User talk:Violetriga/archive5

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

Archive 5 – Posts from May to end of June 2005

Thrapston move

Many thanks for helping us out with that, and I gather with quite a few other moved Northamptonshire articles too. And especially, 'Thank you', for your conciliatory tone and efficiency. Very much appreciated :-) Chris Jefferies 17:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the message. violet/riga (t) 17:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

New award

Hiya violetriga, I've awarded you something. Check your main user page for it - I hope you like it! I also took the liberty to make the font size smaller in that section to make it fit better - sorry it's not on a transparent background. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey that's fantastic, thanks! Credit where it's due, you did a lot for WP:TS and ClockworkSoul came up with a great submission. violet/riga (t) 21:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Northamptonshire name moves etc.

Hi Violet - thanks for your comments - all noted - we live and learn! Brookie:A glow in the dark 07:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on WP:TS

Seeing as there seems to be some contention about it, I've gone through and tallied all the votes properly (using the correct method of calculating approval voting). It's at Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation#Results. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism vandal

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Name moves

Hi Violetriga - Brookie here . Am confused over these name moves. You moved Northampton, Northamptonshire to Northampton but have just moved Snotwon back to Snowtown, South Australia - am I missing something on the consistency here? Brookie:The grass on the hill 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Violetriga - all seems a bit barmy - but hey-ho! Brookie:The grass on the hill 09:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

Hey Violet, congratulations on having Automatic number plate recognition featured on the main page. It looks really good, definitely one of WP's finest, and you can be rightly proud of it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! /me grins violet/riga (t) 10:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Firework

OK. Sorry. I was in a hurry improperly. Mikkalai 17:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

fa candidates

you seem to be partial on the removal of fa candidates. You kept an older with objections (British monarchy) and remove more recent ones (Portugal), that I was fixing.-Pedro 11:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC) worse: Papal Tiara -Pedro 11:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If you go to the talk page of wp:fac you can ask any questions about particular nominations there. I don't actually make any promotion/archival decisions. violet/riga (t) 11:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of having guidelines on the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:10, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to use it, but don't know how right it is to force a ruling on those that don't. I've made my comments on the page. violet/riga (t) 22:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Nagasaki

I believe you overstepped your bounds in moving Nagasaki for two reasons:

• There was not a clear consensus (7 to 5, if you count the vote you cut and pasted, 6 to 5 otherwise)
• I believe cutting and pasting other peoples' votes sets a bad precedent. If someone wants to vote, they'll vote--cutting and pasting someone's vote from an earlier vote (especially just before you move the page) is not much better than ballot stuffing.

I don't know how others feel, but I think the right thing is to move the article back to Nagasaki, Nagasaki until a clear and undisputed consensus is reached. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you. CES 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've updated my vote, and removed your comment about shifting my vote over, to confirm that my view hasn't changed on this. - MykReeve T·C 22:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Regions_of_Chile

"not moved because no consensus" -> one support no oppose is 100% consensus Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi violetriga, thanks a lot for moving. I regret that I was not on WP for some days - for to help you with double redirects. I imagine there where really a lot of them. hug and best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden

Violet, hi there! As uncomedic as the subject is, could you please take another look at Talk:Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden, especially the posts made after you voted, and consider moving the page? --Bishonen | talk 10:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Will do this evening. violet/riga (t) 14:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Years and Numerals

Dear VR,

Please read and comment on my years and dates proposal, affecting years that are also numerals. +sj + 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Yoghurt requested move

Hello. I know you are very familiar with the page move policies, and I respect your judgement in resolving page move disputes. I was suprised to see you vote to oppose the move of Yoghurt back to Yogurt, where the article started, and where it was for much of its history. Doesn't policy say primary non-stub spelling style should be respected? Cheers. Jonathunder 21:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

It's been a long day and I actually meant to go for yogurt as my prefered title. Gah. Thanks for letting me know. (/me goes to bed now) violet/riga (t) 21:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How long does 'Requested move' process take?

I see you adjudicated (?) on an RtM Belfast Agreement , so I guess you will be able to answer this question. I have opened an RtM on History of the southern Irish state -> History of the Republic of Ireland and the obvious question that one participant asks is "how long does the voting window stay open?". The next obvious question will be "who adjudicates on any consensus? and what gives her the right anyway?".

It would be ideal if you could post the reply in talk:History of the southern Irish state as it could be considered non neutral for me to convey your reply.

Thank you in anticipation. --Red King 19:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've replied there. Basically any admin can come along and adjudicate, but in practice it's usually me. The voting window is usually five days but can be shorter if the consensus is obvious. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

TYVM. It's looking to be a landslide at the moment! --Red King 23:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 08:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

new user here.

not sure why you have sent me an e-mail about vandalism

can you give more detail?

e-mail: clarkh_slc@yahoo.com

Template standardisation

Hi! After your excellent success with the template standardisation project, have you considered doing a similar competition for article pages? I think most people agree that the coffee roll design is not suitable for article space, being too gauche and bold. I think that article templates should be standardised. Any chance of this happening? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a note on the talk page there about that exact plan. I'm currently devising the structure (I think it will have to be slightly different to the last) and plan to have it start in just over a week – I'll have time to organise it all then. Thanks for the support. violet/riga (t) 20:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I took part in that discussion. D'oh. By the way, I'm supposed to be in Worcester tomorrow at a cricket match – what's the weather like? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

At the moment the rain is beating down the window! Had some lovely bursts of sun though, so hopefully there'll be enough time for a nice game for you - enjoy. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers! Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Andrea Echeverri

Hello. I saw you took care of the cut'n'paste move of the article Andrea Echeverri. Thank you for that. However, I just checked the history of the article, and it doesn't look as if you had merged histories - just deleted one of the articles, and moved the other over it. Was it so? If so, why did you? --Fibonacci 22:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not an administrator, so I don't know about the procedures used in moving articles. Please excuse my ignorance if I did just ask a stupid question. --Fibonacci 22:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. To merge histories one set must be deleted and the other page moved on top of it, the history is then undeleted. It seems that I missed that last step, probably because I was trying to do too many things at once. In this case it's only a minor history but still it needed to be corrected so thanks for letting me know and my apologies for the oversight. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. --Fibonacci 22:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrix trilogy

Why did you move it to The Matrix series? I went through a lot of effort moving it to Matrix trilogy so I'd appreciate knowing why it was moved. — Phil Welch 02:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have undone your efforts. Unfortunately there were numerous double-redirects created. As for the naming, the article is clearly about the entire series including the Animatrix, the games and the comics, and not just the three core films. Also, the T of trilogy should not be capitalised. violet/riga (t) 10:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the double-redirects and ultimately put the article at Matrix trilogy with a lowercase "T". In fact, I not only fixed the double-redirects, I even fixed just about all of the single-redirects. As for the naming, I rewrote the opening so it read "The Matrix trilogy consists of the films The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, and The Matrix Revolutions, all written and directed by the Wachowski brothers. The Matrix universe was further explored in the other media including Japanese-style animation, comics and video games." You came around 2 hours later and threw away all my hard work, assuming that I was an incompetent editor and moreover not paying any attention to what I had actually done. I'm a moderately experienced editor, but I don't know why I should put in the effort when someone is just going to come along and undo it. If regular editors aren't trusted to move pages, then make page-moving an admin-only feature. — Phil Welch 19:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything - I know you were editing with the best intentions. Some talk pages weren't moved correctly, causing problems, and there were still plenty of double redirects when I looked. I still believe that "series" is far more appropriate than "trilogy". violet/riga (t) 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

List of kings of Persia

Why did you revert? SouthernComfort 14:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added to the talk page regarding this. violet/riga (t) 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Most Iran-related articles adhere to BCE/CE. As Wikipedia allows for both conventions, I believe that it is permissible and appropriate to convert remaining articles to the BCE/CE convention for fluidity between articles. I also believe that BC/AD is inappropriate in non-Christian articles (however I am not interested in converting non-Iran related articles personally). SouthernComfort 14:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your efforts to generate consistency throughout related articles I think that the overriding rule is not to change the stylings originally used by an article. This applies to spellings and date formats. violet/riga (t) 14:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

There are three editors (including User:Zereshk who has contributed much to the article in the past) involved with Iran-related articles who are in favor of BCE/CE as opposed to two editors (see Talk:List of kings of Persia and two editors who are against (most emphatically Jguk who has never been involved in such articles). The list of kings links to several different articles (including Elamite Empire and Parthia, for example, which are BCE/CE by the original author), thus it is logical to assume that consistency in dating convention is preferable over inconsistency. BCE/CE is also standard in Near Eastern studies (Persian history is not considered part of Classical history which is related to Greco-Roman civilization). I understand your viewpoint but BC/AD is far more POV than BCE/CE, especially when it is further offensive to non-Christian editors involved with the subject. There are many ways to look at this, and I believe that if you consider all the latent implications, that you will agree that changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE is more NPOV as far as these articles are concerned. Regards, SouthernComfort 16:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Kings of Persia

Surely you know that Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and that editors should be bold. The prior, even original, state of an article is in and of itself entirely irrelevant. The questions are: is the edit accurate? Is it appropriate? Does it violate any policies? As to the changes on the Kings of Persia article, the answers are yes, yes, and no. BCE and CE are more appropriate than BC and AD because this is the history of a non-Christian countries, and a list of non-Christian kings. If you have an argument against this, fine, make the argument. But the argument cannot be that we should stay with "what the article started with." That is simply not an argument. If we always followed this argument, articles would never grow and improve. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Slrubenstein. violet/riga (t) 15:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

policy?

You wrote: "For dates and spellings we stick to what the original author used." Please provide me with your source: which policy, exactly, states this? Where in the policy, exactly, does it state this? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the exact policy page, but it's something that's been maintained for a long time. It saves arguments and is the only way we should look at BC/BCE. Your proposal did not gather support and to change articles to your POV would be incorrect. violet/riga (t) 16:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sunray is going around reverting all of the changes you made when SouthernComfort changed all of the BCs to BCE. I am reverting Sunray as I type. RickK 21:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your honesty and I understand where you are coming from in this. Please understand also that I am not trying to force anything upon anyone - I have said again and again that I do not wish to impose BCE/CE upon Christian or European history related articles. I don't like being accused (by RickK, another admin I assume) that I am waging some sort of propaganda campaign connected with the consensus. I would still like to see the policy that says I am wrong, because when I am being threatened with a block, I would like to understand why. As far as I know, and I have gone over the policy pages in recent days, I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I understand your concern over revert wars - I don't like this at all, and Jguk was the one who initiated this in the first place. Parthia, for example, had been converted by another user a few days ago and no one had a problem until Jguk arrived on the scene. I just hope you truly understand why I began these actions (which again, are not contrary to policy), and that RickK's descriptions of my intent are totally inaccurate and false. If you are saying that I should wait until the arbitration against Jguk is over, then I can understand that. And that if nothing changes afterwards, that a new proposal should be made in regards to non-Christian articles, and I have suggested this before myself in the BCE/CE debate, i.e. that WP policy should be expanded and clarified in regards to usage of BC/AD vs BCE/CE. Regards, SouthernComfort 23:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga, I thought you had chosen to stop reverting, and yet you have gone ahead and done so again to Khuzestan, which is an article I and User:Zereshk have extensively worked on, and we had agreed to maintain the BCE/CE convention. This is not appreciated. SouthernComfort 01:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I said that after that final reversion. violet/riga (t) 08:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You continue to bring up this "original author" thing. I have asked you to provide the proper quote from the relevant policy, and you have not. I explained to you why you are wrong. My proposal has nothing to do with this. People here used "BCE/CE" long before you joined us. And people have been changing BC to BCE and AD to CE — for valid reasons — long before you joined us. When someone uses BCE or CE, do not revert them unless you have a good reason. And citing "the original author" is simply not a valid reason. If this is the only reason you have, then do not do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

For spellings, at least, this has long been policy - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. (This is the ultimate fall-back, though, behind "whatever is most appropriate" and "what the article mostly uses already".) And I'm not sure that it has ever been applied to dates, specifically . -- ALoan (Talk) 17:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not like my tone. My writing may be abrupt, but I am making no judgement of you personally, I am addressing only your argument, which I think is wrong and actually dangerous. I must say, however, that I do not appreciate the fact that you keep bringing up my proposal, even after I explained to you that the state of my proposal has nothing to do with my edits. My proposal was about requiring BCE/CE to be used as NPOV dates. Although it enjoys considerable support, I acknowledge that the majority of concerned editors disagree. Although there ought to be continuing discussion in the appropriate settings, as far as I am concerned what I proposed isnot policy. Period. Indeed, you say that you are only trying to restore things to the way they were before. Alas, I think you are doing this in too literal a way. "The way things were before" should not mean reverting changes that were made after a given date — imagine what would happen if this were a general policy! I believe that "the way things were before" should mean continuing to follow the official policies. The fact that my proposal has not become policy does not mean that BCE and CE are no longer allowed at Wikipedia. As has always been the case, they should be used when a majority if not consensus of the active editors working on an article feel it is appropriate. This is certainly the case concerning the articles I am following (on Jewish or Persian topics). The people who seem to know the most about, and who have worked the most on, Jewish and Persian topics have a clear and reasonable — and strong — preference for BCE and CE. For people who have previously made no contributions to these articles, and who now change BCE/CE to BC/AD against the consensus of people working on those articles is at best senseless and goes against Wikipedia traditions. What I am doing is motivated not by any events going on at the NPOV-BCE/BC Proposal page. What I am doing is motivated only by my committment to this project of writing a high-quality encyclopedia, which among other things entails respect and when appropriate deference to editors who know what they are writing about. Look, from my point of view it sounds like you want to go backwards, reverting edits that were made in good faith, with good reason, and explained on the talk page of the article, and not objected to by any of the other editors who have made substantial contributions to those articles. I do not want to go backward. I want to go forward. "Forward" doesn't mean imposing my POV on pages, it means using sound judgement guided by our existing policies to improve articles, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, and am glad you understood mine was sincere. I think you are slightly misunderstanding SouthernComfort. He is not proposing a strict policy that all articles on Jewish and Persian topics use BCE and CE. I believe that he is (1) acknowledging that many of these articles and their editors already use BCE and CE, signaling that many people think it is appropriate, and (2) suggesting that his reasoning on the articles he is working on will apply to other articles. That is far from imposing a blanket change. I am certain that Southern Comfort would agree that if a majority of the editors who have been making substantial improvements to the contents of an article feel BCE/CE is inappropriate, he would defer to them. Anyway, perhaps you and I just disagree about privileging the "original author" and requiring discussion on talk pages before making changes. To me, the whole idea that Wikipedia is a work in progress means that almost all articles will quickly diverge from their original form (it is certainly an established principle here that no one "owns" a page, not even the "original author" — surely you agree with this?). And most edits are made without discussion — discussion occurs when someone objects. You might say that Jguk has objected. What can I say? If he objected to a change in an article on cricket, to which he has made serious contributions, I would take that objections seriously. And if an editor who has put considerable work into articles on Persia and Persia-related topics raised objections, I would take their objections seriously (and not rush to revert their reverts). But I do not think anyone who has really worked on the Persia/Iran pages has objected to SouthernComfort's changes. So Jkug, who hasn't worked on them, reverting SouthernComfort's (who has) changes just seems baseless and unreasonable to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote, "Most revert wars could be avoided if the person that did the original change stops and thinks "why was I just reverted?" and talks to the reverter on the article talk page," and in principle I agree with you. But I do think it matters who does the revert. If the revert is done by someone who has already expressed interest in the page, knowledge of the topic, and has made substantive contributions, I agree with you unconditionally. But this was not the case in the articles SouthernComfort has been working on. You say "ask why the person reverted" and I believe I, SouthernComfort, and others already know the answer to that: Jguk is opposed to any and all uses of BCE and CE. After a long and contentious debate on the talk:Jesus page, the principles agreed to a compromise to use both BC/AD and BCE/CE (a compromise I defended on that page just today), and since then I have been able to have very constructive and congenial conversations with many people with whom I had exchanged very harsh words, even some I truly regret. But Jguk explicitly refused to accept the compromise. He is categorically opposed to BCE and CE (even though our policy allows it and it has long been used in other articles). So why did SouthernComfort not stop and think "why was I just reverted?" and talk to the reverter on the article talk page? Because (I think) SouthernComfort did pause and ask why he was reverted, came up with the answer "Jguk who has made it clear he opposes any use of BCE and CE no matter what the context" and decided there was no point in having a conversation with Jguk. By the way, SouthernComfort and others, like Zora, have explained their edits on the talk pages of various articles. To my knowledge, Jguk never did. In any event, if my explanation for SouthernComforts action (or non-action) is correct, I think he was acting reasonably. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not share your analysis of Kings of Persia. On the talk page, I see only Jguk, Fornadan, and Codex Sinaiticus opposing SothernComfort. Three people, yes — but three people who made no edits to the article prior to May 21, and all of whose edits have been to change BCE to BC and CE to AD. None of them expressed any interest in the article prior to May 21, none of them have made any substantive contributions to the article, and none of them have revealed any expertise on Persian history. I thus interpret this as a campaign against BCE and CE that has nothing to do with the contents of the article, and not as a conflict between well-informed editors who have contributed to the article in the past. Zereshk supports SouthernComfort. One person, yes — but a person who has already demonstrated his or her interest in the what the article is about, knowledge about what the article is about, and a committment to improving the contents. For this reason, Zarashk's opinion for me far outweighs the combined opinions of Jguk, Fornadan, and Codex Sinaiticus. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just do not agree with you. However, I acknowledge that you have a consistent and unbiased position. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Marie-Antoine Carême

Merci beaucoup. --Mothperson 15:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem =) violet/riga (t) 15:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the press

Hi Violet. Just a newsbite for you, which i found on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Librarians project: http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/archives/2005/05/09/library_link_isnt_a_good_way_forward.html Thought you may want to know about it. Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 19:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough I spotted that the other day but didn't have time to look into it very well. I've responded now and hope they are happy with my explanations. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras

Violet

I appreciate your attempt to break the deadlock (I'm eager for it to end myself). However, I think we need to discuss what any official compromise proposal might be before opening a vote (which, I fear, would be as equally divisive and non-conclusive as the first one). Encouraging those with differing views towards a workable compromise is right, but that should be by way of discussion, not a headcount. I have therefore temporarily closed the poll and directed conversation to the talk page. I have also deleted your votes. I trust you will not take offence - as I say, I'm as eager for this dispute to end as anyone. Kind regards, jguk 22:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. I've added a little bit more to it, cheers. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC

As a user who loves their schools, I wanted to let you know about this current school FAC nomination. Please have a look and a vote. Thanks. Harro5 03:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I'm afraid I have to agree with those who've said it doesn't look good to protect a page from editing that an administrator has been reverting, especially when it is protected on the version you reverted to. Can you understand how that might appear to others? Jonathunder 21:39, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Of course, but it's just a shame that people jump to conclusions so quickly when it doesn't go their way. I've tried to explain my reasoning; basically my involvement was more of a peacekeeper than supporting either side, and that I waited for 11 hours for my WP:RFPP to be put through, which it wasn't. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Caulfield Grammar School - FAC failed?

Just some clarification - has this FAC been closed? No note or mention of this has been made on the FAC subpage. Please give me an indication either on the FAC page or my talk page. Thanks. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 08:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. I'll go to work on addressing the FAC concerns. Harro5 09:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Gustav II Adolf

Do you think you could lend a hand at Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden#Requested moves. Some users have made an utter mess of the voting procedure and refuse to change it, claiming it is somehow appropriate to the discussion. They're insisting not only to use far more alternatives than is necessary, they're also claiming that its benefitial to cast supporting votes for several different alternatives as well as opposing votes for every alternative they don't like. It would be really nice to get some support for following proper RM procedure.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your recent handling of Requested Moves. You seem very eager to push the discussions to quick decisions and you don't seem to be all that concerned with following at least a minimum of standard procedure. The most recent one at Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden is the one that worries me the most. Despite the utterly substandard voting procedure, you considered a 2 to 5 (Gene voted for both alternatives without specifying preferences) enough not only to disregard requests for a reasonably interpretable vote, but even to disregard the time limit.

You have already come off as way too rash with the votes at Talk:Atlanta, Georgia and Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party. With the Social Democrats, you did not bother to check out the move procedure and voted yourself despite completely absurd and obviously misguided motivations and with Atlanta you were pretty tactless in speeding up a vote that would've just taken a few more days to finish (even if it was obvious). Your statement at the Gustav Adolf-article about "admin's discretion" and your assurane of the chaotic vote being absolutely clear comes off sounding very high handed, especially when it seems you yourself misinterpreted the votes.

Please try to respect some sort of minimum of standard procedure instead of just pushing votes though as quickly as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lets see:

• Swedish Social Democratic Party was an admitted mistake when I didn't check my dates (I'd scrolled up without realising), but it was fixed very quickly.
• Atlanta, Georgia was blatantly obvious which way the vote was going
• The current Gustav vote is clear enough to me.

Seeing as I am the only person that does the moves for WP:RM it looks like you'll have to put up with me for a while. Complain, by all means, but that doesn't help anyone and, seeing as I am quite happy with my decision-making, it isn't about to change the way I go about things. violet/riga (t) 17:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I do appreciate your dedication to RM, and I you deserve praise for your efforts. I can only hope that you'll try to be a bit more sensitive to criticism, though. The choice is yours, but I urge you to be a bit more forthcoming with argumentation for your standpoints instead of merely responding by stating that you've made up your mind.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, you make a valid point. The vote is certainly not the best I've seen and doesn't know what it is (not approval voting, not majority/plurality) and I hope that any further supports/opposes help to make the choice clearer. I always try to be open to criticism, but when you come across a messy situation like that and try to help it can sometimes be hard to hear negative comments, especially when you don't really have any interest in the topic. However, just because I have no interest doesn't mean I shouldn't be open to the comments of those that do have a point of view about it. Cheers for the comments and thanks for calm way in which your approached the situation. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2005

Thanks for help on this template, Violetriga. Sorry to have given you needless work to do yesterday. -- 14:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, and thanks for the message. violet/riga (t) 15:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

I love your user page layout. Top marks for design. :) - Mark 12:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It has a few technical problems (on resize) but I think it looks nice. :) violet/riga (t) 21:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article facial symmetry, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, proposed page move

Violet, I'm about to put in my oar at Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, could you please take a look? I couldn't face reading all the multiplying arguments for ever more far-out spelling alternatives, and he was a pig of a king anyway. But I think I saw something on the horrible mess of a page that you may have missed, and I've suggested having Pete set up a simpler (hopefully quick) new vote. See you! --Bishonen | talk 23:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, will do. I've stayed away for a while as people keep chopping and changing their votes. Hopefully you can help the situation, so thanks for trying. violet/riga (t) 23:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RTM: Economic History of the Irish State - what gives?

You helped with the rtm of History of the southern Irish state, so may I ask for your advice again, please? I have twice entered an RTM for Economic history of the Irish state, and twice someone has deleted it. There is no record of who deleted it, nor has any decision been given. There is a clear and well argued majority in favour of moving. I am forced to consider the hypothesis that an administrator is abusing privilege. I'd be grateful if you would investigate, please? --Red King 14:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting this out. I don't wish to pursue it, but please be assured that it did happen. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action - John le Carré. I'll accept the cock-up theory. --Red King 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was it my cockup <blush>: I see your change comment "(remove {{move}} tag - should be on talk) " --Red King 16:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outrageous behaviour the Economic history of the Irish state

You cannot move a page that did not appear correctly on the WP:RM. And it is abuse of position sufficiently serious to warrant being blocked from Wikipedia to come into a vote and move the page on the basis that it had breached the consensus mark when the only reason it had done that was because you had cast your vote to move it seconds earlier. That is astonishing behaviour. I've moved the page back and am seriously considering a RfC against you for what you did. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 16:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Economic history of the Republic of Ireland. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wuerzburg/Würzburg radar move

Hi Violet,
I notice you've removed Wuerzburg radar from WP:RM due to lack of consensus. I understand why you've done this, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I was wondering what the next step is, since I still feel the page should be moved. After User:Philip Baird Shearer noted my comment about the Google search algorithm, I left a message on his talk page asking him whether he might reconsider his Oppose vote in the light of this information - I haven't had a reply yet though. Do you have any advice about actually getting a consensus? It's sad that only Philip (the original author) and myself seem to have any opinion about the article at all (much as it may seem a trivial matter) and that because of that, the page cannot be moved. Surely this runs contrary to boldness - I would have moved the article myself except that I was prevented from doing so by the target page's previous edit history.

I'd appreciate your comments, even if they are just "give up and do something else"! :) -- Yummifruitbat 21:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is frustrating to have just one person come along and disagree with you and nobody else make a comment. Just because it failed in the WP:RM move vote doesn't mean that it won't ever be moved. It does seem strange to me that the radar article is out of sync with the town, but I can also understand the "common name in English" reasoning. Since BanyanTree has recently edited the article you may wish to ask him for his input, or perhaps find someone else that has an interest in the subject. Hopefully PBS will get back to you soon.

If it helps, I'd like to thank you for your approach to this as I feel that you have handled the situation both correctly and admirably. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have communicated with BanyanTree already, which was a good move. I'm not sure if you'd like to ask him again for his opinion on the move, but if he didn't express one previously I assume he has no preference. It looks like you'll have to fall back on the discussions with PBS, I'm afraid. violet/riga (t) 23:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pluggable Authentication Modules

Greetings, I was just reading your note about the lack of consensus regarding the move of the 'Pluggable authentication module' to 'Pluggable Authentication Modules'. I think there is a consensus, and I believe that the name should be changed according to the UNIX standard that the entry is regarding. There is plenty of precedent that shows the proper name is plural, from the Sun standard, to the FreeBSD and Linux documentation. -- Alexander Guy 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there just isn't consensus. Radiojon is still opposing the suggested move and so do I. violet/riga (t) 06:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By opposing the move, you both show that: a) you don't know what you're talking about and b) shouldn't be in any position of power regarding the topic. The precedent has already been established by the developers who actually wrote the software, and the writers who defined the standard. PAM means something very specific in the UNIX world; it is not a concept or general framework, but a set of implementations and standards. Alexander Guy 23:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a) I do and b) that has nothing to do with this. I've explained my reasoning on the page, and I'm sorry but I believe that to be the best name. violet/riga (t) 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you don't understand is it doesn't matter what you think, as the standard has been set by someone else. Wikipedia is a documentation effort, not a soap box. The definition of Pluggable Authentication Modules isn't debatable. All you're doing is adding to the inaccuracy of the information presented. Alexander Guy 07:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does matter as I clearly see it a different way. The term is used as a singular when part of a phrase (in conjunction with "framework", for example) and should therefore maintain standard conventions. violet/riga (t) 08:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article virtual crime, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Your message

We'll probably have to agree to disagree over the protection issue; as for the rest, it's already forgotten. I certainly wouldn't let it affect any future dealings we have, which I very much hope will be amicable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment Template

I saw the Comment template in use and liked it and then found that it couldn't be found cataloged anywhere. When I asked about it at WP:HD it was suggested that it be entered at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Talk_namespace. I don't feel confident to put it there so could you do it for us? Thanks. hydnjo talk 15:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good point - I've done that now. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 16:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I am up for adminship. Since we have not had the best of interactions, I feel it only right that I let you know in case you want to oppose my nomination. Especially since you will only be around a limited amount while the nom is current I thought I should let you know here. Guettarda 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

You have commented on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Could you share your opinion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alessandra? —Lowellian (talk) 00:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Apology, Apology

I'm real sorry about the note that was put on Jmabel talk page. My roommate was bored today, and he decided to get on my computer and stir up trouble. I hope that my apology will be accepted as we continue to move on for the Wiki cause. Flgook 22:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I especially appreciated your vote and your comment, given our less than ideal prior interactions. Guettarda 12:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Regions_of_Chile

Hi Violet/riga,

I would need your help again on Regions of Chile (Talk:Regions_of_Chile). One region was moved back because there seems to have been a move before that was not made in the proper way. If you can do it apropiate now, this would be nice.

Concerned region: Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena

best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done – I've merged the history too. violet/riga (t) 17:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your admin work!

Hi Violet / Riga: Thank you very much that you've moved the pages Swiss German and Bernese Alps I had requested. I already feared that for lack of interest everything would stay as it was! -- j. 'mach' wust ^{ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x} 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem - I'd not been able to do my usual work at WP:RM so I'm sorry it took so long! violet/riga (t) 23:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologise - for your efforts on WP:RM, you are one of the unsung heros of Wikipedia. I looked in while you were away but just didn't have the motivation to do many of them. In recognition of your sterling work on WP:RM, and also in driving forward template standardistation, you are my hero of the day and here is a gold star. (I hope you don't mind being awarded a Soviet honour). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That's made my day (which has thus far been long and dull). violet/riga (t) 12:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. You get more than your fair share of brickbats and hardly any praise: well, I think you do an excellent job. The backlog on WP:RM after only a few days shows just how much work you are doing. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An alternate eras proposal

I have created an alternate eras proposal. The impetus for this proposal is that I believe additions to the era guidelines need to address actual issues of style (as well as behavior). Of course, building consensus on issues of style is easier said than done. I've done my best to make a compelling case for what seems to be the most rational solution. Hopefully others will agree. Feel free to offer feedback if you have any thoughts on my proposal. I'm not quite sure how to handle the situation of having competing proposals, however. If you have any thoughts on this, please visit my personal talk page. I suppose as long as we don't have voting going at the same time, both of our proposals should be compatible. I.e. if your proposal is voted on first, I will change mine to reflect it. And if my proposal is voted on first, your proposal could just amend any changes made by mine. Cheers. Kaldari 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR "Warning" Warning

Okay, thanks - but this person keeps inserting an unverified religion into various pages. He has done it a couple times using different IP addresses, and refuses to come to Talk. I am not usually agressive in these kinds of things, but as the vandalism defender on the world religions page for the last six months, I might be a little terse, so thanks for the reminder. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate

Seeing you proposed Arb's case regarding Irate, I thought you might be interested in this.

On Meta, Irate created the "m:WikiPedia Liberation Front". I informed Angela of it, it was deleted, or RfD'd (I forget exactly). Then, Irate posted "Do you mind burning your own books." on my Meta talk page, and recreated the said page on Meta, with the text "To liberate WikiPedia from the clutches of those who see it as crucial ego support. Obviously this cannot be done in the ful view of the ArbComm or it's running dogs." Aphaia put the page up for deletion, and Irate has began to live up to his name on the RfD.

Your comment on this deletion process would be much appreciated. Sad to see old cases re-emerge. -- user:zanimum

RfA for Sn0wflake

Thank you for supporting my nomination, despite whatever minor conflict we might have had in the past. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 03:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your Userpage design

I think it looks great... I hope you don't mind. :) --Fito 16:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That looks great! Nice to see someone else using it too! :) violet/riga (t) 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stub

As per Wikipedia_talk:Suspend_use_of_stub_icons I got the impression that icons are liked in templates, and every stub template has one, why revert my change? Elfguy 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

...with American Idiot. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem – I'm hoping it will have settled down now. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:TS

• Yes, you're right: the sentence that you put in was so unclear that I indeed misread it. May I recommend that you elaborate, perhaps in a separate section, on what the new proposal is all about?
• The project page is for information, not for pointing out discussion. If you want to direct discussion, I would expect this such a recommendation as you did on the talk page of WP:TS instead of on the projectpage. Wim van Dorst June 28, 2005 21:28 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability

I've recently created a Usability WikiProject. The intent is to make Wikipedia easier and more pleasant to use by encouraging things like accessibility, Cross-browser support, standardized templates, and so on. If you're interested, please have a look at it, and see if perhaps you'd like to join. –M^T 29 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see that you've joined! –M^T 30 June 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)