User talk:Ego White Tray/Archive 1

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns

Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Eugenics

As you suggest, "Nazi" is the word most commonly used in English, but in this case the article was following the usage in the cited source, which specifically used "NSDAP" when talking about Fischer: "Eugen Fischer was a member of the NSDAP", it says. It's no biggie! All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

If you think an admin closing an AFD is incorrect, you should take it up with him and go to Wikipedia:Deletion review - don't just ignore it. StAnselm (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I don't agree with the disambig, but it's better than a redirect. I think it should be an article. But the community consensus was for a disambiguation page. If you don't think that was the consensus, go to deletion review. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being called a vandal about it. A legitimate content dispute is never vandalism. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I just contacted the closing Administrator. At User talk:Kudpung#Conservative Christianity, he/she states that the disambiguation page was not binding and editor's are free to do as necessary. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I called you a vandal. According to the closing admin's comments, I would be keen to see the article restored (and improved), since most of the incoming links do actually point to that concept, rather than Christian fundamentalism or Christian right, etc. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

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. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than edit-war over this, if you believe the AFD was closed with the wrong outcome, then you should go to WP:DRV. Right now you seem to be claiming a consensus for a redirect that I can't find anywhere. The closing admin stated consensus can change and it doesn't have to remain a DAB indefinitely. He didn't say you're free to go ahead and ignore the outcome of the AFD.--Atlan (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge data

Hi -- if I am reading it correctly, you were the editor who indicated that rhere are currently around 16,000 articles tagged with merge tags, and also that only about 5% have any discussion and only about 1% of the tags actually link to the discussion. That's interesting. Where might I find that data? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of merges is easily seen at Category:Articles to be merged. The other two, as far as I know, aren't officially tabulated anywhere, and those numbers are estimates based on my experience doing a lot of merges. Thinking back, the situation might not be quite that bad, but it is only a tiny number with any discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge

Hi Dondegroovily, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have been checking the edits of WikiProject Merge members to catch any issues before they become habits. Your mergers look good, but your instructions to Dipralb lack the important step of linking in the edit summary. Moonriddengirl added it to the project's instructions, per WT:WikiProject Merge#Good luck and a word about attribution requirements. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Merging" your user pages

Thanks so much! Someone who FINALLY helped me! :D
—BandOfColor (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Plummer v. State

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have on for deletion. The nominated article is Plummer v. State.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You are welcome to edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Would you help me with this (step 3 - step 4 - step 5)? See also: Revision history of History of F.C. Internazionale Milano. Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While not listed under step 3, an easier alternative are the {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} tags. Place {{merged-to|destination page|today's date}} on the source page and {{merged-from|source page|today's date}} on the destination page.

Step 4 is not really necessary. If you were to merge "Canine" to "dog", it's saying to find pages that redirect to Canine and instead direct them to Dog. The thing is, bots do this regularly, so you don't really need to do it.

Step 5 is basically saying that if any other pages were involved in the merge, some type of notice must be on the talk page.

Step 3 and 5 are necessary due to copyright restrictions. Essentially, you can't delete a page if any of its content is on another page, as all editors must be credited for their work, and when deleting a page, the page edit history is gone too. Admins need these tags to avoid violating our copyrights.

Hope this helps, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: HoFCIM (2004-Present) and HoFCIM (2004-present). Are they OK? Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk page for the 2004-present article didn't have the merged-to tag (if there is no talk page, make one to put the merged-to on it), but otherwise, good. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, one of them (HoFCIM (2004-Present)) should be removed...--Dipralb (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? If you copied content, the tag needs to be there, and your edit summary indicates that you did. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stella Parton discography

No other discography merges individual albums like that. As you have it, it's just clutter and a total eyesore on the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pre-Contact_Hawaiian_royalty

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_14#Category:Pre-Contact_Hawaiian_royalty. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Platine War

Hi, Dondegroovily. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time we are talking. I reverted your recent move request on Platine War and I hope you won't mind. There was a merge request which has been just closed and there is no reason to open yet another request of any kind. Except for those two editors, there is no one else complaining about the article (see its history log). "Guerra Grande" is the name of the Uruguayan Civil War which started in the erarly 1830s and ended on late 1851. The Platine War is the name of an international conflict between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation that began in late 1851 and ended on earlu 1852. Both conflicts are related, but they are not the same. Anyway, again, I hope you may understand what I did and feel free to contact me at my talk page. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable about the history of South America, I'll start with that. But, it is obvious that what you claim as simple fact is, in fact, disputed by other editors. You removed the request on the basis of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" which is not a sound basis for anything. Being that your belief is disputed, a move request is warranted, at the very least, to bring in others. If you are truly correct, the move request will be shot down and no harm will come of it. If you're wrong, the only damage is to your ego. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article about the Guerra Grande: Uruguayan Civil War. That's what I have been trying to tell you. By asking the change of the title of "Platine War", you'll be creating two articles about the same conflict. What I've been trying to tell you is that they are not the same conflicts, but they are related. --Lecen (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, clearly others disagree. I don't have any opinion except that this discussion should be aired openly to the entire Wiki community, so that everyone is aware of the discussion and can comment on it. If Guerra Grande does indeed refer to both, that can easily be handled by a disambiguation page, similar to Syrian War, a war name used for several wars. In seven days the discussion will be closed, and if everyone else agrees with you, the page won't be moved and people will see on the talk page forever that the idea was suggested and reject (avoiding the same discussion in the future). Again, I don't know if you're right, but another knowledgable Wikipedian disagrees with you, and that's grounds for a move discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe you're being unfair to me, could you at least move the move request tag to another topic? The present one was dedicated to discuss the matter, and it's already clearly complicated to anyone who is arriving just now. --Lecen (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by move the tag to "another topic". D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You may propose the change of the title of the article to anything, but "Guerra Grande". There is already an article about the Guerra Grande. This is not the case of two conflicts known as "Guerra Grande". You could, it's true, ask the merge of "Platine War" to the already-existing "Guerra Grande". --Lecen (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To be precise Guerra Grande is a redirect, not an article. There is no reason that Platine War couldn't be moved to that name with a disambiguation hat note at the top of the page linking to the Uruguay civil war. I'm not removing the discussion just because you disagree. You're essentially asking me to censor another user's opinion, and I won't do that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Im not asking you to stop the discussion. I'm trying to tell you that there is already an article about the Grande Guerra which Cambalachero has been talking about. Wikipedia does not allow two articles with the same title about the exact same thing. You know that just as I do. That's why I'm telling you that you may create a merge request, but a move request doesn't make sense. It's like Second Sino-Japanese War and Pacific War. Try to picture that Second Sino-Japanese War is Guerra Grande and that Pacific War is the Platine War. An editor could not request the change of "Pacific War" to "Second Sino-Japanese War" because there is already an article about it. Do you understand now what I mean? --Lecen (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was not my impression of the discussion that is going on now. MarshalN20 explicitly says that the article should be renamed, not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then. I was here trying to explain you the problem while I had to endure "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", "If you're wrong, the only damage is to your ego", etc... Since you opened the move request, it means you're supporting it, since it will be counted as vote. You shouldn't have done it if, in your words, you're not "not knowledgable about the history of South America". Anyway, thank you for your time. --Lecen (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm counted as a "move" vote, feel free to troutslap the admin. I explicitly said I have no opinion, that it was merely a procedural move to tag that discussion. Starting discussion procedures on another editor's behalf (in this case MarshalN20) is routinely done and does not count as a vote in favor. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)