User talk:Strange Passerby: Difference between revisions

Hi. I'm not sure where to talk about this. Lihaas has reverted my edit[1] on the election article, and IMO, the reasons are dubious or unclear at least and I talked about WP:OWN on his/her talk page. Where should I discuss this, in addition to his/her talk page? -- Frous (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas has a long history of editing contentious articles, particularly on current political events. I and many others find him to be very reasonable. His edits are motivated by good faith, and he will respond reasonably if you write a reasonable note. Try to work things out informally without drama! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I thought we were supposed to specify the award most likely to be posted on the main page. All I did was put the most prestigious awards next to the ceremony. As for changing "Emmy Award" to "Primetime Emmy Award", that just made it clearer why there is only one expected story per year instead of more for the Primetime, Daytime, Sports, Technology and Engineering, News and Documentary, Regional and International Emmy Awards. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in doing an FTC around the 1952 Winter Games. One question. I'm working on an enormous FTC that, given my current abilities and time, will likely never be completed. My only concern is that if this project picks up steam I don't want this 1952 Winter Games FTC to throw a wrench in that project. Do you forsee it being an issue? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, the more I think about it the more it doesn't matter. Let's do it. What can I do the help with the 1952 Winter Olympics medal table? I have little experience doing FL's so I'll follow your lead. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't that much needed. The medal table needs probably a stronger lead of a few more paragraphs, and a few nice pictures, but otherwise it's about there, based on the other medal table FLs. The "list" portion of it is the table itself, and obviously that's already done. It's only the writing bit and that shouldn't take too long. Probably could be done by this weekend and sent to FLC on Sunday or Monday. Once that hits FL then I think FTC should be a pretty easy breeze. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Courcelles just reminded me that Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics would also need an FLC, although that's also quite close imo. Has quite a bit of prose and that one needs some touching up of the list bits. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I can start in on the prose for the medal table list. RL concerns may limit my efforts today but I'll get on it straight away. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can do Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics. I created and did most of the work on the list, I've brought Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics (the other Norway Games) to FL, and was actually thinking about FLing the 1952 list too. I can move it up on my priority list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H1nkles, I've expanded the medal table article very slightly. Right now, with some pictures I'd say it'd be similar to 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, with bare facts. Alternatively, we could go for a bit more padding and more stats about the medal table, like in 1972 Winter Olympics medal table. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've added some info in a Highlights section. It reads a bit choppy and probably needs some finessing. Take out what you don't like, add what you think is missing. There aren't a lot of great pics for the 1952 Games, I've looked. If you know of some athlete pics that I couldn't find please add them. I'll have limited computer access until Monday so if you feel as though it's ready for nomination at FLC please go for it. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone told me that maybe FTC, if they're being a bit snarky, will want all the SPORT at the 1952 Winter Olympics and NATION at the 1952 Winter Olympics articles to meet their FT criteria too. That's a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered. Your thoughts, H1nkles? Anyway, I'll still send the medal table to FLC some time Sunday when I've time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an overview topic, which would mean that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic." One could bring up events at the 1952 Winter Olympics; this would bypass having to bring every sport plus the opening and closing ceremonies. The events could then again (potentially, we need to be able to "argue" for a structure even if we have no intension to work on it) become a new overview topic. Then the multi-event sports would themselves become potential subtopics of that topic again. The country-at-the-games-articles would also need to be included indirectly in the topic, so a list of nations or something would have to be created, although one could always argue that the medal table is a list of nations, and that the medal table would be the head topic for a subtopic of the nations. In my Oslo Metro topic, there are three levels of topics and the nomination went fine, even though only six of about 150 potential articles were included. Although not altogether active, some feedback may be possible at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to having little experience with FTC or the mindset of the delegates. I'm for pushing forward with the overview lists (Venues and Medal table), we could add the Events list and give it a run. The medal table isn't a complete list of nations, so perhaps a list of participating nations is necessary? This would create an overview topic that should cover all the relevant issues. I think we can do this and make the argument that you don't have to include all the Nation and Sport at 1952 Winter Olymipcs articles. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on the Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics. There was not much there so I added a bit of prose and some refs. To my knowledge there aren't any Events at YEAR Olympics FLs so it's hard to determine what else I need to add to this list. Can you think of anything I should include? It's pretty minimal right now. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. I was thinking maybe we'd expand that list to list every single event that took place in each sport, perhaps marking them (background colours, as well as a symbol or list column for WP:ACCESS) for men's, women's or mixed. We could introduce columns like "first contested at Olympics" (women's 10k Xcountry would be 1952; men's ice hockey would be 1920). I'm not sure how much detail we should go for when listing the individual events; perhaps defending Olympic champion and new Olympic champion? Would be a little cross-over with the medal winners list although I don't think that'd be too bad.

Alternatively, we could leave this at stub, and if asked, claim the events are covered by said medal winners list since every event is indeed already covered there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards your final comment about leaving it as a stub. I asked for input at FLC and Ramblinman thinks it's a fork and we shouldn't bother trying to get it to FL. I see his and your point and I think for now I'll leave it alone. I feel good about taking the article, venues, medal table and medal winners to FTC and take our chances. Do you agree? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an article called Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics at all for a featured topic. Pretend you'd never thought of it. Delete/redirect, and carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambling (sorry I got your name wrong above), I think we're on the same page and I'll quit spinning my wheels. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is nothing going to be done about her? She keeps reverting my old edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.250 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Teo_Ser_Luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.233 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with this IP-jumping editor, who will revert random additions without discussion and without using community processes. I don't have time to write up an RFC, but please suggest an appropriate course of action. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to review the edits I made to Tin Pei Ling page. I shortened it because it was too lengthy days ago. But Elle feels the need to insert sarcastic words again. And Vivian Balakrishnan. I would like to point out Elle linked the word agenda to gay agenda even though Zhanzhao warned not to overdo on gay issues when he should be talking about suppressing video under Talk section. p.s couldn't control the IP tonight. Keeps flipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an appropriate link if certain readers (Singaporeans) are unaware of the connotations of the language they are using? Zhanzhao's issue was a different one. You only flip IPs when you get blocked, which is rather curious -- I've never seen someone flip from the 218.186.16.* range to the 202.156.13.* range! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was ur POV. Gay agenda was linked below, don't see the point of linking "agenda". Refer here. Flipping happens as I edited. You seem to know nothing about dynamic IP so drop the sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[should not post identifying personal information about themselves on their user pages. If they do, then other editors are welcome to delete it. See number 7 especially.]  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help Kiefer understand what constitutes identifying information, I am going to post an example of identifying information about a miner. Here it is;

.

Why is this identifying information? Because it shows an image of the miner's home, and the filename of the image also reveals the town in which that home is located. Therefore it could possibly be used to locate or uniquely identify that miner.

By contrast, a minor (or even a miner) choosing to mention a common medical condition, cannot be used to locate or uniquely identify that person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that a vandal starts leaving nasty messages, an event that has many times, with potentially deadly results. Let the minor decide after reflecting further.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with the substance of the concern, DemiWit1000, this time at least. I linked to the Nyb's essay suggesting the removal of personal information by minors (#7 I repeat).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Willcrowne (talk · contribs)
• FYI, does this guy quack like you-know-who? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worth monitoring, especially with the suspicious account creation date. But as the last check didn't throw this account up, I'm inclined to AGF. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the coincidence of creation date and overlapping interest in IMF & MDG, I don't think I'm ready to AGF but I leave it to you. Based on his past favouritism, think we can apply WP:Single-purpose account in that narrow field of interest of his. Anyhow, I'll be keeping a watchful eye as well. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have no authority to close the thread , as it is relented to me, please take a step back thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking to Rob about this on his talk page, but as far as I know, your close was entirely correct and proper within policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 July 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article STS-135, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SP. I'm not badgering you in any way, but could you consider just popping back and adding the bold 'Oppose' to your !vote. At WP:RFA2011 we have some bots patrolling RfAs that rely on it for gathering statistics. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings, could you please provide some sanity check on Talk:Singapore#Full page protection against persistent edit warring by Smilingfrog? Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I cited my primary concerns on why I've reverted his edit, that is WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NPOV, WP:OVERLINK and WP:UNDUE, on the article page. No ownership issue there, right? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]