Jump to content

User talk:Parker007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Microtony (talk | contribs) at 09:45, 10 March 2007 (AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disambiguation

How do I make a Disambiguation page? --Parker007 20:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a common page with the name you want to disambig and there write a list of targets, on the same page put {{disambig}} tag. See for example Berka or Grossmann. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Parker007 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber/Timber

Talk:Timber#Merger I want to know who performed the merger, because there was a logical reason for not merging. Why can't Timber be part of the article Lumber as Timber is thicker than lumber with more structural strength. --Parker007 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've restored Lumber and Dimensional lumber from their Edit history while discussions continue, and properly tagged everything with merge tags. --h2g2bob 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full explanation of my edits here. --h2g2bob 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Parker007 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Page

Thanks for nominating the page - and then passing credit onto me, which is very flattering. It seems like there's much more work to do though! Wikidea 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks Parker007; for encouraging me to keep going with writing the page and putting it up on the main. It all worked out! Cheers Wikidea 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Redirect

Who updates the page: Special:DoubleRedirects . It was last updated in 2005.

Looking at that page, it seems that updating the page is disabled at the moment. It also says it was updated on 28 December 2006. But I don't know who updates it - probably a bot. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd think bots take care of the page. There are plenty of disambig pages for us to fix, though. Xiner (talk, email) 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed." --Parker007 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the MediaWiki software updating it. Now we have no effective way of retrieving double redirects (using Special:Randomredirect is way too much server load to keep loading). This really sucks; we'll have to bug the developers or get a toolserver tool or something. —Mets501 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can your Bot

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DoubleRedirects&limit=500&offset=500

go through these ones :) --Parker007 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-). Only 5 pages. —Mets501 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed 2, I corrected the Double redirects by hand. :) --Parker007 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category of Protected Pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

I was thinking of making a category for this.

1. Is there already a category for it?

2. There is a Category of a similar to unprotect for editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests

--Parker007 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a good or bad idea. Try proposing the creation on the talk page of RFPP. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick

Thank you for your recent edits to this article. However, I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you were attempting to do, although I can see you made some good content additions, but it appears to be broken at the present time. The references section <references/> should be at the end of the article, while the <ref> sections should be in the text of the article and contain the references. I would fix it myself but I'm not actually sure what is meant to be located where. See Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes for instructions on what is required. Orderinchaos78 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to - thanks for that :) Orderinchaos78 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth enamel

Your work on updating the references in the tooth enamel article is amazing! Thankyou very much. It must have taken forever to do. You just improved a dental article tremendously, and we greatly appreciate it!!! - Dozenist talk 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx. I hope to join the "admin team" some day. :) --Parker007 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dental caries article is almost ready for FAC. I am awaiting a submission from the Graphics Lab and I have to add in a small section of content. After that, the article will be submitted, and we will see what others think of it. - Dozenist talk 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

On a live RFA you made a general comment that included "I am very frustrated with admins just focusing on urgent request tasks, that they have forgotten Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit, ...". I point our that copyediting can be done by any user, and there is no need to be an admin to do it. Thus it is not especially relevant to an RfA, because being an admin doesn't make it possible or even easier. GRBerry 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is no normal user cares about copy editing. --Parker007 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editing isn't "sexy". It isn't particularly fun. Frankly, almost every cleanup task is backlogged. Look at your user page... more than 40K articles in "unsourced statements" and "needing sources". I do it when I see it, but I probably am close to a net zero contributor, given the numbers of typos I make myself. I would agree, the village pump or community portal might be better places to solicit help. But I commented here, without a link to or specification of the RFA, because all I really wanted to point out was said above and I wasn't looking for any specific action. GRBerry 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Protection

Isn't {{Request Protection}} redundant with WP:RFPP? -- Steel 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Plattsburgh

I have a few questions/comments about your recent edits to State University of New York at Plattsburgh. First is to invite you to respond to my questions regarding Citation Styles on that article's talk page. Also you removed a perfectly valid citation about the originally planned location for the school and replaced it with "citation needed". I just don't get it because it was already properly cited, but you commented-out the citation and added "dead note"? The content comes precisely from the source that was already cited, including this link (The stated article title "The Normal School Site" is located in the 5th column). So I don't understand why the citation was removed. Could you please explain? Thank you. Fife Club 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in that articles talk page, and put it in my watchlist for further queries. Peace. --Parker007 06:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Venue For user to give up his admin tools

Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359&diff=104781608&oldid=104780825

Do you think the right venue would be Arbitration, rather than trying to negotiate with the User to volunatarily give up his tools? --Parker007 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem/argument was not at all clear from the link above, and your discussion at User_talk:Steel has links to diffs and oldids that made no sense. You said "It states on you user page that you are a Male Wikipedian who is Gay", that comment seems to me to be uncivil and a personal attack (because you are focussing on a person, not their actions - assume good faith instead). Is the problem is the deletion of the article Lexi Belle? If so, you are welcome to take the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review. About the Arbitration: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes shows that going to Arbitration is a last resort, there are a host of steps to partake in before Arbitration (and often it is best to walk away from a situation for a time (eg a month) and see how you feel when you return - there are plenty of other things to keep you busy in Wikipedia).
About the redirect deletion below, cross-namespace redirects are generally not used.--Commander Keane 06:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of Ignore all Rules?

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

The rules are made to improve and maintain Wikipedia, and then there is WP:Ignore all rules which nullifies everything?

My personal interpretation to WP:IAR is that there can be times where policies are against common sense, because a policy is made to be simple and understandable, and can't take into account every possible situation. In the world and in Wikipedia, everything is not black or white and there is a lot of greyish stuff :). As in the real world where in certain extreme cases the law can be ignored, some policies can be ignored if applicating them would hurt the project. Note that this policy, and WP:SNOW are 2 policies that are tricky. I hope that helps! I remove the helpme tag, don't hesitate to put it back if you want a broader input, or if you have an oher question. Happy Editing! -- lucasbfr talk 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any system of rules there is a trade off between being comprehensive enough to cover every possible situation, whilst being straightforward enough to be easily remembered and applied. Arguably very complex rules very literally applied don't help because they are subject to abuse by lawyering, and/or are so complex that application is not transparent but become rather obtuse and may be little better than arbitarily enforced anyway. (If you are interested in law there are huge amounts of debates on such matters with regards to law). Wikipedia has tried to apply the simple system, the downside to this is that the rules don't necessarily anticipate and cover every possible situation, it is those few cases that WP:IAR is covering, it maybe that a rule as written didn't anticipate a certain situation but we shouldn't let that get in the way of applying an appropriate action in that case (appropriate in context of the general wikipedia principles).
For an example we have the criteria for speedy deletion. these cover situations where material maybe deleted fairly promptly without going in to a long winded debate. There may be situations unanticipated by these where deletion without a lengthy debate is appropriate, this should be rare but not unimaginable. To give a counterexample we have the 3 revert rule, this has a stated aim of stopping edit warring as disruptive to building the encyclopedia, some people have tried to say they broke that rule since they believed that the version they were reverting to was "better" or the version they were reverting was "bad" in some way, and so by WP:IAR they continued to revert, such argument rarely work since the policy isn't about "better" versions but about stopping edit wars. --pgk 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This answer was much better than mine, I am shameful and jealous :D -- lucasbfr talk 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating

Sounds like a great idea. It looks like a good improvement, so I will figure out how to do that. - Dozenist talk 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be an easy way to fill in the chart information accurately, or should I just do it by hand? I placed the chart within this page for now until it is finalized. Clearly, the numbers on the chart are currently inaccurate.- Dozenist talk 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gimmetrow Edits

Here he has nominated the redirects for deletion without informing me:

Here he has unilateraly reverted my changes:

Here my changes were done because of:

but he unilaterally again reverted it:

--Parker007 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to talk it out with him. If he doesn't cooperate and/or give a good reason contact me @ my talk page. Redskunk 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what now he comes to my talk page and tells me he has nominated the redirects for deletion, so he has to have read the above. --Parker007 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had an protect page edit request listed. You removed that, apparently to completely undo the {{editprotected}} process, which was used on 18 pages to request edits to protected pages. You did not implement the edits requested (either by me or the others), nor could I find where you had listed them at WP:RFPP (which has traditionally not been for minor edits). I even looked through CfD and TfD for a discussion of this change of policy, and found nothing. Nor was there any pointer to any discussion in your edit summaries. Gimmetrow 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359&diff=104015378&oldid=104015264 --Parker007 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the steps for resolving disputes here: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, If you feel it is necessary check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Unfortunately, there is very little more we at the helpdesk can do for you.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, the issue is that CAT:EPP is an existing process that many admins and editors expect. It is a category to request edits to protect pages. The discussion above is about something different - a category to ask for page protection. I guess there was a misunderstanding, but the discussion above about {{Request Protection}} is unrelated to {{Editprotected}}, which is asking for something quite different. Sorry about the fuss, but I expect {{editprotected}} to get admin attention eventually, and probably so did the other 17 editors with outstanding edit requests. It's just not appropriate change that without discussion. As for the redirects, they are cross-namespace redirects and should be deleted. The other redirects you've created recently are article-article, and are OK. Gimmetrow 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Gimmetrow Peace :) --Parker007 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peace. P.S., fixed the ref marks on Law according to WP:FN, which says ref marks go after punctuation on WP. That's what the FAC reviewer meant. Gimmetrow 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

I discovered the redirects from India wiki-Project and India wiki-project to WP:INDIA, and FA status to WP:FA which you created. The shortcuts WP:FA and WP:INDIA are shorter (also WP:IND), and redirects that look like article titles but point to projects ("Wikipedia:Anything") are discouraged as self-references. I've listed these three redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 3. Shortcuts to projects like Wikiproject India or Featured articles should begin with "WP:" to identify that they are projects rather than articles. Gimmetrow 03:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent post to the Humanities Reference Desk:

Please take a moment to review the How to ask a question section, found at the top of each reference desk page. In particular, the guidelines

  • Be courteous
  • Be patient
  • Please don't write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
  • Do not double post

I hope someone has been able to help you by providing the information you were seeking. dpotter 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPARCH

Would you let me know where you are going with this and other edits to the architecture wikiproject - I've got no real problem with the rename, but some discussion on the talk page would have been good beforehand. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was done because that FAC was already expired. --Parker007 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have edited the within template instead, sorry I missed that. --Parker007 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind restoring it? - it's a dynamically transcluded list, which I update once or twice a week, same with the FIC linkg and ARCHPR link. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no problem, sorry about that. --Parker007 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fixed it. i.e. putting back the original template. (the image template is still not up to date) --Parker007 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just done it :-) --Mcginnly | Natter 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm. thinking again about the rename - you're right, the architecture wikiproject is currently an umbrella project for structural and civil engineering - I'd thought one day we'd see an independant Structural and Civil engineering wikiproject (and a construction wikiproject too) - perhaps you should step up to the plate and start one? --Mcginnly | Natter 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am strongly opposed to the name change. Please discuss major changes before you do them, because the name of documents on the portal are important for the auto-rotation of Selected content , etc. etc. Structural engineering is a different subject. Dogears 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arichitecture Project

  • Architecture also deals with Structural Engineering, and many structural engineering articles are in the scope of architecture (normally), and because there is no sepreate project for structural engineering, thus the rename. --Parker007 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you cite the example below - molecular and cellular biology - which presumably is covered by, biology and yet is a sub-project. Sub-projects are a quite natural development and there's no reason to think that they will become inactive - you might have a case for wikipedia:WikiProject Characters from the simpsons who's name begins with B but we're talking about civil engineering here. If there's a Urban studies and planning and castles and airports wikiproject there's absolutely no justification for there not being a civil and structural engineering project. There's probably a "I'm a civil eng. wikipedian" userbox somewhere - I know of at least 3 people interested in civil engineering and the projects are only as active or inactive as the members - so start it, be active in it make it work. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have more than 2000 articles not assessed. Isn't that bad?

{{Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Architecture_articles_by_quality_statistics}}

--Parker007 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is in comparision to:

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MCB articles by quality statistics}}

from: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology --Parker007 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions

I have contributed to this project by: Sill_Plate, Platform_framing and many more edits in other articles. --Parker007 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assessing the articles. :) --Parker007 02:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More wikiprojects

If we make more and more wikiprojects it will end up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inactive_WikiProjects

But I am very interested in creating a wikiProject that deals with creating articles regarding the companies that supply construction products & materials. However creating an assesment box like the one above is very hard.

For example the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Urban_studies_and_planning doesnt have an assesment box.

I recently was involved in creating the wikiproject Dentistry Assesment box see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dozenist#Bot_to_update_articles.3F

--Parker007 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the bigger and more organized the project is, it can bring so many articles to FA status, and lots of main page attention; Have you noticed recently that in every few days there is an article on the main page which is related to India? Wikipedia:WikiProject_India. (Plus in their project they have admin participants). --Parker007 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Variables

Please discuss your changes before you make them. All of these pages are now orphaned from the main Portal. There are several variables that we have been using to automate the Project, and assessment that's automated by a bot. Are you going to rename all those files? Please move the project back to the old name. Your welcome to do any related "Engineering" topics in the project, no problem, just please reset the old project name. —Dogears (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we tell the bot to do that; we can put a request Wikipedia:Bot_requests if you don't have a bot already. --Parker007 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great you reverted my move :( --Parker007 05:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki bug report

Hi. Thanks for letting me know, but don't hold your breath. I very much believe that votes for bugs in software projects are regularly ignored by developers, especially in open-source projects. Xiner (talk, email) 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: double redirects

Hi. Unfortunately, I don't have an account on bugzilla, but whether the page is reopened or not, is there a way for a bot to check for moves and see if there are any double redirects created? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPARCH

Hi there again. Thanks for signing up to the wikiproject architecture, I hear you'll be heading up the structural and civil engineering task force. Nice one. Here's the bulletin - which updates automatically, if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page. Also, I noticed that you've never received the official welcome message, so I've put that at the top of your page as well. Take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishzilla

Hi Parker, you recently added Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishzilla to the main RFA page. [1] Bishzilla's RfA is a joke RfA and should not be listed with the genuine RfA nominations. It has been removed, and shouldn't be put back up. As a general rule, it's best not to list other people's RfAs on WP:RFA because sometimes people want to take their time answer etc questions etc and the RfA nomination instructions state that either the candidate or the nominator should list the page on WP:RFA. Thanks Parker, Sarah

Sorry My apologies. --Parker007 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all and there's no need to apologise. Cheers, Sarah 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in WP:RFD

I've noticed you several times made the statement "Keep. It's a redirect". Perhaps you do not understand that there are criteria for deleting redirects: "Wp:rfd#When should we delete a redirect?". In this context, the statements you are making would logically imply that all redirects should always be kept, which is a contradiction of policy. If you have any questions about the policy on deletion of redirects, ask here and I will help clarify. —Dgiest c 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reason why I made the statement "Keep. It's a redirect" is bolded (not shouting - just for clarification).
  • You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
  • It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "WP:" shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD), which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespace". All "articles" beginning with "WP:" are in fact redirects.
  • They aid searches on certain terms.
  • Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

Anyways peace. --Parker007 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find those redirects, useful, then say so. When you just say "Keep - It's a redirect", that's not giving a reason, and since RfD is a debate, not a vote, you should give your reasoning. —Dgiest c 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPARCH - WikiProject:Architecture

Thanks, Parker. I apologize for not being more welcoming or understanding in my correspondence to you. Glad you're still into it. McGinnly is referring (above) to the WikiProject "Participants" list, where I put your name, as you are part of the Project - hope that's ok. Would you consider creating a WikiProject:Architecture "task force" for structural engineering? This is similar to task groups in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Good articles about structural design topics, in a simple language, would be a great contribution to the encyclopedia. -- Dogears (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all mate. Wikipedia's policies are a little confusing sometimes - on the one hand you're encouraged to be WP:BOLD but on the other we look for WP:CONSENSUS know when and where to apply these differing principles is something that everyone is feeling there way for all the time, but becomes easier with time, so we'll chalk it up to inexperience. In general, if you're going to make radical changes that affect a lot of people, seek consensus. If you want to rewrite an article substantially, post messages to the contributors and seek opinions. If it's other stuff be Bold!. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you'd like some comments on your assignment send it to me too - Building regulations and Building codes do differ across the planet, but the principles are largely the same. Keep it up, keep it dry, keep it at the right temperature, keep it fit for purpose, worry to death about fire, worry some more about fire, fire! (structural engineers are usually sued for building collapses it's the fire that'll get you) the rest is all acoustics, drainage, in the ground, disabled considerations, aesthetics, economics and just making sure it all fits together etc. etc.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

What's the assignment/problem/project? — Dogears 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference book called Architectural Graphic Standards has drawings for all the assignments, no need to get diarrhea. As for sketching by hand, you can draw it to scale on the computer and put the drawing on a window or light table to trace it onto paper… The cut stringer, I think means an "open stringer" - the diagonal 2x12 stringer that supports the whole stair is cut-out with the zig-zag stair shape. So the risers and treads are visible (unlike typical metal stairs that have closed stringers)… Studs are placed at 16" OC because an (American) sheet of drywall is 48" wide and 16x3=48, so every third stud has a seam where two pieces of drywall meet. 24" OC works, but it's not as strong a wall. What are your questions on the assignments? And what's your story: do you have much experience in construction? What year in school? —Dogears 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk fiasco

Thanks for supporting me at the Reference Desk. Things were getting out of hand! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on the Reference Desk

Thanks for the barnstar, although I'm sure you're more thankful than I am. Good luck with your assignment, too. Harryboyles 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business & Economics

I made some changes to {{WikiProject Business & Economics}} and I recreated the categories you made with lower case, e.g., Category:High-importance Business and Economics articles to Category:High-importance business and economics articles. The bot created Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Business and economics articles by quality which is I think what you wanted. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk on your other question about the tables. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

IQs in various European countries

Parker007, take a close look at the wording and listing on the page. It is very clearly an attempt at some sort of national pride using very carefully selected links. I implore you to reconsider the speedy delete. An afd truly is a waste of time on this. I think WP:POINT can be used as a criteria for deletion here. Usedup 17:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, so can you give link to the identical material you are referring to? --Parker007 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notably IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations which is a book by Richard Lynn who compiled one of the two studies that IQs in various European countries highlights. The only purpose of making a separate page for that singular study is to compare it to other completely separate studies in order to highlight advantages of one nationality/peoples over another - which is what appears to be happening on that article. This, of course, completely ignores sample sizes differences and testing conditions, is almost closing on original research since these studies were not compared by any professionals, and clearly is an attempt at WP:POINT. Other than that I can't see any purpose for making a completely separate article on one Richard Lynn study. Usedup 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted my edits to the main space of the article. Well lets see what the admin reviewing it decides. Then contact that admin :) . Peace. --Parker007 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon keeps removing the speedy delete tag. Can you help? Thanks. Usedup 16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal

I thought I saw Hannibal up in the Featured article candidate page, nominated by you. I dont see it now. Any problem?--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't think you did not do any idiocy by putting St Petersberg in FAC. You did that under impulsiveness, with best of intentions. So please don't be sorry.
Hannibal is in a much better condition, with respectable number of inline citations and references. However, it is not FA. I have not gone through the whole article though. If you put it in FAC, am almost sure there would be demand for more citations, as there are sections deficient in citations. If you are confident, you can put it in FAC. Also you can contact User:Nobleeagle who put the article for peer review in June last year. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Question

Well, it looks like you're doing it right. Basically, on T:DYKT the person who has the DYK article will say who to credit the article to. When transferring DYK items to Next Update, just add the credit for each corresponding article. When it's time to update Main Page DYK, admins can use Next Update to make crediting much easier and faster (since we know who to credit to). Keep up the good work, Parker007. =) Nishkid64 00:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you don't need to write (credits not given) on the page. An admin clears the credits once they have credited all who have written or nominated articles. Also, use the {{user}} template instead of doing "User_talk:Camptown". I'll fix it right now, and you can see what I'm talking about. Nishkid64 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weber and numismatics

Re: [2] What is the connection? I wrote most of the article and I don't see it :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any connection :). It existed there before I added it, under the project banners (multiple projects); so I think I just cut and pasted it to the top. Anyways I removed it now. :). --Parker007 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I must have misread the history. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Okay, will update. By the way, admins usually do the credits since we put them up on the Main Page (and sometimes people question the DYKs so we have to respond to them). Nishkid64 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin (sometimes I do it if no one else has done it) adds to Next Update, then they don't credit unless they actually put the DYKs up from Next Update on the Main Page. And don't think about adminship yet. With the current requirements, I'd say you'd have to wait a few more months. In the meantime, you might want to go to WP:ER and see where you can improve on, and such. Thanks again, Nishkid64 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinking deletion comment

Hi there. You've put a message on my talk page stating that the Twinking article is going to be deleted. While I appreciate it that you took the time to place the notice on my page, I really didn't write that article. I only made one edit to it (to add a new category to it). Do you notify every person who has ever edited a particular article when you put it up for AfD? It doesn't seem necessary to me. —msikma (user, talk) 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I should have clicked 500 in the history rather than the normal 50. Sorry about that. :). --Parker007 13:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: implement

Well we need an admin to do it cause Wikipedia:Reference desk is protected. Try asking SCZenz, he might help. thanks --frothT 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you got the move process totally wrong ;p --frothT 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nootropic

You've got a really absurd number of edits to this page in the last ~36 hours. Is there any way that you can limit the number of edits you make, possibly by rolling some of those edits into one? As it is now, it's kind of hard for anyone to make a noticable edit that isn't in your block of edits.

Thanks. -- BillWeiss | Talk 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INCOTW

You voted for Tata Steel, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Tata Steel merits an article on its own and should not be merged into the Tata Group article. Tata Steel is a very notable company, and very much in the news recently. The Tata Group has a large number of companies, and it would just mess up the Tata Group article to include information from all the companies under the banner of Tatas. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You project is abandoned! --Parker007 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK #2

There were still some unresolved issues on the suggestions page, so I haven't included it. Sorry, --Carabinieri 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just start including seven entries because the space on the main page is limited and it hardly ever happens that a good entry passes the "expiration date" without being used. I'd suggest you re-add that entry to the suggestions page and address the issues that were commented on there. Thanks, --Carabinieri 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the rules and regulations 6-9 entries. --Parker007 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonieto Cabajog

By February 16th, info from the WWW have been exhausted already. What else was I supposed to do? I think he deserves to be WP:DYK. Please re-consider. Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

There are not enough articles in DYK/Next update for updating. If you would like to populate that page with eligible DYKs and upload the image from Commons, I'll check back later for updating. — ERcheck (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Parker007 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: prod

I'm not sure which article you're talking about here, I tag quite a few of them... But in the most recent case, the creator of the article hasn't been active since December 2006, made the article in June 2006, no edits after creation. Crystallina 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its really tedious to tell the creator to improve the article there should be a bot for that. There is already a bot sending messages to creators of articles with afd tags. --Parker007 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Banking in Russia (regulations), was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On February 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banking in Russia (regulations), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

You did a great job helping with the translations. Keep up the good work. =) Nishkid64 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Prod

You said that I should notify article creators about prod tags I put on, what article are you referring to exactly? Mr.Z-mantalk¢

Replied on your talk page. --Parker007 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk archives

Hi. I think your moving of the reference desk archive pages somehow broke Werdnabot's archiving process e.g. these sections seem to have disappeared rather than archived. Could you look into it please? Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :). --Parker007 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ref Desk

Ahh - that seems OK - thanks for setting it up :). Fairly soon, the bot should be on the toolserver, which will make it much more reliable overall, and should at least help to prevent downtime of the magnitude we've seen here. Hopefully, if the desks can be brought fairly up to date (or just by copying the old questions to an archive page), the bot can be up and running tomorrow (if I have time) or Friday. Thanks, Martinp23 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next update

The articles now queued for the next update should have been put through last time, but the next update page was cleared without them either being put on the DYK page or returned to the suggestions page, and then new articles were selected and put live. In order to rescue the missed update the simplest solution was to return the three articles you selected since the last update to the suggestions page and revert the next update page to its former state. The three articles you pulled out can be re-added by reverting the page after the next update is done, so not too much work (although you seem to have picked one from the 26th when there are still plenty available from the 24th and 25th) Yomanganitalk 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Nicola_Umberto_Ciletti

you wrote me:

Your article Nicola_Umberto_Ciletti has been proposed for deletion "Wikipedia:No_original_research & does NOT include Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content." Please add references, or it will be deleted.--Parker007 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems a pity to delete an article such as this but it was not my article. I moved the page from Ciletti to Nicola_Umberto_Ciletti See the history of Ciletti to determine the main contributors of the article. --JAXHERE | Talk 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of races on RuneScape

I would like to point out if I may that I have not posted original research. It can be found on the game simply through my sheer experience of playing. Thank you and please would you consult my talk page for any further discussion. I can see from your perspective how it seems original, however it is true. If you would like some back up I can provide links to many popular fan built websites or may even suggest you ask other RuneScape using Wikipedians. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

So you have posted copied research? Just kidding. --Parker007 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

I guess I could do so, yes. The problem is twofold, though. Firstly, not all the countries participating in Eurovision (where I make new articles at the moment) are part of the EU - most are by now, but the Contest has expanded faster than the Union. The second is that I haven't consciously associated ESC entries with the EU before. I can see the link now that you mention it, but it may take a while to get into my head (it took me forever to remember to categorise the songs as "Lithuanian Eurovision songs" as opposed to "Eurovision songs", for example). I'll certainly try, though. Just don't expect a 100% success rate from the start. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK #2

Just missed it. Not sure whether you checked before adding the sixth entry, but with six it was coming up quite long on tomorrow's main page. I see you edited some down, so it might fit now. As for adminship, don't be in a rush, spend some time at WP:AFD (or one of the other xFDs), WP:DRV or the admin noticeboards: they are all good places to get a grounding in WP policy. As Nishkid64 suggested above, getting a review at WP:ER might be a idea. Yomanganitalk 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was User JoshuaZ wins in saving this article --Parker007 05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linor Abargil

In a case like this, especially when there is a major claim of notability it is generally better to take 5 minutes to locate sources than to prod it. JoshuaZ 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out lound. Just let it go. --Parker007 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what did you mean about the ref system? JoshuaZ 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I just added citations. My point was that it takes 5 minutes to do so, and that rather than proding that's generally more productive especially when there is a clear claim of notability. Simply put, there is no way one won't be able to find sources about a major paegant model with a simple google search. JoshuaZ 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the Notability is also in question. --Parker007 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? A major paegant model's notability will never be in question, it is a trivial matter to find sources; they generate news articles like (insert some vulgar analogy here). And if there is a strict notability concern, then say so. JoshuaZ 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has news articles doesnt make it notable. You are an admin, you should know better. --Parker007 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having many news articles is almost precisely what does make something notable. per WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." JoshuaZ 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute "multiple" sources." --Parker007 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and major pageant winners always have a multiplcity of sources of the second type. JoshuaZ 05:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nonsense?

Please don't use db-nonsense in less something is really nonsense, i.e. unsalvegably incoherent. JoshuaZ 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? --Parker007 05:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The examples were Berwickian Jury Selection which while possibly a hoax(I'm looking into that) is clearly not nonsense. The second was Appankoil which again, was not nonsense. JoshuaZ

Appankoil

Appankoil is just 1 sentence. so its "This article or other page provides no meaningful content" --Parker007 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of general practice in this regard- It is a geographic location in a specific place- I should have been more specific, the general attitude is that geographic locations are rarely non-notable. So they should in general go through AfDs. The default presumption is that the name and the area that the location is in constitutes minimal context for purposes of speedy issues. (Such places can be AfDed but they are likely to fail). JoshuaZ 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide rule? --Parker007 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of one. Hence I didn't provide it. It was a statement of common practice consistent with the rough level of context that the admins and most of the community seems to see that is necessary to prevent speedy deletion. (To use an example of what would probably get speedy, "Appankoil is a village in India" JoshuaZ 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well go to the village pump and ask them to make a rule. Sheesh for crying out loud. --Parker007 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berwickian Jury Selection

Berwickian Jury Selection is incoherent! --Parker007 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It seems to be claiming to document an argument that rather than select random jurors from the available pool we should select juros who are active and care about the judicial system. I fail to see that as nonsense. One may disagree with it, but that doesn;t make it nonsense. JoshuaZ 05:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--Parker007 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That gives insufficient detail to know what it is talking about, that doesn't make it nonsense, and aside from that single sentence the rest of the article is clear. One poorly written or described sentence does not make an entire article markable as nonsense. JoshuaZ 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is so short, with yes 1 sentence being incoherent how can you claim I am not allowed to use CSD Nonsense.
Um, because if you remove that sentence you still have 3 sentences that fit together and aren't nonsense. JoshuaZ 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Incoherent Sentence! For crying out loud! :) --Parker007 05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Razikashvili

Hello Parker007. I’m a bit mystified by your welcome message on my talk page.:) I have been active in Wikipedia for at least two years and authored dozens of articles. As for the Levan Razikashvili article, the AfD proposal is premature, IMO. Georgia is a small country and there are not many English-language resources about it. Not every Georgia-related topic yields Google hits. On the other hand, the person is notable. His name was hardly mentioned under the Soviet rule due to understandable reasons, but now he is regarded as a hero. The Georgian Ministry of Interior has recently published archival materials pertaining to his case. [3] Unfortunately, the website does not have an English version, but I can translate some things for the article. Thanks, KoberTalk 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Proposed deletion and anyone can remove tag. Its not in Afd! --Parker007 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will add references to the article. --KoberTalk 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Tags

Forgotten Prophecies

You'd tagged this as "spam", which requires it to be advertising something. As the album in question hadn't even been released, it's pretty difficult for it to be advertising anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was Deleted. :). --Parker007 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a special # for crystal balling? --Parker007 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Prod it, and give the reason as "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" (or however you want to express it with piping etc etc). The thing to remember with CSDs is that the categories are meant to be interpreted as narrowly as possible to allow for the assumption of good faith. That, to a degree, is why Prod exists - if the article still seems like the kind of thing we don't need after you've checked it against the CSD criteria, slap a Prod on it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do from now on :) --Parker007 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod VS Speedy

There's no need to tag something which is already a long-lasting Prod with a CSD tag. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets CSD, might as well, because admins usually think twice, before making their decision. --Parker007 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some of the time it doesn't meet CSD as well, or there's a legitimate reason that it was Prod'ed in the first place, rather than CSD'd. I'd err on the side of caution myself, but obviously you're welcome to do what you please. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyal's Witchery Tour Party is a good example of this. I'd argue that it's very hard to have a "spam" article relating to a political party, even when that party is horrendously non-notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope still don't get it, maybe you would like to see comments I made here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ regarding template issues? its at the bottom. --Parker007 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely is a political party selling or advertising? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They want Votes! They are selling themselves! --Parker007 07:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point, and it's a reasonable one in the abstract, but the bottom line is that it really isn't "advertising" in the sense that this criterion is meant to be used for. If we argue that an article on a political party is "selling itself", then why are articles such as the Australian Labor Party not selling themselves (just in a more detailed way than a smaller party)? The bottom line is that if there's no ability for a user to go and purchase something, then it isn't advertising in the sense of spam. There's a very high probability that a small-time political party will qualify under "db-group", however, as very few of them will have attracted enough independent sources to be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will use db-group next time. --Parker007 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "db-spam" tag

Hi. I've noticed that you've added this tag to a number of articles. Just remember that the category is for advertising, and not for people (who are covered under "db-bio"). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does state advertisement of persons, but I will try to use db-bio from now on. :) --Parker007 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key word being "advertisement". There were "db-spam"s I was finding of yours which were simply talking about young up-and-coming sportsmen and so on. Those articles are only selling the sportsman's wares if you take a remarkably cynical view about human nature (and are prepared to argue that an article on any human subject risks advertising him/her/them). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope still don't get it, maybe you would like to see comments I made here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ regarding template issues? its at the bottom. --Parker007 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. The key word, as I've said, is "advertisement". Also, from here Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. In other words, something that says "We are Wilson's Widgets, the finest widget-makers in the world" is spam (because it's advertising Wilson's Widgets with the hope of drumming up business). Something that says "Joe Bloggs is a basketballer who plays for Middleofnowhere High and is quite good" isn't spam (because Bloggs has nothing to sell, therefore he can't conceivably be being advertised). That said, Bloggs' article is a non-notable bio, so he could be CSD'd under that heading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! so I can CSD it with db-bio :) That makes sense. --Parker007 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK order

There is no rule that DYK noms must be entered in a particular order, only that they must be put on the creation day, so there's no need to reorder them. Yomanganitalk 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference: we very rarely leave out articles purely because they are out of time and even if we do it is by pot luck, not by page order. Really we should be going by the creation time, not the nomination time, but in practice that is too time consuming. Besides, I took two from the top, one from the middle and one from the bottom for the next update, so I'm not sure your theory is correct. Yomanganitalk 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK #3

In your edit summary for what appears to be a move of an article within the day on the suggestions page you put: yah right you dont choose from recent days, thats pure hypocritical; see my talk page, but I don't see anything to explain it here. Am I missing something? Yomanganitalk 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I improved the style of my talk page. Now can you see? --Parker007 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Explanation

You removed from next update because it was too recent. I hope that clarifies everything. --Parker007 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


University of Central Lancashire Newspaper and Radio Station

You wrote on University of Central Lancashire Newspaper and Radio Station article that it needs to be referenced and all that or it'll be deleted. The information was all written by a journalism student at the university and the entire text was given its own page because it put an odd balance on the UCLAN page by having half about the entire university and half about the student newspaper and radio station. The University of Central Lancashire Newspaper and Radio Station article cannot be referenced because it is all original work.

I intend to do a re-write of the UCLAN page over the next few months after i've graduated from there based on historical sources too, just in case you were wondering whether I actually knew about the university in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fetler (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ménière's disease

A tag has been placed on Ménière's disease, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect that is a result of an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-->This section is added due to a misunderstanding<--

that redirect you just deleted, it wasn't a typo. You see the formatting of that article required redirect. I mean if you copy and paste the name of that article in the url it wont come to that article. Restore it. --Parker007 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have totally misunderstood the comment, but I don't see that it's a particularly likely thing for someone to type. Additionally, if one copies and pastes the string of characters, it will link to the disease anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease . Now copy and paste Ménière's disease to the url instead of that. Deletion Log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=M%C3%83%C2%A9ni%C3%83%C2%A8re%27s_disease --Parker007 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And they link to the same page? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I don't remember why I made that redirect. --Parker007 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECG, Inc.

As you removed the prod because nobody was notified. I thought it best to notify you it's up for AfD. Your talk pages are interesting. Regards. --Richhoncho 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete My Page on Lt. Col. Kojak Slaphead the Third please

I think you will find that page has been edited to a certain degree to be taken away from being deleted. Czesc26


AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Geo-Reference Standard

I noticed that you contested the PROD for Atomic Geo-Reference Standard on the grounds that the creator of that article was not notified. I have nominated the article for deletion, notified the creator, and I'm notifying you as the contestant of the proposed delete. Please feel free to weigh in. -- Shunpiker 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prod tool. I'm putting it to good use! -- Shunpiker 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA closed By an Admin

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Parker007

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Parker007

(1/12/0); Ended 23:38, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007 (talk · contribs) - I have 2511 edits (before starting this rfa). http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Parker007&site=en.wikipedia.org Parker007 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate may make an optional statement here:

Every day there are 1,000 articles added. Just the day before yesterday it was 1,666,000 and yesterday it has increased to 1,667,000, and now today its at 1,668,000. Most of the articles are junk. But I strongly believe that creators should be notified so they can bring it up to Wikipedia standards, or inform them why it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. According to the statistics "We have 3,738,767 registered user accounts, of which 1,139 (or 0.03%) are administrative accounts." --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am involved in DYK (Did you Know) process. I want the admin tools, in order to update DYK every 6 hours as usually there is a backlog. I want the admin tools, so I can close AfD debates where there is a consesus to delete. I want to admin tools, to rummage through CSD to see which fits or doesn't fit in the CSD criteria, and delete the ones which do not fit in CSD criteria. I want the admin tools to rummage through expired Prod Articles in order to delete it, or see if the article doesn't fit the Prod criteria and tell the Prod tagger to go through the Afd process. --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have revived a dying wikiproject which I believed was very important, see Wikiproject Business & economics, for more information. Now, we are in the assessment phase and soon we will be starting a collaboration style system, like other wikiprojects, which lasts for 1 month. --Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: When editing Wikipedia every once in a while editors get into conflicts due to lack of the clear understanding. I had a conflict with User:Gimmetrow once but in the end, it was solved peacefully. :). I used the {{helpme}} template to get opinions from other editors regarding the issue which usually solves conflicts in my opinion. See User_talk:Parker007#User:Gimmetrow_Edits for more information. Also if there is a heated debate going on, in which I am a party, I think its best to cut your losses and give up rather than escalate the anger. However if it is very important to me in my opinion I will usually ask for a third opinion.--Parker007 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support #Support possibly premature, but you seem to know what you want to do, and I've seen your experience around DYK. Good luck. Majorly (o rly?) 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I would have to say that you haven't really shown me that you are good enough to be an admin. The 2511 edits is ok, but not great. The answers to the questions were kinda short and uninformative. The nom was not that great. You didn't really show why you need the tools or why you understand the processes of Wikipedia. Sorry, but I wil oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reluctant Oppose. You're on the right track, but my dealings with you so far have shown some inexperience, so I'd suggest keeping up the good work for a while longer just at the moment. The lack of edit-summary use is a bit of a worry, but can be fixed by setting the options to force you to add a summary. As a non-admin, it's quite easy to help out in Prod-related areas just by removing unwarranted Prods and either opening the AfD yourself or suggesting the Prodder do so. Likewise, in a non-admin position it's quite easy to put things into the Next Update section for DYK, which makes life so much easier for the rookie who turns up and needs to update the template :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose (three edit conflicts). Based on what I've recently seen from you, I can't comfortably support. For about 24 hours (or less), there was a discussion, intiated by yourself, at WP:VPR about deleting the Reference Desk (Miscellaneous section). It was pointed out a couple of times that the discussion should be at MfD, but despite this, there was a clear consensus presented that the desk be kept, even iwthout full process. A few hours ago, you opened the MfD (here), but in the process deleted all of the previous discussion. This really confused me, and seemed inappropriate. We've seen very recently on Wikipedia that deleting debates causes problems, and that they should just run their course - I'd prefer to see an admin hopeful having this sort of understanding. Also, I wouldn't be comfortable with you taking care of XfDs, especially given your expression here that MfD is a vote. Perhaps the edit summary was a slip of the tongue, but your action of simply removing the emboldened part gives me the bad impression that you would, as an admin, decide XfDs on the basis on the bolded parts, rather than reading the discussion. Keep up the good work, and get to know process a bit more, commenting in XfDs and other discussions, and come back under a non elf-nom in a few months :) Martinp23 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {| class="messagebox standard-talk"
    |-
    |
    |--Parker007 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) is running for Adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parker007 and will not respond swiftly to queries/edit outside that admin page until it is over.[reply]
    |}
    While I have made this comment it seems that all the reference desk people are out to hurt me so I will tell them "please oppose my adminship" at Ref Desk talk page, Village pump proposal which you put back, (I reset the debate because many users commented it should be moved to MSD), and at Miscillany for Deletion where everyone has ganged up on me to oppose the deletion proposal. --Parker007 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really a Ref-Desk person, never answering questions. All I do is run the bot :). I'm just uncomfortable about your actions, as I detailed above. Martinp23 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry now there will be many more opposers coming soon as I have put this comments on all 3 places: Please oppose my adminship Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Parker007. :) .--Parker007 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per that horrible message on your userpage. You do realise this process is a week long? Majorly (o rly?) 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose The most glaringly obvious, recent thing at this point is this....what were you thinking? -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the conversation you mised:
    that redirect you just deleted, it wasn't a typo. You see the formatting of that article required redirect. I mean if you copy and paste the name of that article in the url it wont come to that article. Restore it. --Parker007 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have totally misunderstood the comment, but I don't see that it's a particularly likely thing for someone to type. Additionally, if one copies and pastes the string of characters, it will link to the disease anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease . Now copy and paste Ménière's disease to the url instead of that. Deletion Log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=M%C3%83%C2%A9ni%C3%83%C2%A8re%27s_disease --Parker007 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And they link to the same page? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I don't remember why I made that redirect. --Parker007 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add it to my talk page, my 4th exception, to the message on my userpage now. :). --Parker007 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per concerns by Wooty and Majorly. Also not entirely content with the numerous links to this RfA from various other pages, which could be seen as advertising. While not a reason to oppose itself, would also recommend this user rethink the conspicuous use of bold during what appears to be every discussion. Rockpocket 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the negative canvassing of "hey oppose me" strikes me as a sarcastic WP:POINT violation. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt hurt thats why. So might as well let them all gang up on me here too. Please see that deletion debate before making further comments. --Parker007 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because someone's opinion differs from your own doesn't mean that these people are attempting to unkindly gang up on you. You're forgetting the assumption of good faith. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See this conversation. Parker created a category and template that were redundant with WP:RFPP, so after discussion I deleted them. He wasn't very happy about that, and hounded me to delete Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests as well. I naturally declined to speedy delete an established process. At that point, Parker took it upon himself to wipe the category off the map himself [4] [5], using my exact words in a highly POINTy fashion [6]. A few days later he started accusing me of being biased against (non-notable) female porn stars because I'm not heterosexual, and posted a no-confidence motion on my talk page, threatening to "dig up much much more from [my] archives". All this because I refused to speedy delete Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. Parker as an admin? No thanks. – Steel 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – Disclaimer: I am active on the Reference Desks, so Parker would apparently see my view as an attack, however I would wonder how people are supposed to reach a conclusion as to a candidate’s suitability if not through their actions. And this is based on Parker’s actions. The suggestion to delete WP:RD/M seemed based on pickiness rather than the benefit to Wikipedia’s users and editors. While there is a role for that sort of view, I don’t think that role is an admin who is active in AfD/MfD/etc. Other comments by Parker (such as the suggestion to delete all questions that are not signed) seem to show an intolerance, or misunderstanding of the needs, of people inexperienced with Wikipedia. In addition, and this is probably less helpful, I get a general bad feeling about this. Parker seems to strike an argumentative tone, when a calmer approach and reason would be much more effective.[7] While I can understand losing your cool, leaving the computer for a while and returning to edit/reply when calm would be a more positive action. Parker seems like they would benefit from more experience, perhaps until people opposing their actions no longer hurts their feelings. Skittle 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. It strikes me that in my more than six months of activity here, I may never actually have opposed a request for adminship. Normally when I do not believe a candidate is qualified for adminship, the result is already apparent, and it is easy enough to remain silent. But I cannot help observe that when a candidate posts an edit like [8], my choice is clear. "Please oppose my adminship," you ask. Request granted. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Partly due to a manifest failure to AGF where people disagree with the candidate but mainly because of the conduct described by Steel above. Good grief... WjBscribe 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Well, since you asked so politely, I oppose. --hydnjo talk 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I do not recall having expressed an opinion on a request for adminship thus far, but I feel compelled to in this case. This editor proposed eliminating the "Miscellaneous" Reference desk for no good reason, then posted a request to oppose his adminship. I feel that an admin should have an objective and judicial temperament, and the desire for"drama" shown by these two actions is the very opposite of that, So I am granting your request and expressing an opinion in opposition to your becoming an admin at this time. One reason is your lack of editing experience, and the other is your desire for Wikidrama. With some more experience and development of maturity, you might run once again for admin with different results. Best wishes. Edison 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Question

What exactly did you mean by the comment at Talk:List of broad gauge (7 feet) railway locomotive names? You said at T:DYKT, you were also planning to send that to AfD. If that is what you meant by "notable", then I would have to disagree. It seems like a perfectly legitimate list, that complies with Wikipedia policy. Nishkid64 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out comment. --Parker007 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Doubleredirects

Hallelujah! —METS501 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical synapse

What exactly is your concern with Chemical synapse? You may be right that it doesn't meet the featured article criteria, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean since it's not blatantly obvious. Some things that may need work include defining jargon and comprehensiveness; if you're referring to the lack of citations, make sure to read Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Anyway, if you'd like, I can put the article up for review, but I need to know exactly what your concerns with the article are. ShadowHalo 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support delisting it. It seems to lack any information about the history of chemical synapses (as in, the people who discovered or researched them), and I'm trying to read the article, but the jargon is definitely an issue. If you'd like me to nominate it, let me know, or just tell me when you've created the nomination. ShadowHalo 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

Hi, BetacommandBot has already a request waiting for tagging chemicals. The wikiproject chemicals (a 'daughter' project of the wikiproject chemistry) has adopted all chemical compounds in the wikipedia, that clears out the chemistry wikiproject (which then still has a huge number of pages to take care of) and results in one single project being 'responsible' for all chemicals. BetacommandBot is going to tag a list of about 4000 chemical compounds with the {{chemicals}} (hopefully with some class-assesment as well), that includes retagging from {{chemistry}} to {{chemicals}}. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding Chemical Compounds

First off, prodding is not a final procedure. Anyone can bring an article that was deleted via prod back from the dead. Second, I'm prodding these chemical compounds because they are 2 freaking lines long. There is almost no information in these articles. Anyone can figure out the molar mass of a compound by adding the components' molar masses. Third, all of these articles have a generic link,Wikipedia:Chemical sources as their only source. For a Wikipedia article to be properly sourced, it needs to be specific about its sources. Many of them don't even have a picture, or the picture is in a red link. This is why I am prodding these articles. If you want, you can help clear the 7000 article backlog at CAT:NN by prodding and sending articles to AfD. The articles I've been prodding have all been around since at least June 2006, and they really need to go. If you want, you can help, but hindering progress will not help one bit. Thank you. Diez2 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg, Russia

I have been a real idiot in that FAC. I appologize. If you feel it must be removed from FAC asap. please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Parker, thanks for the kind note. I'm sorry for taking so long to respond; I've been traveling for several weeks, and had limited internet access on a very slow dialup. All's well that ends well; don't give it another thought. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK expired noms

You've moved March 5 to expired nominations on the DYK Suggestion page. The rules say that articles may be up to 5 days old. March 5th articles are 5 days old and still eligible. — ERcheck (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

today is march 10. --Parker007 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as such, the March 5th articles are now 5 days old and have not expired. — ERcheck (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
march 6 = 1day, march7 =2day, march8 = 3day, march9 = 4day, march10 = 5day. --Parker007 06:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parker: An article created by 5th afternoon, for example, would complete its age of 5 days by the 10th afternoon. Likewise, an article created by 5th evening, would complete its age of 5 days by the evening of 10th. 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are the only four days in between. Now, in particular, if we take the example of Origin of Karnataka's name article, it was created at 18:51, March 5, 2007 UTC, and now the time is not yet 18:51, March 10, 2007 UTC. So, it is not yet 5 days old, and the DYK nom is not expired. :)
Thanks. - KNM Talk 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay okay, i m putting it back. --Parker007 06:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved back a few of your suggestions in favor of a March 5th nomination. Also, when checking to see what the next update would look like on the Main Page, there were too many DYKs (page unbalanced). I've put the ones that I moved back on the top of March 6th. They can easily be moved back as soon as the next update is made. — ERcheck (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Please take a look at the Rules of Use of AWB:

  • Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.

Your edits are actually quite annoying I can say. It would be better for you to request bot status. - Microtony 09:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parker007&oldid=114034006"