| Revision as of 23:49, 21 March 2015 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits about me← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,642 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JzG/Archive 218) (botTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Administrator topicon|icon_nr=0}} |
|
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 5: |
Line 4: |
|
| algo = old(7d) |
|
| algo = old(7d) |
|
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 106 |
|
| counter = 218 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 32K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 32K |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|Discretionary sanctions}} |
|
|
{{Ds/aware|9/11|a-a|a-i|ab|acu|aerc|ap|at|os|b|blp|cam|cc|cid|e|ecig|fg|gc|gg|ggtf|gap|gmo|ipa|lr|lw|muh-im|old|pa|pr|ps|r-i|saq|sen|sci|tm|tpm|tt|we}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
] |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=User talk:JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Centralized discussion|width=30%}} |
|
{{collapse top|Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).}} |
|
|
I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Misplaced Pages. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on ], and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. |
|
|
|
|
|
] also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually ] about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any ] issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on ] or ] for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
---- |
|
|
{{Boxboxtop|}} |
|
|
{{user admin}} |
|
|
{{Looshpah III Userbox}} |
|
|
{{User MAW800}} |
|
|
{{User rouge}} |
|
|
{{User Wikipedian for|year=2004|month=08|day=20|sc=y}} |
|
|
{{User admin since|year=2006|month=01|day=17|sc=y}} |
|
|
{{User:JzG/charlatans}} |
|
|
{{Boxboxbottom}} |
|
|
{{Archive box |
|
{{Archive box |
|
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist --> |
|
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist --> |
| Line 45: |
Line 29: |
|
| age = 7 |
|
| age = 7 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
* In ], any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, ]. |
|
|
* My ] is 53mKo (milli-]s). |
|
|
* Sad now. ]. |
|
|
* |
|
|
* {{twitter|vGuyUK|vGuyUK}} | {{twitter|SceptiGuy|SceptiGuy}} |
|
|
; Obligatory disclaimer: I work for ] but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right? |
|
|
---- |
|
|
'''About me''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
]I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for along time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely ''do not'' have an accent, since I went to a ]. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
;Smelling pistakes |
|
'''RfC and other closes''' |
|
|
|
:In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have ], so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from ]. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on ], where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{wikibreak}} |
|
----and stale |
|
|
|
== God Jul och Gott Nytt År! == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> |
|
== Your ANI close == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
Hi JzG. Your abrupt close of suppresses a legitimate and serious discussion about an editor's conduct. I think it's particularly faulty to close it as querulous, since the OP presented diffs, examples and clam explanations. While I doubt that you will reopen the thread, or actually intervene to address the reported issues, I at least want to go on record as strongly objecting to the close. Collect's battleground behavior which includes misrepresentation, edit warring, refusal to respond to legitimate questions, filibustering, false analogies, forum shopping, and personal attacks is damaging to the project. While I don't think that ANI is particularly well equipped to deal with it, the editors demoralized by his conduct should at least be able to present their evidence and have it objectively reviewed by uninvolved users. - ]] 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] is wishing you ]<br />Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ]<br />], ], ], ], ],<br />or the ],<br /> this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone. |
|
: Feel free to start an RFC. This is not an obvious quick-action case, and that is the only kind that can be fixed on ANI. Long experience indicates that ANI only makes things worse. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<br /> |
|
::I understand and respect your view. RFC/U no longer exists, so I will explore other avenues of resolution.- ]] 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
:::It's only a battleground if there are two or more persons in dispute. It would behoove the lot of you well if you all (including {{u|Collect}}) disengaged. You file an arbcom case and it is going to go south on the lot of you.--] 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
:::: Yeah, pretty much. The issue with the ANI request is that it was not so much a request for review as a rallying cry to attract supporters, at least to my eyes. That is never a good idea, especially at that venue. I hadn't spotted RFC/U was shut down (though I can see why), but this still needs picking apart: content issues via RFC and AFD, conduct issues via DR. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FWIW == |
|
|
|
|
|
See the spanking-new ArbCom case just filed -- seems a bit too much, no? Cheers. ] (]) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: A bit premature, I'd say. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate ]. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, ] (]) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: I could not understand what anybody could possibly object to in some of the essays, other than the fact that they describe the reaosns why they can't treat bullshit as fact, which some of them, at least, seem very determined to do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Damn you == |
|
|
|
|
|
I did a coffee take at work this morning when I read your comments at ]. An "unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness," indeed. ]! 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for . Would you mind indicating the version you reverted back to? Perhaps in the ]? --] (]) 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: , but actually all the ones I reviewed suck to a greater or lesser degree, so please feel at complete liberty to find a better one if you can, and remove the tags (other than AfD unless you find one that is actually credible sourced). That's no disrespect to those involved in trying to clean it up, there have been many spammy edits and a good number of good faith attempts to tone them down or clean them up, most of which amount to a turd-polishing exercise. It's hard to believe that a right-leaning group who have published books on scientific dissent to Darwinian evolution, would have escaped any substantial criticism or scrutiny ion the process. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. I've a link to your closing comments. I hope you don't mind. --] (]) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Not at all, thank you, I think that adds meaningfully to the attempt to get a properly Wikipedian outcome. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reminder == |
|
|
|
|
|
] The purpose of this message is to remind you that the consensus reached in the ] regarding BDD's ] of ] regarding the ] redirect, which you closed approximately two and a half hours ago, is still awaiting enactment. ] (]) 23:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just came by to post this same reminder. Does your close mean that you will relist it, or that someone else should relist it? I'm not too familiar with the ins-and-outs of deletion reviews, but I see that you also closed ] and have already carried out the required action; perhaps you just missed the other one? ] (]) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Someone else needs to relist it, if people still want it listed. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the actual rationale to do that myself, and don't want to botch it up for you all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: What you just said doesn't make the least bit of sense. Either implement the consensus or revert your close and let someone else perform it properly. For the future: drive-by mass-closing of DRVs is ill-advised. Quality > quantity, etc. If you're not 'sufficiently familiar with the actual rationale' (what's that even mean?), what made you believe you were qualified to close the DRV in the first place? ] (]) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks, Guy. I am a bit puzzled why you would believe that there was consensus enough in the deletion review to close as "relist at Rfd" but then question whether "people still want it listed" - that is what you are supposed to have judged. I have the Rfd myself, as the logical interpretation of your "relist" closing comment. ] (]) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Basically, there was no consensus in the review. Good faith arguments were made for a relist, and thus a wider debate. The review debate was a stalemate. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sorry, I don't mean to badger you about this, I'd like to understand so that I'm not doing anything out of context. If there was no consensus in the review, shouldn't you have closed the review as "no consensus"? You closed it as "relist". Or did you mean to relist the deletion review? Man, this is a lot of headache for a redirect. ] (]) 19:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: No problem. The review had no consensus but in as much as anything could be drawn from it ,it was the fact that a relist is unproblematic (which is often not the case - sometimes relisting after a review is pure disruption). So I guess "no consensus, no prejudice against relist" would be a better close. Do you want me to change it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::What are you talking about? No consensus?! Did you even read the discussion before closing it, or did you just look at the words in bold in front of people's statements and took a guess? You needn't answer, one look at your list of contributions is enough to know it was the latter, you only took 3 minutes to analyze the thing. I advise you to slow down a bit - don't close until you know what you're closing or you may find yourself deprived of the ability to close one day. Quality, not quantity. ] (]) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: Of course I did (I often return two or three times to a thing before closing). My statement references comments made in the body. However, the text in bold is a significant indicator of the overall intent of the person !voting. I have been here a while, this is not exactly ''terra ingognita'' for me. Your route to challenge is ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk page for War in Afghanistan (2001–present) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for close. <s>I was wonder if you could also move the talk page as it is still at ].</s><small>(Edit: talk page has been moved)</small> I assume for the close at MRV you meant "Overturn (as No-consensus)" instead of just plain "No-consensus" (see ]). And yes I'm pretty sure they your comment at request for close will be true especially as the sides seem at least to me to be talking past each other. ] (]) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: That's about it, yes. I did click the box for talk page move, not sure why it didn't happen. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: No worries, happens. My guess it that you got the don't leave redirect instead of the move talk page button. I've made a similar mistake on another wiki before. I added a slightly clarification to your close and fixed the formatting at move review. Hope you don't mind. Feel free to remove my clarification and/or edit the bolded bit if you wish, especially if I made a mistake. It's likely that the log page will be archived soon and the headers removed as all the other reviews on the page are also closed. ] (]) 04:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Thank you, and a question== |
|
|
Thank you, enormously, for closing that incredibly attenuated RfC at ]. I and I'm sure every one of us involved appreciate it every much. I'm not quite sure I understand what the result is. I ''think'' it means that running times need to be cited by third-party sources and not by measurement or a DVR reading, according to ]. Is that correct, or am I misreading? Thank you for any clarification / information, and again thank you for taking the very considerable amount of time to read that long RfC discussion. With regards, --] (]) 03:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Yes, exactly that. A reliable third party source is required. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::With respect to what Tenebrae is asking, that both is and isn't true. ] requires that everything be verifiable, but not that everything be cited. Tenebrae is insisting that ''every'' running time be cited, essentially because that's the way that ] does it. However, there are arguments as to why this is not practical, the main one being that episode times vary, and because of this {{tl|Infobox television}} does not ask for specific times, only an approximation, which every editor, except Tenebrae, agrees means that mandatory citing (which is beyond the requirements of ]) is not necessary. I agree with the aspect of your close that says we can't agree to ignore NOR, but that aspect of the discussion was ignored by everyone except Tenebrae. --] (]) 08:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You might want to re-read ]. I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get, as far as I can see. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::NOR really isn't the issue. Tenebrae wants a citation for ''every'' running time, regardless of the source. Neither NOR or WP:V require citations for everything. --] (]) 11:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thank you for your response to my question, JzG. Again, all of us in the RfC appreciate all the time and effort you took. We know it wasn't easy. |
|
|
:::::], with all respect, please abide by the RfC's admin-closed decision. An admin is explaining directly to you that this is, indeed, an ] issue. I trust and hope you will not be inserting uncited claims of purported running times based on your personal observations. A DVR reading is not primary content of a television show, as the plot would be, any more so than a theater marquee is primary content of a movie. --] (]) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I'm not interested in replaying the debate. If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question. The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Indeed. As you said, "A reliable third party source is required", one way or another. --] (]) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: And whether it's cited inline, noted in the text or whatever, is of no relevance tot he narrow question, so do beware of the trap of thinking that source necessarily equals inline cited source at the point of reference. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Understood. In any instance I mention this, I say only "third-party source required" and leave it at that. --] (]) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::{{reply to|JzG}}I understand that you don't want to replay the debate, and I'm not asking you to do that. You have addressed my concerns by saying {{tq|If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question.}} Funnily enough, that's what Tenebrae was trying to achieve with the discussion. The first part of the RfC question was {{tq|Do TV-show running times in the ] require a ]}}, so it's not another question, it's the same one. Your close seems to concentrate on the second part of the question. --] (]) 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: I understand. The RfC had two questions packed together. The nature of one, meant that if the two were considered together, only one outcome is possible per policy. Feel free to unpack the separate question of inline citations. In fact, I positively encourage you to do so. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Ironically, RfC respondents only addressed the issue of requirements for citations, not the OR issue, which is something I was trying to get across to Tenebrae, who now thinks that your close means that citations have to be supplied. I do understand what you're saying though. Thanks for your patience. --] (]) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ]! Are you still out there? == |
|
Sorry for clogging up your talk page even further, but I'm afraid I don't see how your interpretation is compatible with policy. There are two types of information allowed on Misplaced Pages per ], ], etc.: information explicitly supported by reliable sources in the same article (although some leeway is given to the exact placement of citations, they must always be present somewhere in the same article), and information that Misplaced Pages editors are permitted to enter themselves (e.g. routine calculations). You've just stated that the latter is inapplicable here, so it must be the former... and yet you claim that citations may or may not be required? ] (]) 13:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 09:57, 15 January 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1957773473}} |
|
|
Hi ]! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year ]] 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
:I can't speak for JzG, obviously, but if something is cited in the article body, then it doesn't have to be cited in the infobox. That might be at least part of what was meant. Also, separately, just for accuracy's sake: One post says, "Tenebrae ... now thinks that your close means that citations have to be supplied." Actually, that's not really correct. I noted at 19:00, 20 March 2015, that I say only "third-party source required". All good.--] (]) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
:::October JzG sighting at ]. Does my heart good. --] (]) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using ], and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020. |
|
|
::::I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am. |
|
|
::::I thought I'd drop in :-) ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! ] (]) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Glad you dropped by! ] (]) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. ]] 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If Guy doesn't look at ] real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - ]the ] 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Misplaced Pages. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Misplaced Pages disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Very happy see the little JzG! ] ] ] 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC). |
|
|
:::::Hah! Good to see you're still around! ] 20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. ''']] (])''' 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Welcome indeed! Just came across your signature ]. It's always great to run in to another 'old-timer'. Hope you're well, ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
` |
|
You moved this without leaving a redirect, which has left behind a fantastic number of broken redirects, see ]. I stopped counting at 50. I suppose the simplest thing to do is restore ] as a redirect to the new title and let the bot sort out all the resulting double-redirects, though the number does seem considerable overkill. ] (]) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{reply to|JohnCD}} Six of the eight navboxes on the page linked to the old article and had to be corrected so the links would display correctly. These would be responsible for many broken links. Interestingly, as a rsesult of the move we now have ] and ]. --] (]) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
.jpg)
