User talk:Noisalt

Trans-Saharan gas pipeline

Hi, Noisalt. Please explain moving Trans–Saharan gas pipeline article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before making potentially damaging moves. As a result, all links are broken. Please move the article back and lets then discuss, what is the correct spelling. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What links are broken? —Noisalt (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue marble energy

In my opinion, the article appeared to be about what I thought to be a non-notable company, and as such would qualify for a CSD. If I overstepped in this instance, I apologize. Perhaps you should look at the fact that I have noted a lot of articles that actually HAVE qualified for CSD, as opposed to immediately insisting that I am out of line. Perhaps some civilized conversation and assuming good faith would be in order rather than pointing fingers and slapping my hands. --mhking (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endash

Hi, sorry for undoing your edit. Are you sure that an endash is appropriate instead of a hyphen. Reason I ask is that official statements of US gov department seem to use a hyphen instead. Thanks for any clarification. Poliphile (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see wp:dash. Most style guides (including ours) use an en dash when joining two entities in a modifier, if they both have an equal contribution and are grammatically independent (Bose–Einstein condensate, Byzantine–Arab Wars, etc.). But it's a strange and obscure rule that is often ignored. —Noisalt (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

biographical information = john eckland

please see associated references and citations on founder of Fayette Manufacturing prior to deletion of article. Considering that wind energy is now coming back into vogue as a viable alternative energy source, information on one of the early pioneers from the last go round is valid. Considering the latest talk on federal tax credits etc. facing current wind energy industry, they may be interested to see what happened last time - see New York Times - wind energy. (Company foundered once california removed state tax credit incentive in 1985.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanai3 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi. I noticed that you've listed a number of articles for deletion today. This is admirable, it's important that we work to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and removing unencyclopedia content is an essential component of that. However your nomination rationales are often qualified "may be", "not clear" and so on. Perhaps you might undertake some of the investigation and determine the notability and such of an article before bringing on a deletion debate? Regards, Crafty (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bettsometer

Hi there I noticed that you AFD'd Bettsometer, I have added a bunch of refs, please have a look and let me know your thoughts. This instrument is not very common nowadays and unfortunately does not have amazing stuff written on it online. I may need to get some paper sources also to back this one up... RP459 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I withdrew it because this seems like a worthwhile article. Really needs paper sources though. Noisalt (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the long weekend I will see what I can dig up from some friends of mine who work in the field... RP459 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG's

I left you a reply on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Park#SVG_character_images. --Ysangkok (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Persian Wars

Can you explain the purpose of the move on the above stated article? Warrior 4321 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hyphen goes there, not a dash. —Noisalt (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP1.0

I have reverted this edit of yours. As can be seen at Category:Vital articles by quality, the categories do indeed use an uppercase "V". If you would like to rename all of these categories, please either discuss it somewhere first or at least do the work yourself. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, next time you get reverted would you mind not edit warring but actually start a discussion about it? This applies especially to highly transcluded templates. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles categories

I see that last night you put {{category redirect}} templates on all of the following categories:

I have a couple of concerns about this. First, was this discussed with the project members? Second, renaming of categories should be accomplished through one of the processes described on WP:CFD, not by creating redirects from existing, populated categories. If you believe it is appropriate to proceed with these renamings, I would request that you go through WP:CFD. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess my first question is answered by reading the section immediately before this one... When you want to change something well-established in Wikipedia that affects a lot of other users, it's generally a good idea to discuss it first. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I have no issue with making the edit first time round. I have ofen renamed categories in this way. Rightly or wrongly I wouldn't want to take something so trivial as changing a capital letter to CfD. What I found problematic was making the edit again after being reverted, without discussing and without even an explanatory edit summary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the capitalization of a letter would generally fall within speedy renaming, and wouldn't require a discussion; but it should still be posted on the CFD page so that a bot job can be queued to recategorize the articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were being categorized by a template; no bot was needed. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noisalt correctly inferred from my statement "or at least do the work yourself" above that I would have no problem with the revert of my revert. My problem with the original edit was only that it moved a lot of pages into non-existent categories, and it was not clear if this was an accident or intentional. Noisalt made it clear that this was no accident by doing the work of creating the new categories. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danie Mellor

Hi there. Kudos to you for finding the new name of the North Adelaide School of Art and introducing a link. Can you explain to me why you changed the date formats in the article? The cuirrent format was automatically generated through the "ref" button and I thought it was intended for some sort of universale browser readability (though i don't know anything about it) - is your version MOS-consistent and supported by policy? If so, please point me in the right direction, I'm keen to try and get these things right before taking pages to FAC. I have the same question about replacing "& mdash;" with "—". All advice gratefully received. Cheers, and thanks again, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATES says that the YYYY-MM-DD format "may be useful" in some cases but generally discourages it. I don't know why the tool automatically generates it, but as far as I know, normal dates are preferred in references. The documentation at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Template:Cite news, for example, use normal dates.

Changing &mdash to — is just my own preference, for ease of reading; I don't think either way is required. —Noisalt (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And thanks for the GA review - i hadn't realised that was what was happening. Much appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections on Having Left a Place of Retirement

I have expanded the lead of Reflections on Having Left a Place of Retirement. How does it read now? Leads always tend to be my weakest point. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thank you for your review. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks good. —Noisalt (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review on Fark.com

Just one question before I can make a final decision to the article. In the talk page of Fark.com, you suggest a possible renaming of the article. We need to clarify if this is going ahead? I would suggest waiting until the GA review have issued a pass, before renaming it, as it would only constitute as an edit-war, which would make the "stable" criteria become a fail. Everything else seems to be in order. I have answered your question about the use of the "fuck" in an article, you may wish to take a look at the reply. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, since you mentioned this on VPP you might like to add your comment at the RfC which is now under way at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noisalt -- well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried just now to expand on what I "think" you were saying in this discussion ... please correct me if I mispoke.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

I appreciate that you're trying to address the wp:point issue over at Sarah Palin, but it's probably best to let it go for the moment. User:Scribner believes he has a free pass from User:AniMate to continue to revert to restore the tag, and until that's clarified, it looks like he's just going to keep edit warring over it. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palin revert

You reverted an edit that has consensus to be removed from the lead of the Sarah Palin article. In the future read the talk page prior to reverts to prevent similar errors. Scribner (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism symbol

Hello, Noisalt. You have new messages at Talk:Atheism#Symbol.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

South Park (season 13)

Hey Noisalt. I saw that you weighed in with your opinion over at South Park (season 13), and I'd like to encourage you to continue to review the article if you can spare the time. The debate has been consumed by the image article, and the FA delegate has made clear it will not pass unless the entire FA criteria is reviewed. Would you be willing to review it in terms of the entire FA criteria, and state on the page whether you feel it meets it and why, or whether you feel it doesn't and provide some feedback as to what needs improvement. It doesn't have a chance at passing unless it's reviewed according to the entire FA criteria like this. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 16:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]