User talk:Violetriga/archive7

Archive 7 – Posts from August to end of October 2005

AT rifle
What exactly is your idea? If you prefer to put 10 names for voting, then I'm not sure it's the best idea... Halibutt 14:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please just put down the names that you think are valid. Placing 10 names might give wider scope, but may deter voters.  violet/riga (t) 15:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of proposing a vote myself - so I slaute you getting started there. To avoid splitting the vote, I was going to suggest that the votes be tallied over the Polish Names and the English (or hybrid) names. Having made a choice then the most popular Englsih name could be slected. GraemeLeggett 14:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We could go for two rounds of voting, having a choice of English/Polish/hybrid and then selecting the name after that. I would worry a little about losing voter interest (the previous poll had very few votes), but then I don't know if an approval vote with so many options is such a wise idea.  No doubt it would be complicated by "first choice/weak support" votes and all that, too.  So yes, I think that a two-stage vote would be the best choice.  Hopefully it can start soon, too.  violet/riga (t) 14:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking again at the options, however, it might not be so easy to categorise them. violet/riga (t) 14:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone choses the categories as the topic of the voting, then he will at the same time end the voting. It's not about chosing English name over the Polish one or the other way around; it's about deciding whether the English name exists at all! Naming one of the options "English name" would end the voting, regardless of the right answer...

Your welcome
Good choice for a DYK. Stbalbach 13:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Help in speedy page move
Hi, I made a request 2 days ago for a page move in Requested_moves for the Current events in Malaysia and Singapore page, and it has yet to be effected. I would like to request your help in moving the page as soon as you can, as it is a time sensitive (and undisputable) move and we are already back dated by 2 days. I thank you in advance for your assistance! ;)--Huaiwei 09:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That was good timing - just came online. Sorted.  violet/riga (t) 09:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow...nontheless, I am certainly impressed by how speedy this move is. :D Thank you very much! ;)--Huaiwei 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the redirect copyediting of the Hong Kong history series. Btw, your user page looks appealing! :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks! violet/riga (t) 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
With all respect, I feel your assessment of the situation vis-a-vis the title of the article is incorrect, incomplete and inappropriate for the Wikipedia. The 'vote' is not the decision, it's intended to be a factor. The behavior of the original poster with regards to the vote was improper, if not illegal, and your change to the banner is most surprising of all, discouraging discussion is decidedly unusual for the Wikipedia. Thanks, and please help me understand what I see as erroneous decisionmaking on your part. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the topic has been discussed ad nauseum I think that it's time that people gave up on the name and look at other things. I understand your point of the vote not being the decision, but it certainly highlights the fact that there isn't a consensus to move away from the current title.  Perhaps the comment at the top could be reworded to better reflect the fact that the debates have gone on for quite a long time with the current title being the most preferred.  violet/riga (t) 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's just it - the current title is the one that has generated a lot of discussion, and a vote padded by lots of others who did not participate in discussion doesn't represent consensus. I really see/saw the process taking place on that page (where the original poster undoes any substantive title change) as decidedly anti-collaborative, and that the title issue really reflects whether an article as factless as that one belongs in the Wikipedia without an appropriate title. And each time it's been moved to a different title, no one has objected except the original poster, who each time moved it back to his chosen title. I am finding my confidence in the Wikipedia process greatly shaken with such politically-charged articles... when does truth factor in?


 * Because the entire article from the outset, has been a sea of allegations mitigated by bits of truth, hard-fought by those interested in the facts, and not propaganda. That article and the lack of resolution around the title, caused in part by a direct corruption of the process, represents some of the worst this medium has to offer. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The title has been in dispute for a long time, yes. While you may dispute the title, the process for moving it to a different title was under a vote which, quite clearly, was opposed.  Whether that vote was stuffed or biased is not something about which I can help, I'm afraid - I was purely going by numbers.  As far as I am aware from all the previous discussions, the current title is the best name that we have so far come up with.  By all means carry on with the discussions, but I suggest that people take a step back from discussions which are now bloated and are not likely to come up with any sound consensus.  violet/riga (t) 21:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand the logic of looking at the numbers and electing to keep the title 'status quo', and I don't impune your actions at all... but 'we' didn't come up with the name, the original poster did, and has successfully padded this vote to stave off even a renaming effort.
 * However, as you as an experienced editor/admin know, 'going on the numbers' is not at the heart of the way to establish a consensus. Currently, we are seeing the power of stonewall, not of consensus. I do believe we need to work to achieve an actual consensus about the name, because very compelling and pressing points have been raised in this dialogue regarding the inaccuracy and POV of the current title, that have successfully been ignored up until now, by allowing them to 'bloat up', while each title change is 'undone' by the original poster. I think we are where we are due to bad process and anticollaborative behavior not unique to one 'side', and not nearly due to 'community consensus'. In short, this 'non-decision', while facile, reeks. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Then my suggestion is to comment about this on WP:RFC after having come up with a structured (perhaps bulleted list) discussion regarding the naming. If you present the arguments in an simple way and head towards an approval vote (with quite a few different naming options) then you would have the best chance of getting a final decision.  violet/riga (t) 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the page move to Cloudesley Shovell
I have now updated all the old links. It is nice to get the spelling consistent. -- Op. Deo 20:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure is! No problem.  violet/riga (t) 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for finding that date for the Keira Knightley cover. :) Cookiecaper 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing 'vernix'. How embarrassing! --Maustrauser 08:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - Autism FAC
Thanks for making the autism page headings look better! I always wondered how to do that without the equal headers... -- Ryan Norton  T 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's quite alright - I'm just off to support the nomination too. Well done for all the work you've put into it, especially with regards to the speed with which you've responded to points raised at FAC.  violet/riga (t) 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my article!
--Jeanpol 17:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rollback
Why not? First, there's no policy, or even guideline, against its use, so far as I know. Secondly, I use it only when I'd not say anything more and possibly less) in the edit summary than it automatically generates. Thirdly, the vast majority of the reversions on these pop-music articles are of low-level vandalism (see the articles, see the discussion on AN/I, et alibi). --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We should never rollback unless to fight vandalism - ask at WP:AN if you don't believe what I'm saying. I don't really see it as vandalism, just a small-scale content dispute.  violet/riga (t) 17:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the tip on how to delete pages that for this reason or that had become no longer part of the Pachypodium project and needed deleting. I will look through a number of other pages that need deletion and apply your advice and help.

--Tim Winchester 09:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC) tdwin476

Naming Conventions
hello Violetriga,

we are having a naming discussion on Thai Royals. Maybe you can share some insight?  Since you have tried to help with solving some of these issues, maybe you´d care to take a look? with kind regards. Gryffindor 14:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Crazy frog
Violetriga, Hi. The material you've added to the lead paragraph of crazy Frog is almost exactly duplicated at Crazy_Frog. Was that intentional? brenneman (t) (c) 14:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The lead of an article, where possible, should summarise the rest of it and include all the key points.  The advertising of the Crazy Frog has been massively controversial, and it should really be mentioned at the start.  I also added in the Mobile phone content advertising link which discusses (will discuss) the advertising of ring tones in general, using the Crazy Frog as its main example.  violet/riga (t) 14:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, a cunning plan! That article is prone to bloating, but your edit seemed pretty sensible so I asked.  If you hadn't realized or thought about it...  And I can't get your name right in my head, the t keeps migrating into the second half - as in Viol(a) Triga.  brenneman (t) (c)  14:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha. Just use one or the other (violet or riga) - that's the easiest way.  I rarely put a space in there when I'm saying it myself, so I know what you mean!  Nice to see you monitoring an article so well though, so thanks for the inquiry.  violet/riga (t) 14:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi. Is there a Wikipedia page somewhere that talks about spelling conventions, i.e. American spelling or English spelling, or doesn't it matter? Thanks,  Fire Fox   16:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style (MoS) is the main style guide, with the National varieties of English section answering your question. The basic rule is that whichever is used first is the one to stick with unless it is an obvious choice (such as United States being in American English).  It's quite a contentious issue though, with articles such as Yoghurt having endless debates about its spelling.  violet/riga (t) 17:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.  Fire Fox   17:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help
Hi, you seem like an expert, so I was wondering if you could help with my proto-user box for Babel for users who can speak "Townie" or Massachusetts English (eg. "Pahk Yah Cah In Hahvahd Yahd..."), here's what I have so far, but I was was wondering how to make it so I could get something that people can type in brackets to get my box in there like or. Template talk was no help, I was wondering if you could give some advice. Karmafist 21:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It would appear I was a little too late seeing this - I think your question has been answered. Hope so, and if not then just let me know.  violet/riga (t) 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Poke
poke &rarr;Raul654 00:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Call of the Simpsons
In September, you added to The Call of the Simpsons that it was "the first shown in the UK". If you meant the first shown on BBC Two, then it's incorrect, as this was There's No Disgrace Like Home. If you meant the first shown on Sky One, then I would have assumed that this was Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, though I don't know for sure (I suppose it could have been Call Of The Simpsons, though it wouldn't have made much sense). Which channel did you mean? BillyH 05:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It sure was The Call of the Simpsons first shown in the UK and it was on Sky One. I really don't know why, but perhaps they thought that it screen-tested better than other episodes and thought it best to start on a good one.  violet/riga (t) 10:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, that clears that up. Thanks! BillyH 10:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the instructions
VfD notices belong on article pages, not talk-pages Violetriga, please red the instructions on Vfd and revert yourself. You should know better. I do not think your edit was in good faith.--Fenice 21:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I never placed it on the talk page, I just removed it. Your VFD is in bad faith and has been deleted as a WP:POINT. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been a similar case of a policy being put on VfD and being deleted. Do not kid yourself violetriga, you know perfectly well that your removal of a legitimate Vfd is in bad faith. I won't ask you if you are embarrassed again. You are here for editwarring and being useless, you just don't have the decency to be embarrassed. I also don't know what you are so scared about. If you so firmly believe this page has community consensus it would survive Vfd, don't you think? I find your removal of Vfd absolutely ridiculous. No try and argue with a straight face that your pack attack on the Idrive was on the subject matter and not to get me out. Also, for your aggression problem I sincerely recommend you seek couselling. It has been going on for a while and you are costing Wikipedia enormous amounts of money. Think about what you could do with your time without your aggression problem. Think about what all the users you chased away could be doing for Wikipedia. --Fenice 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but most of this is just bizarre paranoia. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello...
I'd just like to say a few things. First, I absolutely love your user and talk pages. I may have to pattern mine after yours. I hope you don't mind. :)

Second, regarding Fenice... I'm surprised that some people can get so defensive so quickly. I guess I'm just used to calm and rational people, but considering the base of people who edit and use Wikipedia, I should expect different. I'm a new user here, and I've been slowly getting used to how Wikipedia works. Fenice's reaction today caught me off guard, and I am more than a little astounded by his reactions.

Anyhow, cool looking page, and maybe I'll see you later on. :) Syrae Faileas 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It really is a shame that he can't focus his attention away from talk pages and contribute properly. Thanks for the comments about my page - I'm happy with it!  violet/riga (t) 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and talking behind my back. We are having really calm and rational people around here. Hmhm.--Fenice 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mmm... behind your back? Not really.  I knew you were looking at this page.  I was talking to Violetriga, though, so I did not address it to you. As I said Fenice, I do not understand what you are getting all worked up about.  Frankly it mystifies me.  If you wish, you can come over to my talk page and explain why this has you so upset.  I am curious to see your point of view.  So far, a majority of the posts seem to be accusations versus extensive and explicit rationale.  If you want to talk about it, then please feel free to come over to my talk page.  :) Heck, if you want to flame me, feel free to do that on my talk page as well.  No need to clutter up Violetriga's talk page with heated words! Syrae Faileas 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My user-page
Please dig up some decency and stop vandalizing my user-page.--Fenice 22:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop making personal attacks and false accusations against me. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And I have not made a single personal attack against you. I am just not surprised at another lie...--Fenice 22:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me where I have been "edit-warring". violet/riga (t) 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
Violetriga, I have been trying to archive the talk page for about an hour now and just found out that you were reverting this!? Are you out of your mind? So you answered yourself the question on whether you are edit-warring. i do know that from your perspective this is fun. Still your victims can identify it as edit-warring.--Fenice 22:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is edit-warring. However, you added the comment about my edit-warring way before any such activities.  Talk pages are not archived until at the very least a week has gone - not a few minutes.  violet/riga (t) 22:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Another bullying rule then invented by violetriga. I know it is recommended to talk to a bully to make him aware. You have heard everything I could tell you on that score thousands of times before and it has not sunk into your brain. But that is what people are trying to tell you all the time in case you were wondering: get a grip on yourself. Try to be constuctive. Try to stop disrupting other users. --Fenice 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk page guidelines and How to archive a talk page. violet/riga (t) 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We're at the lying business again, poor thing. Read Talk page guidelines and How to archive a talk page. Or better yet create some more of your sick instruction creep and install the one week rule. Do try to stop disrupting other users. --Fenice 23:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio You?!
Hi there, nothing bad has happened yet, but I thought you would like to know about this new user User:Vio\etriga. Its a sockpuppet of User:172.174.64.78 Something to do with the VfD?

- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that - I'm guessing you're right about it being to do with the VfD. I've blocked that account.  violet/riga (t) 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * um, no, I was just bringing the sock puppet to your attention, that thing could have layed in wait for who knows how long before striking, this way: you get alerted, and the sock goes away--172.174.64.78 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Then thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 22:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

T for Template
...apparently I missed a few, which are nominated now. Please comment on WP:TFD. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page "temporary fix"
What's the purpose of this, exactly?--Pharos 10:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I saw your note on Talk:Main Page. This is curious...--Pharos 10:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Images
Have we turned you into a budding photographer following the request at Penda of Mercia? -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to contribute more to the images here, but generally don't find enough interesting ones. There were plenty of opportunities at the cathedral though, and it was fun taking some shots.  violet/riga (t) 11:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well my own problem is that I'm technologically a complete Luddite and don't know how to download images from the camera. Otherwise I'd be out every weekend contributing to the images here... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 11:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My lovely HP R707 is so easy to use - just plug it in and it basically does it all for you. You don't even need a computer to print, as the printer I have connects directly to the camera and allows you to adjust everything then print it.  Nice when technology actually works well!  violet/riga (t) 11:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

'Led Zeppelin' entry
Hello,

I really admire the 'Led Zeppelin' entry. The paragraph about 'covers & samples' is quite interesting and complete. To further extend it, I thought I'd just point out that the song 'Rock & Roll' was used in The Sopranos.

hel-ter@pandora.be

Talk:Natalie and Nicole Albino
Heloo Violet/riga, How are you doing? I believe that I've never had the pleasure of writing to you before. The situation is this, I wrote the Biography focused principly on Natalie and Nicole Albino, the majority of my articles are bios related to Puerto Rican people. Someone had written an article focused on the band Nina Sky. Eventually, my version of the article was pasted in Nina Sky and the redirects started and so on and so fourth. Since there were two different but, similar articles we find ourselves with two diferent history pages. If the article was redirected to Nina Sky or whatever, the main concern would be the merging of the two history pages so, that nobody's contributions are left out. Do I make any sense? I know about your answering policy, but could you please make an exemption this time and drop me a note (sometimes I'm so absentminded)? I will respect your opinion on this issue. Tony the Marine 05:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Templates_for_deletion
Hello! I replied to you on Templates_for_deletion. I don't mind people making large stacks of work for themselves if they seriously feel up to it. You realize you'll have to now watch that template like a hawk, right? Ah well, not my problem anymore. :-P Have fun! *evil grin* Kim Bruning 19:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you about the Natalie and Nicole Albino (Nina Sky) issue. It is always so nice to get help from someone as nice as you. Take care Tony the Marine 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?
I want to put a page up for VfD, but the process seems to escape me. The help pages are not very helpful for me. It's a simple vanity page that's somehow managed to escape moderation for a while. (Ebtx) If you could tell me what to do so I can learn how to do it myself, I would be very thankful! :) ~ Syrae Faileas 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I figured it out... ~ Syrae Faileas 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut FAC
Voting has continued on the Hatshepsut FAC, after you filed it as a failed FAC. I planned on renominating it shortly but the continuation of voting complicates matters, especially since the current consensus is for featured status. I'm not exactly sure what to do. You should probaly weigh in. Thanks. -JCarriker 04:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

regarding User Arrigo
hi there Violetriga,

Arrigo has been moving articles left and right, in breach of Wikipedia naming conventions or without even waiting for the outcome of a discussion. One case, which you might remember, was Princess Srinagarindra, The Princess Mother of Thailand. there was a naming discussion once, it was solved by you. now the user has moved it again. Could you please help out? thank you very much.  with kind regards Gryffindor  14:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles) 217.140.193.123 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Customisation
Hi Violetriga, I have two things to say here:


 * 1) You are duplicating some of the efforts of WP:WPUS.
 * 2) Template signatures require 1 extra server request request for each page they are included in, which is far more load than a raw signature.

Thanks, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it compliments that more than anything else. Scripts is almost purely IRC-related and Tools is too broad.  The main aim, as I stated on the talk page, is to help people that want make simple changes.  As for template signatures I do hate them and merely copied that from meta.  violet/riga (t) 14:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, can you remove the scripts bit? That at least is duplication of WP:WPUS. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I think that the scripts bit is oriented far too much towards people that make them, being a bit exclusive to people that know what they are doing. My aim is to make it really easy for the most popular methods of customising Wikipedia.  I would like to see WP:WPUS as a project to create and manage scripts, and the customisation page almost as a final release page.  violet/riga (t) 14:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok then... some of the others are possibly ready for beta release, even though they aren't quite stable yet - they are all "use at your own risk" and could possibly break each other. If you want to add any more to Customisation, look in WikiProject User scripts/Scripts - just include a big disclaimer and link back to the project page for when people have complaints! Cheers, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 23:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Breastfeeding (oh, joy)
Hi. The various anti- and pro- circumcision activists seem to have decided that it is appropriate to metastasize their holy war into the breastfeeding article. Again. Since I know that you're responsible for a lot of the high-quality writing in that article, I wanted to tip you off to the issue so that, if you so chose, you could try to beat some sense into the crowd (including me, if you think my edits are not appropriate). Thanks, Nandesuka 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Talrias' talk page
Would you have preferred "rv blanking"? I'm at a loss to understand either your revert or your reference to my edit summary. I've come across several users (usually anonymous) blanking comments on their talk pages. Except when they contained personal attacks, I've never seen anyone encourage them. Please explain.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk page, where it says: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."

Lapsed Pacifist 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your logic escapes me. You and he both blanked my comment on his talk page. Neither of you gave me a reason, or even attempted to address the points I raised. Put it to me yet another way.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not good enough. Nothing indicates to me his right to remove them supersedes mine to put them back, in fact I believe he has less of a right, as he failed to reply.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Succinctly put, but the obviousness of your stance escapes me. Blanking on talk pages is something I feel strongly about.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Have a quick scan through Talk page, and show me why I'm wrong. Nothing I read there gives me that impression.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in there - next time you're on IRC could you drop me a PM? I'd like to chat! Talrias (t | e | c) 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Cerebellum failed?
I'm confused in regards to the FAC process. The cerebellum article was only a FAC for 5 days before being removed. There was one oppose and one weak oppose vote. Within 28 hours of the opposition comments I addressed all their concerns as to why they opposed. I made those changes last night. You only gave those people 13 hours to change their opinions and add new comments before tagging the article as a failed FAC. This does not seem to be in the spirit of the stated rule of "If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived." I'd appreciate some clarification on this matter. Had I known that 28 hours would be considered "enough time passing without objections being resolved" I would have never put this article up as a FAC. I must admit I'm more than a little annoyed. Semiconscious ( talk  · home) 23:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The decision to pass or fail a FAC is actually down to Raul654 - I just tidy up by tagging the failed ones. It does seem to have been a little quick, but perhaps you'd like to invite the two opposers to review their objections.  Once you've done that you could easily renominate the FAC.  Either that or chat to Raul, either on his talk page or that of the FAC.  violet/riga (t) 23:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you speedy response! Annoyed does not equal upset. :) Semiconscious  ( talk  · home) 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And I apologize if I can across as "yelling", as Raul stated it. I just logged in to see if anyone responded, and I found that I no longer had the chance to work with this! It was more surprised shock and annoyance at a system that is less-than-transparent. One more evening is all it took however, as we have received several more "support" votes. Semiconscious  ( talk  · home) 05:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that it's working out. I didn't take it badly, don't worry.  violet/riga (t) 10:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (Posted via edit conflict with Violetriga) You're actually blaiming the wrong person - you should be yelling at me (I'm the one who decides these things, not Violetriga). 5-6 days isn't unduly short - that's how long most (80% or so) articles are there. So after 5 days, it had 3 supports (nominators don't count) and 2 objections, which to me, doesn't sound like "consensus". However, if you want, I can put the nom back up for a while longer. &rarr;Raul654 23:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

fixes to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations
Hi - I noticed you made some fixes to List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. My intent is that this page will be automatically generated from some other source of data. I'm still working on the auto-generation utility so there's some chance the changes you've made won't be reflected in a future version. Rather than regenerate from the FA logs (which is where the current version came from), I'm thinking about creating a list of featured articles by nominator (which would be used as input). Please stay tuned - and I'll try to make sure your changes don't get lost. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that they were being done automatically, but thought I'd fix the problems while they were there. Good luck with the project as it looks good.  violet/riga (t) 15:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon vandalism
The ip address that vandalised Iron Maiden also did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_in_epidemiology slightly more subtly. (I would revert it but haven't worked out how yet :)
 * Thanks for that - I forgot to check for other works of vandalism. To revert to an old version of an article just go to the history of the article and choose which version you want to go back to, then edit that (you will see a warning that it's an old version) and save it.  violet/riga (t) 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Penda image
Now on Commons as well English Wikipedia.

Please clarify exactly who is the photographer? Cheers! LoopZilla 13:58:46, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
 * Are you wanting me to add that to the commons description? It was me that took the photo.  violet/riga (t) 23:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes and you have - thanks! LoopZilla 07:17:03, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Our editors have addressed your Fac editor's concerns. What gives?
Yo, VioletRiga,

I saw your post on the Terri Schiavo talk page --here, in the Revision as of 15:05, UTC, 03 September 2005, and considering also Mark's gift to you of a barn star for it, I conclude you have involvement with featured articles.

Therefore, when I addressed ALL of Mark's objections, I don't understand what your reasoning was for failing the candidacy of Schiavo. Maybe you didn't see my recent edits? Let's look at Mark's objections (which are very representative of the more sane comments on the same page) -here:

At this diff, at 02:24 UTC and on 28 August 2005 Mark writes this:

OK, let's look at the criticisms, alright?

The only two remaining criticisms were the references section and the excessive use of "Fair Use" images. Through several Herculean efforts, I fixed both of those, and many editors (Mark included) have labored 24 1/2 hours a day to get [Terri Schiavo]] in shape after her untimely death.

Considering the great efforts (and apparent successes to fix ALL problems of import), please tell me if there is any reason why Terri can't immediately take her position in line, get nominated, and pass the test for a FEATURED ARTICLE?

Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 04:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you have been discussing this with Raul. I only tagged the article and have not, I'm afraid, looked at the nomination at all.  Since it is so easy to renominate then I suggest that you could contact the objectors directly and ask them if you would have their support for the next time it is nominated.  Good luck with it, and well done for all the effort you have put into the article.  violet/riga (t) 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. It seems about four of my objectors want to wait for a "stabilizing period." The high-degree of agreement between the objectors, and their fast partial change of heart surprised me! (Are they angels?)


 * I feel that the article had momentum and was delayed and has stopped due to my slowness in posting the pics I took. That is why I am uncertain of renominating that article -that, and the uncertainty of some other editors -even though we collectively fixed all the relevent / significant errors. (That trip to Clearwater/Pinellas Park drained me, and that was what slowed me down.)


 * My only question would be your role in this. Did you simply act upon the request of another editor, or, instead was it a judgement call on your part? Thx in advance for your reply, and yes, I shall look on your page for your answer via watchlist.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I simply monitor the nomination archive, and when Raul fails some articles I clean up the tags, changing them from fac to facfailed - he's busy enough doing the ones that were promoted. So basically the decision was just down to Raul.  Nice work contacting the objectors, and keep up your great efforts!  violet/riga (t) 22:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again for your speedy reply and kind words, VioletRiga! -but I feel like Forest Gump in not figuring this out: (quoting you) "I simply monitor the nomination archive" You mean that you saw on the Fac page that Mark deleted a number of entries from the nomination addition sections -- Where exactly are the logs that showed a passed or failed decision for the nominations? Thx again in advance.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I could've been clearer. I have the Featured article candidates/Archived nominations on my watchlist.  Whenever that log is updated with nominations that have been failed I go to each of the articles and change their tag to facfailed.  violet/riga (t) 06:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoah, cool! Thanks. You can archive my query now if you like.-- GordonWattsDotCom 17:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK
Neat article. Would you believe this was the only article from the whole list of suggestions that I could find a free image for?--nixie 06:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and nice find with the image - I might incorporate that into the article if another one is required. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support at Featured article removal candidates/Matthew Brettingham. Giano | talk 06:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - thanks for writing such a good article! violet/riga (t) 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Chub

 * Exactly which one of the WP:CSD authorized this speedy? I didn't recall that "silly" was a criterion. DES (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Replied at WP:TFD. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Second to last
Okay. :)

I've only ever heard the term "second to last" spoken by Americans or as a conscious americanism by British speakers, but it's not something I'm pernickerty about. Are you of American descent or currently living in America? --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest I've always believed it to be the other way around, with "second last" being the americanism. I'm in no way connected to America, and most people I know would, I believe, include the "to".  Then, quite a few would use "penultimate", but perhaps that's just me marking too many sixth form essays! violet/riga (t) 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Derren Brown: History of 'mind magic'
hi violet - i was interested in seeing your posting about derren brown. i think there needs to be a section putting derren into context - he is too important a figure NOT to have this. i have done an edit on text provided earlier by SHAZZAMM and have removed POV as you suggest. it looks fine now. regards lynrdandersen Lynrdandersen 10:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Schiavo Fac nom.: I told you so
Mark, (and I shall cross-post it to Violet Riga’s page -and the Schiavo talk and nomination pages)

As the Terri Schiavo nomination was being considered, I hinted (and may have outright said??) that its nomination would actually increase stability (even though you thought that the article was indeed moderately stable at some point).

However, the lack of nomination has de-stabilized it. All out edit warring and a PAGE LOCK has now occurred. I told you that the article should have been nominated -and accepted -I told you so. (No offense meant.)

Here, to prove my allegations that the "Front Page" status would stabilize it are these diffs:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance&diff=22810758&oldid=22664771#Protections


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Maintenance&diff=22812630&oldid=22812588#New_template

In these diffs, the creation of a new template to handle this problem has been suggested and -even after much exposure -not opposed -and why should they be? Since it is fair to "lock" images on the front page, why not articles as well -to avoid, for example, pornographic or foul language vandalism.

Anyhow, I wanted to give the article time to be reviewed, but now I regret my decision to wait: It was ready for Fac status, but now it is sliding in the opposite direction -and the edit warring was due in large part to FuelWagon, who has, in the past, opposed clear concensus -and, yes, I provide the diffs to verify my allegations.

The page is locked, and (other than one over-worked admin who has a second job AND college classes), NO HELP IS IN SIGHT.

I made blood sacrifices (literally, due to the energy/stress expended) to obtain a relevant "references" section and non-Fair-Use images and clean up the article.

This problem happened on your watch: Help .--GordonWattsDotCom 21:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My proposed solution:

 * My proposed solution would be to do this, and in this order:
 * 1: Re-Nominate Terri Schiavo, a sentiment shared by many.
 * 2: Feature it as a Featured Article.
 * 3: Lock the images with the existing tools.
 * 4: Lock the article with "Gordon's Tool," the newly created template, shown at the diffs above.
 * 5: Grab a cold one, most preferably non-alcoholic, and relax for a well-earned rest.
 * -- GordonWattsDotCom 23:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Joolz's RFA
Hey violet, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Violetriga, Please support my request for adminship on en.Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're fast

 * 16:36, 13 September 2005 Violetriga restored "Template:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD" (3 revisions restored)
 * 16:37, 13 September 2005 Texture restored "Template:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD"

You beat me to it by one second... - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Great minds, and all that! violet/riga (t) 06:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Torre Abbey
I don't want to start any edit wars, so I'm not going to revert your revert again, but I do urge you to change it to "consists of" if you insist on having the "ofs" in. The definition of the word comprises will show that the ofs are grammatically incorrect (redundant, basically). Take a look at the examples from the answers.com definition.

com·prise (kəm-prīz') tr.v., -prised, -pris·ing, -pris·es. To consist of; be composed of: “The French got … French Equatorial Africa, comprising several territories” (Alex Shoumatoff). To include; contain: “The word ‘politics’ … comprises, in itself, a difficult study of no inconsiderable magnitude” (Charles Dickens). See synonyms at include. Usage Problem. To compose; constitute: “Put together the slaughterhouses, the steel mills, the freight yards … that comprised the city” (Saul Bellow).

ASchmoo 19:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it was an BE/AmE difference, but have not found anything to support that. To me it sounds wrong, but I'll concede that it does appear to be correct.  Sorry about that.  violet/riga (t) 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking more clearly it does sound right - sorry, I must be too tired for editing! violet/riga (t) 20:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I could have easily been wrong too!  That's what's so great about working in this format. :o)  Thanks for the response.  ASchmoo 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Keane
Hey, I noticed that you created a disambiguation page for Keane. Well, I just changed it back so that Keane is the actual disambig page, comme Joy Division or Kasabian which use the same format. Keane is kind of an ambiguous term; whenever I hear it I always think of the two footballers. I think its best that the main Keane page remains a disambig page; when I did a search for the term Keane, a good half dozen names of notable persons popped up and they should be accounted for, since articles for them already exist. Anyway, I've been changing all the relevant Keane links to Keane (band), so it won't be cause confusion among other users.

Since you've done a bit of work on Keane, I thought that I'd warn you here, so that it won't lead to any revert/edit wars and what not. Cheers --Madchester 16:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I've just had to undo the moves. Please make sure you use the correct move procedure and not cut and paste moves, otherwise the edit history is lost and we no longer comply with the GFDL.


 * Separate to this, I think the discussion would be better at Talk:Keane, so I've written something there too. violet/riga (t) 09:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your help is requested in creating a new template
Hi -- because of your previous involvement in maintaining and improving Wikipedia templates, I thought you would be interested in plans to create a new template. The new template would be appropriate for two main cases: where an article is getting too large, and someone wishes to propose a new 'spin-out' article; and where a 'spin-out' article on the subject already exists but detail is still accumulating in the main article. The proposed name for the new template is Template:Movedetail, and I suggest that planning take place at Template talk:Movedetail.

Hope to see you there! -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Repairing cut-and-paste moves
Hi, I decided to bring Cut and paste move repair holding pen out of its current desuetude, and use it as a place to have people request repait of cut-and-paste moves (which I kind of specialize in :-). In doing so, I ran across (at WP:RM) Category:Pending merge, which I guess you used to use for the same purpose? I see a number of old requests there, which I am busy clearing, but the reason for this note is to ask if you have a particular preference for which one to use?

I slightly prefer listing at Cut and paste move repair holding pen (feel free to come up with a shorter name for that, as well as a WP: shortcut :-), because in cases where page A and been cut-and-pasted to B, and then page A has been turned into something else (e.g. a disambig page), it's not reasonable to rename either one to Foo/history, as the instructions for the category currently call for. Anyway, please let me know what you think. Noel (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: I also updated How to fix cut and paste moves to cover both the latest Wikimedia glitches (history, mostly), as well as how to separate histories into two pieces (now doable with selective undelete). Noel (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school (UK)
There has been a long debate and a consensus has been reached to move Public school (UK) to Independent school (UK). This move does not need an administrator because of a technical block, but for political reasons it would be better if a disinterested administrator did it. Would you do it for us? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

IP blocking
Re Blocking - sorry, I do check the address table, must have missed one, jimfbleak 12:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - I know it's frustrating when vandals are on shared IPs. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda
Hello, sorry for the long message.

In March 2005, there was a WP:RM request and vote (which you took part in) to move Úbeda to Ubeda, with a 6-3 result, see Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Wikipedia today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode).

However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, Philip Baird Shearer is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote:
 * Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.

See the discussion at Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask:
 * Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey?

Note, since Philip Baird Shearer was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- Curps 05:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and for the information of all the voters in the March requested move vote, there's now a new requested move vote at Talk:Ubeda. -- Curps 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

HANS device
unprotect it now or else
 * Grow up. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be new to the Internet; if so, welcome. You should be aware though that I do what I want, when I want.  I am telling you to unprotect the page.
 * I've taken the liberty of fixing your poorly written message. I don't think it stops you looking stupid though. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * UNPROTECT THE PAGE. this is my internet sucka
 * Shhh now. violet/riga (t) 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * UNPROECT IT!~
 * You're funny. :) violet/riga (t) 17:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * dude im serious. unprotect it. this is not some game, do not fuck around
 * A life or death situation on Wikipedia? I'm sorry, I hadn't realised.  violet/riga (t) 17:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * so you will unprotect it?
 * Not unless you promise to stop being so stupid. I am, of course, glad to see you like this site enough to be hanging around so much.  violet/riga (t) 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * how dare you characterize anything i do as stupid. i do what i want, when i want, and i am held faultless. you need to listen good: unprotect the page and start following my directions
 * You're silly. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * the internet is serious business, and i do what i want on it.
 * UNPROTECT IT!
 * Serious? www.ratemypoo.com is serious?  violet/riga (t) 12:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * this isn't about my poo or your poo. this is about hans
 * UNPROTECT IT
 * violet, you are a terrible person. every second you have that page protected, 14 people in the world die. that is blood on your hands
 * I'm awful. Please create List of Wikipedians with blood on their hands and include me there.  violet/riga (t) 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * done, now unprotect it
 * unprotec it
 * unprotect it
 * Ooo! More colons than the toilets at the end of Superbowl. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * stop joking around man
 * Take a seat on the couch and tell me a little bit about yourself. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i have needs, and right now i need you to unprotect hans
 * unprotect hans
 * UNPROTECT IT
 * unprotect hans
 * i do what i want. do not stand in the way, unproect hans
 * you have been directed to unprotect hans at once without any further delay or insubordination 151.203.7.233 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * unprotect it now or else
 * unprotect it
 * unprotect it
 * unprotect it
 * unprotect it
 * don't play me for a fool, i know you are reading this. acknowledge this or else
 * what is a crm? unprotect hans
 * damnit, respond you meanie.
 * Sorry - I'm a little too busy plotting mass genocide to reply to you. violet/riga (t) 17:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ah so you will unprotect hans
 * Let me consult my magic coin... *flip* ...sorry, not your lucky day. I'm sure you'll try again tomorrow.  violet/riga (t) 18:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i will touch base tomorrow
 * today is the day! you finally get to unprotect hans. aren't you excited?

LOL! Have you considered moving this stuff to WP:BJAODN? -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's certainly going that way! violet/riga (t) 21:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't believe he did create the page... -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  14:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's it, this is going into the annals of WP:-) --HappyCamper 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM#Proposed changes
If you are still interested in the subject please see WP:RM. I would value your thoughts on the proposed changes. Philip Baird Shearer 21:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try and give it a look over and comment tomorrow. violet/riga (t) 21:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Move Request Help Request
I would like to move the article 2ch to 2channel since that would be the correct name for it (see Talk:2ch). However, the article 2channel already exists (a redirect to 2ch - but it should be the other way around!). I am not quite sure how to go about this, especially since the instructions at Requested_moves confused me (should I add the template which suggest polling a vote on the issue? Or should I not go that way to find consensus, as suggested by the introduction paragraph there?). I am also not sure if the topic is controversial enough to look for consensus. Maybe swapping would work better, but as it is, I am kind of clueless. I'd appreciate any help. zerofoks 22:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You can move articles by using the move button at the top of the page - WP:RM is used when the move is either controversial or blocked because the destination has an edit history (which 2channel does not). The move request seems to have general consensus, so I've gone ahead and done it.  violet/riga (t) 07:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for doing this for me. I should have checked the edit history at 2ch first. Now, isn't there some What links here? thing that I could use for a quick check in order to correct links on other article pages? zerofoks 08:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The what links here option is on the left side of the page (in the toolbox). I've corrected the double redirects, but you may wish to make sure that they all refer to the channel as "2channel" and not "2ch".  violet/riga (t) 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I will do that. Thank you for helping a newbie out! zerofoks 09:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM
What do you think we need to do here? There seems to be a consensus that it doesn't work too well, and you've commented somewhat on the changes I proposed.... insights from a WP:RM mantainer besides myself would be appreciated :) Ryan Norton T 10:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, and you can see my most likely crufty attempt to turn it into something AfD-like here Ryan Norton T 10:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk 2 Arbitration request
Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong
read your email. FearÉIREANN \(caint)  23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for catching vandalism to my userpage. Fir e  Fo  x  12:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem - I've just blocked him now. violet/riga (t) 12:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

RE Image:London-2012-logo.svg

 * Because SVG is a superior format as it is vector based not rastor like the previous image. Are you using internet explorer by any chance? Because it doesn't have proper support for PNG images (nor SVG), which are being sourced from the SVG image. It works fine in Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla suite and most other browsers that fully support web conventions, IE is to blame for your light blue background. I'll see if somehow the mediawiki software or whats converting the SVGs can be modified. - Swarve 22:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have also noticed this problem on several of these files in IE (even using the latest release). It is true that the file works ok in Firefox but a file isn't "superior" if most users see it incorrectly (I do not like IE myself but I recognise more people use it. I even have to use it myself for certain sites). Can we look in to identifying all instances of this problem and taking action? Is there a way to easily get a list of all files of this type? Mrsteviec 12:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In superior i mean the actual SVG file is superior (because its a vector image), not the downgraded thumbnail, which you see on the Olmypic 2012 page or the image page, you will see the actual SVG image when you click on the image page expand button. Like most images, the thumbnails made are downgraded and from the SVG version into PNG, which makes them viewable by most browsers correctly, since there is very few SVG viewers & even fewer browsers with native SVG support. Ill see if the mediawiki software can thumbnailing SVGs can be changed. - Swarve 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Elvis on the toilet
Re your Elvis Presley edit: "It is a lasting belief, though never confirmed, that he died on the toilet." - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a purveyor of gossip or speculation. Please demonstrate how your edit is 1) encyclopedic, and 2) relevant to his biography. As well, the police and medical reports, plus ALL those who actually were a witness to his corpse, state he died in the bathroom. Please provide a Reliable sources who states he died on the toilet and document exactly who, and their number so as to warrant consideration, that have this "lasting belief." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 15:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it's somewhat difficult to quantify the numbers that have a belief. A simple Google search for the words Elvis and toilet show how widespread the belief is.  violet/riga (t) 15:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, why doesn't Ted Wilkes show me an audio recording and / or transcript of Caesar's last words. Maybe he didn't actually say "Et tu Brute" and therefore it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia.

(129.241.134.241 13:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

Rollback and Primetime templates
Hiya Violetriga. Could I ask you not use rollback to remove the primetime television templates. Whilst after investigating I realise and understand your reasoning, it was confusing to come to my watchlist and see you reverting trustworthy editors with rollback. I thought you'd gone rogue! An edit summary would have been more appropriate. Thanks, :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand, but with 50+ articles to do it would've taken an age, and I'm very pushed for time right now. Sorry for the confusion. violet/riga (t) 12:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)