User talk:Grutness

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

Earlier talk

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archive pages

== You've been loved by Neranei ==

Hey there! Neranei has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. Remember to pass it on to all your friends by adding {{User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal}} to the top of their pages. Don't forget to add your name here! Love and best wishes, Neei (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

River dun, berkshire

Hi Grutness, I've just noticed that since your July moves Talk:River Dun, Berkshire still redirects to Talk:River Dun. Is this intentional, or were you intending to create a new talk page? Pterre (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations

You're welcome to engage in the discussion points on the talk, but please do not revert sourced material until you have done so. Placing an unsourced version back in, a version which is clearly a prejudice attack against the people of England and also lacks sources is clearly not appropriate. There is no sense in reverting a sourced edit which is perfectly in following with Wikipedia policy. Its sourced, from neutral sources: such as those for the language stats, and the organisations who claim there are "six Celtic nations". Also the request for citation tags in the Roman part, where minority Welsh secessionists try to rob English people of their Celtic history, is essential. Another user on the talk has said they agree with the edit points... even you have to an extent, so I'm confused as to why you decide to put back the anti-English version? - Voice of the Walk (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Amuri, New Zealand

I'm cconfused! Although Amuri is the name of a former county council based at Culverden, I cannot locate (in either smaps nor google maps) a settlement named Amuri. Can you furnish evidence, or should I put the article up for deletion? dramatic (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I decided that there is sufficient reference material about the Amuri County which existed prior to 1989 that I could rewrite the article to be about that. dramatic (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong sense of despair

Hi Grutness. The film stub proposal was only a suggestion, I;m sure I'm not the only one who would find it useful and work through them. I guess we can make do with checking every article in the main categories. As for the attitude of Alai and his unneccesary inflated response which I find very condescending (not the first time I've got this impression) I think I'll think twice about making a proposal again and just get on with what I do 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. I do get the impression thoough that his response was partly due to the amount of work it would entail implementing. It was just a suggestion, just being WP:BOLD but in my own view and from the experience I have with WP:Films I think such categories would have more legitimacy than generalised genre categories such as 2000s drama films which not only include American films but films from everywhere like Brazil, Thailand and China many of which are barely related in terms of cinema, language and culture. If this encourages editors to edit world film this is great, but many editors I have come across wouldn't touch "foreign" films with a bargepole. Its kind of like an article on Mayan culture being in the same stub category as Khmer culture because they are "culture", in this case "drama" with little else connecting them. I just think that given the sheer amount of editors who focus purely on American film gives it more of a likelihood of developing in that way. The only reasons against I can think of is the oftne fuzzy distinction between American and British produced films, put this is often the case for Italian and French film in particular, over stub categorising and a major workload to implement. Regards 11:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats an excellent film I agree. The thing is with European film, particularly France, Italy and Germany and to a lesser extent Spain, there is a huge number of films which ar eproduced between them so official "national" identify is difficult to pinpoint, e.g the film may have a German director, the film was shot in Spain, has mostly a French cast, but is produced in the italian language for instance!!! That is the problem with organising films on here and in the same way also clutters categories or naivgation templates when the cinemas overlap. I agree that genre stub categories work well for genres which are known to have a number of specialist film buffs such as horror and sci-fi who are into films form wherever, but given the amount of editors who focus purely on American films I thought it might have had some purpose even if those red links were rather scary. By language would seme plausible but many languages are dubbed or evne produced in numerous languages making the problem the same. 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I've tried to clear the air with Alai. It is quite obvious that he doesn't like me. 10:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Sri Lanka

Hello Grutness, i believe you are a main contributor to Portal:New Zealand. Can i ask you to help me in Portal:Sri Lanka. i have done major revamps. but i believe it still needs attention. i need you to assess selected articles and DYKs. wishes! --chanakal (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks a lot for telling me where i can find help. i'll contact User:Gadfium. you advise is valuable. Wishes! --chanakal (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PooManChunK is a real person that is his virtual name he does not wish to have his real name online more was to come —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideadonei (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect stubs

Yes it was an error. For some reason that escapes me these pages were being looked at for tagging. AWB recognises that redirects aren't suitable but they had "redirect:" with the colon - a deprecated syntax AWB doesn't recognise. I had heard of this tripping people up before so I have fixed all the colons. I thought a the stub tags had gon. Rich Farmbrough, 01:12 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Claudette

Hi Grutness

I think your comment on WP:Articles for deletion/Claudette is inconsistent with the disambiguation policy. Please reconsider your position.

Tx, Bongomatic (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

stats stub

I wasn't aware of the rule not to have a /doc page for stub templates.

Also, the cat was inside includeonly tags, not inside the noinclude tags. Why include the template itself in the category? Regards— <^T·_C> 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for the teachin'. — <^T·_C> 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope) Could you check and then delete the /doc page? Thanks— <^T·_C> 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My Stub

Thanks for the heads up. Maybe go ahead and speedy delete it if we can, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada-geo-stub

Re: [1] If geo-stub is for locations only, what is the more general stub for other geography topics? I cannot find it. Also, I borrowed the wording from other country geo-stubs. Thanks, (Talk) 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ireland-geo-stub. I chose it somewhat randomly as it was an easy click from the notice on Template talk:Canada-geo-stub when I wondered about changing the wording due to the request at WP:CANTALK and assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was standard. (Talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking briefly at Category:Europe geography stubs with pop-ups, it appears there are several more. I wonder, in hindsight, if it would have been better to have moved all the stub templates to -place-stub rather than the other way around. Cheers! (Talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I once had the idea of eliminating all these stub types and just using m:DynamicPageList to sort based on the other categories already associated with the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IlyaHaykinson&diff=prev&oldid=59927081#DynamicPageList but was too lazy to pursue it. It would really make the whole thing much easier and eliminate a lot of administrating work. (Talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But each user could make their own list as precise or general as they wish. At any rate, it was just an aside concerning the issues. I'm still too lazy to pursue it. Cheers! (Talk) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for helping out with the stub. Always grateful that someone who knows a lot about wikipedia is willing to help out

Xenosphobos (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Split Cat:French film stubs

Hey Grutness I'm afraid to post this at proposals in case I get the wrong reaction. Around 640 stubs. Not quite unmanagable yet but Splitting by decade would seem sensible. French film covers about as much of film history as you can get. Upmerge the templates for the decades not viable. Propose the creation of:

• {{1890s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1900s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1910s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1920s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1930s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1940s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1950s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1960s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1970s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1980s-France-film-stub}}
• {{1990s-France-film-stub}}
• {{2000s-France-film-stub}}

Is this reasonable? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The norm is to categorise all other countries by decade but apparently America is exempt from this, France should be OK. I don't know why but the long running convention seems to be my genre for American films rather than by decade/year. I guess its to do with the large number of films. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please?

Hi Grutness, Fellow Dunedinite (is that a word?) here. I've been creating some pages while supposed to be studying (damn university). Would you mind looking over some of them? Tinui Cumberland College Rathkeale College Past, Present, Future (album) Dracophyllum recurvum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gintyfrench (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New messages

Hello Grutness. You have new messages at the the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryker's Island‎ page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{User:Daedalus969/templates/wptalkback}} template.

— dαlus /_Improve 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Churches Stu

I did not find where I have to post my response, therefore I post it on your discussion page.

I have no preference for eather Eastern Catholic or Greek Catholic. I am just discussing the stubs, not the entire problem of the churches.

If you look at church stubs you find the following type of stubs:

• Anglican-church-stubs
• European-church-stubs
• Roman Catholic-church-stubs
• United Kingdom-church-stubs
• Unites States-church-stubs

and the newly added

• Greek Catholic-church stubs.

I fail to understand the logic of this classification. Many Anglican churches are in the UK. In the US, anglican churches are called espiscopalian. The European church stubs lists only three Norvegian churches.

I also fail to understand why you consider that the Greek Catholic churches cannot reach 60. There are definitely more than 60 Greek Catholic Churches (or Eastern Catholic churches) in the world.

The problem is that there should be a logic in the types of stubs. Basically I consider that there should be stubs for each denomination. If there are too many churches of a certain denomination, there should be stubs for the denomination by country.

However, I find that denying any denomination the right to have its own group is discriminatory and could even be considered offensive or denigratory by some. You can either accept all faiths or reject the classification by denomination and use a geographic one. But you can't logically have it both ways.Afil (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Arctic-stub}}

Grutness, I hadn't been aware of that dialogue. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I just want to clarify, though, that not all Nunavut geo articles fall within the Arctic so not all Nunavut geo stubs are equivalent to an Arctic stub... only those landforms that are north of 66.33 are within the scope of the Arctic, right? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see/sea (sic)

Hope you get the tortuous pun - very good to see the existence of the marine geography stub - have been trying to get some indian ocean holes (gawd another set of puns possible there) - sorted out and the place is a mess (or should that be gyre) ill get out of your way - good to sea the hard work being done! SatuSuro 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Nunavut-geo-stub}}

What is the correct wording for this? Isn't it supposed to say "This Nunavut location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." or "This article about a location in..."? See also {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, {{NorthwestTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{NovaScotia-geo-stub}}, {{Ontario-geo-stub}}, {{Quebec-geo-stub}} and {{Yukon-geo-stub}}. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the ones I listed all say geographical, which to me, suggests geography only. I was thinking of Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Question and this followd by this. It's not too bad here right now. Very mild, it's been September weather in October with temperatures 5 to 10 C above normal. We had 5 cm snow which then melted, mud again. We have snow now and it looks like it will stay. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't too sure so I didn't want to change them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Volcanology stub

Could you please explain why you are removing this? I'd suggest an edit summary would help - as a minimum. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he's (she's?) removing them because they're not really stubs anymore, even though they're still quite small. I dropped by here to ask Grutness if he could also change the ratings on the WP:Volcanoes talkpage template so the respective generated stub-categories will coincide; many which are no longer stub class in WP:Volcanoes terms might still be considered as stubs (for lack of information) in WP:Canada and other projects.Skookum1 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They're still stubs, but as explained elsewhere (e.,g., at the top of Cat:Volcanology stubs and on the WP Volcanoes talk page) indivisual volcanoes shopuldn't be marked with {{volcanology-stub}}, which is only for the actual science of volcanology, not for the volcanoes themselves. This is in line with other similar stub types, such as those for glaciology, oceanography, topography, and the like, and stops the category from being completely swamped with landforms. As to changing the ratings, since I don't know exactly what criteria WP Volcanoes uses for those ratings (I'm not part of that wikiproject; I'm working from WikiProject Stub sorting), I'd prefer not to touch them - in any case, nearly 90% of the re-sorting's been done now. Grutness... 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not active in WP:Volcanoes but perhaps {{volcano-stub}} would be useful for mountains/features that are volcanic.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope - geo-stubs are always subdivided by location,. never by landform type - there's no mountain-stub, town-stub river-stub or any other stub of that nature. The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, everywhere on the planet can be easily and neatly divided up by location, whereas if we divided by landform there'd be always a handful of stubs that were of unique landform types that would have to go into an "everything else" category. Secondly, for most landform types, the editors most likely to improve articles are locals - those who live close to those landforms. As such, grouping items by location makes far more sense. I'll admit that for things like volcanoes, where there are specific groups of editors with specialist knowledgge, it might make sense for a separate stub type for a particular landform type - but in those cases there's almost always a relevant WikiProject already using a talk page template in order to rate all relevant articles (as there is with WP Volcanoes), in which case creating a stub type as well is simply doubling up the work. Grutness... 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

		Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award
		Inspired by the dedication to getting something fixed as in the volcanology thingo muckup - thank huey we have eds like him SatuSuro 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you! :) Grutness... 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As one who contributed... (i used to wonder to myself as i added them - do we really need a mountain project and volcanology tag for every indonesian volcano... - it looked good  :( - my compulsion albeit truncated by permanent distraction is to assess all the bloody unassessed indonesian articles - very unlikely before 2010 :( - or even more weirdly personally manually go wpnz class NA for every untagged NZ project cat page SatuSuro 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

cheers - sleep well, thanks and happy stubbing SatuSuro 13:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Introduce me to my new signature. Do you like it? 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Grutness, I was monkeying around with my talk page archive yesterday and realized that in all the opera stub melee, I forgot to thank you for my barnstar. :-( So thank you! It was very kind of you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

stub templates

No specific reason, except that's the way I've done it on probably thousands of articles to date. Haven't seen anything solidly official cross-project about this. SkierRMH (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Non English usage by Garliyev

New editor Garliyev is performing a number of edits on articles related to Turkministan and Central Asia where he is changing the names from the usual English form to the new Turkmen form. For example he changes Ashkabat to Aşgabat. After I noticed what Garliyev was doing, I mentioned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Use English but foreign and historical names can be acceptable in some cases to Garliyev on his/her talk page, but it seemed to have had no effect on the edits that Garliyev continues to make. I did note that at one point Garliyev mentioned on an article talk page that the name it changed to was the "official" Turkmenistan name, but most often Garliyev does not use the talk pages. What is the best next step? Thanks in advance. --Bejnar (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

I don't know what all of this means when I already had to go through a SFD when you listed it for deletion last year and everything seemed dealt with. I really don't feel that one comment on the discussion is a consensus, especially when there was no comment at all in the history of the template or category and no comment on my talk page (as I am the primary author of both template and category). I've undone your deletion for all of the above reasons. The next time these things are brought up for deletion, some notification should be made to the author (me).— () 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there were three comments, not one, to start with. And certainly circumstances can change enough for something to be listed for deletion for a second time - many articles are listed for deletion three, four, or more times. But you're right that you should have been notified - that's what {{sfdnotify1}} is for. However, it likely would have made no difference considering the number of stubs using the template (nowhere near the required 60, despite the length of time it's been in use. I shall re-list it for deletion, so hopefully we'll get to see both sides of the argument. Grutness... 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is there a necessary amount of articles to fill a stub category? Why does it even matter? It's just for sorting things out based on size. I really disagree that this should be listed for deletion at all. And the fact that these things have to go through this asinine process a third time is ridiculous.— () 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep it seemly. There is no need to swear, just as there was no need to launch that unprovoked attack at WP:SFD. You're supposed to be an admin - please act like one. You're right that it is ridiculous that we had to go through this a third time, and if you had been notified last time then this could have been cleared up then. indeed, if the first SFD nomination had been correctly closed, with the category being upmerged as was the consensus at the time, it wouldn't have got as far as a second nomination. As for "why is there a necessary amount of articles?", while it's true that Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for permanent categories for use by readers to be of any size, stub categories are treated differently for important and practical reasons. Stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. one of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor so small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are made. A smaller threshold for stub category creation would also lead to a likely proliferation of stub categories, increasing the workload of stub-sorters, who already have to monitor and transfer stubs into several thousand stub categories. Given the number of permcats that have 60- or more articles as a proportion of the total number of permanent categories, the number of stub categories would be likely to blow out into the tens of thousands very rapidly. This is all clearly explained elsewhere on Wikipedia, as you should well know, and it largely for that reason that there is, to use your words, an "entirely unnecessary level of bureaucracy". Sure, there's bureaucracy, but it's entirely necessary. Given the enormous number of stub types which exist on Wikipedia, it's useful for stub types to be arranged as logically as possible so that the types and names of them are clear to those who regularly sort stubs. This includes things like naming stub templates unambiguously and according to a standard naming scheme, making sure that stub category names are as analogous as possible to existing permanent category names, and trying to ensure that stub types are not split in such a way that we end up with a small number of stubs that would require an "everything else" category (for example, geography stubs are split by region; splitting them initially by city and town would mean that stubs for smaller places would fall through the cracks). The only way to keep some form of control over this process is to ask for proposals prior to creation. This allows people the opportunity to vet the stub types for any possible problems that may emerge, and also suggest alternatives that might more effectively cover the same ground while being more in keeping with existing stub splits. It may seem overly-bureaucratic to do this, but the reasons should be clear - it is the only way to try to keep any control of the available stub types, and without that control, the job of stub-sorting becomes next to impossible, as does the work of editors trying to find stubs to expand. Grutness... 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm stating my opinions in all of this. What you say is an "attack" I call a criticism of the system. I've said all I can on this topic, and I would appreciate if you did not continue to crosspost this to my talk page. This discussion need only be here.— () 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How is calling the attitude of stub sorters "nitpicking" an attack on the system? It is clearly an attack on your perceived attitude of individual editors, and nothing to do with the system whatsoever. Furthermore, your automatic assumption that your "comments here probably won't mean anything" either indicates that you think that think your reasons for keeping the stub type are weak ones or that you think the process is some form of kangaroo court. If you meant the former, then your support of the stub is by implication poor; if you meant the latter, then it is an attack on anyone who would take part in the discussion process. Grutness... 08:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Stub Types

Did the stub proposing article tell me how to create a new stub? 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chile

Hi. Yes I've got a lot on my plate at the moment and haven't got around to sorting CHile as I also have Finaldna dn asian structures to sort out. I figured that most of them would be viable so once I started they'd hit 60. Either way I'd much appreciate your help with sorting them, if you arne't too tied elsewhere 12:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

Without context like a citation, it doesn't necessarily establish notablity to be included in an article. Yes red links may eventually come articles but there needs to be a reasonable limit on what is a real candidate for an article. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be thriving, but to me it's a kind a POV word without citation. And what is the definition of "thriving" it's a subjective term.Michellecrisp (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Maz Quinn"

A page you created, Maz Quinn, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Chicago god (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rush (2nd nomination)

I floundered around for a while, trying to figure out what to do (you can see my idiocy in my contribs log). It should be fixed now with the correct tags. I've seen you've let the other voter know, so I assume he'll go fix his vote himself. Hopefully, this will work. Thanks again! 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: MfD

I think I see where we're getting lost in translation. I read the SfDs as an outsider, and it looks like the creator uses "unproposed" as a reason for deletion as opposed to using as a note to the closing admin based on how it's worded. Basically, by starting an SfD with "Unproposed." it makes it look like that's the reason it's being deleted. If it's meant to be a note to the closer than it isn't being used as a deletion rationale, it just looked like it. Wizardman 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi "Grutness", is says that you want to delete a page im trying to add? I'm trying to start a page for a gaming group i have just started, is this able to remain on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.Anisi (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an admin opinion on something.

Hey, I know we've spoken before at some point.

I'm a New Page Patroller, and earlier today, I tagged a Fangame article for deletion, and it ultimatly became an AfD case, which is going nowhere, but the "staff" of the project is putting up a fight, and it's getting out of hand.

I really need an outside admin opinion here. This insanity has taken my confidence in doing my job anymore.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PokéBattlers

Could you please look at that for me?

Thanks,

--Mooshykris (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect wiggling

Making a redirect by means a back-and-forth move? That's four edits for the price of one! Alai (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see! I somewhat feel your pain... My upgrade to FF3 seems to have been a step too far for my creaking version of Fedora, and seems to crash on a whenever-it-feels-like-it basis. Alai (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: MFD for StSFD

Hi X - thanks for closing the SfD/WSSP deletion page. Thought I'd better point out though that one of the changes you made actually repeated information already on the page (have a look at the fifth item in the "what this page is not for" section). Perhaps refactoring the two lines together somehow...? Grutness... 04:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've refactored it now merging it to the other and removing the new section, what do you think? Thanks, — 05:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates

Hey Grutness, could you please comment on the discussion here. You have a lot of experience with the templates and I would like your input. Thanks! —Borgarde^talk 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Baythorne End

Many thanks for your comments, however bearing in mind that you are neither from the UK or for that matter even Europe, I feel in this instance it would appropriate if you left the maintenance of articles as specific as this to local contributors. This is an English hamlet and we would like it identified as such. Many thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.59.95 (talk • contribs)

I see a message has already been posted on your talk page, but please note that editors are free to edit any article they choose, and the stub sorting project defines how stubs are used throughout Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with this and other Wikipedia policies. Thank you. 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside: note that a stub notice on an article is not the same as a category. Please use the latter to denote relationships of communities within larger jurisdictions. 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein geo stubs!!!

Pulling teeth? Now you know how I felt when working on those Grenadian stubs today. I don't like doing athletes - I don't follow sports, and have no idea what I'm doing. But I tried, and failed, to get Liechtenstein up to stub category status. The fact that you managed it I admire immensely. Congratulations. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it's due - most of the work wasn't mine, but rather yours early on and User:JMiall's in the last few weeks. I only added the last handful to tip it over the 60-stub mark. Grutness... 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Still and all, you're the one what tipped it over the edge.

By the way - my request for a Grenadian bio category isn't showing up under "Proposals", and it was earlier - any idea why? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Only a few more to go now and every mountain in Liechtenstein will have an article - an achievement of sorts. I don't intend to try the same for any normal sized countries though! 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It showed up, thanks. Different computer, perhaps. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

hey

I have sepcified that my Pirate Bread wikipedia is for amusement purposes only. Please stop promoting it for a speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyro01 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Sibrian husky

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sibrian husky, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sibrian husky is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sibrian husky, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice re changing a page

Hi,

I'm considering making some edits to the Wiki page on Schools Plus, and am interested in your advice about the best way to do this, as I work at the Ministry of Education. I'd like to add more details about components of the programme, correct a couple of minor inaccuracies, and include links to some of the positive comments about Schools Plus.

My initial thought is to put my changes in the discussion thread first, with full disclosure of my role, but if you have any suggestions I'd appreciate them.

Thanks Joss Debreceny —Preceding unsigned comment added by JossatMinEdu (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

replied at User talk:JossatMinEdu Grutness...

Stub sorting

Yikes I laid off the new proposals for a while because I still have a large back log to sort out, namely Asian buildings, Finnish geo stubs and Chile geo stubs. Just so much needs doing it gives me a headache!! How are amigo anyway? 23:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Me go fine :) Taking it a little easier with WP at the moment, since there's quite a bit of Real World (tm) stuff going down (and hey, it's summer here... time to spend more time outside!) Grutness... 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, unlike here where its a miserable 150% cloud covered November!! with like 2 hours of sunlight a day! We didn't even have a summer here! P.S. I;ve proposed splitting Aussie politician stubs. Can't believe Norway was done before Australia!! Best regards 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My 2p

I would like to modestly call attention to an essay I just wrote called "The nature of stub sorters." I am inviting a select few to peruse it at leisure and offer comments or changes if desired. I don't know what purpose it will serve, although I may cite it on occasions when we moppers are more than usually misunderstood. Thank you for reading. Her Pegship 21:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:{{NZYearbook}}

Hi Grutness, you had it already, it worked fine in the sandbox. It just had that error when no year was supplied, comparing (nonexistent) with 1994, so I added the default 2000. XLerate (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to Template:Stub

I have commented about your reversion here, which you may want to reply to. VegaDark (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [2]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IP user

Can you block this IP? He has been vandalizing after I warned him. 00:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Conflict....Sorry

I apologize. I figured that after I'd spent all that time bitching, I should follow your lead and merge the other dates in August. It didn't occur to me that you were doing merges and redirects at the same time. I'll stop. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank u

Thanks for editing that. I completely forgot about removing that. Thanks Albertgenii12 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

I didn't even realize that I had that subpage. in fact I don't even remember what it was for, so I put a deletion tag on it.

cheers! -- 22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)