NancyHeise (talk | contribs) |
NancyHeise (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
==Talk page== |
==Talk page== |
||
You have twice removed content at [[Roman Catholic Church]] that was agreed upon at the talk page. user Richard, user Xandar and myself have agreed to the use of [[Patrick Madrid]]'s book, a source who meets [[WP:RS]] and is an includable POV per [[WP:NPOV]]. If we have omitted any POV's please come to the talk page and provide a link, we can include them. Thanks. [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
You have twice removed content at [[Roman Catholic Church]] that was agreed upon at the talk page. user Richard, user Xandar and myself have agreed to the use of [[Patrick Madrid]]'s book, a source who meets [[WP:RS]] and is an includable POV per [[WP:NPOV]]. If we have omitted any POV's please come to the talk page and provide a link, we can include them. Thanks. [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Gimmetrow, I am going to complain about you at the administrators board, you are clearly POV warring. I have clear talk page evidence to back up my use of Madrid, I was making changes that were discussed. I placed the info on the page and have asked the others to view it, they can not view it because you have omitted it with '''zero''' talk page discussion. [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:03, 10 January 2009
ignoring consensus
Gimmetrow, you have no consensus to support your elimination of agreed text. NancyHeise talk 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to add the sentence that says "There is a strong body of opinion...." you need to have a reference. None of our references say that. Whitehead says that the name Catholic Church has been the official name since the time of Council of Nicea and continues through to this day and the latest council, Vatican II. He explains the preference of "Roman Catholic" by Anglicans and some modern day folk. Please read what he says before you insert a sentence on that subject. Our sentences must match what sources say. :-) NancyHeise talk 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- None of your references say that the "official name" of the church is "Catholic Church", so if you want to add that, you will need to provide references. Also "Roman was rejected" without qualification is not supported by the references. This is not subject to voting. I'm sorry it comes to this. When there is an editorial conflict, one way of resolving it is to state literally and exactly what the source says, and not expand on its meaning. I was hoping after all this time you would do that. Gimmetrow 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
RFA
Under what premise would you think I would succeed at RFA? I pretty much just run WP:CHICAGO and produce WP:GAs. I have very modest experience at chasing vandals and such.
- Yes, there are times when I could have expedited the proper functioning of the project if I had the wonder powers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That user is making abusive unblock requests. Please change the block settings for that IP address to "anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page" -- IRP ☎ 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Not blocking for blanking a talk page
So for future reference, if a final warning is issued, and that warning is immediately blanked, what's the further action here? How are other editors supposed to rely on escalating warnings and so forth if previous warnings were deleted by the warned editor? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Admins [should] look at the page history. My point is that this account's only edit after the final warning was to blank its talk page. If that's the last edit made, there's no point blocking the account as well. If the account does the same article edits again it will probably be blocked as a spam account. Gimmetrow 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think it's unnessacry, challnage it and improve the issue that caused it to get placed.
There is a justifcation for inclusion of archive.org links, but they need to i) be more clearly identified. ii) be 'obtainable' , as parts of archive.org are filtered by some ISP's.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, No consensus for this.... And IRC disscusion seems to suggest archive.org is stable enough...
So Apologies and thanks for the rollback :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re filtering , Some parts of archive.org are filtered in the UK, because of a 'censor' filter that blocks certain types of content
which are 'questionable' in the UK.
- It seems that for whatever reasons archive.org gets passed through it, because it's cached something
that flagged the filter, because the filtering list is not public and for technical reasons, sometimes entire sites get filtered even though they do not of themsleves host 'bad content'.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Question
How do you report a person on here? ====== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly do you want to report? (I think I can guess which editor this might refer to.) Gimmetrow 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes but i never reported a person at all on here ===== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question is - what do you want to report about this person? (Oh, you might want to use ~~~~ rather than =====, if you're trying to make a signature). Gimmetrow 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
When that user put Kevin and Danielle are engaged but they are not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)
- Well, that's par for the course. I'll keep an eye on the article. If the rumors are unsourced they probably go against WP:Biographies of living persons. If so, just remove the unsourced rumors citing that policy. In some cases, though, if certain rumors keep coming back, there might occasionally be a valid reason, so you could ask for a citation by adding {{cn}} after the phrase or posing the question on the talk page. Hope that helps. Gimmetrow 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proof that they are not engaged well accutally two proofs how do i add those 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)
- What are they, and I'll take a look, but why does the article need to say this, either? Gimmetrow 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You know for proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUGG6IkGk and http://www.theinsider.com/news/1439313_The_Insider_Gets_Personal_with_the_Jonas_Brothers 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)
I tried one time to put a source for a diffrent person but i failed eva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, well, the article now doesn't say they are engaged. Does it really need to positively say they are not? Gimmetrow 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind okay whats a sandbox on here 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~
- A sandbox is a page where you test wikicode or "play around" to get something to work. One such page is WP:SAND. Gimmetrow 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this website and answers.com the same? 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.14.12 (talk)
- They are different sites. However, answers.com mirrors a lot of Wikipedia content, so it's almost always circular to try using it as a reference here. Gimmetrow 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
People always say that answers is more reliable than this site 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on what part of answers.com you mean. It should be obvious which parts mirror wiki pages. The question-specific parts can be better, although they too sometimes derive from wiki content. But there are parts which are authored, and if the author is a notable expert, those pages can be cited as the self-published work of an expert in the field. Gimmetrow 01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Block
Not that it really matters, but why the block on this user? Tan | 39 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mistake. Saw it at AIV. Already undone. Gimmetrow 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry man
Sorry 'bout my vandalism report. Just was trying to help but I shoulda looked up the rules and such. andkore 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Articlehistory bluelinked
Someone has done it again: Category:ArticleHistory error SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re-deleted now. Gimme, someone at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Resizing references is pushing for automatic use of {{reflist}} over <references />. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
ArticleHistory and DYK stuff
Hi Gimmetrow, I haven't heard from you about the stuff we discussed in the past about making {{ArticleHistory}} put DYK/GA and DYK/FA articles into a category, and by now the discussion at WT:DYK is archived; I figured maybe you were too busy to get a chance to look, so I'll just paste the code I was thinking of directly here. Here is what I was thinking of:
{{#if:{{{dykdate|}}}| {{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|FA|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured content]]}} {{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|GA|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles]]}} {{#ifeq:{{{currentstatus}}}|FL|[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured content]]}}}}
This is probably not the exact code that would end up being used (because there's a lot I don't know about how AH works and things might need to be tweaked around) but should hopefully give you an idea what I'm trying to do. The first line would identify articles that have been featured on DYK in the past; the next lines would identify articles that are also currently good or featured content. If this works the way I intend, it should not affect the FAC or GAN process, and the people who work in those projects should not even notice a difference.
Would something like this work in the AH template?
Thank you, Politizer talk/contribs 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course something like that would work. I thought I said so in the WT:DYK discussions. Gimmetrow 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I might have missed your comment; my apologies. I have been away for a bit, and of course at the same time this discussion was going on there was some other stuff hijacking the page and taking up everyone's attention. Anyway, if you like, would it be ok if I discuss with the DYK people what kind of articles we want to include (for example, if delisted FAs and whatnot should go in the categories) and then get back to you with a final idea of what code should be added?
- Thanks for your quick response, Politizer talk/contribs 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gimmetrow, when you implemented this, it looks like you may have forgotten the Category:
for the FL case. The code currently just adds a wikilink—[[Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]], see eg Talk:List of Sultans of Zanzibar. However the category doesn't seem to exist either. Dr pda (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Recent block of vandal/ Protection
Hallo, I don't not whether you know already, but for the recent vandalism at Nicolaus Copernicus, Recovered Territories, Bureaucracy and other articles, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. Serafin also used an UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH based IP for edits at Jan Dzierżon, see Special:Contributions/131.104.139.187. As he has now created 200-odd accounts mainly to vandalize the articles mentioned above, I suggest to full protect them, as other editors have been driven away already, leaving the field to Serafin's incarnations, which should be excluded effectively. -- Matthead Discuß 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk page
You have twice removed content at Roman Catholic Church that was agreed upon at the talk page. user Richard, user Xandar and myself have agreed to the use of Patrick Madrid's book, a source who meets WP:RS and is an includable POV per WP:NPOV. If we have omitted any POV's please come to the talk page and provide a link, we can include them. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, I am going to complain about you at the administrators board, you are clearly POV warring. I have clear talk page evidence to back up my use of Madrid, I was making changes that were discussed. I placed the info on the page and have asked the others to view it, they can not view it because you have omitted it with zero talk page discussion. NancyHeise talk 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)