User talk:Tedernst/through Nov05

Welcome! SqueakBox 18:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

You can find Wikipedia's deletion policy linked from the top of the AfD page (it's at WP:DEL). While it's flexible, a reason for deletion needs to be at least somewhat close -- an article without incoming links may just mean that it needs to be linked to. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and don't sweat the criticisms. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

DuPage County removed from the Chicago page?

Why was DuPage county removed from the Chicago page? I noticed it was you who removed it. As stated on the DuPage County, Illinois page part of the City of Chicago is in fact in DuPage county. Like many other municipalities in Illinois it is not solely in one county. In order to have the most complete and comprehensive information available regarding the City of Chicago for the wikipedia article Chicago it's important to keep things like this from being deleted. Thanks! 01:30 CST, 18 October 2005

The information you are looking for has already been discussed on the Chicago talk page, unfortunately someone on WikiProject Chicago went back and archived all the old talk posts making it difficult to easily access them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chicago%2C_Illinois/Archive2#DuPage_County_part_of_City_of_Chicago Is where the informaiton in question can be found. Both DuPage County and the U.S. Census recognize that part of the City of Chicago is in DuPage county. You also could have simply looked at the DuPage county page that I linked to when I wrote you initially for confirmation of this. A portion of O'Hare airport, some houses and some hotels and road near O'Hare are both in Chicago and DuPage county.

Pinnacle Systems

Hi, I've noted that you have merged the articles. I proposed the merge and also mentioned that I'd wait till 30th for objections on the discussion page. This is important because some people may want Pinnacle Systems, Inc. to be made the main article and Pinnacle systems as the re-direct. Having this sort of process where people can discuss, helps the people to arrive at a consensus. You may hv probably missed looking at the discussion page. Kindly revert back your edits so that we can wait till the 30th for any comments that may emerge and be useful. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 06:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine, Thanks. --Gurubrahma 16:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA #1

While I do not want this to cause harm, I would encourage you to withdraw your nomination for adminship. Already you are opposed 0-6 and from the looks of it, people just seem to think it was a little premature. I would hate to see this carried on, because things people say can sometimes hurt. You are a fairly good editor, so I suggest keeping up the good work and trying again later. Feel free to not withdraw, it is up to you. I do not want to push you to do so, I am just notifying you that withdrawal is an option. I'll see you around my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll echo what Lord Voldemort said. I'd like to add on; some nominees choose to keep their failing RfAs open in the hopes of gaining feedback on what they could do better so that their next nomination goes more smoothly. Some nominees choose to close a failing RfA early to avoid a large number of negative comments. It's up to you. --Durin 15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey no problem. I hope this whole thing does not discourage you from Wikipedia. You appear to be a decent editor, so I say, keep up the good work, and in time you may become admin yet. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

(Responding to Tedernst's comment on my talk page) No worries. I didn't vote on your RfA, but had planned to if it remained. I have not reviewed your contributions in detail, but what I've seen so far suggests you will make an excellent admin in the future. Keep plugging away; you'll get there. --Durin 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the support!--Shanel 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

new tag for merges - ??

Hi Ted, typically the waiting time is just to ensure that any potential objections are answered. For example, I can ask why Asvaghosa shd be made re-direct and not Ashvagosa etc. Even if there is no discussion on the merge, it is always prudent to check the talk pages of both the articles for traces of any discussions; if no discussion has taken place, you should initiate a discussion with around a week's notice. Else, what if someone comes later and argues that the reverese merger wd hv been more appropriate? The waiting time for a week typically wd mean due diligence on your part. One suggestion I hv for you is to identify articles that need to be merged and tag them - rather than going after already tagged articles. 'coz, in the case of latter, there wd hv been a disagreement or the discussion wd be current or the initiator of proposed merge is waiting for some more time before carrying the merge. You should always leave the opportunity of merging to the initiator of the merge as he has taken pains and put in efforts in identifying the relevant articles. Only in the case where the articles have not been tagged for more than a week after consensus, I'd think someone else (e.g. you) can merge the articles. For example, if the merge date is given as 20th Oct and consensus has been reached - but the article is still duplicated, you can merge it as it is 28th and more than a week after. Else, it is akin to stealing someone else's edits. I don't think having some other tag abt waiting period makes sense. btw, you forgot to sign your post on my talk page - I took sometime in figuring out who it was. Regards, --Gurubrahma 14:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, most of the mergetags are already confusing. For example, mergewith tag would mean a corresponding mergewith tag and the talk can happen on both the talk pages. mergeto tag would mean a corresponding mergefrom tag and the talk is supposed to happen on the mergefrom tagged page - though it happens on the other page as well due to mis-understanding. Sometimes, merge tags are not correspondingly inserted, i.e., they are incorrectly inserted; sometimes, the corresponding tags are not inserted at all. The problem with including a date-tag is that not many ppl may be conversant in using them. For example, the same happens continuously with the clean-up tag and bots routinely correct the entries. I don't think it is worth it - we are better off by looking at the tagged articles as to when they have been tagged. Agreed that it takes time but I don't see a better alternative yet without burdening the merge taggers. --Gurubrahma 16:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Woman-killer merge

Thanks TedErnst! I tagged that one a few months ago and had been waiting for somebody who knew a little something about Custer ever since. Much obliged, --Dvyost 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688's RfA

Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688^{talk} 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost RfA Thanks

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

humanism

Why remove the Philosophy box? -St|eve 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to be neutral on my request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Stub placement

Hello. I like to put the stub notice(s) immediately after the "See also" or "External links" section because the categories seem to create some unnecessary space between the last section and the stub notice. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 18:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find anything, but this might be the bug I'm talking about. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 19:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see. It's somewhat vague guideline. I take it to mean "at the end of the content"; I think you take it to mean "at the end of the page". Anyways, I can move it back if you'd like. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. I normally do that kind of maintenance going through random articles. Nice working with you, sir. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 20:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to drop a word of thanks for your support of my RfA, I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Spruce / dabbing Native American

Hi Tedernst - saw you dabbed this to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]]. It applies more to what is now Canada than the US, but was relevant on both sides of the modern border. What's the best to use in that scenario? - MPF 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

National Party (UK)

Cheers for sorting out the merger request so quickly. A job well done. Keresaspa 18:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Congo

I've replied on my talk page. / Ezeu 09:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:DPL

Sorry about overwriting your edits to WP:DPL, I had just done the progress and it would have been messy to start again (I recieved the dreaded edit conlfict message). Just as I saved a progress update (reinstatement of your wiped edit) for Company I got another edit conflict! Anyway, goodnight/morn.--Commander Keane 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've notcied you are interested in providing up-to-date totals for the project. To aviod bloating the edit histroy of WP:DPL, do you want me to make my User:Commander Keane/Disambiguation/Link repair current list active again? It will take me a couple of days to get it working again. By the way, are you manaully counting up the totals, or using a script?--Commander Keane 07:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In the edit history of WP:DPL you wrote: "Liberal up to ~1200". Liberal hasn't actually gone up by that much, it's just that the orginal counts are for the Main: namespace only, not the total number of links.--Commander Keane 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)