User talk:Red Slash/Archive 1

Editing my pink list

There are lots of pink things in the world and we need to list them ALL so they WILL take over the world! My poor little pink links have been deleted. Noooooooo! Now lets get serious.  : | I have no problems with you removing these as I dip in and out of many articles and usually just add in internal wikilinks. I am still a tyro at wiki editing. No problems and keep wiki editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnscotaus (talk • contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Pd-source

A tag has been placed on Template:Pd-source, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unused template

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to "Acre"

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit to the page Acre appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

In particular, "U.S. acre is 1⁄640 of a square mile, and one international acre is equal to 4046.8564224" is a totally confused mish-mash that makes no sense.

• There are two acres used in the US, the international acre, based on the international foot and international mile, and the US survey acre based on the US survey mile and US survey foot.
• A US survey acre is 1/640 of a square US survey mile.
• An international acre is 1/640 of a square international mile.
• A US survey mile is 5280 US survey feet.
• An international mile is 5280 international feet. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving Asshole (card game) to Scum (card game)

Hi, can you explain why you moved it? I think asshole is the much more common name and you didn't leave a reason. Thanks. --AW (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1000000000 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trillion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion, redux

FYI, you recently !voted on a move proposal. Discussion ended, and it was closed 3 days ago. A second discussion has now been opened, to discuss whether to undo the close here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Airplane

Hi,

FYI your resurrection of the airplane article is being discussed here.

I'd just like to say - Thanks! I was too close to older discussions to do it myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I undid your move of aviator to airplane pilot; aviator is a general term and applies to all aircraft not just aero (or air) planes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I have replied on the WikiProject page and GraemeLeggett's talk page, though I would vastly prefer talking about aviators at Talk:Aviator. Red Slash 21:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Crayola crayon colors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Crayola crayon colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. pbp 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you really want a list

I said that "I can't even to begin to list all the reasons this [addition] is ridiculous." But seeing as you've now reverted me (though I can't understand your summary), I suppose I'll give you that list:

1. Your edit implies that the Wikimedia community's consent is required for a MediaWiki software change, when, of course, the Foundation reserves the right to make any changes to the software whatsoever.
2. This was announced something like a year ago, giving Wikimedians as much time as they could possibly want to raise Hell about some perceived violation of wiki-sovereignty. (Something projects are very good at doing if they actually care.) AFAIK, not a single 'pedia did, and several agreed to be the guinea pigs for the first deployments of Phase I, which I doubt they would have done without being okay with the migration.
3. There was a rather well-publicized RFC on the removal of interlanguage links, where there was no consensus at all to limit users' removing them, and a general feeling that the only possible issue was watchlist flooding.
4. This, of course, led to the approval of Addbot, Legobot, and now, I believe, several other bots, to migrate the links, each one of these requiring a BRFA, and, thus, community consensus. There was also an RFC on Meta to lock all interwiki bots that continue to add "oldschool" links, which was closed in all of 14 hours due to overwhelming support and to avoid creating more work. If a unanimous agreement to do something so unprecedented isn't consensus, I don't know what is.
5. Bringing a Wikimedia dispute into mainspace is ridiculous. Anyone reading that article right now can tell that they're reading some sort of proxy war for a behind-the-scenes disagreement. Would you allow someone to add similar content to an article on Facebook, or Google? This borders on a WP:SELFREF violation.
6. That's not to mention that this is an unsourced addition pushing a negative POV. Once again, this is something we'd never stand for on something not related to Wikipedia.

Anyways, it's a shame to be in an edit war with a fellow colored-punctuation-named Wikipedian, so could you please either add a reliable secondary source demonstrating your claim, or self-revert? Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I have replied on the article talk page! Red Slash 04:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine of the United States

Hello. "American cuisine" was moved back to "Cuisine of the United States" by consensus in June 2012. Based on the sources used in the discussion, consensus determined that there is no such thing as a distinctly "American" cuisine, and that such a title was ambiguous, confusing, and inaccurate. See the discussion at Template_talk:American_cuisine/Archive_1#Name_change? and Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii for more information. Feel free to open a new discussion at Talk:Cuisine of the United States if you feel the need. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading that, umm, well... "consensus" is not quite the best word to describe that. But there was a discussion which included a page move, and I was definitely unaware of it. I'll consider the arguments therein and consider putting in an RM for it. There are good arguments on each side. Thanks for informing me! Red Slash 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cuisine of the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brownies

List of English irregular verbs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fly ball

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Red Slash. When you moved Limerick to a new title and then changed the old title from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Limerick" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ten points for fixing the links you did. I'm AWBing stuff now for the 1700-ish normal links, but mainly I want to thank you for fixing links like Limerick, Ireland. You are a pro and have my highest commendation. Red Slash 16:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, deserve no commendation for moving Limerick without consensus or even discussion. Please revert. Brocach (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Seemed pretty cut-and-dry lack of primary topic. I took a quick look and found a no-consensus request, but noted that the city's original title was not at Limerick and indeed had been moved there without a request. Red Slash 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Limerick

Please stop changing internal links from an article to a redirect. If you wish to move the page do a requested move. DrKiernan (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:All_I_Ever_Wanted_(Kelly_Clarkson_song)#Requested_move

I see you participated in the move request for this page. I would like to bring your attention to a comment that was left on that page because it brings to light some information which I didn't even notice right away, and was about to support the move until I noticed it. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied

On Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation#Meta_Wiki.3F.3F. πr² (t • c) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what makes you think it's called Meta Wikipedia? I explicitly mentioned that it was just called "Wikimedia Meta-Wiki" on the page above. It was historically (i.e., 2001 to 2003 probably) called MetaWikipedia.. please see m:Meta. :) πr² (t • c) 00:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, apparently not explicitly enough!! My bad. Since there was a history of just one edit I didn't bother moving it, I just cut&pasted. I appreciate the help. Red Slash 00:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Domesticated turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hen

Moral victory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Underdog

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Hi, can you please explain why you reverted my edit here using rollback, when it clearly was not vandalism? Legoktm (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably should not have reverted, as I don't think you edited in bad faith at all. I apologize for that, and I should have merely undone the edit. Please do forgive me. As for why I did it, well, you did blank an entire article, redirecting it away. I think WP:AFD would be a better outlet if you feel the article doesn't meet notability criteria. Red Slash 23:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead still says Meta Wikipedia, and it's listed as "Internet encyclopedia project" (should be "wiki" perhaps). πr² (t • c) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fulfil

I notice that you altered the article Thalassina to use the American spelling "fulfill", instead of the British English spelling "fulfil". I have undone that, but I also see that you have repeated this error in a number of other articles. Please could you make sure you undo any such changes? Some have been undone by various editors, but plenty remain. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Going through your edit history, I see that you also altered the article on American and British English spelling differences to claim that this distinction does not occur. This is especially worrying behaviour, and the claim is entirely baseless. In British English, "fulfil" is the only correct spelling, and should not be changed in articles that are otherwise consistent and appropriate in their usage, per WP:ENGVAR. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So I made sure to look through a Wikipedia search and found in many UK articles, where WP:ENGVAR reigns, that "fulfills" was used commonly. These were articles I had no encounters whatsoever with prior to searching. My experience has been that, as opposed to spellings like "colour" or "metre", "fulfil" is only about equal with "fulfill" even within British English. I may well be mistaken, which would of course lead to the remedies you suggest for clear WP:ENGVAR cases. (Looking online--granted, the OED prescribes "fulfil" exclusively for British English, but UK English-based Reuters has a 3-to-1 bias in favor of "fulfill", while even the BBC has thousands of web search results for "fulfill". I would directly dispute any thought that "fulfill" has no currency whatsoever in UK English; nevertheless, my actions might not have helped the encyclopedia. I apologize for having created work for you. Red Slash 00:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped you might be collegiate enough to undo some of the damage yourself, rather than seeing it as work for someone else. Please undo the remaining edits, rather than expecting other volunteers to clear up after your misguided edits. The fact that "fulfill" is a common mis-spelling in British English does not mean it should be introduced into additional articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've finished the batch of edits that I'm aware of. If there are any more, please undo them. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was fully planning on it but I wanted to let you respond first. You have my sincerest apologies--I didn't mean to have you do that yourself. I still maintain that in current usage "fulfill" is a significant alternative UK spelling, but looking around at sources have convinced me that "fulfil" is still a majority spelling, and my original spree was wrong-headed as was my failure to revert myself. Red Slash 23:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "new"

Hi,

The IPA template explains that /nj/ is the "n" in "new", so it's certainly appropriate for "New". We're not concerned about US pronunciations, but about generic English pronunciations, since our audience is not limited to the US. In the case of New York, we give the local pronunciation after the generic one, which ironically is not pronounced "noo" either. People could debate endlessly over whether we should give the New York City, New York State, or General American pronunciation of "New York", but consensus is to give a generic pronunciation first, and any local pronunciations after. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

kwami,

First, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a "generic English pronunciation". At the very least I will say categorically that there is no such thing as a generic pronunciation of anything that hundreds of millions of native speakers do not use. I'm unaware of what consensus, if any, you are referring to as you did recently change all four article's pronunciations from the (presumably) long-standing original. I note that Help:IPA for English is neither guideline nor policy and simply states that New York is transcribed like that--presumably it was at the time the page was written, but it hasn't been for some time, probably quite some time. Sure, people "could" debate it endlessly. But there's no need to. Follow the source I gave. Let's leave it as it was. Red Slash 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:PRON for years has been to give the pronunciation in English, just in English, not in GA or RP or whatever. The English IPA was specifically designed to cover both: We include the /r/s in English and Australian cities, for example. Someone in the UK or Australia will not pronounce the city "Noo York", so the pronunciation you provided is incorrect. You can add the GA or RP or whatever if you like. However, I will add a source that "new" is pronounced "new", since that appears to be where you're hung up. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a silly edit war. But okay, since you refuse to accept the word "new", we can resolve the problem by following WP:NOTADICTIONARY and deleting the pronunciations altogether. They are hardly required, when all they are is "new" plus a name which is defined in its own article. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather. To me a pronunciation guide is only useful for when the "true" pronunciation is different than what a native speaker would expect, which is why seeing the niooo pronunciation jarred me. But I trust that an Englishman will quite be alright figuring out how to pronounce the word "new". Well done. I look forward to many far more useful discussions with you in the future Red Slash 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FUNICULARISNOTAWORD listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:FUNICULARISNOTAWORD. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:FUNICULARISNOTAWORD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BarrelProof (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:INCLINATORISNOTAWORD listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:INCLINATORISNOTAWORD. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:INCLINATORISNOTAWORD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BarrelProof (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein

I'll try not to be sarcastic here, but it would have been diplomatic to allow me more than a few minutes to respond to your talk page message before filing the deletion review. I was going to leave you a message about why I deleted it here, being one of the few Wikipedia administrators who doesn't do everything via javascript and templates, but it seems not useful at this point. Risker (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Risker. I should've waited. (I am not very familiar with DRV, no excuse, but there you go.) Red Slash 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have prioritized posting to your page sooner as well; it's been a very challenging day with multiple competing priorities on and off the WMF sites. Nonetheless, we are where we are. I've taken a bit of a look at your activity over the years, and it appears that you've been largely inactive for a very extended period, so probably have missed a lot of intervening changes in practice and policy. I get that SF is a bit of a hero to some folks. I'm not going to put it on the DRV page, but this link to my talk page history includes the references. There's nothing "new" in what you added; all of those pages existed before the article was deleted before. Risker (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Limes

I think I can do that. Haven't done that in awhile. :) Yeah I didn't know that was the main meaning either but incoming links don't lie generally. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AFDEXISTS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:AFDEXISTS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:AFDEXISTS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). jcgoble3 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Fußball-Bundesliga

Your move has been undone by another admin, I have no idea why you thought NAC closing a discussion and then moving to a title nobody had suggested/supported would achieve - please be much more careful in future. GiantSnowman 10:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Move of Chili con queso to Queso sauce

I would have made the redirect the other way, from Queso sauce back to Chili con queso, as the former name is more well known and notable. Consider undoing/reversing your move/redirect? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 03:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a move request to have Queso sauce moved back to Chile con queso. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've responded there. It's a defensible location for the article, I just think Queso sauce or even Queso (sauce) is better. Red Slash 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Further to the Bundesliga page move (since reverted by another Admin), and looking at the number of other users who have raised issues regarding some of your page moves (incorrect title, against consensus, not fixing links to disambigaution pages etc.) I am becoming increasingly concerned with some of your actions. Please can you help convince that your page moves are for the benefit of Wikipedia? GiantSnowman 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bundesliga one showed a clear consensus in opposition to moving to the proposed title. Like any other editor would, I gave a shot at a different title, it was reverted, end of story, right? I have and had no dog in that fight at all, I just thought it'd be a good title, hence why I did not try to defend that at all. I'm a huge believer in WP:BRD. I've tried very, very hard to avoid doing moves in any way that is destructive or harmful and have tried not to fight against consensus whenever I can. I really like participating in WP:RM, and those discussions are often controversial. I've made some moves that I think weren't ideal, definitely. But I made it with an eye to the fact that any mistake I might end up making would be reversible. I've yet to see a way where I have deliberately acted against consensus, though I've often tried to change it (sometimes successfully, often not, since after all, consensus has usually formed for a reason!). If there are any other specific moments where you feel I've failed to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia, please let me know . Red Slash 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You moved it to a page that nobody has suggested, that nobody had supported, and that made no sense (i.e. no precedent, not standard naming conventions etc.) You thinking it would be a good title shows a total ignorance of, or disregard for, WP:CONSENSUS and is extremely concerning. GiantSnowman 11:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And someone moved it right back! Seriously. I tried and (apparently) failed at getting a good compromise title, making sure not to put it in with the closing of the move request... There was no consensus to keep the article at that exact title, the only consensus was against the move that had been requested, and I think there was more than one mention of the fact that that incredibly awkward title should be changed anyway. You disagreed with the move... hurray, revert it! I mean it! Genuinely! Absolutely no sarcasm--revert! Revert me if you disagree with me! Raise a discussion, see if I respond, and then if I respond then we'll discuss, or if I decline to then I'll withdraw and you get your way anyway. I'm a person, not God. You don't have to feel bad about reverting me. I promise. Wikipedia is a wiki. WP:BOLD is still in force. I'm still allowed to edit without first making sure people are going to agree with what I'm going to do. (This is exactly what WP:BOLD says. Disagree? Take it up there!) I'm allowed to be bold. So are you! Red Slash 22:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But a 'compromise' title is very rarely a good idea as it has zero basis in community consensus, it is the opinion of one editor as to what is a 'good' title. How could I revert you when I am clearly INVOLVED? GiantSnowman 09:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is rarely a good idea. I'll learn from this. As for being wp:involved, by WP's standards I think the only think that would've been inappropriate for you would have been to revert my move close and/or ignore the consensus to not move to that particular title (which here is not applicable because you supported the closing). After the RM was done, my understanding is that at that point any editor can boldly move the article to whatever title they in good faith feel is appropriate. And you, I think, would've been well within your rights to move it back under BRD, especially because that move would not have required any admin powers. You felt it would be an overreach to do so, and I commend you--we need editors who do not want to do things like that when they are involved at all, and that is magnificent. I do apologize for having unwittingly caused you inconvenience and for violating your standards for moving pages when one is involved. I do. I mean it. Red Slash 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Citation needed may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Harry S. Truman National Historic Site

An editor has asked for a Move review of Harry S. Truman National Historic Site. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but you appeared to just do a straight vote count, and not take into account policy-based arguments. The "vote" may have been equal, but WP:COMMONNAME strongly suggests that the page have no period in the title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal taken, NorthBySouthBaranof... I actually agree with the arguments you and the rest of the movers put forth, and you can put in a move review forward. I've just seen a lot of move reviews and I didn't see consensus in this one. I'd have relisted but nobody had posted in like a week. I do think policy is strongly on your side, so good luck. Red Slash 19:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of airplane as terminology

Note that the Wiki Aviation Group uses the term: "aircraft" in substitution for the more colloquial terms: "plane", "airplane" and "aeroplane", regardless of the formal definition of "fixed-wing aircraft". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you point out an edit of mine that was inappropriate? I've been editing articles that are talking about an airplane, specifically, and sending that link onto airplane. If someone writes about a music video featuring a(n) [[fixed-wing aircraft|airplane]], shouldn't that link to airplane instead? Red Slash 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

All of them, Katie. Use the term: "aircraft" not airplane, plane or aeroplane. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My name is not Katie. Are you kidding me? No, if an article is talking about an airplane, the wikilink should go to airplane. If an article is talking about a duck, we link to duck, not [[bird|duck]]. I am direct-linking to the page that discusses what they are talking about. I don't see what the Wiki Aviation Group has to do with this, this is fundamental WP:LINKCLARITY stuff. Red Slash 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, "airplane" and "aeroplane" are not in any sense of the word colloquial. Red Slash 23:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I can't find any evidence of the Wiki Aviation Group existing. Who are you talking about? WP:AVIATION's MOS has nothing on the topic at all. Red Slash 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You took part in Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM. Please see suggestion for follow up at MOSKOS RfC?. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Red Slash. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 April.
Message added 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi. What's your rationale for making edits like this, please? --John (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John. My understanding of WP:LINKCLARITY is that wikilinks should take you to the article someone would expect to reach upon clicking on the bluelink; for instance, if talking about a duck in an article, the link should be [[duck]] (duck), not [[bird|duck]] (duck). Red Slash 19:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you make this argument at a central location and obtain consensus for it. WT:AIR would be the obvious place. The edits you are making fall outside the sort you are permitted to make using AWB. Please don't make any more. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

? I am quite surprised. Do you disagree with WP:LINKCLARITY? I can't see what reason there is to get such a consensus to edit a page like Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, which is not a part of WP:AIR. Red Slash 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I think I'd need to get that consensus anyway. This is clearly within the spirit and letter of the MOS. Red Slash 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia tenet "be bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. --John (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. I cannot see why I need to obtain consensus to implement such an obvious bettering of the encyclopedia. But since you insist... Red Slash 19:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• WT:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Direct_linking Red Slash 20:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just done some digging and found this. Don't you think you should get a consensus before making major changes like this? It certainly puts the AWB edits in a less favourable light. This is exactly the sort of thing that would be considered controversial and therefore AWB should never be used in this way. --John (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There was some minor discussion after I created the article, I think on WT:AIR, but nobody really had a problem with it . No, honestly, I legitimately could not imagine WP:LINKCLARITY being that controversial. Red Slash 20:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Here you go! Most people supported it. That was 90-ish days ago, and no one really opposed it on the merits; once I responded there, nobody really had anything more to say and the article has thrived at airplane ever since. Red Slash 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Justine Moral

I have to agree with your assessment. I did some work on it a few years ago but she does not pass GNG for creative when I review now, guess I've learned a bit since I started here lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I found the article on Special:Random and thought, hmm, this seems funny... Great work that you put in making it seem like a real encyclopedia article, though, and glad you're still around improving the encyclopedia! Red Slash 15:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited College football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NAIA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Need-images

Template:Need-images has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Revent (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I 'suspect' that the point of this was to allow 'tagging' of these articles by Twinkle? If so, don't take my 'nomination' as a criticism of that idea....having Twinkle able to add {{image requested}} in some way would be a 'good thing', especially if it could be done from the 'article' page. I have no idea if this is 'technically possible', though...it might be 'more sensible' for Twinkle to just support 'tagging' on talk pages. Revent (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I appreciate the effort! The goal of the template was to take an article like mission burrito, which currently does not have a single image that actually shows what a mission burrito looks like, and have a template that says, "hey guys, put up an image of a mission burrito!" And I found {{image requested}} to not quite do that right. Red Slash 23:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I did find it personally 'amusing' that there wasn't a actual picture of a burrito, lol. :)

I don't know how well you know how it works, but you can create new 'categories' of image requests just by using a new 'of' or 'in' parameters, and then creating the 'red' categories...one of my 'to do' projects is to try to 'categorize' image requests (basically move them from 'project banners' to 'image requested', and add what they would actually be pictures of and where....more likely to get a picture of something like a london building that way. Revent (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese titles RfC

Hi, I caught your comment, but we had an RfC about this issue only 6 months ago and the majority decision was to keep using the full script - same as we do for Czech, Polish, Maltese, French, Spanish, every other Latin alphabet - the majority did not support singling out Vietnamese language for simplification.

As far as sources, anything relates to 19th Century and earlier history, will usually be so obscure it barely even appears in English books, but Oxford University Press, Harvard, Hawaii, and of the main Hanoi academic press do use full fonts in hardback books. E.g.

Anh Thư Hà, Hồng Đức Trần A Brief Chronology of Vietnam's History 2000- Page 109 "In July 1557, Mạc Phúc Nguyên ordered Mạc Kính Điển to launch an offensive on Thanh Hoá province. But Mạc troops were defeated, and Mạc Kính Điển had to take refuge at a riverside. In Kỷ Mùi year (1559), the rebel troops launched a big offensive on the rear areas of the Mạc regime (Sơn Tây, Tuyên Quang, Hưng Hoá, Kinh Băc, Hải Dương provinces...). Mạc Phúc Nguyên had to establish a defence line outside Đông Đô capital. In December 1561, Mạc Phúc Nguyên died of smallpox, after a fifteen-year reign, at a time when the civil war between the two dynasties was in a most acute stage."

All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, In ictu oculi. I caught that there must've been an RFC at some point determining consensus, but though I tried, I couldn't find the link. If you have it, would you mind posting it on there?

As for the move itself... I mean, I guess "Mạc Kính Điển" is in the Latin alphabet, but only just. There are so many diacritics that it's almost another alphabet--I'm not sure how I feel about it, but if sources use it, that's somewhat compelling. Great job finding that quote, it's really enlightening. Thanks again, all the best to you as well. Red Slash 15:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)/Archive 2. I'll admit that the level of diacritics on the fonts is higher than Eastern European languages like Călărași County, Székesfehérvár but not worse than Icelandic Ísafjörður or Maltese Ħal Għargħur. Years ago texts didn't try, that's true, but since 2000 increasingly hardback academic texts have been using full fonts for history and arts subjects. Even some of the most recent Vietnam 20thC history books have started using them. David G. Marr's earlier books didn't, his latest Vietnam: State, War, and Revolution (1945–1946) University of California Press 0520954971, 2013 does. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I left you more sources at the other RM. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll mull it over. Thank you! Red Slash 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad disambiguations

Please be more careful with these, especially where they refer to a technical topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Which one? Red Slash 21:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]

I saw three of three. I haven't looked further. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • Fair enough. Someone who knows what they're doing should send that straight on to the proper wikipedia article, I think. I'll stop AWB-ing. Red Slash 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there, hope you're well. Couple of things, I assume you've read Prolog's page on typesetting so you're aware of that problem :). But I don't know, were you aware that Emanuel (Spanish) not Emanuele (Italian) indicates someone Latin American. It is natural to have a proparoxytone in Italian names ending -ili so doesn't need marking, but it is not natural in Spanish, so to prevent the name being misread as a paroxytone, a Spanish accent is placed on the antepenultimate syllable, helping readers know a proparoxytone. This is part of the name, and part of the Italian emigration experience in Latin America. Without it the name would be read incorrectly. (out of interest how is it read on TV in America?) In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I get why they accent it in Spanish. But on American TV? I have never seen the accent (on English-language TV). Never. Interesting to see how it ends up. Red Slash 08:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to make this Latin American person the only mispelled person on en.wp, some users are going to ask "why this one"? Why not remove the accent from Chloë Grace Moretz, she's American, why should she have those dots? For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Misspelled" is not necessarily true. I wonder what Italian newspapers use when they name him in their articles. In any case, it's easy: reliable sources in English all omit the accent. Red Slash 19:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

His Italian biography uses his Spanish name

but again why not start your campaign against Wikipedia's titles by removing the accent from an American. Why start with a foreigner? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF and assume you didn't mean that. Check my move log, or just look here or here. I have no campaign at all against accented titles. It just grates that WP isn't following reliable English-language sources. Red Slash 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, actually I did mean it, but saw that Martinez move after (I thought tech moves were for admins to do BTW?). The problem is that I can't understand where you're getting your idea of "reliable" - I've linked 3 times to the definition of reliable and you seem to be arguing that a source which doesn't use Spanish accents is more reliable for Spanish names than one that does (?) which is the exact opposite of what of what WP:RS definition of "reliable... for the statement being made" says, which is why I keep linking to it. I'm sorry but the argument "she's mentioned in 100x html websites, and only 1x in a hardback book, so we should duplicate the style of the html even though we're an encyclopedia and generally use hardback style" is very old, even though I know 2 or 3 truly believe it.

I would just like to see someone initiate the 100x html-sources for 1x hardback source argument on an American's name for once instead of constantly going for Hispanics, Czechs, Serbs or whatever.

Anyway, I'm offline for a bit. Let me know if you think User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is any use. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Roger Goodman

Please cease and desist submitting falsehoods that are reckless and libelous. I am curious as to why you won't identify yourself? You do realize that it appears as though a more official person other than you or I, is changing BOTH of our edits to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I can only assume you are one of the many Roger supporters who don't want to know the truth. I will simply make a copy of my requests and the libelous claims for my records. So much for your supposed faith but not surprising. Those who have to say that they are good usually are the ones who have the hardest time actually doing good.

That said, AGAIN, the edits you made quoting the KOMO 4 News report are false. " The allegations are completely unsubstantiated and originated from a divorce filing in which his ex-wife was trying to convince the judge of her then-husband's unworthiness in an attempt to get more money from the divorce.[2]"

The IRS and DSHS evidence are public records. Are you saying that the claims of tax collection and collection letter from DSHS are not evidence? In addition, I have hard evidence to substantiate my supposed driving the kids stoned "allegations." (As well as, hard evidence showing that there was no attempt to convince a judge--we settled out of court.)

Do you have evidence I lied? It is clear that a statement made under penalty of perjury would have consequences if, in fact, my "allegations" are simply a reckless claim as proposed. Again, "allegations" were made under "penalty of perjury." Your "allegations" are not. If you are that certain that I have lied, why hasn't Roger taken me to court? Why did he not refute the "allegations" in a declaration response? Under "penalty of perjury?" Because he didn't want to perjure himself knowing that hard evidence exists, in his own words--his own admissions via email and text.

It is your responsibility as an editor (and to Jesus Christ if your User Page is to be believed), to ensure that your statements are true and not libelous. It is your responsibility as an editor (and a Christian?) to do no harm--particularly not harm the innocent witnesses, our children. They were there. In the car. Unfortunately, no one seems to be considering the children and calling their experience, unfortunate reality, false.

If you are a supporter who lives locally, I would be happy to show you the evidence privately to satisfy your need for truth. Or rather, would you prefer that I post them? Until then, please cease and desist making libelous allegations that deny my children's experience.

Thank you.

Liv Grohn (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn

Roger Goodman

Please see copy received earlier this evening from KOMO 4 News--showing that it is recognized that an error was made. They have corrected the libelous statement accordingly, therefore, any changes to reflect otherwise are considered intentional. THANKS.

FYI. Filing statements in court under penalty of perjury is never considered "reckless," unless, of course they can be proven false. Roger did not respond to my "allegations" thereby indicating accord with my summary. That is, in fact, something that the court recognizes. Rather, it was reckless to report a statement false without any proof to back it besides the word of a reckless politician and careless reporter.

---

Liv Grohn (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn