User talk:SFC9394/Archive2006: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:42, 25 April 2006

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, SFC9394/Archive2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --TimPope 10:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your AFD vote on Principality of Marlborough and thought you might also be interested in these similar votes that are currently underway: [1], [2], [3] and [4] --Centauri 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.122.0.126

Yo! You guys contribute stuff to your user pages, why can't I contribute to the User:66.122.0.126 user page. In my oppinion this is not an article, so I have more freedom to do stuff to that page. I also understand your side of the argument. I will not upload more images to that page, But can it be kept the way it is for now? PLEASE? --BorisFromStockdale 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment removed

User:66.122.0.126 - have a read of Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you bother posting on my talk page again. SFC9394 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New page creation

I'll submit the information because it is valid information. How well known the information is does not make it more or less qualified as Encyclopedia information. Examples such as Digg, half.com, slashdot.org, are all of the same family as UniversityNote.Net. I find it quite disturbing that information is policed in such a way that number of "google hits" is a determining factor as to the relevancy of the information. Optikshell 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack

Leaving a message with no personal content or reference does not qualify as a personal attack. Optikshell 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Copernicus

I'm not the one starting the war. Copernicus was and is Polish astronomer. The problem with wiki is that some German nationalist try to insert German propaganda from WWII. See articles about Copernicus in any serious encyclopedia like Britannica, Encarta, Columbia. He's always described as Polish there. Ak47K

GIS & Mapping software

Following our discussion about Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation... I have breifly looked into generating maps with freely available tools and data. FreeGIS was quite good, but I was still overwhelmed by the amount of software available. Can you give me some pointers on the software/data you used to create the Scotland topo map. cheers. Hellinterface 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving that info for me so Quickly! Hellinterface 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News/Horrocks comments

Hi, fair enough changing the source - I was searching for a better one before you edited. Closest thing I can find to Horrocks saying other media news offices prefering Sky News over News 24 was this Daily Telegraph column [5] (third story down), but seems to be the columnist reading into things a bit. I guess it depends whether "key opinion formers" is interpreted to include news media. Anyway cheers for the edits, my major objection was the anon IP blanking stuff with no apparent effort at checking for a source. --Matthew Humphreys 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEANS

Forgive my memory, but there are so many wiki acronyms that I don't know them all! - what does this one stand for? I recognise what I was posting was potentially useful to certain individuals - but surely something should be done about it rather than just ignoring it? It is a live problem (it struck me when I first went to the talk page), so it is something that certainly needs to be fixed. SFC9394 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for WP:BEANS. A lot of wiki acronyms are shortcuts, so just adding the pseudo-namespace WP: usually works. --cesarb 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFN

Yes SFN is notable enough to have an article, other sites with less have one so its only fair :)

Speedy Deletion

Hi SFC, I was working away clearing out some backlog at WP:CSD. I see you have started tagging redundant Scotland infobox maps - GREAT. Some of them, however, are not totally redundant yet (Image:Forfar-Scotland.png for example). Can you please make sure that all linked pages have been updated with the new image before tagging for speedying. If you prefer, you can just pass me a list for deletion in due course and I will work my way through it as part of the effort. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, quite a few of the images still seem to be linked to the relevant page though. Technically speaking, these are also not speedy candidates because they are not identical duplicates here on WP, but different alternative versions on Commons. If you were the author of the original dark green versions, then they would be speedyable at your request having created alternatives. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, but I have encountered this problem before. Local filenames WILL be preferred before the same Commons name. What you are doing is correct though, retaining the same filenames. If you are the only author / editor of the original and have created a replacement on Commons, then it can be deleted at your request. Given that I know the history of this effort, and if you created all the dark green maps I will work my way through them, marking as deletion at author request. The nice new topo ones should then appear :-) Other maps that you did not author will need a different approach though, probably WP:IFD --Cactus.man ✍ 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleared out the backlog of your dark green / red dot maps. It all seems fine to me now, but you might wish to give it the once over as there were a couple of intermittent, dodgy results. Let me know if there are any problems. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selkirk

That is not a "second Infobox" that I restored to the Selkirk article, it was the original one! Somebody had created a 2nd Infobox, despite a polite request at SCOWNB not to, pending conclusion of discussion. You also managed to blanket reveret many other edits at the same time and revert to the broken layout. Please do not blanket revert, but rather only revert specific items to which you object. --Mais oui! 12:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. However, I'm afraid that I subscribe to the WP:BOLD school. If you do something that other Users dislike it will be reverted or altered, and rightly so. If we all sat on our bums waiting for naturally argumentative people to come to agreement then Wikipedia would brake to a snail's pace: it would utterly ruin the entire project. We have come to consensus to Keep a single, standard Infobox. However, now we need to come to a new consensus regarding the content of that Infobox and whether or not it should have suppressible fields. Give it a couple more days and then we can start that new topic. All will be well! --Mais oui! 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a topographic map

As you are an expert on topographical mapping and I am a complete waste of space at anything computergraphical, I'm after a favour if at all possible. Please. For using in Scottish historical articles (and the demographic and economic history ones that aren't done yet), it would really very useful to have a simplified "land use" map of Scotland (ideally extended south in England to the Tees and including Ulster as far west as Lough Neagh, but beggars can't be choosers, and that could just as well wait until I figured it out for myself). Stealing someone else's good idea for a simple solution, because a proper soil and land cover map would be impossible, showing just three elevations would do. That would give an idea of land use possibilities (farmland, grazing, mountaineering). The limits would be =<200m, =<600m and >600m. Is that something that would be possible ? And if it is, would you be interested in making such a map ? Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely magnificent. There's more than enough detail, the Great Glen really stands out. Only one question (isn't there always !), do you have data to include as far as Shetland and the Outer Hebrides ? I am a happy, happy, happy bunny ! Thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colours seem just fine to me and sensible too: green for grass, brown for bracken and dark brown for rock. A key would indeed be a very handy thing to have and I'm glad you thought of it ! Again, very many thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks magnificent. Thanks very much for your help. Much appreciated. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker championship pages

Wow, these wall-chart things are really impressive. I'm always pleased to find that wikipedia can still throw up surprises like this. Good work! What's the reason for the colour coding in the headings for 'First round', 'Second round', etc? Flower party☀ 05:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think I got a new message bar for your last message. I only ask about the headings because I generally like to see colour used only if there's some meaning to the colour scheme, but it does brighten the thing up. No, it works really well - you don't get a nice tree like this on ceefax! Flower party☀ 12:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had to find something to do while the servers were down yesterday ;) Flower party☀ 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good idea. Never thought of that! Flower party☀ 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments on your Snooker pages

I just found out about your pages on the World Snooker Championships, the template tree looks good and is clear. Keep it up! - Nick C 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on the snooker results I added. I will try a lot more information on Snooker on Wikipedia! - Nick C 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also join the Snooker Wikiproject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Snooker, which can be a place for us and other people who contribute to snooker articles to discuss stuff, and to see what there is to do. - Nick C 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest to my talk page

This is the excerpt from Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes:

Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism. --ComSpex 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree on the opinion meta:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. That's the reason why I usher users into login page before writing to my talk page.--ComSpex 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid

Any POVs having nothing to do with the sole purpose of Wikipedia are not necessarily reviewed by busy editors so intensively, save that I respect your freedom to advocate your own POV about talk page. I'd like to know why you are so much interested in my talk page among many other talk pages similar to mine.--ComSpex 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How user talk page should be

Please mention your own investigation result and/or views here.--ComSpex 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who clean up or remove text from their talk pages

About anonymous users who don't have user talk pages

How do you feel if anonymous users posted bad opinions to your talk page? And how do you react to those users?

Warning

Eager McBeaver - posted a fake warning here due to me reverting his/her vandalism SFC9394 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and he has now posted fake warning number two (and I have removed), when will vandals learn that they can't get away with breaking the rules? SFC9394 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, users are free to remove whatever they want to from their own talk pages. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Eager McBeaver warning

I wouldn't worry about his warning on my talk page, the user is a vandal who is just unhappy because I reverted his vandalism (see Physics history for a full run-down of situation). Ironically I am currently in discussion with User:ComSpex on the very issue of how much control a user has over his/her talk page. Aside from reverting obvious vandalism (as I have done with Mr Eagers warning) I would probably air on the side that comments should be made available for other editors to see - which is what comspex is disagreeing with. SFC9394 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a user should leave all comments, negative or posvitive, on their talk page. However, I feel that the user retains the right to alter it in any ways he/she sees fit. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They ultimately retain the right - there is no policy that currently says any different (apart from deserved warnings - with the grey area on that being how long a time should be left before the warning is said to be 'spent' and can be archived) - however a user that constantly deletes/hides comments with no explanation for doing so is generally not going to be held in very high regard by other editors, and most people are going to fairly quickly assume bad faith is at work. SFC9394 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's case by case. Users' discretion varies and depends on situations. I wish freedom will not be confined into narrower space.--ComSpex 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 *[[User:ComSpex]]
 *[[User:Brion VIBBER]]
+*[[User:Angela]]
 ===About anonymous users who don't have user talk pages===