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.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

There has never been a GM Korea car brand, the cars were only released as Daewoo, but this brand was phased out in the first months of 2011 and now they only produce Chevrolets. So don't you think the template should be named Daewoo timeline instead? BaboneCar ( talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps it should be 'Daewoo and GM Daewoo' timeline however, to clarify that it covers the pre- and post-GM vehicles? Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the way you are saying is great in my opinion. BaboneCar ( talk) 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrase Hill Dickinson offers a comprehensive range of legal services from offices in ... is promotional and is the sort of copy you would expect to find in either a corporate brochure or website. Mt king ^(edits) 02:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the word 'comprehensive', you deleted a lot more. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You know that as was agreed at the above section, it is better to use the form "Company x has y offices in z countries across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America rather than listing cities. Mt king ^(edits) 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That was discussion which concerned a firm with over 20 offices. It also, of course, established no WP policy relevant to any other article. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, it is an Encyclopaedia, the reason why companies list cities on website and on the mast head is to promote themselves. You failed last time this was discussed to show how a list of city names is Encyclopaedic and have not explained now. Mt king ^(edits) 02:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between a list of 25 offices with flags and a sentence in prose including under 20. Please start a discussion on the relevant talk page, and in the meantime please also self revert the change which are attempting to impose at Herbert Smith through edit warring until you have achieved a consensus for the reverted change. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No I won't as it is you that is trying to impose your will on articles by displaying clear ownership by refusing to let changes be made to them. By insisting on me getting the consensus before I make the change you are again demonstrating your attempt at ownership. So here is what you should do, if you disagree with my edits, you should propose your version on the talk page and see if your proposed version gains consensus. Mt king ^(edits) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Harassment. And of course, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which you clearly haven't read and is entirely irrelevant to this article, where I have a tiny number of edits and didn't even write the content in question. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You hide behind Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to enforce your views on a page, to further your Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, as I said, you take your version of the page to the talk and see if you can get consensus round that one. Mt king ^(edits) 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Very many thanks for the barnstar. It is very kind of you. Dormskirk ( talk) 00:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, much deserved. Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

30,305 have sold in the UK this year up to the end of october. http://www.smmt.co.uk/2011/11/october-new-car-registrations-up-as-market-stabilises/ Hope that's useful to you Jenova 20 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rangoon11 ( talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block Evasion. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You created the SPI. Mt king ^(edits) 02:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks for noticing that. Rangoon11 ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to a NAC of this with "Bad Faith Nomination by Block Evading Editor" ? Mt king ^(edits) 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me. Rangoon11 ( talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Given this comment, I will let it run. Mt king ^(edits) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive this unsolicited contact, but I note that a couple of weeks ago, you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia regarding the proposed deletion of their entry on OccupyMARINES. Of 26 respondents, 24 voted to Keep; only 2 voted Delete. The result was to Keep the article.

However, it has now been nominated again for deletion, and I thought you might be interested. Here's the URL for the new discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_%282nd_nomination%29

JohnValeron ( talk) 04:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rangoon. A proposal is being discussed on the Occupy movement talk page to create a "Reactions to the Occupy movement" article. I've created a userpage draft for the article. I'm telling you this because you are a major contributor to the Occupy movement article. I'm asking you if have anything to add or expand to the article. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

lead paragraph

Hello Rangoon. I'm trying to find a solution to the lead paragraph that we can agree on. I think the lead paragraph is important. Please answer in the comment section [1]. Do you agree that the goal section needs a rewrite? Yoda1015 ( talk) 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this section from the Macfarlanes article because it is not about them, their is no evidence that there involvement in the matter is anything more than employee/employer. In the same way that WP is not here as a tool for companies to promote themselves it is also not her as a tool to attempt to show them in a bad light. If you disagree by all means start a discussion on the talk page of the article but don't reinsert it unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Mt king ^(edits) 05:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rangoon11, that's very nice of you. Eddaido ( talk) 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, well deserved. Rangoon11 ( talk) 22:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've stuck a bunch of non-standard code into some navboxes I recently cleaned-up. Here, for example. Navbox groups are supposed to be right-aligned, and have an expected colour for the second level groups, which you're discarding. WP:Deviations is about refraining from such deviations from normal practice. Please reconsider. Such efforts only increase the chaos in the project. Alarbus ( talk) 00:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have merely reverted to the existing appearance in both cases, which in my view looks superior and which I have seen widely used in the project. Is there any policy which specifically requires right-alignment or exactly the same shade of blue for group boxes? There is certainly a lot more divergence in nav boxes than this, with many being in wholly different colours (university navboxes are an example). I can't see how WP:Deviations is relevant to an issue like this. Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deviation is about not overriding standards, such as the alignment of navbox groups and their colour, but forcing things with embedded markup. It's really about maintainable code and site-wide consistency. Consider:

• Template:Navbox/testcases#Gradient

When things such as this get rolled-out, navboxes with deviations will be left behind. (and yes, people do awful things with inaccessible colours, at least you're not after green text on a red background). Alarbus ( talk) 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect though it is subjective whether this is a deviation or not. I have seen other editors convert templates to hlist and leave the right align and shaded blue group boxes. Would you be happy to continue this discussion on the talk page of WOSlinker, where there seems to be a lot of editors watching who are involved with navboxes? It might be useful to both gauge opinion, and perhaps see if there is some way of satisfying all concerns. Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unambiguously a deviation; you're inserting inline code: that is a deviation. I'm not so much concerned with left vs right (or blue/lavender) as with consistency. You reverted Poirot and this leaves the navbox at the bottom of Agatha Christie inconsistent.

I've talked a lot with WOSlinker, and am using his script. Hlist is a separate issue, though. You see I'm hlisting thousands of templates? (WOSlinker seems to have done over 10,000...) Most are quite standard, as they should be. If I encounter a odd one, I'll shove it in the right direction while I'm there. See the Gradient example; inline code will break that when it's deployed. Alarbus ( talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To be entirely frank I am far from an expert in the areas of either software coding or the use of scripts in WP. I also understand that a certain amount of consistency across the project is essential in terms of giving a professional appearance. However I am also reluctant to see things made to look worse than previously (in my, wholly subjective view of course, although I think that I have a pretty good eye for these things) purely in the name of imposing 100% standardisation when the issue is ultimately subjective. As before, I think that a good idea would be to take this issue to the talk page of WOSlinker - I genuinely have no idea what they or other editors there might have to say on this - in order to try and get a quick consensus and perhaps work out a compromise (or better). Rangoon11 ( talk) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm experienced in this area, as it would seems is WOSlinker. You're welcome to seek his opinion on inline styles. I don't believe I've discussed exactly that with him. If for example, you feel that text-align:left; is needful for {{ University of Manchester}} specifically, then inline code might be appropriate. If, however, you think text-align:left; appropriate for all {{ navbox}} groups, then seeking a change to the template at Template talk:Navbox would be appropriate. What's not appropriate is to simply force the change in just the templates you edit.

My intent in pointing you at the gradient example is that people forcing colour in specific templates are also damaging the future prospects of those template as site-wide initiative emerge. Alarbus ( talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a contact e-mail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.74 ( talk) 01:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't generally make my email address available on WP. Can you give me an idea as to roughly what the issue is and why email is preferred to simply talking here? Rangoon11 ( talk) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello - what do you think of two below:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.74 ( talk) 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Mini (marque), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find this in the MOS and have asked a question on the Naming conventions page... It looks like you are right of course... sigh. Hyper3 ( talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's a good idea to ask the question. You would be completely right if the page were being linked because the subject of it appeared within the article as a concept, but I'm fairly certain that when an article is linked to purely as an article, the capitalisation of the article title should be followed. This is what I have seen on other disambiguation headings anyway, but let's see what response you get. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Public school (UK), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As the article refers to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) then we should use the current LSE terms, you will note I have refered to the previous one in my edit. ie primary to premium are specified by the LSE in my link. Canol ( talk) 15:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw it but I disagree with your analysis, the article isn't about the LSE or its services, but about a company which is listed on the LSE and another exchange unconnected to the LSE. The words 'primary' and 'secondary' are used in their standard English sense, not to describe or reflect the names of LSE services. Rangoon11 ( talk) 15:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But my link was to the London Stock Exchange's own site and National Grid is a listed company on the London Stock Exchange. It is by their definition a Premium (formally primary) company on the London Stock Exchange. Why can't you agree? Canol ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect I think that you are missing the point. The word 'primary' is used in its standard English sense, that it also matched the name of the applicable LSE listing service prior to the recent change which you highlight was coincidental. The word 'secondary' is equally not used to match the name of the applicable NYSE listing service, but in a plain English sense. This enables consistent wording for the articles of companies listed on different exchanges, which may use different names for their listing services. Rangoon11 ( talk) 15:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The English definition of Primary does not mean anything in this context, it might even serve to confuse the issue, it certainly confused me, we might as well leave it out, it has not been used in other premium LSE listed companies. The word Premium though has specific meanings on the LSE and is relevant in an article that tells us that NG has a particular listing on the LSE. Canol ( talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about if I say this instead.

"It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index" Canol ( talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear and the wording is used on many other articles. The word 'primary' shows quite clearly that the London listing is the principal listing and the NYSE listing secondary. You didn't change the word secondary so you couldn't have been that confused. The word 'primary' would not be necessary where a company is only listed on the LSE, and in such articles is omitted. Your 'compromise' text above ignores the NYSE listing completely. Rangoon11 ( talk) 16:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then I should explain my confusion. I read the sentence that NG had a primary listing on the LSE and wondered what a primary listing was so looked it up. There's no such thing, so I changed it to the clearly defined 'Premium listing', come to think of it there's no such thing as a secondary listing on the NYSE, so perhaps we should change that to the clearly defined 'Standard listing', this would be more encyclopedic with clear definitions. Canol ( talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is fairly common wording and is mentioned in the - admittedly poor quality - Cross listing article in WP. A Google search of the term secondary listing reveals a wealth of info: [2]. I am happy to seek the opinion of a couple of editors who are very experienced editors of articles on companies for their views on this but my own is fairly clear. Rangoon11 ( talk) 17:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered, but did think that as stock markets around the World are changing from primary and secondary listings to premium and standard listings then it would be appropriate here where the new terms are clearly definable in the markets stated. Canol ( talk) 20:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem: see Public School (UK) and Public school (UK). Sigh. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed the first one when doing the recent rd to article! Happy for them to be merged. I think that the best title would actually be "Public school (United Kingdom)" though. Public School (UK) is currently entirely uncited although both articles are at a very early stage of development and need lots of work. Rangoon11 ( talk) 20:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Hyper3 ( talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Passenger car ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Turks were in Europe since 1352! Stop racism in Wikipedia! Böri ( talk) 08:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know about the discussion here, in case you want to comment. It (mostly my comment there) is relevant to your recent discussion with Aprock and Volunteer Marek. Boothello ( talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have spent a lot of time recently, cleaning up after Miniotx. It's appreciated, and I will try to assist you. I reckon he/she will do something stupid enough to be blocked eventually, but until then I just want to focus on damage control. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  ( talk) 09:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Maxus logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about this for some time, some good folks went ahead and beat me to it. WP:WikiProject Cooperation. It's a meeting place for COI editors, paid editors, and other advocates. I think you should join up; we can do some good work there. Let me know what you think, or if you have any ideas. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Rangoon11 ( talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:RBS Group.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on my proposal about changes to {{ web browsers}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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.