![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hello Swift/Archives/2006 and
welcome to
Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you.
Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to
be civil by following
simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to
ignore all rules.
If you want to learn more,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style
Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the
random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the
Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are
Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the
cleanup,
welcoming, and
counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki
projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on
my talk page. Again, welcome! --
Draeco 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice job on Business plot Travb ( talk) 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have an edited, cleaned-up version of nitroglycerin synthesis instructions at User:Nippoo/Chemistry#Nitroglycerine which you're welcome (read:encouraged) to put on Wikibooks if you want. Nippoo 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! And, well, look closer: I spent 15 minutes on improving the article, and changed several separate things. If you would do more editing yourself, you would know that this is how things work. Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts in trying to improve the ways other users work in Wikipedia :)
For cluttering up the history, I agree it's bad, but simply happens sometimes, using Preview or not. You can easily check all changes though without having to go throw each individual one like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Allegro_library&diff=66315200&oldid=65916462
Greetings, and happy editing, -- Allefant 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Business Plot Travb ( talk) 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Swift,
Like the new template, but the old one needs to go alongside.
I'd like to see more specific templates as well that use specific bookcover images for specific books... will work on those later. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
;-)
Regarding my "templatocide", the main incentive is to stem the proliferation of link templates. Not because they are bad in them self (the one you created is actually really nice) but because if there are too many of these they become difficult to find...;-)
). Your suggestion (you're talking about having one project on WB for the WB templates, and the same on the others, right?) is definately simpler, though. If we are setting up a project, having it on Meta wouldn't be a big step from WB, and then we might as well make it a WM project. It would concentrate efforts more and experience would be shared among those coming from different projects. We could also just set it up on WB and see how it goes and deceide later if it is worth expanding on. --
Swift 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)I've responded to your comment here. -- Cyde Weys 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out- I left out the word "opposed to removing spoiler tags." SnowFire 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Those do make sense, for things straightforward like translations. The German titles are, for the most part, straight forward, until you get to Freiherr, Freifrau and Freiin then to Edle and Edler and then to Ritter. Add in the Reichs- forms of titles and you have four exceptions to something that is almost straight forward. I reads your suggestion of German titles vs. German ranks and it does make sense (since Edle(r) really is just a rank), but for the sake of keeping it all congruent, it wouldn't make much sense to have a full list of titles and then three measly ranks seperated. If there is some way to integrate exceptions, then it would be absolutely fantastic. Charles 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This user integrates Wikipedia. |
You've helped out in the past. Add this to your profile if you'd care to: we must spread the word! Cwolfsheep 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been using the new system to add notes, but I can't seem to figure out how to add new entries. Could you help?-- Dudeman5685 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Your bot request has been approved, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SwiftBot for details. — xaosflux Talk 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Your userpages User:SwiftBot and User:Swift/Projects currently link to several of the old wikibook templates. Could I remove those links before I put the templates up for deletion? Thanks. -- kenb215 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Swift, you told me it would be quicker to contatct you this way, I've been thinking that it would be better to merge the categories "Films of the Thrid Reich" with "Nazi Propaganda Films" How do I go about merging those?-- Dudeman5685 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As for a Nazi film made *after* the 3rdReich, well first of all, those would technically be Neo-Nazi films, and after a certain point Neo-Nazi becomes synomnymous with the term white surpremecist (those members of the movement use neither designation)
Secondly, one can't really speak of a postwar Nazi film of much notability. Some "documentaries" circulate in NS circles, but are mainly shoe string collections of home movies of speeches, and footage of rallies. Think Triumph of the Will shot with a camcorder. Anyway, those arn't the "Nazis' concerned here. If any articles on those are written, and if there become enough of them to require a cat, I think Neo-Nazi or White Surprem. would better fit.
Sincerely-- Dudeman5685 23:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to do the same for the other parts later. Sorting the names was a very good idea too :) Sigo 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Just noted your German title contributions! Keep up the good work! Since there seems to be some interest in German nobility/royalty, I'll expand your area :-) Feel free to keep contributing! I'll be adding an announcement/to-do section to your area.... -- plange 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on this template I have responded on the talk page here. - DavidCane 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I recategorized that page under 'how-to' because it gives instruction on how to archive talk pages; it simply fits in better with that group, imho. Guidelines are supposed to be actionable, not instructive. >Radiant< 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Swift,
Hope you're well.
Could you help me please...
I seem to be having problems getting User:Redvers to respond to my emails, queries, etc about the 99.9 Radio Norwich and KL.FM 96.7 pages.
I have politely asked him why he feels the KLFM page 'is not written in the formal tone expected'. This page had seemed fine ever since February (alot of profanity, liable, etc before this) and all I did before Redvers added his note was add a 'History' title.
Also I started an article about 99.9 Radio Norwich, which he said was 'an advert' and then completely cut back to shear basics, yet I based this article around the KL.FM page.
Redvers states on his page that he is 'interested in British television and radio', yet the information which he deleted from the 99.9 Radio Norwich page was of interest, or so I thought, to anyone interested to know a bit about the radio station and it's history.
Is Redvers playing silly beggers or have I done something wrong??
Your help, as an outside party, would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks, Sean Cooper 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Swift, Many thanks for your message. I appreciate it.
I have contacted Redvers again and basically asked if he can help me if I've any problems with format, editing, etc and if I can have any pointers regarding this. I have said I basically didn't appreciate his harse tones, but took it that it wasn't meant that way, as emphasis can not be put on words/sentences when in text.
I think Redvers thought I was talking about his edits being the vandalism. I wasn't, as I was talking about the harse edit made by someone using an IP address (88.110.18.30) who deleted the who text (21:41, 4 Sep 2006) on the 99.9 Radio Norwich page. There seems to have been some confusion here about who I meant. Hopefully this will have made it clearer.
I pointed out to Redvers that the reason I contacted you was because you were an outside party and maybe able to resolve any editing, format, etc issues. I meant, and mean, no malice to any parties on this site and was only following guidance notes in 'Resolving An Editing Dispute'. As you note, I'm new to this site and haven't much experience of it so was uncertain of how to approach this.
Hopefully Redvers will understand this and will work with me in providing interesting articles on Wikipedia. This way, I will gain a better understanding of how the site works.
Many thanks again, Sean Cooper 08:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. TfD is a mess, and sometimes things fall through the cracks. I'll go and delete them. Just yesterday, I deleted over 100 templates that had been on the chopping block since August 25, so this is nothing new. Regardless, thanks a lot for the heads up. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the long break in replying. I hadn't seen your re-opening of this closed discussion in amongst the other posts on the page (it's a pretty high-traffic, regularly trolled and vandalised talk page... like most admin talk pages, sadly). I only spotted it as I was in the middle of a bit of mid-month archiving: postponed to write this.
Ok, we need to take the heat out of this, but we're approaching this from completely different points of view and the next points I'm going to make will look like I'm throwing petrol on the fire. I'm honestly not! It isn't meant to sound as such and I know you'll assume it not to be! Here goes:
WP:AfD is not a vote. It is a process that is designed to allow for removal of articles from Wikipedia following a discussion. As such, it allows a wide amount of discretion on the part of a closing admin.
There is a general confusion about the way AfD works and how and when debates can be closed, but, in short, if a debate is badly damaged, malformed or ludicrous, the admin closing it has extra discretion available.
In this case, people were being asked to debate an article that had been badly vandalised and the vandalism had then been institutionalised by being wikified but not reverted. Another article, with completely different circumstances, had been strapped to the same AfD.
That being the case, any debate was already being organised upon bogus lines and the comments made in it were based upon false premises.
Allowing the debate to continue - especially after the closing time of the AfD, whilst still no consensus was showing and whatever consensus would show would have been based upon a wrong premise and involved making one decision about two tenuously-related articles - would have been making a fetish of process. Wikipedia has many processes, but we over-ride them with WP:IAR: specifically designed to smash through process that is running away on its rails.
So, I closed the AfD, as you know. This required no administration tools to do and, as I am on record as saying on other "admin-only" functions, if something requires no admin tools to do, then it isn't an admin function. It's something any editor can - and should - do.
Then I set to work on the articles in question - if you're going to close an AfD you should really practice what you preach, after all. The first thing I did was restore the vandalised article to a non-vandalised state. This is logical as allowing vandalism to stand (and get wikified) causes this sort of trouble in the first place.
Then I looked into the history of both articles, and the history of the articles they were "merged" with earlier etc. The main one claiming to be merged showed no sign of an official merger of histories (required under the GDFL licence) so, if any merger had taken place, it was cut-and-paste. Unpicking that would have taken hours, if not days, of marrying-up edits and editors, text and copied text. That's why we have a shortcut: redirect the mergee to the merged and you preserve the GDFL-required history. A redirect was therefore not only a simple answer but also the only legal answer.
For the other article, the fact it had gone to Wikibooks made for a different story. However, again there was a lot of history and the article, whilst it had been transwikied, was not without merit. It seemed better to leave the history to be preserved and also soft-prevent the article from reappearing using a redirect.
Again, ignoring any protection to any particular article, a redirect is a non-admin function, it is quick to do and quicker still to undo should the need arise. No DRV or messing about, just a bit of know-how on the ol' reverts.
Above all, I think, even if I do say so myself, that this was a deft piece of admin discretion. The article was kept but is gone. This GDFL is satisfied but that satisfaction remains transparent to our readers. The deletionists have had an article removed, the mergists have had an article merged and the inclusionists have had an article kept.
I'm not sure whether you're arguing that I should have kept the articles or deleted them or something else. If you wanted it deleted: from an AfD point of view, the discussion was pointless as it was process running away with itself. If you wanted it kept: there was ample reason to redirect to somewhere more useful and little reason not to. If you wanted something else, well, if one of the articles is protected, ask for the protection to be lifted and then do the something else. It's fine! It's a wiki! It's what we do!
Longwinded, but hopefully now all explained. Please feel free to take this to DRV or go admin shopping as you requested (although if you do either, please don't remove this from your talk page as it will be raised "in evidence" as it were!). Cheers ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)