User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 6

A talk page.

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. --NE2 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At least one link - US 40 (CA) - might redirect somewhere other than U.S. Route 40 in the future. As for the rest, can you offer any sort of reason as to why we shouldn't use them? Did you read the link I provided above? --NE2 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So then we can change the redirect link in US 40 (CA) and point it to U.S. Route 40 in California once the article is created. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - but if we replace the redirect with a direct link to U.S. Route 40, we can't. --NE2 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying contradicts Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Also, according to Wikipedia:Piped link, avoiding redirects is not a reason to pipe a link; piped links are for when the text actually appearing is not the only meaning (like town names). --NE2 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary edit that makes the page longer for no good reason. Is that good enough, or am I still being "an insensate policy wonk"? --NE2 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would one of these redirects be broken? You're not making any sense. --NE2 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now who's being "an insensate policy wonk"? Both pages are pretty clear that there's no problem with linking to a redirect. --NE2 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What helps the reader about your edits? The reader clicks the link and gets to the right place either way. --NE2 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter if "they're bounced through the redirect title system"? The link works the same as a direct link. --NE2 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So readers who hover over the link can see a complete preview title of the article they would jump into if they were to click on the link, rather than an abbreviation. Honestly, would all readers be able to interpret SR 42 (CA) ? They might go, what is an "SR" and what is "CA"? With the piped link, they do not actually have to click on the link, or possibly be misled by a potential malicious redirect. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Clementine

Hi there! I saw some of the activity over on Clementine regarding the quotations. I and other editors have been trying to discuss this with User:CarolSpears, but she has not yet responded to requests to discuss before reverting. She's getting awfully close to violating the 3RR and other edits have been disruptive as well. Well, anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know there are some other people concerned about her editing. I took a read through WP:QUOTE, too (though it doesn't identify itself as an essay, policy, or guideline... curious) and it seems to indicate that quotations like these should be sources of information for paraphrasing, not quotations. They're not unique quotes, not poetry about the subjects, and they are of low importance and would be better off as references for paraphrased info. Well anyway, have a happy new year! Best, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal

Hi. Could you please have a look at the above article that you previously edited? We need an involvement of a third party user, such as yourself, to keep the article complaint with WP:NPOV. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairbanksans R US

Just a hello from a fellow Fairbanksan and journalist. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout and copyediting. Just moved up here a week ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UCFD

If you are going to go through with that, you need to expand it, otherwise it will be seen as excruciatingly pointy. You also need to tag the categories. I'm likely not to involve myself in the upcoming bloodbath, but I'll have the popcorn ready. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should be aware

Your good name has been dragged through the mud. [1]. You've been falsely accused of blocking User:CarsGm5 because we have "a relationship." As this is my first ever contacting with you or even being on the same page as you, I thought you should be aware that you are being disparaged and because you were unaware of the issue and haven't responded you are being further accused of deceptive behavior. Sorry your good name has been smeared. I never would have contacted you had things not gone so far with User:DJS24. KellyAna (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hey, Travis. I'm sure you already know, but all homeopathy-related articles are on article probation now; please familiarize yourself with Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Hope that you understand that this is just a formality I'm going through with all editors there. east.718 at 21:22, February 2, 2008

Deleting talk pages to archive them

Is that really allowed procedure? It prevents non-admins from being able to view previous discussions. Kirkburn (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish a particular thread to be resurrected for good reason, let me know. FCYTravis (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, it's just feels ... wrong. An admin especially should be accountable for all his dealings, so why delete the history? Kirkburn (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages are not permanent records of "all someone's dealings." FCYTravis (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said "should be accountable for all his dealings". Deleting your talk page removes some of your dealings. Kirkburn (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other admins can see it, and if someone has a good reason for me to dig up and repost a particular thread, I'll be happy to provide relevant information. I surmise that you're looking for, in particular, our past discussion about the Pete Doherty article. If you'd like me to repost it in an archive, let me know. There's way too much tripe vandalism in there for me to simply undelete it. FCYTravis (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not bothered about the Pete Doherty thingy. It was just that since we chatted on here I noticed you did the delete thing, so I just wanted to enquire about that, one wiki admin to another (I admin on the WoWWiki). Kirkburn (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, you actually are not supposed to delete your talk page, and many admins have been forced to restored their talk histories. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Caltrop's talk page: Forced merge and restoration appropriate? for the most recent case. Also, it really shouldn't be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Doherty

What compromise? It must have been a secret one, as I didn't see any evidence of a discussion. And yes, I will be filing with DRV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like deletion won't be overturned. Would you mind e-mailing the text to me through my Wiki-linked e-mail? I'd like to have it for myself. I won't repost it or anything. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. FCYTravis (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com

I just posted this edit to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard mentioning Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia. I feel there is some possibility that you may wish to continue the discussion. If so I would ask that we take the conversation someplace other then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Question_regarding_Orson_Scott_Card I think we can both agree that in any case that argument needs at least one good reference beyond the one at Salon.com and our discussion will not be helpful to the involved parties at the notice board on Card. Jeepday (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback action

Per your feedback, I've condensed it (at least visually). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially with regard to biographies of living persons. Awarded by Addhoc (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Graphic Request

I love the graphic you use of US States you have visited and would like to politely ask your permission to copy and modify it as applicable for use on my user page, with credit to you of course. Thank you. Civilengtiger (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)