This is an archive of past discussions with User:TeleComNasSprVen. 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 main page.

July 2010

Talkback

Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at Forty two's talk page.
Message added 16:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Animal Farm

This is in response to the message you posted on my talk page about citing a source for the statement I added to the article Animal Farm, that Frederick represents Hitler.

The reason why I didn't cite a source is that I felt that the truth of the statement was self-evident given the other facts. It's not necessarily obvious to someone who has read the book, but I think it's a reasonable expectation that if the reader is told that Frederick represents Hitler, he/she will then look back at the other facts presented by Frederick in the paragraph. Indeed, it is well-known that Hitler initially forged an alliance with the USSR, then went ahead and attacked it anyway (just as Frederick "buys wood from the animals for forged money and later attacks them..."), and of course the part about throwing dogs into a furnace is obvious.

My understanding was that the importance of citing sources lies in the fact that readers will want to be able to verify the truth of statements presented in articles. But I feel that in this case the verification can be performed without reference to an external authority.

bbi5291 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. According to WP:OR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." and "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources."

It being not necessarily obvious to someone who has read the book is precisely why it's original research. And I think you've got it backwards; the reader is supposed to look at the facts presented by Frederick before concluding that he is a representation of Hitler. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Erm...

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

^^^ Another one.

Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats...

		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar
		Wow! You're already at 1,000 edits. (Wait till you get to 10,000 and feel like you haven't accomplished anything!) I look forward to great things from you! —mono(how's my driving?) 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEXing your userpage

I noticed that your user page [WP:UP#OWN|may not be appropriate]] to be indexed by external search engines as presently written. As a precaution, I have tagged this page as {{noindex}}, which allows editing but minimizes the page's inclusion in search engine results. If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note here and we can discuss it. Thank you. —mono(how's my driving?) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I want to make sure I got this on right before I do anything stupid. If I don't place this template at the top of my userpage, the links and my associated userpage show up on a Google search? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Google is not supposed to index user pages, user talk pages and their subpages, but sometimes it does. Adding the __NOINDEX__ magic word (or the template referred to above) prevents indexing, accidental or otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could...

Do my user review?? Thanks :) It's Me^{(Speak to me)}~~What have you done?~~ 10:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. :) Mr little irish 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah! It's alright. You're welcome. But you and I must remember to do other editors' reviews as well. I believe there's a backlog of them that haven't been commented on for days, perhaps weeks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do some reviews when I get some time, I'm currently revising for another Microsoft exam so I'm just editing while im waiting for an operating system to install on a Virtual PC. Oh and I have you watched so its all good about the {{talkback}} template. I might just be one of your talk page stalkers xD. Mr little irish 14:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then. Everything seems settled. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Help desk

Thanks for the message. hdg levels = heading levels, obviously. I can understand what you were trying to do, but the best practice IMHO is not to "sub-head" unless the sections are clearly related to the same issue. These questions, although asked by the same user, were not obviously related to one another, so IMHO it's best to leave them as separate sections. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth the bandwidth, change it back. – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just meant that in the scheme of things it's not worth the bandwidth to discuss it, so you can revert my changes. I am easy either way. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Status

I just noticed your status at the top of the page, where can I get that from? Thanks. Mr little irish 14:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I had almost forgotten about that during my Wikibreak (which is still ongoing by the way, just a bit slower); that's why it's permanently on "sleeping". But anyway, to address your concern, there's a template called {{Statustop}} and you can follow the instructions on there. Don't forget to create this subpage Special:Mypage/Status in your sandbox as well, according to the instructions. Let me know if you get confused along the way. Cheers, :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

I reverted your changes to User talk:Slakr. If that user wants to change their archive timer or unarchive comments, they can do so. But it generally isn't cool for someone else to make those decisions for them. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave the archive time alone. But I want to ask you to leave my reverting Miszabot alone. I'm trying to revive an old and unresolved discussion. I previously asked Slakr if Sinebot could be used for other Wikipedias. The subject has continually been asked over and over again, and Slakr has not responded (he is probably busy in real life at the moment). If I undo Miszabot's archive and anchor the discussion, it'll save a lot of time and trouble, rather than having to add a new section linking back to an old one in the archives that will be archived again, and then adding another section after that, ad infinitum. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I don't agree. If Slakr is allowing the discussion to lapse for any variety of reasons, then my suggestion is that you find another way to get the question answered, not fiddle with his talk page in order to make sure the discussion stays up. Send an email or ask at Wikipedia:Bot_requests for some help. You can undo my re-archiving it and leave a newer time stamped comment if you really want, but it just doesn't seem worth it. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of redirects

Hi, I am declining many of your nominations for speedy delete of redirects, as most of them are plausible, and looking at the stats people do use them occasionally. Overall Wikipedia is better off with redirects even if they are only used sometimes to try to understand some kind of word or concept. Also redirects created in 2005 or even 2007 are not counted as recently created. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Graeme Bartlett. Thanks for notifying me; although I have them automatically on my watchlist after tagging them for CSD. I appreciate all your efforts to review them. Looking back over some of them, I realize I have been a bit reckless in my recent spree. I used RD3 as a sort of generic reason, and I didn't read over the "recently created" part of it. I know it must have been quite time-consuming, but there are a few redirects that I want to contest and have you comment on them. I'll get right to them:

- You deleted this redirect but kept this one. I thought the former was more search-friendly.
- This redirect (and associated ones) seemed like quite impossibly long search terms and implausible redirects to me. If it is plausible, could you show me these stats for how often the page is used? I would like to see them.

If you have the time, could you review the other redirects on my contributions page as well? Thanks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The quick brown fox one with the dot on the end was the same as without the dot, so no point in that one. If you click on the article history and click on Page view statistics at the top right, you can see how many views per month. If there are more than one then it shows that someone went there, even without a link. I am not so sure about those formulas with sin etc because they are hard to type and do not even show correctly on my browser! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The foreign language redirects can be useful if you find the foreign name but don't know the English one. Unicode alphabet redirects may be useful if you could find the character in the article it points to, it could give a bit more clue if you found the character and cut and pasted it into the search box. Though I am looking to see if ther are more useful redirects for some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered the redirects some time ago during my spree. You can see here that I'm now trying to fix up the redirects and replace the CSD tags with the category {{R from alternative language}} and so forth. BTW, is this considered unicode as well? And I can't find the statistics; I'm currently using Google on Monobook. Also, could you clarify your point about the phrase being "the same as without the dot"? What I meant was that I wondered why you deleted one similar redirect without deleting the other. Lastly, the lengthy equations don't seem to be well-used search terms; hence the CSD tags. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that [1] is a unicode character. that dot thing was the full stop on the end of the sentence. We already had the sentence without the full stop and I deleted the sentence with the full stop. Those equations with weird unicode characters in them can probably go, as no one will ever type them.and now there is a prod on them, but simple things like /0 are safe enough to stay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the enlightening response! :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have discovered User:Graeme Bartlett/stupid stuff. That soft hyphen went in there because of having an invisible title. I suspect that I cannot link to it. Do you know how to link to it %C1%AD in unicode I think. Thie page has things that made me laugh, but most of it get deleted because it is inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't link or access the redirect either without appending &redirect=no to the end of my url. Unfortunately I don't speak Unicode either. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Less than 3 and PP&M

I don't see how these could be plausible redirects. One of them targets to List of emoticons which have nothing to do with being less than 3 or any part of math, and the other can be religiously discriminatory. I would like to contest the removal of the PRODs placed on their respective pages. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. R3 only applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Neither of those redirects is particularly recent, and neither is implausible. PP&M is an acronym and as such is entirely plausible–if you have any other concerns, you might wish to raise them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. <3 might be interpreted as "less than 3" by the less tech savvy, so it is certainly not entirely implausible–although I grant that is probably not a common misconception. The criteria for speedy deletion are very narrowly defined, largely because the community has never felt that admins should have a carte blanche when it comes to deletion. There are many examples such as these where odd redirects don't meet the strict definition of R3, and these should be taken to RfD or put through the PROD prcoess. If you think that there is a problem with the criteria, you may wish to make a request for comment. Let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll bring them to RfD. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 19:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Antipasta

Hello TeleComNasSprVen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Antipasta, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mono, is that a template? Graeme Bartlett and I have been discussing this matter in the section above; you might want to comment there instead next time. I'm not patrolling new pages; I simply stumbled upon old ones. But thanks for your concern anyways. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Aß

Hello TeleComNasSprVen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Aß, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Aßaßination

Hello TeleComNasSprVen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Aßaßination to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 01:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Bouchee

Hello TeleComNasSprVen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Bouchee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 01:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Cheri Pilteo

Hello TeleComNasSprVen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cheri Pilteo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Ching chang chong

Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Ching chang chong to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. —mono 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you tag another page:

Please, please review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. They are surprisingly narrow, and I've had to decline quite a few. For example, R3 is for recently created redirects only. Be more careful in the future, and also use TW (it's quite helpful). —mono 01:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes! I haven't tagged a single page since my talk with Graeme Bartlett above, so rest assured! You might want to follow the discussion in the above section instead.

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not likely to use TW, but I'll consider it. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really helpful. To be honest, if you actually want to learn CSD, do it the other way around. —mono 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Isn't it better to have the redirects at RfD than PROD? Instructions for TW usage seem very lengthy at this page... :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... wouldn't this be considered a not-likely typo? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

←PROD is better, because I don't think anyone needs to discuss anything. The deleting admin will use judgement, and they really aren't controversial. For TW, just follow the instructions here. About my comment earlier, to learn CSD, patrol tagged pages with CSDH. (just a recommendation) —mono 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... according to my prefs, TW is compatible with Firefox but not Google, which is what I'm using. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

it is. I'm in chrome now, so click the check mark, then visit the sandbox. —mono 01:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... why do I have rollback (here with TW)? BTW, could you also answer the several questions I posted in the above section with Graeme Bartlett? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

TW incorporates a rollback feature. I find the actual thing more explosive, though. —mono 03:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Baseball_Bug's page

I assume based on your answer that I made a mistake in my interpretation of what Many World's theory stated? I expected as much, but then, I'm a poli sci major. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I don't understand the ups and downs much of it myself. I was merely making an observation (about how you could be my cat...). :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, well, as I understand it, for every action not taken, there is a parallel universe that exists where said action was taken, hence an infinite number of realities. And back to my original idea, breaking the 4th wall in real life can be quite entertaining. :)

Soxwon (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a thought! That is, if we are just a program... :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that the dialogue and acting in my show are terrible. I just keep hoping that I'm not replaced by a chihuahua. Soxwon (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Crint Eastwood and D77t and D78t

You have new messages

Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 15:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Proposed Deletion of Aß

Hello TeleComNasSprVen. I have removed your Proposed deletion of the page Aß because PROD should not be used to propose redirects for deletion. To quote from the policy page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process . . . Deletion of other pages, including redirects, should be proposed at the appropriate deletion page" Moreover, the ProD had already been declined by an administrator, User:Fetchcomms, and ProD templates should not be re-added after having been contested. If you still feel the redirect should be deleted, you may open a discussion at WP:RFD. Intelligentsock 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Did you read the comments in the above sections? We were just having a discussion about my tagging the redirects, so you might want to participate in it. I became aware of this policy a little while ago (see this diff) and Mono first PRODded it, not me. ~~I think I have enough people creating new sections and pestering me all the while.~~ :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, but only after I had posted this message. I was just making sure you knew that Proposed deletion should not be used for redirects. I am not trying to "pester" you; we all make mistakes, but the real challenge is learning from them, and hopefully you've learnt something new from this. Cheers, Intelligentsock 00:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry if it seemed like I attacked you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bridgeplayer#Touché re Bouchee

I have now extended sufficient courtesy to you on my talk page. If you continue to have concerns then:

If it is about my closures of RFDs then take them to WP:MFD or WP:DRV as appropriate.
If it is any of my other actions then take them to WP:RFC.

Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with Bridgeplayer that the correct forum for discussing disputed deletions is Deletion Review. At that page, the question of whether the deletion was improper or not can be considered properly by those with experience of such matters. If there is a dispute about Bridgeplayer's other actions, since 3O is an informal process, and he has stated a preference for a WP:RfC in that situation, I can see no reason not to accept that, and move forward to an RfC if further opinion is required.—Anaxial (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anaxial (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it helps to resolve matters, I am happy to acknowledge that the RFD tag should not be removed before closing the RFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)