Archives
|Archive 1 AArchive 2 Arrchive 3 Arcchive 4 (Nov-Dec 2007) Archhive 5 (Jan-Mar 2008) Archiive 6 (Apr-Dec 2008) Archivve 7 (Jan-Apr 2009) Archivee 8 (May-Jun 2009)

Explain to me please why that even needs to be done... Sadly many disambiguation pages will be shorter than you want, they're disambiguation pages not articles. Why don't you set something up so that the short article list avoids pages that (are properly) marked as not being articles instead? You don't short page redirects, do you?  ^{æronphone>home}  03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at the category that you are adding DAB pages to and it says this: "as they meet a minimum level of quality, but that still could benefit from attention and fleshing out." Disambiguation pages, as I said above, are not articles and therefore do not need to be "fleshed out". You yourself shortened the pages further at the same time you added the longcomment template to thm. I'm remooving your changes, and I'll watch that category for other DABs. If you have a proble witth this you can start an edit war or come up with something more convincing that makes what you're saying valid.  ^{æronpphonehoome}  04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myself! Are all 8,000 pages in that category DABs???  ^{ææronphoonehomee}  04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof that editing Wikipedia turns people into apowder keeg. I have been editing DABs for a year now, the two rticcles you marked as short is the first time I've even seen that template, and you are the first to proclaim the inevitability what you do. Veiled threats from one established user to another aside, what is your response to the information I've shown you that makes it look as if short paging a DAB is going to far? When you can respond to THAT we can go somewhere.  ^{ærronphonnehome<}  05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been silent for two days I'll assume that the issue is resolved between us. I agree that DABs do not belong on the ShortPagees list, but equally do not belong on your watch list or need a template reserved for articles. A bug for this problem already exists on Bugzilla so at Mannings suggeston I bummped itand commmented on the nature of the bug. Hopefully you won't continue applying that template and allow time for a MediaWiki update, because once t takes pplace however many DABs are on your page will haveto bbe manually removed whereas all DABs on the Short Pages list wil siimply disappear.  ^{æronnphone<<span style="colo:red""home</sspan>}  04:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you close the DRV discussion for Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie here so quickly? I'm also concerned about the very short AFD discussion and wanted to follow up on the closing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 ay 27. Would it be ok for me to start a new discussion -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly discourages frank and open discussion. Should I ask the users who had similar concerns in the past to do it instead? -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's so controversial is why I'm switching to this sock temporarily. It's all in accordance with policy. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A propseed deletin templlate has been added to the article Ridge, Robertson County, Texas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unnotable unincorporated community.

Allcontributtions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusioncriteria foor nclusion], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipediais not"" and [Wikipediia:Deletion plicy|Wikiipedia's deletionpolicy]])). You may prevet the propoosed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explinn why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deetion criiteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deltion, wwhere it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reahed. -- Collectonian (talk&nnbsp;· contribs) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC

==[[Wikipe

ia:Articticles for deletion|Articles for deon]] nominomination of Ridge, Robertson County, Texas==

I have nomed Ridgeidge, RobontCou Co, ty, Texas, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not t that thi this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have exped why at [at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridge, Robertsonnty, TexaTexas. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk&nbspnbsp;· contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC= Template:S

rnames bames by language ==

Excellent idea on adding exclusion parameter! I've made it optional, and reworded a bit to allow more extensive exclusions. See Category:English-language surnames for the most (so far). Thanks for making the effort to update all of the existing categories. I've added documentation, so hopefully folks will take the time to follow the examples in the future.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is better than mine, good job! Templates are way under-used around here, but that's a long story. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:0], 4 July 2009 y 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we'lre we'll need to watch it like a hawk.... Yeah, templates are starting to resemble fixed categories and lists, instead of their original purpose. And few categories have good descriptions.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IS not worth a redirect. It is a multi band performance not for TOTO alone. Re direct in any case (in my view) is a silly function.Foxhound66 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating new stu for nonfor non-existant, unlocatable locations, including Animpa|Amo, [[Esl, Eslanagan, Californiagan, n, Gurnia|G, [[Kak, Kakonkaruk, k, Kalindaruk, Kulul, Lukaiasta, Paisin, Quina, Sapaywis, Seama, Soccorondo, Steloglamo, Subazama, Tecolom, Teshaya, Tetachoya, Tiubta, Wachanaruka, Zassalete and Zumblito. These locations could be listed in an article on native Indian sites of Monterey County, but to create 21 stubs that reference no other related articles and are not themselves referenced by other articles creates a lot of wasted editing time for other editors.

Also, please read articles that you add information to, like you had failed to do before editing Spreckels, California by adding info that was already noted elsewhere in the article. It appears as though you have acquired a new reference book and are intent to transfer as much of it as possible into Wikipedia. The creation of stubs or the addition of new information to articles you either have no experience in or don't read before editing causes a lot of unnecessary work. Please slow down (or stop!). Highspeed (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]