User talk:Mclay1/Archive 3

Templates
And I have removed the above again. I canot see a purpose, the "class" belongs on the talkpage, not on the main articles space. When and if the template serves a purpose I am more than happy to see it reappear. Also you changed the default sort incorrectly, you moved H for Holly to S for Songs in the Category:Songs by songwriter category. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose is it explains what the category is and what it does simply and completely. The class does not belong on the talk page – it has never been done before so I don't know where you're getting that from. You're clearly getting this template confused with another template that is completely different. Just because I've used the same name for one of my parameters as a parameter in another template does not mean there is any similarity between the two. Also, the category is sorted under H in Category:Songs by songwriter because I used a sort key. The category needs a normal DEFAULTSORT so it is not sorted under H in tracking categories.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category banner
Template:Category banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Richhoncho (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect categories
I have read your note on my talkpage and will ignore it. If you can show me somewhere which says you can't add redirects with HotCat I will review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, as you quoted, but don't have to add them using the templates. Therefore I am not wrong adding with HotCat. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Past Masters
Sorry about that - was restoring a bit I accidently deleted about all the songs being stereo, and copied and pasted over your edit. memphisto 11:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite all right.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Alternative-colored"
"Alternate" is a synonym of "alternative" in American English.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And it should not be used per WP:COMMONALITY since it is nonsense in British English.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-American
Hi Mclay1, I wanted to ask you about this minor edit of removing the link to Anglo-American. My objective was to clarify the term Anglo-American, as one may not be familiar with this term, in any sense of the word. Although the page linked to is similar to a disambiguation page, each definition has much in common, which is enough to explain what the term means. If you find this method unhelpful, what do you think would be more helpful for those unfamiliar with the term? Niluop (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to disambiguation pages are meant to be avoided. If a reader follows the link to Anglo-American, they will not know which meaning was meant by the article. All the meanings are similar but that makes it more difficult to understand – it could mean "American of English origin" or "English and American". Since it means the latter in Traveling Wilburys, perhaps it would be best to just avoid the term and replace it with "English–American". "American–English" would also be suitable but could be confused with American English.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I was actually about to recommend doing just as you suggest by either changing the text or link to English-American. Thanks for the help. Niluop (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Incident
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to CharR to list entry
Hi Mclay1

I have noticed that you updated the above template during February, but now also noticed that some of the template functionality does not work as before:
 * Before:
 * CharR to list entry would categorise an article in (1)  and (2) , and
 * would categorise an article in (1)  and (2).
 * Now:
 * CharR to list entry works as above, but
 * categorises an article in (1), (2)   and (3)

I would appreciate if you could have a look at, and correct this behaviour (presumably your template skills are better than mine).

Kind regards,

G.A.S talk 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it. When I added my template, I just ignored the code that was already there but now that I've looked at it again, it's quite simple and I incorporated it into my template.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! G.A.S talk 08:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; edit conflicts according to the reverts you have made on Template:R help. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  18:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * PS. Please see the template's Discussion page.


 * It could barely be called an edit war but I've replied on the talk page. I reverted again because I think you misunderstand the edit rather than disagree with it.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've reverted again, because, as I said, the existing box does the job. Mclay1, the only place it will be seen if transcluded to a redirect accidently is on the Diff page, as in this edit .  So I implore you to please stop warring and leave the lede like it is. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my previous confusion, Mclay1. I have made the necessary changes to R help. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals
As a user who participated in Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mid - West

 * Hello, Sorry I don't understand the Middle East—Western Asia Category problem, though do not want to repeat any mistakes. As I recall my edits were just 'cat focus' type, for focusing Category:Middle East and its sub-categories already placed in Category:Asia into more specific Category:Western Asia and its sub-categories, where they belong. Perhaps adding Category:North Africa and its sub-categories would address the [Cat:Middle East] concerns you have for Egypt? Meanwhile [Cat:Egypt] and [Cat:Maghreb] are already in [Cat:North Africa]. Thank you— Look2See1  t a l k →  22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Maître d'hôtel
in response to your message about this article, I don't know how to redirect it any other way. As demonstrated by your investigation, the editing history sufficiently reveals what happened, so I see no issue, but I would be curious to know the alternative approach. Owen214 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm
"I'm just going to remove the examples". Not, "It would be better", or "Maybe we could", but just a simple "'I'm". Short and sweet, and maybe a tad arrogant, no? No, forget that question, as it's superfluous. May all who dwell in you remain happy. Happy editing.--andreasegde (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Commonwealth of Nations prospective members (simple).png
Hi, I noticed you were the creator of File:Commonwealth of Nations prospective members (simple).png and was hoping you could alter it. It currently shows Somalia as being an eligable country, however, as the page notes, only Somaliland qualifies. I was hoping you could change the coulouring of the map to only include Somaliland. Thanks, let me know on my talkpage pls. Outback the koala (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Double-Bee-Ex
Listen. I don't know how to properly source something to how the god damn words are pronounced in the song and I seriously doubt that linking to a single page that shows that "W-B-X ~W-Boiled Extreme" is read as "Daburu Bī Ekkusu Daburu Boirudo Ekusutorīmu" (ダブルビーエックスダブルボイルドエクストリーム) is really useful in the long run. I am invoking WP:IAR so stop unnecessarily focusing on this one aspect of the article that is supported by that website, the subject itself, as well as the Japanese Wikipedia, and all common sense.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, common sense would lead one to assume that song should be pronounced exactly how it is written because it is written in English and, generally, people do not get to decide how a language is pronounced. It would be easier to just not mention the pronunciation at all since it isn't really important.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then we omit information to the reader who may misinterpret the way that the song's title is meant to be read despite what everything concerning the song itself states about itself. The liner notes do not need to be used as a citation. The audio of the song does not need to be used as a citation. The karaoke database entry I posted above which has the pronunciation in Japanese does not need to be used as a citation. And the Japanese Wikipedia article which features the exact same information need not be referred to. We are pointing out that the letter "W" is not read as "Double-U" but as "Double" which often happens in the Japanese language, and has happened in this instance considering that the related article is Kamen Rider W in which the W is pronounced as "Double" and every other instance of a singular W in regards to the subject is not "Double-U" but "Double". Verifiability does exist, but as I have independently verified the information here and on the talk page of the article, do we really require an inline citation on the page for such a trivial aspect of the coverage of the subject?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia category
Hi, recently I changed the text of the "hidden category" portion of wikipedia category from its existing text:

"This is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless the corresponding user preference is set."

to the text used on hidden category:

"This category is not shown on its member pages, unless the appropriate user preference is set."

My main intention for changing the text was to shorten it, whilst preserving its meaning, and so keep the vertical size of the template down at narrower screen resolutions.

You reverted this change, stating that they should be synchronized the other way around. Since hidden category is protected, I will need to make a protected edit request in order to do this. I agree that linking and bolding the phrase "hidden category" does have an advantage in terms of clarity; however, it would help to have the text be slightly shorter. Would the following text be acceptable?

"This is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless a user preference is set."

Thanks for your input. Gurch (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Although just saying "a user preference" is a bit unclear, I'm pretty sure people will work it out, so, yes, I agree with your proposed wording. I have a widescreen monitor so I'm not sure how the message box appears on narrower screens but the shorter the better.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  12:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * At 1024x768 (the "lowest common denominator" resolution we should be aiming to support) with default skin, font size and browser configuration, the existing text just wraps onto two lines, whereas the proposed replacement does not. For hidden category that's not an issue as the minimum height of the message box is two lines anyway. For, though, it ends up being five lines which is a bit big for a notice that's at the top of so many category pages. Tack on a few more parameters like tracking=yes and container=yes, and you end up with a notice that takes up half the screen. I just figured trimming this down a bit would help with that. Gurch (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GA
I note you made a significant number of edits to the article.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm glad that article has been recognised as vastly improved.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Brisbane. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Help me with this
I'm not "allowed" to revert anything that is not blatant vandalism, so could you please take a look at this? Thank you.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:R from slogan


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. mabdul 14:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Disorientated
Well what do you know, it is a word! I learned something new today, so thanks for that. And thanks for fixing my ignorant mistake. Ivanvector (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

”Recognition of the “Monarch” as HoC
I went back on the above...Thanks for the reply....Hope the article will become more accurate...84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding LQ in the FAQ on the MoS
Because there doesn't seem to be space for discussion on the FAQ page, I'd like to answer your question, "What errors?" here. In the many conversations that the denizens of the MoS talk page have had about Wikipedia's policy banning American punctuation, supporters of the policy have claimed that American punctuation causes or can cause confusion, misquotation and ambiguity, while opponents of the policy have claimed that actual instances of confusion, misquotation and ambiguity are so rare as to make such a policy unnecessary and impractical. So the answer to the question "What errors?" is "the kinds of errors that American punctuation is accused of causing." I thought that this was clear the way the question was phrased, so thanks for pointing out that it wasn't. I hope that you find the new phrasing suitable. Please let me know what you think.

Please remember that the FAQ, as it's currently written, doesn't say who is right and who is wrong. What it states is "People in Group A say X" and "People in Group B say Y." The fact that these claims were made can be verified in the archives. If the FAQ doesn't require the people in Group A to prove that their claims are right then it should not require the people in Group B to do so either. However, if you require a source, here's one: This article quotes the Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition, which maintains that American punctuation has not caused a significant number of errors in the 150 years that it's been in use.

ONE MORE THING: When I was a new Wikipedian, I once got accused of edit warring when it was not so. My fellow accusee and I were actually discussing our differences of opinion on a talk page like this one. However, because the other editors couldn't see our discussion, they did not know this and thought we were still fighting. You and I should both move delicately to avoid such a situation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The new wording seems much better. However, I'm still not quite sure how "illogical" punctuation causes errors, unless by errors it means things that supporters of logical punctuation would consider errors but are correct under illogical punctuation. Illogical punctuation requires punctuation to always go inside quotation marks, without distinguishing between different situations, so I don't see how that could ever cause an error, other than misinterpretation, which I wouldn't call an error, I'd call it a problem.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You got me
The changes I made were for Bosnian. I have no idea why those other areas showed as changes. They weren't. I'll backtrack that and fix it. If you see any others like that, let me know. Might be a Wikicleaner issue (the editing tool I use. Not a bot...more of just something that makes editing quicker). --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick James Music
You should have known that Dick James Music published the 1963 songs "Please Please Me" and its B-side "Ask Me Why." After James' death, Dick James Music was sold to PolyGram which was sold to Universal Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I only just noticed this message. In reply, I did know that the songs were published by Dick James. Now, Paul McCartney owns them.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Date and comma
Hi

The original text:
 * In March 2005, The Chaser members, with the exception of Firth but with CNNNN collaborator Rebecca De Unamuno, wrote and performed a stage production ...

If you read it and miss the bit between the commas the sentence does not make much sense:
 * In March 2005 with the exception of Firth, but with CNNNN collaborator Rebecca De Unamuno, wrote and performed a stage production ...

If you read the sentence as I edited it, and miss the part between the commas, you get:
 * In March 2005 The Chaser members wrote and performed a stage production ...

There is some discussion here on this page, particularly the right-hand column, which maybe also explains why it should not have the comma.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, "In March 2005" is the bit that can be cut out if it is followed by a comma. It needs a comma because "March 2005" is what it is "In"; it isn't "In" "March 2005 The Chaser members".  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read this which shows that this is not a non-restrictive relative clause, and the comma goes. "In March 2005" did not write or perform anything. I suspect you are considering it a prepositional phrase, though that would require a noun or pronoun, in which case that would mean including "The Chaser members" as the noun phrase.
 * Similarly it could be moved to the end of the sentence, " The Chaser members, with the exception of Firth but with CNNNN collaborator Rebecca De Unamuno, wrote and performed a stage production in March 2005, ..."
 * Perhaps you can tell me what the Style manual for authors, editors and printers. (John Wiley & Sons, Melbourne) says, as it is the Australian Governments publication; or perhaps from one of the other reference materials at the bottom of this page.
 * It does seem as if most Australian guides refer to both the Oxford and Chicago style guides, though I am sure there are of course going to be exceptions and differences in Australia. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "In March 2005" is definitely not a restrictive clause. "The Chaser members wrote and performed a stage production ..." is the main part of the sentence, with "In March 2005" and "with the exception of Firth but with CNNNN collaborator Rebecca De Unamuno" providing extra information, which are not essential to the sentence but are very useful for context.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spaces
Hey, or provide a reason why it should not have spaces like it has on 10000 football articles? HTD already said that it is the guideline but then please go back and edit EVERY football article. And Jlsa provided some good reason the the talk page over there. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:R for convenience
Thanks. This really had me scratching my head. Seems like an odd thing to make a user preference, but I will check it out. --TimL (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And there it is "Show hidden categories". Since I do not understand hidden categories, I can't wrap my head around this. Makes me wonder if I set this preference in the past, and doesn't seem right. I mean, who would understand the implications of hiding hidden categories? I don't. Thanks for cluing me in though! --TimL (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers!  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting
Of course Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Having a trout button on your user page. --TimL (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I had that coming, didn't I?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I could not resist trouting someone! Even though I have no idea what it means! --TimL (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Redirects from EPs
Category:Redirects from EPs, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Double categories
Category:Double categories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

About beatles1 (all there is legal !)
Re: (cur | prev) 10:13, 11 July 2011 Mclay1 (talk | contribs) (55,908 bytes) (reverting edits by 2 IPs - The Beach Boys are not a genre; just because a site says it uses a CC licence doesn't mean it does - it is illegal).

All there is legal: using of licensing and attribution of works of art, fair use, the content directory of Creative Commons. This is all on the same basis that makes Youtube, Vimeo and other sites. You think that they violate copyright? All the same pattern (even better), so I ask you to delete your roll back. Confirmation of the rule of law is non-interference Copyright Office of the United States (link to their website is at beatles1). This is the most reliable guarantor. Absolutelly no problem. Be an honest man ! A copy of messages on the discussion page (White Album). Important: the site has a mirror - http://beatles80.narod2.ru. 93.81.188.69 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that YouTube and other similar sites violate copyright laws. Well, not the sites themselves, just the users who put up copyrighted material without permission. If people could listen to music for free, why would they pay for it? That is why it is illegal to upload music without permission.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Books feedback--Licences response I made

 * Hi. I wrote a very long response to your "Licence" section in the Help:Books Feedback page. (Help:Books/Feedback) I regret doing that now, because although it was a genuine post that I made, my ability to stay on topic was clearly a little skewed. I don't think it was a very good idea of mine, because it seems like I may have killed the topic that you started, which is problematic since your idea may not be considered seriously now that there is my unsightly 'blog' to mar the appearance of the section.
 * I'm really not sure how much you care about this problem, but I do feel bad because it's not fair that your idea might go down the tubes just because I couldn't shorten my response. Now, I understand on that Feedback page for books, it's not recommended to post the same issue twice, simply because you may not be taken seriously.
 * So, since Wikipedia discourages "reverting" or omitting any edits to a discussion page, do you know any administrators that could help remedy this issue? (I notice you have posted a lot on the feedback page for books, and seem to be an expert; therefore I figure you might know an admin.) Do you know if an administrator can omit a goofy post on a talk page if the offending poster (me) consents, and in fact, requests it?
 * I deeply apologize for unwittingly 'murdering' your proposal/comment in that post by rendering the section unsightly. This was the best idea I could come up with to make up for it. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain but I don't think anyone would mind if you reverted (or just removed) your own comment, as long as no one has replied. If you don't know how to revert, click the "View history" tab at the top of a page, find the edit and click "undo". However, I don't think you need to remove the comment; it seems fine to me. If you leave it, I'll reply.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to remove it, but if you really don't mind it being there, maybe I'll just let it be. If you want it removed, just let me know. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect tagging of pages in Wikipedia and Template spaces
Hi- I was just wondering about cleaning up Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. Are pages like Wikipedia:Redirects not supposed to be tagged with the "r from plural" template? ("r from abbreviation" is another one used on WP: pages) Are only mainspace article redirects supposed to be tagged? If so, I will continue to cleanup the category, but I was wondering if I missed something, somewhere about not tagging namespaces other than the main one. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that "r from shortcut" and "r from template shortcut" work, so I guess I'll use those on the WP and Template pgs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, most of the redirect templates should only be used on redirects in the main namespace because, otherwise, the redirect categories will just get chock full and categorising redirects outside of the main namespace isn't really that useful.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I'm thinking that some of the WP:Redirect instruction/guidelines need to have that viewpoint weaved into them, because it is very subtle, to say the least! Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy
You write:
 * If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Why should opposition outweigh support? If the majority of users think that the guidelines are fine and think the opposition is wrong, then, sorry, but that's just tough luck. It's impossible to please everybody.

Are you aware that, by policy, Wikipedia is not a democracy, does not run by majority vote, and does does run by consensus? States do (sometimes) run by majority votes, becasue frequently they must make decisions; we need not. If there is no consensus either way, we can be silent in an article, or have no rule; the matter will be settled before publication.

Needless to say, I would strongly oppose any admin who opposes basic policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If some people support and others oppose, the final decision must go one way or another. If there is majority support, then it's only fair that it will go towards the support. Of course, the strength of the arguments needs to be taken into account (which rarely happens, unfortunately) but, in this case, it's just opinion. It's not does this or doesn't this conform with policy and guidelines because we are formulating a guideline. If consensus is defined as everybody agreeing, we would never get anything done. Why should opposition outweigh the support?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do we "have to decide one way or the other"?  Very little, and hardly any  of that on the Manual of Style; silence is always an option. If we left it to the things on which we do agree to decide one way or the other, we would have a much shorter Manual, in which it might actually be possible to find things.


 * But thank you; you express your view so clearly that you will make a perfect test case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson it obviously depends on the particular point being argued. There are some yes/no discussions it is very difficult to negotiate a mid-point on. I'd also add that at some stage one has to accept a variance between one's own idea version of wikipedia and what the evolving reality is. For instance, mine would be alot more inclusive of pop culture stuff and I was sad to see vast swathes of it removed over the past five years or so, but I have to accept that there is a current compromise tidal zone of notability at the border zone of what generally survives AfD (which is usually two independent sources containing significant coverage). My impression is that your issue is that wikipedia is becoming more rules-laden and formalised as it evolves. I suspect you need to accept the divergence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Septentrionalis, my point is that "silence" is your "side". The result must go towards having the guidelines or not having the guidelines. Opposition to a proposal is not more important than support. Consensus is non-existant anyway, unless every single user comments. I bet you there is nothing in the MoS that every single user would agree on. Despite what some policy/guideline writers would like to think, Wikipedia IS a democracy (of sorts). The only cases where democracy would not win, were if the majority were comprised of people who had no idea what they were talking about (one reason I think IPs should not be allowed to participate in discussions – if they want to contribute, they can get an account).  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my side is rather specific language, which I have proposed; if we do not have consensus on that, nor on the extremely restrictive language on the other side, then silence should follow.


 * But even if one side did advocate silence, policy is constructed to give that argument an advantage. Guidelines should say nothing unless it is consensus; hair-thin majorities are not consensus.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please defend your comment here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Clean up"?
What's this with replacing slashes with breaks? There's a reason not using breaks when there is just a change of constitution in a country and not a change of country/sovereign entity. Please explain or undo! Not Really Great (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks terrible with slashes. The countries are written one after the other, vertically, to show that the one underneath succeeded the one before it. Even if it was just a name change, it still counts.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * France does not succeed France, Russia does not succeed Russia. It's still the same country, it's not a new sovereign entity. It does not "count". Russia was succeeded by Soviet Union and then Soviet Union was succeeded by Russia, that counts. OK, if you don't do it, I'll have to do it again. Not Really Great (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just revert it again if you do. It looks terrible and makes the table column far too wide. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are both the United Kingdom but they are different states.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they are NOT different states. They are the same. This is a list for the transferal of sovereignity, not a list of constitutional changes within the same country. If you revert it, I'll have to do it all again. It seems you don't understand what the list is meant to show. If we could just say United Kingdom from 1801 that'd be all right. Not Really Great (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly do understand the list; I created it. It doesn't matter whether it's a different state or the same state with a different name, they should be listed vertically – that's how a list works.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Letter case
In regards to your edit summary here, I am a bit surprised by your comment: "reinstating capital letters - that's how templates should be written, as with any other page on Wikipedia", because I have not found, as of yet, a guideline on Wikipedia that states that fact. If you are aware of one, please let me know. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not in a guideline; it's just my opinion, but they do look better in a list with capital letters.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. Template names are spelled with capitals, and it is a matter of good taste imho to use them consistently in such manner. It's like a proper name. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The European Precedent
The current set-up of the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, which seems to be very entrenched, seems to me to lead to a number of questions about related articles. Since we fully include countries such as Georgia and Turkey with a small amount of territory within Europe, do we similarly include Egypt in the Asia article, or Yemen in the Africa article? Even more interesting is the question of France, do we list it unequivocally within South America? The precedent of using organisations for inclusion, such as with Armenia, also might necessitate other inclusions. Papua New Guinea for example, wishes to join ASEAN. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would include Egypt in Asia and Yemen in Africa; however, I would not include France in South American, just French Guiana. We could perhaps shake the whole thing up and use the continent definitions provided by the United Nations Geoscheme, with any other possible inclusions just mentioned in the intros.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember some were on the UN geoscheme before I messed with them. The UN geoscheme does sound like a decent basis, and seems to agree with the common definitions of different continents. We would of course have to add the unrecognised states in, but I think if we establish they go where the country the seceded from it would work fine. I've just noticed the geoscheme has a single entry for "Channel Islands" but a separate one for "Sark". Strange. On the other hand, another advantage of the UN geoscheme is that places such as Bonaire and French Guiana are listed separately (Bonaire being grouped with the other parts of the Caribbean Netherlands). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One problem with the UN scheme is that it includes some countries in Asia which are part of the Council or Europe or EU. Another is that it includes Mexico in Central American rather than North America, which I agree with, but for some reason Mexicans on Wikipedia seem to get annoyed by it.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The CoE/EU isn't that much of an issue. This EU briefing states that "The sole material condition laid down by Article O of the TEU is that the applicant must be a 'European State'. There is no unequivocal interpretation of that criterion. It can be read equally well in geographical, cultural or political terms." Being in the EU then, and probably also the CoE, isn't based on geography. Also, sorry about my Cyprus revert. I didn't notice your edit to standardise this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more this seems like a good thing to do. It'll be moving the criteria away from us and to a source will hold no national POV. My main issue wouldn't actually be with Georgia/Armenia etc. not being included in Europe, but Russia not being included in Asia. Another issue is that the statistics division doesn't locate some territories, such as Christmas Island and the British Indian Ocean Territory. Also, minor correction on what I said before about the Channel Islands. They have an entry for that, as well as separate Guernsey/Jersey entries. The next best alternative I can think of is to simply list every country which contains territory within that continent, which would include Georgia in Europe, Russia in Asia, Egypt in Asia etc., but disclude Armenia/Cyprus from Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should start WikiProject Continents to provide guidelines on the definitions of continents and the set-up of continent-related lists. That way, we can keep things consistent, we have a reference point for editors and we have a place for central discussion. There we can decide on the definitions – whether we use the UN geoscheme or use our own judgement to create the best compromise between reliable sources.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd join that, and I know a couple of other users who may as well. Until we have guidelines, I suppose it's best to leave each continent article at the current inclusion status quo, unless an outside user brings it up. I've finished touching up List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, with Further informations in the sections rather than just prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've started Continent Task Force. I hope you will join and we can discuss my draft guidelines.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Per which discussion?
If you're going to reference a discussion in an action you take, you MUST reference which discussion by including a link. Please tell me which discussion as I'm not aware of any such discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 01:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This one. I probably should have provided the link but there's no rule that says I MUST.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to revert something, especially if it has to do with the location of a guideline or policy page on the site (which has existed at that location for almost as long as it's been in existence, around ), you absolutely must provide a link to the discussion. If you don't, then you may end up being blocked for edit warring, especially if you continue making references to some mysterious discussion which may or may not have occurred. If you don't want to do that in the future, then be prepared for the consequences should they come.
 * Additionally, the discussion there states it will make easier the navigating of the MOS pages, which isn't actually the case. The breadcrumb links at the top of the page should link to both Manual of Style and Manual of Style/Japan-related articles (which you apparently haven't created yet due to the half-done job of moving you've started), but the only link there is to the Manual of Style page. This makes it more difficult to get back to the main MOS:JA page without editing the URL. This ought to be looked into.
 * Thank you for providing the link. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finishing the job on this. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums
Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Beatles studio albums
Category:The Beatles studio albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Metaphorical darkness
Category:Metaphorical darkness, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation templates
I'm just wondering if I can get some details behind the rationale for the series of moves of disambiguation templates that you recently did, such as. Were you implementing the consensus of a discussion that I missed — I'm recently back from a lengthy Wiki-break — or were you acting on your own initiative? Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was acting on my own initiative. There is a growing trend among Wikipedia that template names should use actual English like pages in every other namespace. I was moving the disambiguation templates per the relatively recent renaming of Disambiguation.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks — wasn't aware that had been moved. Hopefully, the redirects resulting from these moves will stay in place for a good long time; so much more simple to type the shorter names, although I understand the objective. Only issue I see is that there's a lot of updating that needs to be done now to the various template documentations. Mlaffs (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums
Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

greek letters for category sorting
Hi, Mclay1. I am confused by your edits of the sort keys used for categorization purposes. I started a discussion here. Could you explain why you used the Greek letters that you did? Sorry if I'm missed some change I should be aware of. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Redirects from quotations
Category:Redirects from quotations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney
There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. Curious Eric  23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving templates and /doc files
Hi. Just a note to say that I've moved Template:Hidden multi-line/doc, to match your move of Template:Hidden multi-line. I see you do move /doc files, so I guess this one just got missed! Cheers. --Trevj (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I always try to remember to move them but I clearly missed that one.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  09:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Me too, I expect! --Trevj (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change
FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Martinicanmusic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Martinicanmusic. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Martinicanmusic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Note
You most sagacious move of to  was reverted by User:CBM Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I've moved it back with a better edit summary. Hopefully, a simple move like that doesn't need discussion.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  05:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs discussion, and I started a thread on the talk page of the template for that reason. The discussion should have happened before the first move. Unfortunately, the first move was apparently not on anyone's watchlist, so it took a while to notice. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Parsing at Template:Category diffuse
Hi, I noticed this edit to Template:Category diffuse; whether or not that edit contributed to the problem, you can probably help! Please see Template talk:Category diffuse. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles
There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons cat multi listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commons cat multi. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commons cat multi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a redirect template
Just thought you'd like to know there's a Tfd on this template. How you doin', Mclay1? Hope all is well with you! – p i e ( Climax !) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sin
Category:Sin, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane workshop and meetup invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll
There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers in episode lists?
Hi, I see you've been involved in Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup this Friday evening (3 August). Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Brisbane/6. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Brisbane)

Empty comments
I had to activate removal of Empty Comments in AWB and then disactivated since there were complains. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:The Dirty Mac
Category:The Dirty Mac, 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. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
Hello Mclay1; this message is to inform you that there is currently a Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band " THE BEATLES " mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No comment? ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've drastically reduced my Wikipedia editing so I really don't want to get into an argument like that again. Thanks for notifying me though.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on, can't say I blame you. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)