User talk:Jared/archive2

West Granby

Thanks for the info. I was referrring to an actual incorporated town. You are probably referring to an unincorporated village/community/place. Anyway, good work on the Route 20 page.

Deletion page

Hey Jared, unfortunately I'm not an administrator (yet) so I don't have the authority to clear out that discussion. I would forget about its existence because they will probably clear it automatically in the next few days now that the problems with the page in question have been remedied. Thanks for that Olympics concensus page! Hopefully this will get everything worked out and garner institutional support from admins to make it Wikilaw ;) --Caponer 00:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well thanks anyway. Yeah, this page should sort everything out between everyone. I hope. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 00:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norway at the 1994 Olympics

I'll try to keep on working on it, but it's definately nowhere near complete. Thus the conundrum...Is any article truly not under construction? Karm a fist 12:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking used in Canada

Thank you for your message. I am not sure whether my contribution should be on the Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions page or the discussion page on the 2006 winter olympics medal count. I have no contribution for the actual ranking itself. My contribution concerned the following passage:

"The "Rank By Total" table shows the country's rank in terms of total number of medals won. For ties, the number of golds is taken into consideration next and then the number of silvers. If, after the above, countries are still tied, equal ranking is given and they are listed alphabetically. This is the system used in the U.S. and Canada."

I believe (I'm not sure, though) that the last sentence should be changed, because Radio-Canada does not use this system, so I believe it to be possible that this system is only used in English-Canada. Should such discussion in fact be on the Olympic conventions page? Blur4760 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic addons

Hello, I understand where you're coming from, but consider this. There is absolutely no reason why the information I added should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. It is iformative information, and I thought Wikipedia was about that. If it doesn't belong on that page, I suggest we come up with a compromise, but please don't remove my contributions. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to threaten me, but I am glad you've accepted my compromise. Compromise is important for Wikipedia to work, especially considering all the bureaucracy it has. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Olympic conventions

I appreciate your creation of this page, and I think that by gathering the community of editors for Olympic pages together into one place to vote on standards that should be used in order to unite all of the topics with some basic guidelines to follow, but here are some problems that I've identified with the page, and I think that it can be drastically improved by fixing these. Please let me know what you think.

Lack of enumerated goals/purposes. This is the first thing that needs to be done right away. There needs to be a opening paragraph that lists exactly what the purpose of the page is. Is it there to provide suggestions for future edits? Will pages be changed to look like this if the guidelines established have not been followed? Is everything not spelled out on the page against Wikipedia policy for editing Olympics pages? There needs to be a list of exactly what the page means to editors who plan to follow it and to editors who don't follow it, and it needs to be shown how powerful the page is, whether it is official Wikipedia policy or merely suggested guidelines.

Bedlam. There is far too much happening on the page. It is getting difficult to tally the votes because every vote is a paragraph long, and for every vote there is a question or comment discussing it. My suggestion would be to move ALL discussion to the chat page, and on the main page only leave supportvotes, opposevotes, and neutralvotess with the voter's signature, with no discussion listed, or maybe allow one line per vote if you want.

Poll oversaturation. From now on new polls should have to pass some kind of test on the discussion page before being moved to the main page, and the rules for a poll moving to the main page need to be made clear. When a format is being voted on, a second, contradictory format cannot be polled at the same time until the first loses. Maybe something as simple as having a poll get a second nomination would suffice. Simple rules like this will make all of our lives easier.

There needs to be rule and order on that page if it is going to be used as a reference for editors. Please think about my suggestions and let me know if I'm out of line, or if you have more ideas, or what. Thanks. --Josilot 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you've got things under control. My original idea was to have a purpose/goals section on the front page and then a closed poll summary (which doesn't exist yet) and then a list of open polls after that, with just support, oppose, or neutral, and signature of each person. From that point, all that's left to fix is the talk page with what is allowed. As far as discussion, pretty much anything should be allowed. And have a separate nomination for new polls section maybe. I have no idea how to format everything the best way. Maybe each poll on the main page should link to it's appropriate section on the talk page? I don't know.--Josilot 22:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I had in mind for the polls on the main page: User:Josilot/Sandbox. You can do it as you see fit, but to reduce confusion you should copy all the votes from the previous polling to the main page where applicable. I'm not sure that voting should be reopened until this has been done, to completely remove confusion.--Josilot 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be mad at me, but it was too confusing to have people voting on both pages or either page or whatever they wanted. I moved all of the voting to the talk page. The project page can be used to summarize the outcomes of the votes.--Josilot 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Votingtemplates

Hello, I noticed that you created this template, and several sub templates. While this is the system used on Commons, you should be aware that the English Wikipedia has decided that such templates should not be used. You can see the original deletion debate here. As recreations of an already deleted template, your ones could, in theory, be speedy deleted by any admin. - SimonP 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for a response from me for what do to about this, the easy way to make this not a problem would be to edit the five templates and remove the images, which should remove every use of the images on that page, which I believe should conform to SimonP's bit of information. I'm gonna think about your other questions for a little bit before coming up with what I think the plan should be.--Josilot 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appreciation

I wish to convey my appreciation for your recent revert and comment regarding User:Them medals' edit on the Total Olympics medal count page. Thank you. --Kalsermar 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppets

I am afraid I am not an admin or I would've done something by now. How does one report this to an admin? I'd be glad to do it. As for evidence, I'll go do some digging myself as well.--Kalsermar 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm on it.--Kalsermar 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, place it and I'll back you up on it with evidence. Let me know which page that template goes on so I can follow the discussion and add to it. Thanks for your help as well!--Kalsermar 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some evidence.--Kalsermar 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on adding the templates, hopefully it will attract the attention of an admin. I'll have to go offline soon so I may not be able to do much more until tomorrow.--Kalsermar 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sockpuppets

Please see WP:CHECK for ways of persuing this. Thank you! Regards, --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]