User talk:Warofdreams/2008/04-06

Thanks for the welcome message
Many thanks for the welcome message. I live in Sheffield and am very interested in Architecture, British Motorcycles, Travel, Firth Park and many other things. Maybe there will be a Wikimeet in Sheffield one day? If so I look forward to meeting with you.

Deevincentday (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's DYK nomination
You added Desmond Lardner-Burke at the last minute. How about nominating it in the regular section because I think we're good. We ended up doing only 2 DYK updates today. It's not particularly funny IMHO, but it's an interesting hook compared to many noms. Royal broil 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that you use that hook for DYK, it's interesting! Royal broil  00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Monday Club
Well done on the research, what's your source, out of interest?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems accurate. Sudeley has stepped down (in Feb. I think), so there's currently no chairman (he's still a member), a new one shall be decided upon soon I think.  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy next Sunday?
Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice.  Majorly  (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh-Scotland map
Any chance you'd know how to edit Template:Location map Edinburgh to allow the full Scotland map to appear at the main Edinburgh article? It seems to have been changed in the last few days; having searched I have no idea why, although I'm not particularly adept at these things! Cheers. -- Schcambo aon scéal? 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving LIBERAL YOUTH -> Liberal Youth
Thanks for the fix. I'm only a casual user; it's impossible to keep up with all the subtleties of the site. MatthewWilkes (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cardiff123098
Hi Warofdreams,

As an administrator, can you please have a look at the contributions made by Cardiff123098, many I believe are either "not helpful" or vandalism. In a recent image download it is clearly a Wales Tourist Board image (see Metadata), yet he/she states in the description that it is "self-made". The same applies to too. The user may also have been or is Wales123098 and other user names. Seth Whales (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanguard images
Hello, I've nominated the Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party for good article status after expanding it recently. However it's lacking images so is it possible you could upload one or two as I tried before and screwed up? These guys have a load of images in their plagiarised version of the article though they probably stole them from CAIN [cain.ulst.ac.uk] or some other such source. Valenciano (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input
here - Traditional unionist (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the categorization help
here. I'm still learning all the cats that exist TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, takes away the pressure to categorize perfectly TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raving Loony Green Giant Party
I have nominated Raving Loony Green Giant Party, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Raving Loony Green Giant Party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP

 * Thanks. I've been trying, twice i think, to raise that issue on Wikipedia talk:Notability, no little avail. The idea that political organizations should be judged on the same grounds as commercial enterprises is imho flawed. --Soman (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Money Reform Party deletion
Hey - Money Reform Party article has been nominated for deletion. To be frank I think there's no chance of it being saved but I thought you'd like the heads up

doktorb wordsdeeds 05:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Money Reform Party article is now going through the formal articles for deletion processArticles_for_deletion/Money_Reform_Party at which you are invited to make comment and vote on this deletion proposal doktorb wordsdeeds 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir
Please follow the appropriate MoS, rather than inflicting us with your own view on the matter. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties..?
A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up
Follow up to the political parties policy debate, I have updated the page User:Doktorbuk/pp for your comment. Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Inca Empire
Hi Warofdreams. I know this is not really your area but needs must as they say. This article comes up on the US curriculum about this time each year and comes under heavy vandal attack as a result. Would it be possible for you to put it into semi-protection for a month or two to get it passed this period? Thanks - Gallo glass  16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Warofdreams. - Gallo glass  14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with a few issues
Hello, could you help me with a few things, firstly Popular Unity Candidature needs to be moved to Popular Unity Candidates, this is an uncontroversial correction of a mistranslation from the original Catalan. Second I set up a table on the Spanish general election, 2008 article but I've noticed that it doesn't sort properly. It sorts from 8 to 0 and then from -8 to 0 instead of 0 to -8. I had a read over the link you gave me before but can't see how to fix it. Lastly on wikiproject political parties, I wanted to add myself to Spain but can't set the template up - I get a redlink when I try. Valenciano (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One more if you have chance - moving Orense (Spanish Congress Electoral District) to Ourense (Spanish Congress Electoral District) for consistency reasons as requested on the talk page. Thanks again, Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA Categories
I'd like your advice on where to go next with this situation. The problem is that for the last month, user Lapsed Pacifist has constantly been removing the existing cats and replacing them with omnibus cats which he calls existing categories but are in reality orphan categories which he has set up for the purpose. The first was removing the country specific categories to replace them with Category:NGOs designated as terrorist by a government despite disagreement from myself and user:mountolive that ETA is an NGO. After being reverted by a couple of editors he ignored requests to leave existing categories alone, again removed the country specific cats (whose parent category is Category:Organisations designated as terrorist)with Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments which duplicates the other category and is less descriptive than say Category:UK Home Office designated terrorist groups.

Finally after being reverted on this he again removed the country categories in favour of his own invented Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by the European Union, United States, United Kingdom and Canada which illogically links four disparate national/supranational bodies together and places the USA and Canada in a cat whose parent relates to the EU. He has been reverted each time by four seperate editors - myself, mountolive, escorial82 and neveryou but persistently ignores polite requests and the discussion.

The pattern has been a cyclical one. LP sets up a cat of his own, replaces existing categories with it, is asked not to by various editors, ignores this and sets up a new category which again he adds and again gets reverted. After nearly a month of this nonsense I'm not really sure what to do next and would appreciate your advice/input. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. The issue seems to be resolved. Valenciano (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your help is needed in determining consensus
Hello, I am Atyndall and I am one of the Mediation Cabal's informal mediator. Currently I have taken on a case regarding the naming of the Burma/Myanmar article here. I have decided, after realizing that the article has to be named either Burma or Myanmar, that I need to get everyone to list their opinions and determine the consensus (which I have done here. The problem is, to put it bluntly, I would find it very hard to determine the consensus on this issue as both sides have equally good arguments. So I was wondering, if, after 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (exactly 14 days after the first post) you could evaluate the consensus (along with another 2 'crats) at that page (as crats are good at, having to deal with RfAs) and list and try to detail why you think this at the top of the page in the section provided? Please do not feel obliged to do so, if you are busy I can ask someone else, but please let me know. Thankyou very much and happy editing :-) Atyndall93 | talk 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cardiff123098
I have left my opinion on the page.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Hey - thanks for the note, I guess we have got to a generally agreed consensus now. If the main clauses on the article page read okay to you, then once I can draft a form of context I'll put it up as you suggest. The thing that frustrates me is, I must have put the fact that I want to move this onwards now on a number of village pump/community pages with no reply at all, it's taken you to suggest what to do next. I want to thank you for that, and for the help you've given on the proposal itself. I'll see what happens, it may well be later in the week but it should be moved on now. Thanks again doktorb wordsdeeds 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma consensus
Hello, if you can recall I recently asked you to evaluate the consensus on a naming issue here. The time needed for the debate has expired and if you could be as kind as to review the consensus and post your opinion in the box provided at the top of the page it would be appreciated. Thankyou and happy editing! Atyndall93 | talk 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but....
Hi Warofdreams, I noticed your decision on the Burma/Myanmar name Mediation Cabal discussion. I don't mean to cause offense, but I am a little confused with your decision. You mentioned that there was consensus on a few issues. I'm not going to argue whether that's true or not, it's more that I don't follow your reasoning from that point. You said there was consensus on, "Myanmar...is now in widespread use. "Burma" is also in widespread use." You also said there was consensus on, "the country's de facto government has officially named the country "[Union of] Myanmar."" Finally, you said there was consensus on, "Wikipedia needs to take into account common usage and self-identification in choosing titles for articles," which also happens to be the official policy of Wikipedia anyway. My problem is thus: if everyone agrees that Burma and Myanmar are both as common, and that Myanmar is the official self identified name, then since you say we agreed to take into account common usage and self identification, then by that reckoning, doesn't Burma only fall into one of the categories that we supposedly have consensus on, but Myanmar both? If we had consensus on all three of those things you mentioned, then it seems logical to suggest we had consensus on it being Myanmar. Whether we had consensus on those points you mentioned or not is debatable of course. However, if we did, then saying "No consensus" overall confuses me. Sorry to be a nuisance. Deamon138 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied on my page again. Deamon138 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, I appreciate it. I reckon I'll probably be after some kind of formal discussion now on Burma/Myanmar, but the MEDCAB discussion was a good starting place. Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

George Hargreaves
Nice article! How about a "DYK"? I particularly like the bit about the dragon: perhaps "DYK... that George Hargreaves, Christian Party candidate in the Haltemprice & Howden by-election, has said that the dragon symbol on the Welsh flag is "nothing less than the sign of Satan"? PamD (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Hope it's not considered to fall foul of the BLP sensitivities for DYK. PamD (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might like to see the comment on the DYK page at Template_talk:Did_you_know! PamD (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)