User talk:EconomicsGuy/Dalric

I looked at your TO-DO list and here are my suggestions/advice:

1) You will definately want WP:TWINKLE if you want to do NP patrol and fight vandalism. Most vandalism is pretty straight forward to detect and revert. Twinkle makes it easy to warn the user as well. Expect to be making some mistakes though - everyone does that. The important thing is to apologize politely and most people will understand. You need to make fast decisions and well... sometimes what looked like vandalism might not have been. If that happens you just revert yourself with a brief explanation in the edit summary.

I've done quite a bit of NP patrol and still does on occasion. Like fighting vandalism you need to make quick decisions but try not to decide too fast. Read WP:CSD if you haven't already done so. What I do is look for reliable sources and signs of spammy sections in the article. If there are reliable sources in the article, such as the one you mistakenly tagged for speedy deletion, it is highly unlikely that the article will be speedy deleted. What you want to look for are signs that the subject of the article is notable. You do this by looking for non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. If there are no such sources and a quick search on Google doesn't return any such sources tag it for speedy deletion. Beware though - some people, especially serial spammers, are very persistent and you will need to deal with some abusive language from them from time to time. See it as a sign that you are doing the right thing but be careful not to be too persistent if the article is only a borderline speedy deletion candidate. Assume good faith if the creator of the article simply misunderstands what notability is. There is always Articles for deletion if you feel that the article needs a fair chance or you are unsure about what to do.

2) Twinkle is an excellent place to start. I know there are some templates that you can put on your user page or whereever you want them to remind you of the tags etc. to use as well and I'll go look for them shortly and post the links here.

3) As far as building a user page just go for it. You can always copy and adapt what others have done to get started. I'll look for some links to references for the table syntax as it isn't straight forward to figure out.

4) Copyediting is a good way to get started. Read The manual of style and start with the most simple things. Also, you should read WP:V and either reference the article yourself or tag it. If you tag it or make make major changes to the article make sure that you leave a note on the talk page so that others will understand what the problem is.

5) Creating an article isn't hard - the hard part is creating one that won't be deleted shortly afterwards. Once you have patrolled some more new pages you will soon learn what works and what doesn't. Consider creating something like User:Dalric/Sandbox and work on it from there until you are confident that the article is good enough to be created. That will save you a lot of disappointment.

I hope this gave you some ideas and things to get started with. Just ask if I left something out and don't hesitate do refer to me if you get into trouble on NP patrol! Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byron williams

Hmm. There are quite a few things wrong with that page, but I can't pin it down to a policy, and I don't want to bite. Advice? --Dalric (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First of all it isn't referenced so that's WP:V. Second, the article does not clarify why this person is important. It discusses him within the framework of the movie but we need some references to see that this person/character should be important. I suggest a {{db-bio}} tag and a notice on the creator's talk page. Also, you can see from the log page of the article (History->View logs for this page) that it has already been deleted once as a copyvio. That's an immediate red flag right there. This may or may not be a good faith recreation but most often it is an attempt to recreate the exact same article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and was deleted. Thanks :) --Dalric (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Determination puzzle

I left a note on the talk page there. Does this warrant an "unreferenced" tag, oder something else? Thanks, Dalric (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That one definately needs an unreferenced tag. It should have one source at least, preferrably 2 sources to prove notability. You're also right about the Google results. Although Google isn't always right about these things unless you dig a little deeper as you can see here that really isn't a lot. This might be a good time for you to look at Wikipedia:No original research. Tag it as unreferenced and then see what happens. If no improvement is made in a week or two and the article isn't expanded consider nominating it for deletion. I won't be home most of the day today but I'll find those reference templates tonight and the references to the table syntax as promised above. I had a look at your contributions and you are doing very well!! Cheers, EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and reference to table syntax

Hi! I have a small list of useful references for you

Syntax for tables. It's rather long and not easy but there it is. I usually just copy something that looks like what I want and then change it. That way I don't have to understand the whole thing.

I took a look at your edits and you are doing very well!! Do you have any questions about the No original research policy I pointed out above? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for praise and references! :) Regarding WP:NOR, I read the policy, and it's quite clear, but it will take me some time and some rereads to apply it correctly in all cases. I now inflict my new signature on you. Couldn't help it, I'm a Linux aficionado :) -- /home/dalric/talk 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool signature!! That's okay, as long as you remember the overall idea of the policy you should be able to tell the difference between what is simply unreferenced and what is original research. Articles that are original research are usually nominated for deletion on Articles for Deletion but in most cases it is a good idea to tag it first and wait a few days to see if anyone responds. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging talk pages multiple times

Hi! I just looked over your edits. You are doing very well still and congrats on having had your first encounter with a vandal! That shows you are doing the right thing!

I also saw that TWINKLE had tagged the same user talk page multiple times with speedy deletion notices. Of course, this happens automatically but you should consider manually grouping them together afterwards. Your manual message to him combined with a list of the articles in question would have been enough. Posting this many messages at once may upset the user who may not have been aware that the articles weren't sufficiently distinct from those already present on the Italian Wiki. In other words, even though you may be right, tagging that many times may backfire as the reviewing admin may consider that to be more disruptive than the intial problem. Go back when you have used TWINKLE to tag multiple times and group them together - the user will appreciate it and you won't have to deal with any copmplaints about it.

Good job on being persistent about the maintenance tags!

As for most of the speedy nominations being overturned well... there is WP:MUSIC which isn't a speedy criteria but does say that individual albums must satisfy notability criteria individually. The reviewing admin added a bit of info instead to improve them slightly and kept them. I would disagree with that decision but you can't win everytime ;). EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the polite reminder, I didn't realize just how much text was added to the user talk page. Cleaned up after myself now. :) About the kept album stubs, I really don't mind. They got their WP:ALBUM tag, which can only lead to improvement sometime, and I learned about yet another WikiProject. ^^

I'll keep Rahimafrooz as a pet project, where I can gradually apply what I learn, or watch what others do with it. The fact that it sounds like something straight from the HHGG has absolutely nothing to do with it, I swear :)

In other news, I'll be moving on Jan 2nd. If past experience is any indicator of future results, I'll be without net access for about two weeks afterwards. Let's see how much time I can devote to the 'pedia until then. -- /home/dalric/talk 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle trouble

Twinkle continues to "forget" closing link brackets. I need to manually check each and every revert and warning I perform, and I'm starting to tire of this. Is there any other script I could use for the same purpose? -- /home/dalric/talk 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that looks bad. I honestly don't know because when Twinkle came out everyone started using that. I think you either have to wait for the bugfix (sounds like a bug in Twinkle to me too rather than a bug in Opera) or switch to Firefox for Wikipedia editing until the bug is fixed. You can patrol new pages without Twinkle (as you already know) but vandal figting is rather hard without Twinkle so I really hope that bug gets fixed. There is Lupin's tool here which I've used myself but beware that you will need to manually insert the warnings (or at least you did when I used it) so I don't know how much of an improvement that would be.

In reply to your previous message good job fixing that talk page thing! It's okay that you won't be online - real life comes first! I hope everything turns out well. I know from recent experience how much work moving can be!

My Christmas vacation starts today (only 8 hours to go!) so I may or may not be online reguarly. If last year is anything to go by though I won't be able to stay away for very long periods of time though! You're still doing great. This adoption thing is very easy with adoptees like you because you seem to figure it all out yourself so I just have to check your edits (I don't go through all of them - I watchlist your talk page and look for signs of trouble on your recent contributions) and be there if you need me. If you want me to be more involved or go through any policies with you just ask! I try not to get in your way and I hope that's okay with you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped some hoops and am editing with Firefox at the moment. Let's see if this bug gets fixed. Instead, I kidnapped some lines of Lupin's code for personal use :)

I get written work assignments on a regular basis, and I could only hope to have them as precise and exhaustive as the policies and guidelines around here. Still, you're an invaluable resource for me, as the things I asked for would have cost me hours and hours of digging. So, I am very happy with our current arrangement. Have a nice vacation, and see you around :) -- /home/dalric/talk 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In parting, I play a game of wrecking ball

I have AfDed Determination puzzle and ~~bombed Rahimafrooz back into the bronze age~~ removed parts I considered unfit for inclusion. My hardware will be dismantled for shipping this evening, and I highly doubt the creator will play by the rules here.

Also there is this image. I think it's next to impossible that the uploader owns the copyright to the logo, thus acting on behalf of the business, AND still wishes to release it into the public domain. But, and that's why I didn't speedy it as a copyvio, would it be possible to crop the image down to the actual logo and use it in that resolution under fair use? Maybe in a companybox, if such a template exists.

I hope you're still reading this in time for me wishing you a relaxing wikibreak, Guten Rutsch, and a happy new year :) -- /home/dalric/talk 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! About the image it is a composite work of copyrighted material. It also happens to be orphaned. I'll look into it but the logo could be used on the company article as fair use. The PD tag needs to go and be replaced with a valid fair use rationale template. You did the right thing with Determination puzzle. I should be careful not to comment on the AfD as it may seem that I've been canvassed but you are absolutely right. I'll keep an eye on it.

I'll be on wikibreak or at least operating on a lower level than usual while you are moving. I along with a few other people here were thoroughly fooled by a kid who basically messed with Wikipedia for about a month and also a good friend quit the project so I'll need a bit of time off but I'll be back. Have a fantastic new year and good luck with the moving! I very much look forward to seeing us both back here! Cheers EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the PD tag with the correct license and removed the invalid fair-use rationale template. The template to use is {{logo fur}} but the image must be cropped and actually used in the article first. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]