User talk:PPEMES

Response

@Obelix: In response to your post on Swedish Wikipedia. Since you've always remained a friendly fellow Wikipedian at the Swedish Wikipedia, could you please tell me how its consensus actually works, evidently in reference to Wikipedia:Etiquette? Have they turned full arbitrary? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Obelix: I would still much appreciate a reply from you on this issue. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latin Union

Template:Latin Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

SMOM template

Hi Chicbyaccident, Well done on creating the Template:Sovereign Military Order of Malta. I have a couple of ideas/suggestions as to which other articles should be included in the template:

• major battles/sieges, such as the Siege of Rhodes (1522) and the Great Siege of Malta
• the navy of the Order of Saint John
• the Hospitaller colonization of the Americas
• other GM's palaces, such as Palazzo Vilhena, Verdala Palace and San Anton Palace
• other major fortifications, such as the Fortifications of Rhodes, Birgu and Valletta, Fort Saint Elmo, Fort Ricasoli etc (this list would be quite long)

It is obviously impossible to include every Hospitaller-related article in the template, so the question is where do we draw the line? What are your views/suggestions?

Regarding the Template:Forts in Malta, I removed the flags from near each individual fort, and added them near the century they were built.

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and thanks also to you for your great contributions not least relating to Malta! Please let me suggest to proceed the discussion on Template talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta, in order to make it easier for other users to contribute. I'll give you a reply over there, if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Categorization

This[1] edit of yours puts Wikipedia administration pages under Category:Articles. Please explain and/or re-revert. If you look at other Wikipedia administration categories you will see that they are not normally placed under article categories. DexDor ^(talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. You are right in the rule. But as far as I know, it was placed in that category by some other user before you and me. I guess the idea was to let the categorised content be categorised in a proper way. Please help with that. If you cannot, I would urge you to let the information be accessible the way it is, since a lot of articles categorised and subcategorised there are suitable to have at hand for anyone who comes across this category "behind the scenes". Hope that makes sense. Again, please feel free to rename and/or recategorise so everything is in proper order, but don't delete the link altogether? Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. E.g. "it was placed in that category by some other user before you and me" is incorrect - it was you[2]. "to let the categorised content be categorised in a proper way" - the point is that it's not the proper way to categorize (talk pages, user pages etc don't belong in Category:Articles). The articles category is linked to the WikiProject - via the talk page - i.e. the way we normally do it in Wikipedia - why do you think ODM should be different? DexDor ^(talk) 06:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the categorisation, to make myself clear I meant the subcategories, meaning that other users categorised stuff there which I agree would be more suitable in the Category:Articles root. Anyway, well, alright. You got me, I accept your arguments. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving Hospitaller colonization of the Americas

You converted a page that I largely wrote, Hospitaller colonization of the Americas, into a list, removing the GA status. I don't want to be territorial - nobody owns pages - but I do not think that converting a Good Article into a list is any kind of "improvement". I would like to move restore the GA page back to the original, and keep your list, Territorial possessions of the Knights Hospitaller, as a separate, shorter list page. Fishal (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you prefer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can simply undo your move. I'll contact an admin. Something like this should have been discussed first, I would think. Fishal (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well. You wrote good text! I noticed how Russian Wikipedia covered the subject and though it was much more logical. I'm not sure it is motivated to basically have the text doubled in it's own article, unless you add a lot of more contents, make the current article too large. Until then, I suppose the article should be balanced with more contents concerning territorial possessions in other parts of the world, similarly to the good contents you proved on the Americas? By the way, feel free to move this discussion from my talk page to the discussion page of the article in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right now I think Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta under the Order of Saint John mostly cover the history. The page I created covers one small moment in the history. Maybe a more accurate title would be "Hospitaller colonization of the Caribbean", but the name matches other pages like Scottish colonization of the Americas, Swedish colonization of the Americas, etc. A page about the Hospitaller territories would be more like Territorial evolution of the British Empire, I think: more of an extended list with links to relevant articles, including the one specifically about the Caribbean colonies. Fishal (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, I would still say that the overlapping is legitimate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem that I see, though I don't want to be territorial about it, is that I put in the work to make it a GA, and as a list it no longer is. If there was a consensus from other editors who work with the topic to merge the article into a list, I wouldn't complain, to just get rid of a GA without discussing it seems to me to be regression, not progress. Fishal (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your excellent contributions being diminished by being put in a more relevant context in a second article. The former article of yours may still be revived. I have added a template of need of improvement in the new article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just it, going from a GA to a list needing cleanup, while it doesn't change the text itself, affects the trustworthiness of the page and seems like a net loss for the encyclopedia. Like I said, I don't want to be territorial about it, but I think that making such a change to a stable article with no discussion was the wrong move. Fishal (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to evolve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "never finished". That also applies to its articles. Either way, your former article Hospitaller colonization of the Americas may wll be revived in its former state and I won't object to that. With that solution, I don't see any problem according to what's best for Wikipedia, including your excellent contributions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Help

Is there any possibility available to express objection against a blocking on a specific language version of Wikipedia? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The different language versions are independent projects that do not control each other and whose guidelines and policies may differ. To contest a block on the Swedish Wikipedia, please follow the Swedish Wikipedia's guideline at sv:Wikipedia:Blockeringar. The English Wikipedia does not take a stance on blocks at other projects and cannot help you contest the block; objecting to it here may well be considered diruptive. Huon (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: Thank you for your reply. Except how is such an objection be expressed if you're blocked over there, making things correctly? @MagnusA: Assistance would be much appreciated. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume you speak Swedish. I don't. Still I'm pretty sure that this answers your question: En användare som vill överklaga sin blockering kan göra det genom att lägga in {{avblockering|motivering}} på sin diskussionsida. Talk page access at the Swedish Wikipedia has not been revoked. Use your talk page over there to ask for help and to request an unblock. I'd advise you to read the rest of the Swedish "Blockeringar" guideline I linked you to above, too, before requesting an unblock. Huon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but unfortunately my discussion page on the Swedish Wikipedia is also blocked. Before that, other users commented on my discussion page with dubious messages in controversial topics, seemingly wanting to create an idea that I was the author of the messages, further discrediting my user account there. Rather irritating behaviour, really. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization fix and page move--good show

Hello Chicbyaccident, thank you for editing the Roman Catholic template to fix the capitalization error. I have taken a look at what you did to see how to fix such problems in the future. You saved me some time and I thank you for that also. Al Leluia81 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive?

Does anybody who knows this stuff know why my user talk page currently isn't being properly archived? Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I believe this issue is to do with Cluebot itself.. Please take this issue up in Cluebot's talk page, and also don't forget to look at the templates on that page. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means but came across your issue - don't remember how, but *anyway*...

• 1) The Bot is set to archive old threads without any new replies every 90 days (2160 hours) - so that takes care of anything within the last 3 months but there are still posts/threads from December that haven't been archived.
• 2) The Archived pages...They don't seem to be quite right (posts/threads from different months are being placed under the same archive-page title), but I am more familiar with User:lowercase sigmabot III and its syntax... Huon is the editor who added the archiving code. I've pinged them but I'll also drop a note on their user talk page, they'll probably be able to figure out what's going on quicker and better than myself. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As UY Scuti mentioned, the bot itself is down and has not archived anything in more than a month. There's a thread on the bot talk page noting that the bot operator hasn't been active for quite some time, either. Switching to lowercase sigmabot III may serve to get your talk page arcived automatically again. Huon (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Huon, I didn't realize that ClueBot III was completely down. Thanks for making that clear. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the information. Excuse me for asking, but do you know how to make that change? If so, feel free to do it to my talk page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, I can change it but lowercase sigmabot will give the archive pages a different title type... I'll give it a go, see if I can keep things neat & tidy. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please! Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I should have said "I'll try to change it."...this is proving to be quite difficult for, I am in no way any kind of coder. The issue is the original titles exist and are the archive of the talk page but lowercase sigmabot uses a different nomenclature for its titles... I might have to ask for some help. I am sure some other WP editors have changed archiving their talk pages from one method of to another... Not giving up yet. Shearonink (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, anyway. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grand Collar

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Grand Collar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 13:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the redirection isn't quite correct. Could you please correct it? Chicbyaccident (talk)

Talkback

Hello, PPEMES. You have new messages at Σ's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyberpower678 & I have been working out the possible issues with the archiving & now we will have to wait for the automatic archiving to kick in. I'll keep an eye on your talk-page to make sure it's working. Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)