I added a new job title, a new title for an organizational unit at NIST, and an internet movie database reference for Tim's television work, which was unreferenced. What precisely is wrong with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information added to the article of a living person is covered by the WP:BLP guidelines. These are very, very strict. If you want to change the article saying that he's changed jobs then you need to prove it. You need to use verifiable, third party references. No ifs, no buts; you've got to do it. What puzzles me is how you knew that IP user 129.6.180.141 made so many edits because of "inexperience with interface" and that you refer to the subject as "Tim". Just because you might know the other editor, or the subject of the article does not make you exempt from WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. Here's a hypothetical situation: Let's say "Tim" hasn't changed his job, but someome messing around changes his article to say that he has. That might get him into some trouble with his employer, and that will get Wikipedia into trouble with "Tim". Even if he's your best friend, your father, or your brother, it doesn't matter. I know there's a lot to take in, and I'm sorry for reading the riot act, but WP:BLP is a big deal.— Fly by Night(talk)00:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's a co-worker, and I made the edits and don't really know what I am doing. Ok, I'll try to find the links at the nist.gov web site with this information. But you also nuked my inclusion of the IMDb reference to his work on TV, so you are kind of being inconsistent. No refs is bad, including refs seems bad too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this reference? From the Internet Movie Database? It just lists some movies and sponsored links which, at best, simply make another series of unsubstantiated claims. If you need any help with the references, like including them or formatting them, then do please leave me a message and I'll be more than happy to help. Please believe me when I say that I don't want to stop you contributing; I just want it done properly. Things aren't so authoritarian in non-BLP article. Sorry to be so strong. — Fly by Night(talk)01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! If you copy and paste the following text right after the full-stop of the sentence you're using this reference to support then you'll be fine:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mse.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty-list.html|title=Materials Science and Engineering Faculty|author=University of Maryland|accessdate=December 1, 2010}}</ref>
It seems to have worked. If I may, given your frequency of edits overall and the rather hasty use of the word "vandalism" when it really was just "ignorance", perhaps it's time for a pint and a bit of relaxation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.217.183 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It did work, and I'm very pleased. That method of referencing will always work; just change the URL, the title, the author and the access date. But you'll need a reference section for it to appear at the bottom. If you do it and you get, after preview or save, lots of big red writing then there isn't already a references section. (There was on the article you just editied.) To add one, just do
== References ==
to give the article a bold subsection titled References, then type
{{reflist}}
right under it. The double curly bracket is a template. In this case the template is {{reflist}} and tells Wikipedia to compile all of the references into that nice, neat, clickable list at the bottom. Sorry for using the word vandalism. As I expressed above: I thought that you and 129.6.180.141 were the same editor. It seems that I was mistaken, and for that I apologise. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so I can see who left me the message, and when they left it. As for a pint... well, I could murder one. My round! — Fly by Night(talk)01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Basically, this was a collection of incomplete sentences with lack of punctuation and capitalization thrown in with no real assertion of notability. The entire content read as follows:
A singer songwriter from Las palmas/Grand Canaria. Has an album out titled Just give it a try. Mother of Miguel Ahmet from a london based sound engineer Sahan Satis
These are the sorts of things which get deleted on a regular basis in regards to non-notable artists. There's also a complete lack of both content and context. Hope this helps. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. :) Thanks for asking and have a great weekend. Signing out for now.
PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Help me out as I may be confused. You are asking for three archives to be deleted, but they don't appear to be extra copies of archives, they appear to the the archives themselves, which should not be deleted. What am I missing?--SPhilbrickT20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Maybe I've done something wrong. My archives where in a rather odd layout: before August and then two months at a time. I've split them up month-by-month, e.g. User_talk:Fly_by_Night/Archive_Nov_10 has November 2010's archive. There's no point me having empty pages, where the badly arranged archives used to be, clogging up my user space. So I thought I'd do a bit of house keeping. — Fly by Night(talk)20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly know your archives better than I do, but let me give you an example.
If you search for the phrase "you were asking about French dialogue on the Rosie and Jim talk page" it shows up in archive2, and no where else. Unless I'm missing something, it shouldn't be deleted. I'll confess immediately that I'm not an expert on how archives should be maintained; I've struggled with my own and still don't think I've done them right. --SPhilbrickT20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shhh, about the kid's programs! I've got a reputation to maintain. The search is coming back with that page because Wikipedia hasn't updated itself properly. I'm not sure about the technical terms, but once every day (or something) it updates itself. It's a bit like Google. It doesn't search all of Wikipedia the instant you click search. It scans Wikipedia before hand and stores the info. The search then searches that database. Until Wikipedia updates that database, all the search results will be out of date. The first day I included the search box, nothing came up. — Fly by Night(talk)20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry If I wasn't clear. If you are simply doing cleanup, I should find that phrase twice. Once on the page you want to delete, and once on the page you intend to keep. If I delete Archive2, then none of those talk page discussions will be searchable. The fact that I can find it only once tells me that I was about to delete the only copy of the talk page discussions. Do you agree?--SPhilbrickT20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That search button searches a database that was constructed by a daily search of Wikipedia. Like Google does. It doesn't search from scratch every time. We need to wait for Wikipedia to do a scan, to update the database, so that the search results will be found. The Rosie an Jim thread is on the new page User_talk:Fly_by_Night/Archive_Aug_10#Rosie_and_Jim. Like I said, I'm not sure of the technical terms. It's something to do with caches or something. — Fly by Night(talk)21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, I think. Yes, I actually do have some understanding of how the database gets updated. (Some, not thorough). However, as I am a brand-new admin, would you mind terribly if I waited until tomorrow, so I can see the results with my own eyes, then I'll delete the redundant archives?--SPhilbrickT21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mind. But I've already supplied you with links to where the archives are all stored. Just check my contributions.
Besides, it isn't actually mandatory to keep archives. I can delete my talk page as and when I choose. It simply acknowledges that I've read it. But if you're prefer to wait, then that's fine my me. — Fly by Night(talk)21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost an ec - I just realized I could check your contributions, so I did, and see the pages. Sorry for all this discussion over a trivial matter. --SPhilbrickT21:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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
