User talk:Grutness/archive22

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

Stubstuff

WesternAustralia-stub

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it appears to be well-formed and well populated, and will almost certainly be kept rather than being deleted, but it would have been very useful if you had passed it by the people who actually deal with stubs in general first! Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there about the new stub type. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grutness,

Yes, I'm aware of the various exhortations for me to ask permission before creating new stubs. No doubt you're aware that there are still a few of us around who consider this "rule" to be an unacceptable imposition on the Wiki philosophy. It is a rule that I have every intention of ignoring, as I am very strongly opposed to having to ask a WikiProject's permission before creating a page.

Rest assured that I don't create stubs very often, and when I do whey are invariably sensible, so my refusal to sign on oughtn't cause you any difficulties going forward.

See you round.

Hesperian 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of foolishness on Wikipedia. Most of it is low impact. I agree that the application of foolishness to stub creation would have a larger than desirable impact, although I think that impact has been rather exaggerated by WP:STUB. I think the goals of WP:STUB are reasonable, even laudable, but I don't much like the way they go about doing things. To my mind, their structure and methods are unnecessarily overbearing and authoritarian. I think Wikipedia would continue to get along just fine if WP:STUB revised its pushy "ask permission first" policy down to a friendly "please let us know if you create a stub" policy. Other WikiProjects manage to promulgate and enforce conventions without resorting to the kind of overbearing methods that WP:STUB have adopted.

Regarding your reply, I rather feel as though you latched onto my decision to link the word "ignoring" to WP:IAR, and addressed that to the exclusion of everything else. I'm curious as to how you would have responded if I had not linked that one word.

Hesperian 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your "toned down - my apologies" edit summary, apology accepted and unnecessary. I should add that I have no beef with any WP:STUB member, and certainly not with you, who I've seen doing good work around here for a long time. This is merely a friendly exchange of opposing views, right? Hesperian 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Cluj-stub}} / Category:Cluj-Napoca stubs

It's closing time for this on SFD and I was wondering if you had any ideas as to what to do with it. Basically, there's you at a "strong delete" and the creator at a "keep." I would normally side with the "strong delete", but now there's 80-some articles, and that's not something to easily overlook. Should I go ahead and re-stub them all with something else or just keep this? Any thoughts? ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Dharmic-Religion-stub}} / Category:Dharmic Religion stubs

One more question for you. What to do with this. Category:Dharmic religions seems to be a parent for all of Category:Hinduism, Category:Buddhism, Category:Sikhism, etc. So, it might seem like a decent parent for Category:Hinduism stubs, Category:Buddhism stubs, Category:Sikhism stubs, etc. However, they've only managed to populate it up to 38 articles (which is a miracle in and of itself considering Category:Dharmic religions only has 9 articles). I'm hesitant just to delete this because I know there will be an onslaught of religious fervor from both sides if the stubs are mixed together or mis-sorted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Other stubs

I had a bit of a think about our previous discussion. Before our chat I didn't know that WP:STUB was endeavouring to track all stubs in existence. I still don't like the idea of having to ask permission to create a stub, but in future I will at least let the project know of my intentions/actions, so you can maintain your lists. In that spirit I thought I should mention the two other stubs that I am guilty of creating:

1. I created {{Proteaceae-stub}} and Category:Proteaceae stubs. The category currently has 152 entries, which compares favourably to the other plant family stubs.
2. I created {{Banksia-stub}} and Category:Banksia stubs on behalf of WP:BANKSIA, a very active WikiProject of which I am a member. It currently contains 61 articles, and has not much potential to grow, as we've only identified about 50 Banksia articles yet to be created. At one point it have about 100 articles, but the trend has been for the population to shrink, as we are improving our stubs at a greater rate than we create new ones. Seeing as there is no precedent for the creation of plant stubs at genus level, and WP:BANKSIA has the capacity to monitor our stubs through the talk page tag {{WP Banksia|class=Stub...}}, I won't object if WP:STUB sentences it to be cast into the belly of Proteaceae-stub.

Hesperian 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll pass that on to WP:WSS/D - thanks... Grutness...wha? 09:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BC stubs

Thanks for the advisory and the admonishment. My posts on the SFD aren't meant to be overbearing; other Wikipedians familiar with me know I'm kinda prolix/voluble - I just type real fast and usually have forty different things to say that more or less have to do with the topic at hand ;-) I just wrote up a fair explanation on my talk page why any subdivisions of BC are going to be difficult; it's easier (for us, if not for Wiki) to subdivide things by category of object; I won't go on as I have enough already on the SFD and the talkpage. I'll propose certain stub ideas - the poli-stub, and a gov-stub (?) for sure, and I had others in mind. I notice you didn't SFD the mountains-stub...was that an oversight? I have good reason why it's needed, as explained on the SFD, and also in the context given on my talk page; mountains have regions called mountain ranges; towns and rivers can't be classified that way; and mountains can't be classified by lowlander boundaries as they quite often then would have to be in two regions (being defining parameters or those regions, being ridge-summits and all...); which is why anything along the Continental Divide south of about 54 degrees latitude is in both BC and Alberta categories (there's currently a Category:Mountains of British Columbia, and a Category:Mountain ranges of Canada, which includes the BC cat; most ranges in Canada are in either BC or Alberta (with the huge bulk of them in BC, overwhelmingly) plus a few large ones in the Yukon and NWT, and a handful in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador; IMO there should be Category:Mountain ranges of Alberta and Category:Mountain ranges of Yukon as well as mountain cats for same; I know that's not your area but it's a similar/related issue, and the idea of mountain stubs is really relevant if you live in place where "there are more mountains than people" (as with BC). Anyway, BC has something like 5,000 named peaks, or more....(I know, as I was the senior geographer for the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia for three years and either created or organized most of their entries....). Best place to reply is probably my talkpage I guess....Skookum1 10:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) {Replied on Skookum1's talk page Grutness...wha? 10:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

TRNC stub

Ok, but there is no stub to regroup all TRNC related stubs together... I am sorry, but this is about the TRNC as a political entity, whether it is recognized or not. There is no political undertone. Cyprus stub utilizes the flag of its opposing state, so there is not much logic to use it for topics concerning TRNC like "politics of TRNC". The problem is, Cyprus-stub is not a geographical stub, it uses the Republic of Cyprus flag, which means that it is a political stub, right? If it used the geographical map of Cyprus, then there wouldn't be a problem. However, I didn't know about the proposing procedure. But there is still a problem with utilizing the Cyprus stub. So, what is the solution? Baristarim 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grutness (and Hi again Baristarim).

The {{Cyprus-stub}} has been messed up several times. I remember trying to switch to the NASA map of the island a few times, but everytime this was done, the image had been reverted to the flag when I logged on the next day. Mairi didn't have better luck either. Most of these reverts came from the same anon account. When I went through some Cypriot material and replaced the ROC flag with an updated graphic, I did the same here but that was because I wanted to get rid of a poor-quality image. I hope you'll have better luck with this template than me, but we'll have to see. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am kinda new in the Cyprus/TRNC territory in Wikipedia, and the only thing that bugged me was the flag issue. If it is a map, then I will have absolutely no problems. My only suggestion for a TRNC stub to group TRNC stubs was because I had the impression that Cyprus-stub was used to group Republic of Cyprus stubs. I also saw Valentinian's comments above, and I understood what the problem was. I will also try to keep an eye on it and will try to do my best. There are still things I am kind of discovering in Wikipedia, so I wasn't aware of the stub procedure. But I definitely agree with what you said about other non-recognized state stubs. Cheers! Baristarim 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of this template, it should probably have been done long ago. Now you know whay I never proposed a -bio stub for the island, although it seems clearly viable. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to square one it seems. Suggestions? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the stub image. I hope this solution will work, but I wouldn't bet money on it. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It went as I feared. Oh, btw, both of us have now officially been labelled as pro-Turks [1]. Funny, I didn't know that myself. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, unless he is a wikipedian there won't be much of a problem. But I did notice that this user has sent out messages written in Greek to quite a few Greek Wikipedians. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Jamaica-footy-bio-stub}}

Hello Grutness. I don't expect stubsorters to do *anything*, as I don't have a problem populating the stub category myself. And as you pointed out yourself, my created stub is fine. I can see a Stub WikiProject as a good way to enforce common standards, but please don't be a police force with a monopoly of action. Especially when the task performed is standard (i.e. this Jamaica category), by people who know what they're doing (I was one of those who made the first sub-stub categories in the European football biographies category, and have made edits to clarify flawed football biography categories). I just don't see why I should use my leisure time go through internet bureaucracy, with a band of (more or less) random people posing as judges, to make a category which is sound anyways. Poulsen 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have placed these replies in order of your corresponding paragraphs on my talk page.

1. Please don't equal "expect" to "want". I want people to do what they want, that is the idea of Wikipedia. And if a consensus is reached to revert what I have done, then so be it. But - it was you who used the word "expect", and I point out that I don't "expect" people to do anything on Wikipedia, simply because I have no place doing so, and if I want something done I do it myself. About making it available to others, I don't see how the Stub Project have made, fore example, the {{DRCongo-footy-bio-stub}} noticed in any way (see #2)? Which specifics should I have done to make the stub cats more noticed?
2. Right, "appears" it is, my apologies. Take the examples of {{DRCongo-footy-bio-stub}} and {{SouthAfrica-footy-bio-stub}}. They were made, by a member of the Stub project, only as a stub template, without a specific category, and was only applied to few stub articles within the DR Congolese and South African footballers category. It might have been because they were thought to be too small in this discussion, but a week later, I populated South Africa with more than 80 stubs. Also, the {{Ghana-footy-bio-stub}} and {{Nigeria-footy-bio-stub}} weren't fully applied in their repsective footballer categories. The need for checking goes both ways, and I don't see why the project should have a monopoly in creating new stubs, when both you and I can make mistakes/bad research. This is Wikipedia, nothing is perfect - why not go about our business, and I can correct your mistakes (as in my examples) and you can correct mine when and if you find them.
3. I don't see you as wanting people to go away. But you clearly want to be in control with your policy and contacting me now, right? Just contacting me to say that I appearently did a good thing, but that I forgot to ask you, and should do so in the future, is controlling/policing. As for the Stub Project catching mistakes, see #2.
4. As was the case in #2, I took the time myself to finish a job which wasn't properly done by the Stub Project at first hand. The Stub Project isn't the best experts anywhere, they are the best experts who choose to join that specific project.

I can see your point that the project is good at structuring things and has a higher probability of catching mistakes than the casual user, but when the structure is in place, please let the editors edit - isn't that what "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means?

My point is, that when I stay within the consensus rules for stubs and create quality work, then it is a waste of time to wait for the bureaucracy to take its time, just so the stub project can say: We think it is okay. And it is especially a waste of time to tell people who did no wrong, that they were wrong in not consulting a Wikiproject before editing, just because you say so. I will (and have) use(d) the notability/usefulnes guidelines when making new stub categories, but as I see it, the Stub Project should solve queries and make structures, not hinder free editing.

I have listed the most obvious candidates for stub creation at the top of User talk:Poulsen/notes, where especially Ukraine and Slovakia are high on the list. If the Stub Project goes ahead and does them fine, but else I'll do them when I get around to it. Poulsen 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In "hindering free editing", I mean you put up a level or two of bureaucracy (controlled by more or less qualified people) between the user who gets an idea, and the work actually being done. Yes, it is less work when things aren't screwed up and only has to be done once, but as I have shown you, the Stub Project isn't a guarantee for that. The annoyance is a factor, but if your goal is to avoid annoyance, then Wikipedia shouldn't be open to all in the first place.. It is an interesting thought that I could "hinder the progress of Wikipedia" in any way, but I really doubt it.

First off, as you can see, I didn't include the Soviet cat in the "most likely" category of Ukraine and Slovakia, even though it has more articles than Ukraine. That is, I wasn't completely numb to the problem, but that is of little consequence now. Nevertheless; Why is it controversial to have a category of stubs of an established category, when the established category is seemingly uncontroversial in itself? Especially when the Soviet footballers category is in the main footballer catalogue (and not, say, as a subcat in the Russian footballers category). And why does it make sense to have a Korean stub category but not a Soviet stub category? Poulsen 12:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about time waste, you're not obliged to answer me in any way. Don't contact me and then complain about me arguing my stance. If I'm "hindering the progress of Wikipedia" with my answers, then what are you doing with your initial contact? You're the only one who mentioned it at discoveries, taking three minutes to realise it was okay, and if I had taken it through proposals, having to wait for a few people to comment, that wouldn't have been more of a waste than three minutes? It isn't a to-do list, it's notes.. I'm not planing on crating all those footballer articles in there either, but you can read all you want into it, and have. The Stub Project is user-made, right? So it is users who have taken it upon themselves to be in control. That is, it has nothing to do with the starting point of Wikipedia, the freedom, but with the community monopolising various functions, and making controlling instances as an afterthought. About you creating the Slovakia and Ukraine stubs, it will be interesting to see how well you do, compared to the examples I've shown you, which you have chosen not to comment on. Just seeing that you won't give Slovakia their own category, even though I stopped counting stubs in its footballer category when I reached 60, shows that you could do with some actual research before making new stubs. Poulsen 10:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cocktails

Hello. As a person interested in the WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered for the WikiProject from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. Consider becoming an active Participant.

On a more personal note, I wanted to thank you for all your suggestions and helpful criticism provided during the template/category debacle I helped create. I'd appreciate it if you could take a glance through the rest of the WikiProject area and see if there is anything else that should be changed. I'd rather that we work together to fix whatever might be wrong informally, rather than go through the stress of any more formal actions. I really want to do things the right way, but even after 1600+ edits, there is still always more to learn. Thanks again! --Willscrlt 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Geo-stubs

Grutness wrote

Hi Gurch - good to see you adding stubs to articles. Can I ask one favour though? Almost every country in the world now has its own separate geo-stub in the form CountryName-geo-stub (e.g., Italy-geo-stub, SriLanka-geo-stub). If you can add the country where possible when you stub, it'll save a bit more work further down the line. Cheers, and keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, laziness on my part. I'll try and use slightly more specific tags � Gurch 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any help is still good work, even if it's just the geo-stub tag. I just wasn't sure whether you knew about the country tags. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done stub-sorting before, but not since 2005, so I guess I'm out of practise. I knew about the tags though (or at least the ones that we had back then). I'm just going through Special:Shortpages and making sure everything on there is actually useful � Gurch 05:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

aviation-terminology-stub

I apolagize if i seem rude or ignorant on the discussion of the new stub type. I will rename and what not tommorow. I am a very type A person, so I apolagize if i seem rude or impatient. I had done the research (not on the prope rnaming convetion) but i checked out, made sure it had good scope and alot of other things. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. While I respect the way it is done, i feel as though the process is more likley to discourage editors less familiar with stubs from getting involved. (just my personal prefernce). I have alot of respect for what you do, somebodys gotta do it, it just frustrates me to no end. Thanks again and for your good work enjoy this nice award

moved to Barnstar page - with many thanks!

Yea, i understand why stub proposals are imporant. It makes sense, I respect it as well as my reservations about it! Thanks again for your kind "poking" me in the right direction. Another notch in my belt cant hurt! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i have moved the template {{Aviation-terminology-stub}} to {{Aviation-term-stub}}, changed all of the articles tagged with the previous to the latter. I am not familiar with what needs to be done to delete the old stub type. Does it qualify for speedy deletion or does it need to go through a formal stub type for deletion? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub message placement

I've looked, and so far haven't found it documented anywhere. Since you're one of the most savvy Stub people, I figured I'd as you--shouldn't stub messages be located below the visible article text (often the last external link), and _above_ the cats (and probably above large nav footers as well)? That's where I've generally seen them, but recently I've been finding many several lines after the last cat, and bots/AWB putting them there, such as this edit, leaving a bunch of unhelpful white space. Seattlenow 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized stubs

Hi, I've just restored these categories and templates, they're currently used by thousands of articles. There was a discussion before they were set up, on Wikipedia:Categorization I believe. I've asked User:Alai who did a lot of the work settig it up to give you the reference. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:42 20 January 2007 (GMT).

Whoops - looks like I misunderstood the reason for these. There was an earlier template and category for "uncategorised stubs" that was simply everything in Category:Stubs that no-one could think of the correct stub type for. It was deleted via WP:SFD as being a bad idea. I had somehow thought these were the same idea. Apologies. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53 20 January 2007 (GMT).

Indeed, un(perm)catted, as opposed to "unsorted". If I'd remembered that other case, I might have picked a different name. Not too good an idea to "speedy" something when it's in use, though... Alai 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Mind you, it was only because it was added to the stub type list as a subtype of Category:Stub by an anon. I assumed the worst. I should've checked, though. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they could be renamed to Category:Stubs that are sorted, but not categorised, thereby avoiding confusion on both accounts. :) Alai 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation of an illegal Stub

My apologies, in my attempt to be bold I did not do enough research into the policies about Stubs, I will remove it straight away. WikiTownsvillian 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

S'alright... and "illegal" isn't really right - "highly discouraged" is closer to it. Look at it from the stub sorters' point of view. If every city of 200,000 people around the world got its own stub, we'd have thousands more stub types than we already do. I do think that a talk page template would be far more use to you, though, especially if your wikiproject is still small. Have a look at the templates at the top of Talk:Penny Lane, Talk:Dunedin and Talk:Grahame_Sydney to get some idea of the sort of things I mean. That way you can rate all the articles relating to Townsville, not just ones which are stubs. Grutness...wha?

Hi Gruutness, sorry to disturb again, I've wiped all the content from the Template:Townsville-stub but I don't know how to delete it completely (or if by wiping it I have already done so). Please let me know if there is anything further I should do, particularly in relation to the other edits I made last night to Wikiproject Townsville which I will happily admit were just a copy of what is on the Bisbane site. What you have suggested about the templates is great and I will do a little work on that first chance I get. WikiTownsvillian 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I too have removed my offensive stub tags and deleted the text from the template. I am interested in more information about what is meant by a "WikiProject-specific talk page template". JNAllen 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

HongKong-sport-bio-stub

You should put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, because no one would oppose it.

The numbers of stubs were over 70, and supported by WPHK. Matthew_hk tc 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Cyprus-stub

Hi Grutness. I understand that your major concern about the above mentioned stub is defined in this comment of yours: (pasting your comment) "All of the above is very interesting, but also quite pointleess. Sure, you can argue all day about whether one flag represents both the Greek and Turkish parts of the island, but the island o Cyprus - as represented by this stub - includes both the Greek and Turkish communitiesand also sovereign British bases.These bases cannot be represented by the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. As such, even if it were acceptable to use the flag to represent the Turkish community - which is, to say the least, a matter of opinion - it would not be acceptable to use i forr Cyprus as a whole. As such the choice is simply between a map and no icon - the flag is not acceptable". Grutness...wha? 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

However as mentioned in the talk page, the sovereignty of the British Bases in Cyprus is based on the Republic of Cyprus constitution and the treaty of establishment of the republic. If there is no Cyprus then automatically the bases have no legal standing. Since the british bases are based ipso facto on the contsitution of the republic and the republics flag represents -the constitution- then the flag of Cyprus represents in effect the british bases again based on the constitution. Kindly consider that. I would ask the following. Shouldnt the article have been locked in its prior version and allow editors to discuss prior a major unilateral change/ edit? Your comment is appreciated. Aristovoul0s 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And the relevance of this is what, exactly? I have never once claimed that the Republic of Cyprus does not exist. It is true, however, that the flag which flies above the British bases is the Union Jack, and the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over those bases. In any case, the Republ;ic of Cyprus's flag is clearly a divisive emblem to use on the stub, since - regardless of the de jure situation, it does not de facto represent everyone on the island, whereas the map clearly does. It's ironic that coincern for this move comes from Greek Cypriots, since the only reason it is being done is to prevent the creation of a separate TRNC-stub (which is in contravention of stub sorting guidelines as a stub type for a largely unrecognised country). As pointed out before, Cyprus is not the only country where a map is used as the icon on the stub - peple from the other contries where this is the case have no complaints, since they realise that a country's map equally well represents a country, and in many cases does so with less risk of edit--warring. And edit warring is something which is a very difficult matter with templates with dedicated categories, since it puts a lot of strain on the servers. As to the locking of the template, the article was locked into a form which was agreed upon when it was created - that is, a form without the flag. This was discussed at the time the stub was first created - with stub sorters, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots all taking part in the debate. At that time, it was decided that using a flag of any sort would be too divisive, and that either no icon or a map would be the better choice.Grutness...wha?

Thanks for your comment. Let me attempt to put in context the relevance as per your comment. Declaration by Her Majesty's Government regarding the administration of the sovereign base area 2. Her Majesty's Government further declare that their intention accordingly will be -

• Not to develop the Sovereign Base Areas for other than military purposes.
• Not to set up and administer "colonies".
• Not to create customs posts or other frontier barriers between the Sovereign Base Areas and the Republic.
• Not to set up or permit the establishment of civilian commercial or industrial enterprises except in so far as these are connected with military requirements, and not otherwise to impair the economic commercial or industrial unity and life of the Island.
• Not to establish commercial or civilian seaports or airports.
• Not to allow new settlement of people in the Sovereign Base Areas other than for temporary purposes.
• Not to expropriate private property within the Sovereign Base Areas except for military purposes on payment of fair compensation.

"Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matter" [2] . The relevance: Why is the use of the Cyprus flag detrimental to military bases that were provided for to Britain by the republic.

Just to confirm your view. If I understand correctly, your major concern is edit warring then. Agrresive edit warring by a minority view (since the majority of the world identifies the island nation of Cyprus with its flag). And although the majority of the world (de jure) views the island of Cyprus as an island nation, sovereign, with territorial integrity, the move was done as a compromise to that agression. Shouldnt measures be taken against the agression rather than compromising an island nations flag unilateraly? Aristovoul0s 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

UK has jurisdiction over the bases but for limited military reasons; it is nor "sovereignity" as it was incorrectly told. And it is in no way "state sovereignity". It is jurisdiction limited in military purposes; not economic purposes, not other purposes. The misinterpretation of the Treaty of Establishment by the UK does not create international law. The Treaty, in article 4 I think, clearly and strictly confines the British jurisdiction in military purposes. Checking the history of the article, I saw that there was no agreement on the map. Valentinian removed the map, but there was no discussion between Greek, Turkish, Cypriots users as you say; at least in the article's talk page. For all the above reasons, and because I see no reason that the article can't be in those 75% stubs of articles with a flag, I intend to launch a poll. It is time to actually see what the Greek, Turkish, and Cypriots users believe. Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Indian-protected-area-stub}}

Sorry, i was not aware about the fact that for creating a stub it has to fist be proposed. Infact this stub will have lot of taker as there are more than 600 protected areas in India and mostly they are stub. This stub category should be given permission for formal use. Should I propose it again.- Amartyabag (Talk) 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS:Thanks for changing its name according to wiki conventions.Amartyabag (Talk) 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Already placed my comments at WP:WSS/D. I would be glad if u take the further necessay steps. Amartyabag (Talk) 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Stub definition

Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics, and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs. However, in reality, many articles which are labeled as stubs are much longer than that. You can help Wikipedia by removing inappropriate stub notices.

Dear Grutness, I believe you removed the stub status on Master Musicians of Jajouka article without having read the problem in the heavily disputed articles that are still being disambiguated and which have a reading list I contributed but no footnotes yet. The articles have not gotten much in the way of discussion on the lore of the subject and have serious conflicts in information being agreed to as correct and no new research done other than previous non-neutral comments from a previously article merging two bands into one article in 2006 and with disambiguation begun in 2007, Jan. but we are still trying to get people to come in and do research and footnote. Stub status was to invite good researchers who are neutral to do actual research and get good info in with footnotes. At present my bare beginnings using parts of the old problematic text and some other info from my reading list that hasn't been turned into footnotes is all that's in there as the two previous articles are being disentangled. The stub tag was my way of showing more work was needed in this complicated subject. But evidently you feel that if there are three or four paragraphs it couldn't be a stub and all is fine. It's still a starter article that needs a great deal of help. That is why I put the stub tag on it and the other related articles to the subject. Because no one is doing any research other than griping about the research one person does at the library without going themselves and preferring to be spoonfed info that had been posted in a talk page by the producer of one of the bands, such as essays promoting his band by his colleagues who worked on an album with his band. Also there are problems with clannishness going on and edit warring as people with Irish heritage and music interests seem to be feeling like banding together with the producer from that country to remove text and doing other non-neutral actions, under the guise of creating "neutrality", while making accusations, doing no new research. I just went to the library today again and I'm the only one there who's gone to one. There is a lot of problem with finding people not acting in accordance with one group's agenda to discredit another band who will come in and do research using reliable sources not connected with either band given the contentiousness of the issues involved. People removing the stub tag just embolden people to act like there's been enough research done. "Further reading" is not a list of footnotes. A lot of text on a page does not mean an article has been completed.

But you may be able to help me know better about what a stub is and types of stubs. Thanks. Emerman 03:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emerman - you are right that a long article does not necessarily mean a completed article... but an incomplete article does not make something a stub. A stub is an article which has only the barest overview of a opic, and often has less than that. In the case of the master musicians articles (both the Jajouka one and the joujouka one) there is far too much information on the topic for the article to really be considered a stub.

The definition of stub does point out that lngth is not the only criterion used in determining an article's status, but it is a major factor, especially when the relative importance of an article is taken into consideration. An article of the length of Master Musicians of Jajouka might be considered a stub if it was an article on an entire country, for instance, but not if it was on a smaller topic. if you feel that any particular section of the article is still wanting, such as on the lore of the subject, then the correct thing to do is add {{sectstub}} to a section with that as its heading. That will indicate that one particular section of the article still needs work, despite the article itself being more than a stub. If there are other problems with the article such as disputes, then there are a whole range of different cleanup templates which can be used to mark the topic, such as {{disputed-section}}. Furthermore, there is a template {{expansion}}, which is primarily for use in cases where an article is no longer a stub but still needs work. A stub is only one kind of article that needs work - these articles, though they may still need work, are not of that kind but of another kind entirely.

Hope that helps, Grutness...wha? 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a lot to learn on the subject of templates and a lot of other issues, such as reviewing how to do footnotes. Will do that tonight even though I need to get out of wikipedia as soon as possible so I can move house, but I don't want to confuse newbie editors left with the half-begun disambiguation sitting there since few people are involved in researching it. I wonder if there are some really good editors in the music section who actually go to the library and get microfilm instead of let things get spoonfed. I'm getting worn out with this stuff. It affects careers when things are done wrong but I don't have time to deal with other people's problems forever. Maybe I try to mother the world too much and should just let go and hope for the best. I don't have what it takes to do all this and I feel a tug of war going on between two camps. Emerman 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFAs etc

Thank you for your consideration (BostonMZ)

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. Yours was one of the neutral votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Yugayuga AMA business

AMA hearing

I ask that you comment on the AMA hearing as it envolves you and Yugayuga. Cocoaguy ??? _contribs^talk 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments about Sri Lankan Tamils

I found your personal explanation of why you did not approve of the SLT stubs outside of the Wiki policies also as very least ill informed if not out mildly racist. Although I have not come across you before in Wikipedia and noted the other Wikipedian in passing, the comments did strike me as un-warranted in the situation. As an admin all what you had to do was inform him of the wiki process and policies and that would have been it but your explanation which was nothing but your personal opinion has unnecessarily slandered a group of people (even if it was not your intention) at least in the eyes of others such as me. Hope you understand and will be more careful with your comments in the future in your administrative duties. Thanks RaveenS 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what I put on his user talk page was "personal opinion". There was certainly nothing racist in it, and I'm amazed that you could think there was. Please read up the guidelines governing stub creation, and also look at some similar examples in the past in the archives of WP:SFD. You will see that everything I wrote is based on either standard WP:WSS guidelines, on past precedent, or both. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First I did not dispute your reason for deletion of the templates because they were procedural and clerical. My commentary was on your personal opinion that said On top of all that, stub types are almost never created for individual peoples involved in disputes over their national status, for fear of edit warring on templates and categories, which is far far worse for Wikipedia than similar edit wars on articles - and in the case of Sri Lanka's Tamils, their recent history of civil war makes stub types relating directly too them less than ideal Who are you to decide that individual people are involved in disputes. What makes you think that the whole populations of Sri Lankan Tamils are in civil war. For that matter vast majority of them live in democratic society with a tiny minority of may be few thousand people fighting for a cause. Just because Americans are fighting wars all the time does it make American people are at war ? It is absurd commentary wholly not necessary for a simple administrative task of deleting a stub which was legitimate to begin with. Administrators have to stick to policies nothing else and the above user was a newbie. Hence all what is needed from experienced editors such as yourself is to show them around when they make mistakes. Also I did not accuse you of racism I wrote your commentary may be ill informed if not mildly racist for readers such as myself even if your intention was not as such. I was assuming good faith. I urge you to do the same. Thanks RaveenS 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I want to keep my answer short, I apologize for calling you a racist even though in my view that was not my intention. Second I do have differences opinion about stubs for trans national groups such as Basques, Tamils, Scots, Germans etc. But those discussions some other time. Happy editing. Thanks RaveenS 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC),

AMA hearing (please close)

Please respond on either my talk page on the AMA hearing page. Cocoaguy ??? _contribs^talk 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

i am sorry i ment to say i think that the case at this point should be between you and Yugayuga and take it away from the AMA beacuse there is nothing i nor any on else can do. I agree with you in thinking that there is no racism on your part. agan sorry Cocoaguy ??? _contribs^talk 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure just tell me when you make the RfC page and tell me where it is. Cocoaguy ??? _contribs^talk 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As a AMA advicote i want all AMA cases to end quickly and smothly but i will help you with your RfC hearing. Cocoaguy ??? _contribs^talk 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Otherstuff

Happy New Year

(Feliz A�o Nuevo)

Happy New Year from Tony the Marine 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

Friendly Chat

I went to your user page and clicked on your autobio. Amazing, I didn't know that I had such a talented person as you for a friend in Wiki. Today, I recieved an e-mail where this magazine, for which I sometimes write for and which is recieved in the Library of Congress, published my bio. I want to share it with you. here:

Take care, Tony the Marine 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia, oztralia, osstriliea

Greetings fellow cafe wha? matey - happy all the bits and seasons to you! Just by chance over in nz's western colony we have started three new state based project - the biggest, and the two smallest - of which the most developed - west oz and tas (just a mere conversion of the hobart one) - all helped by our two prject whizbangos - longhair and cyberjunkie without whom etc - (I had done australian military history project jump in the water a bit earlier) - so it looks like your wss thingo will need to be au fait with the fact that all these projects are legit and above the water so to speak. Any clues on the official stub creation project thingo would be most appreciated at WP WA, WP TAS WP VIC and WP AMH - as we in the western colony are sometimes slow on these thingos :) SatuSuro 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW him- below - he's said his bit I see - he's ok! SatuSuro 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Translation, please! Grutness...wha? 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Happy new year. For your esteemed information - there are some recent projects created in Australia just recently. - WikiProject Victoria (least developed), WikiProject Tasmania, WikiProject Western Australia, WikiProject Australian Maritime History - all legit and watched over by admins who are 'minders' of the umbrella project WikiProject Australia - perhaps that Project's talk page is the most appropriate location for relating the info . Best wishes. Hope thats clearer! SatuSuro 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies for flippancy - best of luck with the titanic-, we have grass buckets in australia - not much help SatuSuro 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is should I put a reminder at the australian or the state projects re this issue - or would you like to? SatuSuro 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

okely dokeley I'll get em on the dont run dont walk - pages and give em da news!

Translation: I'll do it SatuSuro 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll create more NZ art and culture articles, but I tend to be sporadic and concentrate on things of interest to me, and need to focus on work in real life, so no promises! I'm only really creating stubs at the moment, as there are people who know far more than I ever will about these subjects, and they can improve them of course. Mostlyharmless 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi James

Yes, you do indeed know me - it's Paul Scoones. In fact it's partly through looking at some of the work you've done here that's inspired me to get involved! �The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blad3runn3r (talk � contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Tonga

He he :), just watching your contribs. I'm doing my job here, will categorize rest of articles from "Geography" category in a few minutes. - Darwinek 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah :), just looked on your improvement of List of volcanoes of New Zealand (thank you, btw) and saw your new Tonga contributions. ;) - Darwinek 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

HOIIIIIIIII..... lahi etau lea he puaka ofu ko eni he fa'a fakatonutonu. lmao Vava'u wahhhhht.........

Sorry - I'm palagi, and don't have the language :( Grutness...wha? 04:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell-bourg

Hello Grutness. Point noted. Though, to complicate things, if the decision to apply UN areas to Wikipedia is implemented, and Madagascar moves to East Africa (it appears on both maps, which is what tripped me up), then wouldn't Reunion sort of have to move as well? Cheers, MadMaxDog 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks

Hey, thanks for your work. I think that the prose you have used in the lead is pretty good. Easier on the eye then mine! I do think the lead needs a few changes though. Mainly I think there were too many paragraphs, especially short ones. There were a couple of unnecessary sentences I removed. Also, I'd structure it differently, combining the stuff on the uniform and haka into one paragraph. Having the current competitions mentioned in the first paragraph along with the record the AB's have. I have altered your lead, and put it in a sandbox here. Please take a look and let me know how it is! Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I put the haka and uniform paragraph last because it mentions the 1905 tour. Thought best to have that after the 1905 tour had been introduced. Thanks for your help. Really appreciate it. - Shudda ^talk 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Grenadines

Nice to see someone filling out the Grenadines islands. I got married on Palm Island, Grenadines and created a very short article on it many months ago. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Trust the sheep of new zealand are well. At this point I promise no further obstuseness... User Caniago is currently traumatised by the word malay - he may catchup in the short term - he has located a vast number of cats that really deserve the push. I have suggested that you might be sufficiently separate from the debate over the word - to watch over the process - trust I am not presuming too much there - when you see it its like a melting mount cook glacier of empty cats.. gawd I cannot help myself - sorry - there is a collection of categories that need to be put down. cheers SatuSuro 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting up my eccentric messages - I understand the issue of babysitting - my teenagers still seem to need it in the form of dads taxi - will try to sound out a couple of oz admins to watch it. ta SatuSuro 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Longhair sounds keen - so it might be ok after all - hope mother and child are both in excellent health when it happens ..SatuSuro 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything seem to be up and running ok - and thanks for your comments on our perth road problems... SatuSuro 12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For some reason, I found this absolutely hilarious ;) --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I really must learn the difference between {{SPA}} and {{spa}} :) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed a comment

I should let you know that I removed an unsigned comment originally posted by you in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Sickness with Eric and Harrison, saying "The socks are out in force tonight". I find that equating SPAs (something which most newbies on AfD inherently are) with sockpuppets (a deliberate attempt to deceive) is harmful because it perpetuates unnecessary newbie-biting on AfD.

User:Calton is defending that comment and being rather nasty about it, making me originally think he put it there in the first place.

If you feel the comment is actually important to the discussion, you can restore it, but I ask that you at least sign it. I doubt your attitude is the same as User:Calton's, though.

rspeer / ???ds? 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine., I thought I'd signed it - the problem with working when tired, I suppose... Grutness...wha?

Incidentally, could you look at the comments I'm getting from Calton over this issue on my talk page? I think he's being thoroughly uncivil for no reason, but of course it won't help for me to tell him that. Since he considers himself to be defending your comment, if you were to warn him about civility, I think it would have more of an effect. rspeer / ???ds? 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, Calton.

I am perfectly calm. Annoyed at having my intelligence multiply insulted by User:Rspeer, perhaps, but calm.

It was me who added the comment about sockpuppets...

I know that, since unlike Rspeer I know how to look at edit histories.

...and it was out of order

Your comment, so your prerogative. Not Rspeer's comment, so not his.

Oh, and before he gasses on about civility, perhaps he should do a little self-reflection about the probable results of insulting someone's intelligence by posting smug, ill-informed comments based on laughable premises and mistaken facts -- a semi-decent description of his comment above, come to think of it. A little reading of WP:SPADE might do him some good, to boot. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Islands

Hello, you recently placed Ottawa Islands in the province of Nunavut but nowhere in the article are there references to indicate this Island belongs to Nunavut. In fact, the Islands, according to the Map are closer to Qu�bec. If you have information on Ottawa Islands could you please add this information. Thank you for your initiative in making this article a little better, unfortunatelly we will need to remove that Nunavut stub until we get better references. Thank you! --CyclePat 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

whoops, please salt Quadjah Oil Empire

I missed the fact that Quadjah Oil Empire was already deleted once today and again five days ago. As there is currently no such empire, please SALT the page. Thank youDUBJAY04 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK willdo. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response.DUBJAY04 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

check out my contribs if you want to cherry-pickDUBJAY04 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)