Hi, and welcome. Thanks for your contributions to the Reading article. However I noticed that the link you put in to Wolseley actually pointed to a disambiguation page. I presume that the Wolseley in question is the one described in the article Wolseley plc, based at Arlington Business Park. Anyway I've amended your link on that basis; if you really meant one of the other Wolseleys, please feel free to correct. -- Chris j wood 11:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What on earth were you up to putting date formats in British articles into American date format. Please don't do it again. Carina2208:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was a misunderstanding as to how the date system on Wikipedia functions. I was formatting the dates into the ISO international format (not American style, I hasten to add. In the US they use the short format MM/DD/YYYY -- the ISO format I used is YYYY-MM-DD) which is automatically converted by the Wikipedia into the format specified in Special:Preferences. I did this because I was unaware the Wikipedia is able to convert standard format dates this way too. I was also unaware that users who do not specify a date preference do not get any conversion.
I have been using Wikipedia for less than a month and this was an honest mistake. I do like to learn from my mistakes and I always welcome guidance from experienced users, but I do not appreciate the tone of your message ("What on earth were you up to ..."), particularly when you didn't even bother to get your facts right before criticising me (ISO and US dates). Throup (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I snapped, but I doubt that 1% of people have heard of ISO date formats. As a general rule, conventions which are familiar only to specialists or academics should not be used if there is an alternative as Wikipedia is aimed at the general population. Carina2209:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. As I said, I had misunderstood the guidelines and got a little over-zealous. I guess I learnt the hard way! I look forward to editing with you in the future. --Throup (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for pointing out my error, I've cancelled my original proposal re: changing things to "in country", and have made a new one for changing things to "of country". All the best, Kurieeto03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category renaming for Category:United States Students' Unions
Hi. As an editor who participated in the discussion regarding renaming Category:United States Students' Unions, I am writing you to let you know that while there was consensus to rename the category there was no clear consensus for the final name. If you would like to revisit the discussion on Category talk:United States Students' Unions I am willing to consider an agreement there and rename the category. I won't be monitoring your talk page so if you have to reply to me directly please do so on my talk page. Thanks! --Syrthiss19:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just curious as to your rationale behind renaming the category I created to "Northern Ireland" instead of "Northern Irish". Cheers. --Mal03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be Northern Irish, but apparently the term makes the catholics throw fits. Though you should know more about that than me as I've never been to Northern Ireland.Carina2213:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though Carina - it is accepted in Northern Ireland as being one of the most generically accepted terms, by all 'sides'. Please see my talk page regarding discussion here. I will be requesting that all categories are changed to fall in line with the vast majority of other country cats ("French..", "German..", "Scottish.." as opposed to ".. in France", ".. in Germany", ".. in Scotland"), and would appreciate your support when I've found out exactly how to go about nominating them for change. --Mal19:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful.
first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. As Lorenz pointed out the most important seems to be that we find clear definitions of what the terms mean. Tobias Conradi(Talk)07:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a tag, amended the category, added another tag, and now added another template. Now it tells me "it may be nominated for deletion in the future". I thought that was what I had done three times! What am I supposed to do next. This is a blatant breach of fair use, as it is being used in articles which having nothing to do with anyone who has an interest in the copyright in the photo, but the deletion process is just too hard to implement. Carina22 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I sympathize with your pain, Carina22, and please know that we are grateful to have people interested in creating a free encyclopedia and avoiding copyright and fair use violations. For images, the most efficient way to get rid of them is by posting them at WP:IFD. That page is usually kept up to date (unlike copyright problems), and is rigorously processed. Thanks again for your work. Chick Bowen20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.
Among the various issues involved are:
1) overly inclusive categories;
2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);
3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki;
4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;
5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria;
6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar";
7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.
Hey Carina, I tried to keep the article from being merged but it was decided to merge. But I agree that he should have his own article and have reverted back to the article before it was merged.--NeilEvans15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone claimed Calvin filmed Life is Wild in February without stating a year. Given enough time, that could turn into a problem. Do you know how long ago it was shot? (MacGyverMagic who was too lazy to sign in). Also, I chose to merge a few months ago in the AFD, but since the show has been acquired by a network and will be shown, I feel now is a perfect time to spin it out. I'm hoping Rochelle's stint as a presenter will earn her her own article too, though convincing people she earns it may be problematic. - 131.211.210.1211:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what I was looking for. The article said Calvin started filming in February. Where did this info come from and was that February this year or last year? - Mgm|(talk)09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to doubt that it was this year. I didn't hear about it until this year, and it's pretty obvious from the change in his appearance that it was this year. Carina2209:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created the Invesco article. Could you look at this diff [1]. Its from an IP whose been pushing a POV over at Diane Garnick, who happens to work for Invesco. I know nothing of the company, so I don't know if its pushing here as well. Mbisanz (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least a few months. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the Signpost on your talk page, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
