User talk:Grutness/archive47

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Thank you!

Thank you for the "the most wonderful comment ever " about the new "visual editor" thing. I nearly died laughing! As one of the "little women" they think are too stupid to learn wikimarkup and thus the target market for this monstrosity of code, I have to say that I think they're way off base, this is only going to open the project to griefers and kids. But I digress, you hit the nail square on the head far better than I ever could, and for that I applaud you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! I was worried that I'd gone a bit overboard with the comments, but it really is a horrible new system, and making live (and default, even worse) before ironing out the bugs was pretty ridiculous. I agree that it's likely to be bad for Wikipedia in the long run, and as you say, very patronising. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

" ... noxious heap of festering cack ... ". Well said! Very quotable. --220 of ^Borg 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Very poetic. Schwede66 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Grutness...wha? 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The comments are now archived in perpetuity →here for the delight and delectation of future generations. - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, even with my preferences set to no longer see the VisualEditor it seems to have returned, so I'm afraid I've been forced to wax lyrical again... Grutness...wha? 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, that's why I went to find your original comment. I'm looking forward to your future waxes ("they're lyrical, Jim, but not as we know it"). - Pointillist (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I note that the new set of VisualEdit buttons seems to have gone from my talk page again. Presumably just another bug undocumented feature being dealt with. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pixie Williams

Thanks! Nice additions to the article.–Kiwipat (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria, New Zealand

An anon has removed Victoria, New Zealand from the list of suburbs of Gisborne with this edit saying there is no suburb with this name. Looking on Google maps, there is a Victoria Domain, and a Victoria Childcare Centre nearby, but no indication that there is a suburb of this name. I do realise that the naming and boundaries of suburbs are hazy. Since you started the article, could you please add a source for its existence, or perhaps prod it if you cannot find one.-gadfium 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps its had its name changed since the 1960s, but it's definitely shown in McLintock's "A Descriptive Atlas of New Zealand" and listed in the 1969 edition of Wise's Guide. It doesn't seem to show up on recent maps, though... perhaps it no longer exists as a suburb name? Will have to investigate further. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This suggests that the name is still in use: [1] Grutness...wha? 00:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hadn't thought to check Wises, but it's in my 1974 9th edition too. That's sufficient to justify the article, but I'm not going to revert the anon's edit to Gisborne. It may be that Awapuni is now considered to include the area south of Waikanae Creek.-gadfium 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Buckethead

Hi Grutness, I left a message for you and more editors at Talk:Buckethead. I think you should know that EXT have not been allowed in DABs for at least all the time I've edited. Cheers Widefox; talk 10:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Widefox - I've replied (it's at Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation), BTW!) Grutness...wha?

Next match day scenarios

It has long since been decided by consensus that Next match day scenarios are not included. That is the current consensus. If you would like to open up a new conversation and try to reverse that consensus, feel free to do so. Until then, a majority of editors have decided against their inclusion. This is based on WP:FUTURE. I am sorry I was sarcastic to your edit, I thought you were being sarcastic with your edit revision comment. Chris1834 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. And when I did see the edit summary it said the only reason the information wasn't there was because the next match day information wasn't there. I wasn't aware of the consensus, so it made perfect sense to add it. The consensus seems strange since information contingent on future results is still used with other sporting events (such as here. It also seems odd not to have information mentioning which teams may meet in the playoffs on what is, after all, a summary page of the qualification process. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This was obviously a dispute in the soccer pages as the dispute originated through the UEFA Champions League. Since then it has filtered down through most of the soccer pages. I don't have a problem with them personally in theory but sometimes they get so complicated that they have so many scenarios it is hard to keep track of. This has caused edit wars amongst people that think they should be included as they adjust and fine tune them with mathematical possibilities that have an extremely low chance of ever happening. It causes more fighting than constructive editing. I think another issue is there was no consensus in formatting, so every article you went to looked different and made it harder to follow them as well.

So, obviously other sports still use them, as you have shown, and the dispute resolution is not binding in anyway. It has just become the consensus through the talks at WikiProject Football and at the dispute resolution. I am always open to reopening discussions and working things out amongst all editors, as long as there is a new argument to support the opposing side or you feel that consensus may have changed with new editors possibly having come on board. I just don't like to have the same fights with the same arguments over and over again, as I think you would agree based on your user page. I love WP for the fact that it is a collaboration and would support whatever the consensus is on any matter. Chris1834 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In this particular instance it makes little difference since so much of the qualifying competition will be over soon (quite a few of the places will be decided in the next few hours, in fact!) Thanks for the explanation. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Bro!

Thanks for sorting and tidying my horrible newbie wiki-edit/citation! Toitū Otagos ICT1301. Have a beer from Nelson. :) Sunblade1500 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Any time :) Cheers! Grutness...wha? 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

I see another editor removed your edit about "The link between the number 666 and money is strengthened by the fact" - that really does seem to be your own analysis and thus original research. You'd need to find sources as well as show that it's a significant opinion that those passages strengthen the argument. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a significant number of them on the web. But when I supplied one, I was told that it was by a fruit-loop. Given that almost all people who try to find meaning in the book of Revelation can be described in that way, I see no point in trying to add further. You could quite easily say that all the following are loopies - [2], [3], [4] - and they might well be. But it doesn't stop the fact that numerous researchers have connected the wealth of Solomon with the number of the Beast - enough that the view constitutes more than an extremely small minority - and as such the inclusion of this theory is worthy of addition to the article, albeit in a minor way and with caveats, as per WP:FRINGE/PS. The location of the text, within a subsection on alternative theories, already provides those caveats, and the size of the addition (two lines) hardly unweights the article.

In any case, whether there is a connection or not with wealth per se, the plain fact that the number is found three times in the Bible, twice of which are to refer to Solomon's income, is definitely something which should be mentioned in the article. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Stubs etc. Comment

Hi, given you wrote User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs, I thought you might find Wikipedia:Stub Contest interesting....anyway, drop by if you feel inclined as it might be fun....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I probably won't take part (I'm semi-retired from WP these days, though I still write the odd article or two). I used to be heavily involved in the stub-sorting WikiProject, and the question of what qualified as a stub came up very frequently, which is why I wrote that guideline. I'm glad to see it's still being used! Cheers, and good luck with the contest! Grutness...wha? 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

wanna help me judge it then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'd like to, but I'd better say no - sadly The Real World (tm) is taking up a lot of time at the moment. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Aaawww, ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I noticed your archives at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Grutness/ are not in the user talk namespace. This makes it harder to find the archives, for example for users who search your talk space. See Help:Archiving a talk page#Subpage archive method. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ach - good point. WP was more lenient about that when I started the archive :) And links to the archives were here until I more or less quit Wikipedia a couple of years back. I'll move them back. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Middlemarch, New Zealand

Hi, I see this place is (a small town) within the limits of Dunedin city and some 80kms from the city centre. I know Dunedin is important but is it really as big as that? Am I misreading the sentence somehow? regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Until Dunedin's official boundaries were changed a few years back, it covered the sort of area you'd expect from a city of its size - but with local body reorganisation in New Zealand Dunedin's boundaries were hugely extended to cover a lot of rural area around the city, stretching right up to Waikouaiti in the north, Middlemarch inland, and Henley in the south. It may seem odd, but the city officially covers over 3000 square kilometres, of which only about a tenth is urban. This map shows the limits of the Dunedin City Council's area. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand but do you think other people will understand? Wouldn't this make more sense to all but those people involved in the technicalities of its administration - and there cannot be many of those. "Middlemarch is a small town within the limits of Dunedin city in New Zealand with 300 inhabitants. It lies some 80 km to the west of the Dunedin city centre, at the . . .". As it stands it reads (to those like you and now me that understand it) like a deliberately provocative statement to illustrate its apparently absurd position and for anyone else other than you me and its administrators its just daft. Eddaido (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, and the same with other townships within Dunedin's limits. It's explained on the Dunedin page, and IIRC some other places (such as Mosgiel) also mention it, but it would be worth explanation. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Auckland uses just Auckland not Auckland City - well, according to Wikipedia and this seems to agree Auckland. Would you mind if I just changed it as I suggested above? Eddaido (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the change suggested above is fine. But we should also record within the prose that it is located within the area administered by Dunedin City Council.

Auckland is a completely different situation, since the term refers to both Auckland City and to the Auckland Region. Treating this the same way would be a bad move IMO. I've reworded the article to hopefully explain the situation a bit more clearly. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

But isn't Dunedin the same? What is it you think makes the Dunedin arrangement so different? No where else would have city "limits" 80k away over almost entirely farmland (well certainly not City with houses etc, i.e. nothing suburban). So its a quirk and an embarrassingly lonely one. please ref city limits to see what city limits are thought to be when away from Otago though I'm sure you know perfectly well. Puzzled, Eddaido (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Auckland is in the Auckland Region - a unitary authority which is now coterminous with Auckland city. As such, Auckland can refer to either the city or the region, and both are pretty much the same thing anyway; Dunedin is in the Otago Region - as such Dunedin can only refer to the city (including Middlemarch). Otago is not unitary - Dunedin city is one of several local authorities within it. This isn't any different from other cities which include large areas of rural land. The city limits article doesn't really help at all, since it only refers to three countries - that article should be extended to include information on what is regarded as city limits (and also urban limits, which is completely different) in other parts of the world. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

True I had looked at the Otago region article and decided it was probably overdue for revision (from what you have said above) and that Dunedin City now covered it. So I am wrong and I can't complain about the article as its now re-written by you. I was aware the place existed but came on the article because I was thinking about the novel and didn't mind being distracted. Do you think many of the hits Middlemarch NZ receives are for that reason? Does it get more than equivalent remote settlements do? No matter. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Could be - though it doesn't get that different a number of hits from the likes of Ranfurly, New Zealand or Clyde, New Zealand, so perhaps it doesn't get too many stray hits...

File source problem with File:Oamaru stonework.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Oamaru stonework.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The status was clearly enough stated on the file as it was, but I've made it a little more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)