User talk:IanManka/Archive/12

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

---

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 7 December 2006 and 4 January 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Apologies - further info

My apologies for not putting a reference, but my information was correct. It was announced today by FIFA, and was taken directly from their website. I have never posted incorrect information to any article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sbknudson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Jeopardy!

Hey, I'm going to be on Jeopardy! Teen Tournament. Any tips? And if you don't mind me asking, how well did you do on Kid's Week? Hank el-Bashir 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for being patient and "cleaning up" after me as I add the Collegebowl templates... still trying to get the hang of this whole thing after only making marginal edits over the past several month! PSUMark2006 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

template:cite journal

Thanks for dropping by at template:cite journal. I'm a regular on that template and an admin. I will enact consensus whatever this will be. I don't think the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_journal#Using_a_semi-colon_to_streamline_last.2C_first_format_with_multiple_authors is yet closed. I had thus not yet removed the editprotected request flag (which I didn't add myself). --Ligulem 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

College Bowl Template Question

Here's my question explained further: What level of sponsorship should be listed for each bowl game? That is, does it only include sponsors that have naming rights? Or every sponsor listed for a bowl. For example, the International Bowl has no naming rights. But looking at their website, they list Toronto Unlimited, the Rogers Centre, Football Bowl Association and the Toronto Star. Should those 4 sponsors be listed? It's kind of a minute detail, but I was so impressed by your documentation for the template, I wanted to make sure I was using the Template appropriately. X96lee15 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On my Barnstar to Ryulong

<minced oath>. Thanks for correcting that. I'm getting blur these days...<minced oath> -- Altiris Exeunt 05:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV on Timothy McVeigh

Hi, Ian, thanks. If you look at the history (summarized here), I don't think Checkuser is really needed — the person in question is not making any attempt to hide the fact that the edits are all coming from him. (Twenty identical edits so far, reverted by 8 different editors.) I think he's just gaming the 3RR rules, just as he has now stopped for awhile, once I put some final warnings on some of his talk pages.

I'll follow your advice if you repeat it, otherwise I plan to just keep an eye out. If it starts up again, I think it may be better to relist it on AIV (perhaps asking for a "gaming the system" exception to the 3-hour rule), or maybe on 3RR. Thanks, Eleuther 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ian, that's the kind of help I hoped to receive. Eleuther 06:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats!

Thanks! All of us are technically appointed, but I would classify both of them as "election-led appointed terms", as the current table reads, given that they were selected because of their support in the elections. (I'm assuming you're referring to this chart.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek episode page moves

Hi, Ian. I wanted to explain why the page moves listed at Talk:List of Star Trek episodes were listed through WP:RM, and why I had asked for the request to be left open a few extra days. By most definitions of "uncontroversial", the move would qualify; however, a vocal minority (led by one very vocal individual, currently on a Christmas Wikibreak) have been making a fuss about moving television episode pages to comply with WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC, in cases where a WikiProject has previously established different guidelines (as the Star Trek WikiProject had here). This fuss has resulted in months of discussion at WT:TV-NC, two attempts at mediation, and finally an ArbCom case, where you can read all the gruesome details if you wish. I do not know what the response of the individual in question will be, once she returns from her Wikibreak, but based on her past actions, I suspect it might have been better to wait a few days more before closing the move poll, as I had suggested here. (You might have noticed that I and two other participants in the vote — Wknight94 (talk · contribs) and Radiant! (talk · contribs) — are also admins, and could have performed the moves ourselves if they were genuinely uncontroversial.) I'm sure it will be all right, but the request to leave it open for a few extra days might have helped prevent some future drama. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my moving frenzy yesterday (IanManka (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)), I really was not paying too much attention to the other discussion about the page. In hindsight, I probably should have waited a few extra days, like proposed, but at a count of 13-0, I really didn't consider the holidays keeping a few users back to be a significant factor which would ruin consensus (if that made any sense). In my opinion, general naming policies takes precedence over any guidelines established by a WikiProject (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for similar moves, and for further reasoning). If this does become a problem, please contact me at my talk page, and inform me of the situation, and I'll attempt to clean up my mess. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Ian — for what it's worth, I agree with you that general naming policies supercede WikiProject guidelines when the two come into conflict, and so do the vast majority of editors in the discussion at WT:TV-NC. It's just that a vocal minority has kicked up a fuss, and is likely to kick up another fuss when they get back from Christmas. I don't think there will be any need to undo the moves, as the actual consensus is clear — it's just a matter of timing, that's all. Thanks for your reply and happy New Year. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to pile on, I was considering adding a note to the ArbCom proceeding about your understandable frustration at having to close a formal WP:RM for what was a very non-controversial move ("Further evidence that unnecessary WP:RM is a disruption" or something along those lines). But it's probably pointless since it's only one person choosing to turn this into a Holy War. The first arbitrator on the scene, Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), seems to be agreeing with that sentiment so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, if worst-case-scenario does occur, please contact me and I will attempt to clean up my mess, or attempt to resolve a dispute. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hello somebody has reported me for violating the 3RR policy. However, I don't think I did because in one instance I added some information. But either way can you take a look at it? [1] Fighting for Justice 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I withdraw my request. The matter is settled. Fighting for Justice 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RM - MSN Messenger

For this, your edit summary says: denied.

I don't know if you are aware, but the page name was MSN Messenger. If the result of the discussion is "no consensus", then the page should not have been moved from MSN Messenger to History of Windows Live Messenger. (See the page's history, to see what I mean). I was requesting an undo of a move that had no consensus (as you also determined). Hopefully, this clarifies. - jc37 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had originally thought the top of the archived discussion was to move the page (it was, in fact the discussion to merge the pages). The count was about even, and thus, would be "no consensus." Upon a second look, I saw at the bottom the (actual) move request. The vote for the move to History of Windows Live Messenger went 2-0. However, it appears that the RM wasn't properly set up. If you were to restart discussion, and formerly set up the move request, I can examine what the final consensus is after the vote.

It appears that the discussion on the 2-0 vote was quickly closed (within a day). Most straw polls last a week.

For now, I'll move the page back to its original name, and move-protect it. Please begin discussion on whether or not to move the page to History of Windows Live Messenger. Explicitly state that the discussion will last a week. Once the discussion is concluded, contact me again, and I'll re-examine the case.

I think that made sense. If it doesn't, please don't hesitate to contact me. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, hopefully it made sense, since I think I understood : )

Thanks for looking into this. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in your RfA (which, by the looks of it, is going to be successful)! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Airways

I noticed you added two templates requesting cleanup and editor review to Virgin Atlantic Airways. I'm wondering why you feel this is necessary as you don't seem to list a reason for putting these templates on this page. I'd be happy to help clean this page up once I learn what help is needed. Thanks. NcSchu 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Malplace dabs

Thanks for your work at Malplaced disambiguation pages, I can't believe the list has been completed! I am a little curious about how you resolved the last few entries (and it is impossible to check as far as I know). Did you find any problems with overlapping histories or anything like that? --Commander Keane 03:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Becoming an administrator

Hi! Thanks for your message on my talk page. So many edits, I had no idea! Anyway, is there a really good reason why I should be an administrator? I'm really not sure what the advantage to me or Wikipedia would be. Gaius Cornelius 12:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Delete/Redirect as opposed to Keep/Redirect?

I can see choosing the former if the material is libellous or doubtful, but I don't see why, in this instance, you chose the course you did. Not that I think it matters much, but I am interested in understanding the reasoning behind such choices. Thanks. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Just curious. I'm thinking that I might offer my services as an admin sometime this spring, assuming that I continue to have time, and I am curious to learn more about the choices that admins make. Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Editor review

Thank you for the notice.

--Meno25 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Interwiki links

Hi, thanks for editing Template:IPA. :) I'm afraid there's a bit of a problem, though; [[:ko:틀:듣기]] shows up as a link in the template's contents, not the "in other languages" area.

I should have used [[ko:틀:듣기]] syntax without the colons, in order to reduce potential errors. (It's safe to use that on talk pages.) I'm sorry. :(

Could you edit the template to remove the colons, please? I'll be more careful in the future. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 03:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you fixed it already. :) Thank you very much. :D --Kjoonlee 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiimail

I have only a vague memory of this one. Since Google didn't come up empty on it, I couldn't label it as patent nonsense, so no speedy category seemed to apply. So, I went with Prod. Fan-1967 04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cotton Bowl

"The AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic is a United States college football bowl game played annually since 1937..." from Cotton Bowl (game):

While the above statement is generally accepted by the public at-large, it is actually a false statement. The Cotton Bowl has been played since 1937. The AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic has only been played since 2006. AT&T should not be credited with the longevity of this great bowl game.

I'm splitting hairs, perhaps, but I believe that my edit from 1/1/07 is factually correct and the better opening statement for the article. What are your thoughts?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.63.97 (talk • contribs).

Nominated for deletion: Trebek effect

Are you still allowed to weigh in on AfDs as an admin? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trebek_effect Robert K S 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

College football barnstar

Barnstar moved to user page

Can you delete this image?

If you are online, can you please delete this image? I uploaded it for Julia Allison, but didn't realize that the image was copyrighted. Thanks. Bearly541 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are so organized! Thanks! Bearly541 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How did I find you? The RC (recent changes) shows administrators actions too, like deleting pages, etc. Bearly541 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Previous Archive | Topical Index | Next Archive

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Current Talk Page