User talk:Grayshi/Archive/05

Tropical cyclone regeneration

They can, actually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I don't think I expressed myself correctly. I no longer see any trace of Ana; what I see is an entirely different cloud formation. Might be wrong on this, but I do believe that the remnants of Ana pretty much disappeared hours ago. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to split

Sorry if this is a n00b question. How does one split/move/merge articles without copying and pasting? Thanks. Asoer (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said sloppy because it was rather... well, sloppy. Copy and paste is fine for most purposes, and I think there's a function that admins can perform to merge page histories or something like that. GraYoshi2x►^talk 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Resource Hacker

The article Resource Hacker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software per WP:PRODUCT. No independent reliable secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Algébrico (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian Calligraphy

User GraYoshi2x, I'm currently engaged in a discussion with user Asoer on whether East Asian Calligraphy is "calligraphy" or not. You've contributed to the article on East Asian Calligraphy before, so I wonder if you could have a look in. [1]

Bathrobe (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting all San Diego Trolley articles

I hate to be blunt about this, but your redirection of all San Diego Trolley station articles are disruptive, and not only to articles related to San Diego Trolley stops. They also disrupt Amtrak and NCTD-related articles. You should be more selective when it comes to deciding which ones are notable and which one aren't, otherwise it gives you the appearence of having some bias against that system. ----DanTD (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not, and they don't. I don't care if they're near an airport or next to the most famous statue in the world; if it's not the station itself that has notability or something of particular interest, I redirect it. There's no "bias" to be seen here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general concensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains is that they all have notability. The fact that some of them are built to serve important facilities makes those even more worthy of keeping. ----DanTD (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I find that ridiculous. I fail to understand how one insignificant station is somehow more notable and suitable for inclusion on the wiki than that huge chain-store supermarket 3 blocks down, which would get CSD'd citing the same notability issue. Whatever "consensus" there is (I don't see a discussion anywhere) looks to be outdated and just outright... ridiculous. GraYoshi2x►^talk 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we shouldn't have an article for each of Chicago 'L', Washington Metro or all 468 New York City Subway stations either? Yet, they exist, and have for some time. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so there's really no reason not to have a series of articles about the individual elements of important transportation infrastructure.oknazevad (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oknazevad has a point. Also, the fact that you rate railroad stations with supermarket chains and ice cream stands seems to be a major problem with you. Oh, by the way there are shopping mall articles on Wikipedia. ----DanTD (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? And what's the point of piggybacking on Oknazevad's comment just to attack me? I've been perfectly civil and all you've been doing is saying I have mental problems and something's wrong with me. If you don't stop this I'm taking the issue to WP:WQA. I should be asking what your problem is, not the other way around. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments in your edit history say it all. Also, I never really intended to attack anybody, and if I seem like it, I apologize for now. All I'm trying to do is explain that most of your redirects are disruptive. ----DanTD (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuners

Regarding [2]. You should still list radio and TV tuners on the dab page indented by one asterix after the tuner (electronics) entry. The purpose of a dab page is to quickly guide the reader to the page they are looking for, not to form any sort of heirarchy. Also, there should be only one blue link per entry - see MOS:DAB. SpinningSpark 06:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled section)

Hi there, just wondering why you deleted the external links on the Rip Current page a week ago? In particular, you deleted a link to an Australian site that has produced an educational YouTube video on rip currents that has been winning safety awards. If you could put this link back up, it would help save lives. thanks very much 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr rip (talk • contribs)

See WP:EL. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender article

Hello, GraYoshi2x. Though you removed this some days ago, I added it back and then tweaked it. Are you okay with it now? It was not really one long quote, and I feel, that in its now tweaked state, it should be in the article. I have to say, though, that I tweaked other parts of the article as well after that, and this section is not in the same place it was before; it is higher. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's in far better shape now. I removed it because I felt it was more or less circular thinking and relied extensively on opinion and first-person tone. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was pretty awful. When I restored it and looked at it more closely, I was like, "No wonder GraYoshi2x removed it." Still, I feel that an attempt to improve things like that should at least be attempted first. That's what I went for. Thanks for taking a second look at it and giving me your opinion about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverted again

I reverted you again at Demosaicing; both the section removal and the change of common to ocassional seem inappropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate how? Disagreeing with an edit because you have a different viewpoint does not make that edit "inappropriate" or "unsupportable". Be careful in your word choice. And anyways, WP:BRD, which you quoted in the last revert, says that it is "not a justification for imposing one's own view". GraYoshi2x►^talk 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from List of OLED manufacturers

Hello GraYoshi2x, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of OLED manufacturers has been removed. It was removed by DicksonDickson with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DicksonDickson before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
Features and admins: Approved this week
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Womyn

I have reverted your redirect again because the target article Feminism does not contain the information found in the Womyn article. Please start an AfD or RfC on the talk page of the article if you are determined to get it deleted; it is not fair to simply redirect without asking for outside input (not everyone who has contributed to the article has it on their watchlist and thus may not be aware that it has suddenly disappeared). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of OLED manufacturers

Hi. Please do not recklessly redirect pages like you did on List of OLED manufacturers. Last AfD closed as keep; not as merge nor as delete. If you feel a merge is warranted, fine, but please discuss it on the relevant talk pages before. Thanks. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "reckless" and it wasn't my own idea either. Abductive was the one who suggested that there should be a brief sentence in the main article; in fact, there was nearly a paragraph's worth of information on it. In this case there is a lack of need for discussion when it's just there. Maybe I should clarify the parts in the article first, but to me it's clear enough. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again. You wrote "no need to discussion for common sense" in your edit summary, but if editors disagree, it means that your common sense is not common enough. Plus, the AfD closed as keep -blanking the list and redirecting it is clearly against the meaning of the AfD.

Now, about the article: The problem is that the OLED article does not list all the manufacturers of the list. Second, the list and the article have different purposes: there is no reason for the article to include all the OLED manufacturers (which will be more and more, it seems), but IMHO there is a reason for the existence of a quick reference list to the manufacturers. Now, please don't answer me here, but answer on the talk page of the relevant pages and let's seek consensus properly. Thank you! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have included a list within the article. As such, I feel the information is there, it is a reasonable compromise and I won't re-revert again. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my commet above seemed a personal attack to you, it was absolutely not my intention. I am only perplexed at how you refused all my appeals to discussion and how you ignored -practically, if not technically- the AfD outcome, and I was commenting on that, inviting you to dialogue on the relevant article talk pages. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring against the consensus in May 2009

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/May 2009#Naming convention for Chinese foods and usages of Wikitionary You were the only one against the usage of Wikitionary, so please drop the meaningless edit warring with Badagnani.--Caspian blue 19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There technically was no consensus. I've tried to balance it out and remove the linking from places where taking the entries out of context would be misleading. For many articles I have no problem with the linking, but ones like Kung Pao chicken is pushing it a bit. Besides, he's blanking out other unrelated edits of mine with a simple edit summary which is completely inappropriate. GraYoshi2x►^talk 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to open a new discussion on the matter to any appropriate place since you're not happy with the current situation, but well, the formed consensus at that time favored Badagnani's claim.--Caspian blue 19:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HHI

See Talk:Hyundai Heavy Industries#Timelines. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung

Hi, This regards your recent edits to the Samsung article. Please refer to Talk:Samsung#recent edits. Thanks. Pds0101 (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that you review the provided references before removing content. for samsung, please see this table also. thanks.... Prince Waters (talk page) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile industry in India

Hi, please protect the Automobile industry in India article from User:Jasepl. He is trying to revert it to older versions. Thanks (203.115.93.144 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please see this User:Jasepl, he is vandalizing the Automobile industry in India article. (203.76.185.13 (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't realise an IP socks of an indefinitely blocked sock (Marcosino Pedros Sancheza) of an indefinitely blocked sock (Druid.raul) of an - you guessed it! - indefinitely blocked puppetmaster were entitled to even edit, let alone make demands! Jasepl (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Ashur

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Ashur. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Except you are going against all policies and guidelines I have stated so far. You, in fact, are the one who is mainly trying to edit war for the sake of it. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I know it is a little late but I wanted to say thanks for cleaning up my talk page when people leave garbage on it. Cjones132002 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Developed country

Be careful, you are close to violating the 3RR rule. I don't know the exact situation that is going on there but you and a couple of other people keeping deleting then replacing content, not considered blatant vandalism which can not protect you from the 3RR exemptions. Try discussing it on the talk page. Thanks and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you were reverting multiple times in the article Developed country. Just as a heads up other than the 3RR advisory you already received, I'm suspecting that there's a little sock puppetry going here (I'm not talking about the multiple editors who keep reverting you to make it seem like consensus is against you. They all seem to be the same person). I'm talking about sock puppetry by blocked user User:Tnaniua who I'm suspecting are the people who keep reverting you. Here's the link to their sock puppetry case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tnaniua. Hopefully this information will be useful to you. I'm planning to start an SPI on these users during the weekend unless you start one earlier. Hopefully this will ease the situation. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-warring with Badagnani

Granted, he's not even bothering with edit summaries, but it would be helpful to start a centralized discussion of the dispute (linking to the past discussions), and refer to the new discussion in your edit summaries.

I've only skimmed the past discussions you've had on this, and don't recall any clear consensus or even a clear discription of the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lamest edit warring

Look, as I've said, the discussion at WT:China favored the usage of Wiktionary and its linking which were Badagnani's view, and you're the only one against the consensus. I've said, open a "new" discussion, since you're so against the consensus. The endless edit warring with Badagnani is viewed as you want to make WP:POINT. In addtion, there is a strong possibility that you can be accused of WP:Harassing Badagnani. You already have a history doing so even on Commons. If you do not stop the tendentious edit warring, I will get administrators to look into the case as the next step for WP:DR.--Caspian blue 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WP:AN3 --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about links to Wiktionary

Hello GraYoshi2x. I am investigating the case which was just filed about your edits at the 3RR noticeboard. If you are, as suggested above, reverting all these articles against a consensus established at WT:CHINA you will be blocked if you continue. The previous consensus seems to be here. If you join the discussion at the noticeboard and promise to stop edit warring about links to Wiktionary you may be able to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to say this before the AN3 was filed, but I was also just on my way to warn you here. Edit-warring is unacceptable and you have a long history of doing it with several unrelated users; furthermore, edit-warring across so many pages at once is very unacceptable. If I see any further large-scale reverting taking place without a discussion, I will block whoever is doing it (whether it's you, Badagnani, or both)--and that's if no one else blocks you first.

The appropriate way to deal with this dispute is to start up a centralized discussion at a talk page (of one of the articles, or of WP:CHINESE, etc.) and reach a consensus before making any further edits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CHINA#Wiktionary redux

Your participation is expected to end the dispute.--Caspian blue 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]