User talk:AaronY/Archive 7

Orphaned non-free image File:Spielberg Minority Report.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Spielberg Minority Report.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best wishes for 2011 and thanks for your help in 2010.

In my latest article, Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense, I specifically included a statement and image for use in a DYK submission. It is my longest article yet and you will see I have made good use of Google Scholar as you recommended. That's fine for recent research but less so for more general information on matters researched before the Internet age. I also found, when I had nearly finished the article, that there was an existing article Panama disease which deals with some of the same material. I left a note on the discussion page of the latter, but is there a better way of dealing with overlapping articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi there, thought I would ask you a question about reliable/primary sources. For the Howard Stern article (and other Stern-related articles for that matter), can we source from his Private Parts (1993) and Miss America (1995) books? I was confused what was meant in Wikipedia:SPS. The books are used for facts/dates in his career, etc. Thanks LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Enabled e-mail

I have enabled my email address to Wiki now. Thanks for the reply. I do use Google News Archives as my main source of information. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

References to use

I can research Minority Report (film) a little deeper when I have some free time and if you want me to. The two I listed were found while I was researching other films. Let me know! (As an example of the kind of research I can do, see Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/references and Talk:Batman Begins/references.) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Listed what I found this morning; hope it's not too overwhelming! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

Here you reverted my implementation of citation templates, because of an obvious misconception of yours. Those templates, any of them, do not produces "needless code" as you called it. They produce a so-called "Z3988" ContextObject, which essentially is machine-readable bibliography information, and helpfull for a number of citation tools, like Zotero. And let's not forget they help establish a consistent citation style throughout Wikipedia. So please refrain from removing them. --bender235 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As you obviously aren't as familiar with the citation system or methods in place here as much as an experienced editor like myself is, that should prove helpful. Here are some selected quotes: "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it." "note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style" "as with other citation templates, these should not be added to articles without consensus." In here the bolding is done in the original, in other words I didn't add it: "Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That last part would refer to me btw. I've written FAs myself and worked on ones with others where citation templates were not used. SandyGeorgia is the lead FA delegate and wrote Tourette syndrome, one of our finest FAs without templates. She tought me the citation method I use and inserted into Michael Jordan when I (successfully) nominated that for FA status. An editor should not replace a perfectly fine system with templates because they personally prefer them. Many people still use dialup around the world and templates can increase the size of an article by 20% depending on citation density, also they clutter up the editing box with needless code which makes it difficult to edit articles. When I work on an article that another person has inserted templates in, even if I become the main editor (such as in Los Angeles Lakers and Minority Report (film)) I don't remove them even though I hate them. I certainly would never be brazen enough to insert my preferred style of citations into an article I have done little to no work on either.

As a short summary for you, templates are good for newbs or people who can't figure out the simple method shown here in my humble opinion. They're useless to anyone who has figured out cite php methods, and as for them becoming standard that will never happen. Its been discussed a million times and the consensus is what is written in WP:CITE.

On a side note, its kind of disturbing that someone such as yourself can be here this long and have never read WP:CITE. AaronY (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I know WP:CITE, and I know the "keep the original style in case of no consensus" rule of thumb. But nonetheless, I considered introducing citation templates to the article useful, and when you reverted it I thought there were some misconceptions on your side about what citation templates do, because you wrote something about "useless code". That's why I re-entered it.

I know there is no recommended citation style on Wikipedia, just the recommendation to have a consistent style (no matter how it looks) on one article. But why exactly don't you like the APA style the citation templates implement? Just because it isn't the one you introduced, or are there any advantages I don't see at the moment?

And again, explanation: the purpose of these templates is not ease the editing for new editors, but to produce a machine-readible citation for the reader.

BTW: just like you wonder if I knew WP:CITE, I wonder if you know WP:IMADEIT. --bender235 (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha I hardly "own" articles I just pointed to the guideline which stated that the style of the primary contributor is the one that would be implemented in the instance where there is no consensus. Since your only edits to that article are ones to insert your preferred method of citing references, I thought that was relevant. Let me give you an example of how I don't own articles; I am by far the main contributor on Minority Report but when Igordebrada, who also contributed a lot to that article, changed that one over to templates without asking me, I told him I was upset that he didn't consult with me first. But then because I don't own the article I didn't argue over with him and everything I've added since then (which is a shitload of information if you look at the article's history) I added using templates. If someone who wants to contribute more than just adding their preferred style of references to an article wants to change the citation format, I would be more okay with doing so. But when people come along and add nothing but their own idiosyncratic preferences to articles (and then throw a fit when the people who have to use that style change it back) its annoying. Imagine if I had the gall to go around removing templates because I don't like them? I would be crucified inside of two minutes. Also since you say you know the whole history of the templates versus manual references debate, do I really have to tell you the arguments against adding templates to an article? AaronY (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know "the debate". And also, I don't have a "preferred style of references". If anything, I have a preferrence for making Wikipedia accessible, for men and machines. For example, I usually replace DOBs in infoboxes with {{birth date}}. Now it seems like there's not much difference between "January 25, 2011" and "(2011-01-25)January 25, 2011", but a glimpse in the source code reveals that the second one features hidden, machine-readible data (in W3C standard date format). Its the same with all these citation templates. They not just produce a certain style of reference, but also a "Z3988" ContextObject.

And then again: why is your citation style ("Boyd, Herb, and Robinson, Ray II. Pound for Pound: A Biography of Sugar Ray Robinson, New York: HarperCollins, 2005 ISBN 0060188766") better than the other ("Boyd, Herb & Robinson, Ray II (2005). Pound for Pound: A Biography of Sugar Ray Robinson. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0060188766.")? Is it easier to understand, or what? Where are the advantages of this citation style? --bender235 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my questions any time soon, or is this debate over? --bender235 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to "debate" templates versus manual citation methods with you. The place to start a discussion for that I guess would be the talk page for WP:CITE. There you can start the 2000th discussion on the topic, and tell them you solved the debate. Also tell them how your preference isn't even a preference because its the "correct" way to do things. Be sure to mention the machines as well. AaronY (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you that you're unable to recognize the importance of accessibility and machine-readability. Anyway, good luck. —bender235 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jets

I think either The Writer 2.0 or myself did work on your comments, the only one that was not implemented was the Cimini comment re Thomas, which I've now taken out. I hope you will revisit your oppose. Did you have more comments on the article? You had said that your comments were preliminary and I hope we didn't slam the PR shut on your fingers. Thanks for your hard work.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that additional improvement is possible with the "with constructions". I will take care of that and get back to you shortly. Again, I am sorry I did not take more time with your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and eliminated a number of constructions which seemed to be what you were talking about. Could you take a look at the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have gone through the article and I think addressed your points. I mined your article on the Giants for a few points, and mentioned the Giants decline, their making the playoffs in 1981, the Super Bowl wins in 1986 and 2007 (I did not see an obvious way of tying in the 1990 win, which really had nothing to do with the Jets). I think the description of the Giants decline works especially well, and I steal the Mara quote (although, actually, Eskenazi also uses that quote). I think the article is um um ready to fly. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

---

{Help Me Please} Advertisement Message, and not being able to make Wikipedia page post to the search

Hello, I am designing a Wikipedia page for a large company, and keep getting a statement saying this is written like an advertisement, and demands a immediate re-write. However, nothing on my site is promotional in nature. I state the company history, officers, services offered (in an objective manner, NOT stating if they are good or bad, or why anyone should buy here), and professional memberships. Really, my Wikipedia page is like most any other company, but why will min not post to the open web? I tried searching and cannot find it. Jamesbuscaglio1 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for your kindness in awarding me the Fauna Barnstar - I am thoroughly enjoying working on wildlife related articles. You gave me a good start when I joined Wikipedia. At the moment I am also busy on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2011/February. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

With respect to this edit please keep in mind that effective communication of important messages is often aided by redundancy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Popups in Chrome

Hi, I saw that you had a problem with popups.js in Chrome 4. I just checked: the non-experimental popups gadget works fine in Chrome 12. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

NBA FA Drive

Hello AaronY, I want to inform you that there's a new discussion at WT:NBA about going to WP:FAC with the Lakers article. As a main contributor to that page, can you give your consent for User:Chrishmt0423 to nominate that article at WP:FAC? I see you are not as active right now, but I hope you're lurking around.--Cheetah (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mark Sanchez PR

If you have a moment, I would appreciate any feedback at PR for Mark Sanchez. Thank you! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Code Hollywood

Hi, I've reverted some, but not all, of the changes you made to my re-design of this article's layout, for these reasons:

• Only registered users can set thumbnail preferences, but the vast majority of the people who use Wikipedia are not registered, so relying on the thumbnail preferences to set pix size is not a good idea. I'm aware that somewhere in the MoS for images it probably still says to use thumbnail preferences, but actual practice does not follow the proscription any longer, which was a laudable, but badly-thought out, idea. As such, I have restored sizing to the couple of images you removed it from.

• The basic unit on Wikipedia is an article, not a section: we don't write and edit independent stand-alone sections, we (hopefully) write coherent articles which use sections to build up the information we want to present in some logical or reasonable way. As such, there's no reason that images must be kept inside the sections they pertain to. They certainly should be nearby, as close as possible, but starting an image before the beginning of a section helps to pull the article together visually, as the eye is drawn from the text above, to the image, and then to the next section which will elucidate and expand on the image. For this reason, I have restored one or two of the shifts you made to move an image down into the section proper, as I believe it is unnecessary, and visually uninteresting.

• The purpose of moving images from one side to the other is to create some visual interest as the reader moves down the article. There are many circumstances in which images cannot be put on the left -- because of bulleted lists, for instance, which don't render well with an image to their left -- but none of those circumstances is present in this article in the place where the pictures are located. I restored two images to the left side.

Otherwise, your changes were helpful to the look of the article, which is great. I am, of course, available to discuss any of these topics, or anything else about the article you'd like. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaron: I understand exactly how you feel about the article, I feel the same way about articles that I've labored over -- you can see more of my thoughts on the subject here. I will point out that I have the second largest number of edits to the article -- far less than you, of course, but they have all (to my recollection) dealt with improving the images used in the article and improving the layout -- as you can see from before I edited, and after my first set of contributions. This is something I do to many articles, and I think it has helped them, and the project in general. Clearly, your contribution to the article is much more significant thsn mine, but, on the other hand, images and layout are kind of my specialty. We're both experienced editors, so hopefully we can come to some amicable understanding between us, since I believe that we both want the same thing, what's best for the article.

What would you say is the major thing about my latest layout that bothers you? (Oh and, BTW, can you tell me browser you're using so I can see the article the way you're seeing it? Thanks.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't remove the Safe in Hell title card image (which I believe I added to the article), it was taken out in this edit. Thanks for restoring it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the Temple pic - it was merely the best of what was available on Commons. It would probably be worth a search for a higher-rez version of the one you had in there, which I thought was perfect, just too hard on the eyes. I'll try to remember to look around when I get home from work, but my memory these days is like a sieve, so no promises. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just beefed up the FUR for the Safe in Hell title card, so hopefully that'll dispel any fair-use concerns other editors may have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it's not generally considered necessary to cite something in the lede that's adequately cited elsewhere in the article, so that the section doesn't get crowded with footnotes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I found a better quality version of the Shirley Temple photo, so I returned it to the article with the original caption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So, I took a look at the article again, and I made one change: I moved the Safe in Hell title card image up a bit. It's still within the overall section, which I think is what you prefer, but it's just under the section title, so the block of whitespace created by having it level with the section's text is reduced. I hope that's OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)