User talk:Sjorford

Did you move the article to plain [[Port Augusta]] for a reason? The accepted Australian policy has been to put the article at [[Town, State]], with the redirect or disambig at [[Town]]. See the rest of Category:Towns in South Australia. Cheers --ScottDavis 14:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries. City of Port Augusta is about the local government area, a bit like a county I think. For some of them like Port Augusta, there's not much difference between the town and the LGA. Others are quite a bit bigger, like Rural City of Mildura or Mount Isa, Queensland. --ScottDavis 14:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK/GB edits

On the issue of my edits, I understand your query. However, to the best of my knowledge, all of my edits are technically corrrect. Certainly, in the instances that you cite, they are. On the principle itself, the interchangeability of the terms (be it 'Britain', 'Great Britain', 'England', or anything else) is simply not acceptable. Would a Turkish user in Edirne consider it to be acceptable (or preferable) for every single page on Turkey to refer to 'Anatolia'? What about Malaysia/Malaya, Japan/Honshu, or Denmark/Jylland? I'm sure that you understand my irritation. Bastin8 10:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Marquess of Bute

Having the link go straight to the article rather than through a redirect costs the server less effort and looks more professional to the reader. Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That link could hardly be used in a naming dispute. All links to peers from articles on peerages were originally created using their full names, as they were created en masse. Proteus (Talk) 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why I Am Not A Muslim

Why did you revert my change to a redirect? The title is wrongly capitalised, the correct form is an eistent article, and this was in any case up for copyvio — I don't see your reason, and you didn't have the courtesy to give one on the Talk page or even in the edit summary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you say that you're a revert evangelist, which makes matters doubly puzzling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's good of you to apologise for snappiness given my message — I'll be editing in a better mood after this week (when the examss, and I'm free of panicky finalists giving me extra work to mark and wanting extra tutorials, etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD closing

OK, no problem. I'll admit that VFD really isn't my area, although I've gotten back into it more in the past week or so (listing things on it, anyway). I think I probably saw someone delete a subpage on VFD when they speedied something 6 months ago from known vandals. Cheers. CryptoDerk 14:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Football portal

Hi! You seem to share my interrest in football so I thought that I'd inform you that I've started a football portal at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Association football. I chose to innclude "association" in the name to distinguish it from other possible types of football portals. Feel free to contribute to it! (Please answer here and not at my talk page as it makes dicussions easier to read for outsiders.) -- Elisson | Talk 15:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, although it'd be better to name it Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Football (soccer), to fit with the name of the article (a long-running compromise). I'll try and remember to contribute to the portal when I have a chance! sjorford →•← 23:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought of that but didn't like using parantheses in the name, but it is probably better having it like that anyway. Is there any easy way to make the move? Or should we wait to the portal namespace is changed to Portal:? Contribute with anything, I'd say "news and events" and "did you know" are priority. Maybe also starting a wikiproject on football might be a good idea? Football seems to be the sport with the highest amount of articles and best cover (not very surprisingly, though), but there is almost no colaboration between contributors. -- Elisson | Talk 23:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There already is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Football clubs, although it's not really used at the moment. Hopefully the portal might act as a better meeting point for the community. sjorford →•← 23:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know, but what I meant was a more overarching portal for everything related to the sport. National teams, competitions, articles on memorable matches, league systems, and so on. But I'll try to do something on the clubs portal some day also. :) -- Elisson | Talk 12:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words

Hi Sjorford - I've put back the sections in "List of...". The divisions used may not be perfect, but the page is growing so rapidly some form of division is definitely going to be needed (it was only created 10 days ago!). BTW - isn't it time you updated the divisions in your Football subpage (especially since my old home town of Barnet is finally back in League Two! :) Grutness...wha? 00:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I wondered whether it was a case of seeing the talk page afterwards. BTW, your football page has prompted me to write about my country's major cup tournament - you might like to look at the just-written Chatham Cup article! Grutness...wha? 01:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Michael Collins.jpg

This isn't a speedy candidate, but it certainly belongs on IfD if you want to take it there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for images are much stricter than for articles (because images can't be undeleted). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please do not disambiguate pages that do not need disambiguating. Joe D (t) 12:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read the discussion many times, and this is not what it means. The consensus was for starting the articles at the name with the full disambiguation suffix to save time before the election. That does not mean the pages need to stay with the full disambiguation suffix. The pages that have since been moved to a less complicated names are ones that we have checked definitely do not need the full suffix. Joe D (t) 13:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maxwell's nonlinear equations

Whoops; good catch! Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admins list

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've previously nominated yourself I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION

Thanks for helping solve the __NOEDITSECTION__ problem on VfD. Your revert limited the number of subpages with the "contamination", and I think you got about 50% of them. I have fixed most of the rest (and other editors seem to have finished it). --cesarb 22:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from User talk:Weyes:

Hey, Weyes, when you added NOEDITSECTION to the Vfd top template, it caused the removal of all section edit links to every link on the page that the template was added to. :) Nice try, but it didn't work. :) Rick K 21:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all of these. It was a good idea, though. :) sjorford →•← 22:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh god yes, I hadn't thought of it working globally, I'm a pillock. Sorry about that, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. --W(t) 23:21, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Canada

Sorry but given that the VFD is more than five days old and there's a 2:1 vote (the hurdle needed for wikiconsensus) to redirect there's no justification for your reactivating the VFD and reversing its implementation. AndyL 02:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority". There's a 2/3 majority on the Elizabeth II of Canada VFD after five days so I'm afraid there *is* a consensus. You have no justification for "reopening" the VFD. AndyL 03:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than 2/3, about 70% in favour of merge/redirect. How long do you intend to carry this on for, I don't see how things will be any different a week from now?AndyL 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN

No problem! Apparently the discussion page used to redirect to the project page, but later it was changed so that there would be space do discuss the noticeboard itself. It's rather confusing, especially when looking for conversations later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

My concern is that if left a few more days the VFD will fall through the cracks due to admin neglect and the consensus decision will not be implemented. If you agree to close the VFD and redirect the article if no other admin has done so, say, by the end of the week (assuming the ratio of votes remains the same) that's fine. Will you make that commitment? And if another admin in the mean time closes the discussion will you respect that?AndyL 21:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm mystified how a 70% vote to redirect/merge be seen as "too close to call"?AndyL 22:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Sjorford"