User talk:Taelus/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will be unavailable for quite some time

Due to having massive issues with my accomodation and landline, I am not going to be available for some time. To cut a long story short, due to some ISP issues, I am likely to be disconnected from the internet till many complex issues are resolved. Hope to see Wiki again sooner rather than later, ---Taelus (Talk) 10:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hurry back! GedUK  10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Things are some-what sorted now, but I still have remaining issues to resolve, thus I may be unable to reply to communications etc for a few days. Thanks for your patience, ---Taelus (Talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Things are not sorted, the world of UK ISPs is very complex thanks to British Telecom owning infrastructure and not enjoying repairing it for other companies use. As a result I have been disconnected for ages, and won't be finally reconnected for another 2-3 weeks. Thank goodness for free wifi at the library? ---Taelus (Talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not around

  • Its been a long time, randomly felt I should post something just in case anyone wonders. Had major issues with my living setup so I had little internet access for a long time. Then when that became mostly resolved, I fell ill and have been very fatigued, so haven't really had the time and energy for Wikipedia on top of soldiering through the day. Hope to be back in the coming months, I might start trying to pop up and help out with a few things when I have spare energy. --Taelus (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

While am involved, I appreciate that someone outside the squadron is now paying attention to this content dispute. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Originally I didn't want to protect the whole page over this single matter, but neither do I want to block productive editors from all areas over this single problem, hence why I have gone with a short 31 hour protection to push people towards the discussion. (All recent edits are warring over this segment anyway.) Hopefully this gets resolved properly now, as I don't want to see blocks being handed out over such a silly matter in the long run. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Originally the dispute was about insertion or rewording, but now this rather pointy discussion has ensued to establish consensus to remove long-accepted usage instructions. Sorry you had to get involved but it's a solid call. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks also. I'm clearly involved, I asked for page protection because to me, changing the content after just a couple hours of discussion after asking me to jump through weeks of waiting for adding a tiny bit seemed a bit hypocritical, especially something with long-standing consensus. But then again, I am a fan of 'Bold', up to a point.
Honestly, at this point, I'd like to see this issue put to bed. I never anticipated such pushback from simply asking editors to follow their own rules. And I'm sure there is actual content out there needing good copyediting or improvement. -- Avanu (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Why not contain this to the Rescue talk page? There was no "long-standing consensus" that this was a rule, but instead just a suggestion, which people have always ignored, and always will. By dragging this discussion out all over the place, you get more attention from people that have never even bothered to participate in anything related to this Wikiproject, nor are likely to ever do so. Someone unaware of the situation, since no one is likely to go through and read a discussion that insanely long, might believe what you say, and go there and vote in the strawpoll without looking over all the arguments. Dream Focus 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If people "always" ignored this issue, then why do people keep asking about it (since 2007)? -- Avanu (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the Articles tagged for rescue have never followed this. And to clarify, I should've said those of us who actually work on these tagged articles, usually just ignore the people that come and bother with this and other nonsense. Dream Focus 18:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There is little point diverting debate onto my talk page as well :) Please, do keep arguments at the relevant talk pages, and keep them constructive. There are already RfCs, straw polls and proposals going on there, so little is gained commenting here - After all, my only interest here is to prevent an edit war. I'm not an involved party in any way. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rescue template needs renewing of protection

Nine minutes after the protection expired, an IP address with hardly any other edits ever, edited the Rescue template without any discussion before hand. [1] Can you renew protection or just make a statement that no changes should happen without a proper consensus being formed? Is there any doubt whatsoever that this IP address is Avanu? Can you perhaps do a permanent block of IP addresses editing the page? Dream Focus 15:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you suspect sock puppetry, then you will need to take this to WP:SPI. I'll keep an eye on the page as things develop and warn edit warriors. As this is a different set of edits to the previous which caused the article to be locked, i'll hold back on reprotecting (or blocking if its specific users) unless this turns into another full blown edit war. You can of course make a request at RFPP if you want protection sooner, as I cannot watch at all times. I'll post a reminder about edit warring on the talk page too. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Taelus, I asked Slim Virgin to check me out because Jclemens had the same idea about me being a sock or whatever. (However, SlimVirgin seems to get sidetracked easily and I don't think she ever did it)
I live in Oklahoma and I edit from home, work, or occasionally my iPhone. I'm only who I am, if you would like to review my edits with CheckUser or whatever and confirm to these two that that's all that I am, then I would be fine with that. Emotional arguments from Dream Focus aren't where we need to be on these things and rather than have this be yet another distraction, if there's a way to clear it up and move on, I'm all for it. -- Avanu (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
However, on the context of editor behavior, I believe we're rapidly getting to the point where Dream Focus needs to either work as a collaborative editor, or move on. We're getting more editors participating than we have in a long time, but there is an emotional undercurrent in a very small subset of the 'regulars' that is really just not helpful. I think Dream Focus genuinely wants to help, but I think there is wayyy too much ownership of this and it is harmful to getting more editors involved and harmful to just getting things done. -- Avanu (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
And once again, more ridiculous accusations against me. Others reverted you previously as well, not just me, and others are against your changes also. You don't bother actually trying to help with any articles, you just argue nonstop for months now about nonsense. People who actually do work on finding sources for articles in need, are usually against your changes, while those who have spoken out against the Rescue Squadron before wish to restrict and insult it every chance they get. Keep this discussion on the talk page please. Dream Focus 03:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Dream, do you recall what you *just* said above? "Is there any doubt whatsoever that this IP address is Avanu?" Just stop, OK? -- Avanu (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you stop dragging this out constantly all over the place? You just waste everyone's time with this nonsense. Dream Focus 03:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Listen, guy, I'm not the one who brought it here, I'm not the one who accused a fellow editor of being a sock. I volunteered to have Taelus check me out. I hatted the unproductive discussion at the other page in an attempt to keep things civil, and got rewarded with a cookie from another editor for TRYING to maintain a professional environment there. Dig deep and please find a way to work with others WITHOUT attacking them, or this is going to have to escalate. I prefer talking to people who are willing to give and take, and I'm not finding that to be the case with you. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You attack others constantly! Stop trying to rewrite history. You prefer talking to people who agree with you, and everyone who doesn't is being emotional, unreasonable, against you, or whatever. Do you self edit your own memories and distort them to suit you? And by escalate do you mean dragging something out for months now, because you didn't get your way? Dream Focus 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Look, this is all getting a bit ridiculous. There are several editors who are now attacking each other over these disputes at WT:ARS. Keep the discussions based on content. This means not throwing around accusations of socking. If you think there is socking, file an WP:SPI, don't use your suspicions solely as ammo in your argument. In reply to Avanu, I am not a checkuser. Hatting the unproductive discussion was a good move, and it's a shame it's been undone. I'm going to rehat the various bits of conversation that are just attacks, and I suppose if this dispute continues after that it will need to go to ANI or RFC/U, as I don't think lengthy protection will help the dispute, nor do I want to be forced into blocking editors who are productive in a range of areas over something that, at the end of the day, is so silly. --Taelus (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.

This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.

We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".

>>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

–MuZemike 14:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim Nord (at RfD)

Thanks for yours. Perhaps I am mistaken. I checked the page and Skyrim is on there, I think Nord not. If I am simply wrong, then please say so at RfD and I will support that: I have been known to be wrong once or twice (no more than that. Okay, about a million times.) I am an inclusionist not a deletionists, so really I don't see any harm in keeping it, I tend to keep an eye on RfD because sometimes redirects can be positively harmful i.e thwart attempts of readers to get to what they want to get to, by redirecting them to something completely else. I can't see that is the case here really and have no trouble with the Skyrim, I was wondering more about the Nord, if it would block e.g. Gare du Nord or things of that sort, and as a compound term it is not, as far as I can see, used in the article. But I am very happy to abide by your better judgment, if it is doing no harm I would say let it stay.

I will (or you can) copy all this to the RfD if you want, but as you did to me wanted to give you the courtesy of saying it to you first.

I have been on rather an extended WikiBreak so please excuse me if I have broken wikiquette. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, i've left my comments at the RfD already. I myself don't really see myself as either an inclusionist or a deletionist, I just judge everything based on its own merits. I'm just concerned about deleting redirects which could be linked to us from an outside website when they aren't harmful. It's arbitary, and all it does is irritate users by making them land at a "This page has been deleted" screen instead of the target article. Heck, it could even lead to duplicate creation if someone searches it, isn't redirected, and thus believes the topic isn't covered on Wikipedia. Since we cover it, and its a plausible if slightly odd search term, I see no real benefit in deleting it. --Taelus (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I've replied at RfD, basically coming down on your side. We are probably crossing paths here! May I suggest you have a quick look at the DAB Nord, the entry for the elder scrolls has two blue links, one to the race and one to the head article for the elder scrolls. You should really only have One Blue Link. (See WP:DAB). I would edit it myself, but I am sure you are better placed to decide which one you want. Don't delete the other, just unlink it.
Best regards Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the spot, i've changed it so it links to Nord (Elder Scrolls) instead, which redirects to the relevant section, as this makes more sense for a DAB page and is more specific than linking to the races article without a section link. I removed the other blue links and full stop per WP:D3 too. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thanks for your WP:AGF, too. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

William Tutin Thomas

Thanks for your help with adding the navboxes there and casting your eye over it. Not a bad morning's work, then. One more article to add to the three billion :)

Best wishes and sincere thanks. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you for all the translation work, and indeed, another article to add to the stack! I boldly closed the RfD as I think the entire issue about confusion between the father and son has been addressed, as it is effectively disambiguated in the article lead anyway. --Taelus (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't say you didn't ask for this

Hehe, thanks for the laugh. Have to say I think I might prefer the way it used to be ;). - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have added more emphasis to the point that people should feel free to drop me a message on my talk page? :) --Taelus (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you ! It was my first contribution to the almighty Wiki, and you cleaned it up in a much easier and readable format. I expected someone would, and just wanted to say you did a fine job. ToastyHunter (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for your contributions! If you ever need help in the future with anything wiki-related, feel free to ask. --Taelus (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Long comment on redirects?

Why are you adding {{Long comment}} to redirects? I'm confirming that is not needed here. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I noticed in my watchlist that after I closed RfDs, and detagged them, a bot would quickly swoop in afterwards and tag it. Thus I thought I was causing some problem by leaving the tag out, and began including it in redirect I modified or closed deletion debates on. I'll stop if it isn't needed, or let the bot resume chasing me around my watchlist if you so desire. --Taelus (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the bot was wrong to do that (It should have checked if the page was a real redirect by the time it was about to edit it), but I agree the documentation is lacking or hard to find. I'll repeat this thought at Wikipedia talk:Special:ShortPages and continue this conversation there. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Equestria Daily

A tag has been placed on Equestria Daily, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Currently at deletion review.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 18:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Contested. No point breaking navigation by leaving a red link. There is no relevant deletion discussion at RfD either which would prevent existance of a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy was declined. (Noting this for the benefit of future archives and related threads.) --Taelus (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily

A new deletion review has been created regarding an article you've recently discussed. Dr. WTF (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already commented there, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No

You may not "advise" me, your arrogance. I am a more accomplished editor than you, despite your administrator status. You are unknown to me, and should know better than to interfere in a teaching moment between an experienced editor who evidently knows the jurisdictional and behavioral bounds and an inexperienced editor who does not. Be on your way. DocKino (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to reply to this other than with "...wow." - You think I am being arrogant by warning you that you are on the threshold of violating 3RR? You think that because you are "teaching" that you are allowed to violate our guidelines on removal/restoration of user talk page warnings? I suggest that you firstly look up the definition of arrogance, then secondly stop edit warring. --Taelus (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
For your benefit: Wikipedia:BLANKING. --Taelus (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Taelus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Free as a Bird

Would you please protect this article again? Consensus hasn't been reached, but there have been several undiscused changes to the lead. Radiopathy •talk• 02:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the situation. There haven't been any further edits for hours now, thus I am tempted at this point to accept the earlier couple of changes as part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle as the content change was somewhat different to the previous edit war. If any further warring occurs, i'll reprotect. Thanks for the notification! --Taelus (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taelus/Archive_5&oldid=1146681623"