User talk:Bastin/Archive 6

This page is an archive of my talk page up to the 9th February 2008. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

Nonsense of Look at the silly monkey

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Look at the silly monkey, by Pixelface (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Look at the silly monkey provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Look at the silly monkey, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UK

You must have reverted sufficiently to be in danger of contravening the 3rv rule. Just thought I would mention it. Abtract 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However, I'm not, as I have reverted exactly 3 times in the past 24 hours, not the 4 times required to be in breach of the 3RR, and I have engaged in enough debate on this exact topic on the talk page to prove my good faith. Goading people into trying to cross the 3RR line constitutes WP:GAME. Try to abide by WP:CONS instead. And please don't defy WP:POINT again. Bastin 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply mentioned that you were in danger of violating it, not that you had. Just trying to be helpful. Abtract 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bourse de Luxembourg redirect

A tag has been placed on Bourse de Luxembourg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Duribald 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the spelling because I assumed the red link was a result of misspelling. Then I nominated it after checking that there was no article about the stock exchange. Redirects are usually created AFTER an article is created and redirects without target are up for speedy deletion. - Duribald 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I's been gone since you explained the situation. :-) - Duribald 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hôtel de la Chambre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Luxembourg in WWI

I saw that you write this article. Can I translate this article on serbien wikipedia? --Vojvodaen 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourgish

I think an EU publication holds more weight than a group of Wikipedia editors, sorry. Charles 12:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia subject to the rulings of your WikiProject? How is it in the best interest of the articles? I never said that it was law, but I would think than an EU publication is more authoritative on the matter than a group of Wikipedia editors. Compare this to this. Charles 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "WikiProject Luxembourg has dictated a word to be used". There does not seem to have been any discussion about this matter on the talk page for that WikiProject (please correct me if I've missed something). One single editor (you) seems to be responsible for this dictate. I'm not saying that it's incorrect; I'm merely pointing out that the authority you are citing (WikiProject Luxembourg) does not appear to be much more than just yourself. Noel S McFerran 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Luxembourg SIP

A template you created, Template:Luxembourg SIP, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On September 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stock market crash of 1973-4, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One mans obviousity

One man's obviosity, depends upon what she knows entering a situation she is faced with evaluating. Does your 'obvious' consider the 7, 10, or 14 year old just sampling this field of knowledge for the first time? (I think not!)

Yours assumes someone knows a canton is subordinate to a district (i.e. something about local governments organisations); mine was for the understanding of the greater number of ignorant readers that happen into the article from some associated link. Your change assumes knowledge, my version conveys what YOU find obvious... and I had to figure out and confirm. That these editors building and maintaining these Luxembourg pages, did a great job in being consistent with coloration and maps building is laudable and not yet as standard as we could hope. But I see no harm in providing key explaination when there is room, as there was for Orange. (I had my own doubts about the three colors mention for Districts, but assuming Orange is "obvious" leads one down a slippery slope with a sand foundation.)

When in doubt, think of the nine-year old just learning about the wider world. Best regards, // FrankB 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2) FYI - This looks to be my bad, as I'd been diverted into changing the subtemplates to supply the conversion units where they gave no problems (in the sub-templates)... the 1500 was thus a local test override to check local syntax, whereas the {km2 to mi2}} needs be placed in the appropriate sub-template. In short, my bad, as I never got back to this line (where I began) and made the parallel fix needed in the sub-template, and didn't see it, as it was masked by the test value insertion of 1500. Installing {{Km2 to mi2}} in Template:Luxembourg commune density(edit talk links history) will do the job and work fine. IIRC, that template had a lot of comma delimited numbers which I decided to tackle only if I could validate a method in some of the simpler formulations... which took me up to heights and areas, and so forth. Apologies... suspect the wife pressured me, as company was due soon! Best! // FrankB 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

3 Sorry wrong again. With that being a density per square, the task needs a different conversion template, as it's already per km^2 units... and I'm really guilty of fuzzy thinking there! Should be convertable using #expr: operator though, but then the formating will be an issue (still) with the embedded commas. (I just tried and ended up self-reverting.) I'll take a look at generating a similar utility for per capita numbers. Cheers // FrankB 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I've stolen a lot of your userboxes and I think you're fantastic.

Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi, I hope this isn't canvassing but I was wondering if you would be interested in this Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. Thanks Ozmaweezer 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Larry Niven

You made [this edit], but it's currently under discussion as to what your source for this tag is? In fact, there seems to be citations speaking to the contrary. If you can answer in the Talk page, that would be great. --Human.v2.0 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stade Municipal, Rumelange

Stade Municipal, Rumelange, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Stade Municipal, Rumelange satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stade Municipal, Rumelange and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Stade Municipal, Rumelange during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Marlith ^T/C 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

National Union Government (1916)

Hi, I have put a question I was hoping you could take a look at on this site about Luxembourg. From your talk page you seem tired with this subject, but whenever you are bored or something. Best,

German Occupation of Luxembourg in WW1

Hi, I was wondering why you have reverted the reference I updated in this article. Your edit summary says "reverting unhelpful edits and vandalism". I changed the link because it was broken and no longer works. Why do you consider it unhelpful to have a link that works over a link that doesn't work? Or perhaps you considered it vandalism?

Spinningspark (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen that you had used the "cite" template. No problem, but that was not the issue. Perhaps you had not noticed, but not only did I create an archive (yes I created it, did not just find it), but I also repaired the original link. Actually the repair was quite simple as all the site has done is changed the file type from .html to .php. If you substitute .php in your template you will find that the link now works. I suggest you still retain the link to the archive though, in case the site moves or changes the page again.

Spinningspark (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources encourages putting the archive url in the reference. I certainly don't see anywhere saying it is superfluous. Kind of makes it hard to find if you were to need it don't you think? Spinningspark (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I translated this article on Serbian and it will be awarden one. Thanks for this graet article.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CHOGM items

Hi. I added some new items to the category for CHOGM meetings. feel free to let me know any comemnts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

category

Hi Bastin - I noticed you've added a few articles to the Order of the Oak Crown category. I'm proposing that the category be deleted and a list in the article (or a separate list) be created instead. (Discussion on 1/26 CFD) For various technical reasons, lists are better for award-winners than categories, and "overcategorization" guideline includes award-winners as the kinds of categories that are usually considered "overcategorization" on an article. Since you're working in this area, it would be great to have you weigh in at CFD. You might read "categories, lists, and series infoboxes" and "overcategorization" and "categorization" if you haven't in a while, just so the rationales and discussions are familiar to you. If the category is deleted, your help in moving the information from categories to a list could be very helpful. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:History of Luxembourg

A tag has been placed on Template:History of Luxembourg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)