User talk:Christopher Parham/Archive09

Welcome to my talk page. I will respond to comments made here on this page, so please watch. If I messaged you first, I'll be keeping an eye on your talk unless it's been an awfully long time.

Archive 1 -- November 21, 2004 to October 14, 2005

Archive 2 -- October 14, 2005 to December 5, 2005

Archive 3 -- December 5, 2005 to January 11, 2006

Archive 4 -- January 12, 2006 to March 11, 2006

Archive 5 -- March 12, 2006 to May 5, 2006

Archive 6 -- May 5, 2006 to October 19, 2006

Archive 7 -- October 19, 2006 to March 9, 2007

Thank you for your contributions on the Vietnam War page, but it is the U.S. having a hard time dealing with defeat, we must remove the latter part "withdrawal after cease fire" when in fact the cease fire was agreed upon for the United States to leave. I am removing the pov under this confusing statement because of the word "after". I think we should leave it empty for the reader to read and make the decision amongs themselves. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webster121 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there are many sources that say it was a defeat for the U.S. so please explain why a television documetary isn't a reliable source. pls answer that question, seriously i would like to know. Also added another source in it stating "America's longest war, and its first defeat, thus concludes. During 15 years of military involvement, over 2 million Americans served in Vietnam with 500,000 seeing actual combat. 47,244 were killed in action, including 8000 airmen. There were 10,446 non-combat deaths. 153,329 were seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees. Over 2400 American POWs/MIAs were unaccounted for as of 1973." thank you.Webster121 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change is controversial and has been reverted a number of times previously. Please don't simply continue to revert this, and exclude the article from future runs. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Christopher! The bot is adding the WP:WPChi banner to Jon Corzine because he's in the Category:University of Chicago alumni. WPChi determined that UChi alumni should be in their project. Since the bot is running on automatic according to the WikiProject's instructions, could you leave a note on the project talk page regarding the issue? They're the ones that can rectify the situation. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Low Man's Lyric, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in that article is all already in the article on the album (at least, it's there in dot-point form if not in sentences), so I've redirected it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new edition of The Federalist Papers by Lucky Zebra Press: www.luckyzebrapress.com. This edition has been edited for readability.

On the main page of Wikipedia's The Federalist Papers entry, could you add the following under "Further Reading":

Zebra Edition. The Federalist Papers: (Or, How Government is Supposed to Work). Edited for Readability. Oakesdale, WA: Lucky Zebra Press, 2007.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federalist Zebra (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher, please would you explain your edit summary "no merge and deletions"? Merger is listed as a possible acceptable outcome at WP:AFD, and is not mentioned (let alone banned) at WP:PROD. What have I missed?

The person who proposed deletion suggested that the article contained some worthwhile content and permitted merging, stating "any useful information it contains may be merged to other articles". I didn't find any sentences that were prima facie unacceptable, so I copy-edited it into the main article, but added the POV flag to indicate that it needed checking. It took me several minutes to do so, fixing the red links while I was at it, and I thought I was doing something valuable. What did I do wrong?

Shorthand edit summaries militate against Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Also, a note from you on my talk page would have saved me carrying on fixing links to a section that no longer existed.

RSVP here. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy the content of a page to another page, you oughtn't delete the original page, which contains the page history. Since the material was sitting in the article but the history had been deleted, I was left to either undelete the original article and make it a redirect or remove the material.

I assumed given your deletion nomination that you were pretty certain that the article was close to irreparable -- if the material is problematic enough to be deleted from one article, why move it into another, probably higher profile, article? So I simply removed the material, especially since it looked redundant to the material already present, which was also better sourced. I think you did do something valuable in that you identified an article that needed to be deleted. Apologies for not being clear in the edit summary.

Really the thing you should take away is that merging an article and then nominating it for deletion is not good practice; we need to maintain the history of the material because that's how we do attribution. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think I follow your line of reasoning. It was not me who nominated the article for deletion, but I did add a PROD2, stating that I had merged the content. So, were these the errors: (i) when I merged the content, should I have redirected the original instead of leaving it nominated for deletion? (ii) should the admin who deleted it likewise have taken note of this message and redirected rather than deleted? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Supporter,

Do be aware that Durova is a "her" not a "his."[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to her, noted. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the timestamp will cause the bot to eat that thread in about 24 hours. With no timestamp, the thread will stay until manually archived. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay chalk that up to me misunderstanding the edit summary. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at this footnote template and the discussion at Template talk:Rp of the new footnote format that its creator is promoting and using on Wikipedia? Frankly, I do not understand what shortcoming in the MediaWiki software User:SMcCandlish sees or in what specific way he would modify the software. However, there are certainly better solutions to the problem that he addresses—repeating the full citation of one source in multiple footnotes because different pages within the source are referenced. According to SMcCandlish's own documentation of his template, his system produces text with footnotes that looks like this:

An asserted fact.^{[1]: 233–7 [2][3]} Another asserted fact.^{[1]: 27, 422}

The numbers following the footnote 1 calls in the text are specific pages within the source that footnote 1 cites.

I am considering recommending this template for deletion, and cleaning up the footnotes that use it, but I would appreciate your expert assessment first. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a big fan of it. Generally I prefer systems that are analogous to methods that are used in print. These have the advantages that they are familiar and that when printed the article still makes sense. I eschew the "refname" feature entirely and just repeat references where necessary; since I use short footnotes this doesn't add very much if anything to the source code, and I think it looks better.

But that's me. I probably wouldn't support deleting the template; my general feeling is that authors should have wide discretion, in the articles they write, to use any system they prefer so long as it is clear to the reader, presents the necessary information, and is not unduly distracting from the content. It's more of a concern if people are propagating it across articles they aren't otherwise involved with; is that happening here? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. My concern is that this invented system is not clear to the reader: although some might puzzle it out, how is the reader supposed to know what the superscripted numbers between the footnotes mean? It is one thing to give Wikipedians latitude in choosing among established citation systems; it is quite another, in my opinion, for someone to create a new system that is not self-evident and inflict it on Wikipedia. Further, there is already an accepted, easily understood solution to the "problem" that this system seeks to address (multiple citations to different pages in a single source): using Harvard-style citations with page numbers in footnotes or inline with a bibliography of full references. User:SMcCandlish is very active on the various MoS Talk pages, which is where I saw him promoting his system and template as the "only solution" to the "problem". SMcCandlish is also very active in editing the various MoS pages to his liking. Finell (Talk) 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a new reader I think it would be pretty clear to me what was meant by the numbers. I don't follow most of the MoS, but the most relevent page would seem to be WP:CITE and I do follow that page and haven't seen SMC making any edits to it that I would say are inappropriate, or indeed editing it much at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...were well-expressed, and bang spot on. I wouldn't have been as understated, but it looks good on you! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] been studying it long? ;-) Giano (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get the true meaning of Shblerg, Chris. Stop being the Grinch of Shblerg-mas, the holiday of Shblerg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutos a midnight (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On December 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Housing Act of 1949, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I saw your information on your user page about contributing to the List of Federalist Papers, but they are all created in case you have not look recently. Chris (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that they need to be created as they need to be expanded. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[3] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and undelete the images. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. D.M.N. (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments on the MoS page are starting to cross the line from constructive discussion to personal remarks about Tony1 (see [4]) It would be better to use Tony's talk page for personal discussion, and work to keep the discussion on the MoS page constructive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl has already raised with you the issue of your conduct on the talk page of MoS. If you impugn Tony's character or motives again, and fail to assume good faith, I will consider it a personal attack on him.[5] Please refrain from personalizing issues on the guideline talk page, as this detracts from the discussion of issues. If you have personal issues with Tony, those belong on individual talk pages. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandy - perhaps some of us feel a bit unwelcome at that page due to the aspersions Tony is tossing about. I assume you plan to deliver a similar message to him? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly hope so, since Tony is the one who started calling people saboteurs. --Itub (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, good faith is a rebuttable presumption; not only as a general fact, but in Wikijargon as well. We are not required to assume good faith if it has been rebutted. And Tony has been going over the edge himself recently. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I told Tony early on I thought he should apologize to Gguy. The poking, prodding and insulting of Tony's motives and character have gone over the top, and detract from discussion of the issues. It shouldn't be that hard to Just Stop Doing That. The issue here is to return to discussion of the issues, and stop attacking Tony's motives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, I would also like Tony to stop attacking my motives, and I think a message from you would have helped in that regard after Tony stopped discussing the issue to initiate this exchange. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Tony's remarks. Even given his record, I am astounded. I will certainly endorse an RFC; I would think further appeals would be in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is beautiful. Cheers, Joe 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christopher, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating constructively in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing Sources. I was about to insert a comment that I begin to find it hard to WP:Assume good faith, upon CBM's revealing he hasn't looked at the article he is attacking me about. And upon SEWilco inserting his unjustified, attacking question "Have u read the article" just before CBM's reveal, as if to misdirect what would be appropriate focus on CBM's failure to have read the article. Your understated comments are better. :) doncram (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Do you know why on this page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_vari%C3%A9t%C3%A9s_de_pommes the sorting of "Floraison" does not sort from -8 to +6 ? The negatives digits are sorted first then the positive. Thank you for your help.82.66.108.129 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cabot House, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Cabot House. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Cabot House, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabot House. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly answered my query on the talk page of WP:CITE. I did reply there, and would appreciate some feedback on how to resolve the problem. There is a fair amount of info out there I could use, but the problem is the source. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on User_talk:Orangemike#Power_Ranger_Punks on the question --Enric Naval (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, responded. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, you are right, you didn't create the article --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the revert, that IP has been doing that all day. I've asked him on his talk page to provide a source if he wants to put 1921 back in, as otherwise we're going to be in three revert territory, and I'd rather avoid that. Ged UK (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance there! Tony (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message from WarthogDemon.

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Hi I am 222.152.89.88 and I am wondering what i did wrong? I can say i did not vandleise sorry about spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.89.88 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tony1, Tony responded to your last comment in his usual style. Please read it as it is another perfect illustration of Wikipedia's problem with him. You may know of several diffs that further illustrate his behavior, which would illuminate the discussion if you add them. Personally, I really do not want Tony to leave; he has a lot of value to contribute. However, his behavior is poison; that is what has to go. I had nothing to do with the current WP:ANI or whatever led to it; I stumbled on it today by accident. However, this may be an opportunity to influence Tony's behavior in a positive way, if he gets sufficient feedback from others, especially from admins. Finell (Talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christopher,

About two months ago, you voted to keep action potential as a Featured Article at its FAR. Over the past month or so, I've changed the article rather a lot; ummm, basically, there's hardly a word left of the original article. I hope you like the new version even better than the old, but it's only fair that I give you the chance to revise your vote. If you don't like the new version, could you please leave a list of things that you'd like to see improved? Thanks muchly! Willow (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: I'm saying that leaving the "we didn't do it last time" point in the list as an against argument makes the against arguers look unintelligent, i.e. it's essentially a strawman for the inclusion side to pummel. --erachima talk 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy to hammer a lot of arguments on both sides (e.g. "other people are doing it", etc.) and the simplest thing to do is just not to fight over whether things can be included. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for restoring that last section of the autoconfirm poll to the main page. So, thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are not a viable measure of consensus if interested parties are also responsible for setting the terms of the discussion. But in any case you're welcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one will be seen as such. Which isn't necessarily so bad -- it might be in the format of a poll but it's nevertheless a discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think your accusations that I have shown "embarrassing naivete" are ill-founded. Your assessment of the situation rather hinges on your first point: "Modify a protected page to reflect your preferred version." Nichalp's action were not unilateral, he researched the opinions of ediors [6] and intepreted the consensus resulting from that discussion. I have pointed out to him that I believe this should have been handled better [7] but I don't agree with your characterisation of the situattion. Had an univolved admin regarded the situation as being worthy of immediate reverting, my response would have been different. However both Husond and MJCdetroit had expressed clear preferences for the one title over the other. My reaction in the face of administrators being unable to agree on an interpretation of consensus is to bring in more users to assess the situation so that consensus can be more finally determined. To that end, I have proposed a designated page be set aside to debating these issues and that this be widely advertised. I would have placed a "moratorium on further changes" even had Husond and MJCdetroit not reverted themselves - you will I hope note that I have never moved this page. Where an edit war (or move war) takes place, we often protected what many see as the "wrong version". The ultimate goal is to ignore which version is currently protected and to build a consensus as to what is the right outcome. That has been my objective from the outset and I see no "naivete" in pursuing it. Regards, WjBscribe 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this naming controversy needs to be nipped once in for all. Based on the feedback you and the others have given, please do let me know if you find my proposed solution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Solutions? suitable to proceed further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have felt it was neccesary to change those pages to reflect the main article, as the dispute about the article's title will most likely never be resolved. However, I will stand by your decision to revert the articles back to the way they were, simply because an edit war for those articles is simply what we don't need right now.MethMan47 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had my way, AN/I would be marked historical and indefinitely full-protected right now. But, I don't, so instead, I simply don't post there. I did post to User talk:Duk, and Rjd told me he was going to "inform" the board of my unblock. So, /me shrugs. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue seems to be moot at the moment anyway as ST47 is no longer an admin and has posted saying that he won't be working with the project for some time. But, I looked over the diffs and there doesn't seem to be a glaring problem with the bot — but there does seem to be issues with the way people are posting fair use rationales (i.e., not using a template). And of course none of this speaks to the inappropriateness of an admin blocking twice, when the admin is obviously not neutral on the issue, and is (mis)using administrator tools to change the functioning of a bot.

As for consensus on AN/I, I don't see one. I see quite a few people bringing past grudges and biases to a discussion (which is why I abhor AN/I...). While I generally refrain from wheel warring, Duk's second block, for a variety of reasons, was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure about either of those points. From what I understand, templates are needed to make the rationales machine-readable. And, while a link to the article is usually not required, I'm pretty sure mentioning which article it is to be used on (with or without a link) is required. What I continually see from these image discussions is rather disheartening. Users need to fix their image description pages. The bots inform them of this, and then people block the bots for doing so. : - / --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Foundation-level policy is to require a machine-readable format, and our current situation doesn't allow that, isn't it appropriate for bots to tag images as such. That is, there doesn't seem to be any machine capable of reading the fair use rationales that aren't templated. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this don't really seem appropriate or necessary in the context of a deletion debate. Rather unbecoming of you – I expected better. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now, that was a pretty good burn. Surely you can have a bit of a sense of humor about it.  :( ➪HiDrNick! 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the original "keep" closure, a speedy deletion and reversion wheel 1, and a DRV; Talk:The weather in London is back at MFD again. If you are still interested in this page, please join in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London 2. (Note: notice sent to all editors of the first MFD that have not already been come in the new MFD.) Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Christopher Parham/Archive09 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Idontknow610^TM 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Christopher Parham/Archive09 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! RobNS 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Best wishes from Canada   ;-)   --RobNS 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a huge amount of discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. I was recently pointed, by User:Doncram, to some previous discussions at WT:CITE, and I thought you made some good points there, so I thought you would want to know about this latest discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit (∆ on 55-gallon drum), your stated reasoning in your edit summary for effectively deleting the entire article was “(rdr to original page, no content forking)”. That is a B.S., non-applicable application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The two articles are neither identical nor mirrored. The two articles have different content. One speaks of a “44-gallon drum” and the other speaks of a “55-gallon drum”. The original article “55 gallon drum” (without the hyphen) had existed for three years and had been stable. My edits today was to expand the article. If you think there should only be one article, and that Americans should either have to deal with 44 imperial gallons, or Australians should have to look at 55 U.S. gallons, then join in the proposed merge discussion on Talk:44-gallon_drum#44_vs._55_gallon. Don’t just take it upon yourself to delete entire articles. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and just to get your way on an issue. Greg L (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument on my talk page that it is inappropriate to copy text from one article to another is garbage. This is a unique circumstance because the whole issue is whether or not Australians have to deal with a “55-gallon” drum or Americans have to deal with a “45-gallon” drum. Two two articles now read differently from each other in order to deal with the subject in a way that is native to each user. This solves a long-standing issue and source of friction between the two camps. User Phasmatisnox just today was agitating on Talk:44-gallon drum as to how the article should have its name changed to “55-gallon drum”. This is insane. Greg L (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to your latest posted question on my talk page, I will not be pulled into a widening argument. Wikipedia is not a bunch of black & white issues. This drum-related issue has been contested and complained over ever since the 45-gallon drum article was created. Americans simply don’t recognize it as such and the article was awkward for them to accept because it was much more substantial that “colour v.s. color” or “metre v.s. meter” spelling issues. The two articles are founded on entirely different units of measure and are as different as Imperial gallon is to U.S. gallon. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These are articles on two different units of measurement. Though they have the same volume, they have different numeric values and comprised of different base units. I suggest you explain what harm there could possibly be to having an article for each of these units of measurement. Greg L (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This back & forth on our talk pages is crazy. Move to Talk:44-gallon drum. Greg L (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are dissatisfied with the edit, please state your grievences in Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Page format so that we may achieve a compromise. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grievance is simple: when you see "==Blah==", don't change it to "== Blah ==". The only thing this does is make it more difficult to read and evaluate your diffs. I have a hard time imagining a good reason why someone would want to obfuscate their contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your straightforward manner. The blank space is part of coding for reliability, a programming insight. It essentially signifies that large sections of code should be well organized, for example XHTML should be indented:

...
<div style="text-align:center;">
      <p>This is a paragraph</p>
      <p>The indent shows that it is encapsilated by the <span>div tag</span></p>
</div>
...

As to poorly written XHTML code:

...
<div style="text-align:center;"><p>This is a paragraph</p>
<p>The indent shows that it is encapsilated by the <span>div tag</span></p>
</div>
...

We, of course, do not program in XHTML and instead in Wikicode. The blank spaces help separate the syntax and the title, which follows for the same purpose. Contrary to SandyGeorge and Butwhatdoiknow, I am heavily against many small edits, and generally package as much as I possibly can into one. However, if you want to me do otherwise — just say so in the discussion, implementing it so quickly could signify edit warring. I'm not trying to obfuscate my contributions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want "== blah ==" to be encouraged over "==blah==", you should bring this up at the MOS, but at the moment there is no consensus that one version is better code than the other. Barring that, editors are free to chose either version and systematically changing one method to the other is not okay. I think that parallels drawn between actual programming code and a source that is overwhelmingly prose are not very instructive. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the MoS does not bar such actions. However, if you want, I can simply replace the blockquotes, but a revert would be much cleaner and quicker. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the MOS says on optional style choices (in the lead): "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Typically, consensus should be found on the talk page before converting optional styles. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I forgot about that line of text (wow, I get how SandgyGeorge feels) — proposal made, coding examples should be modernized. ChyranandChloe (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christopher Parham. You have new messages at Alexnia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm bring up the order on the layout talk. Layout has recommend Notes above References since May of 2006. It has only recently changed to not specifying, which is creating confusion as we try to defer to the Cite article, which does not specify. We have foot, cite, and layout all pointing fingers at one another. It's a mess. Morphh ^(talk) 21:50, 09 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true; neither Layout nor Cite has never recommended an order, or at least such a recommendation has never stuck for a meaningful amount of time. The language used at the main MOS page, in addition, has consistently said for months and months that the sections may appear in either order. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i need to found silly sentences with ick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.111.41 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

• I don't see you at FAC reviewing. The plain fact is that the system is groaning with the traffic and the need to properly review every nomination. It just can't be done with the limited reviewer resources we have. Part of the increase has been in small FAs. This would not present an opportunity for rationalisation if they were substantial and of as much interest as the traditional FAs; but sadly, they tend not to be. Have you had a look at any? Please consider why Erik should be held alongside the much more substantial existing FAs on storms. Erik is suitable for GA status: FA status is not some socialist hand-out, but something that has to be earnt; small articles tend to lack interest (again, have you looked at the ones in question?) and are relatively easy to write "well" in satisfaction of all of the criteria. That is why most reviewers support a floor on size.
• You seem to assume that pumping out more and more FAs is unquestionably a good thing. It may comfort some to think that they're all of a high standard, but this is not by any means assured. We could significantly lower the standards and let through 95% of nominations to satisfy that urge, but the status would be diluted. This is unfair to the good, substantial FAs. Tony (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Parham/Archive09, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..am I the only one who sees Bad Things following behind this One Template movement? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I´ve expanded the article Empire of Brazil a lot but it seems that I´m alone doing that. Would you be interested in taking a look and reviewing it? Thank you very much, - --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.165.56 (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are against a flat character count limit, so I have modified my suggestion to make it similar to other policies and consider your objection. You may want to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Is_there_a_consensus_forming.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be sure that you didn't overlook my reply to your post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MoS's role as a guideline at 18:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC):

Whoa! Christopher, where in the world did you get the idea that I don't value content? Or even that I value style (in the sense we are using that term here) as much as content? It is a given that content is king. Good editing improves the quality of content by improving its readability and communicative power, but editing can't do anything without quality content. Further, I value content editing (the kind that, say, Encyclopaedia Britannica staff editors to with the content submitted contributing "editors", who are actually authors) to improve organization, grammar, syntax, word choice, concision, etc., over style-guide conformity. But copy editing (in its limited sense) and style-guide conformity still contribute to improving the quality of Wikipedia. But I repeat, content is king. I am not aware of any editors who think otherwise. Finell (Talk) 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I value the MOS more than you do, I don't want you to misunderstand my priorities or goal. Finell (Talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refactor your inflammatory and incorrect post I will remove my reply. Verbal chat 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi do u know what's appropriate speedy deletion for that article. I tried some of them but u removed them. can u add it yourself? thanks JuventusGamer (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is none that I can see--the article is not eligible for speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an instinctive reaction - it was clear from the IP's edits and warning on his talk page. I was amazed at Verbal's accusation. I appreciate your advice! cheers. Leaky Caldron 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Parham,

You have deleted the article I was tryng to start on Wikipedia. I was trying to save the article Title as I was building the page and you deleted it with in minutes after I have created it. Is it of importance that you delete a page I am trying to create, research and build?

JXP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxparisi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted more than an hour after being created with no content. I would suggest preparing more content to be included within a short time of your initial upload, before creating the article. Also, since the article appears to be about yourself, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mr. Parham, thanks for the suggestions on the Boeing 777 FA review page. Would you be willing to consider supporting the article for FA status? A Support or Oppose vote followed by a justification would clarify things greatly. Thanks for your assistance. SynergyStar (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SynergyStar, I've already commented on and supported this article, but please let me know if you have any additional questions. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, that's what I told my fellow editors for that article. However, would you mind adding a bolded Support to your comments? That would be much appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for clarifying that. I thought something else might need addressing. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpepdragon (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was deleted under the speedy deletion policy: WP:CSD. Wikipedia articles should be factual in nature. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]