If you leave a message here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there, as I will be watching it until you remove my message.
Should I happen not to respond—I have a lot of talkpages on my watchlist—drop me a {{tb}} template.
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need a link to the user talk page, just either of them (i.e., either the user or user talk page). I simply have both for easier use; however, your current signature has neither linked (e.g., try clicking your user name on pages on which you leave your signature). --slakr\ talk /01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik(talk)20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your olive branch; I certainly agree that we're wasting our time, and I appreciate that you're not taking things personally. I, for one, haven't eaten all day and am mere hours away from an essay exam on the Critique of Pure Reason, and that's probably contributed to the intensity of the debate. For that, I humbly apologize. (I also apologize for my "nonsense" comment; I've been regretting expressing myself so strongly.) I intend to let this AfD end however it will; I've expressed my views, and that should be enough for me.
In short, I apologize for my heated tone, I bear you no ill will, and I hope that all of our future interactions will be cordial. I intend to cross-post this to your talk page as well, since it's important to me that you know how deeply I regret my tone. AnturiaethwrTalk20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, etc.
I'm really not very experienced in Wikpedia policy stuff. I have mostly edited articles. I don't really understand the difference between merge, delete, and redirect, so if you think I should withdraw the AfD because there is now good material in epicaricacy that I would like to see kept in schadenfreude, what method should I use? Just a URL of a page that explains it would be great. Thanks, and thanks for your good will in what has been a sometimes uncivil discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm something of a neophyte myself, but let's see if the knowledge I've gleaned from AfDs helps answer your questions. (I'd rather summarize it here than point you to a bunch of pages you'd have to slog through, but off the top of my head I'm guessing that the most relevant would be WP:REDIRECT, WP:MERGE, WP:DELETE, and WP:AFD.) First of all, the difference between merging, redirection and deletion is that deletion removes a page entirely--its history, its talk page, everything. Redirection, on the other hand, involves replacing the content of a page with the redirection template; it's just a specific kind of edit. That's why C S could redirectEpicaricacy to Schadenfreude without bringing it to AfD or anything similar, and that's why Evrik could revert that redirect just as easily. (Note that the page began life as a redirect.) Merging is more complicated (I've looked at WP:MERGE just to be sure I'm not misinforming you), but is essentially the same as redirection except that it involves moving useful content into the target article, as well as making the source article redirect there. Both merging and redirection preserve the pages related to the original page, which, I believe, is required in many situations under GFDL restrictions.
Now, as to AfD: it is devoted entirely and exclusively to deletion. If you want a merge (as you want now) or a redirect (as you originally wanted; you've changed what the nomination says, but I commented before that, and I remember), then AfD is not the place to go. It's also not a forum for seeking broader discussion; I'd recommend a WikiProject for that (in this case, WikiProject Psychology seems like a good start). It seems as though the fact that you brought an article to AfD asking for redirection, rather than deletion, is what caused so many people to attack you (certainly with unnecessary harshness, and I think somewhat unfairly) for "abusing process" and the like.
Deletion would indeed make it slightly more difficult to recreate Epicaricacy (if it were deleted, which is highly unlikely at this point), since, if it were a wholesale copy of the deleted version, it could be speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted material with no significant improvement. However, that would make it harder for someone searching for "epicaricacy" to find information on Schadenfreude, since, rather than being redirected to the relevant page, they would find no pages whatsoever. Whether "epicaricacy" is a plausible search term is a judgment call; I personally think it is, and I imagine you think so too, since you now want a merge.
Finally, I've seen your report at WP:ANI, and I'll watch it in case the discussion begins to revolve around conduct within the AfD itself; anything else I'll leave alone.
Thank you for your asking, and also for your civility; I agree that this AfD has gotten far, far out of hand (though I've been involved in worse), and I appreciate that people seem willing to work it out amicably. AnturiaethwrTalk00:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I just wish I had known all this stuff days ago. I now understand Evrik's upset at having not only "his" page but also the history of the work he put into it wiped off the wiki. I also understand (what baffled me at the time because it seemed so offtopic) why the "keep" people kept saying that the article had good material in it. I also understand why Evrik thought my copying some of his work to the other article was a ploy aimed at getting his stuff deleted and stealing credit for his research. It was not meant that way at all.
Evrik changed my initial nomination line to head it with the word "Redirect" and (in annoyance that he was changing my stuff without consulting me) I then changed it so the first word was "Delete". I really didn't give much thought to my change. In fact, looking back on this whole mess there are a lot of times that I wish I had thought less about how much Team Evrik was doing stuff that upset me and more about what I usually try to stick to, "What would make Wikipedia better?" betsythedevine (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Epicaricacy was not a content fork
Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.
What was the point of this? Surely you must have read my edit summary, which clearly stated I was avoiding a double redirect? Plrk (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Thanks for the help with "I Went to a Marvellous Party." I was in the process of pasting the article from my subpage when you "added context." I don't even know what A1 Speedy is. Do you mind telling me? Thanks.Hammerdrill (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. WP:CSD#A1 is the criterion for the speedy deletion of articles that don't give the reader any indication of what they're about. When I saw it at Special:NewPages, your article only had the song title, without any indication of what it was; since I recognized the title, I figured it wasn't vandalism and you'd be along shortly to put in more content. Patrollers on that page can be somewhat quick to tag new articles, and I wanted to stop anyone from doing that before you had a chance to fill in the rest of the article.
Incidentally, when you make a new article, you can make a final copy in your userspace and then move it to mainspace with the "move" tab, rather than create a new page and then copy the content into it. (This will create a redirect in your userspace, but if you still need a userpage with that title you can undo that.) That way, you can put the whole article, nice and neat, in the mainspace as soon as you create it; you'll also avoid problems with overzealous NewPages patrollers.
The original version had a lot of indents and no wikis, which in turn ring my alarm bells. Reading this version tells me some little kids are playing on the computer. Thanks for the heads-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I present you with this award, for taking the trouble to explain your brief CSD tag and removal to new user ScribbleStick (talk·contribs). We all make mistakes<*, and it's how we deal with them that counts. You took the trouble to go the extra mile, by explaining things to them - excellent work. Chzz ► 06:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Philornis downsi, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Jeff, I did not create the page myself. I am disputing the tag, as anyone except the author may do. I disagree that the page is patent nonsense, and will be happy to discuss that at the article's talk page if you wish. AnturiaethwrTalk02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I I changed this tag, because the first line is "Gerald H. Mahn is a domestic house cat.", and db-person is for... well, people. Just something to watch out for. Keep up the good work though, --Terrillja talk14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I usually use db-person for animals because I think the spirit of the criterion applies to them, and because I imagine the people who write articles about their pets think about them as people and would be insulted if I implied they weren't. It's certainly not an ideal solution, and since I now know someone disapproves I'll stop doing it.
I rather wish Twinkle had a db|reason option for unambiguous but strange cases like that; my javascript isn't very good, but maybe I'll see whether I can put together some custom code. AnturiaethwrTalk14:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection was a good decision. I was putting a "prod" on it. Someone else had flagged it for speedy deletion as vandalism, but that was excessive; it was misguided, not malicious. --John Nagle (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I love redirects; they're easy to do, useful, inoffensive, and easy to undo if you get them wrong. A well-placed redirect is a thing of beauty. AnturiaethwrTalk15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. A while ago (May 25) you left a notice on my page about an article called 'Lipid droplet'. Not only did I not create this article, but I have never even heard of this article. I'm just curious about why the notice appeared on my page. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe!16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a couple of possible explanations:
You created the page by accident, without realizing it. That seems rather unlikely; it doesn't happen often, and I doubt it would have resulted in a page I'd tag as vandalism or as a hoax.
Someone else was using your account to vandalize. Again, unlikely, given that I don't see any vandalism in your contributions, and certainly none on May 25.
Twinkle malfunctioned somehow. That seems the most likely.
The strange thing is that when I tag an article for speedy deletion, I always look at the talk page of the author and put it on my watchlist. Your talk page is very different from most of the pages I see that way (i.e., DYK credit rather than warnings), and I'm sure I would have remembered it, but I don't.
Since I see you've created a number of pages that have wound up at DYK, I doubt you'd have written an article I'd tag. Therefore, all I can do is apologize for an erroneous warning. (No reason for you to keep it there, by the way, unless you're like me and leave everything on your talk page.) AnturiaethwrTalk18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loutro, Messenia
Hi, I agree with you that the Loutro, Messenia article should be made into a redirect to Palaio Loutro. I only noticed the latter after cleaning up the former, but the chance of they being distinct places is too small to worry about. The only reason I did not do the merge is that Loutro, Messenia seems to be the first article by a new editor. While the editor seems to be just a kid (it would seem that he lives in Chicago and just went to visit his Greek relatives over there), at least he tried to make a positive contribution, rather than vandalize. So I do not have the heart to erase his work while he still working on it. I see no harm in letting that article exist for a while longer. I gave him a welcome, let's at least see where he goes from there. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that the article was rescued by another editor who found out that the two are distinct towns, separated by some tens of kilometers. Thanks for your understanding that allowed the article to remain alive. It was great to see a mere kid making a nontrivial contribution to wikipedia. Some good lessons could be learned from this incident — if only people were willing to learn. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Since your message here appears to be the first edit by this IP address, I can't tell for sure what you're talking about. My best guess is that you're Cs1983 (talk·contribs). If you are, this edit is not acceptable, as it seems to be just a rumor about some random person. That sort of content usually doesn't belong on articles.
Hi Anturiaethwr, this message doesn't concern any article edits you've made, so feel free to ignore it, but... it's about the pronunciation guide on your userpage. The first "A" of anturiaethwr is the short a in (specifically British English) pronunciations of cat and bag. With the pronunciations of "u" and "ae" you give, you're sort of right, but the first is specific to North Wales and the second's a rather idiosyncratic South Walean one, so you'd never use both together. The "ae" is most commonly pronounced as in the ay in day, and the easier South Walean pronunciation of the "u" is the same as the i in win. And the "w" is specifically the oo in good, not the one in goo, but I'm sure that's what you meant.
