User talk:MacGyverMagic/Archive 23

Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)

A formal move request has been posted regarding a page you moved. See Talk:Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)#Page rename for more information. Gimmetrow 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you saw an admin notice about Vaquero and looked at his contribs. Not everything he did was wrong. In this case, the article was at CC and Andrew moved it to RCC without discussion. The RCC/CC debate doesn't necessarily apply in this context, and it seemed like POV pushing to me. I was trying to get Andrew to discuss or self-revert, but Vaquero reverted it first. And so it sat for a couple days. I noticed your re-reversion because there was no redirect at Canon law (Catholic Church). Gimmetrow 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Didn't notice Vaquero also created it. Still that was on May 13, a while ago. The argument has been made at various times that at least in the context of canon law, "Catholic Church" is not ambiguous. Brendanhodge made it here [1] and nobody objected. Much of this naming debate involves the Anglican understanding of a greater Catholic Church that includes the RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, and some others. But that greater church is not an organized unit and does not have a canon law. It makes no sense to me that "Roman" must be used as a qualifier in this context, and insisting on it seems to me like POV pushing of the Anglican view. Personally I want the random page moves to end on both sides. Gimmetrow 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I had suggested Canon law of the Catholic Church; is that a problem? I think it's slightly better than Canon law (Catholic Church). I suppose Catholic Church canon law might work, but it seems like an odd phrase, not one I'm familiar with. Canon law is canon law, I don't normally think of putting a modifier in front of it. Catholic canon law is likewise odd, unfamiliar, and even seems vague - I could almost see it referring to a "universal" canon law as some common subset of rules. (Having Catholic first makes the capital letter ambiguous, ie catholic canon law.) I'd say just call it codex juris canonici but that's too narrow, and we'd still have a fight over whether it is "juris" or "iuris". Gimmetrow 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most "new" editors see a big problem with parenthetical forms - we see them all the time in dab-related pages. If you support the "of the Catholic Church" version, mind if I move it? The "centralized" discussion was supposed to be at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name, which does contain most of the arguments of both sides (Fishhead and SynKobiety), and isn't super long. I had been working on a proposal but don't have it thought through fully yet. This might be the impetus. Gimmetrow 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't really aiming for new editors. I was hoping to get the input from seasoned editors who know naming conventions but who are impartial to the issue itself. I personally don't mind if you move it, but you might want to announce to avoid any problems with other people. -- Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You said something about avoiding "gastly brackets" - I was saying that "new" editors don't really see them as gastly, but possibly even common. Anyway, where would be a good spot for such a discussion? It has already spread into CfD and AN/I that I know of. The question was posed 2 weeks ago at WP:NC directing comments to RCC/Name, but I haven't noticed any new response off that. Gimmetrow 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to something in policy about the "gastly brackets"? It seems most dab-related pages have them, eg Cardinal (Catholicism). I'm still trying to figure out how/where to start a bigger discussion. Overall I think the current wiki practice generally works when not upset by certain people on either extreme. (I think a few people on the Anglican/Episcopal side are acting as if "Roman" needs to be everywhere.) Articles are not currently named exclusively one way or the other, and that's fine with me. I just want stability. One of vaquero's page moves caused a link to point to a redirect pointing to a redirect, and it was confusing figuring out why it wasn't working. Gimmetrow 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Karori

Could you inform Pook51 that the paragraph about 'Tom Chong' is false information. The 'Tom Chong' statue does not exist nor is the fact about how Tom Chong was one of the first chinese settlers to reside in Karori. Rovemcmanus 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#Karori. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: user page vandalism

You're welcome! I was pleased to help out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Six hours is the minimum. Don't forget that history pages are listed in your time zone, while the refreshment template is listed in UTC. If you're going to start updating the template, just remember that you should only select the most interesting facts for the main page; you don't have to select them all. And, make sure you reword them to keep them short and to-the-point. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-06 14:12

Article moved

MGM, I have moved Roman Catholic hierarchy to Catholic hierarchy. This may be considered a rogue move by a rogue editor. However, I assure you that it was a reversion of a move made by User:Andrew c in an arbitrary fashion based on his own opinion that this was an incorrect title. It was done without discussion.

I realize that I have a reputation for being a rogue editor. I do not consider myself a rogue editor. An angry editor? definitely. One who has said things on WP he should not have? definitely. I have also apologized for my former comments on the Anglicanism Talk Page and have cooled my comments in relation to them and others:

I would like to offer my apologies to the Anglicans on WP and especially those who edit this page. I realize that I have let my frustration boil over into some outrageous verbal vengence on this page in recent weeks. This was clearly out of order. I regret the offenses I have given.

I might add here that I did go to confession today, and am now in much better spirits. Accordingly, I have made the resolve to "amend my life" as the Act of Contrition states and this applies to WP.

Have a good night. --Vaquero100 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page moves of others which were done without discussion such as Andrew C's mentioned above, particularly those of User:Carolynparrishfan, who has admitted anymosity toward the Catholic Church based on personal reasons . It is remarkable that WP standards for moving articles can be routinely violated by Anglicans and administrators, but if I were to revert those same moves, I am a rogue editor.

What I would really like is to have those who favor "Roman" in every occurance of "Catholic" in WP text to actually engage the discussion on the basis of WP policies and conventions rather than on the Book of Common Prayer or their version of the creed etc. Bringing competing theologies into this discussion is exactly what WP naming conventions is designed to avoid.

I do not know what your personal views are on this topic; however, it would be helpful if you know of any administrators who might have a more objective view on this. I ask you this because you are the first person I have encountered on WP who was open-minded enough to re-think a prior action, and not just be defensive, which I commend and thank you for.

I also realize that my position is in the minority on WP. This is not surprising as Catholics are in the minority among English speakers. The English language has itself an embedded Protestant point of view. I don't know how to get a great majority of people to set aside their own Sunday school instruction to think objectively using WP conventions and policies. Thank you for any consideration you may give this. Vaquero100 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MGM, for your reply. I am glad you asked Gimmetrow to take the lead on this. I am too frustrated and tired; and my fuse has shortened vastly after 4 months of this debate. Vaquero100 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MGM, for your attempt on my behalf. To tell the truth I was even more scandalized by the responses on the administrators' notice board that I had expected. And you were accused of promoting "rouge." So, I guess I will just keep working and waiting for the day...the Second Coming perhaps....Vaquero100 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of Mexico

Thanks for pointing that out, MacGyverMagic. I'll keep that in mind next time something like that comes up. Cheers, Tangotango 09:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm Squad

Looks like the best solution along with Ron the Ref. Saw them as db-bios because there wasn't much context to make their notability clear. Like your talkpage layout it's cool.--John Lake 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the "did you know" and your new message thing. I might try them thanks. Yes I got a welcome from somebody awhile back it's in my archive.--John Lake 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it awesome, thank you very much.--John Lake 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Need admin help

I am sure you must be an admin. I put this at the Village Pump first but I think it needs administrator attention. [2] [3] I can't revert it and I can't move it because there is no history so mayhaps it should be deleted. I left a message on the talkpage of the editor who made that move. Found it seeking info to make another subpage for keeping track of my prods. It lools like something an admin only can fix. Thank you --John Lake 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talk page explaining article space and naming conventions plus a welcome. Thanks for correcting the above. Had attempted the move but it didn't quite look right so I left it and the redirects had to be deleted I know. Thanks again.--John Lake 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That Summer Day

Thanks for your message here concerning my edits to the article. Unfortunately I don't discuss edits (lack of time at the computer!) unless I've made a huge error so I'll be happy with whatever you do to the article. Sorry to seem mean but lots to do on WP and not much time to do it in! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 08:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ioka

Many thanks Mammal4 09:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article That Summer Day, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

That Summer Day on DYK

You added some wikifications to DYK. Thanks for that, but I removed the ones referring to television series on this entry. The programme was in fact one time thing, and linking to series, when there's just one "episode" sounds kind of misleading to me. Good job on the other items though! Hope you don't mind... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. You are right. It wasn't a series, and shouldn't be wikified as such. Television movie would be better. Thanks for fixing it. -- PFHLai 08:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfCs

Hi I noticed you closed some AfC's today. Could you please remember to put your signature straight after the template. e.g. "{{subst:Afc blank}}~~~~" Don't place your signature in them now as it won't format right. Thanks.--Andeh 09:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AFC

Thanks for the Barnstar. It's always nice to know you're appreciated. Kevin 11:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:refs

As much as I like the ref style, it takes time - so I use it in articles I move towards GA/PR/FAC, but don't bother much in DYK level articles, where external link ic's are enough.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and one more question

Hi MGM, thanks for your help on my questions earlier. You have fully clarified the issue of how to get other pages to link to articles with different titles by using piped links, and that is extremely helpful. However, I still am a little unclear on searching. My article is now visible on Wikipedia when I search for "Jerome Silbergeld." Therefore, it doesn't seem that the problem is that the databse hasn't been updated. When I search for "Silbergeld" on the other hand, the article does not come up, though several articles on Chinese painters that refer to him do come up. Moreover, when I type "wiki silbergeld" into google, or even "wiki jerome silbergeld," articles on Chinese painters that reference silbergeld come up, but my article about him does not...do you have advise on making this more accessible to searches, both internal searches on wikipedia, and external searches where people type “wiki” and a key word? Also, could you please respond on my talk page, as I am still a little unsure how to navigate wikipedia...

thanks Chironares 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting Articles to Appear More Easily in Searches

Hi MacgyverMagic,

thanks for your comments on my talk page. I appreciate your advice. I have searched for a few other prominent academics in wikipedia, and I notice that in some cases partial versions of academics' names will be redirected to the correct page. For instance, "Kahneman" redirects to the page of the famous psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

How can I set up redirects like this so that partial versions of an article name can be redirected to the relevant article?

Also, if there are more than one places a search could go, should I create a disambiguation page? If so , how do I do this?

best wishes Chironares 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.

If possible please post to my talk page Chironares 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowfight image

Hi there,

I wonder why you uploaded this image under a different name than the one on the commons. Doesn't it make sense to upload it with the same name? That way image links don't go dead once it's off the main page (and gets speedy deleted). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I mistakenly believed the image needed to be uploaded under a different name so it could be protected while it was on the Main Page (I wasn't sure whether overriding the Commons image required administrative privileges; I've never attempted it before and didn't want to since the image was on the Main Page). Regardless, it did its job and it most likely didn't cause a problem. The image was always, and still is, available at the image location similar to that on Wikimedia Commons: at Image:Cowfight0a.jpg. But the next time, I'll make sure to just override the Commons image. joturner 12:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

CornerShot

I removed the lists and turned them into sentences. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK - Beverly Park

No problem, I had no idea who was running late, nor was I offended. I just figured to help out, thought it was a little odd to tag myself. All the best. --Bobak 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi MacGyverMagic,

thanks for the comments. I created a redirect page that takes "silbergeld" to "Jerome Silbergeld," since Jerome Silbergeld is the only Silbergeld to have substantive information in a wikipedia article. However, I also created a disambiguation page at "Silbergeld Disambiguation" and provided a link to it on the "Jerome Silbergeld" page. That seem good?

Also, I'm still a little puzzled as to why google hasn't picked up the article yet...any idea why?

-Finally when I searched within Wikipedia for "silbergeld," right before creating the redirect page, I still came up with several articles in which both Jerome and other Silbergelds were peripherally mentioned, but not the one article that actually had the word "Silbergeld" in the title. Do you know why this is?

My interest is ultimately to ensure that when people search for pages, they can find them with the maximum ease. If google doesn't pick the page up, that makes it less likely people will find it. Likewise, if a search for a word that is in the title and article body does not turn up the article, but turns up other articles that touch only peripherally on the subject, it seems less likely that people will find it.

Thanks for your comments

Chironares 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, the question mark for the Texas DYK is missing. My fault, didn't have it when I submitted it. THNX Joe I 21:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Porth yr Ogof

Yay!! The article's on the front page. *dances* *calms down* Anyway, uh, I'm not entirely sure how much I should expand the section of the article you mentioned to me, 'cause the names like Death Ledge and such are 'official', i.e. that's what everyone calls them, like the Doll's Theatre or the Bashful Elephant in Carlsbad Caverns - should I put what the attractions actually are, like the Wormhole being a phreatic tube? Deaths have been since 1957 according to the book I'm using, but since Porthy's such a small cave I can't find much else on it, including pictures, though I was thinking of scanning in the pictures/diagrams from the book and affixing the appropriate tag...Lady BlahDeBlah 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The book lists ten fatalities, the date, year, age and profession of the unlucky/silly person who died. ('Silly' cause I've seen the pool/rapids where they die, it's terrifying and nobody should ever cross it!!) The website lists yet more rwecent ones, and with the exception of the Paul Esser incident every single one took place in that resurgance pool. (His body's still mouldering down in some sump somewhere...eww...) As for pictures, I'll see if I can get onto the Caving UK noticeboard, as I *used* to know ppl but I can't get hold of them now.

- I posted a message but I still want to use the map diagram in the book!! Lady BlahDeBlah 12:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My attempt at DYK

Wow... never tried to do that before. Hopefully I did everything right. Please let me know if I had any glaring errors in the process. At least I tried, right? ;-) After doing that, I just want to thank you for your work on the updates. They seem like they can get very tedious and time-consuming, so we are all grateful. Off to unprotect some images. Thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... didn't even notice. I was just following The Guide. Perhaps it should be updated to include these last few steps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK - Answer

"Fyodor Pirotsky, he wasnt mentioned in the article on the Keiv tramway, which claimed to be first in Russian empire. The article on Him claim he built the first tramway in the russian empire. (Its disputed in his article} It would have looked pretty silly having to a DYK saying x then to follow immediately with a DYK saying Y ... I know nothing about either article I just that the DYK hooks disputed each other. I was suggesting that there be couple of DYK updates between hooks Gnangarra 01:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

I can't put a db/author on this because it is protected [4]. If you look at my earliest edits it will explain why I want it deleted [5]. Can you please delete it. --John Lake 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much.--John Lake 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The old one is the one I needed deleted. I had my name changed because I got uncomfortable using my real one and I could'nt move the other one because it was protected then. The right one was deleted. It wasn't working too well anyway since I such a newbie then. I wish all traces could be gone but don't know if that's possible. Thanks very much.--John Lake 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Monoclonal antibodies on DYK

Thank you, MGM, for informing me (and for updating DYK). I tried to ensure the article, while a sub-article of a technical topic, remained sufficiently accessible to a lay audience. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving DYK

It's just a sequencing thing, I should probably update the real archive before removing items from the talk page. Check now and you'll see all is well, you were just too fast off the mark and beat me :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

re "Echiodon rendahli", you advised that this item appeared in DYK on 12 July 2006. Funny, I can't seem to see it, either in the current DYK or the last Archive... I must be going blind GrahamBould 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Children's Party at the Palace category

It's a hard one. This event is a one of a kind type of thing, making it hard to categorise. I tagged it with 2006 in the United Kingdom for now. Something will come to me eventually. :) -- Longhair 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know

When I left a message on Grandpafootsoldier's talk page, I noticed that a message you had left had an unclosed nowiki tag that was conflicting with my message. I added the closing tag, but then realised that that would make the tildes of your signature turn into my sig when it was saved. As such, I replaced the tildes with an unsigned.--Drat (Talk) 04:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK?

On 15 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Children's Party at the Palace, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help at Order (algebra). 48v 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Just to let you know that those who are familiar with this saga know that Bobblewik isn't using a bot. Further that he has offered to discuss with (and has responded at length to) his detractors. Nor would he deliberately revert another user, an eight week delay indicates a lapse of memory rather than an edit war. On the article in question just glancing at the first link (1913) as the date that Rite of Spring was composed, is really limited value, possibly wrong (The Rite of Spring says between 1912 and 1913 - presumably in a gestalt on the stroke of midnight!) and more indicative of WP:OWN than anything else.
Regardless I suggest you really need to discuss with Bobblewik and reconsider this ban. Rich Farmbrough 15:35 16 July 2006 (GMT).

This is an outright lie. We had a massive discussion on this topic encompassing many editors and a number of weeks, and Bobblewik did not participate even once, despite repeated urgings to do so. The result of that discussion was that the section of the MOS which Bobblewik used to support his edits was removed, and virtually everyone else involved stopped going out of their way to provoke conflict on this issue. We've now got into an ongoing dance where Bobblewik turns on his script (not a bot, but an automated script) about once a month, gets asked to stop and reverted, and stops again until he thinks people have forgotten about the issue. In any case, I think the block was warranted, and hope that a month away from the project will convince him to either a) participate in at least some discussion on the issue or b) stop his crusade, without simply running his script and ignoring the concerns of everyone who has raised them. Rebecca 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is available in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Rebecca 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Put another way, the MOS as it now stands (with the removal of Bobblewik's section) requires that discretion be used in removing date links to determine if they are indeed notable. A glance at Bobblewik's edits shows that they're being made in roughly the same way Willy on Wheels used to act - he seems to be loading up a lot of pages at random in Firefox, firing up his script to kill every date link in those articles, and then mass-saving 25 or so in every hit. In the light of the discussion linked above, I really can't see how that can be seen as acceptable behaviour.

I'm going on wikibreak as of now, so if you have any more questions about Bobblewik, please contact me by email. Rebecca 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I will discuss with B. You will see from Rebecca's comments that this topic generates more heat than light.

The five (main) places to look for discussions are

• The early discussions
  • Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive&oldid=21205147#Software_recognition_of_dates_in_plain_text
  • Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive30#More_about_overlinking_of_dates
  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive34 et seq.
• The bot applications
  • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals/Archive
  • Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_16#Request_for_interpretation_of_policy and the following two sections.
• The more recent discussion on linking of dates from 9 March 2006 to 13 April 2006 in

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) archives 42 through 46, plus 48. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48

• Quadell's proposal User:Quadell/remedy - of the four editors (two on each side of the deabate), two have left WP, one (Quadell) as a result of the perceived injustice of the opposing sides blocks on him.
• Bobblewik's talk archive User_talk:Bobblewik/dates (*** This is probably the best place for a feel of the feedback B gets ***)
• Bobblewik's talk page - you've been there.

I'm not sure what Rebecca thinks is an "outright lie" - certainly the above indicate that suggesting "Bobblewik did not participate even once" is not correct.

Anyway, I see (since I started writeing this) you are in discussion with B so I hope and expect you will be able to resolve it amicably with him. I will leave a short note suggesting a way forward on his talk page.

Best wishes,

Rich Farmbrough 21:48 17 July 2006 (GMT).

Wikify

Thanks for your help with this. I haven't got the time to integrate this now, but this is why I am looking for the wikify tag. I hope another wikipedian with more time will see it and do it instead. --martianlostinspace 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)