User talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive 37

« 1

← Archive 36

Archive 37

39 »

Ping!

You has mail! Normandie 13:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting a response? *poke* Normandie 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect or delete 2013 Atlantic hurricane season

For what particular reason did you mention that redirecting was pointless? The reason we call for redirect is because the pages will be needed sooner than some people actually think. We admit it is somewhat early for 2013 pages, but delete is not always the answer. There's gotta be something besides delete if you are not gonna keep the pages. The Univ of Northern Iowa school class at 166.216.194.29 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: Because I know an awful lot more about how this wiki works and what is best for this wiki than your class project. Furthermore, this wiki works on a consensus from the whole community, not the minority views of one project. I suggest you lose the comments such as 'We call for...' etc, as they're causing a few of us to question whether your editing should continue. Goblin 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!

Incorrect QD tag from GoblinBot4

GoblinBot4 is yours, right? I undid this edit that it made, and am just letting you know. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This...

This edit, more importantly the edit sum. You are correct, I should not be discussing in edit summaries. Please remind me if I do it again. Hypocritically, I think I've warned folk on that in the past. Keep me honest. :) As soon as I can get my thoughts coherent on the subject I'll post more on the talk pag eof that project. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 19:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thought I'd replied to this before now! The comment about discussing about edit summaries was more a self-warning to myself, as I have a habit of doing it and was about to justify myself in one, but realised it would be much better to bring this to talk pages, particularly as we now have a pretty nice discussion going. I, too, have warned people for it in the past so we should perhaps both keep an eye on each other. ;-) Best, Goblin 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash!

...from User_talk:CRRaysHead90#Not_appropriate

This was posted on the above thread, however the user concerned has set about altering this, removing the reasoning behind the post. Therefore, I am including it in full here as it's easier than finding the permanent revision should I need to refer back to it. Goblin 21:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

---

This was brought up on IRC by CR90 just now, and we've established amongst ourselves that New Year is religious, as it's the Christian calendar - there are several other calendars in use so it is by no means universal. To selectively quote some comments (All with permission, save for the one by CR90 which was posted in my personal channel which has no rules against public logging.).

• Bleep: That's bullshit and you know it, everyone celebrates new years day, I was "warned" against doing that with holidays not everyone celebrates. But fine, you can have you uptight ways. And that discussion you pointed out that I started never established a consensus because no one hardly commented,. Only four participated, that's not enough input to establish consensus. (CRRaysHead90)
• New Year is religious... technically. We go by BC/AD, revolving around the date Jesus was born... (Normandy)
• And, fwiw, I'm hardly being uptight as I celebrate NY. However I do so without wiki-wide messages which as I say you have been warned about. I know people that don't celebrate NY, so your point is moot. (Me)
• CRRaysHead90: January 1st is the first day of the "Gregorian calendar, also known as the Western calendar, or Christian calendar". (Normandy)

I rest my case. Goblin 21:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge!

---

-Ends-

Technical vocabulary

Informally -- following the process you suggest here, I wonder if you might take a look at Emperor Kammu? As you can see, it is nothing like Ned Kelly or Selena (movie).

In mid-January, I plan to propose this as a Good article candidate -- not because it is good, but because the process will invite constructive suggestions. But first, of course, I will need to address the few remaining red links.

General feedback would be helpful -- not only for this one article, but also for the indirect effect your comments may produce in the other articles about the 124 Japanese emperors and the 100+ articles about Japanese era names.

In specific, I wonder if there may be ways to simplify what I've written about April 30, 781 (Ten'ō 1, 3rd day of the 4th month).

Also, would you be willing to share your opinion about these six word choices? --Horeki (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

• wikt:receive=received
• wikt:confirm=confirmed

Wikipedia links

• Abdication=abdicated
• Succession?
• Monarchy=monarch's
• Ceremony=ceremonies

These words are not simple, but they may be necessary. They are "technical terms" which are used to explain and describe the Imperial chronology. --Horeki (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When I suggested getting informal reviews I didn't actually mean me! I'm a pretty lousy reviewer and tend to stick to the article writing myself - so if you want any serious comments you'd be best off asking someone like The Rambling Man.

However, I will give you a couple of comments, the first and biggest of which is that if that article was proposed to PGA right now it would be speedily closed. The article is little more than a stub and is certainly not comprehensive, particularly when you compare it to its English Wikipedia counterpart. As I've mentioned on Simple talk, PGA is not the place to be getting "constructive suggestions", it is the place to be turning articles into good or very good articles. Constructive suggestions happen through this, informal, reviewing process, with people then taking articles to PGA if they are up to scratch, which, sadly, Emperor Kammu isn't at the moment.

Regarding the linked words, there are no problems using any of them in the article provided that they are linked, and this goes for any complex word - if you can link to either a dictionary definition or an article on the topic then it is fine to include the complex terminology within the article.

That's all I've got time to give right now but I'll come back to this some time tomorrow to give a little more help if I can - please bare with me as I'm extremely busy at the moment!

Regards, Goblin 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Please don't feel at all pressed or rushed. My questions are not urgent. Your words suggested an opportunity, and I only hoped to use it prudently. Thank you. --Horeki (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, indeed I commend your efforts for seizing my words and running with them - it was exactly the reaction I was hoping to provoke from as many editors as possible, so I'm more than happy to give the article the full run-through it deserves. Hopefully I can take a decent look later today, and I'll let you know when I have done this. Best, Goblin 03:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Thank you again. My specific questions about vocabulary in Emperor Kammu and a specific day in the Ten'ō era have to do with the "long game". Do you know this idiomatic phrase? --Horeki (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)