User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 13



Renewed discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area
Hi,

I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area in the past. So I concluded that you might be interested to know that two editors currently push for a change in the article structure that is in conflict with the standing consensus resulting out of our past discussion.

The consensus was to include the EU entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). — Whereas the change that is currently pushed would result in moving the EU entry to the very end of the article, even after the references/sources table. The result can be seen here:.

The standing consensus was not my favorite solution, as I would like to include the EU into the very list (unnumbered), but I content myself with the standing compromise. Whether you agree to or oppose the change, I strongly feel that the article's structure should not be changed without a proper discussion and maybe even a new vote before changing the standing compromise. You might want to give your point of view in the current discussion at
 * Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

Cheers and take care, MikeZ (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback permission
I would like rollback permission. Please feel free to ask questions; you may get further requests due to WP:Flagged revisions/Trial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will probably experiment with it; but unless it is significantly easier than Undo, my uses for it will be limited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move regarding Wei Man
Parsecboy, I was late to the discussion regarding the move of Wei Man. I have created a new rm but before commenting on that, could you please review your decision on the Requested move of December 2008 again? Kuebie (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ParaData
Hey Parsec. Any luck on that email to ParaData over the copyright problems? Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, haven't heard from them. It's been what, 5 or 6 days now? I don't really think I'll hear back from them (but I didn't really think I would in the first place, especially because I made it clear that I had no intention of any sort of formal action). It's probably safe to use the image even though they claim the copyright to the image; I'm fairly certain they don't actually own the rights to most if not all of the images there. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kuebie
Talk about incovility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.161.164 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

M1 tanks for Iraq?
Earlier today an IP user added Iraq as a M1 user. I have not seen any news about it and this seems unlikely. I can see Iraq getting armored vehicles but don't see a need for main battle tanks. Do you know anything about this? I can remove it if that's wrong. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's sourced to strategypage.com (not sure how much of a WP:RS it is). The only thing I could find about it through Google News is this article, but I would think the major news outlets would have mentioned it somewhere if it was actually going through. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I forgot to check the Operators section.  I added that Def. News article as another reference.  I reworded that since foreign materials sales notices are requests. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Favour to ask - a bit of light reading
Hi, I took note of your comment on WPMILHIST talk about quotations v. prose. In light of that, I'm starting to wonder whether an article I've been working on for the past six months (God help me) is starting to go a little over board. The length of User:Harlsbottom/John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe doesn't bother me so much as readability, or whether I'm going to be slammed for using so many quotes. What do you think? Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but will look at it shortly. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, sorry to butt in, but I gave the article a quick skim. Good read, and I think considering the importance and controversy of Jellicoe the length isn't too long. I can't speak for the prose, but none of the quotes seem overly long, nor ar there too many of them in my opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Butt in all you like :) I've read through it, and I've got to agree with Skinny, the quotes seem fine to me. My only real concern with them is that the long quote relating to his dismissal from the Admiralty is formatted differently than the other long quotes. I don't know if this is actually a problem, so it might be worth asking someone who's more knowledgeable than I. My main point with the comment I made on the thread at WT:MILHIST was that quotes should be used to illustrate specific points, not effectively do the job of the writer (it's easy to write articles if all one does is quote 3 or 4 pages worth of material, with little to no composition on the author's part). I think quotes are especially useful on biographical articles, especially those on controversial figures like Jellicoe.
 * One other, unrelated thing to consider: some of the links in the intro (to Scheer, Geddes, and George V, etc.) are piped with the positions they held. I seem to think somewhere in the MOS there's a recommendation against "surprise links", because if the article were to be printed, the reader wouldn't know who was being linked. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TPS'ing here WP:EGG, and I'll go through the article too if you want. :) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do a little TPSing myself :) I knew I had seen that somewhere, but couldn't remember the shortcut to it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - what else are TPS'ers for? :D — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of TPSing, how about co-co-nom? I guess that might be a bit excessive, so maybe I should just limit m'self to a Hearty Support. Oh, and I wouldn't worry about a lack of work in "admin-related areas". I had a mere 200 or so edits to the Wikipedia namespace (after a year and a half on Wiki by that time) when I did my RfA nearly a year ago, and it wasn't really a problem. Article-builder admins are always in demand. Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) I take great offense to that page! I'll have you know I am a nefarious villain, scheming to destroy the world! Why, I even have the moustache to prove it! But joking aside, I'd be more than happy to coy-edit the article when it's moved to main space.Skinny87 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:General Tiger
theres a userbox espousing violence on this user page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.134.214 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Looks fine to me... — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP is talking about General Tiger's userpage. I don't think it's that big of a deal; the user hasn't been active in over a year. Moreover, it's talking about either North or South Korea conquering the other, not about encouraging violence towards one group or another. I don't think there's a problem with the userbox. If you still do feel strongly about it, you can ask for wider input at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Parsecboy (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Input requested
Your input is requested at WT:RM. Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
For the move to Koh Kong District, there are a few pesky diacritic ridden hangovers among the Cambodian geography articles - and that was one I couldn't do myself. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, if there are any others you can't do, let me know and I'll be glad to lend a hand. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few more. I'm trying to get the naming sorted for the first and second level geographic subdivisions of Cambodia - it's a bit of a historical mess at the moment. I'll probably take you up on your kind offer. :) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page movement
You might be interested in the proposal at WP:Page movement. There is currently no policy page that prohibits the c&p movements. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor move dispute
Hi, would you mind having a look at User talk:Aervanath and sharing any additional thoughts you may have? Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

tb

 * Come now, Ed. What kind of TPSer would I be if I needed this? :p Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL just covering all the bases :D — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Conference (England) back to Football Conference over redirect
Hi there, the user who attempted to create a disambiguation page at Football Conference did so without consensus and in the process upset many thousands of links, see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Football Conference. The user has agreed not to move the page again, however now we non-admins can't more the page back to its original title. Would you mind? Best wishes, – Toon (talk)  00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like PeeJay2K3 has already taken care of it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Confusingly, no! He moved Football Conference back to Football Conference (disambiguation). Football Conference needs to be deleted to make way for Football Conference (England) to be moved back there. Does that make sense? – Toon (talk)  01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I'll do that now. Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks. – Toon (talk)  01:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland UK border move
Please see my note about your closure. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out to me. The page is back at the last stable name. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisting uncontroversial moves
Hey, I just closed some move discussions that had been backlogged after you relisted them. The thing was, there had been no objections to the move (and there still hadn't been when I moved it). If there've been no objections at all, there's no reason to relist it. You only need to relist it if the discussion has stalled at no consensus from too little input. At least, that's my way of thinking. If there's a reason to relist those kind of requests that I'm missing, please let me know.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave Matthews quote
Do you know the source of the Dave Matthews quote on your user page? I'd love to use it in the book I am writing. (I saw it because we're both discussing danah boyd's page, and I check out most folks who I'm WP-involved with.) As a reminder, here's the quote: "Be careful of those who believe in a neat little world cause it's fuckin crazy, you know how it is." Bellagio99 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Went further searching on line and found the quote is from the ee hee song. But I can't find the copyright date, which is what scholars need, alas. Any ideas? Bellagio99 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not really sure it'd be easy to find the copyright. It wasn't released as a single until Sept. 2007 (according to Eh Hee), but it was played live for quite a while before that. You'd probably have to contact RCA Records to get the official copyright date. Unless of course the release date counts as the copyright date, as that was when it was "published". Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's good enough for me. I never expected that WP would have an article about it. There are 2 spellings: Eh Hee and Eee Hee, unless I am cross-eyed. But you've helped lots. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Amagi-class
Would you like to nominate it? :) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never made a nom at DYK. How exactly does that work? Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at T:TDYK and see what you think of the (convoluted) instructions there. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems simple enough, but I can't think of anything very "hook-y". Any suggestions? Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this:
 * "... that the Amagi-class battlecruiser of battlecruisers was slated to be scrapped according to the Washington Naval Treaty, but a special exception sought by the US delegation saved the Akagi, a later participant in the attack on Pearl Harbor?"
 * Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...just noticed this. I suck as a TPS'er... :) Sorry... — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, not everyone can all be as good as Pianista and me, right? :p Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha exactly. :) Anyway...on to expanding "Background", like I said I was gonna do half-an-hour ago... — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, back to work. I was going to pick up where you left off, seeing as I've got Conway's too, but I got distracted too :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the move of "SScreen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series". I felt like an idiot. There is an editor who made a bunch of ill-advised moves and others have sorted out most of it, but I was trying to clean up the remainder and apparently had a brain cloud. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. We all make mistakes from time to time, and pretty much anything on Wiki can be fixed. Glad to be of help! Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)

 * Oh snap, that was unexpected! I wonder who nom-ed it? Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Aboutmovies nommed it. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. I should probably give him a barnstar, eh? Parsecboy (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a thank-you template. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the DYK medal would be appropriate :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

←FA (check), DYK (check}, GA (?). Do you have one, if so, you qualify for this: WP:CROWN. -MBK004 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually was I was shooting for with the Amagi class battlecruiser. SMS Moltke (1910) is up for GA right now, so that should be the last piece soon enough. Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the Moltke and have placed it on hold, Parsec. Skinny87 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Skinny. I saw that earlier, and made corrections to the article in line with your suggestions. Can you take a look and see what still needs to be done? Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Skinny! How could you! That was going to be my second project tonight... :)
 * ........ — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can always make additional comments/suggestions...we wouldn't want you to feel left out ;-) Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a user

 * With apologies for showing lack of knowledge on a matter, but (see User talk:Anthony Appleyard), if I feel that it is necessary, am I allowed to block a user by myself, or does there have to be an AfD-type formal discussion or request for it somewhere? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, if an editor is blatantly violating core policies (BLP, NPA, violating copyrights, etc.) you can go ahead and block him/her. Usually I'd recommend at least one warning before blocking, and it should be strongly worded enough to convey that if the poor behavior doesn't change quickly, a block will be issued. Although, it looks like Mo0 already indef blocked AKR619, so I guess you can file this under "future reference". Of course, it'd be improper to block someone with whom you've been involved (i.e., an editing dispute), even if they are clearly damaging the project. In those situations, it's best to file a report at WP:ANI and let another admin take care of it. I hope that was helpful. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check the moves by MRDU08
The User:MRDU08 has made several moves again that, for me, are jokes or vandalism. I corrected some of them before but now I cannot remember how to undo a move. Some of those articles are Benemérita de San Cristóbal and Trinidad Sánchez Nagua; those are not real names of cities here in the Dominican Republic. Please read the talk pages on those articles and undo the moves. --Pepemar2 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted the two you listed, the Constanza article, and another that was a copy-paste move. Can you clarify where Villa Mella needs to go? Also, does Colón Insular Region need to be moved? Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes; I used to undo those moves but because it is something that you do not do everyday, I forgot how to do it. There is another city: Santa Bahía de Pedernales, another incorrect name. Villa Mella is ok with minor errors that can be corrected. But Colón Insular Region is a very interesting case; it is in the mind of its creator and it has never existed, and with flag and coat of arms! Because of cases like this, I have my doubts on the flags of provinces and municipalities but I do not want to delete them because I am not completely sure if they exist or not. Thanks again. --Pepemar2 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultranationalism
I agree with you completely about the threat ultranationalism poses to the reliability and integrity of Wikipedia. While the media, and thus common discussions & conventional wisdom, continue to talk about vandalism and the like as the chief problems with Wikipedia, people fight tooth and nail for their nationalistic version of events to be represented as the right one. An international forum like this one, where people are quite literally arguing over what version of history is true, brings out all the nationalistic rhetoric, all the inter-cultural hatreds and institutionalized lies that we all are raised to believe in by our respective cultures or countries.

Vandals can be dealt with quickly and easily; hordes of nationalistic zealots seeking to represent their version of events and screaming bloody murder (or racism, or whatever) when you disagree... that's much harder to fight.

Thanks for your contributions. If you need any further help with Japanese translations, romanizations, or history questions, please feel free to ask; I'd be happy to help best as I can. LordAmeth (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Peiper photo
Dear Sir, I see you changed a tag on the image Peiper202.jpg... Unfortunately, this image is not protected under the Hoffmann tag!! It was not made by Hofmann, or for Hoffmann - it did however appeared in Hoffmann's publication which leads to confusion about its copyright. The copyright is owned by an individual who did not give Wikipedia permission to use it. Please remove the image at once. If you wish to use the photo in the future, I will be happy to ask the copyright holder to grant you a permission to use it here. Regards, Jill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.56.71 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually just restored the image to the licensing information that it had when it was uploaded (compare with the original version). If you can provide evidence of who actually holds the copyright, I'll be more than happy to delete the image; copyright violations have no place here on Wikipedia. Thanks Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can find all the necessary info in Agte's Jochen Peiper: Commander, Panzerregiment Leibstandarte. I can tell you that the owner of the images initiated many successful lawsuits over the past several years because his images were published without permission... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.56.71 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you type in the photograph credit from the book, please? It's 21:00 EST here, so I can't exactly run to a library or anything :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Amagi class battlecruiser

 * — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I'll be around for the next 6 hours or so to make any changes the reviewer suggests. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Move request
Hello! I need an administrator to help me with a non-controversial move :) Archduchess Anna of Austria redirects to Anna of Tyrol. Anna of Tyrol is never referred to as Archduchess Anna of Austria and certainly isn't known as such. However, another article - Anna of Austria (1528–1590) - is entitled to be called Archduchess Anna of Austria per naming conventions and per common name. Furthermore, if we move Anna of Austria (1528–1590) to Archduchess Anna of Austria, there would be no unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. I am sure that nobody would oppose the move. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I moved the article as you requested. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

486
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=486&oldid=263436573 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC


 * Do you have any evidence that the computer processor is the primary topic? When I hear the number, I think of RU-486 (I've never heard of the Intel chip). Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the naming convention for dates and numbers. In fact, the naming convention specifically uses the situation involving the year 386 and the Intel 80386 chip as an example, which is an exact parallel to this situation.  If you would like to change the convention, please bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.--Aervanath (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't mind any TPSing going on, especially if they can point out the relevant guidelines. It appears the current situation in accordance with the naming conventions. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment of Tom Stevenson
It seems you performed a strange treatment of the move request of Tom Stevenson (author). It was very quick to lock it up, and by "counting 4-2" you can't have looked deeply into the last opinion which (not very clearly, but still) expressed an opinion in favor of the request. So no, 5-1 if you must count votes, and it clearly against consensus to make the inital move to begin. Please take a moment to rethink. M URGH  disc.  04:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthony stated that he thought we should leave the plain name the dab page (and by doing so, keeping Tom Stevenson where it was at (author). However, given Aervanath's comment below, I will move the page back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revisiting the issue. What I referred to, and what I felt was implicit in the Anthony Appleyard comment was the identical situation of keeping a Thomas Stephenson DAB page, while still allowing for a Tom Stephenson article. Cheers. M URGH   disc.  15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not afraid of revisiting decisions I've made. I guess we've just interpreted Anthony's comment differently. It's not really an issue worth seeking clarification from him, since the page move has been resolved. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I didn't come here through my talk page stalking, but because I closed Talk:Thomas_Stevenson, which was also a case of reversing an undiscussed move made by User:Protocop. In that case, it was a clear consensus to revert. I would recommend that Tom Stevenson (author) also be reverted back to the prior stable name, considering the majority was not in favor of the initial move.  Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)