latest page. If you could provide me with any help it would be much appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psc2010 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Global warming. Is global warming an increase in temperature or rather a process of increase? Is global warming a theory or proven phenomena? I believe those points should be the main identifiers of the article on global warming. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Page
I am am not sure if you have the ability to edit Darwin's page but I saw you recently made a change to the security of his page. At the very beginning of Darwin's page it states that "was an English naturalist who showed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors"

I have studied the "theory" of evolution thoroughly. I have a degree in Biochemistry from the university of Oregon and I understand the limitations of the theory and significant problems it has yet to cross. With over 50% percent of the U.S. population not believing in the theory of Evolution it is inappropriate to use the word "showed" since this implies that it is truth. I think a more appropriate neutral word in this heated debate is "theorized". If you know anything about the scientific process you should know that a theory is a well respected scientific argument. And again the word "have" in the context which it is presented in Darwin's article also implies that indeed his theory is truth. The word "have" just needs to be taken out. We should not under estimate the power of words in our society. Assumptions stated as truth claims instead of showing a person both sides of an argument so that one may make their own decisions on an issue is the way society should handle this matter. Wikipedia is a powerful source of information that influences many people. Implications hide behind themselves assumptions. Wikipedia should not fill society with assumptions as truth claims. It should present theories as theories, not as truth. This way people know they need to do further examination of the issue.

thank you for the time and please if you could forward this to whoever you feel can change the wordage used in this article.

John Quigley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quigpower23 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

old edit history
Hey Graham87. Found another old page you might be interested in. Alphabetical list of Wikipedians. It's got historically interesting edit history, considering the amount and diversity of editors who have contributed to it, and how far back the edits go. However as you can see it's been deleted because that history has apparently been used for trolling purposes. I don't know the details behind that but anyways it may be worthy for preservation somewhere? -- &oelig; &trade; 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've heard of that one. I emailed Alison once about restoring the history, but she didn't reply; the timing of my email wasn't good however because I discovered the page the day after she went on a wikibreak. I suppose it won't hurt to try again though. Graham 87 10:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fired off an email. Graham 87 10:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you follow up on this by any chance? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, at User talk:Alison. I didn't get a response. Graham 87 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However I suspect that it had something to do with old usernames being in the history. Sometimes, people's old usernames contained personally identifiable information. However, it's usually pretty easy to find out someone's old username by checking their earliest contributions. Graham 87 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well her justification was that the history was being used for trolling. That was probably a long time ago and I doubt that it's still occurring. Well I suppose we should wait a while longer for her to respond.. it would be rather rude to go over head and just restore it ourselves right? -- &oelig; &trade; 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know a number of users/editors who would object to any rejigging of such lists - long time ago can for some editors uncover earlier identities/names that they no longer wish to be reminded of, but as graham says - a good snoop can track your old ids within 2 minutes flat SatuSuro 11:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it'd be a good idea to restore it without a response from Alison. It's the only list of its type that has been completely obliterated, apart from the old Wikipedians by location list such as Wikipedians/West Virginia. I don't like losing thousands of edits of history, but I can also understand the argument about old usernames. Graham 87 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A great campaign of importation
See User talk:Xeno and comment, if you could. Thanks, – xeno talk 13:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

An edit from 2001 attributed to my username
Hi! So I took a look at that edit.. that's really weird! That was nearly two years prior to me creating this current Wikipedia account.. but, the thing is.. that change looks like something I could easily have made. I got the Frank Black solo album Dog in the Sand just before that date (September 26, 2001) - I know this, because it was a birthday present! And it does have Joey Santiago playing on it. So that edit is the sort of thing I might well have made at that time!! I honestly don't remember using Wikipedia that long ago.. but maybe I did!! And certainly this handle "Stormie" is one that I have been using for much longer than that. --Stormie (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rhodes Piano
What in the ham sandwich? 842U (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very strange! 842U (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

NATO
Hi Graham87, greetings. Just to clarify, the imports you're doing add otherwise lost edit history, is that correct? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. I've seen so many that just start at 'Conversion script.' Interesting to see what was there before. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'Military of' articles. You could start with Military of Iraq if you want, since I'm trying to improve that right now, but then, as you like, Afghanistan, China, Russia, Untied States of America, British Armed Forces, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Where are you that it is just before lunch? Asia? Anyway best wishes from New Zealand. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Layout guidelines
Hello Graham,

I notice that you are moving "See also" sections after "references" sections which is incorrect. Please re-read the guidelines that you are citing to see that this is so. Specifically this order. Notice that the very guidelines page itself uses this order. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right...I misread your edit; my apologies. I thought to myself before posting that Graham doesn't make mistakes like this. I know your good work from seeing it in my watchlist but often we do not let people know, as the months pass, how much we appreciate their work...let me take the opportunity to do so now. Thank you. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 12:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to userfy a deleted page
Hi, I went live with my first Wiki page ever and it got deleted, which I had anticipated actually under the notion that the only way to get it right is to make mistakes and learn from them. I was wondering if there is any way to move the article back to my user space so I can edit it. Also, is it better to request feed back before going live or after going live?

Anyway, I was reading up on the "rules and laws" of Wikipedia, and correct me if I am wrong, but based on my understanding, if my article gets moved back to my user space and I try to go live with it, it will be deleted again most likely. What can I do to make this page stick? I would really appreciate some constructive criticism and feedback as this helps make me a better, more objective writer.

Since I can't start a new page on it without risky speedy deletion, I am requesting to userfy the deleted page. I also rewrote the article in a Word document and made the following revisions to start off with:I revised my intro COMPLETELY so that it's more to-the-point for consumers looking for need-to-know information about this company. I deleted a good portion of the history, but am debating whether it's even relevant. I edit the corporate structure down to a few sentences and eliminate the corporate officers because, to me, it's not really important, I just thought that that's what you're supposed to do. The business model has remained the same for the most part, and I also added a critical element to this article that highlights the controversy this company has generated in the timeshare industry. I think I was getting to technical with the templates and that's probably where I went overboard, but this new revised version I am working on is short, simple and sweet (at least I'm hoping so). Please help? Thanks Mytwocents02 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace current alt-text guidance
I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin°Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your tweaks and corrections. Your input is vital. Can you confirm the comments about the blank alt text issue with images that are also links: that the screen reader speaks the image link filename because it has to say something to describe the link? Also can you confirm that on thumbnails, the screen reader splits the image alt text from the image caption with the following spoken words about the magnify icon: "link graphic slash magnify dash clip.png". Regards, Colin°Talk 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
thanks graham for your feed back on my edit suggestions. It's true, the company in questions isn't referenced in Wikipedia, but given the controversy they've created in the industry, I thought maybe it was notable and worth mentioning on Wikipedia. I am curious though as to how some companies and businesses are able to have their pages stick. I bet those companies hired someone to write their page for them... How does Wikipedia track those kinds of activities in effort to preserve the integrity of the site? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytwocents02 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute...
Are you serious when you say that you're blind?! How can you edit Wikipedia so efficiently if you're only able to hear everything being read to you? I'm baffled!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow...that's absolutely amazing. I would love to ask you some questions -- I think you're the first blind person I've ever met.  My first question is how you came to pick the two colors in your username if you've always been blind and don't know what the colors are.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat (video game) vs. Mortal Kombat (arcade game)
I was just curious as to why you deleted, then restored, then redirected those pages. I just thought it seemed awkward. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, all of the red links redirect back to the main article so it's all good. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Wikipedia
Found another deleted page with very old history. Dunno if you want to restore anything from it but thought I'd pass it on to you. ps. you might want to add Search archives or something similar to your talk page so we can search your talk archives. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've encountered that one. I was reluctant to undelete it as it's a spam magnet as discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Friends of Wikipedia, but it does contain interesting history (some of which can be imported from the Nostalgia Wikipedia), so on further reflection, it might be a good idea to move it to the historical archive, fully protect everything and add NOINDEX to it. I'll get to that tomorrow if you haven't already done it by then. :-) I've added an archive search box to my talk page. Graham 87 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the external links on that page are from before 2005, so most of em probably are dead due to link rot. But yes I suppose it would be a spam magnet now... I'm sure Wikipedia has A LOT more "friends" by now. ;) ... Compare Citizendium's meager "friends" list for a laugh. ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! Graham 87 02:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've undeleted all the pages, and imported all the history from the Nostalgia Wikipedia that was worth importing. Graham 87 05:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Regarding full protecting and noindex'ing everything, there's still all the subpages... but it's probably not worth it, they're not that high visibility anyways. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already fully protected all the subpages. I agree that noindexing isn't too much of a concern; all the links are marked with nofollow. Graham 87 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

transwiki from pl wikipedia
I see you did some transwikis. There are a few articles on pl wikipedia that I worked on there and moved recently - their history should probably be transwikid, yes? If you could do it, I can give you a link to them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, all listed here (the "Large" section) are applicable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Human... "Human experimentation in the United States" was not merged to that article but developed into a new title: Human subject research legislation in the United States. In case of overlapping, wouldn't we merge article histories like with History merge? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure I incorporated all edits at LW before it was moved, but re this - I am not sure. If you could move them and incorporate them, that would be great, they seem to be valuable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we did what we could. Regarding LW, I'd have one thought: maybe it's the diacritics (łę) that mess up the process? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Odp:KamikazeBot
Thx, my Bot made a mistake, when I was used AWB after actualization. I don't edit from KamikazeBot acount in enWikipedia, and every edits are not unintentional. What do you think, in the future I can edit interwiki in enWikipedia? (actualy KamikazeBot works in pl and la wikipedia on interwiki). Best wishes. Karol007 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)