User talk:Parsecboy/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Parsecboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Request for mediation

Parsecboy -- I have filed a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I identified you amongst the relevant parties:

Involved parties

Tenmei (talk · contribs), filing party
BillCJ (talk · contribs)
Nick Dowling (talk · contribs)

Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps these contributors might consider themselves as parties because of their participation in creating the talk page record.

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)
Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
Optigan13 (talk · contribs)
Coldmachine (talk · contribs), mediator
Sdsds (talk · contribs), mediator

The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others;[1] but Nick Dowling's notice here implies that I have a responsibility to remedy that oversight without further delay.

At this point, Nick Dowling, Buckshot06 and Bellhalla have already agreed to mediation. It's up to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do. Even if you don't decide to participate, I hope you will watchlist the page so that you are able to follow what unfolds. --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, BillCJ has already expressed his disagreement with the mediation, so unless he changes his mind, the mediation is a dead issue. Even if he does change his mind, I have no real intention to participate in further discussion. As I recall, I didn't really participate in the discussion on the talk page, I just cautioned you to remain civil with Nick. Thanks for letting me know anyways. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga notification

"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.

I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:

1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion [2], and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).[3]

1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?

I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.

I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.

By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union

This is a highly controversial area. The previous title was correct. For further info please refer to WP:MOSMAC: In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events where the Republic participates officially under the appellation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or variants thereof (e.g. the United Nations, accession to the European Union, the Olympic Games etc.), the official naming conventions of those organisations should be followed. This applies only where the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization.-- Avg 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Avg beat me to it. While I personally find the shorter title a lot better, and I'm glad there was at last an outside editor getting involved with this question rather than the usual mix of Balkanian editors with vested national interests, I could have predicted that this was not really an "uncontroversial proposal". Not sure how to proceed from here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly fine to me, sorry for any unintentional havoc I created :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This move was not uncontroversial. Current title is in accord with MOSMAC. Whoever is interested in initiating a move, he can start a relevant discussion.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you would be great if you could weigh in at WT:MOSMAC or a move request, since you are a (completely) neutral editor. Cheers, Balkan Fever 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a currently ongoing discussion about this? I looked briefly, but didn't see one. Perhaps I missed it? Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not a current one. But MOSMAC can always be edited/improved with discussion, so you can think of it as ongoing. Also, if you want, you could initiate a requested move. It's just I'd very much like to hear what other people think rather than the same things from Greek editors and RoM editors, whose positions obviously cannot be changed. Balkan Fever 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about this issue, but it seems that until the situation is mediated in the real world, we won't have a final answer here. In the meantime, we should just reflect what the majority of reliable sources use. If that happens to be Republic of Macedonia, then the Greek editors will just have to get over themselves, and if it's FYROM, then the same holds true for those from the RoM. That's just how Wikipedia works; we reflect what the consensus of reliable (and preferably scholarly) works has to say on any given subject. The RoM article indicates that most countries have recognized the country as RoM, not FYROM (including the US, UK, and Canada, the three largest English-speaking countries. This would lead me to believe that RoM is preferred in common usage, but of course hard statistics would still be required to demonstrate significantly higher usage.) :::Personally, I prefer RoM, as FYROM is just a provisional reference (and nationalism, which is what Greece's objection boils down to, is one of my biggest pet peeves), while RoM is the constitutional name. Of course, my preferences don't matter a bit, it's just my own opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we have our naming conventions, we should apply them where we see fit, consistently. If a source uses "Holland", we can still use "The Netherlands". If a source uses "Servia" we can still use "Serbia". If a source uses "Russian Federation" we can still use "Russia". The country's accession is the topic - we can mention how the country will/can/would accede, but we can use our terminology just as other sources use their terminology. Balkan Fever 14:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, likely the vast majority of sources use "Serbia" over "Servia", as Servia is an archaic term, like Pressburg for Bratislava. If the majority of sources favor one over the other, then naming conventions like WP:NCGN, specifically the instruction to follow English usage come into play, (of course supported by the broader WP:UE convention). It seemingly only remains for an editor with a great deal of initiative (not to mention loads of spare time) to trawl through references to the country, and figure out which name is used more frequently. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was all figured out ages ago, which is why the page is at its current location. Back when it was created, and I mean way back when all the country articles were created, it had the title FYROM. And there was countless move-warring from sides until the rest of the community stepped in and this was consensus. MOSMAC was created as a concession, in a way, to the Greek users who were able to edit-war en masse, while still keeping fairly inline with the other guidelines and policies. This is what I gathered from scanning the archives (too much to read completely) and from what others have said. The point is, fresh eyes, with no hint of nationalism, can only do good. Balkan Fever 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp edits

That's how I started out (applying moveprotects only). The vandal repeatedly revisited the moveprotected pages with throwaway accounts, and added fake pagemove edit summaries with the same crap content. Feel free to remove the semis when you think appropriate (just not right this minute, please). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Forced image size is a "no-no".

However I can't find such description on the page that you suggest me to read. I think that is your "own" interpretation. I've been editing images a lot, and your object to enlarge the complicate image is unreasonable. Images should generally not be set to a fixed size --> Why do you think that the world "generally" is addressed on the policy? I think your behavior with a non-existing policy is a "no-no".--Caspian blue (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it a little more closely; the third sentence in the section to which I linked clearly states: "Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style)." Editors can set their own preferences to image sizing, and this should generally not be overridden. Regardless, you only enlarged it by 20px over the default; I don't see the value of forcing the image size (by forcing it to 200px, it actually makes it smaller for me. I'm sure I'm not the only one with file size preferences set.). Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, that is your "own" interpretation on the same guideline. Enlarging "20px" of the image size is not overridden, but you force me to follow your POV. That is a no-no. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But you are overriding individual preferences; it makes the image smaller for editors like me, who have set their preferences to something higher than 200. If you want photos to display at 200px, simply change your preferences. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You implemented your comment.[4] No. that is not "regardless". So you're urging me to follow your "own interpretation" as if that is a "written policy". I carefully calculated the image not to be not exceeding over the main content. That's why I only enlarged it 20 px. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one feeling that you're pushing your POV. As for your suggestion, then you "can" change your preferences. Simple and easy solution for you.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point. I have changed my preferences, and your force image size is overriding them. Contrary to policy, and not just my interpretation of it. The images policy clearly states that for most cases, image sizing should not be one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users. Of course there are exceptions, like images in infoboxes, but this is a run-of-the-mill image we're talking about, so forced sizing is not warranted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is forcing their opinions on others, it appears to be you. Take this recent revert of yours for example: 1. You claim that it produces a large white spot. Not for me it doesn't; it actually appears better on the other version. You seem to be forgetting that not every person on the internet has the exact same computer and monitor that you do, and uses the exact same resolution that you do. You can't force everything such that it appears perfectly on your computer, because it is most assuredly screwing it up for someone else. Hence, we leave image sizing up to individual users. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're the one forcing your opinion on the image with a non-existing policy and people. WE are the only people in dispute, so your first sentence appears to be unwarranted. You said it would be a solution if I change my preferences, but well, I use both Firefox and IE without setting anything. We're editing articles for "readers", not for you or me. I did not edit the size for my eyes. The edit to change the size would lead your viewing smaller. Perhaps, you're the one who has to change your computer setting. Images here are edited for better understanding of the contents. I've been uploading and editing a lot of images to Wikipedia and none has objected to qualities and sizes of the images except you with unconvincing reasonings. I believe my computer setting is not much different from others. Readers do not know about Wiki preferences.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That is quite illogical; the policy clearly states that for most situations, forced image sizing should not be used; I don't see what you are avoiding that/failing to understand it. The problem with your argument that we are creating articles for readers is my point in my previous comment; not everyone uses the same size monitor/resolution/browser/etc. as you, so you cannot possibly know what is best for everyone; you are simply arranging things such that they work on your computer. There's nothing wrong with my settings; I prefer larger images in articles that I read, so I set my preferences to a higher file size. You are preventing me (and undoubtedly other users) from viewing images in accordance with our preferences. Your argument about having done this in the past is irrelevant; I've likewise removed quite a few image sizing parameters, and no one, except for you, has ever questioned or objected to it. You can believe whatever you want about your computer settings vis a vis the other millions of computers with access to the internet, but that doesn't make it so. What size monitor do you use? What resolution? Most likely not the same as mine. This is the crux of the issue here: there are nearly infinitely varying ways that people have their systems set up, be it monitor size, resolution, internet browser, etc. A "one size fits all" policy is clearly untenable, under these circumstances. So, unless you want to buy the same computer and monitor that you use, and configure it exactly the same as yours, for everyone on the planet, I ask that you kindly stop forcing image sizes for most images. Not just because it isn't nice, but because it is contradictory to established policy. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I've opened a thread at the Image use policy talk page to seek wider comments on this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one being illogical with such uncivil manner. Generally people, even editors don't know about the Wiki preference setting. I believe general readers do not know of the image setting in preferences as well. Many of people just come by to get needed information from Wikipedia or have their account to fix the image setting. However you're forcing your peference to me and others. You keep ignoring the fact that why the description the policy put "should generally", not just "should". You have been resorting to your POV as if that is a fixed one and everyone follows. Then why the sizes of the images on the article have different setting instead of "default"? I would leave my opinion on there. However, you're the one making the problem bigger. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point out where I have been uncivil in this discussion. Many editors do know of their ability to set their preferences. The policy clearly states that forced image sizing should generally be avoided, in order to avoid overriding personal preferences. I'm not forcing anything on anyone; if you prefer your images to display at 200px, simply change your preferences, don't force everyone else to view images at 200px if they don't want to. Plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Knots

Why you redirected it to the speed article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's how it was for a significant period of time (about a year) before an anon changed it about a month ago. "Knots" generally refers to the speed, so it's best to point the redirect to the article, rather than the dab page. There is a hatnote on Knot (speed) to direct readers to the dab page. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Hello, Parsecboy! Could you please revert the move of Tres Marias raccoon per Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Moves of mammal articles. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Delta Force

I would be more supportive of expanding the section about the formation more, making the influence more prominent, than just shoving a sentence in ackwardly at the end of the opening paragraph. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think the part you are adding is worded ackwardly. It tries too hard, if that makes sense. Don't you think that adding to the history section would improve the article more than adding to an existing sentence? I mean the article already states that it was based on Beckwith's experience from his time at the SAS, then brings the issue back up with talking about the structure. I simply don't feel yet another mention is really needed. But I'm not going to fight about it. I've said my piece. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the compromise wording sounds better. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a life-long shooter and own a number of handguns. Almost everyday I carry a J-frame .38 as a back-up. Lately my primary has often a Springfield XD .45 Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HST was Laid down as USS United States

If CVN-75's Keel was laid as Harry S. Truman, how do you explain this?

I also posted this same photo on HST's talk page, when I deleted the a fore mentioned line. I was actually at the keel laying for CVN-75. I had this photo posted right under your line there, but some admin moved it into the trivia section, probably in the hopes it would be deleted. As an admin she should know trivia sections DO NOT BELONG but she decided to put the photo there anyway. Anyhow as you can see there is a need to remove it. It may useful information, however it is incorrect information. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is about getting out correct information to people.--Subman758 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, HST was laid down as United States. I don't dispute it. I reverted your removal of the sentence that said as much. I don't see what the issue is. Lastly, MBK004 is a guy, not a woman. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank I didn't name, names. But since you figured out who the Admin is, I will put it this way. If the Admin in question is a guy fine. However the Admin in question has a userbox on their page that led me to believe that he was in fact a woman. So don't blame me for the screw-up, if he didn't have that userbox there it would have never been an issue. BY the way what the hell does AFAIK mean anyway? --Subman758 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK means "As Far As I Know". I've been watching the situation between you and MBK004 unfold for the past couple days, so you didn't need to name any names. I'm not blaming you for anything, but you have been told a couple of times now, by MBK himself, and another editor, that he is a guy. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So you know the sentence I deleted was this " HST was authorized as USS United States but her name was changed before the keel laying." It said her name was changed before her was laid. When it was changed after it was laid, that why I deleted the sentence, because it was incorrect. I just wanted you to know that's why I did it.--Subman758 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not see you added it to a different portion of the article, I must've missed it. So there's no real issue here, content-wise? Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

When you reverted my additions to the article on the 13th Airborne Division, you stated that there was no "Battle of Central Europe". Please be aware that if you go to the following link, you will learn everything you would want to know about the Campaign of Central Europe. Before you do REVERTS, you should do your homework. Also, the date format I used is the now-standard one used on all of the Wiki sites as it automatically looks correct according to a user's prference settings.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the dates are quite incorrect, per Wikipedia:MOS#Dates. It quite clearly states "ISO 8601 dates (like 1976-05-13) are uncommon in English prose and are generally not used in Wikipedia." The problem with a number of the changes you made is that they were inserted into sentences that are already sourced, and thus give the impression that your additions are sourced as well, which they are not. The link you provided is dead. However, if you're referring to the Central Europe Campaign, it is a part of WWII, so it's not really necessary for the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the link you went to: http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/centeur/centeur.htm? It is the site of the digital version of US Army Center of Military History publication, CMH Pub 72-36, Central Europe, 22 March-11 May 1945, which gives a good digest on the Central European Campaign.

As to the date, when you format dates with the format of 1976-05-13, the date will appear on the Users computer in the format they set in their Preferences.

If you found one without the double brackets, then the error was in my not adding the brackets, not the date itself.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy page that supports the ISO 8601 dating style? Clearly the MoS disagrees, but it may not be up to date. Yes, the link you provided isn't working for me. I keep getting a 404 error. Regardless, the CEC is still a part of WWII, so it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Parsecboy/Archive 9, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
— JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

crew

that would be 5000. Even the Germans were not so class ridden to refuse to have common people doing the work. (more later if I get round to it).Sandpiper (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeasement

I have re-written this with inline citations. I think the tag you added can now be removed. Please review the neutrality tag while you're about it as the editor who placed it doesn't have a talk page. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Marshall46 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetwave Dave loses another round

Hey, I noticed you'd had some experiences with this twit. Another checksum has come up with a bunch of sock puppets. If you're interested, DanMP5 and I have been holding the line. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jetwave_Dave. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review and comment on this Checksum

This is the request for checksum I put together: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DroneZone. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cymax POV-pusher

Heads up: Angry monkey at the Cymax Stores article is at it again, using the IP 62.96.6.4 to circumvent his ban. He reverted your edits and will probably continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.85.64.114 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin move/redirect

Hi--I recently moved Palin to Palin (disambiguation), so I could change Palin to point to the VP candidate (as McCain, Obama, and Biden do). You reverted the change, with the comment "moving page back to correct cut-and-paste move)". For what it's worth, it wasn't a "cut-and-paste move"--I used the WP page-move function, moving the Palin page to Palin (disambiguation) (which is, I believe, the proper way to handle this). In any event, I'm willing to let the wiki.consensus form--I thought my move was the right thing to do, but if so, other editors are likely to do the same thing. -- Narsil (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, User:Everyme moved it back, via cut-and-paste. I was simply correcting his move. As Everyme's reversion of your move demonstrates, the move is not uncontroversial, so it should be discussed before anything is decided. I don't really care much about the location of the dab page, to be honest, I just wanted to ensure that the page continues to be attached to the edit history. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah--my mistake! And doubly-so--I honestly thought it was an uncontroversial move, and I've honestly learned better by now. ;-) -- Narsil (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) A good litmus test for whether a proposed move is uncontroversial is the Uncontroversial proposals section on Wikipedia:Requested moves. If one of the regulars there (like me) agrees, we'll just move the page. And if it does turn out to be contested after that, we'll take the heat, not you ;-) Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your help with improving future Milhist drives at the 2008 Tag & Assess workshop, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're keen to keep your assessing skills honed, we are currently very short of reviewers for Milhist A-Class reviews. Broadly, the five A-Class criteria are just beefed up versions of the B-Class criteria and anyone with B-Class experience should have no trouble with them. Also, as a reminder, in the wide-ranging A-Class review, it is not necessary to comment on all five criteria: if you're short of time, you can simply focus on the aspects that interest you most (sources, comprehensiveness, prose, graphic content or whatever). You can track which articles are up for A-Class using this template: {{WPMILHIST A-Class Review alerts}}

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RS

Hi, can you please tell if this can be used as RS or not for the article Crime in the United Arab Emirates? I am a bit confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it probably is usable, but you can always check with the experts over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Input on C7/C8 merge proposal

I would appreciate your input on the new proposal to merge the C8 page with the C7 page (Discuss). I believe it was abruptly ended the last time, and that the lack of "consensus" was based on false observations and inaccurate understandings, as much as legitimate points. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Thanks I've had that happen to me several times and I don't understand it; at least you're the first person to post on my talk... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True All's well that ends well. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Raglan

Please fix the many links to this disambiguation page. Moving the dab page here without fixing the links is clearly lowering the quality of the encyclopedia.-gadfium 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A bot should be along shortly to do that, actually. There are bots that track page moves, and automatically correct the links that are then pointing to a redirect. There's no set amount of time for how long this should take, but generally speaking, it should be done within a day or two. If you don't want to wait that long for the bot to do it, you can always fix the links. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a bot that could do that. I do know about the bot that fixes double redirects, but this is a disambiguation page. I'll come back and remind you if nothing has happened in a couple of days.-gadfium 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Vegaswikian (who is not a bot) has fixed most of the links for you.-gadfium 06:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good guys, thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)