User:Zzyzx11/Archive26

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Deletion of Shanay Thompson

The material was not copyrighted, there is nothing on the website which would even suggest it was copyrighted. The same exact information appears on her FB fan page which was sighted in the article. Therefore, the information is not copyrighted material, but rather information freely availaible in the public. Additionally, I have permission of Shanay Thompson who was the author of the information to put that up on the wiki page about her. Please let me know next steps to get the page restored. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedajdmba (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port

I am surprised that you moved my entry regarding the Battle of Grand Port from 28th August to 27th August. The date that the fighting ended is not significant. The much more significant event is that the French accepted the surrender of a British Navy fleet, as this was the ONLY occasion that this happened in the Napoleonic Wars. It is so significant that this event is the only naval battle commemorated on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The French feel very proud of this event and it was a great humiliation for the British. The surrender was accepted on the morning of the 28th August as is stated in the Battle of Grand Port - see the British Surrender and Aftermath sections on that page. Also it is more important to point to the Battle rather than to the Grand Port District.

Today (28th Aug 2010) is the 200th Anniversary of the only occassion during the Napoleonic Wars that a British Fleet surrendered to the French. It is this date which is important, not that a sea battle finished. There were plenty of sea battles between the French and the British which ended - that is not a very important fact. I would be grateful if you would re-instate my original entry on the Anniversary page. Murfas (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect a template?

Four years ago, you semiprotected {{Orange County, California}} due to edit warring. Since the issue is long dead, would you mind if I unprotected it? If you reply here, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've unprotected it. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ross Perot Jr.

You deleted the article Ross Perot Jr. with the summary as "Subject is the son of a famous person, but other than that, no importance or significance is established; precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scout Willis". However, he is one of the two men to fly the first helicopter around the world, so I think notabilty can be established. I obviously can't read the article now, but that was in the article, IIRC. Can you please restore the page, and allow me to try to address the issue of notability there? You can still AFD the article if you disagree, but I would like to see a consensus to delete it. As you are semi-retired, I will also pursue a deletion review in case you aren't able to respond quickly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! There is acually another article at Ross Perot, Jr. (note the comma) in the title - that's the article I saw today. It looks like it did exist when you deleted the other article 5 years ago - forgive me for not noticing the year! So now my question is, which title is correct? The one with or without the comma? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article I deleted five years ago was just one sentence that just basically said he was a child of Ross Perot, period – no other facts. To avoid further confusion, I see you have put a redirect in that spot pointing to the current Ross Perot, Jr. page (with the comma). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have paid more attention to the comma, but at lest it's sorted out now. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As for your other question, WP:NCP#Senior and Junior says the comma is the preferred format. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jimbos Angels.jpg

File:Jimbos Angels.jpg

I have to say that that is one of the funnier images I've seen in a while, kudos : ) - jc37 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Forgot to post it here on Wikipedia after I originally uploaded to Commons back in April. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

unorthodox removal of images

i know you consider yourself semi-retired, but i also know that you have a certain enviable cool-headedness that's somewhat rare. would you mind taking a look at this and giving your input before things go pear shaped. --emerson7 03:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unfortunately another issue as to why I am semi-retired is that I have been involved in way too many edit disputes on various articles regarding the application of WP:Galleries: "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". And also observing too many similar conflicts like that, where one party suddenly decides to cut their losses and just remove completely everything from the page that they added to that article previously. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics in Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon

Hi. I see you recently added automatic italicization to {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}}. I assume you haven't read the talk page of that template since you didn't comment there. Please note that current WP:MOS guidelines say to not apply italics to the title of short films, but rather quotes. On the other hand, current practice seems to be to use italics. I just raised this discrepancy at WT:MOS#Short films: italics or quotes?. Feel free to join in the discussion there. We need to decide this properly, and either change the infobox or change the guideline. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not reading this prior discussion before making my edit. Thus, I have reverted myself. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to notify you of the discussion in a neutral way to avoid claims of WP:CANVAS. Cheers. --Mepolypse (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Clue

Hi, I realized after my edit to Clue that my summary may have come off as a little terse/harsh, especially since I hadn't realized I was undoing something someone had added only a couple of hours before, so I thought I'd explain why -- it looked like it was going against a couple of the guidelines in WP:DDD: no dictionary definitions and no pipes on entry names. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. In the future, it is always helpful to actually enter the link to the relevant policy/guideline page that your applying into the edit summary. Because even me, 5+ year veteran editor and admin, cannot remember every single guideline or policy at a given time. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent advice -- thanks! --NapoliRoma (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010–11 NFL playoffs and the Falcons

Since the Falcons are up by four touchdowns with under seven minutes left, I was wondering whether I could go ahead and edit the Falcons into the one seed and the Bears and Saints into the second and fifth slots, or whether I should wait until the game is official to plug them in. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that several IPs are beating you to the punch. I'm not inclined to revert them, even though the results are not official yet... takes too much energy to revert unless they are protected, which would only last a few minutes for the "issue to resolve itself" anyway .... Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Thanks anyway for your time. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ryan move request

Hi, I believe I have addressed your concern at Talk:Paul Ryan (politician)#Requested move. If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look and seeing if you still oppose the move? Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Invitation to edit

Sorry, I didn't fully read WP:ITE to notice that the trial was only limited to 20 specific articles. Feel free to revert my edits. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is generally a good idea. In this case, the appropriate wording is probably: "Due to heavy editing, you may or may not be able to edit this article." ;-) Cs32en Talk to me 04:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Newcarrara.jpg

I notice the image File:Newcarrara.jpg has been removed once again this time by yourself. You are obviously unaware that there has already been a discussion about this image in early-mid January on wikipedia and after taking it to WP:FFD no one disputed against the image remaining under non-free fair use rationale until the stadium's construction is completed. Barclays Center is another example on wikipedia of a non-free architectual image of a stadium (under construction) being allowed under fair use rationale. There's nothing wrong with using a non-free image under fair-use in any of these cases and there was no justification to delete the image of the architectual design of the new Carrara stadium. Mtiges (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why did nobody even bother to add {{Non-free use rationale}} or an equivalent rationale description to the image page to satisfy WP:NFCC rule 10c? This is the primary reason why I deleted it – Missing non-free use rationale. Just using {{Non-free fair use in}} is NOT a sufficient claim of fair use in order to satisfy rule 10C because by itself it does not give a clear fair-use rationale explantation, nor is using {{Information}}. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the admin who closed that FFD discussion remarked, "Image does, however, lack a proper license tag and fair use rationale and will be tagged for those problems shortly, and so it's not out of the woods yet" (emphasis added). Again, nobody ever bothered to write a detailed fair use rationale like File:BacrlaysCenter.png#Fair Use. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the image did have a FUR crediting the original source when I uploaded it originally.

Original source and owner of image: Watpac Limited - http://www.watpac.com.au/ Original location of image: http://www.watpac.com.au/skins/WatPac/Images/Projects/GCS_ariel_140410.JPG It is not replaceable with a free equivalent image as the stadium in under construction and there's no public access. [the first mod (not you) had issue with this despite not living in Australia].

I wasn't on wikipedia from prior to Australia Day (Jan 26) until I contacted you a day or so ago so I have no idea why or when the FUR went missing. As it was taken to FFD for discussion by the suggestion of the mod who deleted it the first time I had left it in the hands of the mods as the page said not to edit mod comments. This whole episode has gone for a month which is kind of ridiculous for the sake of one image that shouldn't have been removed in the first place because the first mod misunderstood the law. Mtiges (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll compromise. I'll undelete the image and reset the clock on the deletion tag. You'll have another week to properly add {{Non-free use rationale}} or whatever detailed equivalent on File:Newcarrara.jpg. It should not be my place or any other mod to add it ourselves because we may not know all the correct and accurate details about the image like you, the uploader, should know about. If someone has a question about the image or a particular edit, they can easily trace it back to you, who's more an expert on the image's details, instead of me. Or to put it another way: if I make the edits, I'll probably be the first (and most often) the only user to be notified if somebody tags it for deletion in the future, and I'll not have the same desire to keep it as you would. Been through too many discussions trying to defend my fair use image rationales under the subjective WP:NFCC rule #8. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Zzyzx11. If there's anything further I need to add to the fur just let me know here. Mtiges (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's fine for me. Just be prepared that you might encounter those who may be stricter in enforcing the subjective WP:NFCC rule #8 than I would. But if you based it off of another established image like the Barclays Center one, you'd be fine. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Olympic venues

Thanks for your help on this so far. Really appreciated it. Chris (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Can I get a response at Talk:2011_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#.7B.7Bcbb_link.7D.7D.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

United States (of America) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States (of America). Since you had some involvement with the United States (of America) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Final four pairings

In this edit, you wrote:

The winners of each region advance to the Final Four, where the national semifinals are played on Saturday and the national championship is played on Monday. Before the 2004 tournament, the pairings for the semifinals were based on an annual rotation. Since 2004 and the institution of the pod system, the pairings are determined by the ranking of the four top seeds against each other.

This was removed today by an editor claiming that this is not true. I have no idea which of you is correct, but if you have a source for this "reseeding" of the Final Four, I would appreciate seeing it so that I could repair the article. Thanks. 98.82.216.176 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed the timestamp on that edit, apparently that section has not been updated in at least five years. It was true in 2006, but probably not the case since then. There is no point in restoring content and a citation that probably no longer applies in 2011. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course I noted the time stamp of the edit. I had to go back through five years of difs to find who put the info in there in the first place! How'd you think I came to your talk page? :-)

I have instead decided to do a partial revert and cite the current 2011 Final Four as a recent example. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your good labors. Cheers to you as well, Oh Unpronounceable One. 98.82.216.176 (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Meadow Lake, Nevada County, California

Hi Zzyzx, thanks for the redirect. I've done enough of these that I should know the naming convention but apparently forgot this time. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The CBS Corporation

The CBS Corporation includes the word "the." If you might change it again, I'll have you blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsunnygirl (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

El Juego De Tres De Los Siete

Looks like this hoax got a little bit of notice in this blog [1]. Marcus Qwertyus 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually where I first noticed it before I deleted it, and did make a reference to it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Juego De Tres De Los Siete. If the Detroit Red Wings had actually lost that game yesterday, my deletion comments would have been slightly a little different (Hockey fans and players are a bit of a superstitious bunch with talk of "Hockey Gods", the Stanley Cup, and so forth. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Chill

Will you calm yourself? Your attempt to "fix" the article created the impression that Washington was the only one who really had a problem with parties, whereas on balance, the Founders at the time of Independence and adopting the Constitution were not friendly toward parties. At the time you took out the information, I was not in the mood to go source hunting, but that didn't mean the information should go—especially when it is what every American schoolchild is taught in social studies. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for this incident. I have no excuse other than sometimes I get caught up on issues on the Reliability of Wikipedia, plus the fact that also at the time I forgot about those other sources. As an average American, IMO it just goes to show how the education system in U.S. sucks compared to other countries, as something that "every American schoolchild is taught in social studies" may not be quickly and accurately recalled when you are older. Again, sorry. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I was snarky. I was surprised that you were reacting like that (you aren't one of the editors I've come to expect it from), and perhaps didn't react as well as I could have done. -Rrius (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Touche. I guess we both wished we acted differently. Happy editing! Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts Environmental Police

Not sure how familiar you are with copyrights but the content on the above page and at the .gov website is not copyrighted. It's public property and doesn't qualify for G12. OlYeller^Talktome 14:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because its "public property", not all government web sites are public domain or free content that can be cut and pasted onto Wikipedia. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2utilities&L=1&sid=massgov2&U=utility_policy_terms states that content on their web sites are copyrighted, and says,

"With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than 'fair use' under the Copyright Act. 'Fair use' includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities

Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, that same page states that "The only part of this website to which the copyright rules stated above do not apply is on social media pages that receive comment." The only .gov web sites that I know that clearly state that all content is public domain or free content are those of the U.S. Federal Government. Most states' web sites like MA are copyrighted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have restarted the article as a stub. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you looked into it more deeply than I did. I looked around but didn't find those comments. I thought the state contact worked liked Federal Government. I'm going to reword it so that there's no issue with copyright in the future. OlYeller^Talktome 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Roger Hargreaves

Hello. I have a couple of issues with your and Killiondude's semi-protection of Roger Hargreaves.

Hargreaves is not a living person, ao the rationale you stated makes no sense
The talk page has also been semi-protected

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.80.246 (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The rationale should have been "heavy vandalism", not BLP. Checking the page history, from 21:04, 8 May 2011 UTC until semi-protection was applied, the page was heavily attacked by numerous IP vandals. Per a post on the requests for page protection (see archived edit), one reason why this page attracted vandals was because it was featured and linked from the Google Doodle, the altered Google web site logo for that day. As soon as we protected the main article, all the vandals moved to the talk page (see that page's history). Then after we protected that talk page, these vandals then moved one to the related Mr. Men, List of Mr. Men and List of Little Miss characters articles, and they all were eventually semi-protected as well. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals template

The way the template was sent up by year is the ideal choice. There's no need to have a pre- and post-challenge era sections. The links were made like for 1906 Stanley Cup championship (not Finals) on purpose to write about any challenges that occurred during that time. We do not need January and March 1906 links (which are incorrect); both should be on the 1906 Stanley Cup championship article. Specially since the Stanley Cup was awarded four times in 1906: Ottawa HC on February 28 and March 8, and the Montreal Wanderers on March 17 and December 29. If you want, separate the eras into Challenge era (1893-1913) and Stanley Cup Finals era (since 1914). Jmj713 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and separated the template into two eras, Challenge Cup and Stanley Cup, as that's how we have our Stanley Cup list set up. Jmj713 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll agree to that compromise. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Forthcoming OTD candidate

I asked a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries about the possible appearance of the Hawkhurst Branch Line article (a GA) on OTD on one of three days. Either June 10, 11 or 12, as the 50th anniversary of last service train / last passenger train / date of closure. Art la Pella suggested that I ask you about this one. Is WP:OTD listing criteria #3 compulsory? It seems a bit of an overkill to list the article against all 3 dates - it says should, not must, so maybe WP:IAR can be applied. I'm not trying to get this as a regular candidate for inclusion in subsequent years. Although pre-Beeching, there are many lines that closed during the Beeching Axe, and their 50th anniversary will be approaching in years to come. How do I get this one on OTD? Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been active in maintaining OTD since September 2010 due to various conflicts and disagreements, and other reasons. Nowadays, User:Howcheng seems to doing most of the work. Probably best to ask that admin. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers and Winnipeg

The following are some of the articles that are OR have been semi-protected by me and other admins. There have been repeated changes on those pages based on unconfirmed reports regarding the Atlanta Thrashers sale and possible relocation to Winnipeg. No official announcement has been made yet as of today. And still, IPs have been changing these articles as if a deal has already been made public and official.

Atlanta Thrashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
National Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MTS Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Winnipeg Jets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome (actually this list was only intended for myself :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had come here to thank you anyway, whether the leist had been here or not! :) You saved me from having to find an admin to protect the pages. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: You may ask other admins, but I myself am not willing to unprotect them until the league owners vote to approve the sale on June 21. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Saraswati veena

Admin.: there are 3 articIes of the same musical instrument: saraswati veena, tanjore veena and veenai. It would be optimum to merge these articles into one. --Opus88888 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Merging. Admin intervention is generally not needed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nellis Air Force Base

Thank you for moving the page I was writing on the Nellis AFB page. I was, however, hoping to leave it on the "AFB" page until I was finished writing it. The old main page was so convoluted and confusing, and I just wanted to re-write the entire article from scratch, and move some pertinent parts of the old main page into the new one before moving it.

Not a problem, as I can go back in the history and retrieve some of the old material, just surprised that someone noticed it, as I had just started the rewrite a few hours ago. Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it because I was looking at Special:RecentChanges when you made your most recent edit. And the primary reason why I did perform the page move was because it was already up to the point where your "draft" was looking like a reasonable article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NYJets1978.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NYJets1978.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rivanna (CDP), Virginia

Thanks, I had no idea what a CDP was let alone that it was in the naming conventions.--v/r - T P 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A census-designated place is really only found in the United States. A community that does not have its own separate city, town or village government and only "exists" for statistical purposes by the United States Census Bureau. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tennessee Titans helmet rightface.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tennessee Titans helmet rightface.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in Stanley Cup Finals articles

Hey there. I just wanted to pop by and explain a little more in depth my removal of the quotes from the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals article. This isn't a case of my not wanting them in there, but rather a simple case of policy trumping their placement in the article. I misinterpreted which WP:NOT heading this falls under in my edit description, but it is there. Please refer to the first point of WP:DIRECTORY within the What Wikipedia is not policy. Wikipedia is not..."Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations...If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote". Further, the essay WP:QUOTE in its WP:LONGQUOTE section adds "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section". I also mentioned how this was briefly discussed at 1994 Stanley Cup Finals. In each of the talk archives, there is a mention, and at the end of the day, the section was removed. I just wanted to bring this policy to your attention so I don't ultimately get reverted when I remove them from the other articles. I certainly am not looking for an edit war, but rather simply to follow policy. Perhaps one or two of these could be written into the prose of the article? But that's a whole other story. Cheers. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As long there is consistency and consensus on all the Stanley Cup Finals articles, that is acceptable. That was my only goal. To be honest, as I implied on my edit summary, the blowout in Game 7 resulted in, IMO, less than memorable and notable quotes by the play-by-play commentators anyway. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics portal featured article symbol

I've commented in the discussion about the mathematics portal featured article symbol here, and raised the issue separately here. Would you be able to comment? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

[2]. I must have been totally asleep. Mocctur (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I originally thought I was reverting vandalism when I made to correction. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Circle7logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Circle7logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Has been converted to SVG - File:Circle7logo.svg. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

nrhp and embedded

I noticed that you have made |embedded= an alias for |nrhp= in a number of Infobox templates. It is not clear to me what "embedded" has to do with the National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps you could explain (or point me to where this addition has been discussed). Please respond here. HairyWombat 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with National Register of Historic Places per se. It has to do with embedding another infobox instead of {{Infobox NRHP}}. Not every article is an American subject, you know. So there should be a more generic name. Is that helpful? Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I also should mention I have been in the process of embedding a new template called {{designation list}}, which was prompted by a discussion on Template talk:Infobox building#Additional Designations & Fields. {{Infobox Historic building}} was merged into it, and a couple of users wanted to add the same Designation data as {{Infobox Historic Site}}. So I created this other template to embed into others. Again, not every designation around the world is an American one or "NRHP", so a more generic parameter name should be there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the generic name "embedded" was actually copied from {{Infobox protected area}}. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit to Infobox park

Sorry I missed your edit of Infobox park. I agree that the parameter name nrhp was inadequate. I was trying to come up with a name that might become standardized. Yours is as good as any. No reply is necessary. –droll [chat] 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Date-autoformatting

Please note that DA is no longer used on the English WP, after overwhelming consensus was shown in several RfCs—two of them huge, in 2009. Just because a facility has not been disabled does not mean it should be used, against consensus. I can provide many other examples of funcations that are not used but still exist in potential. Tony (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd category on your userpage

Did you know that your userpage is in Category:Wikipedia disclaimers? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue has been fixed. Thanks. [3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 710

The documentation says this: Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute. I haven't seen any ongoing dialogue for awhile on the talk page, so that's why I removed it. Could you enumerate your concerns about the POV-ness of that section? hbdragon88 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the page history. Your removal of that particular tag was reverted on 13 July.[4] My edit only involved moving it to the relevant subsection.[5] Thus, any concerns should be forwarded to the original user who reverted your removal of that tag, User:Rschen7754 Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it appears that on 15 July, an entirely different user has, in fact, posted a concern at Talk:Interstate 710#Neutrality of the Future Section too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Carmageddon-related hatnote(s)

Just my thought on this:

Although I fully understand all the various reasons you listed for yoinking the Carmageddon / Carpocalypse hatnotes pointing back to the I-405 work this weekend, and I fully grok why these are concerns that should be considered in maintaining WP... I think that it should still be taken into consideration that these hatnotes, at least in July 2011, actually help readers.

I'm basing this on one data point: me.

I was interested in learning more about just why the work was being done, what it entailed, and what the replacement plans for the bridge being demolished were. I had one primary research datum: the word "Carmageddon."

Earlier today, I was able to use that word to find my way to the relevant article. Tonight, I would not be able to do that, or certainly not easily.

...and of course I feel mildly guilty about the hatnotes vanishing, since I suspect they'd still be there if I hadn't edited them. (But I could be wrong.)

Chalk this up as one vote for restoring the hatnotes, at least for now. If they don't stand the neologistic test of time, no great harm done, and they can then be deleted. But I think WP is more useful today, at least in the short term, with them in place.

Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First, edits should not be made solely for the benefit of one reader (One user does not make a consensus). Second, yes, I'll admit that I may have been a little too quick of immediately enacting the "ten-year test" less than 48-72 hours after the event. And since it is still in the news, it is most likely that someone else will restore it during the rest of this week. However, as it stands, it is specifically referred to as a neologism per one of the cited sources,[6] and unless significant coverage continues into next month, I will eventually remove it per the reasons I cited. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I certainly wasn't suggesting that my one data point was enough alone to make my case; I was more pointing out that I had personally experienced this as a plausible use case during the period immediately following the event. (And someone just made a similar comment on the Carmageddon talk page -- a doubling of our statistical sample!)

I think of this as being roughly equivalent to adding a {{Current}} tag to a page, in that they are both (probably) temporally limited, but valuable nonetheless to readers for some period of time.

Based on this, I'll revert (hope I've interpreted this discussion appropriately) -- and set a calendar appointment to revisit on August 19. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Designation list

Bravo. One of the best ideas ever on WP, I think. No need to create a new infobox for every situation, just embed them! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you. I assume you read my reason for creating that template at Template talk:Designation list. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Now how come it doesn't seem to work well at Dunvegan Provincial Park or Powerscourt Covered Bridge. Am I using it wrong? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The parameter embed must be set to "yes" to enable the embedding infobox feature.
Apparently neither National Monuments of Quebec nor Provincial Historic Sites of Alberta are supported designations on the master list, Template:Designation (which is used to help render such colour/text on Designation list and several other similar templates). My assumption would be that neither would pass the requirements because there are only a handful of articles on each.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cologne Cathedral

Zizzy, you are quite unbelievably clever, and don't you ever let anyone say otherwise! Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

	Archives 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34
Current time: Thursday, November 21, 2024, 17:14 (UTC) Last edit: March 15, 2023, 04:54 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)