User talk:Pgallert/Archive2009 1

International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process

You put an "advert" tag on this article. I'm the one who created the article, and I now that I read it again, I definitely see your point. IMHO, the article is pretty factual, except for the sentence "As an important source of information for scholars, managers, and decision makers, it facilitates front edge dialogue among the world's leading AHP/ANP researchers, policy makers, and executives." In your opinion, would removing that sentence be enough to justify removing the "advert" tag? Lou Sander (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You definitely got my point. When I browsed the article I thought of removing this sentence myself but I then realised that on its own, the last sentence "Papers presented at ISAHP cover..." doesn't mean much (because all conference papers do that) and should also be rewritten. Also, I was not sure whether the references are affected by this. So lucky me, I got the expert on the topic... maybe you can expand the intro as well to reflect what scientific discipline AHP/ANP is in? --Pgallert (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence and slightly reworded some other stuff. It is a big challenge to expand the intro, as a big problem in the field is to briefly explain what these two things are. With your permission, I'd like to remove the "advert" tag. Lou Sander (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did it just now. I also re-worded the lead phrase again, would you please check whether I got it (at least nearly) right? Don't be afraid to revert if I didn't get the point.--Pgallert (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored content - what now

{{helpme}} Hi, I've come across a recently deleted article, Institute on the Arts and Civic Dialogue. It was deleted on May 7 for advertising, recreated on May 12, again tagged speedy for copyvio (from [1]). The tag has been removed before any admin worked on it. What now?--Pgallert (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I deleted it as a copyvio, but the text of the page is not copyrighted, see the talk page Talk:Institute on the Arts and Civic Dialogue --Closedmouth (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I didn't see that, either. Maybe you're still watching: But my question was rather, what is the general process in such a case? To add and remove speedy tags until you find a fast admin is not very efficient.--Pgallert (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The general policy is that users cannot remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they themselves created. If they do, and continue to, they may be blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeheim

Hey there, I love Namibia and hope to get back there for another holiday one day. I linked Seeheim because it's close to Ai-Ais and in the same region. However, if you disagree I am happy for you to change it. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spy, I would rather keep the "See also" section for things that belong together, and I wasn't aware of any obvious connection of the two, other than being a mere 80 km apart. So I'll change it back now, thanks for the feedback. --Pgallert (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Altenkirchener SG

Hello Pgallert, I have removed the deletion template from Altenkirchener SG as the article comlys with current noteability guidlines (See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability): It is eligible for the national German Cup competition. The guidlines are not very easy to establish, unfortunately, due to virtually every country having a different league and cup set up. EA210269 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi EA210269, I shall not argue this further because football is really way out of my knowledge area. I'd like to point out, however, that this interpretation bends the notability rules quite a bit; in Germany, pretty much every club is eligible to play the cup. Kreisliga A, hullo? You know what I mean. Happy editing, --Pgallert (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. A more solid notability guidline would be very welcome but it almost would have to be country specific. I tried to initiate a discussion on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject German football#Club and league notability but no real decision has been reached. It is really very vague at present. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party of Namibia

{{helpme}} I just added a reference to this article which contains square brackets ([]), and this breaks the reference templates. Any idea of a workaround? Thanks. --Pgallert (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can replace the square brackets with the encoded values, which are %5B for [ and %5D for ]. Using the URL http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=46280&no_cache=1 will create this link. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 14:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that worked well. --Pgallert (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Pgallert I know you live in windhoek in Namibia. One of the greatest countries in the world may i add. And i hate where i live very much. I want to know how to get citizenship and i am not that old so please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh one more thing i know what i am getting into i have been studying africa and the world for 5-6 years which is a lot of my life just to add (GO SWAPO!!!!!!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, that seems to be a bit off-topic... anyway, citizenship you get by marrying a Namibian and sticking to that for 10 years. Alternatively, if you have legally been resident for 10 years. Otherwise, you must be rich, or famous, or both.--Pgallert (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is namibia as nice and interesting as people say i have been waiting for years to see the national heros arce and now the new state house (built by north korean mansudae overseas projects) . I mena is there enough to do to make me want ot live there it seems like there is on judging by wikipedia and many other cities are a short plane ride away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Namibia is nice, even though the two sites you mention are in my opinion not that spectacular. State House cannot be visited by non-Namibians.--Pgallert (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Nujoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Caprivi Conflict

I did some research, and it is classified as an ongoing conflict. I provided sources and everything. It's just not a very big or important one. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Your source doesn't say it is an ongoing conflict, and there hasn't been any military action in Caprivi ever since Jonas Savimbi was killed and UNITA retraced back into Angola. Could we, for the sake of not getting into an edit war, keep your statement of an independent Caprivi with its source, add that this nation is recognised by no-one, and put the end of the conflict back to 1999? --Pgallert (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this conversation to Talk:Caprivi conflict. Let's continue there to give others the chance to participate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Namibia

I dont understand why towns like Karasburg, Karibib, Keetmanshoop, Mariental, Okahandja, Omaruru, Otavi, Outjo, Usakos and Tsumeb are listed as cities. have you been to those towns, their even more of a village then towns to me. why is Oshakati listed as a town while it is more developed and technological advanced then all of the above towns. Technically we only got two cities in Naimibia, Swakopmund and Windhoek. and bigger towns with city status like Walvis Bay, Otjiwarongo and Oshakati. but if thats what your sources says, i cant argue on that, i was just trying to correct things. Thanks

I've been to all of those, and I know what you mean. The allocation happens purely on financial reasons - if they cannot manage their own budget they never become cities. If you are resident in Namibia you might have followed those discussions in the newspapers - I believe Usakos is the next "city" to be downgraded to "town" or even "village" because their finances are in shatters.

From a general point of view, we only have one city in Namibia, and that is Windhoek, the others don't even come close. We then have a number of really small towns (Walvis, Swakop, Oshakati, and some more), and the rest are villages by the standards of the "developed world". But technically, a sad place such as Mariental is a city because it has city status, as witnessed in the sources I gave.

What we can, and should, discuss (maybe best in the "List of.." articles, or here on my disc page) is whether it is appropriate to follow the official classification. I believe it is a good idea because it is done like this for other countries, and it produces strange results there as well. For instance, Teichel was a town in Germany for over 100 years despite having only 500-odd inhabitants.

If you are interested in Namibian topics it might be a good idea to watch (or even join) Wikipedia:WikiProject Namibia. I announced my intentions there, and after getting no comment for a week, I started changing things. I find it much better to discuss in advance then to revert afterwards. Enjoy the weekend, --Pgallert (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pgallert. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Someone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. Prodego ^talk 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Prodego, it was indeed me who requested access to the account creation tool. Thank you for your time and effort. --Pgallert (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodego ^talk 11:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Prodego. Not sure whether you're still watching (IRC is blocked from where I edit): I have had a look at the ACC page, is there any way to find out why the users came to this page and didn't create the account for themselves? --Pgallert (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent account creation requests from Namibia (IP 196.*.*.*)

We had this VERY discussion a couple nights ago and concluded this must be the case :) thanks for the heads up! Jamesofur (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in Jordan

{{helpme}} I need a second pair of eyes on the syntax of this article. Why is the middle section completely in italics? It starts at the template {{Main|Two Seas Canal}}, and if I take it out it's suddenly okay. But what is wrong there? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}}

I swapped it for a See Also; this fixed the italics, but it's a stopgap. Let me look at the template to see what it's doing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an error in template:main - somebody edited it to use a style to make italics, and they removed the begin-italics ('') but not the end-italics. Hence, italics were turned on by use of that template, and never turned off. Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. I will put the article back to the way it was, and it'll be fine. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  14:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've reverted my changes. Looks good to me! Thanks, Chzz! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The bug was this.  Chzz  ►  14:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Pgallert ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Libode

Thanks for your work on the Libode article. It must be difficult to determine what is trivia and what isn't, but thanks for cleaning it up anyway. -- leuce (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment at RfA

People oppose by their own standards, just like you have evaluated by your own standards and supported. It's be futile to attempt to make sense of A Nobody's position in terms of anyone's standards but his own. (leaving this here to avoid unnecessary verbiage on the RfA itself)   pablo_hablo. 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand this. However, A Nobody's detailed list of "errors" has already invoked one "partly per X" oppose, and this is not fair in my view. I will not vote in this RfA but I am angered if someone makes his personal antipathy look like objective criticism. --Pgallert (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I disagreed with his 'analysis' too; and I think most people who bother to wade through it and actually click on some of the links will too.   pablo_hablo. 10:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)