Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
:::I also think you're wrong about the supposed 'AfD clique'. From what I've seen, they can be very reasonable to work with, but walls of text and snide remarks/personal attacks will tune just about anyone out. If we can all keep heading into this in a level-headed manner, we can work something out that everyone can agree with. When people butt heads all the time, progress can not happen. '''''[[User:Ishdarian|<font color="Blue">Ish</font>]][[User talk:Ishdarian|<font color="Green">dar</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|<font color="Red">ian</font>]]''''' 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::I also think you're wrong about the supposed 'AfD clique'. From what I've seen, they can be very reasonable to work with, but walls of text and snide remarks/personal attacks will tune just about anyone out. If we can all keep heading into this in a level-headed manner, we can work something out that everyone can agree with. When people butt heads all the time, progress can not happen. '''''[[User:Ishdarian|<font color="Blue">Ish</font>]][[User talk:Ishdarian|<font color="Green">dar</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ishdarian|<font color="Red">ian</font>]]''''' 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm not saying we should actually do this for UFC, it's simply an intermediate step (applicable to shorter promos, everyone including deletionists agree here), which ''then'' leads to the step of the breaking the chain of events into individual pages for promotions which get too long (which is what we have now). There's just a link at the end of the promo's pages which leads to the first page in the chain, which then chains to the next, etc. If you look at the sidebar on UFC events, that's how they work. With this setup, there's no need to "break out" anything, just as there's no need now. It helps to think of it as an abstract framework first. I'll try to draw a picture. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 03:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::I'm not saying we should actually do this for UFC, it's simply an intermediate step (applicable to shorter promos, everyone including deletionists agree here), which ''then'' leads to the step of the breaking the chain of events into individual pages for promotions which get too long (which is what we have now). There's just a link at the end of the promo's pages which leads to the first page in the chain, which then chains to the next, etc. If you look at the sidebar on UFC events, that's how they work. With this setup, there's no need to "break out" anything, just as there's no need now. It helps to think of it as an abstract framework first. I'll try to draw a picture. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 03:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
Here are 3 images for what I'm talking about (note to self, do not use Word for drawing diagrams): |
|||
#This is what omnibus works in the abstract (piling on) for small promos. Nobody would say this violates wiki rules. http://i.imgur.com/CK3kW.png |
|||
#This is what's been implemented for [[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAMMA_1|small promos]]. This perfectly fine according to everyone in the process: http://i.imgur.com/WJrtP.png |
|||
#This is what I'm proposing for larger promos where the above becomes unwieldy. It's exactly the same info, just divided in a way that makes sense for usability instead of all on one page. Note the only change is that page anchors are changed to links (green arrows). It's easy to navigate, and better in every way in terms of design for use in sequential (in time) sports: http://i.imgur.com/9gA5Y.png |
|||
I would upload this to wiki (and the mmanot page) but need to do other stuff atm. |
|||
[[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 04:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== AN link == |
== AN link == |
Revision as of 04:14, 11 May 2012
Before commenting, please take note of the following
- If I commented on your talk page, please don't comment back here, just leave me a talkback.
- If I did something to offend you, please link me to my offensive edit.
- Vandalism is useless. Go make a positive edit instead!
- Pumpkin pie is AWESOME
BAF
Read the discussion page for Bagram Air Base, I explained why I did it. Basically, even the USAF calls it Airfield on the website now, plus the numbers excuse holds zero water as the most incorrect response (Bagram Air Field) gets the most hits. There are literally no excuses left to continue calling it by the incorrect name.
That being said, I am sure that it'll continue to get rolled back until the consensus is agreed upon, once again, to ignore every possible fact available and continue to call it by the wrong name.
P.S. I'm super shocked that you're in the Air Force and want to insist on pretending that the base is somehow your service's. It's not.
P.P.S. Aim High! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm Ishdarian. I am really neat. Agreed. Ishdarian's a super cool dude who will fix humorous edits on the most minor things on here within minutes. Oh, what ever would Wiki do without him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.116.15 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you agree! Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a comedy club, so there is no room for "humorous edits" here. Sorry! Ishdarian|lolwut 07:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I have to ask: are you into noise, or are you protecting the article about R.R. the serial killer and caught my edit that way? Or do you just keep an eye on everything, all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.116.15 (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm into noise and that R.R. does a complete disservice to the REAL night stalker. Anyhow, I understand your commitment and won't try and re-edit...but between you and me, everything I added was the absolute truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.116.15 (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: User:88.*
Meh, I've been here too long and don't keep up with the constant changes. IPs used to not be allowed to do this, but that seems to have changed. Oh well. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Ishdarian. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've removed your PROD as the article was PRODded and contested before, therefore not eligible. Meanwhile, we edit conflicted on the article - I was AfDing while you were PRODding, so the deletion request is at a different venue now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Question regarding rollback actions
Please could you explain why you used the rollback button on these two edits: [1] and [2]? Minimac (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that since the user was evading a block and putting in information that has been rejected previously that it would constitute as vandalism. Ishdarian|lolwut 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello sir,
This is Dharani Maran,I am new to wikipedia.I have come across your word in the Paravar article discussion.I added some scholarly researches and sangam literature evidences for Paravar claim of Pandyan descendance. Herewith I have attached a link of scholarly reference you were asking. History of the Tamils: from the earliest times to 600 A.D.
By P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar [1]
ndian Hist (Opt)
By Reddy
Śaṅgam polity:the administration and social life of the Śaṅgam Tamils
N. Subrahmanian Paravars are said to be ferocious warriors here.
Caste, race and religion in India Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur) [4]
South Indian studies
Harōgadde Mānappa Nāyaka, Balakrishnan Raja Gopal, T. V. Mahalingam [5]
But,their some articles stating that paravar are low caste,those articles were written at the time,when paravars ie)pandyas lost their power and status.Pandyas are believed to be at their zenith during sangam ages.Literatures belonging to that sangam ages clearly depict that Paravar are noble people.Controversies arise every where,Even in case of Jesus,few worship him as god and few say him a man.These kind of controversies are common.We have to consider the chronology factor.Researchers of 19th century,take the evidences available to them at that point of time to consideration and come to a conclusion.Also,they might have been influenced by the rulers at that particular time,who might have defamed and defeated the early pandyas.So,I request every one who debate and discuss over pandyan descendancy to consider the time factor.Just go through sangam literature.Proofs are explicit to state Paravars(Parathavar) and Maravars are Pandyas.Both belong to the same roots of ancestry.The Maravars and Paravars alone carried the surname of Pandyas in their name before muslim invasion.
Being new to wikipedia,I am not able to understand the terms and conditions of wiki.I have given scholarly research evidences,historical evidences,inscriptions and sangam literatures as proofs.Even then,the tag says original research.Kindly help me out in this issue.Also,kindly ignore the articles saying paravar as low caste,with out proofs from ancient tamil text.
Thank you Dharani Maran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstars and shtuff
Honestly I don't know myself. You could check out WP:BARN; I'm heading for bed at the moment, plus I need to work on something important tomorrow. I'll be back here if I remember to look for it, and/or find it.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Pourquoi Story
I'm sorry if I offended you with my comments on the pourquoi story, it was nit my intention. I was simply attempting to make a statement about why it is acceptable to label one culture's religious beliefs as fiction (note comments made about Australian Aboriginal Dreaming stories) and not another's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.212.89 (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please refer to WP:POINT. Also, did you try bringing it up on the article's talk page? Ishdarian|lolwut 07:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Requests for comments. Please look at history!
There was already a "request for comment" for two weeks, but nobody bothered to comment. See this revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib&oldid=384617180 --89.139.219.61 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for merging ???
Wikipedia:Articles for merging?? "Maybe you should propose the merge there"??? This is just a test page, a proposal, not a page where you can propose mergers. All the procedure of Mergers has been done, and the result was that there was no objection to merge. Please see wp:MERGE for information concerning mergers. If no one objects with a reasonable reason in a considerable time , a merger can take place. 89.139.219.61 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Palin
I don't know, I thought that was the thing to do. Looking at Victoria Beckham and Michelle Malkin it lists both of their occupations, but yeah. I guess that's not really necessary, considering the wife is ~SO~ much more famous than he. 75.5.12.91 (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- That was just to source, "This is how his wife got started in the political business", but okay. I've since reverted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.12.91 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Yes you're right, I suppose I did lose my cool. One thing I find particularly aggravating is someone playing dumb. I'd have no problem keeping my cool if I knew he was a total dimwit but he's not an idiot so the "Who? Me? Trolling?" routine and the "Oh my, I think I've just been insulted and I'm just a defenceless newbie!" shtick really get under my skin. The irony of course is that his only claim to fame is that he got under the skin of a few other people... Pichpich (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A Newbies Questions
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A cookie for you!
Hello Ishdarian! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Copy Editing
I noticed you think the article State Armed Police Forces needs copy-editing and added a tag to that effect. What were the specific problems you feel are present in the article? Regards, Mesoso2 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. I don't even know why I placed that tag. I've reverted it. Sorry! Ishdarian 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Surfing in Ecuador, I contest and others have also the speedy deletion of Surfing in Ecuador, there are pages with the same informaction
Surfingecuador (Surfingecuador) 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that when i made a change to this page i liked in the view history area this has been tagged by (cur | prev) 19:30, 14 September 2011 Ishdarian (talk | contribs) (5,935 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW)) (undo) and this was not done in the Talk page and find it very tricky and to use a word by a friend of Harvard, i find this uncouth
i contest this request for a speedy deletion...
i have posted some info here and would like your comments on the Surfing in Ecuador talk page, thanks for your support
i find it uncouth that the person who requested the speedy deletion did not go to the talk page
Surfingecuador (Surfingecuador) 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
reasons in cold print that are related to the page Surfing in Ecuador in Context and why it should not be delted
here they are, other pages in south america that are places people surf and there are separate pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfing_in_Chil ( this article was created on the 28th April 2009 by Likeminas (talk | contribs) (1,869 bytes) (Creating new article about Surfing in Chile)
(this page was created in 2004,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfing_in_Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfingecuador (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
best regards
My Little Pony
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dealing with attack pages
Hi. Thanks for tagging Colin joseph boyd just now, but when you get a page which is a personal attack like that, there is a better tag to use than db-vandalism: the thing to do is, blank the page (to get the attack off the screen) and replace it with {{db-attack}}, which puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and generates a suitably fierce message for the author's talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)\
- Whoops! My thought process didn't even point me in that direction. My apologies! I'll take a better look next time! Ishdarian 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- No worries! JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Jack
Why did you delete my page, im trying to share some knowledge to make a difference why have you done this my time and effort are all gone now, please explain your actions JackOFlatharta (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, your page hasn't been deleted. It's still there, but I have proposed it for deletion. I looked up different parts of your article, but I can't find any evidence of any of it. It seems like a joke page. Do you have any reliable sources that back-up the information in the article? Also, I know how upsetting it is to have an article deleted, but please refrain from vandalizing my talk page any further. Thanks! Ishdarian 22:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Evan Mancuso
Thank you for your patience..
How about if I do it another way taking out the User:Evan Mancuso link
And instead having the Evan Mancuso link period. Then I will put in information about Evan Mancuso background current project screenplay request and read by Paramount Studios.. etc. etc.
Please Advise so I can update the page..
Evan Mancuso (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources for Evan Mancuso? Also, if you are Evan, you should read the policy on autobiographies. Ishdarian 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ishdarian! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Trololol
stop changing my stuff i wanna get on have i got news for you once i have got on there you can deleteand yes cheesecake is a pie not a cake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treepootreepoo (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
there are about 10 of my freinds (witch is more than you have) watching this computer please then you can delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treepootreepoo (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
sorry i wont do it again i promise and i will only contribute positive things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treepootreepoo (talk • contribs) 10:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treepootreepoo (talk • contribs) 10:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: A barnstar for you!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
swoon theory
Ishdarian,
Can you please, in the simplest possible terms indicate the specifics of why you reverted my edits on the topic "Swoon Theory"?
I am new to this and want to correct whatever mistakes I made so that I can makes those corrections again.
Thanks,
David Mirsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Mirsch (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm the organizer of the wiki-meetup Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC on Sunday evening by Columbia University, and it would be great to have you join us! Also, I am intrigued by your theories on cheesecake.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'll be unable to make it this time. One of my coworkers had a family emergency and I'm covering for him. Hopefully I can make it to the next one. Ishdarian 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
AMir Mansour
Only thing I had a problem with, was that you made the boxing record look very ugly.
Cheers
Hello. You have a new message at Dennis Brown's talk page.
Apologies for removing your comment at ANI
I've been away for a couple of days and just noticed this. I am not sure how that happened and I'm really sorry for doing it. The only reason I noticed was that it was the last edit I made and I couldn't figure out, when looking at my contributions, why I had remove 660 bytes of information. Once again my apologies for removing your comments. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I figured it wasn't malicious considering the turnover rate at ANI. Nothing for me to make a stink over, but I really appreciate the apology. :) Ishdarian 03:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Teatime?
A few pointers now that you're in the shiite so to speak:
- I know that many good editors (include previous admin Dennis Brown) have the best of intentions diving into this cesspool, but good intentions are unfortunately not enough to get good results here.
- The most important point to note even if you ignore everything else is this problem is more complex than can by solved with trite piecemeal rule changes. This isn't to say that it's a "complex" problem, because it's not, just that it's not surprising the current simplistic process has failed so miserably so many times.
- Despite the massive input of time/resources into the affair, the amount of work done is surprisingly trivial. When I said it's a non-trivial problem, what I mean is that it might take a moderately intelligent person a few days to figure out. Unfortunately this hasn't happen yet for any of the existing parties, and it's unclear whether it will/could.
- Substantive inputs longer than a few lines long tend to get the TLDR treatment, so when we add this to the couple points above, it's easy to see how a fundamental roadblock exists here.
- It's this dilemma coupled with a few very dominant editors (ie look who always sets the agenda) who don't understand it which makes the process hopeless.
TL;DR: Without resolving more prerequisite issues, anything that can come out of all this is destined to fail. It's basically like trying to solve an algebra problem with an inadequate understanding of arithmetic. Cheers. Agent00f (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's failed miserably so many times. There has been a lack of communication from both side. Do me a favor: break it down Barney-style, right here, and tell me what YOUR idea for this is. You've alluded to a solution you had, and you say you encountered resistance. Please, this is a safe haven. Show me what YOU think we should do. Also, please include these 'prerequisite issues'. Ishdarian 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've posted a simple breakdown in reply to Anna at the bottom of the talk page, but another breakdown is if we can all accept that piling more stuff on a page saves it from AfD by virtue of mass, then there should be no problem with piling events onto the end of a promo's own page. This would work for all smaller promos (the userbase all agree here). Of course this would mean that the UFC's page is 100+ event long. The logical followup from that is if this kind of omnibus is acceptable, then we should also accept the SAME THING but with html anchors transformed to links to separate entries. As long as the entries are cleanly and consistently linked together, it's just a better way of presenting the same info as one massively long omnibus. This means that wayward events won't qualify (ie inherent notability), but well formed coherent sets of event will. It's minimally intrusive and brightline testable. I've gotten very positive comments from other users for this idea but it's been shut out altogether at every turn.
- The prerequisite issues as alluded to is 1) this might require a bit of rethink at the WP:sports level (IMO it should) since this can be used for other sports in similar situations (other fast-growing sports tend to be in the same trap as MMA but less visible to deletionists). The process so far is very focused on generalizing higher level rules built for other problem to this new situation. 2) as a matter of face, there's no way the AfD clique will support anything that allows MMA event pages more or less as they are, no matter how strictly formatted (templatized, etc), no matter how high of a brightline standards we set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I really, really don't like the idea of stacking all the events at the end of the UFC main page. The omnibus should work fine for that. I have an idea for the omnibus that should get everything flowing in harmony, similar to what you recommended. One thing I don't like is redundancy. If the mainspace page exists for an event, then the omnibus should only link to the event page. If the omnibus is set up chronologically, then flow between events in a chronological order is relatively easy.
- I also think you're wrong about the supposed 'AfD clique'. From what I've seen, they can be very reasonable to work with, but walls of text and snide remarks/personal attacks will tune just about anyone out. If we can all keep heading into this in a level-headed manner, we can work something out that everyone can agree with. When people butt heads all the time, progress can not happen. Ishdarian 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should actually do this for UFC, it's simply an intermediate step (applicable to shorter promos, everyone including deletionists agree here), which then leads to the step of the breaking the chain of events into individual pages for promotions which get too long (which is what we have now). There's just a link at the end of the promo's pages which leads to the first page in the chain, which then chains to the next, etc. If you look at the sidebar on UFC events, that's how they work. With this setup, there's no need to "break out" anything, just as there's no need now. It helps to think of it as an abstract framework first. I'll try to draw a picture. Agent00f (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are 3 images for what I'm talking about (note to self, do not use Word for drawing diagrams):
- This is what omnibus works in the abstract (piling on) for small promos. Nobody would say this violates wiki rules. http://i.imgur.com/CK3kW.png
- This is what's been implemented for small promos. This perfectly fine according to everyone in the process: http://i.imgur.com/WJrtP.png
- This is what I'm proposing for larger promos where the above becomes unwieldy. It's exactly the same info, just divided in a way that makes sense for usability instead of all on one page. Note the only change is that page anchors are changed to links (green arrows). It's easy to navigate, and better in every way in terms of design for use in sequential (in time) sports: http://i.imgur.com/9gA5Y.png
I would upload this to wiki (and the mmanot page) but need to do other stuff atm. Agent00f (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
AN link
I modified your posting at AN about the RfC to jump directly to the RfC. If you object to this, feel free to revert. Hasteur (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)