User talk:Stemonitis/Archive12

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 11 2007 and April 23 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful and very articulate RM closing at Talk:Danah Boyd. Nicely done. :) --Elonka 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that makes a nice change from the usual "What were you thinking?!" diatribes that one tends to receive after closing contentious moves! --Stemonitis 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More Thanks

For your help with the Prentss Oakley stub. Others redirected it to Bonnie and Clyde ane were insistant on doing so. Kaltenborn 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Carnedd Llywelyn

Hello again, we have chatted in the past, but could you take a look at the latest deletions by ras52, I put in other citations and references yesterday and they have been unilaterally deleted by the above user, I have not reverted the deletions as its probably best to get some idea if there is any support for citing the RGS and other such bodies, and other books, i.e. "Gerald of Wales" in 1198. It took quite a while trawling through the libraries to locate them, but they got deleted in justa few minutes. Admitedly they are not perfect, but I didn't deserve that treatment. Thanks in advance. (Gowron 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

I was also a little uncertain about the references being added to Carnedd Llewelyn, but I refrained from acting until I could think of a better solution (thinking that constructive criticism is better than outright deletion). The trouble is that we are trying to communicate that Welsh(-speaking) writers tend to use "Llywelyn" predominantly, but we haven't got a reference which says that explicitly. Wikipedia's original research policy is clear that conclusions we draw (even if they're true) cannot be included. We would need a citation from somewhere else about the different spellings and who uses which; it is not enough to collate information about which author uses which ourselves. Without such a citation, all we can say is that some authors use Llewelyn (including the OS) and others use Llywelyn (including the NPA). To say anything further would be original research. The best I can find at the moment is George Clerk, Major-General Cheetham, M. N. MacLeod & al. (1943). "Physical names for the Map of Britain. Discussion at the Afternoon Meeting of the Society". The Geographical Journal. 102 (4): 10–169. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (pdf available on request), in which several people argue that "Carnedd Llewelyn" should be corrected to "Carnedd Llywelyn" (although some also argue by the same rule for "Y Glyder Fawr" and "Carnedd Ddafydd"). Even this is pretty far from what we need. --Stemonitis 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments as always, and thanks for taking the view that straight deletion was a little too agressive, it is now possible that other may not get to see them. I was also not overcome with joy at seeing such negative remarks in the comments to edits. I may have missinterpreted what was being required, I agree that the many citations may well have seemed too many. The "Carr and Lister" comment was supposed to have assisted in highlighting (the inconsistencies) in the book, that a known author (will provide this when I get home), had stated that the mountain was given its name because of "Llywelyn", however they had used "Llewelyn" for both the mountain and the prince, which is odd because Prince "Llywelyn" was always spelled in that manner. This was a neutral comment for AGAINST people, that got removed.

I did cite the The Geographical Journal reference that you mention above, but that got removed also, however I'm not at this point using any of these citations to close the argument, but to suggest wider usage and acceptance in English writtings and not only confined to Welsh writers. In most cases what I did was too attach the citations to existing text. Many thanks though. (Gowron 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

I just noticed that ra52 had actually strung some the citations together in one line, I had not seen that done before, so apologies. (Gowron 11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

"Guiana Space Centre" vs "Centre Spatial Guyanais"

Hi, could you please provide proof of the statistics you quoted on Talk:Guiana Space Centre. There seems to be a sizable difference between your search results and the results of searches for the same terms which I have run. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Guiana Space Centre --Stemonitis 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

L. Athira Krishna move

Damn that was fast. Cheers! FiggyBee 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Orkney-stub

You forgot the comma on {{Orkney-stub}}. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn. So I did. --Stemonitis 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter move

Hi. I have removed the closed discussion boilerplate, as the discussion was still ongoing, with the latest edit being only 2 days prior to you closing the discussion. From how I understand building concensus, it's not normal procedure to close a discussion that is still ongoing. I would suggest waiting at least 1 week following the last contributory edit before considering closing the dicussion. Best regards, --Rebroad 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If consensus is clear after five days, there is no need to wait any longer. Most move requests are closed on the sixth day after listing. Only where the consensus seems likely to change (especially where it is likely to become apparent where it hadn't been before) is there any sense in continuing. Adding an extra week seems excessive (effectively increasing the lag time between request and action from 5 days to 12). --Stemonitis 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the concensus seems clear, but your summarisation of it seemed misleading in that you alluded that the current article should remain about the Christian festival. It was not a clear concensus on this, with many people saying it should INCLUDE the pagan origins, etc. --Rebroad 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly against the proposed move, which was the issue under discussion. Any remaining issues, such as whether the pagan aspects should be included at Easter or elsewhere, can (and indeed, should) be discussed outside the move request framework. --Stemonitis 11:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Moves

Hi. I know you work on the requested moves page, so do you know why the Dukes of Burgundy are still caught in the backlog? Michael Sanders 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about these today. There are only a few votes in each case, and the votes went different ways, so it's difficult to ascertain which method is preferred overall. I did a web search for Philip II/the Bold, and found that "Philip the Bold" is indeed much commoner an appellation than "Philip II", but most of the sites (c. 60%?) call him "Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy", not just "Philip the Bold". Would that be an acceptable solution? I think the reason it has taken so long is that few administrators (and probably none of the half-dozen or so regulars at WP:RM) are familiar enough with the naming conventions for royals and nobles to know which conventions apply in which cases. Anything that I'm unsure about, I tend to leave for someone else to deal with, and I suspect others do the same, which can result in moves being apparently ignored for quite a while. Another question: is it important that all four articles are named in a similar way, or is it acceptable to have Philip the Good but Philip II, Duke of Burgundy as article titles? --Stemonitis 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy would be acceptable to me; since I was expecting the original nomination to fail after the views had been made on that page, I was planning to renominate for moving as Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, anyway. As for this issue, I'd cite WP:NAME's 'in a nutshell' - "This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So far as I can see, the Dukes of Burgundy are rarely, if ever referred to by ordinals; they are generally referred to by their epithets. The only truly difficult one is Philip the Bold, because of Philip III of France - to rename the article from "Philip II, Duke of Burgundy" to "Philip the Bold" would go against WP:NAME because it would be too ambiguous; but PtB,DoB wouldn't (as for Charles the Bold, that would be a different issue - though personally, I think it is well accepted that "Charles the Rash" is the 'correct' form of his name and epithet, but "Charles the Bold" is the most commonly used English form - thus in line with WP:NAME). As for a similarity in names, I personally wouldn't consider it important; however, since I'd still say that more people would recognise "Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy" than "Philip II, Duke of Burgundy", it comes to much the same thing. Michael Sanders 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that moving the page Philip II, Duke of Burgundy against two oppositions and with only the nominator's support was unwise. As was ignoring my point about the king of France. The page ought to be moved to Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Srnec 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I explained my actions, including my dismissal of your concerns. If that was unclear, I will try to clarify. Move requests are not votes, but are based on a balance of arguments put forward by either side, so the numbers of opinions given is not a deciding factor. --Stemonitis 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But who decides what argumemts are better? Even if "Philip the Bold" most commonly refers to our friend the Burgundian duke, it should be made a disambiguation page unless the proponderance of instances of its use favour the duke, but I think that Philip III of France is frequently called "the Bold" too, so I see no "preponderance." But perhaps I'm wrong. I am certainly one person to whom "Philip the Bold" refers to the king of France. (Granted I am also one who has not studied the Valois duchy very much.) Srnec 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip III of France is most frequently called Philip III of France. Philip the Bold of Burgundy, by contrast, is most commonly called Philip the Bold. It is thus, provided each article notes the existence of the other, not ambiguous. Michael Sanders 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your assistance in moving the articles. Michael Sanders 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for moving my userpages over to my new username. I am pleased with my new username.—OHWiki 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Happy editing. --Stemonitis 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

History merging

A user moved Anthony Carelli to Johnny Geo Basco, then moved it Johnny Basco, then redirected and pasted that back at Anthony Carelli. The result is that the edit history of the page is at Johnny Basco, while the page is at Anthony Carelli. You you merge the history of the pages back to Anthony Carelli? TJ Spyke 06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. The history's a little bit messy in one place, but the only alternative involved my ticking hundreds of little boxes individually, and I've already done that once this morning (and it's not even 8am yet :-). --Stemonitis 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TJ Spyke 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Stemonitis -

Thanks for the Nymphes myrmeleonides article! It's my photo - I'm glad you like it :D! Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lamy, Joseph Alfred

Hello Stemonitis,

I prefer to put this maker under L since the last name is Lamy, Joseph Alfred. If you would like to place it to read first name|last name, could you please do so that the name still shows up under letter L. Thanks in advance.Milliot 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

British and Irish Hills Userbox

My compliments to you on your fabulous userbox for British and Irish Hills! I am Billy227, a member of the same WikiProject. I am suggesting that you actually make that into a userbox, which could then b used by all members of the Project. Just a suggestion! -Billy227 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Add {{:User:Stemonitis/BIhills}} to a page to have it appear. I shall also announce it at the project. --Stemonitis 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennine Way link on Black Hill page

The link to The Pennine Way site I put on the Black Hill page was removed. I dont understand why. The Pennine Way passes over Black hill - the link was useful and relevant. Can you give me a reason, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennine Way (talk • contribs)

The link you added to Black Hill (Peak District) contained almost nothing of relevance to Black Hill. The only sentence on that page which concerned Black Hill was "His own experiences of the walk included getting stuck in a bog up to his waist on Black Hill - he had to be pulled out by a passing National Park warden!", which is not vital information. There are dozens of guides to the Pennine Way; we don't need them all linked to our articles about every peak that appears on the route. I don't mind having the link at Pennine Way (although someone else may take a different view), but adding the link to so many articles is a clear case of linkspam. The guidelines at WP:EL are worth reading thoroughly to get an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Don't be fooled by what you see on other pages; chances are they too need to be cleared of inappropriate links. --Stemonitis 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

re: stub sort

Hi there, I noticed that you 'stub sorted' the Lygodactylus articles I created recently. What is that exactly and is it something I can do as I create the articles to save others the work? --killing sparrows 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many overlapping hierarchies (or networks) of categories on Wikipedia (see WP:CAT). In addition to these, there are categories for short articles, which are sorted into a parallel set of "stub categories" (see WP:STUB), designed to help focus efforts on articles that need work. In general, more specific categories are better, so rather than putting an article in Category:Animals, we put articles about lizards into Category:Lizards or Category:Flat-tailed geckos, etc. The same is true of stub categories, so rather than using the relatively broad Category:Reptile stubs, I put your Latrodectus articles in Category:Lizard stubs. The full list of stub types is pretty big, but one quickly learns about the ones which are most relevant to the sort of articles one makes. It all sounds quite involved, but it's relatively simple once you get used to it. Feel free to ask any further questions, or if I've not explained it clearly. --Stemonitis 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So if I use lizard-stub rather than reptile-stub when I create the article will that automatically put it in the right category and save you the work of sorting?

Exactly. --Stemonitis 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Norouz/Nowruz

It's been already mentioned in WP:IRAN on April 7 [1]. Jahangard 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the project seems not to be very active. That's a shame, because the move discussion really needs more input. --Stemonitis 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Luis Miguel

Please respond on my talk pg by 5 minutes before the hour, if you want to forestall my restoration of status quo. Tnx.
--Jerzy•t 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? If you have something of interest to say, why not just say it? Also, I like to keep conversations in one place. --Stemonitis 06:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been typing on this subject for 3 hours. I have 12 minutes left before disconnecting. See the talk pg you reverted.
--Jerzy•t 06:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you disagree with the reuqested move. Standard practice is to make an "oppose" vote, not simply to remove the request. That may be seen as editing in bad faith. If the move is as bad an idea as you suggest, then it will be voted down anyway, so you needn't worry about having to remove it manually. --Stemonitis 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read it again more carefully; i can understand that it is too detailed to expect you to see where the bad faith, or at least high-handed procedure, lies. Reversion of a stupid, undefended, discussion-free move, back to the 41 month status quo should not require deferring to incoherant objections and misrepresentation by the first mover. But i can wait some hours, in case you want to be more convincing by then. Thanks again. Gotta run.
--Jerzy•t 07:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Have faith in the WP:RM procedure; that is the correct way of expressing your doubts. Once a group of experienced editors have given their opinions, it will be difficult for anyone to get away with any bad-faith moves. --Stemonitis 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

_ _ The RM is at best an accidental red herring, and at worst an intentional straw man: no one thinks the move it concerns is right. I am

1. putting the page in question back to where it has been all its life & over half of WP's,
2. putting a note around the tag saying i can't fix it bcz of 3RR, but it should be ignored, bcz it's at best a misunderstanding,
3. urging M-hk to seek PR using the history of the two Luis Miguel pages as subject matter,
4. pursuing the hints in M-hk's contribs, that moving prominent people known by their given names to make way for lists of people who share that given name is a project of this user, not an incident,
5. putting my remdedy for the situation under PR if M-hk has not followed my suggestion.

I have plenty of faith in the overall WP process, but "all things are permitted, but not all things are expedient". By that i mean that letting others waste energy on an RM that doesn't address the problem, and letting myself be distracted from my own 3-year-and-counting project any longer than necessary to be responsible abt peripheral screwups that shove themselves in my face is not on the table. I've given you the courtesy of notice i thot your intervention deserved, and of delay that was warranted only by the bizarre time pressure that deprived you of the chance to come up to speed on this if you chose to, but with all due respect for your obviously good intentions, and probably fundamentally good instincts in approaching what you came across, i attribute our disconnect on this matter to your presumably lesser attention to the circumstances. I haven't found your urgings germane, and i'm not going to try to influence you further at this time.
_ _ I do want to acknowledge that your "I beg your pardon?" (above) was entirely justified, and that you are entitled to resent my curtness. I hope you'll understand that my sense of urgency seemed justified at the time; perhaps i lost perspective in the intensity of anticipating a pretty good state of closure in time for my 0700 UTC deadline. (Gosh, i wish MW would say, at the time of an intermediate preview, "Uh, you might like to know you're gonna get an edit conflict, if you ever get around to saving this mess."! Maybe there's at least a way for a user to install some Java that notes the starting time of an edit, peeks periodically at the page history, and drops a flag if there's another edit. [shrug])
_ _ Thanks again for your appropriate concern and good will.
--Jerzy•t 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The following two messages "crossed" (without an edit conflict!):_ _ I see now that you intervened further on the talk page (and i think much more helpfully). I'm still not satisfied that a return to status quo is out of order, but i no longer need to kvetch abt 3RR! And BTW, your conscientious further attention to the details needs acknowlegement: you also have sacrificed your attention to your projects of choice, to deal more widely with the project's needs. I don't fault myself for responding here before looking there, but i am certainly conscious of the embarrassment of having said what turns out to have been too much, and having asserted my superior knowledge after its expiration date!

_ _ Thanks, concretely, for creating the "space" in which i can mull further; my dread of the potential morass of inspecting the template's markup ruled out my tackling it the way you did. (Hmm, read "potential morass" as "my ability to be distracted far afield with all the foresight and alertness of a boiling frog".)
--Jerzy•t 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you need to slow down. Adding further stress to your already hectic schedule is unlikely to be constructive. Why not let the matter rest for a few days (for instance, the 5 days that a move request takes)? I've seen a lot of move requests that were pointless, but their closure is all the more forceful when it comes from the whole community (or a representative sample) than from a single editor. Otherwise, the proponent can feel as if they're being persecuted, which may make them resentful rather than receptive of new perspectives. It's not a waste of other people's time if it can convince an editor to work with the consensus and not against it. When one person tells you you're wrong, then it's just a difference of opinion, but when six respected editors do it, then you just have to admit you're wrong. --Stemonitis 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The preceding two messages "crossed" (without an edit conflict!)

Chilling.
--Jerzy•t 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bnei_Sakhnin_F.C.

Hey, I understand why you closed the requested move the way you did and due to the outcome of the discussion I wouldn't have moved it to Bnei Sakhnin myself either, however if we're going by uefa.com, shouldn't it be moved to "Hapoel Bnei Sakhnin F.C."? Would you be opposed to me re-requesting a move under the new name (as that's how UEFA refers to it)? Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 07:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a second request would be in order. It would have been strange if I had decided to move it to a title nobody had suggested, since that could hardly count as consensus. It would, however, be nice to get some more information first. The Israeli FA website didn't help, and I suspect the relevant sites must all be written in the Hebrew alphabet (which I for one cannot read). The web-hits didn't convince me, because I know most people write simply "Manchester City" for "Mancheter City F.C." (for instance), without that affecting the club's full name. Has Bnei Sakhnin got a website? Or has it published anything else? Even a match programme may be useful evidence about how the club self-identifies. --Stemonitis 07:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Vienna

I fixed the reference for Vienna. --Hughstew 6:10 19 April 2007

It contained a small typo, but thanks all the same. --Stemonitis 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pennine Way Link on Black Hill page

OK, I've read the guidelines, point taken.

I've only recently heard of Wikipedia, and never heard of 'linkspam'! I can assure you I was intending only to add value to the page by way of a link to a related item. Black Hill is important primarily because of its situation on the Pennine Way and it would probably remain mostly unvisited if it were not for this.

Wainwright falling into the bog on Black Hill is is probably the most well-known event to have taken place on Black Hill - I certainly know of no other stories linked to anyone of such fame.

Can I add something about it on the main Black Hill page?

Pennine Way

I think a brief mention is probably justifiable, with a reference. The only times I've been to the Black Hill, it wasn't as part of the Pennine Way, but I must admit, I can't imagine anything more noteworthy occurring there! --Stemonitis 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Army Plaza-Prospect Park (IRT Eastern Parkway Line)

I don't understand your close of this. I "advertised" it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Requested move when I requested it. --NE2 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been several move requests regarding NYC subway stations recently, and the issue has appeared to be contentious. As such, I am unwilling to make any moves without a clear consensus. I did see that you had noted the move at the project, but it was not accompanied by any discussion, unfortunately. The naming conventions are still in dispute, and without some agreement from the crowd at WP:NYCPT about naming, I don't think any move of that kind can be considered to follow consensus. Perhaps if someone had seconded your proposal, things might have been different. I think the best approach is to put energy into fleshing out the basics principles by which you, the community, want these stations to be named, with reference to the existing policies and guidelines. In the meanwhile, I'm sure you're disappointed, and I'm sorry that I can't help more. --Stemonitis 09:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for more input at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#How much discussion is needed?. --NE2 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Counter-insurgency to Counterinsurgency

Thanks for the help mate! -Signaleer 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for romeving Afd

Dear administrator you have removed afd on Yekta Güngör Özden article. Some users attacs personally to me for it. Thanks.--3210 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dudu Awat

I can't believe you moved the article:

1. The move was not supported by the debate - I refuted both arguments for "Aouate".
2. If you want futher evidence, check the number of hits on English language Israeli newspapers: Haartez has give 59 for Awat and 2 for Aouate, whilst Jpost doesn't even have one for Aouate but 34 for Awat.
3. Simply, the correct English transliteration is Awat. If you don't believe me, read the Romanization of Hebrew article or Waw (letter) - the "וו" part of אוואט is "w" not "oua".

Please move it back, or let me know why you won't. Thanks, Number 57 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You provided counter-evidence, which is not the same as refuting. The case was slightly misrepresented by the cut-and-paste move performed before the move. This would have to be undone under any circumstances, meaning that I had to interpret the move request as one in the opposite direction, for which there was no consensus. I therefore returned it to its original location. --Stemonitis 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but surely point 2 above is enough to prove the case for Awat? They are the only two major news sources in English in Israel (a third, Ynetnews produces 5 for Awat and 2 for Aouate). Can you move it back now? :) Number 57 09:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for such a move. --Stemonitis 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely proper Hebrew transliteration and Israeli sources are superior to a general google search and a Spanish transliteration from his current club? Number 57 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Common usage tends to trump all other considerations. --Stemonitis 10:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But Awat is common usage by sources in the best place to know (i.e. Israel). Sticking to general common usage would suggest that Leeds United A.F.C. are actually called Leeds United F.C. despite the fact that the former is actually the official name! Also, how many of the hits for Aouate are actually Spanish language sites? Number 57 10:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to reverse any decision, you know. --Stemonitis 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, never mind. I have opened another request for move. Number 57 10:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Northern_Ireland my edits are removing POV, WP is suppose to present facts and be NPOV.--padraig3uk 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only meant to vaguely symbolise Northern Ireland, nothing more. The official status is entirely irrelevant. Without the flag, it looks as if the cross of St. George applies to both England and Northern Ireland, which is worse. Kindly leave things be. --Stemonitis 15:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't represent Northern Ireland it was never the flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig3uk 15:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For most people, it represents Northern Ireland, and that's exactly who Wikipedia is written for. --Stemonitis 16:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Radio stations moves

Thanks for moving that batch of radio stations as I had requested. Fair warning: those were only the bulk of the Wxxx stations. I'll be looking through the Kxxx stations today. Thanks again, though! JPG-GR 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'll point out that some of them were simple, unobstructed moves that you could do yourself. For the others, all you need is the existing redirects to be deleted, for which {{db-move}} is available. I suspect that might spread the workload over a greater number of administrators; I may be wrong. This isn't meant to deter you from posting at WP:RM, but to let you know that there might be alternatives. --Stemonitis 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was acutally all news to me. :) JPG-GR 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN and Northern Ireland flags

Hi, I have also been adding back some of the Northern Ireland flags deleted by User:Padraig3uk. However, another editor has placed a notice on my talk page, which states I am "banned" from doing so. Please see my comments at the admin noticeboard regarding this. Note that Paidraig3uk has been spending the last few months deleting the flag from various templates, despite the fact that many reliable sources list this as the unoffical NI flag- see for example, the encyclopdeia Britannica- [2], and flags.net [3]. Astrotrain 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags.net says This flag is a banner of the arms of the old Government of Northern Ireland. The flag ceased to be official in 1973, but continues to be used by Unionists. On no account should it be used for official purposes.

Encyclopdeia Britannica says: According to British tradition, a coat of arms or flag is granted to the government of a territory, not to the people residing there. Therefore, when the government of Northern Ireland was disbanded in March 1972, its arms and flag officially disappeared; however, the flag continues to be used by groups (such as sports teams) representing the territory in an unofficial manner.--padraig3uk 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly padraig3uk - in British tadition for a flag to represent an area or people is not set down in law!!! Therefore it always has been the de facto flag of Northern Ireland and still is today in exactly the same way as in the 1950s. Neither Astrotrain or anyone else was claiming it to be anything else. Jonto 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not be drawn into discussion about articles I am not involved with at all. I would note that extensive discussion usually makes it clear which is the widely-held opinion, and which is the minority opinion, if there is a split of that nature. I think Padraig3uk has probably grasped my take on matters by now, and, judging from comments I have seen elsewhere, has been hearing the same things from a number of sources. There are places where the flag in question may be inappropriate, but there are (plenty of) others where it is. Let's leave it at that. There are plenty of disagreements around, and I don't want them to start spilling over here any more than necessary. To address Astrotrain's original query, since you have made your case at the Administrators' Noticeboard, I have every confidence that competent and knowledgeable administrators will look into your case and act accordingly. --Stemonitis 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I own the copyrights to the pages you removed. How can we meet the copyright requirements you mentioned on my user page? Bugguyak 12:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with the procedure, but I would guess the steps laid out in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed would apply. --Stemonitis 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I am the author and the two University websites are public domain according to the Wikipedia:Copyright Policy and since I am the owner and author of the material I wrote here taken from my own web site, IPM of Alaska[4] which is now a public information website and have given permission, why dont you reinstate my articles? Bugguyak 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The IPM of Alaska website states "© 2005 IPM of Alaska", and I have no evidence that you are the copyright holder, other than links you have provided. It's not that I don't believe you, but there need to be some controls, otherwise it would be possible for anyone to claim that that was their website. As for the university sites, neither explicitly states that the materials are in the public domain. Colorado State disclaims that the information is provided as a public service, but this is a long way from being in the public domain. --Stemonitis 13:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Permission has been sent to the OTRS system as per instructions in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed --Bugguyak 13:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Sorry to put you out like this. --Stemonitis 13:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Boundary value analysis

Thanks for moving Boundary value analysis - amazingly quick work! 86.152.203.212 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to moving HackThisSite revision

“ I have removed your request to move Talk:HackThisSite/rev1 to HackThisSite from WP:RM. Both articles have a long and overlapping history, so a move is not appropriate. The two articles need to be merged, which does not require administrator rights. You should make the desirable changes to HackThisSite (by simply copying across the improved article, if the other version contains nothing not covered by the new version), and convert the new version into a redirect, marked with {{R from merge}}. --Stemonitis 10:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) ”

Please note that the revision page (Talk:HackThisSite/rev1) was created to replace the main article (HackThisSite). It was revised on a separate page because it was understood that the article would need extensive editing to bring it up to par. Regarding a merge, all necessary points on the current version was addressed and expanded on in the revised edition and it makes no sense to merge because it would then become redundant. We are now only waiting for an admin to do the necessary move. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All an admin could do would be to delete the old version and replace it with the new one, and there's a lot of edit history at the old one which is relevant to both. Nor can the two undergo a history merger, because of the overlapping periods in which they have been edited. I don't understand your point about redundancy; is it possible that you have misunderstood my suggestion? The only solution that I can see is to manually move the contents of your replacement article over the existing text at HackThisSite, and convert Talk:HackThisSite/rev1 into a redirect pointing to the (by now updated) HackThisSite. See {{R from merge}}. --Stemonitis 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving List of Christian Apologetic Works

I saw that you removed my move request:

• List of Christian Apologetic Works → List of Christian apologetic works — caps per WP:NAME -- the existing redirect currently points to the wrong page

without moving it. Your edit summary said it was already done, but the problem is the existing redirect points to the wrong page (viz., List of apologetic works -- note the lack of "Christian"). --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the problem. Smoeone moved the target article, but not the source, probably because there were two separate articles rather than a redirect, so no double redirect would have shown up. Unfortunately, since both are up for deletion, it would be wrong for me to remove the AFD notice (which would be necessary for converting it into a redirect). Please remind me after the AfD debates have finished and been acted upon, and I'll see what I can do. --Stemonitis 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)