This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 8 September 2011 (→Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#RFC on the primary topic of China: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:38, 8 September 2011 by Cunard (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#RFC on the primary topic of China: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
Stupid mistake
I actually meant to put down that Mercy wasn't renewed for second season, forgot to proofread. My apologies. QuasyBoy (talk) 5:39, 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuasyBoy (talk • contribs) 01:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Find/replace coming back with No Changes in AWB
Is it working now... I am also facing this issue. please share your experience how to fix. -- Mahir78 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2011
Amber Lynn
This line that you just added doesn't make any sense:
- You have a chance to reach an age where worry about money!
What is it supposed to say? Dismas| 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's a conversation in the book. Lincoln recounts he said to Amber (in it's entirety)
- "You're making more money than the entire Supreme Court! Whatsamatter with you? You can invest in real estate-buy bonds, stocks, whatever! You have a chance to reach an age where you don't have to worry about money!"
- Amber's reply was the smoke bit. Used the exchange to illustrate her addiction. Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, just as I figured. You left out the words "you don't have to". Dismas| 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, typing the full exchange out enabled me to spot the mistake. It's a rather informative article in Playboy - besides Amber, they also have similar looks at Nina Hartley, Asia Carrera and Kay Parker. I'll take a look later at those articles to see what else I can mine from it. Tabercil (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have the issue sitting at home but haven't been able to look through it yet. School started this week... yea! Dismas| 02:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, typing the full exchange out enabled me to spot the mistake. It's a rather informative article in Playboy - besides Amber, they also have similar looks at Nina Hartley, Asia Carrera and Kay Parker. I'll take a look later at those articles to see what else I can mine from it. Tabercil (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, just as I figured. You left out the words "you don't have to". Dismas| 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Kristi Myst
It's better than it was. She looks less like a vampire now that she has some color to her skin. I'd keep it. Dismas| 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- In the news: Misplaced Pages praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Misplaced Pages's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
Oh great admin!
Will you with your mighty powers check in to the issue that User:Vividere is having? He asked me why his images were deleted here or on Commons (I'm not sure which). I can't see the images though since they've been deleted. But since you're a Commons admin, I thought you might help. Thanks, Dismas| 05:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. Flattery will get you everywhere. <G> On checking I see three images uploaded by the chap to EN that have been deleted: File:Reagan Wilson in 2001.jpg, File:Shay Knuth in 1999.jpg and File:Playboy playmate lorie menconie shot by vividere.jpg. The last image got moved to Commons as File:Lorrie Menconi.jpg. As for the two earlier ones, both got removed as a result of license issues - see Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 3#File:Reagan Wilson in 2001.jpg and Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 17#File:Shay Knuth in 1999.jpg. On looking at the images that were deleted, there's a watermark prominent at the bottom saying "(C) Celeb-O-rama.com". And a check on Commons does not turn up an account by that name so there's no edits for me to check. Tabercil (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks! Dismas| 05:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
- Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#RFC on the primary topic of China
Per your comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#RFC on the primary topic of China, would you close and summarize Talk:China#Primary topic of China? The discussion was enclosed with {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} templates by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) on 1 September 2011 in preparation for a closure by an uninvolved admin. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- While you're at it, please close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 at the same time since the two discussions are interrelated. The requested moves debate is due for closure on 12:51, 7 September (UTC), several hours from now. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- My bad - I saw the change made by Eraserhead to set it up for closing the RFC but I didn't notice that it wasn't formally closed. I'll see if I can't close the move out after work - approx 10 hours from now. Tabercil (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for assessing the consensus in the RfC. I'm interested in how the move request result will turn out. It seems to diverge from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know... that's a sticky one. On the one hand I think the move should occur based on the earlier RfC but Jiang brought up a good point: incoming links. Tthere are over 10,000 articles linking to the phrase China. (It's probably higher but I gave up clicking on the Next button when I hit that 10000 point). For the sake of argument, let's assume that 10% of those links are to the wrong location after the move. That's a thousand broken links right there and I'm really loathe to deliberately cause that... Tabercil (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Balancing the tediousness of reviewing the accuracy of over 10,000 links with the consensus in the RfC undoubtedly makes this a difficult close. Perhaps several admins could make this close? I remember a discussion earlier this year, User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where editors discussed a triumvirate for closing contentious debates. With three uninvolved admins reviewing the discussion, perhaps a satisfactory result could be hammered out. What do you think? Cunard (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea.... Tabercil (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked Mkativerata (talk · contribs) to take a look at the discussion. Hopefully, he can help set up a triumvirate if one is needed. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea.... Tabercil (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Balancing the tediousness of reviewing the accuracy of over 10,000 links with the consensus in the RfC undoubtedly makes this a difficult close. Perhaps several admins could make this close? I remember a discussion earlier this year, User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where editors discussed a triumvirate for closing contentious debates. With three uninvolved admins reviewing the discussion, perhaps a satisfactory result could be hammered out. What do you think? Cunard (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know... that's a sticky one. On the one hand I think the move should occur based on the earlier RfC but Jiang brought up a good point: incoming links. Tthere are over 10,000 articles linking to the phrase China. (It's probably higher but I gave up clicking on the Next button when I hit that 10000 point). For the sake of argument, let's assume that 10% of those links are to the wrong location after the move. That's a thousand broken links right there and I'm really loathe to deliberately cause that... Tabercil (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for assessing the consensus in the RfC. I'm interested in how the move request result will turn out. It seems to diverge from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- My bad - I saw the change made by Eraserhead to set it up for closing the RFC but I didn't notice that it wasn't formally closed. I'll see if I can't close the move out after work - approx 10 hours from now. Tabercil (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)