User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01: Difference between revisions

• User:Acouillard is vandalizing again. -- Curps 04:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An admin blocked him indefinitely. -- Curps 05:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• (70.48.88.110 | talk | contributions) -- Curps 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not quite the same style. Acouillard would delete whole sections, usually starting from the cross-language links at the end of an article and working backwards. 70.48.88.110 is making rather smaller, sometimes partial word, edits. I'll check the contributions again in a couple of days to see whether anything further has developed. Uncle G 22:12, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

• Hi there, thanks for fixing up the copyvio template. It's always great to see someone around who catches my brainless typos :P -- Ferkelparade π 00:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. But there's no need to thank me. Uncle G 22:12, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

• Supercool Dude has reverted it, in abbreviated form. Rather than get into an edit war, you might just want to change your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Finger Test. -- Curps 02:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. *This* band didn't win a Grammy. It is a thing that we here in the business like to call "an example". It was intended merely to point out the untruth of your blithe assertion that "if the band took its name from the movie, the movie is notable." Since bands have been known to name themselves after hated childhood gym teachers and drug dealer's cats, your presumption that the only kind of movie a band would name themselves after must be a notable one is incorrect. The arrogance of assuming that the movie must be more notable than the band shows, mostly, that you don't do the faintest bit of investigation before instituting your big sweeping changes; don't you think that it's odd that a movie that's so (assumed to be) notable has yet to get 5 votes on IMDB? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's actually what we here in the business call "irrelevant", as I did. This band didn't win a grammy, so a comparison with a situation where a band did win a Grammy is a false one. And of course I nowhere said that the movie is more notable than the band. My exact words from the edit history, were "If the band took its name from the movie, the movie is notable.". I added a cleanup tag, one of the ones that asks for the article to be expanded, to the band at the point where the article merely said that "A count of heads of fans in America on the Internet is only about 450 people.". As for the "big sweeping changes", they were in fact nothing more than an ordinary type 1 disambiguation between a band and a movie of the same name, using the conventional Infobox_Movie layout for the movie section. Upon the discovery of a comma, I turned it into a type 2 disambiguation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • I'm to have to concur with Antaeus Feldspar that your holier-than-thou, "big sweeping changes" that are almost always votes for delete can be quite annoying. I don't think you do much investigation and, when you do, it is based on faulty methods that only examine evidence supporting your preconceived notions. --YHoshua 19:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • You, YHoshua are, of course the Joshua Claybourn whom I questioned the notability of at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joshua Claybourn, coming here bearing a grudge and latching on to the only negative comment that you could find. My edit record, which involves a very wide range of things, not solely VFD, speaks for itself, of course, and belies your "almost always votes for delete" assertion entirely. Using a sample size of 1, the article about you, is a very poor methodology. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Just to say though that I don't like necessarily to have everything linked and especially dates. There's no reason to link dates normally. Also British people use double quotes for direct quotes, although I know you can use both. WikiUser 21:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like necessarily to have everything linked and especially dates — There are very good reasons to wikify (It's not solely linking.) dates:
    • A wikified date ([[January 21]][[2005]]) will be represented in the reader's choice of date format.
    • A wikified year ([[2005]]) will link to the relevant year article. Not only does this allow readers to determine what else of note happened on the same year, it also allows them to use "What links here" to find out what articles (That have been wikified.) mention that year.
    • A wikified day of the year ([[January 21]]) allows readers to similarly check notable birthdays, anniversaries, and so forth.
  • British people use double quotes — Since it was your single quotes that I changed to double quotes, in line with the Wikipedia style guidelines, I have to assume that at least one British person does not use double quotes. Uncle G 22:49, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

• I draw your attention to the following from Wikipedia:patent nonsense:
  • The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense. Check the Deletion policy for information on how to handle these things:
    • Really poorly written stuff (See Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited?)
• Please familiarise yourself with the CSD rules. Uncle G 02:48, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

• Uncle G I am aware of these rules. Some leeway should be given with interpretation of rules and I still believe that the article in question is borderline nonsense. My original question to you was why are you seeking to protect this article from a speedy delete. Is it just that you want to blindly follow the rules without any interpretation?
  • Your so-called "interpretation" stretches the rules beyond their breaking point. The CSD criteria are deliberately narrow precisely so that articles like this do not get speedily deleted. The article was not nonsense, much less patent nonsense. I did make this quite clear when I unspeedied the article (my exact words being "It isn't nonsense, nor is it random words."), so your original question was answered before it was even asked. I even replaced the speedy deletion notice with a VFD notice an explained a second time there that it wasn't nonsense. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Many articles that make more sense than this article get deleted by admins, so obviously it is not just me that believes that the rules are open to some interpretation.
  • It may well be that you are not the only one that takes shortcuts in this manner. That doesn't make it correct to do so. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• If you look at my history you will see that I am not somebody who just sets every article they think should be deleted to a speedy. I use the VFD process when I believe that it is appropriate.
• One final point, you may want to reconsider phrasing your edit comments to make them less "assertive". I feel that such phrasing can only be counter-productive. TigerShark 10:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When you change a VFD back to a speedy deletion, even when the VFD discussion page explains why the article does not match the speedy deletion criteria, then a comment of "READ THE VFD PAGE", seems eminently called for. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the User:.0/ Uncle G, I'd have never have been able to do it! .0

• Along with your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/João Vieira, I noticed that you wrote:

  If no source for the information on this page other than User:Jvieira xemself can be found, then Userfy. Uncle G 15:27, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

• May I ask what you meant by "Userfy?" Thanks, -Willmcw 10:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's one of the Wikipedia:votes for deletion phrases. Uncle G 11:25, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
• Thanks - I hadn't seen that one before, or the list. I don't go to VfD very often, partly because it seems as if I always vote for Delete. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Can Vfd be made my anon-users?--ZayZayEM 14:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. I've even seen such nominations succeed. They can also vote, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Being anonymous is not of itself evidence of bad faith. Hundreds of people make hundreds of good faith anonymous contributions to Wikipedia every day, and that occasionally includes VFD nominations and votes. (And remember that you and I are ourselves merely pseudonymous, which isn't that much different.) Anonymity merely lends weight to other evidence of bad faith. Uncle G 14:40, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

• You're going way overboard with your "no personal attacks" edits. Please slow down and discuss. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not. They are exactly as per the Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks remedy. I wouldn't have done anything had I been the only onlooker to adjudge these to be contraventions of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy. But I'm clearly not the only one. Uncle G 04:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • It's somehow a personal attack to say something should not have been nominated? It's somehow a personal attack to refer to a rude and thoughtless comment as rude and thoughtless? Please consider the chilling effect your broad brush interpretation of personal attacks might have on discourse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • It is a personal attack to say "Should not have been nominated. A thoughtless waste of other users time.". I thought about removing just the second sentence, but the first sentence does not stand without it. And the echoing "rude and thoughtless" in the reply was refactored exactly as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks guidelines on simmering down both sides of the discussion. Policy recommends that both the attack and the response(s) in kind be refactored. I suggest that you refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.
        You may want the original attacks and the resultant counter-attacks to stand for all to see, contrary to policy, but I assure you that you will not be doing VFD any favours by doing so. There have been other recent murmurings in this same direction, and by preventing people from putting a lid on it now, and redirecting the discussion back to the task at hand, you're going to allow the situation to deteriorate yet further in future.
        And as for "chilling effect": Exactly the opposite is true. It's the personal attacks that are disrupting the discourse, as is plainly evident from the fact that people have stopped talking about the article pretty much completely, not their absence. I suggest that you consider the reasoning put forth in Wikipedia:no personal attacks. Uncle G 04:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
        • OK. Refreshing my memory about Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks finds this little detail that you may have overlooked: Following is a policy proposal regarding removing personal attacks from discussions. This proposal is not currently policy. (Besides, regarding the article in question, there's nothing to discuss anymore; what we actually need is a quick-removal-from-VfD policy.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • That is somewhat disingenuous, given that the same paragraph then goes on to state that the arbitration committee has suggested that people apply it, and that the page is categorized as Wikipedia:semi-policy. Given that you edited them back in, it is really you who should be answering the questions here. Why did you add these personal attacks? Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did you know your user page redirects to Talk:Euroscience? Gamaliel 20:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know lots of things. I know that adminstrators don't patrol Wikipedia:Speedy deletions regularly. I know that, contrary to what one is told, it's actually quite difficult for a user to get rid of a page in xyr user space that xe doesn't want, even when xe is the sole editor of that page. I also know that you didn't see the edit history of the page, and notice that I was the one who in fact created that redirect, when I moved a page, that some anonymous user had created, to the page where xe should have created it. ☺ Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• You don't need to have the redirect deleted (unless you don't want anything there at all); you can edit a redirect (like I just did, to add the {rfd} tag). You can blank it, or whatever you want. Noel (talk) 22:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
  • I stuck deletion notices on the page, listed it at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, listed it at WP:RFD, explicitly wrote "unwanted user page", and people still questioned whether I actually wanted the page deleted! ☺ Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

If you vote "support", it is unclear whether you are supporting the page's existence or the deletion nomination, and it makes it difficult for administrators to tally the votes. Use one of the standard votes listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases instead, and your vote will be clear to all. Uncle G 13:55, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Apologies, I will use one of the approved phrases from now on. As I proposed the Vfd I thought it was pretty obvious that 'Support' meant support the proposal to delete! However, I am more than happy to use a different word to avoid confusion. Cheers --Etimbo | Talk 14:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your tip to Category:Wikipedia articles of dubious importance! I rewrote Stacey Farber, which you'd tagged there, and will continue to watch it. Samaritan 18:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just as a heads-up -- David Gerard hates that tag, because even though it's obvious that only a very small minority of Wikipedians do not care at all about anything but verifiability, Wikipedia:Importance is still not formally policy. So he hates the tag and shortly after its introduction he went through the entire category and removed the tag from every single article it was placed on. That's why I created Template:Explain significance and have been using that instead -- David may be able to argue that Wikipedians' concerns about importance deserve to be removed if they are posing as official policy, but he'd have a harder time arguing that articles are not improved by better explaining the importance or significance of the subject, or that Wikipedians should not be allowed to ask for such improvement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know. I saw the blanket removal. I re-added the tag on some articles. Much as he may hate the tag, I think that it's only fair to tell contributors what notability is and to warn contributors that if they don't establish it a VFD is only a short time away. His concerns about policy notwithstanding, that is what actually, inevitably, happens in practice. With the tag, contributors at least have the opportunity to clean the articles up to avoid that. Uncle G 20:52, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article. I'm still a newbie and felt inadequate to clear it all up. Excellent job and a model for me in the future. hydnjo talk 01:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed! I write a stub to start an article, and less than 15 minutes later there's a redirect to it! Quick work! Grutness|^hello? 10:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• As others have said before me: Never underestimate the power of New Page Patrol. Uncle G 11:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Now Andries' Andrew Cohen stub has turned into an author bio by our anonymous Cohenite.--Goethean 20:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Since you're one of the most experienced Wikipedians I've come across, I'd like your opinion on something... I've been reading a lot of dead end pages lately, and from what I've understood, once a page is categorized (e.g. bio-stub, or category:video games, or possibly vfd), that page is no longer a dead end and should be removed from the list. SimonP disagrees; he claims that pages are unlikely to be read from *-stub and thus they should remain on DEP until they are valid articles, and he claims to read every DEP article every day to remove those that are. Do you know if there's a consensual policy on this? (see my and his talk page for our discussion on this topic) Thanks for your time. Radiant! 09:33, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, ordinarily I would just merge it. The problem is tha User:John Gohde, a user who has been twice banned by the arbcom for his edit warring, camps that page and reverts... more or less any change that isn't his, actually. It's nearly impossible to edit that or any other page related to alternative health without a binding vote of one kind or another. Snowspinner 14:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not every edit to "your" articles is vandalism that is to be reverted on sight, you know. OAEP is a redirect to Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding, as per the article naming conventions on acronyms, and I'm just snapping the redirects to save time when OAEP becomes a disambiguation page, as it surely will (c.f. SSL). By reverting, you are simply making work for other editors to do, re-doing all of what I've just done, down the road. If you want to not display the full article name in the link, then please extend your editing skills by learning to make piped links, in addition to knowing how to hit that revert button. Please also learn the correct procedure, given at WP:CP, for putting up copyright violation notices. I fixed your notice at Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding to be in the correct form, and did the listing for you, but it was just luck that I happened to be on patrol at the time and spotted the page. Again, please don't make work for other editors. Uncle G 20:12, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Hi UncleG. I have to say that this message is rather hostile. Sorry if I've offended you, but I think you're being rather unfair. First: "Knee-jerk reversions" — not so, I resisted any impulse to do it straight away and waited a few hours. Second: I don't consider articles to be "mine"; while I do spend a lot of time editing crypto articles, I'd prefer have more people working on these articles, and I'm always willing to discuss things. Third: I'm aware that we have a procedure for noting copyvios. However, I noticed it last thing at night (1am) and was too tired to go through the procedure. Rather than forgetting about it, I added a harmless comment to the page, to save me having to dig up the link again the following morning, and then promptly crashed into bed. It's good that you saved me the trouble, but it would have got done anyway. Fourth: I am aware of how to use the piped link syntax. Fifth: I believe that OAEP should either be the name of the page on the padding-topic, or redirect Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding. I don't imagine there's a need for equal disambiguation here, even if we should get other "OAEP" topics at some point. Sixth: The reason I reverted your changes is that we likely want the text to say "OAEP" — I believe it's mostly used in acronym form, like NASA. Before your change they did this; now they don't — I suggest they be changed back. It seems you didn't take kindly to being reverted, but I figured you wouldn't be particularly interested given that the page in question is going to be deleted soon, anyway. — Matt Crypto 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't close the debates, as that is the job for an administrator to review the debate and close it. Also, if you do, please do not forget to sign your name. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm only closing the ones where the conclusion has been unequivocally and uncontestedly speedy delete, with enough people agreeing upon speedy deletion that had it gone through the speedy process it would never have hit VFD in the first place, and the article has actually been deleted. Uncle G 11:10, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
    • Only close speedy deletions after they have been deleted by an administrator. If they haven't been speedied yet, then the debate is still open, and subject to VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I refer you to the last 7 words of what I wrote above. Wasn't the emphasised "and" clear enough? Wasn't the fact that all of my closures have (deliberately, in an attempt to head off exactly this sort of discussion) quoted one or more entries from the deletion log clear enough? I find it disappointing that in WP:AN#Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_and_speedy_deletions you remind administrators that they've been forgetting to edit the VFD pages when they speedily delete a VFD candidate, and then when someone helpfully does this, tidying up after the administrators who forget, you complain. Furthermore: Who was it who just proposed Assume good faith to be given "official policy" status? Uncle G 02:20, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
        • I happen to find an article which you closed, which wasn't deleted. Okay? It may have been overlooked if an administrator wasn't paying attention, and I'm only advising caution. Fortunately, I deleted on your behalf, which is why I notified you about it. I asked for administrators to mark it close, because those administrators who are paying attention to the speedy deletion candidates may not be paying attention to VFD candidates... as they have the power to delete articles. I thank you for your assistance, it is appreciated, but I'm asking you to follow procedure. It is okay for anyone to add the close notice for any VFD article that has already been deleted, as I specified. Furthermore, {{subst:vfd top}} is placed above the section. And, I was very specific: if you see it meets any of the speedy criteria and have already deleted the page. I was asking to add the notice once the page was deleted. I saw the page you placed the notice wasn't deleted. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • No, that's not OK. It's a falsehood, in two ways:
            1. Checking my contribution history for the word "close" I find that I've closed 6 VFD debates so far, 5 as speedy deletions, and the other 1 as Userfy. All of them were closed after the actions were taken. I know this because I know that it was their titles being redlinks in a list of blue, with comments saying "speedy delete", that caused me to even edit those discussion pages in the first place. You should know this because the evidence was staring you in the face. As I've already said, I put it there to head off exactly this sort of false accusation. On 4 of those 5 I pasted in the very deletion log entries. On the 5th, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samuel Baker White, I forgot to do so, but a simple cross-check of the VFD discussion edit history with the deletion log shows that I closed the discussion on 2005-02-17 00:54, which was after Dpbsmith deleted the article on 2005-02-16 18:31 (the previous day, no less!). Again, you demonstrate the irony of nominating Assume good faith to "official policy" status. Rather than assuming good faith on my part, with my contribution history of more than a thousand good-faith edits, you assumed good faith on the parts of the creators of the speedily deleted articles (assuming, for starters, that they didn't simply mischievously re-create the speedily deleted articles after they were first speedily deleted and the discussions then closed by me — even though at least one closure, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Hilary_Mutch, showed authors re-creating speedily deleted articles). You might do well to ask yourself whose good faith it would have been the more logical to assume.
            2. I can find no evidence that in fact you did delete any article on my behalf, as you state. Your first comment here is dated 2005-02-19 04:03. The deletion log shows no deletions at all by you on that day or on the day before. And your deletions on the day before that were all your own closures. Please name the article that you claim to have deleted.
          • I expect an apology forthwith. Uncle G 13:48, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Hello! I've been wondering about something... the most prominent thing that regulargly gets VfD readers into, well, shouting matches, is the issue of high schools. I believe that you'd agree that high school (or primary school) is not inherently encyclopedic. Yet several people vehemently disagree, and it seems likely that high school articles (and lists thereof) will continue to get added. So I figured that maybe such articles need another venue.

Would you think it feasible to call for transwikiing of high school articles, and related ones? And if so, where? Of the existing Wiki projects, the most appropriate one seems WikiTravel. But on Metawiki, there is talk of Wikiteer, which is to include extensive geographical and sociological information, but doesn't exist yet.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this. I've asked the same question of a couple of other users, so please respond on User talk:Radiant!/Schools. Thank you. Radiant! 14:33, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I have noticed your thoughtful contributions to VfD (both ways!). Could I trouble you to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Argentine_Currency_Board. I am not lobbying for your vote either way, but no-one seems to be looking at this one(perhaps because it is a long article, and fairly technical), and I do believe it is worthy of some serious consideration. Thanks. HowardB 03:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the compliment. I'm afraid that I'm right in the middle of a big Wiktionarification project right now, as you can see from my contribution histories here and on Wiktionary. I'll try to get back to the article later. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

• I see you are adding templates to the lists of foreign words, asking that the lists be shrunk and removed. I like that idea much better than deleting the articles. Afterall, there are plenty of encyclopedic stuff to say about the history and etymology and linguistics of vocabulary moving from language to language without providing a list. It seems that your approach is best; change these lists into encyclopedia articles, move the rest to wiktionary. Should I try to undelete the latin list so that it can be subjected to the same treatment? -Lethe | Talk 12:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that, too. At the moment Wiktionary:Category:Latin derivations is rather bare. ☺ As I recall, it is rather a long list. See List of English words of Polish origin and List of English words of Hawaiian origin, by the way. Uncle G 12:25, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for giving a good link to read on this topic. I'm more calm now. Although, it's a pity, that these times don't work very well in practice. Cmapm 16:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It would have been nice of you to discuss your hijacking of Rutgers which was a redirect pointing to the predominant usage of the word in order to obtain consensus from the Rutgers University article's contributors. I will be reverting your misguided disambiguation later this evening. —ExplorerCDT 18:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Rutgers University article's contributors" are at Rutgers University, and always have been, not at Rutgers. And this was not "hijacking", it was a perfectly ordinary change of an article for an abbreviation from a redirect to a disambiguation once the abbreviation became the abbreviation for more than one thing, something that happens all of the time here. The misguided act will be your intended reversion. I suggest that instead of doing that you re-familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and open your eyes and take a look around, outside of the one little corner of Wikipedia that houses your alma mater, at articles like Saint John, Darwin, Churchill, Pembroke, and the numerous other examples that can be found, and learn how surnames/placenames and the abbreviations of the names of multiple educational instutions are routinely disambiguated around here. Heck, you could have not wasted your and my time by simply remembering Queen's College. Uncle G 20:22, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
    • You went about it the wrong way. Also, it doesn't look good in your corner by removing negative comments from your talk page just out of fear that you'll look bad. Thanks to Tony Sidaway, your misguided edit at Rutgers was correctly addressed the way I would have this evening. —ExplorerCDT 21:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You went about it the wrong way. — Rubbish. I went about it the same way that it had been gone about in all of those other cases. being bold doesn't require people to "ask permission" of a group of people on a completely different page before putting in a perfectly normal name disambiguation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
      • it doesn't look good in your corner by removing negative comments from your talk page just out of fear that you'll look bad. — Since I'm the one with the talk page going all of the way back to when I first started, and you're the one with "I blank my talk page each month, as is my prerogative" and "If someone wants an archive, their needs are assuaged through a simple search through the history listing and it's up to them to find what I've cleared out" at the top of your talk page, I have to suspect that you are erroneously projecting your own motives onto me. I moved the conversation to your talk page from mine for probably the same reason that Matt Crypto moved a comment from his talk page to mine, above: conversation. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Tony Sidaway, your misguided edit [...] was correctly addressed the way I would have this evening. — Again, it was your idea of reversion ("I will be reverting") that was misguided. That wasn't what Tony Sidaway did at all, of course. He simply turned a type 2 disambiguation into a type 3 disambiguation. That, of course, wasn't the "reverting" that you were talking about at all. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Help! Xe's putting all of the dictionaries back in. Uncle G 19:09, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

• Er, yes. I'd be happy to help, but how exactly do you propose I do that? And who's Xe? Radiant! 22:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I thought it was a user name :) I'd seen the Spivaks but I was unaware that there are actually multiple standards for gender-neutral phrasing. Out of curiosity what would then be the gn-form of history? (given that herstory is already a known term - would it be itstory? xestory?) Anyway I'll go and visit the talk page. Radiant! 09:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

6 hours is more like a slap on the wrist. The typical blocking time which is suggested is 24 hours. Vandalism has 4 strikes, then the 5 stike is a block. You may suggest an alternative you wish. 4 warnings, then 5th as a block for 24 hours. But one should not attempt avoid established consensus, which is kind of the point for the block. I felt that 24 hours is a bit excessive for something so minor. 6 hours seems more appropriate and warning them with referring to this policy allows them to really make them think. The second warning is a stern warning that they should not disrupt the Wikipedia and that prior consensus has already been decided regarding these tally boxes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's the notion of blocking this as if it were vandalism that disturbs me. It's disruption, true. But it's not vandalism. Wikipedia:vandalism is emphatic that "stubbornness", and the unwillingness to follow consensus, is not vandalism. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in this... there are a number of articles on high schools up for deletion, that had a variety of keep-and-delete votes. However, GRider has been contacting a large amount of people to get them to vote for keeping those schools. So, in the fourth or fifth day of the process, these schools suddenly get a dozen additional keep votes. I'm not sure what to think of this myself, I would like your opinion. Radiant! 17:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quote GRider,

• As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

• VfD: Canyon Crest Academy
• VfD: Devonport High School for boys
• VfD: Eyuboglu high school
• VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School
• VfD: Maha Jana High School
• VfD: Robert Frost Middle School
• VfD: Wood Green School

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

In Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering#Confirmation, Ian Kennedy admits to using Wikipedia to create an examinable outcome. This has, as yet, provoked very little comment. What is your view? -- RHaworth 20:48, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

• I'll have a look later on. Uncle G 19:21, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm wondering if you'd take a quick look at the rewrite I've done on Babes_in_the_Wood. I based the rewrite in part on your information in the VFD discussion, and I'd be grateful if you'd make sure that, in paraphrasing it, I haven't introduced any errors. I don't know much about the subject other than what you and Google have to tell me, to be honest. If the page does seem to make sense to you now, perhaps you might be willing to reconsider your vote for deletion. Also, Best, --Jacobw 16:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to get those "already in wiktionary" dicdefs out of CSD. I de-tagged most of the ones I don't think should be deleted, is it reasonable to Vfd the rest? I've already done Disfiguration. Kappa 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If they have been properly transwikied (according to the process described at m:transwiki) then putting them through the origin project's normal deletion process (which for Wikipedia is VFD) would be the final step. Some of them haven't been properly transwikied though, and should remain in Category:Move to Wiktionary with the tag on them, and not be nominated for deletion at all. Some of them aren't transwiki candidates, simply because parallel dictionary articles have grown up independently at Wiktionary. Those latter should be sent to VFD, too (as long as they haven't grown into encyclopaedia articles whilst they've been sitting in the Wiktionary queue, as some have — see how many cases I've closed at Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary). Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

What are you planning to do with Wardrobe? Kappa 23:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01, I've noticed that you currently don't have a userpage. Not a problem in itself, but it makes your name appear as a redlink when signing talk pages, or when seen in Special:Recentchanges. Some users feel that lack of a userpage is an indication that a user may be a troll, sockpuppet, or simply a newbie. One simple solution, if you don't want to create a userpage, is to edit your userpage and insert the following:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2006-01-01]]

This will make your userpage a redirect to your talk page. If you ever want to create a user page, follow this link:

//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_G/Archive/2006-01-01&action=edit

Thanks, User:Alphax/sig PS. Your talk page is getting rather long. 15:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• It's getting long in part because of 5 paragraph additions that tell me nothing that I don't know already, and that have already been addressed earlier on the same page. ☺ The correct solution to what you describe is for people to un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages, just as they should un-learn the similar false inference that they make about contributions from anonymous users. (Some people falsely infer that anonymity brings bad faith, but anonymous users make thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia every day.) Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

• • Is there any particular reason why you don't have a userpage? If you make it a redirect to your Talk page, it's one less page that someone has to load... User:Alphax/sig 23:50, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, if the only reason you voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/24/7 was because the process hadn't been followed, it now has and you might want to reconsider your vote. Just letting you know. Kevin Rector 17:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Ahem. Rad Racer moved 3 S's to Shoot, shovel, and shut up, then expanded the article and removed the VFD notice from it. Saying that "Shoot, shovel, and shut up already exists" is rather bizarre, considering that that is the very article that was nominated for deletion here. Similarly, saying that the article nominated here should be deleted in favour of Shoot, shovel, and shut up is bizarre, considering that that is the article nominated here. If you want to delete 3 S's, the redirect created by Rad Racer, then that's fair enough (although WP:RFD is really the place to discuss it). But please be clear about what article is being discussed for deletion. My keep vote for Shoot, shovel, and shut up stands, by the way. I intended to improve the original article myself, but found when I sat down to do it that Rad Racer had beaten me to it by 20 minutes. Uncle G 08:24, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • LOL, yeah, I guess I got impatient with the vfd process. I was afraid all those vfd votes against 3S would end up being applied to the new article, and my work would get lost. For a moment there, it looked like no one was going to figure out what was going on. Rad Racer 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please look at my comments on Category talk:Move to Wiktionary.

Also, please look at Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary and make any changes that you see fit, I'm not good at writing policy and I wrote it at 2 am. Kevin Rector 06:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a wrong comment please. Kevin Rector 03:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason, I've only found 2 pages that were wrong. I'm going through the rest of them to check them out. Kevin Rector 03:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle G. You noted on this Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/SAR that it was incomplete, which it was, and you properly got the context and that it was the wrong place to have the debate. Given that the conversation happened on the VfD page anyways, would you care to posit an opinion? I've posted a link to the policy on abbreviations and disambiguation pages that is pretty clear that these should be merged, which shouldn't even have required a discussion to begin with. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you watching out for ICE NKNU by reinstated the VFD notice. Hard to keep those things up sometimes. Thanks. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I really appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Words_from_Foucault's_Pendulum. Thanks for taking the time to explain the Wiktionary concordance stuff, and the benefits of moving the list there, in such a positive manner. FreplySpang 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you commented on speedy deletion in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew Alford, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you a question that's concerned me. One of the things that speedy deletion seems to be silent on is slanderous articles about non-notable persons. I've deleted a couple of them on sight, reckoning them to be dangerous to the Wikipedia project and also grossly unfair to the person involved. It's been awhile back, but as I remember, these weren't mild cases - they accused persons by name of perversions, providing addresses and phone numbers, etc. I can rationalize it to myself as deleting nonsense, or deleting vandalism, but I'd feel uncomfortable if challenged on it. Any thoughts? Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• See the last paragraph of Wikipedia:No legal threats. What "call[ing] to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large" might mean when one is an administrator, and can delete the article on sight, is tricky. One way of addressing this is to put the article through the normal deletion process, but to immediately refactor the personally identifying material and attacks (such as has been done by Lee M at Homeless Solutions in Edison NJ). If the article would effectively have no content left after the personally identifying material and attacks were refactored, you can probably justify immediate deletion on the grounds that the article proper satisfies speedy deletion criterion #A1. And you can always just remove the material and tag the article for speedy deletion (like the rest of us do ☺) rather than delete it outright if you want a second editor to review and confirm your decision. Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• • Useful ideas. I think the phrase 'not to be tolerated' gives me soolid justification. Cleanup, then ask for backup seems to be very prudent advise, too. Thanks! Catbar (Brian Rock) 22:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, apparently I just made a lot of work for you, or you did for me, or something, so I wanted to clarify. I'm sure you are the expert here, but this is what I did, in good faith. I searched for articles requested on Wiktionary to see if they had articles on Wikipedia, in which case I added the "move to wiktionary" tag. (e.g. carrion, carmelization, breakdancing, etc) Then you went through and removed the tags saying they were encyclopedic. It was my understanding that if a word is needed at wiktionary, we could just take the encyclopedia article and glean the definition of the term from it. After all, in order to be an encyclopedia article, it must define the term somewhere, usually the first sentence or the lead section. I think you are getting caught up in thinking the tag means I think the article is unencyclopedic, when really all I wanted was for their definitions which were in the context of an encyclopeic article to also be at wiktionary. What is wrong with this? --Dmcdevit 18:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't doubt your good intentions. It wasn't until Talk:Bestseller that I figured out what you were doing. It's a lot more work to transwiki an encyclopaedia article (including all of the various log edits, the tagging, and the cleanup at the Wiktionary end) than it is to simply write a good stub at Wiktionary from scratch. It works a lot better to reserve the transwikification process to those articles that have content worth saving. (You'll notice that in some of my recent VFD submissions I didn't bother to transwiki the article, but simply wrote a fresh Wiktionary article of my own devising at Wiktionary from scratch. This is for similar reasons. The effort of transwikification exceeded the effort of simply growing a Wiktionary article independently and directly.) If you don't want to write the stubs, then make a Wiktionary page of redlinks, as I described at Talk:Bestseller. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Yup, I see your point. Sorry again. --Dmcdevit 19:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I came across the list of admins, and was very surprised to see that you're not on there, given your knowledge of wikicedures and transwikefaction and everything. Would you like me to nominate you? Radiant_* 13:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I could have sworn that someone has made this very comment before. But I cannot find it. I don't regard administratorship as being some sort of élite club. In fact I've sometimes wondered whether "trustie" would be a more apt term than "administrator". Because the rôle is all about being entrusted with extra tools. So it's irrelevant whether I'd like to be nominated. What are important are whether you think that I can be trusted with the abilities to delete/undelete/protect/unprotect articles and block/unblock users; and whether giving me those tools will benefit the encyclopædia. I certainly cannot decide the former for you. As for the latter: I've not yet been in a position where the ability to block users or to protect pages myself would have been useful; and I don't forsee any need for me to be able to run SQL queries. ☺ However, maybe my having the ability to delete pages would benefit the encyclopædia. I tried to think of a case where the encyclopædia would have benefited had I had the ability. (It's not something that I find particularly lacking when doing New Page Patrol, for example.) After much thought, during which I almost came to the conclusion that there would be no benefit to be had at all, I came up with one. If I had had it, I probably would have pitched right in to help clear the backlog at WP:CP that built up a while back. Uncle G 15:50, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Okay, let me paraphrase that. I do feel you can be trusted with said tools, and I'm sure you'll be as beneficial to the 'pedia with them as you have been without them. When I said "would you like me to nominate you" what I meant was "I think you would make a good admin and would like to nominate you as such, but I wanted to ask first if you'd accept it." If I understand your response correctly, that would be a 'yes'. Radiant_* 09:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC) - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G

Could you go to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G page and indicate your acceptance of the nomination, answer the questions, and create (even a minimal) User page? RickK 22:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have just transwikied a big group of articles to Wiktionary. There are now only 23 ('bout 15) left. I left these because these are the ones that, for whatever reason, I was iffy about. I was wondering if you could look through them sometime in the future and give me your opinion about their merit. I will do the transwiki-ing myself. Thanks for your help (it's because I respect your expertise). And what is to be done about the talk pages and category listed there? --Dmcdevit 04:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled; can you confirm that you want your User page deleted? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is confusing, isn't it? It took some work for me to figure it out, and it was apparently not obvious to you. Stylistic reasons, as it turns out... See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G for an explanation, of sorts. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• On the same lines, if someone helpfully creates a user page for you, do you want it to be tagged for speedy deletion, or should it be left for you to deal with? (I guessed the former, apologies if I'm wrong). Kappa 03:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that is is deleted as neologism, shouldn't it description in the First Lady article removed as well, or at least edited to reflect its uncommon usage? This was the main point of my clumsy question at the VfD with entangled logic (and the very vfd itself): if a term is notable enough to be mentioned in some article, then it deserves at least a redirect there. If it will sit there, sooner or later it comes back unto us, thru multiple mirrors (magic :-). Mikkalai 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, is Second Lady OK to have? Mikkalai 17:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this template on a user subpage has been moved from WP:TFD to WP:VFD as user:Netoholic closed the discussion in its former location with the comment that TfD is only for entries in the Template: namespace. I have taken the liberty of moving your vote from its former location to the present discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools. You may of course change your vote or stikethrough it all together in the normal way. To avoid any allegations of vote stacking I am contacting everybody who voted at TfD and Netoholic who closed the discussion, but not anybody who had not already expressed an opinion. Please feel free to disucss this on my talk page. Thryduulf 14:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Also, please give your opinion on the jurisdiction issue, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Proposal. Radiant_* 15:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-worked the copyvio template to address some problems users have mentioned to me. Please take a look at User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT and tell me what you think. I also posted more detailed info to Template talk:Copyvio Feco 01:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I see many people (8 till now) have opposed you at WP:RfA, simply because you don't have a user page. I find this controversy unnecessary, but then, it's not really troublesome to create a user page. You can probably put something about what kind of work you do at Wikipedia, or probably some bookmarks. :) utcursch | talk 11:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Failing the creation of a user page, would you be willing to copy your explanation from RFA to the top of your talk page (before the TOC), or to a user subpage prominently linked from there? I suspect this would satisfy most of those who are currently neutral or opposing you. It would certainly satisfy me. (I also find it telling that, with one exception, only one person is refraining from supporting you for a different reason than this. I'd have nominated you myself a month ago, had I not seen the thrashing received by previous candidates with minimal or nonexistent user pages.) —Korath (Talk) 21:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. Done. It's a good idea for another reason. It will stop the same question being asked yet again. ☺ Uncle G 17:19, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • I was receiving the same RFA opposition because I had made my user and talk page links appear red, and had "This space intentionally left blank." on my user page. Unfortunately, it became apparent that I wasn't going to get much support for those reasons, so I gave in, but I still support your effort. --brian0918™ 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read your reasons and I think they're very good. But - since you want your edit history as your 'official record', couldn't you simply redirect your userpage to your contribs log? Radiant_* 11:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • That would certainly say what I'm intending to say. The problem is that it doesn't work. I tried it in the sandbox. Apparently redirecting to special pages is currently turned off, just as interwiki redirects currently are. Uncle G 12:31, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
        • Hm, interesting. You could go for a userpage with a single [1] link, maybe. It's not entirely blank but still aesthetically pleasing :) Anyway I find the RfA reasoning somewhat disturbing, and it's very tempting to make a support - has a user page vote some time soon. Radiant_* 15:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'vanity' tag is meant to be placed on Talk pages rather than articles (though I can think of a number of reasons why it shouldn't be, but never mind) — but there are two parts to that. Why just take it off the article James Longstreet (security) without bothering to place it on the Talk page? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What user's talk page would one place it on? The talk page of an anonymous user who hasn't made any edits since February? How could one be sure that the original author was even still using that IP address, two months later? In any case, the article has survived a VFD since then. See the article's talk page. Uncle G 00:12, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle. I was going to post a separate note about vanity but found to my surprise that it's a current topic here. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Silly Goose Productions, a defendant of that article cites something written within Wikipedia:Vanity page, a page I hadn't previously noticed. Now that I look at it, this part of Wikipedia:Vanity page seems addled, and I've said so on Wikipedia talk:Vanity page. Take a look if you're in the mood -- and perhaps comment there rather than here, let alone on my page (I hate chopped-up "conversations"). -- Hoary 04:10, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the {{Music-importance}} tag. I totally forgot about it since I saw it used a few weeks ago. I also realize the reason I forgot it: it is not currently listed in WP:TM. So I'll add it the template message listings now. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have messed up the anarchism page - it's now in two bits on the same page - max rspct 19:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've no idea what caused that. My web browsers don't have the article size limit problem, as far as I know. I've fixed it, anyway. Uncle G 19:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

I am ashamed that I had to look up Oolon Colluphid. Good one. :-) android↔talk 05:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. I think it is done now. Note that for the content moved from Periscope I do not believe an entry in the logs should be done, because the article itself is still intact in Wikipedia, it is just the section that once was Demo periscope that is moved. -- Egil 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, that the article was expanded by GRider to include the information about the movie. You may want to review your vfd vote. Grue 17:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Uncle G - at Move to Wiktionary you deleted the proposed deletion of Mudita with the edit summary "Mudita has been transferred. This is the third time that you've listed it. Please stop." I find this odd for three reasons. (1) I have only ever listed this once; (2) it is still in Wikipedia, so even if it has been transferred to Wiktionary it has not been deleted - someone has simply removed the "move to wiktionary" template from it; (3) there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary.

Given that you do not want me to add the "Move to Wiktionary" template to this article and seem to think I've already listed it at "move to wiktionary" twice more than I have, and that the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary, what do you suggest should be the next move? Grutness|^hello? 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have only ever listed this once — False. You (plural) have listed it three times once here, the second time here, and the third time here. The latter two of those times were you (singular). By checking the history you would have seen that the edit immediately preceding yours was KevinBot noting the first transwikification. By reading the talk page you would have seen a big notice (two, in fact, because you marked the article for transwikification a second time, causing it to be transwikied a second time) saying that the article had been transwikied. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• it is still in Wikipedia — If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion. Transwikification does not automatically end in deletion. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary — False. The big notice on the talk page provides a link to exactly where the article is on Wiktionary. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary — False. The exact same article has been moved twice now. We do not need to move it a third time. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
• what do you suggest should be the next move? — I strongly suggest that it be you reading the article's talk page, the top of Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, where it is stressed to check that an article isn't already on Wiktionary, and Wikipedia:Transwiki log, where you will see the logs of the two times that this article has already been moved. I'm going to make a suggestion for McBot. Uncle G 14:34, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

• "I have only ever listed this once — True. it would have been far less confrontational to have use a passive voice. "It has been listed here three times" may be true, but to launch a direct accusation as you did is both false and provocative.
• it is still in Wikipedia — If you want the article deleted, nominate it for deletion. Transwikification does not automatically end in deletion. - I will do, once the article is transwikied.
• there is no "Mudita" article in Wiktionary — True - as you will find if you try [2].
• the article still needs to be moved to Wiktionary — True. You could also try a search of Wiktionary, which will fail to find Mudita.
• what do you suggest should be the next move? — I strongly suggest that it be you reading the article's talk page - done. it's incorrect, the top of Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, where it is stressed to "check that an article isn't already on Wiktionary" - have done so. The article isn't in Wiktionary, and Wikipedia:Transwiki log, where you will see the logs of the two times that this article has already been moved - it may have been moved, but it never arrived at Wiktionary. I'm going to make a suggestion for McBot - good idea, but first, I'd suggest making sure that Mudita is moved to Wiktionary! Grutness|^hello? 01:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Okay Grutness, I think you are misunderstanding the procedure. When I transwiki any article, including Mudita, it doesn't go directly into a Wiktionary article. It goes into the "Interwiki" area, so that the Wiktionary people can format it before making it an article. (So Mudita does exist at Wiktionary:Transwiki:Mudita). --Dmcdevit 18:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, Uncle G, sorry about that, but there's nothing I can do about it in the program. I usually try to check; I recently had to fix a bunch that had been done before (only because I remembered them). I'll try to check first, although it gets tedious for dozens of articles at the same time (when it could be none of them have been done before). Luckily, when it comes to Mudita, and probably most others, it didn't change at all, except minus a stub tag. Also important is it does not overwrite history or anything else, so they can always be restored. Sorry to trouble you, carry on. Also, I'm interested what you think I'm supposed to do with the category tagged for Wiktionary; should I transwiki all of its articles? --Dmcdevit 18:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No. I've been slowly dealing with the numerical prefixes (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Numerical prefix) and that category is considerably smaller now than it was. The remaining articles in that category are the difficult ones, that need finer attention than blunt transwikification. (The implied etymologies in twi- need to be hand-checked and the relevant individual Wiktionary articles updated, for example, which I'll do when I get the time. And note that Wiktionary already has articles for all of those prefixes, so transwikification won't be useful.) Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

• Ahh... Good. I had no idea. Just had this vague feeling that I was suposed to be transwiki-ing them too, but categories don't show up on my program. --Dmcdevit 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why are you unilaterally changing all the constituency articles to match your own disambiguation scheme? I suggest you stop what you're doing and discuss at the WikiProject (which you knew existed) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliamentary_Constituencies - I really don't see why you've gone about changing all the articles to a silly disambiguation scheme that's much worse than before, it's a lot more effort for you. If you're doing it because other institutions such as the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly use the same constituency/same constituency names, and you want to disambiguate them, firstly it because you're changing it to "UK Parliamentary constituency" it doesn't neccessarily exclude the Scottish Parliament, and secondly, what does it have to do with all the English constituencies you've changed? -- Joolz 07:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's not my disambiguation scheme, it's yours. I took it from an existing Scottish constituency, Dundee East, which disambiguates between the UK Parliament and the Scottish parliament in this very way. I'm simply using an equal-weight disambiguation. Also, this is already discussed at the WikiProject. See the very talk page that you pointed to, in particular Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies#Commons_and_Scottish_Parliament_constituencies. I'm running with it for the remaining constituencies because (a) the same thing applies for the Wales and Northern Ireland because they have the same two sets of constituencies as Scotland (It's simply that those two haven't caught up with the problem yet, although they will very soon.), and (b) the same thing applies for England because town/borough names and constituency names clash and a disambiguation is required (See Epsom and Ewell and Epsom and Ewell (UK Parliament constituency).). Uncle G 12:06, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Hey, sorry, I did read that section a few days ago, but obviously I'd forgot! Having read that, I agree with our disambiguation scheme, except for pages which do not need disambiguation (See project talk page) Sorry again! -- Joolz 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you intend to fix the mess you made at Cheadle (constituency) anytime soon? In the middle of a general election, you shouldn't really leave a page in this ugly state. Dmn / Դմն 15:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The original article was the mess. Its tables were in a hand-crafted format, and it was missing several sections. It now has the sections and the Template:election box tables, ready for the result data to be moved into them, as will happen when the other editors in the WikiProject, who have taken on the task of filling in the results tables, make their passes over the article. Of course, you could always move the data into the tables yourself. You could also have read before writing, and seen from the very discussion that you are joining in to that there's a whole WikiProject, whose project and talk pages describe in detail how we are bringing constituency articles to election ready status, what state we aim to reach, where each article currently is in reaching that state, and the editors who are doing this. Uncle G 02:58, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
        • I'm aware there's a Wikiproject for this kind of thing and I appreciate that the new tables make the page look better. This doesn't excuse leaving the page in some ugly manner. Cheadle has the smallest majority in the country and is likely to visited. I attempted to do it myself but you should appreciate that the tables language are quite confusing with multiple templates here there and everywhere. Why do Wikiproject members presume to own every page they deem to be part of their project. This goes against the wikipedia encouraging anyone to edit pages if they think it helps. And for your information the page wasn't a mess before [3]. There were no misplaced empty tables. I'm sorry the tables weren't particularly fancy - but there was no standard constituency article beforehand. Dmn / Դմն 16:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the above page is being listed as uncertain or "ambigious". I'm not sure if that was your intent or not. Just an FYI - ignore this if you wish. Moncrief 23:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you edit my user page? Uncle G 12:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

• Because I don't like seeing red. Jooler 12:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not your decision to make. Please leave other people's user pages as they want them to be, thank you. Uncle G 12:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • If you want to blank you user page, then blank it. While your user page remains empty the link to your name is to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_G&action=edit actually prompting someone to edit it. Jooler 12:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of what I could do. This has been discussed before, and there's a prominent notice at the top of my talk page. Please don't waste my and other editors' time by creating empty pages just because you see a redlink, and by not reading before you write. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
        • Your prominent message isn't very prominent, because you don't include your talk page in your signature, what appears on your signature is a red link that when you click on it begins the process of editing your page. This is also true of your name on "recent changes". Why don't you put the prominent message on your user page and edit your signature so that it doesn't show the red link. 12:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • This has all been discussed before. Please don't waste waste my and other editors' time by not reading before you write. Uncle G 13:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
            • You may have discussed it with others, but not me. And again - your page being empty positively invites people to edit it. I did not read - before I wrote, because I did not see your talk page, because I was not directed towards your talk page. My user page is blank and I maintain it as blank. If you want to stop people editing your user page, then get it protected. Jooler 15:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • You've been around long enough to know where user talk pages are without people having to customise their signatures just so that you can find them. You've been around long enough to know that you aren't invited to edit other people's user pages for them, redlink or bluelink. I ask you for the third time: Please don't waste my time. Uncle G 16:30, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
                • New users have red links on their usernames. On seeing a red link on your name I had no idea what length of time you had been an editor here. To my knowledge I've not had any interaction with you before now. When someone clicks on a red user page link it takes you into edit mode. If that's not an invitation to edit then what is? At the end of a day a red link is annoying. I put a single dot on your user page so that the link would no longer be red. I had no interest in having any kind of discussion with you and I did not look at your talk page. If you have had trouble with people before creating a user page, I'm sure that by now you must realise that I am not the only one who thinks that the red link is annoying and that this is going to be a recurring problem for you. The simple solution is put something on there to stop people going into edit mode when they click on your name. Fair enough that you want to make a statement about anonymity and not have a user page with a personal history. Guess what, I feel exactly the same, which is why my page is blank, and in fact my user page was empty before some vandal came along and created it for me. At the end of the day this is an extremely petty issue that would go away in an instant if your name did not come out as a red link, so by not having a user page you are drawing fire on the issue. If you really want to avoid communication with others, then making your name a blue link is the answer. 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I moved Lazaretto/Temp, which I assume you wrote while the main article was in VfD, back to Lazaretto. --Fbriere 19:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uncle G 23:35, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

OK I have added a direct reference to the constituency page, but have also clarified that it doesn't cover just Cleethorpes. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Cheers. TigerShark 15:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Your revision is better than what was there originally. There are a lot of articles where there are (at the least) a town, a local government borough, and a parliamentary constituency all by the same name. See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies/Progress and the discussions on both of their talk pages. It's worth trying to come up with a standard, brief, wording to cover them all with respect to cross-linking them to each other. At the moment, the pages have the standard {{otheruses}} and {{otheruses2}} disambiguation templates (see Sedgefield and Selby for examples), which I think should be retained. However one user has suggested, at Talk:Blackburn (UK Parliament constituency), that it might be preferable for the constituency/borough articles to additionally link directly to the towns, and vice versa. There are roughly 200 more constituency articles to create in 4 days, and I don't want to get too bogged down in disambiguations at the moment, however. The details of those will come later. Uncle G 16:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Complete explanation duly found. Shall endeavour to read, mark, and inwardly digest prior to Thurs. next. Doesn't look too difficult. Tnahks. –Hajor 00:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page does not deal with this point at all. Consistant and exact disambiguation is good, but not all pages need to be dabed, and those that do not need to be must not be mistitled. I agree also that getting the content in place is the most important thing, but that's not an excuse for being lazy with page names. Joe D (t) 02:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. They pretty much all do, and the talk pages cover this point twice over. This is not laziness, this is preparation for what needs to be done next (which has been explained on the talk pages). There's a lot of work being done by other editors, who are busy working at a furious rate. Your mucking around with the plan, a scant three days before the election when the rest of us have been at this for weeks, is not helping. Please stop. Uncle G 02:44, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

A lot do, I agree with this and have stated quite clearly that I agree with this, you are avoiding the point. Some don't. And telling people to give them that name means you are telling people to give them the wrong name. I really don't see why my rewording of the policy is a problem, I am simply pointing out that articles do not have to have the suffix in those instances where it is not neccesary. That is not ruining "the plan" or giving people extra work. I have noticed people moving articles such as Dorset South, thinking that the suffix was compulsory: that is a waste of their time, as they will be moved back to the correct page. If I am mucking about with "the plan", it is because "the plan" is wrong. But my "mucking about" is a very minor change that will make very little difference to editors, but will save the confusion of people moving articles that don't need to be moved. Joe D (t) 02:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Sheffield Hallam as my model page. As it is marked as election ready I assumed that this page had been formatted as was required, so I just cut and pasted from it. If this is incorrect then I apologise, and will make corrections. JeremyA 04:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G!

The red link above is currently residing on WP:VFU. Just to recap the events which led to it winding up there:

• The school article was nominated for deletion. (Some inclusionists seem to think this is tantamount to nominating the school itself for deletion.)
• With a large squad of school inclusionists voting, there was no consensus to delete and Dbennben closed the debate declaring it to be kept.
• Dbennben probably saw your comment about the school not existing, and converted the article to a redirect to Erode.
• Someone, unknown to me, nominated the redirect for speedy deletion.
• Mel Etitis deleted this redirect.
• I was sifting through the old VfD debates and found a debate which had been closed with a keep but where the article had later been deleted, and brought it to VfU.

Currently, the debate there is about as terse as all other VfU debates, and part of the question is whether or not the school exists. Can you shed some light on the matter?

Sjakkalle 11:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for slapping a copyvio tag on that ill-bred article. I raised my concerns about it as soon as it first appeared, but nothing further was done. Slac speak up! 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall desist as requested, but something has to be done with this page: the moved to en.wiktionary.org section alone is 122k! Physchim62 08:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We refactored the transwiki log at Wiktionary. We could refactor (again) here. Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. Uncle G 11:02, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Uncle, I completely agree with you that Norhuc is a space cadet who creates nonsense articles. But could you please refrain from sneering at him when you VfD his articles? They're obvious gibberish, so you don't have to work very hard to get a consensus against them. And we really, really need to have VfD discussions that talk less about people and more about content, and every personal comment, even the minor ones, make it that much harder. ---Isaac R 03:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't sneer when nominating any articles. My exact words in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chart-graphing, for example, are "more original research from Norhuc (talk · contribs)". Uncle G 03:33, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • I perceived it as a sneer, even if you didn't mean it as such. Any comment on a person can be taken personally, with resulting offtopic sidetracks. That's why we need to focus discussions on content, not people. ---Isaac R 03:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a VFD regular, I feel that you should be notified of this discussion being held at this template regarding its unprotection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Since you're one of the foremost authorities on Wiktionary, could you please take a look at Category:Names and Category:Given names? It seems that most articles in there are simply a bit of etymology, and would be better off Transwikied. The same applies to Category:English words, although that has a couple of sensible articles. Yours, Radiant_* 10:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• And also, Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Radiant_* 12:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Diderot said at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria:

    Frankly. most if not all of the stubs in that category ought to go to Wiktionary. By collecting them in one place, at least its possible to deal with them coherently.

  • There are a few exceptions. List of Bush administration puns, for example. And there are a few articles where Wiktionary already has an article. Compare honkey with Wiktionary:honkey for example. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Hey, I agree now that it's best that articles like List of English words of Spanish origin are transferred to Wiktionary asap. Decius 12:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit suggested I talk to you. I was wondering if there was a consensus about putting {{Transwikied to Wiktionary}} onto talk rather than article pages. I have twice put a transwiki note into articles that had been already transwikied by Dmcdevit who of course is not thrilled to see the same articles again in his in-queue. I think I might be getting the hang of it slowly, that is, checking the talk page first in such cases, but it would be nice to have some reminder on the article page. Creating a smaller template for that purpose would mean more work in the transwiki process (i.e. adding two templates), so that is out. I don't see a problem with adding {{Transwikied to Wiktionary}} to the article page (as we do with {{pov}}, {{vfd}}, {{cleanup}}, etc, especially given that most of these articles seem to be destined for deletion anyway. What do you think? Rl 14:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an anon recreated the Neleh Dennis article you put up for deletion back in January. I deleted it again, but while looking at their contribs, I noticed a lot more stuff. You may want to check out Jennifer Lyon and related pages on contestants linked to from there. Perhaps there's need for a VFD on all those people, or maybe in the months since January you've heard something about precedent on articles on Survivor contestants. CryptoDerk 17:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)