User talk:Dondegroovily/archive 2012

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns

Category:Environmental Disaster Ghost Towns, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Eugenics

As you suggest, "Nazi" is the word most commonly used in English, but in this case the article was following the usage in the cited source, which specifically used "NSDAP" when talking about Fischer: "Eugen Fischer was a member of the NSDAP", it says. It's no biggie! All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

If you think an admin closing an AFD is incorrect, you should take it up with him and go to Wikipedia:Deletion review - don't just ignore it. StAnselm (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I don't agree with the disambig, but it's better than a redirect. I think it should be an article. But the community consensus was for a disambiguation page. If you don't think that was the consensus, go to deletion review. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate being called a vandal about it. A legitimate content dispute is never vandalism. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I just contacted the closing Administrator. At User talk:Kudpung#Conservative Christianity, he/she states that the disambiguation page was not binding and editor's are free to do as necessary. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I called you a vandal. According to the closing admin's comments, I would be keen to see the article restored (and improved), since most of the incoming links do actually point to that concept, rather than Christian fundamentalism or Christian right, etc. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than edit-war over this, if you believe the AFD was closed with the wrong outcome, then you should go to WP:DRV. Right now you seem to be claiming a consensus for a redirect that I can't find anywhere. The closing admin stated consensus can change and it doesn't have to remain a DAB indefinitely. He didn't say you're free to go ahead and ignore the outcome of the AFD.--Atlan (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge data

Hi -- if I am reading it correctly, you were the editor who indicated that rhere are currently around 16,000 articles tagged with merge tags, and also that only about 5% have any discussion and only about 1% of the tags actually link to the discussion. That's interesting. Where might I find that data? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of merges is easily seen at Category:Articles to be merged. The other two, as far as I know, aren't officially tabulated anywhere, and those numbers are estimates based on my experience doing a lot of merges. Thinking back, the situation might not be quite that bad, but it is only a tiny number with any discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge

Hi Dondegroovily, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have been checking the edits of WikiProject Merge members to catch any issues before they become habits. Your mergers look good, but your instructions to Dipralb lack the important step of linking in the edit summary. Moonriddengirl added it to the project's instructions, per WT:WikiProject Merge#Good luck and a word about attribution requirements. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Merging" your user pages

Thanks so much! Someone who FINALLY helped me! :D
—BandOfColor (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Plummer v. State

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have on for deletion. The nominated article is Plummer v. State.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You are welcome to edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Would you help me with this (step 3 - step 4 - step 5)? See also: Revision history of History of F.C. Internazionale Milano. Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While not listed under step 3, an easier alternative are the {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} tags. Place {{merged-to|destination page|today's date}} on the source page and {{merged-from|source page|today's date}} on the destination page.

Step 4 is not really necessary. If you were to merge "Canine" to "dog", it's saying to find pages that redirect to Canine and instead direct them to Dog. The thing is, bots do this regularly, so you don't really need to do it.

Step 5 is basically saying that if any other pages were involved in the merge, some type of notice must be on the talk page.

Step 3 and 5 are necessary due to copyright restrictions. Essentially, you can't delete a page if any of its content is on another page, as all editors must be credited for their work, and when deleting a page, the page edit history is gone too. Admins need these tags to avoid violating our copyrights.

Hope this helps, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: HoFCIM (2004-Present) and HoFCIM (2004-present). Are they OK? Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk page for the 2004-present article didn't have the merged-to tag (if there is no talk page, make one to put the merged-to on it), but otherwise, good. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, one of them (HoFCIM (2004-Present)) should be removed...--Dipralb (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? If you copied content, the tag needs to be there, and your edit summary indicates that you did. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stella Parton discography

No other discography merges individual albums like that. As you have it, it's just clutter and a total eyesore on the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pre-Contact_Hawaiian_royalty

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_14#Category:Pre-Contact_Hawaiian_royalty. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Platine War

Hi, Dondegroovily. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time we are talking. I reverted your recent move request on Platine War and I hope you won't mind. There was a merge request which has been just closed and there is no reason to open yet another request of any kind. Except for those two editors, there is no one else complaining about the article (see its history log). "Guerra Grande" is the name of the Uruguayan Civil War which started in the erarly 1830s and ended on late 1851. The Platine War is the name of an international conflict between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation that began in late 1851 and ended on earlu 1852. Both conflicts are related, but they are not the same. Anyway, again, I hope you may understand what I did and feel free to contact me at my talk page. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable about the history of South America, I'll start with that. But, it is obvious that what you claim as simple fact is, in fact, disputed by other editors. You removed the request on the basis of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" which is not a sound basis for anything. Being that your belief is disputed, a move request is warranted, at the very least, to bring in others. If you are truly correct, the move request will be shot down and no harm will come of it. If you're wrong, the only damage is to your ego. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article about the Guerra Grande: Uruguayan Civil War. That's what I have been trying to tell you. By asking the change of the title of "Platine War", you'll be creating two articles about the same conflict. What I've been trying to tell you is that they are not the same conflicts, but they are related. --Lecen (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, clearly others disagree. I don't have any opinion except that this discussion should be aired openly to the entire Wiki community, so that everyone is aware of the discussion and can comment on it. If Guerra Grande does indeed refer to both, that can easily be handled by a disambiguation page, similar to Syrian War, a war name used for several wars. In seven days the discussion will be closed, and if everyone else agrees with you, the page won't be moved and people will see on the talk page forever that the idea was suggested and reject (avoiding the same discussion in the future). Again, I don't know if you're right, but another knowledgable Wikipedian disagrees with you, and that's grounds for a move discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe you're being unfair to me, could you at least move the move request tag to another topic? The present one was dedicated to discuss the matter, and it's already clearly complicated to anyone who is arriving just now. --Lecen (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by move the tag to "another topic". D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You may propose the change of the title of the article to anything, but "Guerra Grande". There is already an article about the Guerra Grande. This is not the case of two conflicts known as "Guerra Grande". You could, it's true, ask the merge of "Platine War" to the already-existing "Guerra Grande". --Lecen (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To be precise Guerra Grande is a redirect, not an article. There is no reason that Platine War couldn't be moved to that name with a disambiguation hat note at the top of the page linking to the Uruguay civil war. I'm not removing the discussion just because you disagree. You're essentially asking me to censor another user's opinion, and I won't do that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Im not asking you to stop the discussion. I'm trying to tell you that there is already an article about the Grande Guerra which Cambalachero has been talking about. Wikipedia does not allow two articles with the same title about the exact same thing. You know that just as I do. That's why I'm telling you that you may create a merge request, but a move request doesn't make sense. It's like Second Sino-Japanese War and Pacific War. Try to picture that Second Sino-Japanese War is Guerra Grande and that Pacific War is the Platine War. An editor could not request the change of "Pacific War" to "Second Sino-Japanese War" because there is already an article about it. Do you understand now what I mean? --Lecen (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was not my impression of the discussion that is going on now. MarshalN20 explicitly says that the article should be renamed, not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then. I was here trying to explain you the problem while I had to endure "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", "If you're wrong, the only damage is to your ego", etc... Since you opened the move request, it means you're supporting it, since it will be counted as vote. You shouldn't have done it if, in your words, you're not "not knowledgable about the history of South America". Anyway, thank you for your time. --Lecen (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm counted as a "move" vote, feel free to troutslap the admin. I explicitly said I have no opinion, that it was merely a procedural move to tag that discussion. Starting discussion procedures on another editor's behalf (in this case MarshalN20) is routinely done and does not count as a vote in favor. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Note: Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion." This is what says on Wikipedia:Requested moves which I believe you should have had read before opening the move request. You should have had suggested the other two editors who are eager to change the name of the article to open a move request since your nomination will count as a vote and also because you told me that you are neutral on the matter and that you don't have knowledge of the subject being discussed. Lastly and most important of all: what I have been trying to say all along is that the "Guerra Grande" mentioned by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 over and over with their countless sources is the Uruguayan Civil War. They are trying to effectively duplicate an article which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You can't have two articles with the same title about th same subject here. But leave the move request, I know how it will end. --Lecen (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting talk pages

Hi there. Ok then what should be done with these (Talk:List of mobile phone companies in Pakistan, Talk:List of Niazi people) talk pages? --SMS ^Talk 13:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just leave them. If you want, you can put {{tmbox|text=This page was moved to [[blah]]}} on top. For article assessment, use class "redirect". D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano in the World

What do you think about this title? Is it correct?--Dipralb (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really, as I don't understand what the purpose of this page is. What does "In the world" even mean? Based on the look of the article, it seems like "List of international F.C. Internazionale Milano matches" may be better. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano in Worldwide football or F.C. Internazionale Milano in Intercontinental football: which is better?--Dipralb (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither - I'd say international rather than Worldwide. European is a possibility if all the matches are in Europe. Also, worldwide, international and intercontinental should all be lowercase. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano in the World → F.C. Internazionale Milano in international football: is that correct?--Dipralb (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

These are the matches of Football Club Internazionale Milano playing in international football. Is it OK?--Dipralb (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Homer

Sure; I'm not worried very much about it at all. The way U.S. government legally defines cities does seem ridiculous though. Have a good weekend Buckshot06 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical and "overly detailed"

Template:Technical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Overly detailed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now everyone has opposed a proposed merger. Will you kindly "withdraw" your proposal? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not my proposal. Another editor placed an article-style merge tag on the templates - I just fixed it by nominating at TfD. Since I'm not really the nominator, I don't feel I should withdraw it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete articles without consensus

I've re-reverted the effective deletion you made to the tuned pipe article. Who are you to decide what the consensus is? There has been no recent discussion. I'm pretty easy on this but refuse accept unilateral action of that nature. The only discussion that took place was several years ago and was only reference on the talk page of one article. A more thorough basis than that is needed: AfD is the usually recognised process. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Firstly, this isn't deletion, since you had no trouble hitting the revert button, thus AfD is not required - in fact, the AfD would be rejected as wrong forum if I used that to propose a redirect. We also don't have two articles about the same thing. Now, I don't know much about engines, but I see duplicate articles when I see these two. If they are not the same thing, they need to be revised so the difference is clear to a guy like me that doesn't know much about engines. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Boiler

Hello, Donde... Since you decided to create a disambiguation page at Boiler, and moved the old contents of that page to a different title, it would be most appreciated if you would help fix the incoming links (from over 1,000 other articles) that use the old title and need to be fixed to take readers to the correct article, as suggested as WP:FIXDABLINKS. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that wasn't such a good idea. Should I move Boiler (heat) back and make a Boiler (disambiguation? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject. I do note that the lead sentence of Boiler (heat) says "A boiler is a closed vessel in which water or other fluid is heated." That seems to cover steam generators, among other applications. I see that in past discussions someone said that boilers and steam generators are related the way automobiles and trucks are related; however, maybe a better analogy would be "internal combustion vehicles" and "trucks". And then what about applications where steam is used to generate power and then the excess energy is used for heating? But, as I say, I'm no expert; I have more questions than answers here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Boiler (heat)#Requested move - started a discussion, chime in there. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Help desk#HIPAA law as it apllies to teachers and students.

HIPAA applies and complements the Privacy Act of 1974 specifically to medical personnel and medical records, but covers the medical and personal information in the medical records. Anyone who becomes aware of such knowledge in an official capacity, including nurses, school administrators, and teachers, is required to safeguard it. Phone numbers and previous doctors from medical records, for example, cannot be transfered to other records. Schools have a legitimate cause to know allergies and most prescriptions, and may discuss such as warranted with others with valid requirements, but individuals should not be gossiping about other details they know from privileged sourcing. Dru of Id (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to apologize

Apologize. If you want to accuse someone else of being incivil, then do so. But the move request template already says to be civil and your not-so-subtle hinting is unwanted. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse anyone of being uncivil - if I did, I would have posted someone's name, wouldn't I? It's just a simple reminder, and other reminders like that are posted all the time on discussions ({{Not a ballot}} as one example). And I don't think you're the person I should be apologizing to anyway, I don't think I aimed any rude comments at you. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't think you were apologizing to me. I assumed you were apologizing to Vegaswikian (although I didn't think your comment was inappropriate). But either way, it just seemed like a way to call me out (since I made the last comment before you posted that template) without having to call me out by name. But if that wasn't your intention, um, OK... -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Christopher Mayes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Christopher Mayes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Christopher Mayes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Barratry

Hello there
You deleted a paragraph I added here a while ago; I've opened a discussion there if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to this; if you are agreeable and there are no objections, I’ll move these in the next day or so. I went for "Barratry (common law)" for the new title as I’m really not sure whether it is a criminal or a civil offense (the sources I’ve seen have both); do you happen to know? Or will that title be suficient? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know at all. I wrote the admiralty law when I noticed the original was awkwardly trying to disambiguation on an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia template

Thanks for the additions and for removing the Catholic cetegories!

Edit: I forgot to remove the Catholic categories (I copied the code from another template) and mistook Arthur for adding them. My apologies.

Oct13 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

SFD

I noticed your discussion about the fate of Stubs for Deletion. I've started an RFC on it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Record and statistics

Javier Zanetti holds Internazionale' official appearance record (795 as of 22 April 2012). Is it correct? Thanks.--Dipralb (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea, I don't even know who that guy is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that sentence grammatically correct?--Dipralb (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, yup, it's good. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

I have restored his title and postnoms to the first line. Please don't remove them again. This is normal and long-established style on Wikipedia for people holding British honours. The fact it is in the infobox is neither here nor there - the infobox is a supplement to the article, not a replacement for it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement

Renominated here (as a courtesy, I am informing everyone who has not yet commented in the new discussion, but was part of the original discussion). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lee Myung-bak merge

Moved to User talk:PeanutbutterjellyTaco

Thank you Dondegroovily. I merged the articles as you kindly explained. Please remove my request at WP:PM. Best, --PBJT (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about merging two articles...

Hi Dondegroovily,

I hope you won't mind my writing - I've got a question about merging two articles and you seemed like a great person to ask!

Basically, I'm pretty new to wiki and recently joined the Guild of Copyeditors as I figured I might be able to help out there. I've picked up the article on Ethnocinema as my first copyedit, mainly because it fell into my areas of interest. Having taken a quick look at it, and done a speedy bit of research on the internet, it seems to me that this article should actually be merged into the article on Ethnographic film. From what I've read, they're basically variant terms for the same thing, with Ethnographic film being the more generic and Ethnocinema an alternative that is primarily used by one, perhaps two, academic/s. I've asked on the Guild of Copyeditors page and someone there suggested the merge looked like a good idea.

Both articles are in a bit of a state at the moment, and, for all its many other problems, the article on Ethnocinema is actually the better referenced. So, I'm thinking it might be best to put a bit of work into the Ethnographic film article first (I'm up for doing a bit of research on it), hopefully figuring out along the way whether ethnocinema is actually just an alternative term or a subcategory that maybe needs its own section in the article, and then proposing the merge. Before I get going on that though I thought it would be wise to ask an expert whether the merge was a good plan, and if so, whether this is a good way of going about things?

All best,

Loriski (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, they look the same to me, but I don't know much about this style of film, so don't consider me an expert. I can help with the "nuts and bolts" of the process but I can't help you as far as content is concerned. I can tell you that the "Origins" in one article is the same type of section as the "History" in the other. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Will maybe pop back then if I come up against any nuts-and-bolts type problems :) Loriski (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding WikiProject User templates

I've seen you around and you seem to know about this sort of stuff so I was hoping you might know something about this. I have found a lot of templates regarding Users of WikiProjects. Such as User WikiProject X but they are under the project rather than under template space. I was thinking about moving them to template space so they would appear as what they are but before I did I thought I would run it by a couple folks. Whats your advice on this? I could provide a couple examples if you need them. Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, I need an example. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Dartmouth College/userboxy is a Userbox for Users of WikiProject Dartmouth College. I would like to move it to something like Template:User WikiProject Dartmouth College. Do you think that would be reasonable or would I get a bunch of complaints from folks about that sort of thing? Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, you could do that, but you don't have to do it, and I don't really see it as worth doing, not worth the trouble. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting an article

May I ask you about how to split an article? Per Talk:Japan-Korea relations, I want to split the article into three: one for "Japan-ROK", one for "Japan-DPRK", and one for "History of Japan-Korea relations". The split was first proposed in May 2009, and no action was taken. I proposed it again, and majority of users supported it. And can I use {{Discussion top}} template for closed discussions? Best, --PBJT (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Put that template at the top and {{discussion bottom}} at the bottom. As far as a split, you can use the template {{split}} on the page, follow the instructions on the template tag. Also, use North Korea and South Korea, since these are the common names for the countries and most of our readers don't know what ROK and DPRK mean. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dondergroovily again. So even if I'm not an admin, I can use the {{discussion bottom}} for closed discussion, right? Yes, I was going to use "North" and "South" Korea, since that's the name what other ROK's/DPRK's foreign relations articles are using. So, just to make sure I understand the procedure correctly:

1. Create a new page "Japan-South Korea relations", and copy one section from "Japan-Korea relations"
2. Create a new page "Japan-North Korea relations", and copy one section from "Japan-Korea relations"
3. Move "Japan-Korea relations" to "History of Japan-Korea relations"
4. Add {{split}} to all three articles.

but then, {{split}} shows "It has been suggested that this page be split into multiple pages", and doesn't look like a correct tag. --PBJT (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, a misunderstanding on my part. The template {{copied}} can be used for this purpose. For oldid, go to the history tag of the source page, and choose the version of the page you copied from; then, look at the url in you web browser for "oldid=xxxx", and put that number in. For diff, go to the history page of the destination, find the edit where you copied the content over, and click "diff" next to the edit; copy the entire url and put it in that spot. The template is a pain, but I don't know of a simpler alternative. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dingoes Ate My Baby listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dingoes Ate My Baby. Since you had some involvement with the Dingoes Ate My Baby redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Common decency

Have you got any?

No fact has been deleted. Just a misquotation and a link to a band with a name in extraordinarily bad taste, which can be linked further down. The fact that you created the Headnote in the first place shows a considerable lack of compassion and a disrespect for the policy of treating living people appropriately.

Lindy Chamberlain was taunted and ridiculed over saying that a dingo had her baby.

Is it not better to err on the side of human compassion and decency, than to push a matter that may cause real offence, just because you can?

The redirect does not need to be there. If Lindy's words are entered, they will probably find the article.

A fictitious band is not more important than a grieving mother.

Amandajm (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course a fictitious band isn't more important, which is why Dingoes Ate My Baby should redirect to Azaria Chamberlain and not be the page on the band. FWIW, A dingo ate my baby! (yes, with the explanation mark) also redirects there - would you like me to add that to the nomination? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dondegroovily, you say on the discussion page:

Don't pretend to know how she feels. I'm pretty sure any grieving person would be offended by that.

What a neat sidestep that is! You are suggesting that my "pretending" to know how Lindy Chamberlain feels might be more offensive than the lead to that article.

• I've told you once that I have counselled people in grief situations
• Now I am telling you that you have no idea who I might have counselled. Don't presume here on Wikipedia that anyone is "pretending" anything. You might be talking to the person's shrink. You might be talking to someone who shared a prison cell with the person. You might be talking to the person's sister. You might be talking to someone who researched the matter with the person concerned and wrote a book. (Isn't it very likely that all these people would now be taking an interest in this page?)
• I am also going to tell you that although some aspects of the death of a child may be more or less traumatic for some mothers than others, there are many aspects of the grief which appear to be universal. My knowing about the process of grieving over the loss of a child doesn't involve any "pretending" whatsoever!

Amandajm (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Pynchon

With the AfD thankfully closed, I figured on responding to your reply.

Indeed, I did look over the original request from those IPs to delete the article (and why, just out of curiosity, would you presume I had not?). Would you mind answering me this: have you ever seen a bunch of anon IPs, with nary an edit to their names, suddenly show up with reasons to delete an article such as "She's a nobody," and it be anything other than an organized dirty tricks campaign? Under what possible circumstances could you have imagined that this was a legitimate request? Did you review the talk page to find out if anyone had discussed the matter there first, as WP:BEFORE enjoins a nominator to do prior to a nomination? (As it happens, no one had.)

You were unhappy that, as an experienced editor, you felt I insulted you. I am unhappy that, as an experienced editor, you should have known better and exercised better judgment. Ravenswing 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Required Notification

This is to notify you that I have opened a complaint about your behavior in the Victoria Pynchon matter here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_About_Editors.27_Behavior_In_Victoria_Pynchon_Deletion_Discussion.

Pernoctus (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Testing

To make sure that you see the orange banner. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And Stage 4 Lung cancer means what?

This article desparately needs help to serve the average Joe. Cancer staging describes a Stage 0-4 system and there is no mention of it whatsoever here. What do these stages means for lung cancer? Why does this article pay more attention to the development of categories and diagnosis than to the categories themselves? D O N D E groovily Talk to me16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. On it. Will add stage groupings, as well as survival statistics (from Rami-Porta and 2007 Goldstraw) and also a simplified outline of Rx options based on stage if I can get to it.FeatherPluma (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I shot merger?

Hi again Dondegroovily, I feel like a buffoon for having to ask this, but even having performed and proposed a fair amount of mergers myself, the documentation for merging can be so convoluted, I feel less confident in what I'm doing the more I read it. Of primary importance, Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger and Help:Merging#Proposing a merger give very different steps, even though the latter is listed as the {{main}} of the former (and has less content)! Somehow, I had never come across or heard of Template:Merge discussion before. It looks like it's the work of one editor, who added it to the Help:Merging documentation a few months ago. Is this important, or even officially encouraged in any way? I guess WP:Merging and Help:Merging were split at some point, but am I crazy in thinking they should be merged? PM definitely seems to be a red-headed stepchild compared to the likes of AFD or even RM, but I think clear documentation could help get mergers on a path towards greater intelligibility and use. --BDD (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed at RfD

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_8#Interstate_79_.281957-1958.29 needs some clarification. You suggestion retargeting a redirect to the target it currently has. I nominated it for deletion because it's not useful. Imzadi 1979 → 10:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)