User talk:BigNate37/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions ending on July 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1
Archive 2
3
4
5
6
7
10

Trouble with section - dumping it here for now

I can't get my things to do: expand stubs section to display any stub categories as links. I'm putting the list here for now;

=== Expand Stubs ===

Category:Saskatchewan geography stubs
Category:Baseball stubs
Category:Baseball pitcher stubs
Category:Baseball catcher stubs

I'm off to bed. Figuring out how the heck to link a stub category will have to wait for another time. BigNate37 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it by making the links external. Appearantly internally linking categories doesn't work. BigNate37 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you did it by putting in an extra colon:

That seems to work. --TerrorBite 08:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's how you do it with images too, makes sense. Mind you, when I was fussing with those categories I didn't know how to link images either. But thanks for checking out the talk page and helping. I may be an active participant in discussion, but I'm no veteran editor. BigNate37_T·C 08:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion re: Campion and Luther Colleges

You're quite right: there was a grammatical error. I had written the sentence which I had now edited with a view to make it more accurate as to the status of Luther and Campion before they became federated colleges of the University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus (as it then was). Both were high schools -- as the old Luther remains. But they also offered first year university courses accredited by the University of Saskatchewan, as did Regina College. When they became federated colleges (and, before that, when Regina College became the U of S Regina Campus) this became moot; they simply offered university courses at Regina Campus. So we are talking history here. Masalai 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oesterreicher tags

Tags were inserted by that user on various pages identified on my user page as "created" by me, in violation of WP:POINT and hence were not made in good faith and were vandalism. This was done in conjuntion with personal attacks and an anti-Semitic edit summary. The same stunt was pulled on another editor. The user is now blocked. Thanks for your interest.--Mantanmoreland 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikify

Actually, I had done some wikifying on the article just before you. The tag was added a while back ago... apparently by you.--Rayc 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That that wikifying tag was added was a few minutes after the article was created, and was still being added-to. That has nothing to do with what BigNate37 is referring to, which is the slapping on of maybe fifty cite tags in each of this and other articles identified with me, and another putative adversary of this editor, by by the blocked user. The user was blocked right after his spree. --Mantanmoreland 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't accurately speaking when I said I removed Rayc's wikify tag from eCustoms. What I meant was that I removed the {{context}} tag. Rayc put it there when he removed the wikify tag, and used (wikify) as the edit summary. So what I should have told Rayc is that I removed the {{context}} tag at eCustoms.

What Mantanmoreland is talking about is John M. Oesterreicher and the spamming thereof with {{fact}} tags. I obviously didn't know the entire scope of the changes I was commenting on and for that I apologise. My comments were what I gathered from happening upon one article and its edit history.

These two events are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure if I have caused confusion among Rayc and Mantanmoreland regarding what I'm talking about or their comments appear under the same title for the sake of convenience. Either way, neither of these two events need attention or further responses, so unless those involved feel so inclined, no worries. BigNate37 15:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This is funny. You see, Rayc had dropped a "wikify" tag on Oesterreicher when I was creating the article, and I thought he was talking about that. Pure coincidence. No prob.--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's my fail, I forgot to metion this was in regard to the eCustoms article. I do to much wikificiation.--Rayc 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Hello; thanks for contacting me. I've unblocked your account and your autoblocked IP at wiktionary. Apologies for the situation. I'll look further into it in a minute. Cheers, — Vildricianus 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the aggravation. The "auto-block bot" had been a bluff - you entered your new account during a vandalism storm (much more noticable on smaller projects) with a username pattern that matched the vandal's. That is, there is no wikt:User:BigNate, wikt:User:Big Nate, wikt:User:Bignate, wikt:User:Big nate, so the addition of the numbers implied it was a semi-automated addition of a two-to-three digit number. When you incurred an auto-block, I renewed the checking request on meta: since that didn't fit the pattern properly. When the results of that check finally came back, Vildricianus unblocked you. Of those twenty-seven blocks, your's was the only incorrect one. Sorry again for the inconvenience. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added wikt:arachnidism. "arachnogenic" got fairly little Google hits and no mention in a number of printed sources. As a result, I take it that necrotic arachnidism is the same as arachnogenic necrosis. — Vildricianus 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese

I like cheese. _{The preceeding unsigned comment was left by The Sand Man 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

That's understandable. I personally enjoy sharp cheddar, processed swiss slices and occasionally a good wedge of gouda. BigNate37_T·C 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook.js?

How does one go about putting something like godmode-light.js to work, so as to have an easier time to reverting vandalism while leaving behind meaningful and helpful edit summaries? I tried copying & pasting the text from it to User:BigNate37/monobook.js to no avail. I think Help:User style is a little too over my head. BigNate37_T·C 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done a hard refresh after saving the page? The instructions to do that are at the top of your monobook.js. If you need any more help, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Earth 2.0 Wiki

Why do you keep deleting it? It is plenty "verifiable". I am claiming it to be a proposition by me. And since it is just a proposition, verification is achieved simply by me posting the article in the first place. And since I did, it IS verified, and there are no grounds for deletion.

Ahh, Drmspeedy (copy)

Wow, that's a helpful little tag I didn't know about. Thanks! BigNate37_T·C 09:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) -- Kjkolb 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, can I ask another question? I see that Wres recreated the article shortly after it was deleted (and it's been re-tagged as CSD A7). Is it possible to end up in a loop where one editor keeps recreating an article that keeps getting speedied, or does something else happen? I know that an article deleted on AFD can be speedied if its recreated, but I'm not sure about this case. BigNate37_T·C 09:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was speedied, then the previous deletion is not considered. You just check to see if it still meets the speedy deletion requirements. If the article went through AfD and is substantially similar, it can be deleted as recreated content. If a deleted article keeps getting recreated, it can be deleted and then recreated with nothing but a template that explains things and then permanently protected from editing. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That makes sense, thanks again for the info. BigNate37_T·C 09:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Monkeys

I notice you reverted "These children were called powder monkeys" on military use of children. The comment was put in by 12.30.213.9 who is a not-logged in editor so perhaps you were right to be suspiscious: however as far as I know the comment you reverted is correct, they were called powder monkeys e.g. see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1582346755/103-3924190-6034268?v=glance&n=283155 etc or most children's text books. --BozMo talk 07:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. It seems that quality is inversly proportional to quality. That is, the longer my editing sessions, the worse my edits. BigNate37_T·C 05:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay

Perhaps it is time to ask for semi-protection for Paraguay? I've been slightly miffed at the addition of Braziguayan content of late; I can't find anything about this word on Google and a few anon IPs have been adding the same content repeatedly now. Perhaps alternatively they can be shown to be socks of Osasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? BigNate37_T·C 14:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nathan, thanks for your concern about the Paraguay article. I left a message to the IP user that made the last change (restoring the whole Braziguayan paragraph) and I'll do the same for Osasco. I'll wait for a response from them, but if they don't reply and keep adding the same stuff without any type of sources then we can request protection for the page. Does it sound like a good "plan" to you?. Regards. Bruno18 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't too sure if there was something we should be doing or not in light of this recent Braziguayan onset of anonymous edits to the article. I'm mostly concerned with the Braziguayans article, because in my eyes it is totally unverifiable and as such information relating to the topic would only taint the Paraguay article. BigNate37_T·C 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the Braziguayans article. While the article is true in some way (there are many Brazilians and their descendants in Paraguay) it's the whole "according to unofficial data" statistical part that is plain wrong and uncyclopedic. Unless Osasco can back that up with sources, it needs to go in my opinion. Do you think it would be a good idea to nominate the article for deletion? Bruno18 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cleaned the article up a lot (though I did nothing for its verifiability) and slapped on a disputed tag. If I recall, I proposed it for deletion earlier (or its much less developed singular version which I just turned into a redirect). I'd definately support an AfD nomination but with my very limited knowledge on the topic I thought it best not to be hasty in removing content. If you, being more familiar with the subject matter at hand, feel that it merits AfD as having no chance to be verified, I'll be the first to support it. BigNate37_T·C 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the article. Thanks for the cleanup and for adding the disputed tag, it looks better now. I guess I'll wait for a response from Osasco before doing anything and making a decision if the article should be nominated or not. Regards. Bruno18 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Thanks for fixing that! >_< --Zsinj^Talk 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ilia: Elijah or Elijah?

I personally think that the redirect is OK, that is that if Elijah ever gets changed from a redirect into a disambig then the change may go unnoticed in the Ilia article. What do you think? BigNate37_T·C 00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that gets changed, then it should be changed on all of the pages that link there, so I believe it is OK. Further, fewer redirects put less strain on the wiki servers. -- Avi 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're in the right. Take a look at WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and check out the bolded sentence. That policy actually states specifically not to worry about server load, quoting WP:PERF. If Elijah gets turned into an article, will the editor responsible really go through all the pages that link to Elijah (prophet) and decide which article they should be direct at? Those links seem to directly refute your reasons. BigNate37_T·C 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard from you on this, so I went ahead and changed it back. All Wikipedia literature I found suggests this is best. BigNate37_T·C 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your welcome (from Tharsaile)

Dear BigNate37, thanks for the welcome message. It's my only message here so far. I'm not certain what prompted it, although it could be because I started a new article (Memory Spots) whereas I usually just correct grammar and spelling as I read.

I love wikipedia, and use it every single day. I drink my morning coffee from a wikipedia mug.

Truth be told, I haven't spent a lot of time reading the policies here, b/c 1 - I don't plan to vandalize. No malicious intentions here. 2 - I figure that after I make my first big blunder, I will be corrected and thus motivated to read the details.

For now, I've simply been copying markup language as I need it (e.g. to create external links, to sign with tildes, etc.)

I do have a question, though, and I said that I could ask here: How do I remove the red text that says "Template" at the Durban Strategy page?

I see you're a Canadian and a beer drinker. I hope that you enjoy a nice bottle of La Fin du Monde ale once in a while. Belgian style but brewed in Canada. Good stuff. tharsaile 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-sorting.

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! Jibbles | Talk 14:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally check to see which stub to use. When I don't know which type to use I feel it is still beneficial to stick a {{stub}} tag on the article; people who know stub templates better than I will catch it. I've had people change my stub types when I'm not specific enough anyways, so I don't sweat it too much. BigNate37_T·C 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

Howdy. Re: your three keep comments at Redirects for Deletion: [1] [2] [3]. The pages that the redirects are leading to are currently up for deletion too, plus the pages themselves were only ever drafts for a redesign, and hence don't need (or deserve) redirects. These redirects are just cluttering up the wiki-space. For further details see Wikipedia talk:Community Portal#Orphaned subpage. Thanks :) -Quiddity 20:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my position that if a redirect's target is being considered for AfD that this is not a valid reason for deleting the redirect on RfD. In fact, this is terrible reasoning.

If the target gets deleted, the redirects linking to it can be speedied as a matter of housekeeping and we've wasted our collective breaths considering the redirect for deletion. Worst case, the pages are not deleted and we've made a decision on a phantom criteria that never came to fruition.
RfD should not be considering the validity of the articles that redirects link to. RfD's scope does not include deleting a redirect because the target does not deserve a redirect. Any deletionist arguement, in my opinion, must originate from one or more of the six criteria at WP:RFD#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect?. It is very bad practice to judge the merit of a redirect on the merit of its target, and I strongly discourage you from this line of reasoning. As a corollary, the only basis for deciding whether an article does not deserve a redirect is whether the article deserves to be an article. I believe this applies to non-namespace zero articles as much as it does to namespace zero articles.

It seems you are missing the point of redirects and I ask you to reconsider their purpose in accordance with WP:R#What do we use redirects for?, specifically {{R from shortcut}}. BigNate37_T·C 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me about my comments on WP:RFD. Perhaps if you want to discuss this further you can lay out your case at the RfD discussion rather than here and I'll be happy to reiterate where I'm coming from on my position to keep the redirects. BigNate37_T·C 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'm presumming that "speedied as a matter of housekeeping" will be the end result, but thanks for reframing the issue/options for me :) (I'm just a mergist, trying to clean up under the sofa...) -Quiddity 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glazed Expressions

Nope, thanks for the editing to it that looks MUCH better! Wildthing61476 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re nowiki/templates

Thanks, I had missed it! JamieJones ^talk 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages being deleted

Can you help why is this guy deleting the pages i have created???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan1983 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some one called Roy, pages were titled Tristan Cobb and Synapse - synapse is an english band front man is Tristan Cobb they have been running since 1998 made 10 albums and are signed to their own label and have a big fan base despite poor sales.....and yet it gets deleted! I dont understand and i am getting fustrated to as why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan1983 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan1983 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Edit count by namespace? ==

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Kate's Tool#Edit count by namespace?

It doesn't look like these tools are updated regularly or anything, but I see people quoting numbers for edit counts by user, often split up by namespace. Off the top of my head, I think this was mentioned in a few RfA discussions. How do people arrive at these numbers? Personally I'd like to know what proportion of my edits are actually in article space. BigNate37_T·C 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interiot's edit counter lists these, though it's currently like 45 days behind. My Tool2 lists up-to-date numbers (as does Essjay's). --Interiot 02:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Say, I know its asking a lot, but is it also possible to count edits from deleted articles? Either way, thanks again—your tool + MS Excel gave me a quick tally and percentage breakdown. BigNate37_T·C 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not possible to do this with Tool2, as there is no on-wiki way to get a list of a person's deleted edits. It might be possible to do that with the toolserver tool, but again, that's old data. --Interiot 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarzEz' deleted page

MarzEz (actually my younger brother) was complaining because his page at ME and my family: got deleted. I explained his error to him, and showed him how to create pages in his userspace and created an empty page at User:MarzEz/ME and my family for him. I was wondering if you could recover the contents for him and put them at User:MarzEz/ME and my family.

Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks, TerrorBite 08:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid only an administrator can revive deleted pages, of which I am not. Sorry for the fuss, normally I (read: probably not others) would move the article to the user's page if the user didn't already have a page. In this case, I wasn't able to do that because there was already a page there. Perhaps in the future I'll create a subpage in instances like this. Anyways, sorry I can't help recover that material, and best wishes with it. BigNate37_T·C 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, thanks anyway. I knew it was a long shot. Btw, I also added a comment under User_talk:BigNate37#Trouble with section - dumping it here for now concerning those Categories links. I just happened across that info while trying to find out how to right-align an infobox. TerrorBite 08:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]