Hi Gene, first of all a happy and healthy new year to you before getting to the point. I've been seeing some edits like this by you lately asking why a name without diacritics is a red link. I think it's good that you notice these things, but I was wondering why you did not create the redirects yourself immediately after seeing that. No offence, but I think it's a small edit, so whenever I come across one like this I'll do it, but I'm not going to check all of your edits, so I thought of asking if there was any reason not to create those yet. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, these are almost never isolated cases. There is usually a whole bunch of related ones, and the people who are interested in them being found, if they are aware of the problem, can fix a lot more than just the one article--and they can at keep it in mind for the futre when new article s are created. Me creating the redirect does almost nothing to solve the overall problem. Gene Nygaard 05:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I see it different, but that's ok. When I notice something like that I just create the redirect and people will see what happens as soon as they type in a search or use the redirect in an article page. You are right that often multiple redirects might be useful to create, but that also is just a small thing I guess. Anyways apparently you are also editing a lot of articles that are not of your interest. I agree that people who know more about the subject would be able to have a better look at that in these cases. SportsAddicted | discuss 14:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where creation of a redirect (or of a link from a disambiguation page) isn't seen in in the watchlists of people watching the article, the people most interested in it. Nor in the "related changes" list. Gene Nygaard 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I definately do like that argument :) SportsAddicted | discuss 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for your edit to Mini Moke. This business of linking to units only the first time they are used is a real problem with infoboxes. The problem is (as you'll see if you look at Mini Moke right now) that the order you enter the text in the edit window isn't the order the infobox will display it. Hence, the first use of inch and meter in "Wheelbase" are not linked whilst the use in "Length" are. Your edit looks OK in the edit window...but not in the article. Clearly this is easy to fix - but not if someone ever changes the infobox design (which happens a LOT). So I took the view that it was better to link every occurrance in the infobox just to be sure. It's a very, very tiny point - but with the pickiness of GA and FA reviewers these days...

SteveBaker 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the month and year of Dr. Duncan's passing. (I'm the creator and principal author of that article.) If you remember the circumstances surrounding his death and where he died, please put that in the article.--Hokeman 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating articles such as Daniel Sánchez if you cannot add the proper sort keys so that the articles are indexed properly in categories. Gene Nygaard 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that one. Go back and fix any others you have messed up the same way. Gene Nygaard 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temper your tone, my dear friend. "Messing up" is not my key business, start chasing other others. Darius Dhlomo

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Gō (unit of measurement), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 合 is always spelled gō. "go" or "gou" is not a possiblility. For techinical reasons unique to Wikipedia, as I am sure you are aware, the sort keys are set to "go". Redirects from "go" or "gou" can be made if you feel they are necessary. However, the content of the page needs to spell the word correctly as "gō". It has nothing to do with the English alphabet (technically the Latin script). Words can be spelled correctly or incorrectly in English. This is a warning. Please cease your edits. If you would like to discuss it further, please try the Talk:Gō (unit of measurement). Bendono 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one completely in the wrong on this one. Don't push me. Gene Nygaard 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Vectro 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just an FYI, M Cum means million cubic meter not one cubic meter. --BostonMA ^talk 12:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, okay, I maybe should have figured that out. But that doesn't mean you change back to that imporoper, strange, unused abbreviation. Gene Nygaard 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the "strange, unused" abbreviation came from the reliable source i.e. the government of India, backing the information [1]. If you wish to convert abbreviations, please do so accurately. Factual accuracy is more important than stylistic issues. --BostonMA ^talk 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The government of India appears to be about as reliable as the Wikipedia editors of India-related articles when it comes to the proper use of English as well as the proper international, inter-language use of symbols of units of measurement. My correction, moving the decimal point, was correct. The prefixes are raised to any power the root unit is raised. Go read SI prefix#Details. Gene Nygaard 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Also, your second edit was factually correct. However, your first was off by a factor of 10 Lakhs.  ;-) That was the one I corrected. --15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then you were complaining about my re-correction of your numbers, not off by a million this time. That's why I pointed to the SI prefix link. Glad we got that straightened out. Note that "M Cum" is not a symbol I've ever seen used anywhere else; hope I never do either. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, when was I complaining about your second edit that was not off by a factor of 1,000,000? Could you give me a diff? --BostonMA ^talk 16:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your second message here on my talk page, saying "If you wish to convert abbreviations, please do so accurately," which came after my second edit of Hirakud Dam. Apparently you didn't realize that. Gene Nygaard 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting). Well, there was clearly a miscommunication there. A request that you pay more more attention to accuracy when you are converting abbreviations is not a claim that your second edit was inaccurate, and I have not claimed that it was inaccurate. Your first edit, however, was off by a factor of 1,000,000, and it would be nice if you paid more attention to accuracy, rather than focusing so heavily on style. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the costs of using nonstandard, improper abbreviations. They will be misunderstood. Letting them ride is unacceptable; I you fix it incorrectly, some sharp-eyed character like you will probably catch it, but if I don't try to fix it, lots of people with not have any idea what it is. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pity that your writing about different articules is so aggressive. If you find a mistake you can change it. By the way, I have just changed dates in categories births and deaths on Luis Augusto Sanchez (a Colombian chess player). Earlier, I wrote an articule on Boris De Greiff (a Colombian chess player), and I copied by mistake the categories. Your demand to cease and desist from doing it in all my articules is ridiculous and piteous. Mibelz 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gene! I see that you have started a discussion - a bit too passionate one - with Mibelz about indexing articles. I agree with you that it is better to work without mistakes, but if you wish to prevent mistakes, then please do not ban users from creating articles (at least, you are not Wikipedia Arbitration Committee) but rather explain how to work better and why. I am sure that Mibelz will hear your explanations better than "cease and desist letters". Thank you for understanding, and wish you happy and successful New Year. --Ioannes Pragensis 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what changes you made to the article.

Let me know what you did, please.

I'd just like to know so I won't do it again in the future (like I can do it again in the past...*shudder*).

Preston47 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Could you be more specific? Karlson and McKenzie redirects to WZLX, and as near as I can tell, I've never edited that, certainly not recently. Gene Nygaard 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summary, there is a discussion about the page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Please participate. Dekimasu 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did no such thing. Don't lie about it. And I don't appreciate people discussing their edit warring on some other page without any comment whatsoever about it on the page involved. Either move the discussion where it belong, or at least put a notice on the proper page. Gene Nygaard 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my edit summary "see discussion at mos talk" and believed that you would understand that because I have often seen you make comments there in the past. For that matter I didn't start the discussion at the MOS, nor did I give you a hard time for reverting an article five times in 36 hours, and I came here now instead of reverting again. You are yelling at the wrong person. Dekimasu 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just curious why you considered the categories missorted when his name was spelled with the umlaut over the "o". I didn't want to just change it back right away in case you are correct, but I am confused since his name is properly spelled Dan Swanö, not Dan Swano. Thanks =) Karpsmöm 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because our category sorting is by Unicode number, and they are different Unicode numbers, but they are sorted together in English sorting rules. Swanö should be before Swanson, for example, so it was missorted. See WP:CAT (there are a number of other relevant discussions elsewhere. Gene Nygaard 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your work to have categories sort correctly, and I agree with rendering the name as "Gudbrandur Thorlaksson" for sort order, there's a reason that an HTML comment above the categories says "No surname to sort by. See Naming conventions of Iceland." Please keep an eye out for names that don't follow the "GivenName Surname" convention. -- Jake 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a surname, at least in some meaning of the word. And it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether or not it is a family name, for our sorting purposes. So that statement is wrong and irrelevant. Gene Nygaard 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it isn't a "naming conventions" issue. Naming conventions deal with the one slot available for an article's name. Gene Nygaard 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) At least in the Wikipedia jargon usage people would expect in that context. Gene Nygaard 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a person interested in cocktails and/or the WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered for the WikiProject from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. Consider becoming an active Participant. Thanks! --Willscrlt 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Polish editors seem pretty keen on spelling Polish names in the Polish way - and not in the traditional English way. Considering the recent Gdanzig syndrome debate, it doesn't really seem worthwile moving the article. --Camptown 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with it being hidden away without a redirect, however. Gene Nygaard 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I am sorry, am I missing something here? "Articles I messed up"? If you had taken a closer look, you would have seen that I spent time fixing the links in the article, the ones to the city and category were not working because someone used a very weird character. The city's name is Uşak, any more questions??? And I fix hundreds of redirects all the time, as well as many spelling errors, so it is normal that I can forget one or two things. If you were so interested in the article, why were the city name and the category name showing up as red links? And you can also try to see WP:AGF; if I had ever seen another user make a spelling correction move and that it left a double redirect, I would have fixed it myself. It would have taken less time for you than writing to me in any case :)) "Cease and desist"?? :))))) What's going on, am I under arrest? And what sort keys are you talking about? I actually fixed the links in that article, and I really have a hard time following your weird sort key argument [2], is something "missorted" there? In any case, the next time I forget double-redirects just leave me a msg "hey, you forgot a double redirect(s) here, can you fix them? Thanks", instead of a tirade about how I messed something up etc etc :)) Cheers!Baristarim 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you better stop treating others as if they were some vandals like you did here [3]. There is no source that says that the city's name comes from "lovers". Any unsourced information can be deleted. And there is no such thing as "alternative transliteration". I will fix that as well. "revert deliberate missorting" has absolutely no meaning, I know how sorting works. There was no reason for you to blindly revert like you did here [4]. Had you taken a closer look, you would have noticed that I hadn't touched the first letter, which is the only important letter for sorting. I am very careful with my work, but as I said I also forget certain things. There is no reason to modify anything except the first letter. I reverted you at Inonu, and it still shows up correctly in its categories, take a look if you like. Please do not do any more such modifications.. It seems like I will have to revert some of your other blind reverts. Please take a look at your own work before you order others to fix I don't know what.Baristarim 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you got to take a chill pill. What kind of edits are you making? Do you want proof that Uşak Airport is at that name? [5] There you go, it is the site of the Turkish ministry of tourism. In any case, it is irrelevant since "airport" refers to the city which is clearly spelled as such. Look man, if you have some particular issues with diacritics of other languages, then I suggest you take it somewhere else. I told you clearly what the city's name was, and you still put a fact tag!! That is really bordering on disruption. It is common sense that the name of the airport comes from the city with that name. That's logic 101. Gees, what's going on? Baristarim 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you stop doing blind reverts, inserting unsourced and dubious information as to how a city's name comes from "lovers" and adding senseless fact tags. If there were any missortings, I will fix them in due time. Baristarim 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a lot of clean-up on Turkey related articles, so I will eventually fix the missortings. I understood your point.. Baristarim 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have the impression that you are doing many blind reverts without putting too much thought into it. See my note at Talk:Uşak before you do any more such reverts. Thanks. Baristarim 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pff.. And please do not say "deliberate missorting by baristarim".. "fix missorting" is enough.. Baristarim 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gene,

Thanks for indexing the categories on the articles about Yaşar Yakış and Devlet Bahçeli, which I created. I didn't do so, because I wasn't sure how these Turkish diacritics are sorted, so I thought it's better not to index at all rather than doing it wrongly.

--Carabinieri 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you removed the "false comment" on the Win Lyovarin article, yet I was gratified to see that you left the Thai-related category alone. Can you think of a better phrasing for a comment that would advise future editors about why the Thai cats don't need to be sorted? Please feel free to comment here on your page, so as to not fragment things. Thanks. — WiseKwai 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to cab signalling, there is a reason for the nbsp characters between the numbers and the unit of measurments. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement says to include the nbsp to prevent the number and unit name from being separated across line breaks; since we have no way of knowing what program is being used to render the pages on a reader's display (although it's not likely to be used very often for viewing rail transport articles, the media player Amarok, for example, can display Wikipedia content in the navigation window) we don't know where the line breaks are going to occur in all cases. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Read it again. It suggests using a nonbreaking space "between the value and the unit symbol" (emphasis added).

That isn't what you were doing. You were adding a nonbreaking space between a number and the spelled out name of the unit (in this case, "hertz"), not what is discussed on the WP:MOSNUM page.

This guideline (not policy, something that can be ignored in any case) only suggests ("[p]referably") using them between a unit symbol and a number. I agree that there are rare occasions where this is a good idea. They are few and far between. Sometimes in tables it is important, less often in running text.

But this suggestion is a bad idea as a general rule, for several reasons:

1. It clutters up the edit page

a.It makes it difficult to determine whether there is a space at all between numbers and unit symbols.

2. It is not a rule suggested by any measurement standards organization

3. It is not a rule commonly found in style guides outside Wikipedia.

4. It is much more important to use nonbreaking spaces so that the number itself is split up. Fortunately, the MoS discourages the use of the 1 234 500 number format, so we don't need to worry as much about using "1 234 500" on the edit page. There are, however, a significant number of articles still using that number format even though it is against the Wikipedia MoS rules.

5. It is much more important to keep the units from being split up in a line break. An example of units that ought to have the nonbreaking space (alternatively, ·, which is also nonbreaking) can be seen in the Avogadro number article, where the Wikipedia editors have included nbsp in both the number (as mentioned in point 4), and between the number and the unit symbol, in "(8.314 472 ± 0.000 015) Jmol⁻¹K⁻¹" but have completely failed to include what the rules of the standards organizations require between the components of the unit itself, either a nonbreaking space or a · (·).

As I said above, there are some but few cases where a nonbreaking spaces are desirable between a number and a unit symbol. There are few if any where your nonbreaking spaces between the number and a spelled out unit are necessary. Gene Nygaard 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in the half-baked reasoning of most nbsp advocates, they seem to think that the most complicated units we ever get are things like "247 mi" or "60 km/h". When you get to things like "8.987 742 438 × 10⁹ N m² C^−2" (8.987 742 438 × 10⁹ N m² C⁻²), that's when things get more complicated, and more likely to screw things up by including a nonbreaking space between the number and the unit symbol. That's the logical place for these to break, not within the number, and not within the compound unit symbols. It is additionally screwed upon the edit page because of the need to use the scroll bar. It can lead to lines of unnecessarily short length on any browser, and on those with limited line length (the ones you expressed concern about), it can lead to unnecessary need to scroll the screen (if that is done by the browser), or to strange, weird breaks that might come, for example, between the numbers 3 and 8, or in similar numbers using "kg" or "mol" or whatever, bewteen the "k" and the "g" of kg, or between the "mo" and the "l" of mol. Gene Nygaard 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it doesn't even seem to be ineffective in my browser, Mozilla firefox. At the text size I'm using, in the measurement in parentheses (the part that is not nowikied, doesn't use &), I get a break between 8.987 and the 742, even though I have the correct nonbreaking space symbol (copied and pasted:  ) there. Gene Nygaard 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hy Gene, fixing the units of the "energy calculations" for dry ice bombs is a bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, ;-) because those calculations are blatantly wrong. Fixing them has been on my to-do list for some time, but I'm still not sure if they should be there at all, because in any case they are unsourced, require a lot of assumptions, and could be considered original research. The actual calculation is found in the dry ice cannon article. Itub 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the addition of conversions. If you think there is a problem with the underlying numbers, by all means make your case. I can help you with the conversions if you need it. Gene Nygaard 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Category:SM-liiga players because Rämö is already listed in two sub-categories of C:SM-liiga players, C:Pelicans players and C:HPK players. WP:CAT: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory.". Please watch what you revert. Elrith 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries have a purpose, you know. Since it was unexplained, I reverted it; no reason for me to be making up possible reasons for you. You just watch what how you index them, okay? Gene Nygaard 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would have been obvious from looking at the diff that I deleted a Category:(league) players in favor of the Category:(team) players links. You can't just revert something because its purpose isn't clear to you at first sight. You should look at Help:Reverting, because this isn't proper Wikipedia editing. I apologize about mistyping the sortkeys, though; that's my bad. Elrith 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are presuming facts not in evidence: that Wikipedia editors will know that the foreign word "Liga" means "league" (one reason for following the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) rules in naming categories and articles). Though if I'd stopped to think about it, I probably already knew that--what I didn't know was that those other categories were teams in the league. Of course, I often have the same problem myself, of making cryptic edit summaries that other people won't really understand, and to your credit you did put something there. Gene Nygaard 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit the reason my edit summaries are so brief is that I'm working through Category:SM-liiga players recategorizing them, and with 68 more to go, it's easier to just write recat. or something to that effect. The reason I referred to Help:Reverting is that I feel that you should have checked before reverting. But no harm done, I guess. Elrith 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you have to use "date=" for {{copyedit}} for the date to work ({{copyedit|date=January 2007}}), not as you've done here, {{copyedit|January 2007}}. Cheers, Gzkn 13:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll probably remember that for a few hours now, at least. I knew at least one was different, but wasn't sure which one. Sensible template-creators would try to harmonize them, so they work the same way. 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

50 Fahrenheit does equal 10 Celsius. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duhhhh! that's only correct if you are talking about a temperature reading. This isn't. Gene Nygaard 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOh... well can we at least agree your conversion for acres was incorrect? -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to stop working with conversions; I see what you were attempting to do, but I think for simplicity (and somewhat correctness), it should stay with the conversion for 2.4 million acres... -- tariqabjotu 02:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got an edit conflict--I see you figured out what I was going to say:

That's not a conversion. Both numbers are rounded from the more precise figures in the infobox. You do agree that 9,986 is not only more than 9,700 but also more than 9,900, don't you? Gene Nygaard 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution would be to say "almost 2,500,000 acres (10,000 km²)" Gene Nygaard 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused in what you claim as my poor spelling as you stated in this edit. The article was spell checked, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Regardless, your comment is incivil and not useful so I am asking you to remove it. Thanks.--MONGO 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you caught the temperature variance in the article...it is really surprising that all the way through peer review and the featured article nomination process that no one else (including me) happened to catch this dumb mistake. I also added one far superior reference to the climate section that was already there. Anyway, the article looks better now than it did several days ago, thanks to the efforts by yourself and several other editors.--MONGO 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TemplateName has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up after me [6]; I've got a horrible feeling that this mistake has been made (by me) several times. I know that "DEFUALTSORT" gets typed a lot… --Stemonitis 13:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably done it too, or left out the closing braces or used wrong braces or something, though I'm probably not using it as much as you are. At least I figured out when someone else's didn't work that it was case sensitive so I've been able to avoid that. Gene Nygaard 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're heavily involved with the practical side of category indexing (I just had an edit conflict where you had made exactly the change I wanted to at John Berlau), could I ask you to look at the dispute (in which I am unfortunately involved) at Wikipedia:Categorization of people? In particular, what are your opinions on the draft replacement for the indexing section? I have a horrible suspicion that the two of us involved have already got to the situation where agreement may have become nigh-on impossible and some outside help could be very useful. I don't want you to take sides, merely to look at the topic as an outsider. Thanks. --Stemonitis 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also went to change a couple and found you'd changed the already. I added some comments to the talk page of your subpage. Gene Nygaard 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot — excellent stuff. I'll probably be copying it over to the guideline talk page soon, and I'll try to work your suggestions into the draft. It's nice to talk about these things with someone who deals with the problems on a regular basis and really understands the issues. Thanks again. --Stemonitis 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decades ago I knew a Gene Nygaard in New York Telephone. You he? Jim.henderson 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that the Mediawiki would sort an 'é' differently than an 'e' when it came down to it. In any case, it wasn't intentional—I went through the article with emacs to replace all the instances of "epee" with "épée". --digital_me 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit had missed that it wasn't already there.--Nate1481 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gene Nygaard, Related with your TfD nomination;

• I understand that your motivation is a better wikipedia, mine is the same.
• I think something is wrong with your knowledge about this template and Wikiproject Turkey.Let me explain some points on our works(related with this template);
  • Categorization of articles related places in Turkey is poor and out of standarts. Articles are categorized in different manners. There must be a common-standart categorization for smilar articles.
  • There are many different Templates was produced allready; Template:Regions of Turkey,Template:Provinces of Turkeyand one different template for each Province; Template:Districts of X province.
    • So every article was have at least 3 Templates.
    • Also articles about Provinces have Template:Infobox Province TR and articles about Towns have another type Template:Infobox Town TR.
• Now Template:Districts of Turkey was created /developed to cover many templates functions in one template.
  • There will be only one template for each place-article not three. There will be a huge memory saving in wiki (consider that; Number of articles multiply by two-minus template).
  • There will be a standart categorization for articles(Please see Template talk page),independent from user interference. Of course another categories can be add by any user for any spesific purposes.
  • Categorization;missorted.. There is no any missorted articles in generated articles. Any province is in Provinces in Turkey category in sorted order by name of article, Any districts in correct category and so on. I think, You aware that position when we try to make test of this template.Please check again.
  • What links here;..Also the same. There is nothing wrong.
  • Colours; You are right about colors of lines but these colors was used due to the colors of regional map of Turkey. X region in map and related line in template are in same colors. It is possible to modify colors in template and then modify map relatedly.
• As you can see from my contributions, I am continuing to delete dublicated maps, categories in Turkish-places' articles one by one. I will finish all article-this is my wiki project.
• Infobox templates; they will carry another functions and info's in article.No need to dublicate maps in these templates, only photo and logo(if any) will take place in these templates.

Please let me some logical time to finish my work on these templates and articles. I, kindly request from you to draw your nomination back . Regards Must^TC 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as long as you show a complete lack of understanding of the missorting issue. Go read Wikipedia:Categorization—or just go look at how the articles are missorted in their categories. Then come back and try again. Gene Nygaard 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here page. Thankyou. --Bob 16:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

I have warned you several times, Gene. Thank you, come again after 24 hours and join in constructive participation. P.S. I will block myself for that insults I have called you in the past. Sorry for that. Deal. - Darwinek 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Ridiculous blocking reason, Darwinek was clearly involved in a content dispute with you. Khoikhoi 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Khoikhoi 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't your unblockig of me worked? It shows up on my block log as being unblocked, but when I try to edit anything other than my talk page, I still get a blocked notice. Gene Nygaard 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were probably still autoblocked. Try again. Khoikhoi 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will continue destroying article's names, I will report you as a vandal with all consequences it has. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add redirects ? It is acceptable for everyone: English redirect to -> original name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to realize that I really don't give a damn if somebody cannot find Stresovice, and wouldn't have created the redirect even if you hadn't. I didn't create the redirects for Třešovice and Tresovice, to go with the variant spelling listed in the article itself, either. I also don't much care if somebody goes to Rez (disambiguation) and cannot find some dorf in some obscure place in the world that doctors up its name with silly squiggles in the non-English version.

I'm not going to be looking them up anyway. After all, what are the odds that a meteorite would fall on the hamlet of Jevicko and kill somebody's pig, so that it made the news in the English media, where it will quite properly and naturally be spelled that way, "Jevicko". That's about the only way I or most other readers of this encyclopedia would ever want to find it. You seem to be suffering under some delusion that there is something incorrect and improper about using the English alphabet when writing in the English language—but there is not.

Creating a redirect would not show up on the watchlist of anybody watching the page to which Jevicko would be redirected. Those foolish editors who had created a useless article nobody can find would remain blissfully ignorant of the very existence of the problem, and they would take no steps whatsoever to go fix all the other little stub articles they have created in their ignorance, without creating the proper redirects to that links from other articles will work and so that people can find it by using the "Go" box on the Wikipedia page. Gene Nygaard 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a chauvinist do you know that ? Do you have something against other nations, maybe racism-based ? Do you have some bad experience with other nations or languages ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me? What the hell. You are the one being clearly chauvinistic, and showing no respect whatsoever for the English language. For example, you are quite willing to accept that a name of a town or whatever can be spelled differently in Polish than it is in German (substitute pretty much any other two languages, Russian and Ukrainian, Croatian and Italian, whatever), yet you are totally unwilling to accept the simple fact that it can have an English spelling, and that that English spelling is what we should be using here on the English Wikipedia. Go edit some other Wikipedia if you cnanot accept the fact that this is the English Wikipedia.

You are the one who blatantly ignores the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Categorization of people and a zillion other guidelines. I'd suggest you start straightening up your own act.

For a specific example, contrary to the guideline which states that "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known", you have in this edit improperly deleted the name by which the subject is known at EuroSport.com and at The Internet Soccer Database and at hundreds of other sites in English. You did that despite the fact that you did not have consensus for it, and despite the fact that not just me but also MarkBA had said on the talk page: "Leave Špilár as the article's title, but note that Spilar is used in foreign countries as his name." You totally ignore discussions as well as guidelines, and just bull-headedly charge ahead with your own chauvinistic agenda. Gene Nygaard 15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled upon a magic word that might be of interest to you since you're on a quest for fixing all the sort order on categories, take a look at Template:DEFAULTSORT, I think it will save you time if you haven't already found this :) // Laughing Man 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've stumbled across that some time ago, and mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Categorization, as well as being discussed above at #is that a template?. I didn't know about Help:Magic words, however. Thanks. Gene Nygaard 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, for the nth time do not resort to uncivility against other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. If you don't moderate your language you will be blocked for disruption. Húsönd 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be coming here with nonsense. If you have something specific to complain about, point out what it is and how you think it violates policies. Gene Nygaard 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I needn't pinpoint what's a couple of sections above. You and Tulkolahten have been warned against uncivility. I can assure you this is not nonsense. --Húsönd 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Husond. You are deliberately and deceptively misstating the facts. You did not put any warning about being blocked on User talk:Tulkolahten. No big red stop sign. And, just for the record, I note that you may well be acting as a sockpuppet of User:Darwinek, whom you unblocked after he blocked himself for personal attacks against me, in a continuing effort to improperly use blocking privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. Gene Nygaard 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gene. I deliberately gave you a firmer warning than I did to Tulkolahten because I am too aware of your long history of uncivility. Had you no previous record of misbehavior like him and I would've given equal warnings. Not the case. I am not acting as Darwinek's sockpuppet, I unblocked him because his self block was unjustified and against policy. I can't say that I agree with him blocking you just like that, without at least a warning and a call for users to calm down. But anyway, given my previous experience with you I can somewhat understand why he did it. Please Gene, try talking with people without attacking them and without constantly using a snide tone. That would avoid a lot of trouble. Húsönd 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you admit the falseness of your claim above. And your acting as a sockpuppet remains quite clear and evident; blocks for personal attacks are specifically provided for in Wikipedia:Blocking policy, unlike Darwinek's block of me which was specifically prohibited by that very same blocking policy. In fact, Darwinek's block for personal attacks is the very first reason listed there, under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection. But you still have not pointed out anything that you see as uncivil. Pointing out specific instances of violations of the guidelines on a user's talk page is a necessary part of trying to resolve the issues. It should be encouraged, not discouraged. Gene Nygaard 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an edit by you showed up in the "history" page of the article, so i dunno…

Whatever…I'm sure it doesn't matter now, it being 4 months later… (I just never saw your reply to my first message to you until now).

And there has since been a redirect created that brings Karlson and McKenzie to the correct page (although you've probably seen that by now).

Preston47 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn´t logged in for a long time; only saw your last year´s notification about the deletion proposal for the Kalindi article a few minutes ago.

Kalindi is indeed another name for the river Yamuna; named after a mythological story involving Lord Krishna, the Hindu God, in his childhood days. The story can be found in Mahabharata. I´m from India myself, and can verify the existence of the name Kalindi as another name for Yamuna.

Now that the article is long-gone, is it possible to restore it? - HackerOfMinds 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]