Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

"Phases" of my Talk Page

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

  • Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
  • The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
  • The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.[1]
  • The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).[1]
  • The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.[1]
    • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
      I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
  • The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
  • The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
  • The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
  • The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
  • The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
  • As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
    • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
    • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.
      If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.

Notes re history irregularities.

  1. ^ a b c Phases 6-8 accumulated to excessive length as an oversize page, and were separated into these phases using edit-history splits.

Mixed-topic Archives

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Note that the Mixed-topic Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Topical Archives

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

Note that the Topical Archives are content-only archives, and the page history entries of the corresponding individual contributions will be found as part of the page history of User talk:Jerzy/Phase 00.

Multiply-named section American warning"> American"> American warning">

Former Titles of the Section that This Section Concerns:

Talk page work
Talk page work > American warning

This section still awaits testing as the target for the following lks to titles that were formerly on this talk page:

User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning and
User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work .3E American warning.
[[User talk:Jerzy#American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#> American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
[[User talk:Jerzy#Talk page work > American warning]]
User talk:Jerzy#> American warning
Details, and the removed material from that section and its successor, are now at User talk:Jerzy/Proofreader77 DR.

Notices:
I hereby give due notice that i place the following reasonable constructions on the apparently widely accepted statement that i have seen on at least one project-space page, to the effect that msgs removed by a user from their own talk page may be presumed to have been read by them:

  1. Archiving a talk page, with a link to the archive, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements.
  2. Removing the text of a discussion on a talk page for stated good cause, stating that cause, stating that it is to be considered as "included, by reference, as part of" the page, and providing a lk to it on another WP page, does not constitute "removal" in the sense intended in such statements (nor for that matter is it equivalent to "archiving", FWIW).

In light of each of those constructions, and the statement that follows this paragraph, i note that (altho i at least skimmed large sections of the former text before my statement to the effect that i did not intend to give attention to further additions to it), i do not warrant myself as having detailed knowledge of what i read, nor sufficient knowledge to place what later portions i have since noticed into any meaningful context. I thus declare any inference that i am informed about the material in question to be abusive and unfounded.
I have removed from this talk page the text of the section most recently titled "Talk page work >American warning", because its length approximated 26.5 Kb, rendering impractical normal use of the talk page without neglecting the long-standing request to avoid letting pages approach or exceed 32Kb in length. It is, however to be considered as included, by reference, as part of this talk page. For perhaps a few days, it can be accessed on my archive at User talk:Jerzy/Phase 03#Talk page work .3E American warning, and i will alter this section accordingly, when that material moves from that archive page to its own page.
--Jerzy•t 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I think this deserves an award for most information crammed into an edit summary. So, here's the worlds smallest barnstar: ·  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks; i think there was room for a little more info if it had mattered, but i seem to recall there was no more than a character or two left. Fortunly bran cnstruz abrs wel!
    --Jerzy•t 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Formal

re Talk:Formal

Hello. I've tried to start discussions on the Talk pages of all dabs tagged for clean-up. I'm afraid I can't really contribute to the issues at SR - I'm not great with the technical issues, but your points made sense - and so i thought I'd let you know that discussions have been started about other pages you tagged, including the one linked above. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, i think that'll be a valuable move.
    I suspect you of being overcautious about giving your opinions about what Dab'g issues, in places where the best we can probably hope for is for someone apply the own creativity in away that others don't disagree with enuf to matter. But then, i know that i often let that inhibit my work as well, and of course you know the most about when to stick your neck out a little more.
    BTW, i note you tagged the Dab Blackleg, which i found very satisfying to work on. Much more so than i would imagine that ugly Formal one to be!
    Also BTW, you might be interested to take a look at the edit i just made on the lead section of Talk:Formal; you can preview what happens when you change the parameter from "no" to "yes". As to {{TOCright}}, IMO un-commenting it is useful, if the hdgs get bulky, until the number of non-lead sections gets beyond 3: IMO ToCs smaller than 3 or 4 are too small to be useful (except for their ends to serve as the targets for lks), but large enuf to be distracting and use up vertical space unless kicked over to the right.
    --Jerzy•t 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I bore your advice in mind about being overcautious and got through a few more. I really hate it on the few occasions I get angry messages from other editors and so I worry a bit too much about that. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on dabs

re User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2#Disambig Q

Hello. I recently got an enquiry from an editor because I prodded a page which listed people who just had the same given name and middle name. They pointed out that they couldn't find anything on MOS:DAB to back up my point that this was unencylopedic and shouldn't be there. You can see my most recent correspondance on this topic if you go to User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2 and the section 'Disambig Q' where I've quoted responses from you and Slackermom on this issue in the past. I don't know if MOS:DAB has changed or if it was never clear on there. What do you think.? Should MOS:DAB be changed? (Personally, I think it should, be I'd never edit that page myself) Boleyn2 (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange heading

Hiya. You made this change, which left an odd section header. I wasn't sure what you were trying to do, so I've left it for you to finish off. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I thot i was sure what abt i was trying to do, but thanks for the heads-up! I you want to grasp it, tell me either what already get, or what you don't; i'd be glad to clarify.
    --Jerzy•t 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. The further change you made to the heading - adding a second '{', some minutes before your above comment - has corrected the problem. No need for further clarification. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Testament Records disambig page

re Testament Records

You made several edits, some of which I understand. But you give no explanation for your changes to the explanatory text and removal of links that were there. I thought the original versions were better: easier to understand and more useful, so I am planning to change them back. If you would like to discuss it, please respond to this. Thanks.--Robert.Allen (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe, rather than assuming "Dab-CU" serves to explain, i should resume routinely lk'g such edits to both MoSDab and Dab. Experience editing WP does not prepare one for editing (much less creating) Dab pages, which are not articles and thus not pgs intended to be treated as instances of many (& probably most) WP guidelines and policies. I suggest you study those pgs first (since you'll need to in the long run anyway), but i would be glad to comment on specific issues specified by you, either before or after your doing so.
    --Jerzy•t 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the links, I should have seen them before I guess, but somehow I missed them. I still think the explanatory text is a bit confusing, at least it was initially to me: it seemed like a dictionary entry saying they were British and American terms. Also, since there are only two items, I'm not sure a section heading "Record labels:" is an improvement. I skipped over it entirely when I first saw the new version of the page. I may make some small changes back. If they aren't acceptable, then please revert them.--Robert.Allen (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't feel bad abt missing those guidelines; if i seemed to imply "you should have known better", i misspoke. (In fact, i had thot to myself "How do i add a single link that encompasses both links?", and have a couple of thots.) IMO, editors who go around trying anticipate and read all the guidelines they're going to need are wasting their energy.
        I think the most important thing is to resist reading a Dab page. Unless you can master the knack of imagining what someone does, who gets to the page bcz of either looking for, e.g., Testament Records, or following a lk from an article, the tendency is to sabotage by "making it read better" what is hopefully optimized as a navigational aid. If the user looks at the two entries and immediately clicks on one, the page is perfect for them, even if they don't understand what they've seen. For users to have to read "record label" in both entries, when we have no articles on anything but record labels as a candidtates for the title "Testament Records", is a waste of their time. Until there are entries that don't fit under the single heading, not noticing it is a plus (and the lack of other headings is probably the reason you overlooked it). The only purpose of the heading at present is to have a read-once globally applicable place that the rare user who gets there, not looking for a record label (or not realizing that that's the nature of the thing the article referred to), can refer to for reassurance. (And perhaps guidance: knowing they are labels increases the helpfulness of knowing one article pertains to matters British and one American: e.g., British and American cars and records (as opposed to songs) are much less available to the UK or US respectively, than are the literary works of the respective countries -- thus when the rare user who didn't grasp that the reference in a WP article or outside page was about a label, the national or genre info is suddenly cast into a new light. (Even tho most users would be wasting their time by reading those extra words, and certainly by reading them twice, once in each entry.)
        --Jerzy•t 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure whether I agree or not. Acutally, I'm not totally sure I understand what you are saying. The extra explanation comes at the end of each entry after the links to the actual pages, so the user may not even need to go that far. In any case, I like it the way it is now. Can we leave it that way? --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to say the rest in the context of observing that your "classical"-music interest should prove to make you substantially valuable to WP, and i hope to see your work continue.) (I particularly took pleasure at seeing both Feen & Varnay among your contribs!) That said ...
      Well, those are not "small changes", as you earlier said you were about to make. (They are everything you had there when i started, except what is explicitly ruled out by the guidelines.) And i can't imagine that you both understand and accept what seems to me the obvious and fundamental principle, repeatedly reflected implicitly in the guidelines, that nothing belongs in a Dab that does not contribute to disambiguation.
      I'm merely tagging it for cleanup, bcz i don't think i have anything left to say, and it's not worth it to me to do otherwise. IMO you've had your BOLD, so please don't change the tag back, but if a colleague with substantial Dab-cleanup experience sees no further CU needed and de-CUs, i'll be satisfied. Hope to see you around the 'Pedia.
      --Jerzy•t 03:26 & 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I consider the relevance of the above discussion to this page to probably be over. It may be relevant at Talk:Testament Records#Too many words?, where i am placing a copy of it, but beyond what i've said in the box, i hope not to participate further.
    --Jerzy•t 03:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This seems like a very acceptable compromise, I appreciate your flexibility. And the talk page for the disambiguation page does seem like the best place to put our discussion. Any more would probably be a waste of time for both of us, since we seem to have "dug in", but I can say I think I have learned a lot of new things from it and appreciate your different point of view. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comcast name

I believe you will appreciate this edit; or, for a more detailed explanation, there is this subversive website's description. -- Thekohser 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Nice job, indeed appreciated. My eye was caught by the italics on the word "from", which i was sure was an error. Knowing now that it was made by Angela (who is unlikely to have italicized the whole 6 words unless she believed they were a single name!), i take it to be not a mark-up error, but that rather a (perhaps hasty) mis-parsing by her of the ambiguously worded preceding version. I in turn took that word "from" to be about the relationship between the two italicized phrases, rather than two business entities, with "...cast" coming from letters of the words "CAble SysTems". (And moved quickly along to losing track of the fact that that would leave "Com..." unaccounted for!)
    Yes, i see now that it was the company that would in 1969 become Comcast [Corporation] that was founded in 1963, as your wording and refs each make clear, and i fully endorse your edit -- including the CoI violation that someone who claims to be you describes, since this is clearly a situation where IAR applies: what i assume is your status of having a standing presumption of a conflict of interest seems irrelevant since it is so hard to imagine actual conflict of interests in the specific edit. Even a WP editor can see your info is objectively correct, now that you have done the fine service of sweeping away 6 years of confusion. Well, two transient confusions spanning 6 years, with misinforming effects that continued for 6 years (and could have easily continued another 6).
    You said on the "subversive" site that WP will suck "for business matters" barring its "welcom[ing] businesses to assist ...
    I am far more of a worker bee than Angela, and thus concern myself much more with tactical than strategic policy. Nevertheless, i'll comment that you seem to intimate that CoI is a major alienating factor for you. Even where IAR does not so clearly dominate as this time, i would expect that businesses' frank reps could be pretty effective by presenting their respective firms' PoVs on talk pages, even where actual CoIs seem likely -- as long as they grasp and respect the concerns behind the CoI policy, and occasionally have the patience to let the mills of WP grind as slowly as they often must (whether in grinding fine or coarse).
    In any case, thank you for not leaving us wallowing in squalor in this instance.
    --Jerzy•t 05:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Specific_entry_types

Re WP:MOSDAB#Specific_entry_types

That you very much for your valuable contribution. Every once in a while, such fundamental things can get habitually overlooked but your keen eye has made a positive reflection on us all. Kudos! :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Really! I initially whether you were being sarcastic. IMO my correction of the misconception about the nature of comet tails was very minor, and worthwhile mostly bcz it might be distracting to others: a irritant better removed sooner than later. The corresponding one at Tail (disambiguation) is almost equally insignificant, and worthwhile fixing only bcz i work so cheap and bcz so little that happens here really depends -- long enuf to matter -- on an individual, that whatever else i might otherwise have been doing could wait.
    I'm responding bcz when i refreshed my memory at MoSDab's edit history, i noticed that you've traded reversions over your arguably analogous edit in the same section, where you prefer "UK" over "England" where both are accurate, bcz "England is not a UN member state".
    Like my edit, yours was of insignificant value, because
    1. neither had significant likelihood of enhancing Dab'n or the writing of Dabs
    2. the omission of either had only a remote chance of contributing to the respective widely held confusions we addressed, by continuing their repetition in either place
    3. users who consider the material on Dab pages or in examples used on guidelines pages as authoritative information are probably misguided beyond our ability to help.
The England/UK one had two added liabilities: you reasserted it by reverting an apparently reasonable colleague who had objected, and your reasoning was so unsound as to be obviously poorly thought thru -- what made you so confident that UN membership is a relevant criterion? Even if it were, do you want us to describe places in Greenland as being "in Denmark"? To give the impression that places on Taiwan are under the control of the PRC, or that places in Kosovo are relevantly "in Serbia"? That Troy was a Turkish city? That places in Israel, Palestine, and Western Sahara do not exist? What about the multi-national communities of Antarctica -- especially if they lie where pro-forma territorial claims overlap? Are you one of the editors who thinks "Washingon, D.C." needs to be followed by "United States"?
I'm sure you want to aid the project, and perhaps this note is overkill, but i hope it is forceful enough to help dissuade you from an edit war, and to help improve your perspective on our work.
--Jerzy•t 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if it matters to you but I was not trying to be sarcastic. I still genuinely think you deserve a pat on the back. Now though I stand speechless. :|--Thecurran (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Excuse me for being vague, and also if i left the impression either that i failed to realize you hadn't been sarcastic or that whether you had was unimportant to me. I thot your interest in the parallel case fully established that you intended no irony. And my point is not about your kind words; it is mostly about the 2nd edit and my concern abt whether an edit war might be in the offing.
    On reflection, i realize i omitted the follow-on to my complaints about your UN argument: i wanted to say that rejecting your argument is not enuf reason to find fault with your edits to the page; i should have continued by saying that a lot of effort has gone into that guideline page, and that tinkering with debatable parts of it -- what are really matters of individual preference rather than objectively bad content -- by going in and editing without trying out your approach on the corresponding talk page, has two bad effects:
  1. a tendency to encourage every editor (there are probably at any given between 5 and 6 thousand who will make at least a hundred edits in the next month) who has a new idea for how Dab'n should be done or how that should be stated, or suspects that an established practice deserves to be explicitly stated
  2. creating unnecessary chatter in the edit history of the page, with a corresponding increase in the likelihood that those who watch for changes in it will be distracted and muff their review of vandalism or mistakes, which deserve quick repair before a vandal uses them as an excuse for disrupting articles, or a good-intentioned user makes a mess based on assuming that what they find in the guidelines has been reviewed as reflecting consensus
I'd rather you'd
_ looked for a guideline saying that otherwise ambiguous places should be specified (at least on Dab pages) according to UN-membership names (and i'm confident -- bcz i'd have recalled hearing that, and bcz of the contrary arguments i made above -- that you won't find that), or
_ have thot it thru better.
We do say, however, say "edit BOLDly", so given that both of those failed, i hesitate to criticize your executing there first of your edits there (being unsure, as i am, whether at least presumption of need for consensus for changes is stated at the top of MoS pages, as a perhaps weaker version of what i recall on policy pages).
But i think you were being more than bold in the second one, counter-reverting our colleague who disagreed. And that is why addressed you on the matter. I would have hoped that you would drop the matter without the second edit, or open a discussion at MOSDAB to make your case why the longstanding wording should be changed. In such a discussion, i would expect you'd find that what IMO was implicit in the edit summary for the revision you reverted, would be said there by as many different editors as it took to convince you, namely:
both the old wording and your own would be acceptable there, and any difference between them is too small to change from status quo ante.
I am concerned by your pleading speechlessness, bcz i'm probably at fault for producing that, and i'm not sure what to do about it. And i assume that i've failed re the principle "Don't BITE the newcomers". I hope you'll be better disposed now at least to say what will help you feel at home here. Thanks -- for at least the patience i infer if you've read this far.
--Jerzy•t 07:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not failed any policy. I failed to realize what the consequences of my actions on the page would have been. I must try to remember to talk first before editing WP policy-type pages. When I started out, I noticed that people rarely respond to talk proposing small changes in articlespace, so I would wait unnecessarily for weeks at a time. I got more emBOLDened and abandoned my earlier practice even though it would have been more appropriate in this space. Thank you very much for responding and clarifying things. Your advice has been very helpful. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Old LoPbN pages

Hi there. I was browsing through Wikipedia's ancient history and stumbled upon the traces of the old List of people by name index (LoPbN), which it seems you were heavily involved with. While the list is long since gone, I notice you still have many user subpages related to it: see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. As the list seems unlikely ever to return, do you think there's any point in still keeping those pages? If not, you could tag them for deletion using {{db-user}}.

If you do want to keep the pages as a historical archive, feel free - it's your userspace, you can do what you want with it. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention as you might have forgotten about them. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside of your userspace, I also found: Wikipedia:List of people by name, Wikipedia:LoPbN Meta-structure, Wikipedia:LoPbN index-template generation and Template:ToC for LoPbN direct links. Again, it's up to you what you do with these, whether you want to delete them or keep them for historical record. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to New York Giants (soccer), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mohrflies (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The reversion has been counter-reverted by an third party. The tagging party has clearly confused my even-handed action in a contentious dispute with vandalism.
--Jerzy•t 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WPT:MoSDab

re Rdr WPT:MoSDab:

Howdy - I notice you have recently created the above article as a 'redirect' from the main Wikipedia namespace (the one containing the encyclopaedia itself) to another namespace (one used by editors to discuss the inner workings of the encyclopaedia). Such redirects are normall a bad idea - see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects for some discussion of this. For now, I have removed the redirect. - TB (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I created it bcz i had already committed it to an edit summary and don't consider it appropriate to alter the edit history to fix the red link. You've broken a link intended for those seeking to understand the edit i was summarizing, over a trivial bit of clutter. I can understand how that might happen, as a "what links here" on the Rdr's name won't make the use visible, but i am undeleting. If you want to go to the trouble of fixing both the trivial problem you fixed and the larger one that entailed, please be my guest.
    --Jerzy•t 15:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem with you undeleting. In my initial check, I couldn't find any reason for it being there - nothing it its edit history, page text, what links here or talk page to justify its existence - and was hoping you'd be able to point me in the right direction. I can now see the link in the edit history of [Homicide (disambiguation)]] (although I had to use the toolserver to discover this) but can see no way of fixing it other than hunting down an Overseer, sorry. I'll go ahead and RfD the page for now. = TB (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh! I regard it as a natural, tho stupid, mistake, but i didn't realize i'd done it before. (I think you'd have found today's ref to it, quicker, by looking at my last few contribs entries.) I haven't thot it thru carefully, and you've gone the extra mile with me already, and i've reached a point where the task within which the Rdr & our discussion were a minor distraction feels done. Lemme take a crack at the admin-only fix i had vaguely imagined, and we can discuss it, tho maybe in tens of hours not within the hour, OK?
        --Jerzy•t 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the Homicide Dab one is for the WP namespace, and i constantly do that, correctly. In any case, i fixed the problem that made me want to keep it, and feel pretty confident we've broken me of the habit. If there's ever a next time, i expect i'd catch it in preview. Thanks for catching it, and your indulgence.
        --Jerzy•t 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Giants (soccer)

I have done my best to fix the cut and paste moving at New York Giants (soccer) and the relationships article. Please do not move it back. It became clear in the AFD that the original title is the preferred one.--chaser (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. You sound unsure the job is finished, so i'll look it over in the next few days, and -- in an excess of caution -- discuss it with you before trying to get any loose portion of the full history & content back together at that page.
    --Jerzy•t 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. The history merge I did was half-assed on the talk page, but the article is the important part.--chaser (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, now i follow you; i agree that merging the talk history would be gilding the lily. I've just updated New York Giants (disambiguation) to reflect the return of the AfD'd article to that title, and we'll see whether the Dab part is also settled.
    My remaining concern is with the stub for the 1890s soccer team, whose overwriting with a Rdr to the article is IMO improper. I expect to raise that, and any further controversy over the Dab, at MoSDab -- since the issues in those cases are effectiveness of Dab'n, rather than the name or scope of the AfD'd article.
    --Jerzy•t 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Von Geldern

re: Von Geldern

Hello, Jerzy, I was wondering if you could have alook at this page? I added disambig-cleanup just so what was developing into an edit war between me and anon user could be averted, although it isn't really a disambig page. However, anon feels that I am vandalising the page. I would be grateful for a third opinion. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for editing it, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)

re Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know I've nominated this for deletion; please challenge this if you think it's useful. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It's IMO a righteous deletion. Thanks for the notice, especially since it is hopefully the last chapter of something, and i guess fittingly low-key in that role. What i speak of is perhaps best documented at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Greenberg (economist) ... although i'm pretty sure i also had some discussion with User:Angela, around the same time, also relating to the economist. (It was probably my first successful del nom -- i think CSD was a later invention -- if not my first del nom altogether; when i saw yr notice, i remembered making a somehow related nom, but falsely reconstructed it as a failed nom of the Dab.)
    --Jerzy•t 01:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Saoirse (Fenian)

re: Saoirse (Fenian)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saoirse (Fenian), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Saoirse. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've responded to these before. May i suggest:
    1. Explain to your bot that copying from a WP-copying site to WP is usually not a copyvio, and/or
    2. Just put me on a white list, and/or
    3. Don't expect further responses, since my current intention is, after notifying you of this response, to respond only by adding
    Sigh!
after your bot-msg.
Best wishes,
--Jerzy•t 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What you are seeing is the pretty much unavoidable side effect of creating a page which contains much of the contents of another page that used to be visible through search engines: because it currently isn't the bot is unable to find it now and picks up one of the umpteen mirrors instead, it pops its notice up (which is the Right Thing — even if annoying when a split/disambig has been done right — because it so very often was not).

In practice, just axe the template without hesitations if this happen to you and you know you credited the original article. — Coren (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Tnx. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that it's driven by RC rather than just prowling, and somehow that feels different. In any case, it suggests that slowing down the process of splitting may help the bot: aren't you implying that if the old version of the page being split hangs out long enuf for the bot to see them coexist, the false positives will be avoided? If so, can you estimate how long is long enuf, as a function of edits per minute?
    --Jerzy•t 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jerzy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 15 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 316 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Mark Naftalin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Ghazi Salah al-Addin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Geoffrey Ward - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  4. Christopher Chaplin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  5. Jo Parkerson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  6. Barbara Carlson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  7. David Gunn (actor) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  8. Zoran Knežević (politician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  9. L. R. Ford, Jr. - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  10. Walter Forbes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lore Sjoberg

OK, I know you made this comment allllll the way back in 2007, but I feel I should respond. You typed:

FAQK

Half an hour of research leaves me still scratching my head. His (supposed) claim that the added K is for "Kevin", if it was he who said it, supports my speculation that he

1. knows that using it is catchy, and that it's mainly a means of self-promotion, and/or

2. likes the subliminal force of "FAQK you!"

I doubt my thots above exceed original research, but maybe i've missed the body of previous work on this important question. Can anyone write a 'graph for the article? --Jerzy•t 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'K' standing for 'Kevin' is a reference to the Derek Smart debacle. Sjöberg's FAQ actually is pretty similar to the now famous Derek Smart FAQ. Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack Greenberg (lawyer)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jack Greenberg (lawyer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Greenberg (lawyer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

John Kennedy

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

I was going to lead you back to my talk page but you have fragmented it so badly from your last few edits I can't make sense out of all the layers so I just pasted it here. If you have determined that I do not care or that I am stonewalling you have grossly misread my statement. I was trying to be nice about saying that I think that YOU were in error in YOUR determination that Civil War was more meaningful than Medal of Honor recipient. If you feel like following me around and reviewing my edits feel free but if that is the case then you clearly don't have enough to do and I do enough edits to keep you very very busy. I recommend focusing your efforts on something more meaningful like say doing some editing or creating some articles. If you are in need of some to work on here is a link to some medal of Honor recipient articles that need to be created and here are some, and some more that you could work on. I have even taken the time to add the articles assessment so you can pick and choose the level of effort you want to do. By the way, the more time I spend with your wikidrama the less time I spend doing real improvements to the projec. Your condescending tone and leaping to conclusions is ridiculous. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Metal Gear move message

Previously Elsewhere on Wikipedia:
This discussion began at User talk:KiasuKiasiMan#"Metal Gear (series)" vs. "Metal Gear" with:

While some of the content of the immediately preceding talk secn Metal Gear move is a little more pertinent than the edit-summary on the unilateral action that User:Jonny2x4 took 4 hours later, in light of OWN, you acted reasonably, and Jonny2x4 did not in either his msg above to you or his own move. I hope you will note my response to the situation at Talk:Metal Gear (series)#Reversal of move, and consider participating in the discussion in that sec'n. Thanks for your contributions.
--Jerzy•t 05:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Third-party colleagues would otherwise be confused by our succeeding discussion, not knowing that Jerzy used "E-mail this user" from the WP-page Toolbox to write KiasuKiasiMan under the subject line "Wikipedia e-mail re your possible discouragement", as follows:

Sun, February 21, 2010 6:53:16 [re-expressed by Jerzy as UTC]
From: Jerzy [Email addressed suppressed on WP pg by Jerzy]
To: [KiasuKiasiMan tho not reflected on my copy]]
I may be unduly cautious in thinking there may have been a break in your pattern of Wikipedia editing. If you

*have* been logged on and viewing en:Wikipedia pages

since 02-19 (Fri.) 18:09:16, UTC (Uh, 36 hours ago, as i write this, and thus Sat., 02:09 SG time, i think -- can my cell phone be right?),

but *not* since 02-21 (Sun.) 05:19:30, UTC (90 minutes ago; Sun., 13:19 SG?),

then i want you to know you have a new msg from me, since the last message you should have seen.

In any case, i hope to see you edit again before long! Thanks for your contributions.

Jerzy

--Jerzy•t 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I received your message on the Metal Gear move. I was not logged in as I used the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page page to log in. As my IP (which is shared by the ISP) had been temporarily blocked by Wikipedia. I'm just leaving this message as a gentle note and thanks for your concern also I have still been editing pages recently haha. :) KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I infer from the quickness of your unblocking that you were not responsible for whatever brought on the block, and that your "haha" expresses pleasure at the quick resolution, rather than at having evaded a block that was directed at you (which would be a serious matter).
      So welcome back.
      --Jerzy•t 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the shared I.P. address due to the ISP has led to a lot of people receiving messages that do not belong to them and thanks.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Watershed (k.d. lang album)

re Watershed (k.d. lang album)

Hi. A couple of years ago, you made a move that I believe should be reversed. Would you consider just undoing it? The artist has used this case and lack of space between the initials for about 25 years and most of the usages here follow that and I believe we should do it consistently. I'll take it to RM if you like or will drop it if you can convince me otherwise. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, Jack. My initial impulse (which had delayed my response) was to send a exhaustively nuanced note about all-lower-case names, but the bottom line is that with a work that is permanently a work in progress, consistency is trumped by doing it right, to whatever extent currently feasible, toward the long-term goal of doing it right (and of course consistently within any individual's mentions and probably among people).
    I will digress into (italicized) nuance to some extent -- in fact, more than i expected [shrug].
    Of course we have to say in bios, e.g. "She styles herself as 'k.d. lang', and at one time refused interviews to journalists who would not promise to do so, or whose publications had not honored such promises." -- or whatever the substance is, behind the language "K.D. Lang or, as she used to insist kd lang" at "Live Updates From Opening Ceremony" in NYT).
    I think the issue will at least take years to settle, and i don't expect to take a very active role in its resolution, but i do have a pretty clear and stable position on it. While i am not a language prescriptivist (but a sympathizer of Steven Pinker -- you'll notice that i hold the upcasing of the 1st-person-singular pronoun to be a convention whose value evaporated with the scriptoria), the upcasing of proper names (at least of persons) is, like the delineation of sentences with a capital and a period, a crucial functional measure that, in nearly all formal writing (including, in WP, titles and prose content) is not subject to variation according to the personal choices people make about their names. (However, this is reasonable, bcz of imbedding a list in the prose:
The performers will include the following: Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez, kd lang, and Melanie.
Can you see the crucial difference in the flow, when instead the only adjacent structure is syntactical?)
I also think it is important to counter your reverence for "most of the usages here". I've paid much less attention to Lang than i did to an early phase re Bell Hooks; while that bio seems to have since settled down to a version i largely approve of, she then had apparently fanatical advocates who insisted on keeping the lower-case name at the start of multiple sentences, rather than letting them be recast to preserve their exact meaning while moving the name to a later position, and on misrepresenting the titles of works that refer to her by downcasing her name in citing those titles. (BTW, i haven't investigated whether the current absence from her bio of those titles, whose publishers or authors upcased her name, reflects selective suppression of counterexamples to WP's relative credulity.) Predominant WP usage is a meaningless indicator to the extent that it reflects the PoV-warrior-hood that (parallel to the R. D. Laing [coincidence!] admirers who regarded all psychiatry as oppression) apparently assume all grammar and rules of style and punctuation are oppression. Lang-mentioning WP articles are likely to disproportionately reflect fan[atic] PoV, especially in light of her bio requiring a 4-'graph Activism section.
However, i do not expect take part in any RM deliberation.
--Jerzy•t 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy. Thanks for the detailed response. My request was fairly casual as I had happened upon one of the Lang articles (cap'd it for clarity;), noticed some inconsistencies in how things were being done, and gave a few nudges in the right (or wrong) direction. I did move one of the other albums to a lowercase parenthetical and the zealots will probably appreciate that. If you knew more of what I do here, you'd see that I've a dim view of fan[atic] PoV; it's a major problem on this project that warrants constant vigilance. I'm not going to pursue a RM and am open to nudges in the other direction. I'll marinate on the whole issue and may be back for help sorting the move I made and mebbe some others. I did not realize that there are other people doing this casing-trick, and, in Lang's case, she seems to have mellowed her stridency a bit.
fyi, the scriptorium has reincarnated quite nearby. I've read one of Pinker's books (Blank Slate) and found it quite interesting. I'm pleased to have met you and will go looking further at your interesting links. You'll have more trouble, however, convincing me to use 'i' a whole lot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • 'Sa pleasure, Jack (tho i won't get on the same trans-ocean flight with you [wink]). At this point, BTW, the i thing is pretty much a quirk -- an intellectual fancy that became a habit. Glad Pinker came up; i've been trying to remind myself to catch up on his work (& Dennet's & Dawkins's).
    Moves can drive you crazy, so plz speak up when appropriate. (I'm guessing you're already C&P savvy, and know to ask for admin help when needed.)
    --Jerzy•t 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm boring on long-haul flights; too much estazolam (and if that doesn't work, cognac; 24h flights are grim). I do go through spates of lowercase-everything. a habit picked-up coding. i am quite aware of case as a lot of things are case-sensitive. i expect you've seen that i've been here nearly as long as you have; i cheated, however, this is a sock account (no block; i have my yellow ticket of leave). i've read most of dawkins, too. welcome to my watchlist… which means i'll be back. cheers, Jack Merridew 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"(mostly aggressively alpha'd spam) " new term for me

Hi Jerzy. I've not read that term before. I think I can guess it's meaning, but could you expand? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • New for me, too; i invented it on the spot. I observed an unusually large number of Cats, and all but one (which purports to be system generated) had a blank field after the "pipe" (vertical stroke) character, with the effect that the page's title appeared set apart at the top of the listing of member pages, on the corresponding Category's Category-namespace page. I concluded that the large number of Cats and the odd use of the parameter intended for alphabetizing the entries were both intended to increase the visibility of the AfD'd page in question beyond what could reasonably be expected, with the motive of either demonstrating the SOE-providing author's saavy or being viewed by more potential SOE clients.
    And that's a form of spamming via WP.
    Thanks for your interest; i'm going to try to remember to watch the AfD process, and i may weigh in with that as evidence if spam-intentions are cited as a ground for del'n. (I haven't decided whether there's a well applicable CSD, tho i expect there is.)
    --Jerzy•t 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
WOW! That's brilliant. I'll be on the lookout. Dlohcierekim 05:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh. What does SOE stand for? Also, I saw your note on the AFD. Given the aggressiveness, with what seemed an element of desperation, on the part of the creator to get the article up and keep it up, I have to wonder how far afield you were. (The thing was deleted four times before. 175 deleted edits.) The creator seems by his username to represent a company involved with "Optimized Searching." At least one version of this was a copy of http://www.optimizedsearching.com. That company's web page has at the bottom, "Optimized Search is proudly powered by Kam Technology." It does not seem an overly unreasonable stretch to believe that the creator had the skill to do exactly as you proposed. WP:AGF is a fundamental principal, and one should strive to be courteous even when the ability to assume good faith has been strained. But the assumption of good faith cannot survive in circumstances where there "is specific evidence of malice." Is there such evidence here? maybe not. So we may assume good faith of this user, and allow that he had a conflict of interest that clouded his judgment so that he did exactly as you supposed but without any intent to harm Wikipedia in the least. He simply did not understand that his actions were highly objectionable or perhaps even why. He acted in good faith, but to further personal or outside interests. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Subway station naming conventions

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Subway station naming conventions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Giant Armadillo

I have nominated Giant Armadillo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Armadillo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. E2eamon (talk) 00:46 & :52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As a general measure, i suggest using strikethru rather than removal of text as the means of retracting your own messages. Strikethru reduces confusion between such innocent removals and vandalism, by maintaining a record that more closely parallels the page's edit history. Thanks in any case.
    --Jerzy•t 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page

(My normal practice is to delete nothing except vandalism from this talk page without archiving it. What is being placed in this secn despite my implicit request to keep the discussion where it started is a surprising new case. That content & my replies are at User talk:Geni#"68-pounder" cannot be a Dab page.)
--Jerzy•t 00:30 & 00:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette (building)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette (building), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette de Meulan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aubette de Meulan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aubette. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette de Magny

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette de Magny, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aubette (Aube)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Aubette (Aube), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Aubette. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

White hat (film)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of White hat (film), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: White hat. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

RE: "Accoutrements (and thus in turn Accoutrement) should soon be speedied; it appears that if anyone cares, it would be you.
--Jerzy•t 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"

Actually, I don't care in the least. It's a rather trivial matter. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CSBot

I see you're the Dab King, so I'll just tell the bot you're one of the Good Guys and it'll shut up about you from now on.  :-) — Coren (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I do Dab like crazy, and it offers substantial occasions for refactoring.
    If i were a Good Guy, i'd probably snarl less [blush], especially at those who set up Good Things by facing design challenges that would drive me up the wall. The least i can do is note that i've been if anything overzealous about merging histories of merged pages, but only fairly recently gotten diligent about documenting refactorings in edit summaries, as your bot so wisely counsels.
    Thanks for your work!
    --Jerzy•t 18:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and question

My counter-response is with my original comment at User talk:Eckenrrp#Saint Francis Cross Country.Jerzy•t 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for making my article "Saint Francis University cross country" better and I have a question. Could you some how make it accessable from the Saint Francis University page? I'm not sure where this would be appropriate on that page.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 00:12, 13 April 2010

Category sorting

Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT markup uses a colon, not a pipe, e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:140 th meridian}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|140 th meridian}} —Paul A (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deln trk list entry

Template:Deln trk list entry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mailer - "not good journalism"

Jerzy, I've responded to your correct deletion of my "not good journalism" citation here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafio (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Draga variants

Thanks for letting me know. For the moment I have nothing to add at those pages. In my oppinion the pages Draga (surname) and Draga (given name) could be merged into a single "Draga (name)" but that's just me. Ark25 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mocha (singer)

A tag has been placed on Mocha (singer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bluemask (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

SIA?

Hi. In this edit you added {{SIA}} to page Odd Fellows. I had a look at Template:SIA, but I'm still confused. Can you briefly summarise the value of adding that template? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    I consider the tag descriptive bcz the page is not a typical prose-heavy article, but primarily a list that is supplemented with small amounts of prose. I seem to recall that the tmpl makes an SIA sound a little more like a Dab-pg than the criterion that i just stated, and it is possible i am mistaken in this assertion: insisting on such a difference is probably counterproductive.
    I consider the tag valuable in this specific case bcz the page is clearly not presently a Dab page, and retention of the portions that keep it from meeting the standards of WP:MoSDab probably will best serve the project. I did not just now review the history to refesh my memory, but experience suggests that i probably would not have editted it ever (as i probably did, prior to the edit you cite) if it had not by that previous point in time been tagged improperly as a Dab pg. Even if it has not previously been Dab-tagged, i have seen so many, many examples of pages even less Dab-like than it, that some user decided needed {{Disambig}}, that IMO that prospect would be likely in the absence of the {{SIA}} tag. I hope the tag will have the valuable effect of forestalling addition of a Dab tag, which could lead to all the (IMO) desirable prose being removed as part of a Dab cleanup, and in practice lost, being hidden in the depths of the edit history.
    I signed on just now with the specific intention of posting a Wiki-Break template, and intend to avoid most stringently the discussion pages. Please forgive me if you soon seek further response, but i succeed in my intention!
--Jerzy•t 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it all makes sense now, and I now understand and agree with what you've done. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I hope you enjoyed your break. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Break

{{Attempting_wikibreak}}
--Jerzy•t 02:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah: He's ba-ack!
--Jerzy•t 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Archive_1&oldid=1086440429"