User talk:Xaosflux/Archive15

France
Hello, Xaosflux, As I observed the article, France has been vandalized many times. Could you put Semi-Protect(Only Established user could edit} instead of me? Because I'm not admin, so I can't control the Protect or Semi-Protect. Please reply on my discussion page. Cheers!! Please, Do not ignore my message. *~Daniel~* 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know Xaosfulux if you should do it. I noticed that Daniel that does not post on Requests for Page Protection. ForestH2


 * There's almost no vandalisim at all. Only a couple edits today and only one reverted edit. ForestH2


 * Vandalism on France appears to be easily managable at this time, page protection should be avoided if othere methods to control vandalism are viable. This page is also likely rather watched.  If vandals start getting bad, please report them on WP:AIV or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, —  xaosflux  Talk  17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RFBOT
I think that was accidental oversight, I added myself to the list as I'm pretty sure I'm susposed to be in there and myself Freakofnurture and Robchurch seem to be the most active people around there -- Tawker 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tagline removals
No, I just opened the articles in Firefox tabs, and got the articles from what links to tagline. It really seemed that fast?

Also, you're right, I forgot about consensus (hey, I felt bold). Would it be a good idea to start a straw poll on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films? —Whomp  [ T ] [ C ] 20:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not a member of the project, either. —Whomp  [ T ] [ C ] 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CVU cats
Nope, its soon-to-be-closed however, and it's unanimous at the moment. A little mix of WP:BOLD and common sense :) - M ask 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * go for it. I sometimes sic my AWB on it if it seems non-controversial and clear cut, but deleting the cat itself is beyond my powers. :) - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Apoplexy v. Stroke
Hello,

Does changing the outdated term 'apoplexy' to its more modern one 'stroke' really need to be debated? Perhaps it would be a good idea to see how Wikipedia defines apoplexy. Further regards, Michael David 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regards, Michael David 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, again,


 * After some struggle with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, and the usual Saturday night snail's pace of the database, I think I got it right. I did enter the change request into the discussion section. Thank you for your input.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I’m still very green when it comes to navigating the technical aspects of Wiki. I’m somewhat computer challenged to begin with (I did most of my undergraduate work on a manual typewriter!). In Wiki, when I have to deal with anything other than subject content, I reach new levels of anxiety. The good news is I’m learning, and I haven’t crashed the database yet.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete if possible
Sorry to bother you but somehow I mismarked User_talk:Netscott/test for deletion. If it's at all possible it'd be great to be able to get it back. If not... not too much harm done. Thanks. Netscott 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ;-) Netscott 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ax (Le Couperet)
Hey dude... I tried making this page as a stub as I knew failry little about it and saw it was deleted by you.. I kind of made it a stub for that reason.

Um, obviously you're the one who knows a hell of alot more about Wiki than I, but I do think it's a page needing to happen... give me a hoy, if you wouldn't mind, on my user talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jubeanation (talk • contribs).
 * Restored-see your talk. — xaosflux  Talk  00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Commons Cat(s) deleted
Hi!

re: This was you deleting a category where ample material exists but hasn't yet been properly recategorized. There is only so much time in a volunteers day, and apparently, I can't even take a few days off for real life without hoovering like a mother hen and protecting Work In Progress! I cannot find any references in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_xx. Is there some central list reference one can access without visiting a dozen pages like I just did? This is most unhelpful!

There should have been red warning flags flying high and wide in any reasoned deletion discussion though from the use of the commonscatX template linking to the this commons page, which once the database catches up, should be reflecting all the commons listed materials here on wikipedia. At least once we recategorize images there. Right now it's hit or miss.

More to the point, we want the categories herein to be as empty as possible, as the foundation goal is to have all that will satisfy copyrightwise, on the commons. That makes these categories here as echo's of the commons pages suitable for lookups and look-overs to editors wanting an apropo image for an article. Taken together with the factions herein that like the minimize categories in articles, this seems to be the best workable compromise solution to allowing editors to find stuff and keep down the category creep.

I seem to have not been contacted nor have I had time during the current interval (I'm taking a minibreak from Wiki for RL matters) to monitor things like Cfd. Did this get a full period treatment in Cfd, or is there some Speedy delete for categories I'm unaware of in operation? I'm really getting tired of things just barely being organized and having someone delete them without even a question! For starters, this image is in the wrong cats: Image:Western_Empire-Europe870.JPG, the parent categories should eventually be deleted in favor of the overt proper map categories, which I added today to dispute-satisfy your 'catempty' actions. So kindly put these back (I see High and Late MAges map categories are in same state at your hands).

There are dozens of images per time period that will occupy these pages (High, Late) included, and such hasty action is counter-productive at best. This one, had we been less busy and relocated it sooner, would have been one such example. But we're also trying to inventory and tag duplicate images, purge those, et. al. and there are at the moment only three of us, all very busy, working on recatting this stuff. In sum, someone acted awfully hastilly for some reason. All maps are going to be gone over and fixed up, but if you take away the skelatons, it's hard to hang the flesh and trim the fat! What's the rush, and where's the mature patience in all this haste? Best regards // Fra nkB 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * restored, see your talk. — xaosflux  Talk  00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you do a speedy delete or rename
Just got your last. Thanks. Just Goofed too.

On standard name syntax (typo)... Category:Old Maps of Europe should have had a lower case 'm' on Map, can you move that, should I nominate for a speedy and recreate, or what would you suggest. Considering the history here, I thought I'd add population! This name misses the proper interwiki link per the template and so doesn't echo the commons map collection. Thanks! // Fra nkB 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I make enough mistakes of me own!
This wasn't me: I've restored Le Couperet per your request. It is still rather laking in content, and should be expanded as soon as possible. — xaosflux Talk 00:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Le Couperet

Sorry, I make enough mistakes of me own!  // Fra nkB 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Echo switch
Hi, thanks for picking up my mistake there. I was doing a fair bit of RC patrol that night and it simply looked like a bit of nonsense. --Wisd e n17 15:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linux/Archive 6
What is your reasoning here? This is not an article, it was an ill-conceived archiving that archived discussions that were active only 2 days before the archiving, and in all cases discussions that were less than a week old or still open. No information was lost, and when the archive is recreated, it will overwrite whatever is there now. The only purpose of this speedy delete is to purge the page history, which you do not mention opposing. The page was listed for speedy deletion under Housekeeping, G6. It is a purely maintenance task and there has been no controversy, and you do not explain why you think there might exist any controversy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope the dispassion of my above message was not mistaken for ill will. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

VB bof
I'm afraid I made a mess trying to revert the vandal's changes to Articles for creation/Today and don't understand what is going on with the redirects and how things should be. Could you have a look at that? Thanks. --Lambiam Talk 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Film festivals
Nice revision of that article.

Vivaverdi 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideal time period for undeletion?
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I would like to inquire about a particular category you deleted. The category in question is Category:Wikipedians with over 100 edits, which you deleted on the 21 June 2006, 12:28. The reason you gave was removed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12. Does this mean that this category can NEVER again be created in Wikipedia forever? Or is there a certain time period in which this particular category could appear again here? By the way, I am the one who created these categories and I would like to have your opinion on this matter. What do you think would be the ideal time period to re-create this category again? I personally feel that this category (or types of categories) plays a important part in Wikipedia in terms of the number of edits Wikipedians have. Thank you for your time! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No ads- Your suggestion Good!! :D
Hi, I think your no ads solution (Ads for anons) Is a good idea. However I think when people first visit (if the ads do go ahead) all the ads might be a little daunting so perhaps a small number of ads are shown on newcomers first visits. A message could say "Register an account now and no ads will be shown" perhaps? I appreciate your comments and hope wikipedia does not turn to ads. (I hate emoticon ads!!!) Once again, a great idea. Thanks, Jam01 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your message on the article about wikipedians against ads, yes the cookie idea is good too. Thanks Jam01 02:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Category:Wikipedians with over 100 edits, et. al
Hello! I placed my comments on this page. I hope to gain positive feedback about this. And by the way, does this mean that these categories would not be re-created in Wikipedia for ethernity? That thought just does not make sense as these types of categories would surely be re-created sometime in the future. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: My signature
As far as my signature is concerned, I could probably fix it, but I've been using the line "it gets corrupted" as a smokescreen. As much as I'd like to customize it, there are people around here who get very upset when someone uses a signature that's any longer than the minimum. I've tried to argue against that approach, and against the waste of time being spent on signature debates, but nothing has changed. So, I figure I'll just work on articles about bridges and stuff on List of historic civil engineering landmarks -- those topics are non-controversial. --Elkman 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stanley Cup Champions
Hello,

I am wondering why you changed the category I created Category:Stanley Cup champions to Category:Stanley Cup Champions. I worked rather hard for a long to to add names to that category, and now I am not even credited in the history of the page. Please respond on my talk page. thanks. Michael Drew 01:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This category was Category:Stanley Cup Champions, I renamed it to Category:Stanley Cup champions after processing a Speedy Category Rename Request. As there were several edits to the original category, I listed attributions for the original category, including yourself, on the new talk page.  All links to the category have been updated, so the work you did in categorizing the articles still exists.  As category pages can not be moved like other pages, it is not possible to merge the edit histories on them, this the reason I posted the attributions on the talk page.  In doing so I believe I've fufiled the GFDL attribution requirements.  If you think this is a licensing violation, please let me know ASAP.  Otherwise, I hope my reply here clears things up, if not please reply back! —  xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Chaka (The Lion King)
Hi, thanks for dealing with the reversions related to Chaka (The Lion King). I appreciate the time you took. I didn't know that the editor violated 3RR. And thanks for taking the time to investigate the vandalism. I forgot to mention which articles the vandal edited. I don't need to worry about violating the three revert rule on Chaka (The Lion King) because an administrator deleted it. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia. Cheers --Starionwolf 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

sprotect of About
Hello, it doesn't seem to have worked as anon blanked the page after you'd sprotected it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks RE: page deletion
Thanks for deleting the Name of page article. I guess I forgot that moving a page still leaves a redirect, I should have followed through on that. Anyway thanks again --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

 * Other than nominating for deletion, which I guess is reasonably drastic, I also am not a contributer to the page. I note that admins are not supposed to edit and perhaps it would hold them off.  They should also "respect Wikipedia policy" and it is my view that this page is already in breach of that, but that is what the MfD is about.

"Pages are only protected in certain rare circumstances" - do not see that there was sufficient "edit warring" to justify protection, no matter who the editors are. Note at Protection policy the statement "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful." There have been less that 50 edits in the last 24 hours, the very great majority of those could not be termed edit warring.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)