User talk:Maelwys/Archive 2

Baby Sign Update?
On the Baby Sign Talk page, you mentioned (on 11 May 2006) that you were looking forward to trying Baby Sign when your baby was born. Has that blessed event yet occurred, and if so, have you made any use of Baby Sign? Please reply on my Talk page. Thanks. -- Eliyahu S Talk 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! The 4-6 months seems MUCH longer than a comment in the Sign Language article, I believe it was, that suggested that native signers (i.e., deaf) who sign to their infants as a primary mode of communication start seeing intelligble signed responses as early as six weeks. Eliyahu S Talk 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Charmed
Arg! I didn't even think about that problem (the episodes being included). I still wonder if the "includeonly" thing isn't useful though...perhaps templates should be defined for the major groupings. A general Charmed template (the current one), one that focuses on the episodes, maybe another one or two. Or, take a look at how StargateTopics works. Very versatile. I wonder if something similar couldn't be adapted for Charmed? Might make things a whole lot easier in terms of auto-sorting, etc. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD
Thanks for the heads up, I would have gotten around to it eventually... you really don't think it wasn't on my watch list do you? ;) EnsRedShirt 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh
Yes, thanks for translating. :) Friday (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter
RHB(AWB) 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

Your edit to Category:Wisconsin arts venues
Your recent edit to Category:Wisconsin arts venues (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT
Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the   template to    on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My first question
Alright, it's taken a while, but I have a question for you :)

I'm wondering what is supposed to be done with the article Child's Play International. Just by looking at it, my first thoughts was that it fell under CSD A7 category, and as such, should be tagged for speedy deletion.

But, my problem is, I'm really not sure if it's unremarkable or not - I mean, I've never heard of them, but I don't often read children's books, so that's not surprising. The article itself does not link to anything, nor does anything link to it (except for that disambiguation page).

So, should I just be leaving a message on the talk page, list it for "regular" deletion and let people debate it, or mark it for speedy deletion and let the admin work it out?

I'm just worried if I put a message on the talk page, no one will ever see it - since nothing is linking to the article.

Or, should I mark it as Template:Wikify, Template:Business-stub and Template:Citations_missing and see what happens?

So many choices, I don't know what to do!

Thanks for your help :) --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. AfD nom
I thought it was right that you should know about this thread which mentions you. Tyrenius 15:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Tyrenius 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the infoboxes on Star Trek Customizable Card Game. From your userpage you sound like the best person who could have done it. SU Linguist 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

J.P. Calderon
The first afd failed, but it is up for a second one. Your support would be appreciated. Thanks, Scorpion 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a disagreement with another editor
Hey,

Alright, another (probably stupid) question. I have done some work to the Australian Banknotes series of articles (eg. Five dollar note (Australian)) so had it on my watchlist. Yesterday Extra3 moved all the articles to another name (eg. Five dollar note (Australian) to $5 note (Australian)). Personally I disagree with his/her decision to do this. Honestly, I can't quote any guidelines as to why it shouldn't have been moved - It just "feels" better. That said, I think the same goes the other way, I can't really think of any guidelines under which he should have moved it. I left a comment on his talkpage asking what his reasons for the move where, to which he replied on my talk page. Out of what he said, his only real reason was to assist people who where unfermilular to Wikipedia and typed "$5" into the search box. I suppose that's true, but nothing that couldn't be handled with a redirect. In addition, it seems like other countries don't follow this new method of his.

So, anyway, I guess I have two questions for you:
 * 1) From a neutral perspective, since you're about the only friend I've got on Wikipedia yet - am I being stupid about making a big deal about this?
 * 2) and if not, what can be done about it? I mean, I know you can do votes to see if a page should be moved (eg. like this, but the page has already been moved... I don't want to make any enemies here and want to do everything as friendly as possible, so I don't want to get into an edit war or anything.

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to help me :) DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me :) Well, I've put up a multiple page move request here, we shall see how we go.  Thanks again, --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon "vandalism"

 * Then can you at least advise the IPs to stop creating a new cat and just wait until the CFD is finished? That way, I'll be relieved since they listened to you and didn't bother to listen to me in the first place. From there, I can assume good faith. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll post a note to that effect on their page if you want, but since it seems to be a rotating IP, there's no guarantee that they'll see it. --Maelwys 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The person should have known better and waited for a bot to take care of the categorization, but no, he/she decided to create fake categories, which is just wierd considering that there may/may not have been a change. I'm assuming the person isn't psychic and can see the future, so, in all due respect, should have waited for the results of the CfD rather than do that. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should have. But considering it's an IP-user and not a logged-in one, I think that instead of biting the newbie, we should assume good faith here and just assume that he didn't know the proper procedure, saw a couple uncontested rename requests that he agreed with, and decided to be bold and make the changes himself. Yes, that was the wrong call in this case, but I don't think it was wrong enough to get him violently attacked the way that he has been. Rather than try to ban him (or scare him away, since I know that if I'd been attacked this way when I first arrived, I probably wouldn't bother to come back), we should try to teach him the proper procedure to wait for the proposal to close at the end of a week, and let a bot take care of the hard work. --Maelwys 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making AfC less of a mess
Making individual requests collapsible was a good idea. Thanks. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AFC top
I had a look at your new version of the afc top template. I am still trying to decide if I like it or not. It certainly does clean up the page and make it look a lot neater. The downside is that the user has to click on “Show” for each item in order to read it. It certainly does work nicely though. I think my only criticism is the statement “Please do not modify it.” There really is no reason that a second AFC reviewer could not go in and decide to create an article where the first reviewer had rejected it, although this rarely happens. I have done it once or twice. Will your template work properly if a second reviewer were to change afc top to afc top|accept? Anyway, thanks for all your good work on it. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Do we still use subst with the new template? &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The archive note is mostly just because we don't want the original submitter to make a change and expect somebody to notice, the instructions instead suggest that they should resubmit it as a new request with any changes that they made. As far as clicking "Show" for each item to read it, most people don't want to read the previously reviewed items that much anyway, so that shouldn't be much of an issue most of the time. And the template will work being change to an approval just as well as the old template did, you just have to delete anything that was added by the template, and put the subst:afc top command back in. And yes, the procedure doesn't change at all, it just looks different in the end. --Maelwys 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, brother
I'll see you in a another life brother. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.2.122.8 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Charmed thingy
Oh, yeah I thought noneofyourbusiness had just added it. I swear it was blue writing on popups! ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)