User talk:Strange Passerby
16:54H | It is currently 4:54 PM Singapore Standard Time. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Happy Strange Passerby's Day!
Strange Passerby has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're Welcome! :) Keep up the good work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Forgot to preview, but I have noticed that clicking on the tildes sometimes puts my sig no where near where my cursor is, which is what I think happened there. I blame Chrome. It just did it again, I typed the full stop after Chrome and a space, clicked on the tildes, and they end up in the section head. And again. I'll do it manually. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Happened to me plenty of times before when I was contributing from my mobile phone. Rather annoying. :) Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
RE:
Hi, I replied your points on my DYK nominations. The Night of Enitharmon's Joy was really created in Sept 25, but its hook is about an expanded information added in Sept 28. Thanks, NandO talk! 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I can try, but it is very, very difficult because I've used all my material available on the subject. Thanks, NandO talk! 01:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my friend, I think I've done something interesting now. See: A Young Tiger Playing with its Mother. NandO talk! 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Rebecca Nolin
On 30 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rebecca Nolin, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
assuming good faith
Did you assume good faith when you reverted this edit? Did you discuss the edit with the editor before reverting them? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clear vandalism does not need discussion. The sources in the article point to this. Information on future events could be verifiable and is not clear vandalism. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- So you're a hypocrite. Thought so. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK
Hey I nominated another article I just expanded and was wondering can you review it and tell me if its good or anything like that? Thanks. AJona1992 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll get to it as soon as possible. :) Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games DYKs
How's everything since the medal table? I realised I still need to close one segment of the discussion; have been really busy these days. I might call up the participating editors again to finish that one. Btw, you can review my DYK nomination of Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games as well. I didn't impinge on your policy on non-talkback usage I hope? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 15:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Have responded there. I think there's no longer any issues with the medal table, and to restart any discussion now would probably not be the best idea. Just archive it? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really to do with the medal table, it's more with how we should present the mixed-NOCs issue across the XX (sport) at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and the XX (nation) at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics articles. I'll discuss it at the talk page very soon and alert contributors, you can join in if you want to. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know, I think the status quo is pretty stable. Just let me know if you do go ahead with the discussion. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really to do with the medal table, it's more with how we should present the mixed-NOCs issue across the XX (sport) at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and the XX (nation) at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics articles. I'll discuss it at the talk page very soon and alert contributors, you can join in if you want to. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected the issue you raised over the Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games DYK nomination. You can review it again if you wish to. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Have responded at the nomination's entry. Cheers, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
While I suspend any action on the merger of Commonwealth Games Village 2010 into Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, would you mind contributing to the discussion at Talk:Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games. I'm not getting enough opinions. Regards, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have a look and respond in a bit. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you added {{not a vote}} to the AfD. Has there been an issue with canvassing off-wiki for this discussion? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I haven't noticed any SPAs (except one I which I tagged earlier, I believe), but I think the
{{notavote}}
template does serve a purpose here, as there have been a few vote-like comments which haven't made any attempt to indicate their reasoning; it's worth reminding those involved that it's a discussion, not a vote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)- That would be a poor reason to add this template, hopefully not the reason that Strange_Passerby added it. I suggest the reason parameter is added with a clear explanation, preferably pointing to external URLs that are an issue. Fæ (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, the fact that several users are treating AfD as a vote is a poor reason to add a notavote template to remind users it's not a vote? Can you explain your reasoning? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am just going by the text on the template: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote..." Consequently if there is no evidence that people are !voting because someone asked them or because the AfD is being mentioned externally then the template is being misapplied. If you have other guidelines that apply in this situation then I would be happy to be corrected. If no such reason is added then I believe anyone would be justified in removing it as an arbitrary and potentially an off-putting notice. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certain I saw a guideline a while ago which mentioned that the template should be used where users are treating it as a vote, or where there's some reason to believe that they might, but I have no strong feelings as to whether or not it's appropriate in this case. Clearly the first part of the message is a little irrelevant, but I believe replacing the reason in the template will allow specifying a reason other than potential sock/meatpuppetry. I think the note is helpful other than that part; there's nothing stopping us simply substing it and manually removing the first part, of course. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are free to do so, though you could just make a comment in the discussion rather than confusing the page with non-standard notices you just created. While you think about it I'll go ahead and remove the current apparently misleading notice (recognizing that SP has not explained why it was added). Fæ (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why does a notice have to be "standard"? It's a general notice for the participants to remember that it's not a vote. I have already made comments to that effect, with little effect, and a note at the top would be more visible and do the job more effectively. If it's constructive, why not do it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, you are free to do so. Personally I would be concerned about being criticised for making my opinions appear more authoritative than they really are. When I have added special notices to discussions this has been after a reasonable level of consensus. As an AfD is rather more transient than article talk pages, this would seem a good reason to stick to the standard notices rather than taking the discussion off-topic to gain support for arbitrary special notices. Fæ (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is pre-existing consensus that AfD is not a ballot. As I suggested before, changing the reason does indeed allow removal of that presumptuous meatpuppetry note and replacement with a more suitable one: I have added the notice
{{notaballot|you wish to "vote" on this AfD}}
. I hope that is to your satisfaction. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is pre-existing consensus that AfD is not a ballot. As I suggested before, changing the reason does indeed allow removal of that presumptuous meatpuppetry note and replacement with a more suitable one: I have added the notice
- As I said, you are free to do so. Personally I would be concerned about being criticised for making my opinions appear more authoritative than they really are. When I have added special notices to discussions this has been after a reasonable level of consensus. As an AfD is rather more transient than article talk pages, this would seem a good reason to stick to the standard notices rather than taking the discussion off-topic to gain support for arbitrary special notices. Fæ (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why does a notice have to be "standard"? It's a general notice for the participants to remember that it's not a vote. I have already made comments to that effect, with little effect, and a note at the top would be more visible and do the job more effectively. If it's constructive, why not do it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are free to do so, though you could just make a comment in the discussion rather than confusing the page with non-standard notices you just created. While you think about it I'll go ahead and remove the current apparently misleading notice (recognizing that SP has not explained why it was added). Fæ (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certain I saw a guideline a while ago which mentioned that the template should be used where users are treating it as a vote, or where there's some reason to believe that they might, but I have no strong feelings as to whether or not it's appropriate in this case. Clearly the first part of the message is a little irrelevant, but I believe replacing the reason in the template will allow specifying a reason other than potential sock/meatpuppetry. I think the note is helpful other than that part; there's nothing stopping us simply substing it and manually removing the first part, of course. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am just going by the text on the template: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote..." Consequently if there is no evidence that people are !voting because someone asked them or because the AfD is being mentioned externally then the template is being misapplied. If you have other guidelines that apply in this situation then I would be happy to be corrected. If no such reason is added then I believe anyone would be justified in removing it as an arbitrary and potentially an off-putting notice. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, the fact that several users are treating AfD as a vote is a poor reason to add a notavote template to remind users it's not a vote? Can you explain your reasoning? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a poor reason to add this template, hopefully not the reason that Strange_Passerby added it. I suggest the reason parameter is added with a clear explanation, preferably pointing to external URLs that are an issue. Fæ (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I am wholly unconcerned with being criticised for "making my opinions my authoritative than they really are", as the notice is an already-established template, approved for use in AfDs where it is being treated as a ballot, and all of the comments I have made have been open discussion with other participants giving policy-based reasoning, and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate the contrary. Anyway, I've corrected the template; problem resolved, I hope. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Fæ, I apologise for not responding earlier; as my status said, I was offline. But basically, GW's done a really good job of explaining my view on this. I was unaware of the customisable {{notaballot}}, so just used {{notavote}} for the reasons GW noted: it was starting to be treated as one. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eagles247 - the candidate has answered your questions, I read that the answers to the question will help determine your vote. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:09pm • 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware. However the answers have not convinced me either way therefore am remaining neutral. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Very well then :) I just thought I'd notify you in case you weren't watching the page. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:26pm • 02:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)