User talk:Grutness/archive23

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Stubstuff

Cricket stubs

Would you please explain exactly what is your problem with these stub categories and where it says I must first propose their creation? What I have done is yet another example of bold editing where no one else can be bothered.

I am probably the most prolific contributor to the cricket project and the one who was entirely responsible, with very little help from other members, for the creation of a project structure in terms of domestic and international cricket in particular. There has for a long time been a need to impose some sort of order onto the cricket stub articles and this task was begun by User:Alai in respect of season reviews, tour reviews and venues. There already was a separate bio-stub categorisation.

By splitting the stubs out into sub-categories it enables the project to recognise the scale of the main task that confronts it, which is to develop all 5600+ stubs into finished articles. From this, members should feel able to pick out batches of stubs which they will be responsible for (in theory).

This is the third time in a week that I have encountered someone who evidently thinks all of these stubs have to become articles NOW and therefore cannot see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees. What does it matter if one of the stub categories currently has only 12 members? What does it matter? There are plenty of article categories throughout the site that have less members than that and never will increase.

Why not allow the project to develop these stubs over a period of time so that the work is done in an enjoyable and relaxed way, thereby achieving better results in the long term. What is it with this site that no matter what anyone does to try and improve a project when others are not showing interest, that there is always someone who has to come along quoting this procedure and that process and completely losing sight of the big picture.

I absolutely refuse to visit WP:WSS/D or whatever it's called. If you are so pedantic that you must interfere in this project to suit your own blinkered view of the way that information is created and categorised for the benefit of the readers, then you will no doubt go ahead and do whatever you are going to do anyway and I will just be wasting valuable time getting involved.

I seem to have been free of this sort of political interference for a few months lately but, sure enough, three times in one week, here we go again. Frankly, I really don't know why I bother. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied.

You need some context - take a look at what he's posted in the last couple of days at WT:CRIC and you'll see some of Blackjack's extraordinarily prolific work. While I understand the need for order in the stubs and appreciate the work you and your colleagues are doing, and don't think your first message to BlackJack was uncivil... it may have been a little harsh. If you could find a moment to post to his page or email him in conciliatory mood, it would be a fine thing to do. Even if it doesn't persuade him to come back. He is, however, a sad loss to the Project. Yours in good faith. --Dweller 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

replied.

Gibraltar-Fauna-Stub

Hi, I am fairly new to creating articles on Wikipedia. Could you please help me on understanding why this stub is up for deletion and what I can do to make it right. Thanks for your time. Gibmetal77 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I know understand where I went wrong. Am I right in thinking that it is only the stub template that is being proposed for deletion? Gibmetal77 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your reply. Don't worry about the nomination for deletion, I understand why. The article no longer contains the stub I created so it can be deleted no problem (if I can help getting it deleted quicker please let me know how). Sorry for all the bother and thanks for showing me how to go about stubs on Wikipedia. Gibmetal77 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again thanks for clearing the issue :) Gibmetal77 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vocal-stub

Hi Ksbrown. I've reverted your change to the stub type list - vocab stubs are sometimes transwikied, but quite often they can be expanded into full articles covering more than a wiktionary entry ever could, so it's not automatic that they'll be moved there. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I originally thought. However a bot has transwikied every article that I have sorted into vocab-stub. One, Passel I nominated for deletion. The reason was that it was already on wiktionary - with all the information of the wikipedia entry (I know, I looked it up and also edit there). The bot, CopyToWiktionaryBot has been transwikifying them. The stubs category is even under Category:Copy to Wiktionary. I do not believe this should be the case. You quite rightly said that they can be expanded, which is why I have listed the others during stub sorting as vocab-stub, as I didn't know whether they should stay or go. I hoped this would leave them in the category for humans to look at. I knew Passel had to go so put it up for deletion. Now I have received your message it is clear that it is not widely acknowledged that the bot does transwikify anything with {{vocab-stub}} on it. I'm also assuming that now the stub tag is removed (CopyToWiktionaryBot does this as well) Alaibot will place stub on again, if the article is still below the threshold. This could then happen again and again, causing extra unnecessary work on wikipedia and wiktionary. I'm not really sure who to mention this to first? I hope you now appreciate why I placed the note on the list of stub types. I may not respond quickly, as I only noticed this message on my way to wiktionary as I'm quite busy at the moment. Ksbrown^talk 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubs II

Hi & thanks for the message! The template India-geo-stub has the following wording: This Indian location article is a stub Since India has state-specific stubs that handle locations, keeping this for that purpose seems to be redundant. Going through the article that use this stub, it returns articles on rivers, and a couple of hills. Hence the wording :"This Indian location..." seems inappropriate for hills and rivers et all. That's why I seek to change it to "This article on the geography of India is a stub..." There are far too many geographic features in India without an appropriately worded stub message.

As for location based stubs, this should handle geographic areas such as Duars, Terrai, Saurashtra, Bodoland and would be a stub handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Regions of India. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I guess I'll reword the India-geo-stub template. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

China-?-stubs renewed disruption

I'd like (well, "like") to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Huaiwei and User:Instantnood. I note that it's being alleged that the "consensus" at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December/4 is being cited as grounds for edits like this, notwithstanding any "consensus" for the lack of any Category:roads in mainland China category (which is allegedly "controversial", notwithstanding a decision of sorts here on such categories). I think it's fairly clear that having different scopes for the permcats and stub cats in the hope of "peace" is a forlorn hope, but if the "stub locals" aren't going to support scoping consistency, I do wonder if there's going to be any point re-floating this at WP:SFD. Thoughts and comments? Alai 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alai pointed me to this discussion, so I thought I'd add my 1 cent (hardly enough discussion to be worth adding 2 cents). I believe the intention in that SFD closure was that the tree would look something like this:

            PRC
             |
     ---------------    
    /        |      \
Hong Kong  Macau  Mainland China

I'm also pretty sure that the intention was to rescope the Mainland stuff to say PRC, not the other way around, so Instantnood's diff would be incorrect. Maybe I'm wrong in that, but that's what I see. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I see with it too, and certainly that's how I read the SFD debate. Macau and HK are both now parts of the PRC, albeit with special status, and it does make sense to have them as subcategories within the main PRC category. Similarly, until such time as a more thorough split by subnational region is warranted, having the remaining stubs in a "Mainland China" category does make some sense, especially since there may not be enough stubs to justify a separate Macau category for some of these stub types. In the case of the geo-stubs, we're getting close to a split by subnational region, but not so with the other stub types mentioned AFAIK. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what I was saying during the SFD discussion... Mainland China isn't a "subnational region", and isn't how the permcats are organised: which is supposedly our guiding principle on scoping. What's the rationale for ignoring this in this case? Appeasing IN? The alleged "contentiousness" of the MC category deletions? (They remain deleted nonetheless, and I don't see anyone aside from IN arguing for their recreation. And even he isn't actually doing anything about it, just citing that as a reason for ignoring it having happened.) A "pragmatic" subdivision, like the USCB regions, UN geoscheme, etc? Unlike those, it buys us next to nothing in sorting (especially in those cases there's already a HongKong- type); and unlike those, it causes edit wars. Until someone comes up with a viable plan to make the perm cats consistent with the stub cats, or (some other scheme) to make the stub cats consistent with the perm cats, this seems like a lose-lose situation. So is relisting at SFD likely to yield the same 'result'? Alai 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lose-lose indeed. Problems problems problems,m and I for one don't know what the best solution would be. As for the original controversy as to whether a three-way split using "mainland China" is useful or appropriate, it does have an advantage, though - which is that it allows the Macau stubs to be separated out without requiring them to have separate grossly undewsized categories. They can float free in a PRC category while all other stubs are in subcategories. In the case of the geo-stubs, as I said, it is likely that some form of split is going to be necessary soon - by whatever top level subnational regions China itself uses. In which case, the "mainland" category would then disappear, replaced by these new subcats. Possibly the same would be true with struct-stubs. In the case of types that are unlikely to need splitting, though, it seems sensible to think that they wouldn't be so big that Macao's stubs would be subsumed totally, so two templates (China-x-stub and Macau-x-stub) both pointing to the same PRC x stubs category (with the HK one as a subcat) would make sense. Sadly, of course, the real problem is that stub types rely on guideline and convention rather than policy, so any one person who disagrees with the system used can quite easily make a deal of trouble. And when there are two editors like Instantnood and Huaiwei with directly contrasting views, neither of which is exactly in line with what we'd really like to do and neither of whom is willing to compromise, we get...problems problems problems. Yes, lose-lose indeed. Grutness...wha? 10:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By "lose-lose" I should point out that I wasn't suggesting we lose either way, but that the current way, we lose twice. (How many times we lose the other way is left as an exercise for the reader.) On having the Macau (or is that Macao?) stubs being the only things in the PRC: that'd be the "next to nothing" referred to above. Perhaps that's somewhat unfair in terms of Macau's previously distinct status, but in terms of raw stub-shovelling it seems about accurate. Hopefully provincial and regional cats will get the PRCs/mainlands down to the point where they don't swamp the Macaus. Huaiwei's conduct may be as problematic as IN's in the grand scheme of things (and I've page-banned him from the stub types he's broken the "ceasefire" on), but in this case the scheme he appears to favour would appear to be the one in line with the permcats, which normally is what we'd want to do. Perhaps an aspect to the problem here is with the "China-" component of the template names, since China isn't really equivalent to either the PRC or to mainland China. (Some of the permcats do just use "China", either on an all-inclusive basis, or with less than clear scope.) Alai 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well with "China" you've also got the problematical status of Taiwan, but that's one fight I don't want to buy into, that you very much. Other than naming china-X-stub PRChina-X-stub, I'm not sure what else could be done there. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I'll go ahead and propose that at SFD. Which will doubtless then become Precisely The Same Discussion As Last Time. Since you seem somewhat sympathetic to IN in some respects, could you review the page-bans at the stub templates, and comment at the aforementioned AE page? (Or else discuss it with IN directly.) After repeatedly accusing me of acting in bad faith, IN now seems to think I should "convince [him] why [he] should be banned" (which seems like a novel approach to enforcing arbcom sanctions against someone it doesn't seem possible to convince of anything, but perhaps I'm just getting cynical). Alai 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid we desperately need a pool of editors who know a lot about the actual situation, or who are really willing to understand the actual situation, to decide on this matter. I have explained many times on the constitutional setup of the People's Republic of China with regards to its two present special administrative regions. No where has any comparison or equivalence between special administrative regions (which are provided by the Article 31 of the 1982 Consitution of the PRC) and the first-level divisions (i.e., autonomous regions [zìzhìqū], provinces [shěng] and "municipalities directly under the central government" [zhíxiáshì], as prescribed in Article 30 of the 1982 Constitution) been drawn. Sadly, nonetheless, no body else ever cares about the constitutional setup.

In real-life practices, the two present special administrative regions have always been listed on lists of countries, together with other sovereign states and places like Guam, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Bermuda and Gibraltar. No matter mainland China is considered a "sub-national region" (using user:Alai's words) or not, "mainland China" is a term used by the PRC itself, by the press sponsored and/or operated by the PRC government (e.g. People's Daily, China Daily), by the governments of the two special administrative regions, and by the international press (e.g. BBC's website, TIME Asia; can be easily verified by googling). Over the past decade, agreements have between signed between the central government in Beijing (which in these cases represents the mainland), and the governments of the special administrative regions (see Wikipedia talk:categorisation). The term is also used by governments of other countries and by supranational organisations like the EU.

"Mainland China" does exist, just that some editors may or may not accept. I see no reason why such realities should not be reflected on Wikipedia. As far as I know Wikipedia is the only place where using the term is always challenged. If we are to reflect what the fact is, there is little reason we should not admit that "mainland China" exists. — Instantnood 11:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Archaea-stub

Hi Grutness,

Have I resolved your concerns about {{Archaea-stub}} on the discovery page? Please send me a note there when you get the chance — thanks! :) Willow 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. And good work, BTW. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Botoşani-geo-stub}}

I really don't see the logic of that; I'd already created a redirect (and why would I be likely to remove it?), so why would it be in any way preferable to "canonicalise" the version that doesn't follow the name of the article, and the category? And since when did this become 'normal'? Alai 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "always", though I recall you making similar comments (and perhaps similar moves?) in the past. The "typing" argument would make perfect sense, if there were no such things as redirects (or if I hadn't also created the redirect, as you seemed to imply, despite having to delete it in the move you made). But there are (and I did). So why not have the "canonical" template at the name that matches the article, the stubcat, the permcat, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and an ASCII-ised redirect for "typeability"? Alai 04:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada vs. Canadian

See my plea. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why you guys drive me crazy. You and Alai are going to go back on forth on this until the end of time. Hopefully you've read some of my conversation with Alai, so you can see some more of my opinions on this. Do you think a subpage devoted to this sort of discussion, with the hopes of gaining some sort of official guideline would be productive? Arguing about this at every other SFD doesn't seem like the thing to do either. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to spam you again, but please check out yet another plea to get things sorted out. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAs etc

RfA thanks (Bubba hotep)

Hi, Grutness. Just thought I'd come along and say a hearty "thank you" for your "beat the nom" support at my RfA. I was quite overwhelmed by the level of support – guess I really should be working on the opposes now! I thoroughly intend upholding the confidence of the community, so if you see me doing wrong, just tell me. Keep up the good work, you are a credit to Wikipedia, mon brave! Bubba hotep 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks (Michael Billington)

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA (Anthony.bradbury)

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, which I may well take you up on. The how-to guide does not quite cover everything, and some templates are quite hard to reverse engineer.--Anthony.bradbury 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherstuff

Dab on parenthetically disambiguated articles

I am requesting your opinion about whether a disambiguation link is appropriate at the top of an article where a person or place is disambiguated with a parenthesis and is routinely piped in links without that parenthesis. There is a pro and con discussion at User talk:Necrothesp#John Ferguson (police officer). Would it be appropriate to link that discussion from the Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation page and ask for more input? Or am I all wet? I looked for some time at the titles of the various archived discussions there and did not see this topic. I could easily have missed it. You may reply here if it is more convenient. --Bejnar 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar - I've added my 2c, for what it's worth. I think it would be worth adding a note on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation about the discussion - let's face it, any decision or otherwise reached on Necrothesp's page isn't going to have any weight at all unless the people at WT:Dab know about it, and it may well lead on to a more "official" discussion there. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a problem

Hello there Grutness,

Recently, I nominated an article for deletion which I believed was a neologism. After vigorous debate on the topic and improvements to the article, I withdrew the nomination. However, one user, the creator of the article, continues to badger me about the nomination. He and another user have exercised very bad faith, comparing me to a colonizer and writing on my talk page many times after I withdrew the nomination saying that I am a "sore loser" among many other things. I reverted the discussion on my talk page because of how utterly pointless it is, but read User talk:Deeceevoice if you want to see. The AfD name was Get down, and you can read the AfD discussion here. I tried to be polite with the user and have a reasonable discussion, but I saw this was not possible. I then asked for him to refrain from commenting on the situation anymore, which he replied with 4 posts and an addendum. Your help would be much appreaciated.--Thomas.macmillan 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Thomas's talk page. Grutness...wha?

Thank you for the reply. I have decided to just unwatch the page and the users involved and ignore any comments left elsewhere. It is not worth the hassle of getting back into it. Thank you for the referral and, as always, keep up the good work!--Thomas.macmillan 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Map update

Hi, ages ago you made this map Image:Kakapomap.png for the Kakapo article. Do you think you could update it to include all the current (Maud, Hauturu/Little Barrier, Codfish and Mana) and future sites (Resolution and Secretary Islands in Fiordland). Thanks. --Peta 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is citing a 1994 paper which doesn't inlcude Chalky, the official site only talks about the two sites on the old map. I've emailed DOC to clarify, I'll let you know when I do. --Peta 07:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2006 paper says Maud, Chalky (Te Kakahu), Codfish (Whenua Hou) and Anchor islands. --Peta 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnet

The administration of Barnet falls under London, but Barnet is geographically both Hertfordshire and London. Same with Enfield being in Middlesex and London. Land administration fell to London, because London councils wanted and required more money. But the geography still belongs too the hearts of those counties. Documentation at Hertford County Hall clearly shows the administration change overs, but it also states that all land still falls under by-laws of Hertford, it also clearly states that all land of Hertfordshire will continue to be Hertfordshire. The term "Greater London" refers to the county towns falling under London administration. But all those county towns still also belong to those counties under geographical rules. There are a lot of errors I have noticed on Wiki.

I also know this because one of my previous jobs I worked at Hertford Town Hall under the land registration office. So I will be changing Barnet FC back. Govvy 12:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Khosa

Please Read the Talkpage of Khoso,Khosa.You add wrong information in topic Khalidkhoso 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my refrence page too? can i know why? Khalidkhoso 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not Just Khosa ,it is Khoso too.If you are adding there link on Khosa page. Then You need to add same information on Xhosa. Khalidkhoso 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not said i Own page. I m just asking beacuse you removed External Links that i add for information. Khalidkhoso 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NO ,I just watch it.beacuse some peoples might add wrong information.You can check history of page they did so. if this what you call owning then ,I think Yes, I am guilty of it. Khalidkhoso 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen other layout of disambiguation link. Khalidkhoso 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen other practice on article I started working as Kurd(there is one Balouch Kurd tribe too Kurd (tribe)). Some one add "tribe" word to differentiate between both same is case with Baloch (tribe),Balouch. What i am trying to say that i seen different work regarding disambiguation link .Anyways thanks for telling me and Helping me. Khalidkhoso 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is ok.I realized that you might got angry so i decide to talk on topic .Anyways thanks for every thing.(offten Admin get angry :P.Just being funny).In last again Thanks.Khalidkhoso 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand's southern outlying islands

What's up? I decided some time ago that the best way to portray New Zealand's southern outlying islands on the transcontinental country page is to list them as disputed whether Oceanian or Antarctic. They exhibit both types of characteristics and are not that far from South Island. Do you have any information on temperate rain forests on those islands? Ironically enough, although Île Saint-Paul and Île Amsterdam are clearly Antarctic islands, they are far enough north to have a marine subtropcial climate. Also, check out [1] for a page on the South Atlantic and southern ocean islands. Heff01 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What time zone?

What time zone are you in? UTC+24? ;) Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image caption

You got them all correct. How long have you been learning? :-) By the way you'd probably be interested to take a look at template talk:China-geo-stub regarding the recent round of edits. — Instantnood 09:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei is using the same tactics again, like what had been done to kill all mainland China (non-stub) categories. They restructured the stub type for mainland China geography stubs, without any discussion, and turned the category empty. User:SchmuckyTheCat then went on to abuse Wikipedia mechanisms, presenting only one side of the fact and banned me from Wikipedia. The next step he did was to tag the emptied category with {{speedy}}, citing it was duplicated with the parent category. You don't have to agree with my position regarding how stub types should be structured, but I suppose it is necessary and important to maintain some sort of order and procedures pretaining to such modifications. — Instantnood 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiwi species range map

Any objections if I internationalise this so I can use it on Māori wikipedia? Or would you rather I made a separate non-English one. What I thought was to replace the English names like North Island Brown Kiwi with the latin scientific name in italics, remove the island names and list them instead in the file description, and list Little Spotted Kiwi in Latin together with the other ssp, leaving the red circle as its key. Or have you still got the original and it'd be a piece of Keke for you to do it. PS - rumours of panic in Auckland over a tiny earthquake were manufactured by the media. It barely caused a ripple on my latte. Kahuroa 04:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:NoMaorisNoTour.jpg

Could you have a look at Image talk:NoMaorisNoTour.jpg, I think the user has a point, however I'm not sure what to do :) Brian | (Talk) 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done is to email the ATL, giving the ATL ref no (you can find this on their Timeframes site) and ask for permission to use it, using one of the email permission templates on Commons. If they consent, they will ask for attribution to be visible everywhere the image is used. A lot of the ATL stuff is old, so copyright doesnt apply, no matter what ATL says - this one however is relatively recent so we need to get permission. Then a copy of the email needs to be lodged with with Commons permissions and a link to it made from the image page on Commons Kahuroa

Hello...

Hey there, man... you're still around? Good to see. Anyway, after a long break I have decided to maybe start working on stub articles and such again, is it seems to be the only thing which hasn't gotten completely out of hand nowadays in the Wiki. Could you, when you have some time, point me to what/where is currently anything stub-related going on? Best regards, --Sn0wflake 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, man. I will look into getting back into the project on the following weeks. If you need help with anything, feel free to count with me once more. :) --Sn0wflake 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new (?) editor

I am sorry to bother you again. What is the next appropriate step? On 28 Feb. 2007 Wikiaddict8962 created the article Nova Scotian Maroons. On 1 March, I noticed some odd wording in the article, and discovered that most of it appeared to be taken directly from http://www.bccns.com/history_maroons.html "The Jamaican Maroons" Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia, and I marked it is as a possible copyright violation, listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#2007-03-01, and gave the creator what I thought was a pleasant heads-up message at User talk:Wikiaddict8962#Nova Scotian Maroons. He removed the copyvio template on 3 March and made minor edits to the article. On 4 March, I restored the copyvio template and reminded him on his talk page of the instructions on the template. That same day he again removed the copyvio template, along with the POV tag and inappropriate tone tag, without making any other edits at the time. The next day (5 March) he resumed making minor edits to the page. Today, I was firmer with him on his talk page, See User talk:Wikiaddict8962#Copyright violation and his response indicating that he "copied it off the headline Nova Scotia Maroons in the article Sierra Leone Krio people" whatever that may refer to. What should I do next. Is there a proper Wikipedia forum to address this type of problem? --Bejnar 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he/she meant the Wikipedia article Sierra Leone Krio people#Nova Scotia Maroons. I have copyvio marked that page. I couldn't do just a section, or is there a way? --Bejnar 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we both realised it was that page that was the problem at about the same time. It goes back to an anon edit late last year, and will be a tough job to remove without a lot of work. Grutness...wha?

RE:problem far deeper

Thank you for realising what I am telling you, I admit to copying the information from the headline Nova Scotian Maroons under the article Sierra Leone Krio people, I never copied anything off a website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Canadian pales

Hi, sorry if I reverted your edit due to an incorrect understanding of the term. But the definition on the Flags of the World website states: "The central stripe (or pale) in a 1:2 vertical triband/tricolour whose internal proportions are 1-2-1, and which is therefore square - as in the Canadian flag." Do you have a reference for the broader definition of any pale that is half the length of the flag? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for the Namco Bandai stub debacle. I really should have discussed it and if there was a consensus, did a better job transitioning into it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Grutness...wha?

Israel News Agency

The problem with the link you added to kinnernet, is that it is hardly a reliable source. The so called "Israel News Agency" is in fact the privately owned website of Joel Leyden, AKA user:Israelbeach, aka the very same banned user who is most likely behind the Kinnernet article on Wikipedia and many of the new user votes. Israel News Agency is not a real news agency. Joel Leyden may occasionally sell an article to Jerusalem Post or some such, but most of the articles on his site are either copied from government sites and legitimate news agencies, or written by himself. Some of them are simply advertisements, sometimes under the byline Herb Brandon. There is no-one to vouch for the journalistic integrity of articles on the Israel News Agency but Leyden himself. Sometimes he is mistaken. There is no response mechanism. There is nothing to stop Joel Leyden from using the INA to spread deliberate lies. You'll notice the link you added was recenly removed by another administrator (not me!) as "Leydenspam". This is because he is well known to Wikipedia from past fiascos. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach, etc. --woggly 09:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that info - I was unaware of the connection between the two. Grutness...wha?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template User:Blade Runner

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you could actually read nominations before commenting on them. Please look carefully at the name: this page is an article, not a template, which is why I brought it to AfD. As a template, it would be fine, but it doesn't meet the standards necessary to be an article. Since a correctly-named version already exists, moving it is pointless, and there's no point leaving a cross-namespace redirect, hence the course of action is deletion. As it's technically an article, and I'm arguing for its deletion based on its inappropriateness as an article, not its inappropriateness as a template, AfD is surely the preferred venue. I've now been told to take it to TfD (by another person who I suspect didn't read the nomination) and I won't be at all surprised if it gets referred back to AfD. Please don't just read the word "template" and trot out that same old quip about which door to try. Thanks – Qxz 04:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you also read what you wrote. You made it clear that the creator intended it to be a template, and its title makes it clear that it is not an article. As such, TfD or MfD are the only possible places for it - not AfD. Given the creator's original intention, TfD is a likely place to take it, but if you'd prefer,take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Whichever of the two you prefer, it certainly does not belong at AfD. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for NZ towns

Just thinking out loud here to you and Gadfium here. Other countries use the Infobox template or a variant of it for the info panels on town or city pages. We Kiwis don't - we use tables, ie lots of code on each town page, not standardised, and here's the rub - much harder to cut and paste into other language Wikipedias (like the Māori one). Has anyone ever thought about this in terms of coming up with a standard template? If they did, I'd like it to include the Māori name of the town as one of the items - oh that would make my job so much easier!!! But seriously. The Aussies have Template:Infobox Australian Place with subtypes like town etc... I realise that a deal of consultation would have to take place as to what is important to include, but we could just hijack the aussie one and tweak Kahuroa 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

re:AN/I (Privacy/Secrecy)

Arent sure what is the source of your confidence in believing in my innocence, but I certainly do appreciate your apology. I personnaly do find it amusing when I saw your notice and discovered someone actually reverting in my favour, and I can understand why this suspicion arise, so nothing too hard up about it.--Huaiwei 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese films

THanks a bunch for saving the Taiwanese films - I hadn't got around to adding them. Cheers! I know you are immensely busy but if you have time feel free to hel List of Chinese films or List of Hong Kong films -thanks mate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Je T'Aime

To answer your question: the Nick Cave/Anita Lane duet of "Je t'aime" appears in 2 different mixes. One is on an Anita Lane single, one is a track on Mick Harvey's album Pink Elepahnts, Harv doesn't sing lead on this track. More info at the website "Nick Cave Collector's Hell" --Design 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense. I'd just assumed that Harvey album = harvey duet. BTW, I'm a bit disappointed - given the header, I'd hoped for a more intriguing message ;) Grutness...wha? 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicode

I'm using Safari 2.0.4 on MacOS X 10.4.9, but this stuff has worked for me many versions ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) If you're still running IE/Mac, you might as well just throw it out. It's an abandoned product, with more CSS bugs than anything other than IE/Win 5. Firefox will serve you better when you need an alt. browser. All that said, I do get non-displaying characters once in a while, for some of the more obscure Indian Subcontinent languages; I don't think any of the Unicode fonts for MacOS are entirely complete, though I imagine this will be fixed in a future version. But, even Traditional Chinese works fine for me. You may have turned the Unicode option off when you installed the OS or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm running Safari 1.0.3 on Mac 10.2.8, and have quite a few problems. As for IE vs Firefox, I had nothing but trouble with Firefox while I was running it, so still use IE 5 as my default back-up. Valentinian's comment about Unicode in the preferences may have helped a little - somehow it had got reset to ISO Latin 1 (presumably during a big computer crash at the beginning of the year). But I still can't get the markup box to work at all. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)