User talk:Rehman

This is Rehman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hard space

Hi, Rehman. Could you please explain, why you removed all hard space formatting? Even if it does not in the current line break, it is preferred to use it between figures and symbols or abbreviations etc. Also, I don't think that using {{tl:clear}} template for the right-side infoboxes is necessary. It could be different with left-side objects. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. Reason i removed all the hard spaces is that it doesnt do much when used in a paragraph or plain text. I mean, it would only have a use if it were added into a blank cell of a table. I have absolutely no objection in adding them back if there were a reason. Because, as far as i know, there are thousands to millions of articles that do not use it between abbreviations, symbols, ect. And if it were really a rule to place them, it should've been listed in WP:AWB, WP:DAB or similar, right? The {{clear}} only helps users using widescreen displays; to prevent headers moving onto images, text, infoboxes, or ect. Please do feel free to let me know if any of my edits/claims are false. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The policy about non-breaking spaces is described by WP:NBSP. I myself learned about this during WP:GAN and WP:FAC processes. Beagel (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. My error. Will replace all necessary instances with the formatting (non-html wiki-type {{nowrap}}) as i come across. Thanks. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to User talk:SoWhy, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. According to Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Proper minor edits consist only of things like typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Thank you.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info Garett. My preferences were set to always display as minor, since an editor would mostly perform minors. I didnt know about this till now. Will watch out next time. Thanks again. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of help. Actually, I know I definitely make more major edits than minor ones, so I don't know how often it would be the case that an editor would make mostly minor edits – unless they just don't like to do anything but fix typos/grammar/formatting all over the place.
Additionally, I've never had that box set to be checked by default; every time I make an edit, I see that check box and just quickly consider what kind of changes I've made and whether they should be called minor or not (if I haven't already decided in my mind which one it is).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What i meant was we do more typos and similar fixes. :) Thanks anyways. Regards, Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kind request to solve dispute

Hello, Rehman. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WQA notice

Hello, Rehman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Rehman regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded accordingly (here and here). Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Lists of power stations in xx articles

Hello, I noticed you were merging many power related lists into a single list of power stations in XX articles. It seems like a good idea, but I have a question about the formatting for them. In these new article formats, where should proposed facilities go? In the previous article formats like List of wind farms in Washington#Proposed, there was a proposed section in the article. Should proposed facilities go in the tables under the "Status" column List of power stations in Oregon#Wind_farms with the status of "Proposed" or should there be a proposed section in the article itself? Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It would be much more easier to access information if it were all merged to one sortable table. For example:

Station	Capacity (MW)	Location	Status
Power Station 1	1000	Africa	Under construction
Power Station 2	1500	Asia	Operational
Power Station 3	2000	Antarctica	Proposed
Power Station 4	2500	Europe	Operational
Power Station 5	3000	North America	Operational
Power Station 6	3500	South America	Proposed

Merging it like the above, would enable the reader to find: 1) The largest power station of any status. 2) The status (or capacity, location, etc) of a given station without having to surf through multiple tables. 3+) And pretty much other similar information that may be a bit harder to find if it were in multiple tables. Although, for visual advantages, it may be better in most cases to have a separate table for each station by technology (ie: Wind farms, Hydroelectric stations, etc). Hope this helps.

Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I understand, thanks. Looking at it now, it really does seem like a better way to organize it, especially that new template (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PowerStations). Great idea and nice work! TimeClock871 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for the nice comments

. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for administratorship

I think I shall vote for you. Please take the time to answer the questions though. I am very interested in how you respond of the questions. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prop3v56.

I will do that. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left one question for you on your candidate page. Please answer when you can. Politoman (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rehman, I have asked a further question on your RFA. Would you have a moment to answer this? Thanks! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tbsdy. I have answered that question. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... can you just confirm that is the final answer? Posting a template to a talk page doesn't seem like an enforcement action to me... please note that I'm not asking a trick question here. Your answer may be that you wouldn't take any action to enforce the warning. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that is my final answer. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA has been closed

I regret to inform you that your request for adminship closed after failing to obtain the necessary consensus to promote you to adminship. As several participants commented, you should review the concerns raised there and address them before making another attempt. It appears that, if those concerns (mostly regarding lack of experience in the project space) are addressed, you would likely succeed at another bid in several months. I encourage you to take the comments made as positive and constructive critique, and a roadmap for improvement. If you have any questions, please let me know. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All comments taken into hand.

Thank you for participating. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

Hi Rehman, one thing I noticed in your RFA was that you have contributed 78 new articles and have thereby displayed an understanding of policies such as wp:notability. So I've flagged your account as an wp:Autoreviewer. My successful RFA was four months after my unsuccessful attempt, so I know what it is to have an RFA not succeed. I hope to see you at RFA again in a few months, but for now my advice would be to get back to the areas of editing that you most enjoy. Cheers and happy editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. And thank you very much for the Autoreviewer flagging. Hope to see you around. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I'm sorry your RfA failed, but well done for taking the criticism offered on the chin. I genuinely hope to see you back at RfA in a few months when you think those issues have been resolved. I have a failed RfA of my own, so I cna tell you it's not necessarily a bad thing! All the best, HJ Mitchell \| fancy a chat? 15:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Well appreciated.

. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings

Hey I don't feel the proposal and construction should be merged in the twin building article. because they are not buildings yet. can u also add cuchillan i asked in teh talk. im sure there are other twins that hae not been listed yet. i dont feel comfortable yet editing will try to learn more about wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.46 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your input. I understand that the list is not complete; its the case with most lists on Wikipedia. This is only because Wikipedia is global, and such lists takes time to develop. You are most welcome is helping out wherever you can. If you are interested in being part of Wikipedia, its is always an advantage to register an account. Moving to the topic, the merging helps readers by allowing to easily compare entries by clicking the sort button next the headers; although, it doesnt necessarily have to be that way. Feel free to ask if you need any further assistance, i'd be happy to help. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Thank you for creating many lists of power stations, but I am concerned about the quality of many of these articles. Each article should have a lead section which introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria, references which verify what is being said, adequate images, and sortable tables. Perhaps aim to fulfill at least some of the criteria in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and ideally bring some of the lists up to FL quality if possible. This would be a big improvement which would benefit readers. Johnfos (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I dont see which article you are pointing at, I will take all guidelines into consideration.

Thank you for your input. Best regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bay Project

Hi, I've noticed you changed the names of the 8 hydroelectric generating stations of the James Bay Project. Problem is your new names are incorrect (see this page for the official English names of the generating stations). As per WP:PLACES s. 1 "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Thanks. Bouchecl (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My apologies for that. I am performing a large-scale cleanup on all power station lists; i must have not studied that well. Thank you for informing. Sorry again. Feel free to move it back. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The moves will have to be made by an administrator, because it involves the deletion of the redirect pages. I'll post a request on WP:RM. Bouchecl (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. You could also request a WP:CSD#G6 speedy deletion of the redirect. It would be much faster. Please do let me know if you need help (as i am responsible).

Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved seven back as the Bourassa page had already been done. Of the seven only one required that the redirect be deleted. something lame from CBW 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]