User talk:Stemonitis/Archive17

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 4 2007 and August 1 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Premature closure?
Hi, with regards to Talk:World%27s_largest_airlines, I do get the impression that it was closed a tad too prematurely, and especially considering only two comments were recorded.--Huaiwei 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Usual practice is to close after five days unless discussion is particularly vigorous. In this case, nothing had been said for several days, and I see no reason to believe that any more would have been said had it been left for longer. Dekimasu's suggestion of list of airlines by size seems the best alternative, and that title is unoccupied, meaning that anyone could move an article there. --Stemonitis 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Tags like NPOV belong on top so that when someone comes along and sees the article, they're more likely to fix it up. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously believe that having a page and a half-long list of what's wrong with an article will get people interested? These editorial tags should not be allowed to dominate the encyclopaedia and should probably not be on the article at all, since that's at least partly what talk pages are for. An unobtrusive reminder that an article is missing something might be reasonable, but sticking a vast series of largely redundant boxes at the top of an article (which some people seem strangely keen to do) doesn't really help. If only all the people who liked to do that sort of thing could spend the same time improving articles instead, Wikipedia could be considerably better than it already is. --Stemonitis 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just doing what I thought was the norm, that's all. Also, I haven't read those books, so I can't do much else about that article.  Kwsn (Ni!) 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Default sorting
If the majority of the categories don't use the # sorting then # shouldn't be the default. The # should be put on those lines in which it is specifically used and the rest should be allowed to sort by the standard digit. Otto4711 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the others, it doesn't matter. In all the ones where it matters, the # is standard. The simplest (and thus best) solution is to sort with a #. --Stemonitis 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Hi, You have shifted Rekha to an incomplete list. What does it mean? I don't really understand. Her real name is Rekha Ganesan, but she is known as Rekha everywhere. Even here on Wikipedia all the articles of her films, all the articles where she is mentioned somehow, all of them, all as one - credit her as Rekha. You can also see that at IMDb.comm and in every other net source. Please help to redirect the page. Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This means that although the request has been added to WP:RM, there is no place for discussion at Talk:Rekha Ganesan. Since the page was moved in good faith by another editor, no move of that article can be considered uncontroversial, so a period of dicsussion should be allowed in order to build and determine consensus. Once a discussion area is set up (steps 1 & 2 at WP:RM), the request can be moved to a dated section and move forward. --Stemonitis 06:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor who moved the page wasn't an established user in Wikipedia. Moreover, he is not here anymore (User:Prince Godfather]], who has been blocked, if I'm not wrong). The same user moved the page of Sridevi to Sridevi Kapoor, while both Rekha and Sridevi are known by their first name. You can look over all the net sources she appears in. It's not fair. Let's take Shakira for example. We can't move her page to Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll just because it's her real name. Her stage name is Shakira, and that's how it should be here. Believe me, no-one prefers Rekha Ganesan over Rekha. It's just that Rekha is her name since 1970 to date. No-one never called her Rekha Ganesan. I know that for a fact. No-one would object this redirect if you moved the page again. It was just a case that one user got confused and thought that we have to give full names. And by the way, it will take a really long time to set up a discussion. Most of the users who worked on this page are absent. In India, all as one, know her as Rekha. Even at IMDb.com you don't see Rekha Ganesan in the Alternative Names section. Best regards-- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  11:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Old City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thanks. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moves
Why did you move all those pages involving names when it was clear that it was contested? TJ Spyke 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They were not contested under any Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:NCP is clear that initials are to be separated with a single point and a single space. The only argument proferred against it was a personal dislike for the format, which is no argument at all. --Stemonitis 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Bock
I could use some advice. You've removed the speedy delete tag as this is "not an attack page". I wondered at the time if it was the right tag but it nevertheless seemed to violate WP:LIVING and, in real-life, as a journalist I'd never run copy like that without much better sources. To my mind, the article needed reviewing. How should I tag such a page? Or should I ignore it? R OGER  TALK 09:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Paris Metropolitan Area template
I understand the reason for your revert, but I intended to clean up the redirects afterwards - this template is not so referred-to. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, it is rather linked to. Still, I'm willing to do the cleanup afterwards if the template is in its proper place. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The critical point here is that the title (page name) of a template is almost entirely irrelevant, being only a mnemonic. They almost never need to be moved. It could be at Template:Paris1176423k, or Template:Froggy_capital_splurge_places without affecting the reader's experience of the encyclopaedia. There is no need to create a situation in which the work you propose to do is necessary. Argue about the visible text as much as you like — that is visible and should be correct, but the name of the template is of no consequence. --Stemonitis 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the name would affect a search for that template, but okay, that is a relitively minor point. Understood. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  08:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rekha again. Please read.
Hi again. Sorry to disturn you but the issue of Rekha's redirect is a bit tire some. I gave enough explanations and all of them are sufficiently good. I don't really understand the reason for which you can't redirect it. This page has been abandoned since long. I always tried to redirect and only now turned for your help. There is no one who calls her Rekha Ganesan and no-one would object if you removed this. One more thing is that I'm not so sure whether her name is really Ganesan. There is no source for that. It was her father's last name, but she didn't know him at all. She just saw him three-four times in all her life. That's why she never ysed this name. I repeat, there is no source for that, and it's probably untrue. Isn't it enough good reason? BTW, my debate on her talk page is has only one result. I turned to User:Grenavitar who is an administrator and he also agrees with me. There is no other user. All of the users who worked on this page left Wikipedia and now are in Wikibreak. It can take ages until the page will be redirected to its original title version, as it acually should be. Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so so much:)! Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Moves
I noticed that you had deleted some requests on Requested Moves after I made the moves. I had just struck out the moves and noted that they were done. What is the protocol after a move is accomplished? Is the moving editor supposed to just delete the request from the page? I looked around for instructions on the procedure but I found nothing. I am a new admin and I don't know all the procedures yet. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Once they've been done, we delete them from WP:RM. Because of its size and the length of its edit history, WP:RM does not make a useful archive of move discussions, so there's no point in preserving discussions there after a move has been made. The same applies to uncontroversial moves and to contested or incomplete requests which have not been converted into full requests in five days (i.e. those which have "lapsed"). In this last case, it's always worth checking that there isn't a move tag on the relevant talk page to be removed. I'm trying to think if there are any other non-obvious aspects to the set-up. I can't think of any, but possibly there are, so do ask if you've got any other questions. --Stemonitis 06:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I suggest we add a paragraph to the Requested Moves page with instructions for admins or others performing a move. Such a paragraph would say basically what you said above, perhaps slightly condensed. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would warn against cluttering up WP:RM too much with information that is not useful to the average user. The aort of thing you suggest would be better placed at Moving guidelines for administrators, which you may have overlooked. That text is quite old, and there are probably many thing which could be added to it. It pre-dates the installation of the "incomplete / contested" section, for instance. --Stemonitis 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct: I did not find that page previously. That pretty much covers it. Sometimes finding info on Wikipedia procedures can be difficult. I wish there were some sort of master index. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis -- related to this subject-- you deleted the requested move for the article "Jew" within 12 hours. I believe the wiki policy is several days, in order to generate discussion/consensus? I was a little annoyed that my request was taken down so soon and prior to my being able to rebut the people who were opposed. Thewebthsp 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no (complete) request was made. It is not enough to put a notice on the talk page of the article in question; the request should be "advertised" at WP:RM to alert other people who may not be watching the article to it and give them the chance to express an opinion. If there was so much opposition to the move in so short a time, you might consider that a full request is also likely to be opposed similarly strongly. This is, however, just advice, and if you do wish to try to have the page moved, then, provided you follow the full procedure, your request will be considered just like all the others. --Stemonitis 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite reasonable. Actually I did make a full request, including advertising it on WP:RM.  Unfortunately Anthony Appleyard deleted it within a few hours.  I have messaged him about this -- no fault of your own here.  I am a newbie.  Thewebthsp 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete request move
My recent move request was deleted because apparently it was incomplete. I little more explanation would be nice because I really don't understand what I did wrong. --DocNox 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just read the disscussion above me and it seems the same thing happend. User:Anthony_Appleyard deleted it off of WP:RM. --DocNox 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like this was an accident on Anthony Appleyard's part, and he has now restored the requests which got lost. --Stemonitis 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

JPA
Hi, I noticed you deleted an article on Joint Personnel Administration (I wasn't the author btw), I was just wanting to ask why before I started writing a new one, only to have it deleted again! Lol! LookingYourBest 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That article was deleted under criterion G10 for speedy deletion, meaning that it was attack page. The previous version claimed that JPA was run by people who "know nothing..." and that it was "rubbish". Any impartial, well-sourced article about the same topic which demonstrates its notability will not be deleted. --Stemonitis 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your quick reply, I'll try my best to source the article properly. LookingYourBest 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now had a go at creating a balanced page with regards to Joint Personnel Administration. It is, as most wikipedia pages, a work in progress, but I was wondering if you could take a look over it and give me any comments and suggestions (I'm quite new to this!)
 * Many Thanks --LookingYourBest 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given it the once-over, and it all looks OK. As I expected, there's no way an article like the one you've written could be speedily deleted. Well done. --Stemonitis 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that! I expect it will be the source of much vandalism, but that's half the fun of it! lol!
 * Thanks again --LookingYourBest 12:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Longlevi comment
With regard to your comment on the above, Longlevi was not just a sock. He was a sock of a banned user. So he was not entitled to edit, post a question, and have it up there the next time he comes in as a sock (this is the 2nd time Tecmo used a sock ... which is part of why he was banned). I think that is relevant. Your point that others may benefit from it is the reason we only raise the issue, but do not delete his entry.--Epeefleche 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is petitio ad personam. Banning a user prevents them from making future edits, but does not mean his previous edits can or should be removed. I'm sure User:Longlevi has done lots of bad things, but tagging every contribution of his with a sock-puppetry notice is tantamount to persecution. His question at Template talk:DEFAULTSORT was a reasonable one and I believe it to have been in good faith. I see no advantage in adding any information about the account there, even if it has been banned indefinitely. --Stemonitis 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marge D'Wylde
A template has been added to the article Marge D'Wylde, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an article into which I have invested any great effort, and its future interests me little. I correct the indexing on hundreds of articles; no doubt several dozen of them are not actually notable. --Stemonitis 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Princess V.A
You forgot to move the page :-) Talk:Princess_Victoria_Alexandra_of_the_United_Kingdom Charles 03:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So I did. Sorry about that. I was rushing a bit to try and clear the backlog; WP:RM had swollen up to 40 kB in the couple of days when I wasn't editing. I have now moved it — thanks for reminding me. --Stemonitis 05:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to thank me! Thanks for moving it. Charles 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical Q
In this edit I am trying to understand what is taking place. Can you explain the purpose of adding that above the categories, and is it something I should do whenever I make an article? --SevenOfDiamonds 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See {&#123;DEFAULTSORT}}. Biographical articles need to be sorted in categories by surname, rather than the page title (which typically begins with the forenames). There is further information at Categorization of people. In general, yes, it is something that should be done on all articles where the desired sort key is not the same as the page title, which will be the case for most biographical articles. --Stemonitis 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That Metal Slug thing...
Not meaning to bug you, just thought I'd tell you that I responded to you on Talk:Metal Slug 1st Mission as to my reasons for moving it. The template thing was poorly phrased, what I meant was that it should be moved because the template contains the official title, "Metal Slug: 1st Mission", and I would think that the article should be using the official title. Sorry if I'm just being stupid, and please correct me if I'm wrong.  Lychosis  T / C  20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a good enough reason, but the evidence would need to be presented that that really is the official title, and ideally also that common usage is to follow the official version. --Stemonitis 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... would a screenshot be considered proof? Or, um, box art?  Lychosis   T / C  20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume the makers have a website, and that the products have been discussed in (online) magazines. That ought to be enough to demonstrate what the official title is, and that it really is used. --Stemonitis 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's sort of an old game for a handheld that wasn't so popular, so far as I know, so I think it'd be hard to find a mention of it in something like that. I think I'm just gonna drop this, as I'm looking around on the internet and there doesn't seem to be any single way of putting it down.  Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point in me continuing.  Thanks for your time.  :x   Lychosis   T / C  21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Carers and caregivers
Probably a fight neither of us wants to be a part of, but your no-consensus close of the requested move from Voluntary caregiver to Carers has been disputed and the page has been moved unilaterally again - for the fourth time now, I believe. Dekimasu よ! 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MAS - Bolivia
I don't see why the request for the move of the MAS article should be dropped. There had been a discussion on the naming of it, and the recent move went against that discussion. It ought to be up to the editor wishing to move an article in contradiction to the result of a previous discussion to initiate a new debate, not those retaining the result of the previous discussion. --Soman 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an unfortunate consequence of the current system. Note that I'm not against such a move request, but it has to go through the usual channels, which means all three steps at WP:RM (tagging, advertising, discussing). A two-year-old consensus does not have much bearing on the current title (WP:CCC). --Stemonitis 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, is there any block for me to put up a new request? None of the editors in the previous discussions seems to have noticed that last request i put up. --Soman 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, part of the problem may have been that there wasn't really a place to discuss the last (partial) request. It may well be that no-one says anything in the next five days (after the request is made), in which case, the move will be made, but at least others will have the opportunity, at the minimal cost of five days' wait. Alternatively, there is a case to be made for boldness; the redirect at Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) (and its talk page) still has a single-line history, so any editor (yourself included) could move it back. Particularly given the recent history of the article, this is certainly justifiable (WP:BRD). --Stemonitis 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sean McCafferty. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Blueboy96 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
Is there a reason for it to be small-case? GDonato (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * More importantly, is there a reason for it not to be? "Contribs" is not capitalised in edit histories, and nor has "block" been for most of the time. It was changed yesterday without discussion (at least none that I'm aware of), and I merely put it back the way it was. It has only ever said "Block" rather than "block" for a total of about 20 hours since May 2004, and everybody has seemed OK with it for that time. It would be reasonable if "Talk" were also decapitalised to match "contribs" and "block"; please let me know if you're planning to discuss this further. --Stemonitis 10:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for doing the proper citation format on William Deresiewicz. Did you use an automated program, or was it by hand? I find those things very irritating! Formulafiftypoet 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, all done by hand. It is indeed irritating, but I don't know of any better way. I suppose you just get used to it. My fingers are pretty adept at typing "&#123;{cite web |url=" now! --Stemonitis 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BMI
bmi is not an acronym, therefore your argument was completely flawed. I do field work as a mystery assessor for the airline and can tell you that pilots would even get told off if they ever say British Midlands instead of bmi. I am quite dissapointed that you passed off this article rename as uncontroversial, when obviously it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.20.21 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, that's a marketing question, and is covered by WP:MOSCAPS, making it relatively uncontroversial. At Wikipedia, we do not allow the whims of marketing departments to obscure our adherence to good English spelling, grammar and punctuation. "BMI", whatever its current status, derives from an initialism, and continues to be treated as such (it is pronounced bee emm eye, not b'mee, for instance). All of this is covered at WP:MOS and WP:NC among other places. --Stemonitis 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with writing article
Can you help me with writing the article Mountain pink? I started the article, but I don't know much information about the plant. Emanla Eraton 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did try to find some more information, but it's difficult without a scientific name (Latin name). Even some idea about where the picture was taken would help to narrow it down. One website says that "mountain pink" is an outmoded name for Cheddar pink (i.e. Dianthus gratianopolitanus). If that were the case, then there should be plenty to write about it, and I'll gladly help out. --Stemonitis 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I am very inclined to say it is Dianthus armeria. In which any case, I could just delete this article. Emanla Eraton 12:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Adrian Bunk
An article that you have been involved in editing, Adrian Bunk, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Adrian Bunk. Thank you. -- mms 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott James Remnant
An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott James Remnant, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Scott James Remnant. Thank you. -- mms 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources
This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Move request for biff
The move request for Biff has been posted for more than a week and you and I are the only persons who have commented. Would you object if I moved Biff (disambiguation) to Biff and moved Biff back to Biff (computing)? &#9679;DanMS • Talk 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles
Hi Stemonitis,

I've brought up a policy issue for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here. May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard.

BTW, WikiProject Lepidoptera has a userbox which you may like to add to your webpage! Regards, AshLin 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I request you once again for your valuable input? REgards, AshLin 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you were busy with other activities and other wikiprojects. I have placed a proposed scheme for deciding importance of articles on the Project talk page. I do hope you have not forgotten this small Wikiproject and will continue your association with it. Regards, AshLin 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen move debate
I closed the move request for Eisack → Isarco (discussion) because no consensus had been reached after 12 days. Almost immediately I had a request to reopen the debate. (See my talk page.) I told the requester that I would reopen the move request discussion if a couple of other admins agreed that it should be reopened. Do you agree the debate should be opened again? &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In a word: no. These Südtirol requests have got a bit out of hand in the past, and the people involved are now so deeply entrenched that consensus is almost never going to occur. I took part in a couple of early discussions but soon realised that it led only to frustration. That's no reason not to try, of course, and I don't criticise those who made the recent move request, but, largely as expected, there was no consensus, and it doesn't look likely that one will be found if it is given longer — 12 days is already exceptionally long. I think you did exactly right in closing it as having reached no consensus. With almost all really contentious moves, one side or other will complain to the closing admin., and it's just something you have to learn to live with. You must have courage in your convictions, and learn to ignore or deflect the comments from those editors who have been over-ruled and are understandably irked. --Stemonitis 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good advice. I will keep it in mind in the future. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 15:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for restoring my user page to its proper location. It is most appreciated. Resolute 14:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let me know if User:SilverMichael tries anything else, and I'll slap his wrist accordingly. --Stemonitis 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reopened?
Hi there. has re-opened the discussion around moving the page Palestinian people to Palestinians, restored only the second part of the discussion (omitting the first part where at least three other editors besides myself express their reservations and opposition to the move) and accusing the admin who closed the move proposal of bad faith. What is the best course of action in your opinion? Thanks.  T i a m a t  18:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I'm the closing admin., I'm probably not the best person to ask. I insist that I was acting in good faith, but I doubt that GHcool will be swayed by that insistence. The whole debate was very combative and ill-tempered, and I find it very unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached by those methods, so I find it particularly unlikely that "re-opening" the debate will achieve anything more than wasting time and causing frustration. As far as everyone else is concerned, and a request was made, a debate was opened, conducted, and after the allotted time, closed. Palestinians has a non-trivial history, so an admin. is needed to make any such move anyway. GHcool (or anyone else) would have his work cut out getting the article moved, and it would need a different style of consensus building. There are often individuals who take the outcomes of move requests badly; sometimes it is necessary simply to ignore them and allow the debate to die down of its own accord. It would not be inappropriate for you to note on that talk page that the copied discussion is incomplete, but try not to be drawn in to any acrimony. --Stemonitis 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I did note that the discussion was only partially restored and that the accusation against you failed to AGF. Someone has now restored the first part of the discussion where the views of other editors against the move are recorded. The debate now unfortunately continues in much the same circular fashion it did before. (People are just repeating the same arguments and I have refrained from participating further in that discussion.) It just seems to me to be a little unfair. As you noted, the discussion has gone on for some time already and the repeated reposts seem to be an attempt to win by tiring people out. But c'est la vie I guess, eh? Anyway, thanks again.  T i a m a t  14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I think the Talk:Palestinian people might need some admin attention. The name change thing is like an energizer bunny. I have tried to refrain from participating, but it seemed to need some intervention after a reopening of the poll and the placement of comments made over the course of discussion there (selectively to begin with). Could you or another admin take a look and see if you have any suggestions on what to do or where to go from here? Thanks.  T i a m a t  19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From a WP:RM admin's point of view, what's going on may be all well and good, but it's not a move request, and if someone expects us to move the page because of a pre-existing consensus, we'll tend to suggest it be opened up for five days, just to make sure. Since this is no different from opening a new request from scratch, any pre-existing debate would be relatively irrelevant. Move requests are not decided by voting, and no new arguments appear to have arisen, so it doesn't look likely that any new attempt at consensus-building will fare better than the previous ones. Without the full procedure at WP:RM, I won't move it, and I doubt that the other admins will, either (but I can't guarantee it). There's no obligation on anyone to use WP:RM for page moves, but it's one of the best ways of requesting admin. assistance and it's quite likely that any request will go through that channel. Assuming that, it's safe for you to withdraw from the debate, knowing that you'll get another chance to voice your concerns before any move is made. --Stemonitis 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Eumalacostraca
I would like you to take a look at the discussion of merging Eumalacostraca with Malacostraca, please. Thank you. --Crustaceanguy 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiev vote close
I think I'm correct in saying that you closed the vote on Talk:Kiev. But the only closed part is the random commentary text at the bottom, with the actual votes appearing still to be open. I'm not sure everyone will realize the vote has been closed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. My mistake. I'll shift them to the right place. --Stemonitis 18:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for move to Kyiv from Kiev
Hello,

As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I was wondering about your comment. Does this mean that the discussion is officially closed, or just that section is closed.

Thanks, Horlo 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The intention was to stave off further debate on the highly contentious and long-running question of Ukrainian-derived spelling v. Russian-derived spelling. I was acting slightly outside the established procedure, but the debates have been had over and over before, and the general consensus after all those debates is that "Kiev" is the more widely-used spelling in English, much as that may irk Ukrainians. In cases like this, to re-open a debate is to open a can of worms. If you are new to Wikipedia, then there are much better ways of spending your effort; many users have been put off by the acrimony present in these debates. Spend some time studying the policies and observing some other move requests of similarly contentious issues; carefully gather evidence in support of your claims; most of all, do not launch in with a move request, which will almost certainly just cause great annoyance to you and others. --Stemonitis 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. However, I must explain and disagree. First, the explanation about the request to move. As I am new, I did not know that it was such a big issue. It was actually suggested to my by another administrator, Alex Bakharev. I had approached him in hopes of finding the best way to settle this, and he suggested a request to move.

Second, I must disagree that it is useless to continue to debate this topic. I intentionally started this poll on Sunday night in hopes of reaching as many people as possible. If you examine my arguments, they are all based on current events, which may not have existed during the previous debates.

In this discussion/poll, however, I did notice that there was a clear trend - for the most part, it seemed that people from English speaking countries were willing to debate, and ask probing, yet well-meant questions. They were a pleasure to debate. There was a small group of editors, however, including deaconpdptziem, who just ranted with racist slurs about Ukraine having no history.

The change from Kyiv to Kiev is an on-going change, one that is happening now, and I feel that it is important. If it can bring out such bile in a group on Sunday night, how can it not be in need of resolution? I submit that the reason many users are put off is not because of the debate, but because of the tone of some editors.

I believe that I did present four researched, documented arguments. You will find them in the original request to move. Others have posted extensive sets of links on the discussion page, but some choose to ignore them.

Please let me know what you think,

Regards,

Horlo 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling other people "racist" is a personal attack, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is true, you must not make personal attacks. After all the time that the debate has raged, another few weeks will not make much difference. Take that time to familiarise yourself with our procedures and with the previous debates. --Stemonitis 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments. Where did I call other editors "racist"? If you look through the discussion, you will see that I am the one suffering the personal insults and attacks.

Thanks, Horlo 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Geoffrey Sampson
I have proposed the Geoffrey Sampson article, which I created a few weeks ago, for deletion. As you have edited it, I thought you might like to know. You may wish to comment here:. Regards, ElectricRay 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Must be my phat fingers. Cheers &mdash;Moondyne 08:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot
Hey, I noticed you blocked Polbot citing "category mayhem". What gives? – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found the thread here. Let's discuss there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have blocked Polbot because you didn't like how it was categorizing. But now you don't seem available to work through categorization questions. You haven't said what your concerns are specifically. It perfectly fine to block Polbot if you think I need to fix something on her, but let me know what you want changed -- don't just block her and leave. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Working on it. Give me a minute. I admit the timing was bad. --Stemonitis 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my impatience. I thought you were gone for the day. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, just called away for a while at the wrong time. --Stemonitis 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object, I'd like to unblock Polbot so she can work on the gastropods. (She had done about 50 gastropods about a week ago, and I've had time to get feedback from that Wikiproject.) I won't create anymore arthropod articles until you give the go-ahead. Is that fine with you? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. It should be done by the time you read this. --Stemonitis 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thusly
Hey, I just noticed an edit summary on a page I was watching, saying "thusly" isn't a word -however, just for the record, I think you'll find that thusly is a word that has the same meaning as thus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thusly - however there is a note that "Some speakers and writers regard thusly as a pointless synonym for thus," but hardly enough reason for an edit - that'd be like changing amercian / british spelling. I'm not going to revert you or anything, it's just my factoid of the day :D  --  daniel folsom  11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I summarised it poorly, perhaps, but since it means the same as "thus", there is no reason ever to use "thusly", which sounds atrocious anyway. The (limited) sample of usages in the OED (together with your link) suggests that it was chiefly a pretentious or flippant Americanism of the late 19th century, possibly arising from overcompensation and/or ignorance. That wasn't the point of the edit; just an improvement I made at the same time as something else. --Stemonitis 11:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)