User talk:Mcewan/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Revert Policy
{{helpme}}
I've just reverted a couple of unhelpful edits (by User:167.7.19.254) that I spotted by chance.
I added the {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} template to the user talk page. Did I do right?
Are there guidelines for anything else I should do - reporting, etc?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 September 2008
- Yep, I would think that you've used the right template. More information on warnings, warning levels and the procedure for reporting repeat vandals can be found at WP:TM/UTN, WP:VAND and WP:AIV. Keep up the good work! haz (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject France Redesign
Hi Mcewan,I've done a draft of a redesign of the project page here. What do you think? I left a note on the project's talk page. Any more ideas? Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I think that I am pretty much finished with the draft. It's here still. Let me know if you like it, and we can get to work importing it into the project. After that, we can also start cleaning up the members' list, sending out a newsletter, and generally increasing organisation (you should see some of the other Wikiprojects' organisation!!!). Leave a note about what you think on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Redesign_Draft. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Passionato.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Passionato.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Exceptional newcomer barnstar
|
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
| Mcewan, I rarely give out barnstars (this is my 2nd, I believe), but your contributions are excellent. Specifically, you have written excellent articles, engaged in policy discussion, AfDs, and redesigned WP:France's member page. Great work. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Oh, I see from your contributions that you aren't a newcomer. Whatever, you still deserve it :) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Louvre
Hey, since you've added yourself to the copy editors list, would you be willing to take a look at Louvre? It's been my pet project since I joined, and I'm thinking about trying to drive it to FA. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly, although that addition to the list was more in the way of being a test when I added the column :) I will certainly do what I can, but expect to need a more experienced editor as well. Incidentally, in cases like this is it better to make multiple edits over time (which is what I tend to do), or to "save them up" for a more major edit? Mcewan (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it depends. Some prefer the one major edit as it does not clog up the history. When I'm working on a new article, or a major rewrite/section I will do that. However, if I'm doing small copy edits or additions, I like to them one-by-one, that way it is easier to see what was done, and if a mistake was made it can be easier to find. It also avoids edit conflicts in some cases. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You'll like this...
Check this out: Cleanup listing. Seems like your kind of list :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- That is indeed merveilleux! Just what we need. I have to say though that I am surpised it takes a bot working on an old database dump. We badly need something like this to be installed. I see our friend the French Bald Eagle is there as one of our GAs :) Mcewan (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll leave those technical aspects to you :) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
French spacing
Hi Mcewan, please forgive the peronal approach. I noticed you edited French spacing and I've been hoping someone who knows a little bit more than me about the subject would be prepared to give an opinion. Perhaps you've seen the the note I left on the article's talk page. I'm suspicious that nearly all this article is really just an essay that selectively quotes, and even misquotes, material to advance a position, and that nobody's bothered to query it because of the impressive number of citations and because the author has been quite agressive when challenged. To me it reads like a piece of polemic explaining why everyone should double-space and I think it takes far too much space doing so. A lot of things are cited but citations are missing from certain things that are crucial to the author's argument. He provides ten sources for his list of "the traditional rules of typesetting" but provides no evidence that such a single set of rules exists (I'm not sure it does). This enables him to argue that single spacing violates these rules. It's just an example but if you feel inclined please do take a look. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well I ended up at the article trying to find out what it meant, so I'm no expert:) It quickly became apparent that the article is actually a proxy war about how many spaces to use at the end of a sentence - an argument that I was aware of, just not by that name. (For the record, I used to use two, but now use one). Frankly I find the argument somewhat Lilliput_and_Blefuscuian: I chiefly wanted to nail the canard that this was a French term - it isn't - French Typography is a real topic, but a lot more complex than the spaces question.
- I agree entirely that the article is biased and overlong: I don't think it merits more than a statement of the meaning of the term, how it has changed over time (if indeed it has) and an outline of the position and arguments on each side. I was about to make some further edits, but grew timid at the size of the cuts I would end up making (especially since I'm no expert). I might weigh in the talk page, though.
- Have you tried asking the WP:WikiProject Typography people? Kind Regards, Mcewan (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for having a look, I hadn't actually realised that WikiProject Typography existed but I'll try there. I've been trying to draw attention to the article's problems but I too am wary about making the large cuts I think the article deserves, though I have no opinion about which style is correct. --Lo2u (T • C) 12:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Naples site
The edits on this site were definitely vandalism--that's why I checked the other two sites and noticed a pattern of seemingly replacing content on the sites with old material from the same site (which had already been edited, corrected, etc., several times).Hohenloh (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I specifically used the above heading, which applies to a clear case of vandalism on the Naples site. Please see the comments on my talk page. That's all I've got to say on this matter.Hohenloh (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Cardinalist
Yes, it's not appropriate. In the encylopedia parity project, we probably didn't originally pay enough attention to the fact that some "encyclopedias" are partially dictionaries. Although nobody is probably paying attention, I'll make this point belatedly in the project pages. At most, this should be in Wiktionary. David Brooks (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Académie des gastronomes
It is a shame - sometimes these zealots delete things before I even have the chance to see them. And I think it would have made a fine article. It was still only a stub when they deleted it - if I had been about I would have told them to HANG ON!
Redsolidarch (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject France A-class review
I see that you have done a lot of work with WikiProject France, and so decided to notify you of the following: I have proposed the development of an A-class review department for the France WikiProject. This would be a part of the project's reviews departement. See here and here. Thought you might be interested. Jordan Contribs 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Girondists?
Do you know anything about them? I really don't. But, there was a request on the project page for a rewritten lead in the article. Thought maybe you might be able to help. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject France newsletter
|
|
Thanks for your contributions to the project, Jordan Contribs 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Malteser
Thanks, I missed one. Dlohcierekim 20:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I love this edit summary. I love kippers, but have never had any from Mann. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh my friend you are in for a treat. A real Manx kipper - preferably from Moore's in Peel (where they still do everything with fire and oak shavings) is one of life's great pleasures. Just don't try and cook a real kipper indoors. Mcewan (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
AfD
If you feel personally offended by my comment, then I apologise. My comment solely referred to the assertion of self promotion. I have no problem with your opinion that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Editors don't always share the same opinions. It's why we have deletion discussion to come to a consensus. We're all here to try to make Wikipedia better and sometimes we disagree, that's okay, let's just both of us calm down a bit and go back to editing. -- KTC (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)