User talk:PFHLai/Archive 3

I am currently off-line for another wikivacation.
Messages left here won't get a response for the next little while .... 
Take care, folks. 
Happy editing ! :-)

PFHLai, 2006 April 07 

• User talk:PFHLai/Archive 1
• User talk:PFHLai/Archive 2

---

Thanks...

...for answering my question. I would thank you over there, but it was already getting bogged down. Youngamerican 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Happy editing. :-) -- PFHLai 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks PFHLai for notifying me about the message on Main Page talk. I've responded at the user's talk page. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. -- PFHLai

Thanks again...

...for being a patient teacher on the ways of ITN. youngamerican (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, there is no need to thank me, youngamerican. :-) I ain't a teacher, just another person in the wikineighbourhood. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, LaRevolution, but everybody can indeed become an administrator in Wikipedia and delete/undelete/block ... etc. You simply have to earn the trust of fellow Wikipedians. What "bureaucracy" were you talking about ? Also, we all have to play by Jimbo's rules here. "A people's encyclopedia ?" This is his turf. If you don't like Jimbo's rules, well, you can always move to User:Fred Bauder's http://wikinfo.org/ or User:NSK's http://wikinerds.org/, etc. If you / User:TJWhite really want to start a movement to improve Wikipedia, please discuss your ideas at the Village Pump, instead of posting notices on encyclopedic articles. BTW, you may want to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. -- PFHLai 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

linking on ITN re: Dublin riot

No. The Ulster Unionist Party wasn't involved. It wasn't a party political thing. In so far as there was any political allegiance, it was more Democratic Unionist Party than UUP. Thanks for the changes, BTW. I'm on a crap internet link right now that keeps crashing and forcing me to reboot my computer. So I end up having to save what I think are right links rather than do edit summaries to check. Every time I try that the system crashes and I lose the edit completely. So much for technology!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply on Template talk:In the news and on my talkpage. I thought it was the Ulster Unionist Party because 2006 Dublin Republican riots#Background states '"Love Ulster" is a Unionist organisation...' and links to the party's page (a redirect, though). BTW, I linked to Irish Republicanism because I wasn't ready to point fingers. Are you okay with the link change on ITN to Republican Sinn Féin from Continuity Irish Republican Army ? Please change as you see fit.... Hope your system cooperates. :-) -- PFHLai 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. 100% correct. I couldn't remember what that IRA's Sinn Fein was called. I've been working on my own book all night and I guess my brain is half-dead. (Well actually I've been working on my own book, doing stuff on WP and playing Sim City, while watching a film!!!) At nearly 6am I really should be in bed by now. See you tomorrow, and good work on the ITN page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

Thank you for your kind words. You are doing very well, too. I'm amazed how much you can multitask. :-) Sweet dreams. -- PFHLai 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Panama Canal Gatun Locks.jpg

Hello, I was just wondering what happened to this image. Did you mean to delete it permanently, or place it as a commons image? I don't have a problem with it being deleted, I just thought it was strange that it was producing errors. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, SmthManly. All images placed on the MainPage have to be protected to prevent vandalism there. This has been the policy for about a year now. If an image from Wikimedia Commons is to be used on the MainPage, an admin would upload it to English Wikipedia for the purpose of keeping it protected locally, rather than remotely at the Commons, while it was on the MainPage. (Admins call it "C-uploaded". C for Commons) I just deleted Image:Panama Canal Gatun Locks.jpg from Wikipedia when the image was no longer in use on the MainPage. The version at Wikimedia Commons was not altered at all, and should be displayed in Wikipedia as long as the filenames are the same at both sites. I don't understand the errors. Maybe there is a problem at the Commons. I can't get Commons:Image:Panama Canal Gatun Locks.jpg to show up on my monitor either, but the thumbnail on Commons:Panama Canal is working. Are the servers being slow again ? I don't know. Let's wait and see. -- PFHLai 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed the error on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2006 amd decided to check the image history. I the noticed you had deleted it. I know it had been because of the fact it was on the mainpage (I am also an admin) that it was uploaded on here and then you removed it since the image is on commons. I then figured that since the image was no longer showing up, it was probably because you had deleted it completely due to copyright issues, but as you have just shown me, the image is on commons, and it's copyright is ok. Looking at the articles the image points to, the error seems to be caused by a web address problem (seen here). Perhaps a solution would be to reupload the image onto Wikipedia, then remove it again (repeating the process) to see if perhaps there was an error at the moment you deleted the image that is causing it to show up like this. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to reupload it, but I can't even get the image at WCommons displayed on my screen. I don't think I should upload it without seeing it first. Is it displayed on your screen ? You want to try ? I am having trouble seeing many other images from WCommons, not just this one image. I want to upload Image:Flag of Jamaica.svg for ITN, too, but I'll wait for now. I'll check back in a hour or so. (I'm hungry, anyway...) -- PFHLai 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I just noticed all my horrible spelling and grammar mistakes, sorry about that. I can see the image on WCommons perfectly, it loads quickly and all. I can also see the Jamaican flag image easily. The only one that is still troublesome from this end is the Panama Canal image linked onto WP (but not on commons). I will try to re-upload it myself and see if it works, but right now I have a terrible headache... too much stress in my life, I guess. I'm going to go take an advil or something and try to upload it. Enjoy your meal!! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've re-uploaded the image and this has fixed the errors on the pages it links to, but now I'm a bit afraid of causing the error again by deleting it. In that case, I'll wait until you return and see what you think about whether it should be deleted again, or if it should just stay on there. Image:Panama Canal Gatun Locks.jpg -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of everything. I see that everything is now back to normal. I'd rather not delete Image:Panama Canal Gatun Locks.jpg myself, for I have no clue what I did wrong last time. I've applied the {{NCT}} tag to it for now. ... Don't worry about the minor typos on my talkpage. It was fine, and I could understand what you were trying to tell me. Hope your advil works. Take it easy. Cheers! -- PFHLai 04:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Archive

Sorry about the quick archive. I looked at the quantity of posts on the Main Page, not date. --- Dralwik of the Midwest ^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

It's okay. No need to apologise. We should all thank you for regularly cleaning the page up. I think we can gradually fill up archive 58 in the next day or so. Cheers. -- PFHLai 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Holi

Hello. This has reference to your message to Nichalp. As per my information , festival of Holi is on 15th March 2006, preceded by Holika Dahan a day before. Greetings on Holi. --Bhadani 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Bhadani. I'll post this holiday on the MainPage for March 15. Happy Holi to you, too. --PFHLai 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually as per the information I know of, Holi is on Mar 14, and Rangpanchmi on Mar 15th. I've never really heard of a Sikh New Year, but user:sukh might be able to help you out. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nichalp. I've posted Holi on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 15. I chose 'Dhulandi' because that's the word used in the article for the second day of Holi. Rangpanchmi (Rangapanchmi ?), according to the article, takes place a few days later. (I don't know when we start counting the 5 nights of the full moon, though.) What I put on MainPage should match the contents in the linked pages. I'd also thought about posting 'Burning of the Holika' on the 14th, but the page has a {{cleanup}} tag and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 14 seems too crowded already. What do you think ? -- PFHLai 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting confused :). A post to the Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics would be better able to sort it out. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Holi greetings

Hi, I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Indian celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. I have collected A Gift Pack of Quotationsfor you contained in the sections DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY and SOMETHING MORE, which are part of the on-going discussion pertaining to my nomination of Idleguy for adminship. You are aware of the tradition that if you throw colored water on flames of burning Holika, you enable a Prahlad to emerge from the flames!!! I again convey Holi greetings to you and your family!!! --Bhadani 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Holi greetings. Same to you and your loved ones. Hope you stick around Wikipedia. Take care. -- PFHLai 01:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...Don't mean to be just another "thanks for telling me that I screwed up" comment but... thanks for telling me that I screwed up. I'm learning the rules of uploading images. Good luck on your own Wiki-ing.Thedrewid314 02:27, 3 March 2006

You see, Thedrewid314, I have no way of telling if the 'screw up' was forgetting a tag or uploading an image that should not be in Wikipedia. I am one of the administrator who does cleanup work in Wikipedia. I want to be sure before I remove nice pitures and any useful materials as required by the annoying copyright restrictions. Hence my reminder on your talkpage, something administrators post on talkpages regularly. Hope you don't find this too annoying. I was just doing my job. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My aplogies

The bot just hit a bug there, I was just about to fix it but you beat me to it -- Tawker 02:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tawker. I'm lost. What happened ? What did I fix ? -- PFHLai 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You had edited current events but a bug in my anti-vandalism bot caused it to go crazy and revert a valid edit, I killed the bot as soon as I saw that and I was going to revert back to your version but you fixed it before me -- Tawker 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was just an edit conflict ..... Don't worry about it. -- PFHLai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor heads-up

Hi, thanks for updating the DYK. I find it very difficult to update it for the 0000 UTC monday update as it would be around 0530 in the morning here and an almost unearthly time for me. Good to see the update as the first thing in morning - also, you have left me with no work ;) by updating the talkpages and usertalk pages as well - btw, it is not necessary to sign the usertalk pages, I was the only admin doing so till date. Finally, the only lapse was that you did not update the next updation time counter on the template talk, which may lead some other admin to update the template even before six hours - I have updated it this time. btw, after having a look at your user and talkpages, I know who to contact for selected anniversaries ;). --Gurubrahma 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Whooops ... I forgot about the clock ! Thanks for covering for me, Gurubrahma. I don't know what to do with the 'Simon Hirst' bit, but I suppose you'll do the next update soon, eh ! It's past midnight on this side of the planet.... Take care. Zzzzz... -- PFHLai 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK image

You've left off the copyright info and credit from Image:Pleurodeles_waltl_BUD.jpg when you copied it and protected it! Please add these back. It's very annoying that they're missing. Pengo 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed now, but please remember to keep the licensing info when copying/protecting images in future. Pengo 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Pengo. I'm sorry to hear that my editing has annoyed you. I don't mind copying the licensing info, etc. the next time I need to {{C-upload}} another nice picture by you. However, the C-upload template was applied, indicating "file history, licensing and other information" can be found at Commons:Image:Pleurodeles waltl BUD.jpg, I just wondered why it was even necessary to copy things over. ... Oh, well, Essjay has fixed it .... -- PFHLai 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that admins are now required to copy over the attributions from WCommons. I've tweaked the instructions on the C-upload template accordingly. Hopefully, I'll be the last admin to miss the attributions. Cheers. -- PFHLai 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that admins are now required to copy over the attributions from WCommons. I've tweaked the instructions on the C-upload template accordingly. Hopefully, I'll be the last admin to miss the attributions. Cheers. -- PFHLai 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for taking the time to check it out. Pengo 07:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Medieval dates in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries

I checked the anniversaries against the articles for March through July. The following events are questionable: Durova 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• March 13 Claims the bones of Saint Nicephorus were interred on this date in 874. The article does not mention the event.
• March 20 Claims Henry V of England became king on that date in 1413. The article says it happened on March 21.
• April 30 Claims the Moorish invasion of Iberia began on this date in 711. None of the linked articles confirm more than the year of invasion.
• June 26 Claims the Western schism began. Article gives no exact date.
• July 11 Article fails to confirm the date regarding Zeng He.
• July 16 Article fails to confirm the beginning of the Islamic calendar (although this could be calculated).

It is so nice that someone who actually knows history (I don't know history) is checking up on these things. Thank you, Durova. You deserve a cookie. :-)

BTW, I fixed up the March 13 template and the St. Nicephorus article. Will continue with the rest later. -- PFHLai 14:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Meshaallavrov.JPG

In response to this, I would have known this had this site been so damn confusing to post material. In response to your sarcasm, kiss my ass. Simply delete it, and dont make a big deal out of it. Get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S0berage (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2006 March 8 (UTC).

• S0berage got blocked for other violations. My reply is on his talkpage. -- 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I misinterpreted your actions. You came off as condesending. I appreciate your efforts. Thanks for clearing things up. Ciao S0berage 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder support groups

Could we still delete Bipolar disorder support groups? Someone has merged the content and redirected it to Bipolar disorder but I don't think we need it at all. -- Barrylb 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Barrylb. I see that you've unmerged the list from Bipolar disorder and moved it to the talk page. Content-wise, I'll let you and User:Iapetus, who did the merging earlier, decide what to do with the list. I think I'll let Bipolar disorder support groups stay as a redirect. This way, Talk:Bipolar disorder support groups get to stay as well. In case someone re-creates a similar list, you can quickly point to this talkpage and say that we've talked about this already and we don't want such a list. Okay ? Thanks for reminding me on this issue. -- PFHLai 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:In the news

Please stop wheel warring and read/reply on the talk page, as I and others have been doing. It is very bad form to freely play around with such prominent content without participating in any discussion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:45

Huh ? What wheel warring are you talking about ? My removal of Meri's obituary ? Someone complained on Talk: Main Page#Slow news day?, so I took it off. What's your problem ? Whoever put it back on ITN is the one wheel warring. Not me. -- PFHLai 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing

It's quite amazing the discovery that I made. A very very amazing co-incidence. When you made this comment, which outlined that you disagreed with my comments, the time of this edit was 21:19, 14 March 2006. I then went to the Selected anniversary section for 15 March, whereas I noticed that you made an edit to change 44 BC to 44 BCE. I, of course, immediately suspected that you did this in reaction to our comments, because as you can see here, you made the change from BC to BCE at exactly 21:24, 14 March 2005. I suspected that this was a mere 5 MINUTES after you made the first edit at the Talk:Main Page but it was actually an edit made almost exactly one year prior, off by a mere FIVE MINUTES. Now, you may say that the second edit actually occured at 01:24, 15 March 2005, and you would be correct. Here's where the second part of the huge co-incidence comes in. What are the chances that I have my Wikipedia-clock set to -04:00 from UST, meaning that I saw the second edit as actually 4 hours earlier (i.e. 21:24), rather than the correct 01:24 UST. As for the first (21:19 UST) edit, I looked at the timestamp that was given from your username stamp that is given with the four tildas (~~~~) at the end of your comment. This was in UST format, but my Wikipedia clock saw the second comment using AST, placing what I thought at the time as a 5 minute difference in your two edits, but they were actually 1 year and 4 hours apart. CrazyInSane 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And you thought I was a rogue admin, eh ?!?  :-)

Last year, before the AD/CE thing became a big topic of discussion in Wikipedia, I was also asked about my change from 44 BC to 44 BCE on the Sel.Anniv. template for March 15th. You may want to see User talk:PFHLai/Archive 1#BC vs. BCE and then User talk:Wereon#BC vs BCE.

Relax, CrazyInSane. It's supposed to be fun 'working' in Wikipedia. Don't get yourself too worked up. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 06:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

ITN Main Page candidate

Hi PFHLai. I posted a candidate "Three charged with 'racial hatred' for protest at Danish Embassy London." at 6am utc. please will you look at it and consider it for the main page. it's a fairly new story (the details of arrests/charged), so i'm keen for it to be seen whilst it's still fresh. ie. before people read it in today's papers. sorry if i seem impatient. this is all very exciting for me. (I've just left the same comment on golbez's talk page. i'm not sure who would deqal with this)Veej 07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I can take a look. No promises. My decision will be on the ITN Candidates' page. --PFHLai 07:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks chap. you've no idea how exciting it was seeing it appear on the main page. i'm so childish! Veej 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your enthusiasm, pal. :-) -- PFHLai 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maltese holidays

Thanks for the creation of the article and linking to it on the Malta page. This is a step forward towards an eventual 2nd peer review in the future (most probably after a serious overhaul in summer when most editors can dedicate more time to Wiki). Since you are the original author and since you are administrator, I thought I would make this a bit short by telling you directly: Those holidays are National holidays. I am going to edit the article and divide in two sections, National and Public (Religious/Catholic), since it does not make much sense two have two seperate articles (at least IMO). I thought maybe you could rename the article from Public holidays in Malta to Holidays in Malta, since it is a bit strange to do such change with that title! In any case, that article needs to be renamed, if not to Holidays... to National Holidays....

Again, thanks for your interest in Malta :).

_└ ^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, VodkaJazz. I like your ideas. Go ahead and edit Public holidays in Malta as you think best. To avoid edit conflicts with you, I'll let you move it to Holidays in Malta yourself. You don't need to be an administrator to do this. Happy editing. Cheers ! -- PFHLai 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah I had a sudden memory loss... how stupid of me. Anyway, I did some stuff. As usual with new articles, it took a bit more than expected heh. _└ ^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. I like what you did there. Good work, VodkaJazz. --PFHLai 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Images on ITN

Hello, Zanimum. Please be reminded to protect all images on the MainPage to prevent vandalism there. For images from WCommons, such as the Harper shot you've added to ITN, you can upload it to English Wikipedia with the {{C-uploaded}} tag and then protect it. (See Category:Protected main page images.) Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez. Forgot about that. I try to stay away from the Main Page most of the time. Thanks for reminding me! -- Zanimum 13:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

{{inuse}}

Thanks, this is a challenging piece of investigation... cheers, Mme. Lebrun

You are welcome. -- PFHLai 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello PFHLai, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)