Hello, I noticed your change to the Notable people section. I think that prose is better for this section as it discourages editors adding names with little or no explanation. The guidelines also prefer prose to lists of this type. Wikipedia:UKTOWNS#Notable_people. Thanks Grim23★20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?
2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver becuase Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/
3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/
Hi! I think The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) should go under the category Category:2008_Botswana_television_series_debuts because it is a Botswana television series and it is filmed and set in Botswana. I also think it should go under the category Category:Botswana_LGBT-related_television_programs because there is a gay character in it called BK_(The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency). Let me know what you think. Thanks Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't agree. It was made by a British company, namely the BBC, and was broadcast in the UK. Just because it's set it Botswana doesn't mean it's Botswanan; I could go and work in another country but I'd still be British. Maybe you should raise the point of the article's talk page, see what they think over there? — Fly by Night(talk)08:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of the discussion we were having about bandwidth monitors so thought of 72 as the OP rather then you Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Regarding this edit summary of yours: it is highly misleading! You original reference that I removed simply stated that the information was contained in an interview on some chat show on a certain day. Readers should not be required to dig around to verify references. Your new reference is better. — Fly by Night(talk)22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source, as it was footnoted, was the Howard Stern Show on October 18, 2010. For some reason you claimed this wasn't verifiable and removed it. It's not my fault you didn't even bother to "verify" the source before claiming it wasn't verifiable.
You really think a 2:00 youtube clip posted by a fan is a better source than posting the name and date of the show it was on?
Your references, if possible, should link directly to the footage in question. Users should not be expected to serach around for the Howard Stern Show footage when a direct link exists – that's your job as an article writer. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information; it is an encyclopaedia. Please read WP:V and WP:WWIN regarding these last points. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. — Fly by Night(talk)22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you saying if someone did not post an unauthorized clip of a copyrighted radio broadcast, a radio show behind a paywall is "not verifiable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyA79 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, a non-copyrighted source was available. You can and did included it (eventually). If you couldn't include the footage then you should find another reference per WP:V. — Fly by Night(talk)22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question and I think you know it.
Ermm, no! I didn't understand the question, but tried to make an attempt at answering what I thought you were asking. If you don't find my answers helpful then please do pop over to the help desk and post a question there. There are many editors that will be happy to help. — Fly by Night(talk)23:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you because you are citing policies and called the source "not verified" as you removed it. I'll ask again, but reword it: If details from a good source are behind a paywall can that source be used alone? It's a simple yes/no question.
PS Why does your template say the link was "accessed" October 18th when today is the 22? Why doesn't it list the date the show was broadcasted on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyA79 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to the time stamp used by wikipedia. What calendar were you using? Also you still don't want to put the boradcast date so people can verify it? Isn't the broadcast date/publication date important? OnlyA79 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you made two edits to the article: [1] and [2]. The first edit was reverted because it added highly controversial information to a biographical article, without giving proper sources. Your second edit was kept and improved upon because it was up to standard. If you were to add the broadcast dates using {{cite web}} then you would be improving the sourcing and so would be helping the article. Your work on the encyclopaedia is appreciated. I'm sure with a few tweaks here and there, you'll be a fine editor in no time. If you have any more questions then please feel free to ask, or try the help desk. — Fly by Night(talk)23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fly by Night! The syntax highlighting of emacs's font lock mode can be very helpful, but, in what must be an effort to drive away new users, the default colors are often garish and nearly unusable. The proper solution, as suggested at the RD, is customizing your own .emacs file, but in the mean time, if you just need to make something readable, you can toggle font lock mode off by running M-x font-lock-mode -- that is, holding ALT while striking the X key, then releasing ALT and typing the rest of the command, then pressing ENTER. Most emacs users will make extensive use of auto-completion, so hit TAB early and often. It will complete a command if it can and list options if it can't.
Good luck with emacs. I think that it's the bee's knees, but I don't know that I'd have given it a second look had I been introduced to it in the default configuration in which it is typically distributed these days. When I need to use emacs on a machine that does not have my own .emacs file I will run half a dozen commands just to make it usable, starting with toggling off the menu and tool bar modes. That graphical menu bar is an abomination; it is almost as if they were trying to recruit a new generation of users! I suppose they had to make the font lock mode colors so garish to drive them back away. -- ToET13:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks for the information. I've been having so many problems with it that I was going to go back to using a DOS window to run the program I'm using. I'll give what you said a go and see how far I get. Thanks again for the info. — Fly by Night(talk)13:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your kind words. I literally "fly by night"!! I'm just fast! Most of the time though I try to add more initial content to my articles and sources. but when I have a huge bank of about 14,000 articles to create in total for Antarctica alone I've got to be as quick and efficient as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussion relates to this original talk page post. — Fly by Night(talk)
Normally, but that's because later edits can skew the appearance of the discussion that led to consensus on the topic being discussed. This was closed as being irrelevant, since as you may have noticed, the closer blocked Starzynka for sockpuppetry; therefore, the discussion didn't result in any consensus, so my edits can't damage anything. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits could have caused damage, they just happen not to have done. It's very easy to change the complexion of a discussion with a few comments here and there. Especially when those comments go unchecked because most people consider the discussion closed. But besides that; it's just not cricket. — Fly by Night(talk)21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Bam Margera, you must include proper sources. The reference you gave was just a mention of the program that supposedly contained the information. You need to give verifiable sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)"