Jump to content

User talk:JPG-GR

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.75.110.142 (talk) at 20:30, 18 April 2008 (→‎John Q. Public: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The current date and time is 20 August 2024 T 16:52 UTC.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPG-GR.

This is the User talk page for JPG-GR, where you can send messages and comments to JPG-GR.

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:JPG-GR JPG-GR 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert to be the same user as meta:User:JPG-GR JPG-GR 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Requested moves combinations

I noticed that you combined my requested moves for highball et al, which is obviously a neater presentation, the like of which I was looking for but couldn't figure out. Is there a template for such, or handy standard or something? ENeville (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief (and not really comprehensible) explanation how just before all the proposals at WP:RM. In reality, it just comes from being a regular there and knowing how things flow. :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So does this mean you are going to go through every article which simply links to CFL as an effort to reach the Canadian Football League and fix the link? Otherwise you will create mass confusion for all of those articles hoping to simply reach the Canadian Football League. You have a bot at your disposal maybe? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With consensus in favor of the move, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. While it may not fit specifically in this case, there is no deadline for those links to be changed. The request isn't for all the links that linked to CFL before to now link to Compact fluorescent lamp but to the disambiguation page. JPG-GR (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, forget it. Another administrator has now removed the speedy tag (which means the request was approved, then denied twice). JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did so at your request until I discovered that the consensus was not there. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We apparently have two differing views of consensus. *shrug* I suppose this situation will teach me to not eat lunch lol. JPG-GR (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes - this tag should only be used in non-controversial cases. As there have been several failed proposals at Talk:CFL (disambiguation) to implement the move it does not count as controversial. If that discussion results in a consensus for the move (when it it closed, not before) then the closing admin will implement the move. Hut 8.5 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: your requested move

Looking at the history and considering the need to retain the attribution history of content for GFDL, do we also need to execute a history-merger or can the existing history at crap stay deleted? Rossami (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, crap. (boo pun). It's late and I forgot to check the history. Probably best to perform a history-merge, or cancel the speedy request and leave as is and let someone else sort all that out. Thanks, though! :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking that with all the vandalism, we could leave it out. I was hoping you'd already looked into it, though. I've already moved the page and am merging the Talk page contents now. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help. Gonna get a few more edits in, and go to bed. :) JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've looked at it more closely, I think we have to history-merge despite all the vandalism. The very first edit (24 May 2006) says that the disambig page was created with content from the first article... Yuck. Now I have to decide if I want to spend the time restoring just the non-vandalism versions or just bring back everything..... Rossami (talk)
Had to undo all the deletions and moves, then move the content by hand... It was the only way to safely preserve the attribution history. If you're interested, the instructions were at Help:Merging and moving pages#Full-content paste merger. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reverting

Hi I noticed you reverted all of my edits on the radio stations in Michigan, however I should let you know, some of those edits not only removed the area links, which I'd find confusing if I wasn't aware of how radio works (hence why I deleted them). You have to remember, not everyone knows how radio works and simply linking an image of a state isn't going to say much. Again, some of the edits I made were good faith edits that also helped cleanup the articles, and didn't need to be reverted. I don't know why you have such a personal vendetta against me but I'm not too happy about this situation.--Milonica (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal vendetta? You should assume good faith. You removed information from numerous radio station articles, so I reverted. Nothing more, nothing less. JPG-GR (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not used to seeing the coverage maps being linked in the area section of the infoboxes, hence I removed them. Like I said, I believed they could have been explained better rather than just linking to the maps on radio-locator. If they were references rather than direct links, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I have gone back and replaced the other information (AM station data) that was lost in the reversions. Milonica (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all Michigan radio station articles use the coverage maps in that location. As the field is for the broadcast area and the maps clearly show those, with no subjectivity, no explanation is required. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Persian_Mesopotamia_.E2.86.92_Achaemenid_Assyria. When you have time. Chaldean (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who serials - requested move

Sorry, what is incomplete about it? TreasuryTagtc 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JPG-GR ...

I just reverted your edit to my sandbox bio article User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/John Q. Public (edit | [[Talk:User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/John Q. Public|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preserve the deleted link in a comment ... my apologies if its inclusion in a legitimate Category violated some policy or guideline, but it was an example, so I added the categories (a) for completeness, and (b) to better use it as a stencil for article creation.

Anywho, I'd be interested in any comments that you have on the sandbox, and its utility as an "Example of a stub with good WP:A for WP:BIO" for newbies when referenced from a talk page template message ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]