User talk:Strange Passerby

19:56Please note that it is currently 7:56 PM BST.

Strange Passerby's talk page procedures

If you leave a message here
I will reply here. Please watch my page for replies. I will leave a {{talkback}} message only if you are a new editor, or if you specifically request so in your message or on your talk page.

If I leave a message on your talk page
I will watch it for replies. You need not post here. Please avoid using {{talkback}} on my page unless it's urgent. If you do leave a talkback message, please timestamp it. Note that talkback notices are liable to be rolled back or removed at any time, unless they have been responded to in the same thread. If you reply here to a message I leave you, I will continue the discussion here.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

ITN: 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack

-- tariqabjotu 02:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Fukushima earthquake

I'm not sure why you bothered to post on my talk. You just went ahead and did it anyway. While you're at it, why not do the same to 2011 Miyagi earthquake. It is an identical situation. Of course, you might want to enter into the discussion with the several other editors on this very matter first at Talk:2011 Miyagi earthquake. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Miyagi earthquake is a viable article as has been proven by its subsequent impact. There's no reason to redirect that if there's enough for a standalone article. At the moment, there isn't any for today's. And I left the note on your talk as a courtesy. I could've just redirected and left it, of course, but I don't do that. If you'd rather I have done it unilaterally, let me know and I'll be fine with not alerting you if a similar incident occurs in future. StrPby (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The courtesy note was appreciated, but after the fact. What you did was unilateral. Doing it then telling someone you did it after is unilateral, not consensual. So, yes I'm fine with you not alerting me. I have a watchlist to see what happened after the fact.

It is also courtesy to give a new stub a chance before redirecting it or speedy tagging it.

You wrote in the edit summary: "an earthquake occurred on Y with a magnitude of X" is not a viable encyclopaedia article"

2011 Miyagi earthquake

April 7th: [1]

and four days later:

April 11th: [2]

I'm delighted that nobody came along and redirected it without any discussion five minutes after it was created. Please consider slowing down a bit and discussing things first. This has been a huge, and avoidable waste of keystrokes. I will not challenge your action any further. It's not worth the hassle or the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. It became obvious quite quickly after the April 7 quake that there had been considerable damage and casualties, so it probably would have survived at AFD or been recreated had it been redirected. Like I said, there's still no indication of that with today's quake. If something develops, then yeah, I'd welcome the article being restored to whatever title (although people who search for "Fukushima earthquake" might expect it to be about March's quake due to the reactor troubles, even though that's inaccurate). StrPby (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of my point. It was first redirected 22 minutes after being created, which was about 20 minutes after the quake happened (I think). I feel that editors should slow down before redirecting or speedying an article, especially quakes, where information about consequences rolls in for days afterwards. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this article? http://earthquake-report.com/2011/04/11/m7-1-shallow-aftershock-in-japan/ I think you undid a previous edit to the after shock page. you said non RS? doesnt tally with current article cite anywayas the reason for the reversion. I don't know what you meant. Is the article not trustworthy? I thought another 4 people were found dead from the 6.6, I just need clarification. Will you let me know? Tman7776 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The link povided doesn't, on first glance, appear to constitute a reliable source. If the additional deaths are reported in a RS (any major news outlet), then the update should be made to the article along with a link to the new reference, not the existing Asashi one. StrPby (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of 1982 Asian Games medal table

I've tried to answer all your queries, please take a look; and thanks a lot for your suggestions. Bill william compton^Talk 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Strange Passerby, Anna Frodesiak has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Giro FLC

Hey, just to let you know I've addressed all your comments, so whenever you've got a spare moment I'd appreciate it if you'd have a another look at the list. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Spurious data on userpages - I changed my mind

I wrote: "a more useful alternative might be for someone to politely explain what these icons are customarily used to indicate on a userpage, and ask him to make some changes".

I changed my mind because:

1. A similar but arguably much more misleading type of silliness is at User talk:GiacomoReturned and is just seen as an amusing joke once people "get" the joke
2. Communication with Rcprinter123 seems not to be the easiest of tasks, and in any case he is likely to be overloaded with instructions/advice/ban notifications/arguments in the next 24 hours, so this is really not a priority --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis

I've been careful not to touch anything related to the content dispute while editing through the lock, which is entirely appropriate according to the policy. However, since you raised this up, I'll stop editing the article altogether until the lock expires. (PS: I understand what you mean by "not kosher", however as a Christian I don't approve your metaphorical use of this phrase.) --Deryck C. 23:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief of the Defence Force

You are removing correct content. TJD Campbell was a Teacher seconded to the Ministry of Interior and Defence. Vij was fromthe civil service and the finance ministry. Deputy CGS was the same as in carge of the army as well as second in command of the armed force. Go look thorugh the ST archives. I've enough of you reverting correct information. Adn since you are based in Singapore, you can virw all the articles in the National Library. Don't rly on just MINDEF articles and don't Singaporeanise the page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)