User talk:Osiris/March 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5

Admin

Have you considered requesting adminship? I think it might be a very useful toolset for you to obtain. Regards, fr33kman 01:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi fr33kman! Yeah, I've thought about it—mostly because the tools would just make a lot of what I do much easier. But... I've only been here for a few months, and I think I'd like a bit more feedback about how my regular contributions could be better before I request higher permissions. Maybe in a few months time, if nobody has anything bad to say about me by then ;) Osiris (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well three or four months or so with an edit count over 1000 does meet the criteria of many people around here. gets promoted to sysop on simplewiki. If I recall correctly I only a few months experience here when I got the mop. I just asked because from what I've seen of your edits you'd make your life simpler with the mop. Regards, fr33kman 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it would. Thank you for thinking of me. I'll give it some thought! Osiris (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support FWIW :P Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thanks mate. Osiris (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Lamian.

--Bmusician 06:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge all stubs into state-specific lists

This is a proposal to merge all stubs consisting of only [City] is a city of [state] in the United States into a total of 50 lists of cities by state. Each list will be in table format and consist of details and statistics normally contained within {{infobox settlement}}. Anchors can be added to each entry so that redirects puts the reader automatically at the right entry.

These would be temporary container lists until a page can sufficiently survive on its own (i.e., it grows beyond the simple statistics contained in the table.

Brief model (Florida)
City County Population Area Elevation ZIP code Area code Map Coordinates
Aventura Miami-Dade 29,892 3.5 sq mi (9.1 km2) 3 ft (0.91 m) 33162 305 Miami-Dade County Florida Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Aventura Highlighted.svg 25°57′52″N 80°8′9″W / 25.96444°N 80.13583°W / 25.96444; -80.13583
Avon Park Highlands 8,283 5.65 sq mi (14.6 km2) 121 ft (37 m) 33825 863 Highlands County Florida Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Avon Park Highlighted.svg 27°35′40″N 81°30′12″W / 27.59444°N 81.50333°W / 27.59444; -81.50333
Palm Beach Palm Beach 10,321 10.4 sq mi (27 km2) 7 ft (2.1 m) 33480 561 Map of Florida highlighting Palm Beach.svg 26°42′54″N 80°2′22″W / 26.71500°N 80.03944°W / 26.71500; -80.03944
Rationale
  • A page that only rephrased the title of the article is not useful to any reader;
  • It is difficult for a reader to find an article that contains useful information on a city in the United States if he/she has to go looking through thousands of useless ones;
  • It's an alternative to deletion — blue links are better than red, and it's nice to have a link that actually gives information beyond the obvious

Discussion

Since you put this on your talk page instead of at Simple Talk, I'm not sure you want comments, but here goes.

  • I have no strong feelings about whether to do this. It would be cleaner, certainly.
  • Your example specifies cities, but this could include other kinds of places like towns, census-designated places, etc., yes? The article title could mention "settlements", "places", "populated places", "municipalities" or something more generic.
  • It would be good to include something indicating the date of the population figures.
  • This idea could also be expanded to other areas. For example, I think we have a lot of minimal stubs for French and Belgian communes.

--Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any bunch of borderline A1 candidates could be merged together into a group accessible through redirects. So, as a demonstration, I've started on List of cities in Florida. Compare the new link of Belleair Bluffs, Florida to the old one. Osiris (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't added the population year(s) yet, since I wasn't really sure whether it would be better to have the latest available estimates for each or go back to the year when the last census was done. The infoboxes on enwp all have different years (2000, 2006, 2010) on each page, so at the moment all the data is mixed. Osiris (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Osiris. Just in case you didn't know, if a vandal has done more than one edit in a row, rollback reverts all of them to the last version by a different contributor. I'm just letting you know since I saw you using TwinkleRevert on some vandalism where the vandal did more than one edit. -Orashmatash is travelling (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, I know. They were all nonsense/obscenity edits unless I'm missing something. Osiris (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't questioning your revert; merely pointing out that rollback can revert multiple edits in a row and that it isn't necessary to use TwinkleRevert to do so in case you thought it was. -Orashmatash (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, no I don't know why I used it for that one. I like that the vandal's talk page automatically opens for me, but I find it irritating that it adds the pages to my watchlist. Osiris (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
That's something that has bugged me for a while as well. I'll probably write up some code to stick in my /monobook.js page to stop it from automatically adding the page to my watchlist. I'll let you know when I get round to it if you like. :) -Orashmatash (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
That'd be great! Thanks! I don't know the first thing about making those javascript pages. Osiris (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hey, I've written up the code and it works perfectly. Just add this to the top of your /monobook.js page.

/* This block of code prevents Twinkle from adding pages which were...
 * ... reverted, had a warning placed on them, or were tagged for QD...
 * ... to your watchlist.
 * By orashmatash.
 */
 
var TwinkleConfig = {};
 
TwinkleConfig.watchSpeedyPages = false; 
TwinkleConfig.watchRevertedPages = [];
TwinkleConfig.watchWarnings = false;

Note that this also does not add pages to the watchlist if they are tagged for quick deletion and it does not watch the talk page of those who you warn. Let me know if there are any bugs. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Face-grin.svg I'll try it out now. Osiris (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S., don't add the <syntaxhighlight /> tags, they're just there to make it look prettier on this page. :D -Orashmatash (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's working. It still adds them to my watchlist. Do I need to log out or something? Osiris (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. That's odd. It worked fine for me. I'll have another look. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Maybe try this:

/* This block of code prevents Twinkle from adding pages which were...
 * ... reverted, had a warning placed on them, or were tagged for QD...
 * ... to your watchlist.
 * By orashmatash.
 */
 
var TwinkleConfig = {};
 
TwinkleConfig.watchSpeedyPages = false; 
TwinkleConfig.watchRevertedPages = [];
TwinkleConfig.watchWarnings = false;
importScript('User:EhJJ/twinkle.js');

Enabling Twinkle via "my settings" only can cause it to lose some functionality. Doing it via /monobook.js makes it easily modifiable. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If yours works fine then it must be something I'm doing wrong or maybe something wrong with my browser...? Osiris (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You've not done anything wrong; the only thing I can think of is clearing your browser cache (usually CTRL SHIFT R), purging your /monobook.js page and refreshing 3 times. -Orashmatash (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
:( No luck I'm afraid. It's okay, it's not a big deal anyway. Thanks so much for trying to help me out, but I don't want you to spend your time on it. The ordinary rollback gets the job done anyway. Face-smile.svg Osiris (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Bummer. Anyway, you can always put the code back if you fancy another try. In case you're interested, it works on Google Chrome (which is what I'm using)... -Orashmatash (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, it's same on chrome, so maybe it's not a browser thing. Oh well, I will play around with it a bit maybe tomorrow. Thanks, really, for giving it a go. I'll let you know if it starts working. Osiris (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

en

Hello Osiris, I noticed on your userpage you mention that you have an account on en but not the same username as here. Just wondering if we're allowed to know who you are on en? ;) Just curious, thats all :) Kennedy (talk • changes). 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's under the name User:Osiris (temp). Temp meaning it's only temporary until I get a SUL for this one. I don't edit with it though, it's only really for simple.wiki issues that need following up on en.wiki (like copyvios and maintenance issues). Before I came to simple, though, I did have an active account on there, but I left because I found it too bureaucratic for my liking. Osiris (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

QD Jatt_Sikhs

Hi Osiris, I think we looked at that at almost the same time. I threw a "Wait" on there and redirected to just plain Jatt. Thought about asking for QD myself, but I just thought might as well redirect these things to one page. the guy will just keep on recreating variants all over the place after they get deleted. Either way though. I'm happy with a QD too. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Convert template errors

You may want to remove Category:Template Convert invalid codes from the backlog list. That cat seems to only track convert params that fire off a warning. They do not seem to categorize the article they are improperly transcluded in (the sandbox should be on there atm if they did.) --Creol(talk) 07:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I see. Will do. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk back

You have new messages Hello. You have a new message at 195.252.67.184's talk page.


Hi, I respond you there. Thank you for giving me good advices. --195.252.67.184 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just another respond, have a nice day. --195.252.67.184 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TOC vs CompactTOC

The only difference between the templates was that Compact adds the linking for 0-9. TOC just did the letters (originally and under the KC edit - but not in the redirect between the two). This does not seem to be an issue though that needs separate template. --Creol(talk) 00:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, exactly. I'm sure there are plenty of pages where the X button is going to be just as useless. Osiris (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Flood flag

Hello there; I have given you the flag. Note that you need to log out an in again for the system to recognise the change. --Eptalon (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to any admin: I'm finished flooding. Thanks, Osiris (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed. -Orashmatash (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I need rollback rights to apply Huggle. I know I was recently blocked, but how long I need to show "good behavior" for giving me this feature? --Alex’s SeaSide 14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a solid month or so of RecentChanges patrolling. You need to demonstrate that you're able to distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith edits. The fact that you have it on the English Wikipedia is good, but generally the admins will want to see it demonstrated for themselves here too. Until then, you're free to use Twinkle revert. Osiris (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Please re-visit your decision-making here. I have some general questions.

  1. Does it matter that Saigawa, Fukuoka is not officially classified as a city in Japan? I can understand why the generalized notion of "city" might be preferred in our "simple" context. Your judgment parsed this town as part of Category:Cities in Japan. Why is this the best choice for now?
  2. Please consider Heguri, Nara which is parsed as part of Category:Municipalities in Japan. Like Sagawa, Heguri is officially classified as a town in Japan. Is this article mis-categorized? My preference would be to retain and expand municipalities as a category for Japanese non-cities.
  3. Please consider Meguro, Tokyo which is part of Category:Wards of Tokyo. Does it make sense to include Meguro in Category:Cities in Japan? Category:Municipalities in Japan?

The practical reason I ask is because Saitama, Saitama has two professional football clubs. They are the Urawa Red Diamonds of en:Urawa-ku (simple:Urawa Ward? Urawa, Saitama?) and Omiya Ardija of en:Ōmiya-ku (simple:Ōmiya Ward? Ōmiya, Saitama?).

Each of these "home towns" has an independent history as a city -- Urawa (1934-2001) and Ōmiya (1940-2001).

Please help me understand how I should have been able to evaluate two specific questions:

  • How to categorize articles about wards of cities other than Tokyo?
  • What to name articles about wards of cities other than Tokyo?

Thank you for helping me learn how to participate more effectively. --Horeki (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually popped in my head when I did those cat changes to ask you if you would mind taking a look into organising Category:Populated places in Japan. You and Gotanda are probably the best people to organise that yourselves, since there seems to be a lot of official terminology that the rest of us will be unfamiliar with.
  1. My change here was mostly to get the page out of Category:Japan. But it isn't the best choice. So if this town is now "dissolved" (as en: suggests), then I would put it into a new category, Category:Dissolved municipalities of Japan (or something simpler), since it doesn't fit into any we currently have.
  2. Yep, if this isn't a municipality then I've miscategorised it. I only changed it because the old one was redlinked. We've already got Category:Towns in Fukushima Prefecture, so if you can create new Town categories for each prefecture, it should go in one of those. Just be aware that the guidelines generally ask for at least 3 articles within a category to make it worthwhile having. Any prefectures that we only have 1 or 2 articles for would probably best stay in a Category:Towns in Japan (parent category).
  3. This looks like it's in the right category to me. Whatever the official designation is.
If those wards were previously "cities", then it might make sense to make a Category:Dissolved cities of Japan to place them in alongside their ward categories. A Category:Wards of cities in Japan should probably be created, and when there's enough articles for each city, you can start diffusing them into city-level categories (as is already done for Category:Wards of Tokyo.
As for the ward naming, my only thought is that WARD, Saitama might be confusing if you also have articles with the title CITY, Saitama. Osiris (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A diffusion process in a glass of water
Osiris, thank you. I especially appreciate your use of a jargon verb -- "diffuse". For me, it hits the center of the target. The term helps me re-formulate a strategy for questions and guesses.

IMO, Heguri, Nara is correctly categorized as a town, and Saigawa, Fukuoka should be in the same category. When I created the article about Saigawa, I didn't know what to do or where to turn for help in figuring out what to do. Until your diff here, I didn't think of you as a potential resource.

I will ask Gotanda to consider your suggestions. We'll see.

Perhaps Gotanda will take a leadership role in resolving problems which have to do with Category:Populated places in Japan?--Horeki (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well let me know what you both come up with and I'll try to give you a hand. Osiris (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you both for starting this. Yes, Category:Populated_places_in_Japan needs attention. Maybe I'll finally really have to get my hands dirty with Categories. To me, it seems that Category:Cities_in_Japan, Category:Towns_in_Japan, and Category:Villages_in_Japan should be the basic categories. The word Municipality isn't simple, so maybe that one should be "diffused" to the relevant city/town/village categories. I'm not sure about "dissolved" community. That gives me the feeling of broken up or dispersed, but in fact the former communities remain intact within a larger merged entity. Confusing. And, something that doesn't come up much outside Japan, I think. Could we have a sub-category under each Cities/Towns/Villages category called something like Former_towns_in Japan/Former_villages_in_Japan. Former cities do not come up as often, but the Omiya example is especially messy--perhaps the most complex merger. Gotanda (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are there any articles on "populated places" that are not "municipalities"? If not, then the two are technically the same and can be merged. "Former" does sound simpler than "dissolved", so that sounds perfect to me. It also depends whether you want to categorise by type (former "city", "town", "village") or by prefecture ("Former municipalities of Saitama Prefecture"), because I don't think we have the numbers to warrant both (i.e., "Former towns of Saitama Prefecture", "Former cities of Saitama Prefecture"). Osiris (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Butting in: whatever you guys come up with for Japan, it would be nice to use it for other places as well. Take a look at Category:Municipalities by country -- it's a mix of "Municipalities in" and "Populated places in". Underneath that, it's a mix of generic terms, anglicized versions of the word used in individual countries, and other things. Russia even has "Cities and towns". If I can help with any of the category stuff (either by doing or giving input), just let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, yes, it's a bit of a mess. We'll get Japan looking sleek and then maybe use that as a model. I'll do a summary of what needs doing in the next few days and then bug you for your thoughts on it. Osiris (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it will be helpful to highlight one of Gotanda's sentences above: "The word Municipality isn't simple, so maybe that one should be "diffused" to the relevant city/town/village categories." IMO, this is reasonable in the Japan context; but perhaps it is not "best" ...? I don't have an opinion, but I perceive questions ....

I wonder if what will be demonstrably correct for Japan is precisely wrong elsewhere? For example, consider the List of municipalities in Switzerland; and see the bottom of the webpage at randomly-chosen Swiss websites like Affoltern am Albis here or Attinghausen here. Google translates for us: Gemeindeverwaltung = Municipality. Also compare Municipalities in Belgium.

Auntof6 hits the center of the target when she suggests: "Take a look at [[:Category:Municipalities by country]] -- it's a mix of 'Municipalities in' and 'Populated places in'." IMO, this is not a systemic flaw. Rather, it is a good and necessary example of fuzzy logic we may want to keep. --Horeki (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe true. I think every case will be different, and what is a good categorisation system for one country might not work at all for another. Regarding "municipalities" - if there is a simpler translation of 市町村 then I suppose we can use that instead. But am I correct in saying that all official "cities", "towns" and "villages" in Japan are classified as "municipalities" ? If this is correct then I don't see what would go into Category:Populated places in Japan that isn't already in Category:Municipalities in Japan. The allocations you've been making so far, Horeki, look perfect to me. Osiris (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. See here. --Horeki (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good! So is there any reason that you might need to keep Category:Municipalities in Japan around any longer? Or can we delete it and move its contents to Category:Populated places in Japan? Osiris (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea...

... but you should be an admin, if you wish, I'd nominate you. We need more helpers with the mop and I think you'd fit well! (I normally mail such things, but I can't in your case ;-)) -Barras talk 16:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Barras tries to be sneaky and hide things off wiki. lol :P -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Shhh, I alsways do, you know! :-P -Barras talk 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right, sorry, I should allocate an email. Thanks Barras, sincerely, for your confidence in me. I noted to Fr33kman (at the top of this page) that I could definitely use the tools, but also that I'd have liked a bit more feedback about my general contributions before requesting higher permissions. If, however, I have the confidence of two local stewards, I'd be honoured to have you nominate me. At the very least, it'll be a thorough peer review. Osiris (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a yes to me, I will just write something quickly and post it, give me a few minutes. :-) -Barras talk 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Here we go! -Barras talk 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for not copying the doc. I thought they are useless.--Kc kennylau (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Differ

Hello, Recently the page which i created that Kuch Toh Log Kahenge differs from English Page you can see the difference Thank you 182.183.207.177 (talk) (Contribs) 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Parts of it are different. I removed the parts that hadn't been simplified at all. The character descriptions were all exactly as they appear on the English Wikipedia, and they were too complex. We need you to simplify the language. Also, if you are using an article from the English Wikipedia, you need to provide attribution to the original authors. I've done these for you on the talk page here and here, but I'm just letting you know for the future. Osiris (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Where have you copied the episode synopses from? It looks like you've copied them from setindia.com, which is fully copyrighted material. Osiris (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding things copied from a book, magazine, newspaper or another website without the permission of the copyright holder is prohibited. Many sources, including websites found on the Internet, are copyrighted. I'm afraid Wikipedia cannot accept any things copied from these sources as it can get Wikipedia into serious legal trouble. The article or changes have been or will soon be deleted. Next time, look up sources to find out information for articles and explain it in your own words, and don't copy sentences from them.
Since this is not your own work, I've asked that it be speedily deleted. Osiris (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OK i'll remove the copyrighted works but don't speedily delete it.... — This unsigned comment was added by 182.183.148.110 (talk • changes).
It's probably best that you just start from scratch. Are you Shabir? If so, you can post a copy of the English Wikipedia version to your sandbox space and work on it there until it's simple enough for article space. Would that be okay? Osiris (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Is there any problem now with Bade Achhe Lagte Hain and Kuch Toh Log Kahenge??? Now i have removed the copyrighted texts/edits
Nope. They look fine. Thank you for following that up. Osiris (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OK now may i (With My account Shabir (talk · contribs)) create the page Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai Further at User:Shabir#Articles Which i've planned to create may i create those they are not copyrighted.... — This unsigned comment was added by 182.183.246.203 (talk • changes).
Yes, as long as it's your own work, you're free to create any of those. If you're using any content from the English Wikipedia, just make sure to give attribution on the talk page (see here on how to do this) and simplify it. Osiris (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OK Please Confirm my account
Reason for Confirmation:I Want to edit semi protected Pages like Template:Infobox Television i want to bring few changes on that so please make confirmed user

(assign Permissions)

— This unsigned comment was added by Shabir (talk • changes).

I'm not an administrator, so I can't assign permissions. If you can wait 4 days, your account will be confirmed automatically. Otherwise, you can ask an administrator by putting the {{Helpme}} template on your talk page, along with your question. However, they will most likely want to know what changes you want to make to the template, since it's used on hundreds of pages. Osiris (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that after 4 days my account will be autoconfirmed user but do you know the page where we request for confirmation. — This unsigned comment was added by Shabir (talk • changes).
The requests for permissions page is here, but there isn't a section for "confirmed" and I've never seen that permission given or requested on this wiki. Most likely they will ask what changes you want to make and then (if it's not going to cause any problems) they'll do the edit for you. Osiris (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much you have helped me 2 much when you nominate yourself RFA i will support you — This unsigned comment was added by Shabir (talk • changes).
:) No problem! If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to help. Osiris (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Please re-visit your decision-making here. I have some general questions.

  1. Does it matter that Saigawa, Fukuoka is not officially classified as a city in Japan? I can understand why the generalized notion of "city" might be preferred in our "simple" context. Your judgment parsed this town as part of Category:Cities in Japan. Why is this the best choice for now?
  2. Please consider Heguri, Nara which is parsed as part of Category:Municipalities in Japan. Like Sagawa, Heguri is officially classified as a town in Japan. Is this article mis-categorized? My preference would be to retain and expand municipalities as a category for Japanese non-cities.
  3. Please consider Meguro, Tokyo which is part of Category:Wards of Tokyo. Does it make sense to include Meguro in Category:Cities in Japan? Category:Municipalities in Japan?

The practical reason I ask is because Saitama, Saitama has two professional football clubs. They are the Urawa Red Diamonds of en:Urawa-ku (simple:Urawa Ward? Urawa, Saitama?) and Omiya Ardija of en:Ōmiya-ku (simple:Ōmiya Ward? Ōmiya, Saitama?).

Each of these "home towns" has an independent history as a city -- Urawa (1934-2001) and Ōmiya (1940-2001).

Please help me understand how I should have been able to evaluate two specific questions:

  • How to categorize articles about wards of cities other than Tokyo?
  • What to name articles about wards of cities other than Tokyo?

Thank you for helping me learn how to participate more effectively. --Horeki (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually popped in my head when I did those cat changes to ask you if you would mind taking a look into organising Category:Populated places in Japan. You and Gotanda are probably the best people to organise that yourselves, since there seems to be a lot of official terminology that the rest of us will be unfamiliar with.
  1. My change here was mostly to get the page out of Category:Japan. But it isn't the best choice. So if this town is now "dissolved" (as en: suggests), then I would put it into a new category, Category:Dissolved municipalities of Japan (or something simpler), since it doesn't fit into any we currently have.
  2. Yep, if this isn't a municipality then I've miscategorised it. I only changed it because the old one was redlinked. We've already got Category:Towns in Fukushima Prefecture, so if you can create new Town categories for each prefecture, it should go in one of those. Just be aware that the guidelines generally ask for at least 3 articles within a category to make it worthwhile having. Any prefectures that we only have 1 or 2 articles for would probably best stay in a Category:Towns in Japan (parent category).
  3. This looks like it's in the right category to me. Whatever the official designation is.
If those wards were previously "cities", then it might make sense to make a Category:Dissolved cities of Japan to place them in alongside their ward categories. A Category:Wards of cities in Japan should probably be created, and when there's enough articles for each city, you can start diffusing them into city-level categories (as is already done for Category:Wards of Tokyo.
As for the ward naming, my only thought is that WARD, Saitama might be confusing if you also have articles with the title CITY, Saitama. Osiris (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A diffusion process in a glass of water
Osiris, thank you. I especially appreciate your use of a jargon verb -- "diffuse". For me, it hits the center of the target. The term helps me re-formulate a strategy for questions and guesses.

IMO, Heguri, Nara is correctly categorized as a town, and Saigawa, Fukuoka should be in the same category. When I created the article about Saigawa, I didn't know what to do or where to turn for help in figuring out what to do. Until your diff here, I didn't think of you as a potential resource.

I will ask Gotanda to consider your suggestions. We'll see.

Perhaps Gotanda will take a leadership role in resolving problems which have to do with Category:Populated places in Japan?--Horeki (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well let me know what you both come up with and I'll try to give you a hand. Osiris (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you both for starting this. Yes, Category:Populated_places_in_Japan needs attention. Maybe I'll finally really have to get my hands dirty with Categories. To me, it seems that Category:Cities_in_Japan, Category:Towns_in_Japan, and Category:Villages_in_Japan should be the basic categories. The word Municipality isn't simple, so maybe that one should be "diffused" to the relevant city/town/village categories. I'm not sure about "dissolved" community. That gives me the feeling of broken up or dispersed, but in fact the former communities remain intact within a larger merged entity. Confusing. And, something that doesn't come up much outside Japan, I think. Could we have a sub-category under each Cities/Towns/Villages category called something like Former_towns_in Japan/Former_villages_in_Japan. Former cities do not come up as often, but the Omiya example is especially messy--perhaps the most complex merger. Gotanda (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are there any articles on "populated places" that are not "municipalities"? If not, then the two are technically the same and can be merged. "Former" does sound simpler than "dissolved", so that sounds perfect to me. It also depends whether you want to categorise by type (former "city", "town", "village") or by prefecture ("Former municipalities of Saitama Prefecture"), because I don't think we have the numbers to warrant both (i.e., "Former towns of Saitama Prefecture", "Former cities of Saitama Prefecture"). Osiris (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Butting in: whatever you guys come up with for Japan, it would be nice to use it for other places as well. Take a look at Category:Municipalities by country -- it's a mix of "Municipalities in" and "Populated places in". Underneath that, it's a mix of generic terms, anglicized versions of the word used in individual countries, and other things. Russia even has "Cities and towns". If I can help with any of the category stuff (either by doing or giving input), just let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, yes, it's a bit of a mess. We'll get Japan looking sleek and then maybe use that as a model. I'll do a summary of what needs doing in the next few days and then bug you for your thoughts on it. Osiris (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it will be helpful to highlight one of Gotanda's sentences above: "The word Municipality isn't simple, so maybe that one should be "diffused" to the relevant city/town/village categories." IMO, this is reasonable in the Japan context; but perhaps it is not "best" ...? I don't have an opinion, but I perceive questions ....

I wonder if what will be demonstrably correct for Japan is precisely wrong elsewhere? For example, consider the List of municipalities in Switzerland; and see the bottom of the webpage at randomly-chosen Swiss websites like Affoltern am Albis here or Attinghausen here. Google translates for us: Gemeindeverwaltung = Municipality. Also compare Municipalities in Belgium.

Auntof6 hits the center of the target when she suggests: "Take a look at [[:Category:Municipalities by country]] -- it's a mix of 'Municipalities in' and 'Populated places in'." IMO, this is not a systemic flaw. Rather, it is a good and necessary example of fuzzy logic we may want to keep. --Horeki (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe true. I think every case will be different, and what is a good categorisation system for one country might not work at all for another. Regarding "municipalities" - if there is a simpler translation of 市町村 then I suppose we can use that instead. But am I correct in saying that all official "cities", "towns" and "villages" in Japan are classified as "municipalities" ? If this is correct then I don't see what would go into Category:Populated places in Japan that isn't already in Category:Municipalities in Japan. The allocations you've been making so far, Horeki, look perfect to me. Osiris (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. See here. --Horeki (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good! So is there any reason that you might need to keep Category:Municipalities in Japan around any longer? Or can we delete it and move its contents to Category:Populated places in Japan? Osiris (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are reasons to keep Category:Municipalities in Japan. No, it should not be deleted at this time. I wonder what Gotanda thinks?

IMO, Gotanda has a well-developed POV based on experience with ESL and Simple English. I tend to defer to judgement which appears to be informed by experience. If the term municipality is rejected because is it not a "simple" word, the reasoning is understandable. However, I wonder if municipality may be considered valid for use because there is an article which explains it.

Should "municipality" be evaluated and accepted as a "technical term" or a "term-of-art"? In this context, do we need to acknowledge that the term has an explicit historical basis in the Meiji period (1868-1912)?

I can see the questions, but I do not see how to parse what is good? better? best?

Osiris, please try to parse the problem as you see it. At present, I have the tools I need. I would be willing to set this issue aside for now.

As context, does it help us to notice that Category:Municipalities of Romania is a sub-set of Category:Populated places in Romania?

Similarly, Category:Municipalities in Japan is a sub-set of Category:Populated places in Japan? --Horeki (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't attach much importance to the simplicity of category names. Complex names can be explained, as you say. As I said above, if there is a simpler translation of 市町村 than "municipality" then we can use that instead. "Settlements"? "Cities, towns and villages"? These might be alternatives. It's up to you.

Below is a rough plan of the system the English Wikipedia uses (using Aichi as the representative for all prefectures). The basic idea is a dual indexing system, so articles are able to be found by prefecture and by type (city, town, village). Under this system, an article need only be placed in one category (e.g., "Towns in Aichi Prefecture").

  • Populated places in Japan‎
    • Populated places in Japan by prefecture‎
      • Populated places in Aichi Prefecture‎
        • Cities in Aichi Prefecture‎
        • Towns in Aichi Prefecture‎
        • Villages in Aichi Prefecture‎
    • Cities in Japan
      • Cities in Aichi Prefecture‎
      • Wards of cities in Japan‎
    • Towns in Japan‎
      • Towns in Aichi Prefecture‎
    • Villages in Japan‎
      • Villages in Aichi Prefecture‎
    • Dissolved municipalities of Japan
      • Dissolved municipalities of Aichi Prefecture‎


We probably don't have the numbers to need the red categories, but the dual index will still be there because you'll have two higher-level categories on every page instead of the one lower-level category—(instead of "Towns in Aichi Prefecture", you'll have "Municipalities in Aichi Prefecture" and "Towns in Japan"). The Japanese Wikipedia might have an even better system. I'm sure you both already know all this, but at this point I'm also explaining it to myself for the other city-by-country categories I'll have to tackle. Osiris (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Osiris, please consider an "alternate proposal" column within the context of your diff above.

In my attempts to explain above, my prose seems not good enough. Perhaps the side-by-side comparison will be plain.

In this context, please help me understand why the phase "populated places in Japan" is best.

Question: Are there good reasons for rejecting of "municipalities in Japan"?

Allow me to repeat that I can accept any decision which is reached, but my inability to understand may be shared by others.

Are you not persuaded that the traditional term is better because (a) it is historically used and (b) because it is in published reliable sources. For example, compare a Google Books search for "municipalities in Japan" here with a Google Books search for "populated places in Japan" here. The significant factor is not captured in numbers. Instead, please see that the specific phrase "municipalities in Japan" is highlighted in bold for some -- not all -- of those books listed on the first two result pages. Is this persuasive? Can you help me understand why it is wrong or disruptive to be concerned about this.

Restatement: The term "municipality" has its roots in history and in cited reliable sources. --Horeki (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, I don't have any objection to using "municipalities" at all. In fact, (out of the two) I would slightly prefer "municipalities" because it's less ambiguous than "populated places". The list above isn't my proposal for naming, it was just a copy-paste from the English Wikipedia to show the way they divided their categories. As I said, I'm deferring to yourself and Gotanda in regards to naming since you're both far more familiar with the topic than I. The only point I was making earlier (when asking whether we can delete Category:Municipalities in Japan) is that this category appears to me to have the same scope as Category:Populated places in Japan. Since the link you gave above says that all official "cities", "towns" and "villages" in Japan are classified as "municipalities", then—to adjust my earlier question—is there any reason to keep Category:Populated places in Japan? It appears that all subcategories in my list above are about "municipalities", correct? Osiris (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, correct -- all subcategories in your list above are about "municipalities".
IMO, the primary reasons for keeping Category:Populated places in Japan have something to do with "harmony" or "consistency" -- or some other equivalent jargon term -- with en:Category:Populated places in Japan.

Also, as Auntof6 mentioned here, there is merit in aiming for "harmony" or "consistency" among similar national categories in simple:Wikipedia.

IMO, it is prudent to acknowledge that these are valid concerns, yes? However, these are not decisive or overwhelming reasons for not using the term "municipality".

No, there is no persuasive reason for keeping en:Category:Populated places in Japan. --Horeki (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  This change I don't understand. As you had it before looked perfect. If you do a fully expanded list to match mine above, I might be able to understand it better... Osiris (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong here. --Horeki (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. So if there's nothing else to work out, we can probably implement the list above using "municipalities" instead of "populated places". Regarding a possible "inconsistency" with the other national categories - this will be corrected when I clean those up later. Osiris (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for working with me on this. --Horeki (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Likewise! Face-grin.svg Should we perhaps wait for a response from Gotanda? Osiris (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to keep people waiting. The discussion has moved forward quite abit and right at a time when I'm super busy. Couple of deadlines coming up soon. One today! I won't have time to really comment until tomorrow. So forge ahead, or wait a day as you like. Gotanda (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As context, I wonder if Municipalities in Japan may be helpful? --Horeki (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wards

After a preliminary review, I need confirmation on some "ward" issues:

Yes, we can refine the category for Itabashi, Tokyo and Suginami, Tokyo. --Horeki (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for working this out and getting it organized so well. Sorry I wasn't available to contribute, but from the discussion here and Horeki's email, it all looks good. Agreed that even though Municipality isn't a simple word, it is the best. Populated places could have been a problem. Gotanda (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Side notes

As this situation has come up more than one over the years, I thought I would toss in a bit here.

The two main problems when it comes to categorizing populated places/municipalities/communities are

  1. Consistency
  2. Terminology

While consistency should be easy to deal with, practice has shown that it isn't that simple. 60% of our cats in this area use municipalities and 40% use Populated places. Neither term is Simple, but of the two I go with municipality as it is a defined page here (with populated place you need to relate populated to population and then understand the combined term) . Both have a draw back. Populated places can refer to any place that any group lives in, people or animals. A yard could be populated with statues.. Municipalities strictly refers to places with a form of administration - they should have some form of government. This causes issues with unincorporated areas as they are relatively municipalities but have no government.

On terminology, every place has different meanings for the words.. Most US people that hear the word city think of any type of municipality (unless they live in the suburbs of a large city, then the city means the main city nearby. Different areas have different terms and meanings this places. Each US state sets its own laws for what makes up a city, town, village or a host of others. Germany uses the same word from city and town but has another word for very large city. England has special rules for cities (If i remember it is based on churches or cathedrals and proclamations..) This all makes it hard for someone not intimately familiar with the culture to make the local (and correct) distinctions. Even looking at en:wp for advice is useless as the terms there are often used haphazardly (city and town both used for the same place in the same article when there does not seen to have been in change in the location to warrant the change in type.)

As Japan seems to use a basic city/town/village set up (under the county->prefecture base) there doesn't seen to be large issue here. I'm not too certain about wards.. From what it seems, wards are basically districts of very large cities (Tokyo) which may or may not have smaller towns/villages in them. If this is the case, it is similar to the Boroughs of London and just adds 2 additional levels under the city, (all likely in Cat:Wards of City) Cat:Ward and Cat:towns in Ward. May need to work out whether Cat:Towns in Ward falls under Cat:towns in Japan.. This could go either way. If down this way it may be best to to use Cat:Towns in Ward, City so they look better in the main towns cat. --Creol(talk) 09:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Creol. It certainly seems like it's going to be a messy task to take on. From Horeki's new pages, I get the idea that wards are divisions of large municipalities, except in the case of Tokyo, where the wards themselves are municipalities. If this is true, we shouldn't face any problems with municipalities within wards (hopefully). As for other countries, I'm a bit daunted. On enwiki, it seems that they apply this city/town/village levelling to almost every country- so much that they have "Cities by country", "Towns by country" and "Villages by country" categories. Is this a good direction for our system to head towards? I guess it would probably be best to do some research before making a start on any country, partly to see whether this simple levelling system will work in each case. Osiris (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The Cat:Municipalty -> cat:cities/cat:towns/Cat:villages structures does seem to hold up fairly well worldwide from what I've seen so far. Most places follow the general idea close enough that there are really few problems with it and it makes a good standard to follow. The issues tend to pop up in countries where there is either as special circumstance (Wards in Japan or London boroughs) that need tweaking or an added layer, or areas where the local definitions make some unneeded (German uses the same word for towns and cities so there is no need for a separate town category in that country, but they have a different word for realy big cities.. but often that is not a needed distinction over the word for cities as used in our categories - Berlin is a realy big city, but if is fine under general cities). London is weird because there seems to be two Londons. The City of London it self, and what would be called in other areas as the Greater London Area (as in the Greater LA Area). London seems a combination of New York and its boroughs with LA and its metropolitan conglomerate. The same seems likely for Tokyo in some ways. God Bless the USA (don't yell at me Djsasso for the God reference or nationalism in the statement, its just used as the colloquialism) that someone stepped up and told the people in LA and NY to quit being difficult and set formal, really easy to understand boundaries defining these two metro areas.. LA is confusing but there is a structure to define it and the Greater La Area (generally just listed as LA - If someone is from Santa Barbara, they are from LA unless you really need to nitpick the issue then there are actual city lines defined to cover that issue). London is a bit hazy with towns existing inside a borough of a city and it seems Japan (and Tokyo) have leaned that way. (the US tends to just merge the towns into one big city - common practice when cities are formed in Virginia - Virginia Beach is a city that incoporated the entire county when it was formed as city. All the small towns and communities in what was the county (Princess Anne County) became part of the one city with one central government- no muss, no fuss, you're all one now.)
In the end, finding a baseline system that works for 90% of the cases is what is needed. Corner cases will exist that need to be tweaked but you seem to be moving the a good direction and pulling on the experience and knowledge of those in the area is always best. --Creol(talk) 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading about country subdivisions on enwiki. Take a look at en:Category:Country subdivisions by administrative level. Even if we only deal with the level-4 subdivisions, we have municipalities, cantons, civil parishes, tehsils, administrative villages, rural districts, communes, union councils, parishes (the non-religious kind), and barangays. (Nary a city, town, hamlet, or regular village to be seen.) Not only that, the name one country uses for a level-4 division could be used for higher levels in other countries (for example, there are "parishes" in all four lists). This is getting to be a good geography lesson! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Haha- right, so smaller countries will have their municipal level of government at "higher" levels than larger countries. That's okay, it doesn't phase me as far as this issue goes, subdivisions seems to be almost another subject. If city/town/village works well as the general rule then that's a good starting point. If we hit a snag, it's a good thing we've got a fairly diverse team to consult on their local municipal terminology (although I can't even begin to fathom my own)... Osiris (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Great timing

Hey, I've been working on those scripts. I'm guessing a lot of disambigs are not tagged as such, because the numbers just look too good to be true IMO. One outlier is Classification, with 2,512 links. These are almost entirely because of {{Taxobox}}, which contains a link to Scientific classification, when it should go to Biological classification. Since I'm not autoconfirmed, I can't fix it. I was just about to try to find some help page to ask about it. Could you take care of it? Thanks, --JaGa (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey! That's done, I think. Thanks heaps for following all this up! Can I help out anywhere else? Osiris (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I suspect there may be a few dabs without tags, but I don't think it would be too many. You don't tend to see many dab pages around here. Most of the time you just have to go through the search box. Osiris (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Classification was the biggie. I wanted to get it out of the way since it was skewing the data. I'll be testing and checking for another day or so, and then I'll have a bunch of reports for you. Is there a Simple Wiki equivalent to en:WP:DPL? Where should I put these reports once they're done? --JaGa (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I can probably set something up. I'll post the link to your (en)talk when I'm done. Osiris (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been getting Dispenser to translate his tools to simple. Check out https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfix.py?page=simple:ABC and https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Dablinks and https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?ref=simple:ABC for examples of these useful tools. Josh Parris 09:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Josh! These look very good—I'll have to play around with them. I'll pop over and give Dispenser my thanks. Osiris (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done OK, the reports are live - I placed them on WP:DPL. I'll invite some en:WP:DPL members to come play. --JaGa (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Bridge Weekend

Team Barnstar.png Working together barnstar
Queensborough bridge nyc 1907.gif
Thanks for your contributions during the "Big Bridge Weekend" in March 2012.

Acknowledging your work as one of six contributors who created 20 new articles and 13 new categories in a context of 309 changes in bridge-related articles. --Horeki (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting sandbox

Our message was removed from the sand box at 12:11 by revert. Why's that? The University of Northern Iowa school IP at 166.216.130.29 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

  1. The sandbox is for test edits. It is routinely reset.
  2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to post your opinions on matters.

---The person who reverted the edit --Creol(talk) 04:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you....

Now you really have to do work. Here is the mop and bucket. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on passing! Please mail me so I can subscribe you to our mailing list. If you use IRC, poke any of the admins to get access to #wikipedia-simple-admins and #wikimedia-admin. Have fun with the new tools! -Barras talk 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats. -Orashmatash (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Grats! Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooh! Strange buttons! Thank you. Prepare to be bombarded with questions! ;) Osiris (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, now, and don't let the new toys go to your head! :) Seriously, though, I add my congratulations. I think you're a good addition to the mop and bucket squad. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  Oh hey! I was just posting something to your talk. Thank you! Face-grin.svg On this Debbie Ross page... since it's my first day with this thing, I'm going to yield to a more experienced admin. To me "well known" is subjective unless you specify the audience. But I'd like confirmation from a veteran just because it's my first day... Osiris (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
After you get done deleting stuff and resurrecting it from from the trash and kicking people out and letting them back in, this should lead to a nice learning experience on one of the less common aspects of admin. The page should have been moved, but as there was a redirect in the way a non-admin couldn't move it so they copy/pasted it instead. The history really does belong on the page the copy/paste was done to. --Creol(talk) 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, okay let me see if I can figure out how to do that... Osiris (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
per: Debbie. This is a difference of opinion thing in my eyes. Per A4 "Well known American... " would technically be a claim of notablity. In all likelihood, it would be shot the ribbons on an RfD as even a cursory google search says "well known" in this case is an untruth. Strictly by the wording of the rules with no sway for the meaning of the rules over the letter of them, this would be pushed to RfD, quickly voted down and ended early as an obvious case of notability. Me personally? accept the QD if you looked at google real fast to see this person is beyond obviously not notable. At time be bold is a more difficult thing from an admin as you have to accept that you may have to fight to support every move you make but you learn with time that when you are following your best judgement for what is (by general consensus here) best for the wiki, good judgement on grey areas like this article are easiest to defend. (or just qd it as A1 - the definition of "useful information" vs what was given in the article leaves a lot of room for personal opinion. -ie. easier to defend that position on your actions)--Creol(talk) 04:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it have been better if my QD reason was "little or no information"? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Challenging its statement of notability could be seen as valid in this case but there are differing opinions on what exactly a "Statement of notability" is. In the strictest sense, it is best to list the reason for QD as the one least likely to be able to be contested (from a non-admin POV) and for it be be deleted on the most easily defendable reason (from an admin) POV. In the end, its all about what is best for the wiki and if that article was something we should keep.. and that is more a judgement call than anything in many cases, but finding a point you are most easily able to defend your action/tag/delete is always the best idea. (vague answer, isn't it? Thats also a part of the process :) ) --Creol(talk) 05:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Were I in this role for a few months, I'd have no hesitation. It should be QD'd, I'm sure of that. Whether the criteria lets me is a judgement call, and although this is a fairly inconsequential one in regards to effort lost, it's quite a difficult one for a newbie to make. Credited with a few months worth of logs to my name, it wouldn't be a big deal. I'll take a back seat on the borderline ones for the time being. Osiris (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Being new, that is understandable. It's normal to be skittish and a tad bid worried about making a mistake. Worst case, let it go. Nothing is hurt by your not deleting that article. Its not like its a Q10 (attack) that needs quick attention. If if sits there a couple hours before someone else makes the call, nothing bad happens. If you are not comforable at this point taking action (either to accept the qd request and delete or reject it) and it is not a "must do now!!!!!!" situation, sit back and let those with more experience make the call and learn from their actions. You can't be expected to be perfect and prompt on every call from day one. --Creol(talk) 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Osiris (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging 101

As it really wasn't a fair push for someone without practice and while the info is out there but takes some hunting to find:

Merging article histories

For merging the history of Article1 and Article2:

  1. Determine to target article. This is the location both histories will be merged into. - the final article destination. For this instruction, we determine its article2 (Art1 was copy pasted to art2)
  2. Delete Article2.
  3. Move article1 to article2.
  4. undelete article2
  5. check the history for the most up to date version of Article2 and revert to that version (The article1 redirect page may be on top after the undelete, revert to the most up to date art2 version}

At this point Art1 and 2's histories should be on the same page (Article2's) and article1 should be a redirect. If that redirect is not needed, qd under the rules for redirects (or g6). Odds are that the redirect is valid and should be kept but you never know. --Creol(talk) 05:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate, this is perfect. I'll give it a try. Osiris (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Worked perfectly! Thanks! Osiris (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That it did. The only point I would add on the process is that on the "delete" (step 1) and the "move" (step 2), list "merging histories" as the reason to clarify what is going on. --Creol(talk) 05:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah! ok, will do. Osiris (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And since we are practicing pushing buttons

Since we are at it, might as well play with the "fun" button - Blocking/unblocking a user. Feel free to block me as a test (just set the block for a couple minutes. worst case, I shift back to Creol and point out problems). Best to get an understanding of the tools before you need them to deal with a real vandal. And I am evil after all. Its right there in my name! Pure Evil (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have unblocked you on a trial basis. This is your last warning. If you continue doing evil things, as you did here, I will have no choice but to block you indefinitely... Osiris (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleting, undeleting, merging, blocking and unblocking.. It's been a productive first day :). --Creol(talk) 06:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
On an afterthought, it's a good thing I remembered to disable the IP block/autoblock.... Osiris (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That it is, else I would have had to either do a talk page request (you didnt block editing my own talk - and shouldnt have in this case) or ran across the street to log in. Autoblock is best used when its obvious a user is just repeatedly creating accounts to vandalize from. Blocking the talk page edits is for when even after blocking them, the are being disruptive there (not totally uncommon on vandal only accounts but not always a good idea, but a tougher call of long time user / community based blocks(should be used only if there is proof that the user will use their talk page to be disruptive) --Creol(talk) 06:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, excellent. That was good training! Thanks for that, and also for volunteering as a test dummy! Osiris (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congrats! I didn't get to !vote, however if I had I would have supported as well. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dammit! ;D Thank you for the support! Osiris (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Admin T-shirt

Here's your T-shirt.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, awesome! I'll wear it with pride! Osiris (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations for Successfully becoming an Administrator!

Hey Osiris, wanted to congratulate you for successfully passing your RFA and becoming the newest Administrator here on the Simple English Wikipedia! Your dedication towards the project inspires me and many other editors for building this wonderful Encyclopedia. I'm sure you will contribute to the project very well in the coming time. I feel proud after supporting for you in your nomination :) All the best for the future! TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you, TGU. That's very kind of you. I hope you're enjoying contributing here, by the way. If you have any questions or anything I can help you with, just ping me here. Face-smile.svg Osiris (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed

The copyrighted text has been now removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azad.hazara (talkcontribs)

another message by (Azad.hazara)

Will you please confirm (Confirmed User) my account

Reason:I want to edit semi protected pages which i can't and want to update them

Did you or did you not make this very same request to me under a different account last week? Osiris (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I made and now please don't block me because i'm part of blocked IP Address (Further disscussion please at My talk page)
I'm afraid I have to. I warned you last time I spoke to you about copying and pasting from copyrighted websites, and you've done it again from the same website and on the same articles. Osiris (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

SUL

At this point, it might be more prudent just to hunt for a friendly steward look into merging all the accounts into your SUL rather than petitioning and reconfirming to each language that you are you. --Creol(talk) 06:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is getting tedious.... I might just ask Barras the next time he pops in. Is there a page at meta for such requests? I can't seem to find it under steward requests. Osiris (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I have to do it locally... According to /Username changes and /SUL requests. Osiris (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ideally and technically, the request should go through the local b'crats if available and meta:Steward requests/SUL requests if not no local b'crats exist or are (reasonably) available. That being said, I had multiple stewards slip it by over my time and to be honest, didn't care of them stepping on my toes. It alleviated a hassle and more power to them for it. Different crats and stewards may feel differently though, so its hard to tell and at that time it was just as SUL was kicking in to SUL requests were constantly in your face.. so times are much calmer now. All being said, getting the opinion of a steward on if the matter could be handled more efficiently without issues would be the best option imho. --Creol(talk) 06:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll ask Barras or Fr33k about it when they're in next. It's not a huge deal anyway—en, commons and meta are the only ones where I'm going to be of any use. Thanks for the note. Osiris (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation done on fr.wikibooks

Hi Osiris,

Usurpation done on fr.wikibooks.

--DavidL (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)