On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exploding cigar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
He was published in Metro newspaper and in Kingsize magazine (Scandinavias biggest hip hop magazine). Can he get any more official than a national newspaper and the largest source of hip hop in scandinavia? Or is that not reputable enough?
Hey! Long time no see! Just went to post the help desk about a problem using the BOT to move an image to the commons, and see you recently addressed an images issue there... so piggy-backing to you.
this doesn't show the text I'd expected the BOT was changing and inserting as a prior edit (Categories and such, original uploaded and so forth--perhaps that went to a commons page, which disappeared?). It did try, apparently incorrectly to place the {{ncd}} tag on the image that failed to "land there at the commons" in the subsequent edit shown (I commented that out, just creating the (revised from the script generated boilerplate) section title, as you can see).
In short, my attempt to automatically copy the image to the commons appears to have failed, even though I have long standing accounts 'there' and on many sisters.
(There is some "user validation" screen menu that imposed itself, I suspect is part of the problem. Not sure how to get that to work, but the option "link" to move there and delete here "failed" saying I needed to be an admin. Then Backing up (another possible failure mode, I'd guess) for the now commons copy option, the script generated edit to emplace {{ncd}} failed to show the image when checking for the commons image page.) Does it (The BOT) perhaps not move the page unless the {{Ncd}} template is in place? (In effect, meaning "I broke" the script conditionals when I couldn't find the "not-yet-moved" page?)
Ergo, I and my good intentions got lost somewhere so HELP! <G>
Do have to opine the intermediate page asking for account name is inappropriately worded... no option to say I have both accounts, for starters; No indication so unclear as to which "is better" for the transfer either. It wanted either en or commons, and had terse instructions. Trying to leave a comment 'about that' left me in a tool server bug report screen 'list of bugs' page, but that wanted an account name or wouldn't take feedback. [I've too many accounts already to track, so passed on the option and also backed up then.]
Key concern is the image not disappear, followed by it's still being a good candidate for an automatic move. Looks like I need to "study up", but think an admin should verify things haven't been harmed.
Lastly, this would indicate it's not a server delay situation... been long enough since writing this up that it should have been created.
In any event, the only admin I know working images regularly is Sherool, and he seems to be missing lately. If at the least, you could pass this along to someone familiar with the BOT option, perhaps they could fix up the text on that account verification screen so it's comprehensible... Looks like nothing happened, as there is no deleted page in the commons log either, ruling out the page was created, then killed by the subsequent "back up" action. Suspect that means it's a script logic flaw issue, since backing up wasn't tolerated.
Hey Frank. I'm thoroughly confused by your post, which may be my failure but nevertheless... The image in question was never tagged with {{NCD}}, nor {{NowCommons}}, and the only bots which edited the page are User:Cydebot, which made one edit fixing a GFDL description tag (see this edit) and did nothing to mark the page for copying to commons, followed by another bot, User:Computer, which changed the GFDL description tag to a different one and also made no edits on the moving-to-Commons front (the bots' edits themselves are a problem; the two seem to have conflicting instructions as to which GFDL tag should be used, but this is straying off topic).
So, as far as I can tell, your commented out message refers to a NowCommons action and/or tagging that never occurred, despite that you even provide in your comment a specific date "completed 30 June 2008". Where does this come from? I think if you explain from the back end where you're drawing this information it would explain a lot (diffs are wonderful at showing prople exactly what you are trying to convey). If you're referring to some other bot action that is not in this article's history, then plese state which bot it is or provide the diff. Otherwise, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons.
I also haven't figured out what you were doing when you got the screens you refer to as a "user validation" screen saying you had to be an admin; can you describe exactly what you were doing when you got that? For example, were you using the Move-to-commons assistant? A lot of your post is making reference to things without providing the background:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "BOT" was used rather loosely--I'd meant, and this is my experience during a first exposure to and with Emagnus's "Assistant". (I'd never heard of it before, save as a far off predicted rumor. I've been tasking wiki-time in fits and starts for the last year. RL needs.) Begin with fact that I'd started to hang {{Copy to Commons}} and the link to the assistant showed up inside it in preview, so I tried it out... with the consequent confusion when it wanted a wikimedia account, and I could give either.
The user validation screen and the admin denial occurred in that "assistants" context, natch. The "Both" complaint is likely something that didn't occur to the writer of the usage as it likely accepts "either" account, whilst I was thinking "best account". Bottom line, I should probably just try it again and help clean out some marked categories.
When I said above: "(Categories and such, original uploaded and so forth--perhaps that went to a commons page, which disappeared?)" means initially Emagnus' (script? references to some script and where it can be uploaded, are also confusing along the way) aide began to work and generated a list of presumed commons categories which looked rational enough... then came the validation glitches, where I first tried the "copy and delete" link. I'm sorry to trouble you on this, but hope it's now plain.
There is a "certain lack of robustness" in the implementation, per my opinion based in three decades of writing software— that is, backing out a page when faced with the admin denial, should have worked at the least—or a message should have been generated to start over. Either would do. Alas I have little knowledge about scripts per say and script languages and only a fuzzy idea of their capabilities with browsers and servers so don't know what is optionally feasible. I make my bucks in imbedded systems, and leave internet concerns to the CS && IT guys. I probably should study up instead of doing wiki-edits on such. That the script assistant needs tested and validated against that sort of path, is the message that should be passed onto it's developers. I suspect it'd be a minor kind of change to fix.
Thanks, sorry I troubled you. Save for the "admin" glitch, it's really just another wiki-learning curve. // FrankB14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're on the same page. Unfortunately, I have never used the commons assistant and never moved an image from anywhere to Commons so I'm just as much a neophyte or even more so to this tool and moves as are you. I can clear one thing up, if you didn't already fugure this out. The tool (which I just looked at for the first time)'s link for "delete the original image" can only be used if you are an administrator on Wikipedia, because only administrators have the user rights to delete files. Clicking on the link takes me to Wikipedia's normal deletion page, and for you, the screen which tells you that you don't have access rights for deletion. Once you successfully move the file, you should be tagging the image page here with {{Nowcommons}} which the assistant has a link for. As far as I can see (and this may be wrong!), the assistant does no moving automatically, no deletion automatically and no tagging automatically. What it does is generate the text you need for those tasks in edit mode both here and at commons and take you to screens you need to do task prefilling out text only. So, for example, after you identify the image you want to move and choose you other options and click "get text" it generates as best it can the text with licensing categories etc. that you'd want on the commons page which is a pretty elaborate task; when you subsequently click on upload at commons, it doesn't actually upload it, what it does is take you to the upload screen at commons with all that complicate text pre-filled out in the licensing area and its up to you to do the rest of the upload. Wish I could help better but like I said, I've got no more experience with this than you do. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help re: creating drafts. It's just that I sort of started that entry in an intrepid mood (with no justification: my last article on the same subject was the victim of a "speedy delete," and another article I originated was recently the source of a spirited "notabiity/Academics" debate). Meanwhile, I've been uploading photos with mixed success, and even citations/links are a big challenge for me, still. (I think part of it might have to do with having spent some time blogging--it's like driving in England, on the "wrong" side of the street, and then coming back to the U.S. and having even normal things feel awfully difficult.)
But you are right, of course, and if I hadn't already felt burned out from trying to remember the SIMPLEST things, that's exactly what I would have done. It's what I should have done. But I couldn't even remember how to create a sub-page, or where the instructions were for doing that! However, I know it's somewhere on my "talk" page, and I just need to arrange my Wiki-How-To bookmarks in better order. So: thank you. Drafts first! Sub-pages! Order and beauty--or truth and beauty. Or something . . . ;) Goodnight, and thanks again. Scooge (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo!! Why'd u erase the Lil Drift & his mixtape page?? this is an up and comin rapper from fresno, where u dont really hear that many rappers, & I got the info directly from him cuz I kno the guy. I think u should put da page bacc cuz dis sum messed up ----. Lil Drift (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm always a bit wary of editing people's userspace pages. So the intent of the modification is to make db-g12 blank the entire page, like what we instruct people to do with {{copyvio}}?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fugh--,
I'm in need of a bit of help, and saw your name on the list of helpers. I seem to be butting heads with another user on the above article. This user, NetHistoryBuff5, seems to have only one interest on WP, and his only interest is making a sweet and empty biography of Gerald Guterman. Smells like a real WP:COI to me. He persistently deletes commentary from the NYTimes, Bruno Frey, etc. He won't use the Talk page, won't use his user page, won't do anything other than revert (we're waaaaay past 3RR). It's not fair, but I can't seem to reason with him. I thought you could have a look? Many thanks, Smilo Don (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Don. Of course. I'll take a look but you've caught me not long before bedtime, and I was just working on seeing if I could source an article that was just posted. Can it hold until tomorrow night? By the way, without having looked, I can tell you that the removal of reliably sourced content without any discussion or edit summary explanation (depending, of course, on context), I consider to be vandalism, the reversion of which is not subject to 3RR.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You declined my Speedy Delete notice of Unknown ruler of Persia. I cannot complain about the call (I did a db-nocontext tag - it was the closest thing I could think of for this circumstance), but I need to point out the article is incorrect. It appears that the ruler was actually very well known: Orodes I, whose reign extended through this period. I found several sources to verify that, including this:[1]. I will put the article up for AfD consideration. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ecoleetage. If it's just plain wrong, then it should go. However, please note that BCE dates run backwards. The article claims he was an unknown ruler from 80-77 BCE. That period is not covered by the reign of Orodes I, who, at least according to our article, ruled from 90 to 80 BCE (in that order of years). Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I found this [2], which has multiple sources putting Orodes I on the Parthian throne through 77 BCE (and, yes, I am aware the years flowed backwards then). I must say, this is one of the more interesting AfDs I've been involved in. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's really curious is the contradiction in reliable sources that is clearly present. The Google book search has multiple sources for both Sinatruces' reign covering the period and not covering the period and now we see Orodes I riegn has the same contradiction and further, and not incidentally, they are also in colflict with each other; if Orodes I ruled during the period then Sinatruces could not have and vice-versa. It looks like this is an area in which there is a great deal of disagreement among scholars. I dropped a note on the creator's page asking him to provide some sources. Maybe, he can shed some light. Meanwhile, I must go to bed!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your new research posting - this is actually one of the most interesting AfD discussions I've been involved in. I greatly appreciate your input and commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you please check once more what is wrong with my article? i know i didn`t put enough backlinks to other wiki pages, but it was my best intention to do it later.
i wrote it for 6 hours and spent 2 more reading the wikipedia rules and instructions. so just got exhausted, but was planing on doing it. Ludijs (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laudaksg. The deletion has nothing to do with backlinks whatever. The article did not indicate any importance of the website and was therefore speedily deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please read our notability standards for articles on companies and also for web content. The long and short of it is that an article must assert importance in order not to be subject to speedy deletion, and even if importance is asserted and thus renders the subject not amenable to speedy deletion, it must still be notable, i.e., be the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Reliable sources are not other articles but sources unrelated to the article subject existing out in the real world which have written about the subject. For example, newspapers, books, magazines. Then these sources are cited in the article. Not only does the subject need to be shown to be notable, but all the information in an article needs to be verified through reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source, so all our content must be about things others have already published about, which is where we draw our content from. I took a look at the website/company on Google, and the lack of results indicates that this subject is likely not-notable, and the information you posted not verifiable. So even if the article were undeleted, it would likely be deleted at a deletion discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the constructive reply, I just didn't categorise it like that, I thought is tabout providing information to people which might be usefull for them. And I think it might be usefull to know for the educational field. It might just make life easier for someone - not to search all over internet to find what usefull software for learning management is there, but just read on wikipedia. At least I do it like that usually. That's why I tried to write a well structured article which doesnt fall out of the wikipedia concept. Do you have any suggestions for my case? Ludijs (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My email is active - apprechiate your effort. And thanks for the suggestion, will check out the link. Another idea came into my mind though :) Is it maybe possible that you leave the article undeleted, but with an agreement that I don`t link to that article so it stays just a plain text as it is - no one will see it anyway. But in case it really bothers someone, then delete it and reconsider putting it up when it meets the standarts. Is that an option? :) Ludijs (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the tip: I'll have to figure out what looks best on Religion in Africa (probably doing the substantial expansion I need to contribute there). I'll also try and figure out a way where people who have similar problems can find this fix, cause I'm sure it will come up again. Thanks! T L Miles (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Regarding what I said at the Village pump about is not looking good with the box below, that appears to be true only in Internet Explorer, where this big gap of white space occurs, whereas when I looked at it in Safari, it looks okay (it may be a fixed width issue).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fuhghettaboutit! I have only just realised that, in my newbieness, I responded on my userpage instead of yours! So finally coming to you to say thank you very much for the tidying up you did with my userboxes, they look much better now :) I definitely appreciate it and didn't mind you editing my page at all. Thanks and cheers! Maedin (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Maedin. It was no problem at all, and you're welcome. Responding to a message left on your talk page, on your talk page, is not at all out of the norm (see the message on my talk page which says I will usually respond here to messages left here:-) In this case (unusually) I lost track of my message to you and didn't reply to you there, but I usually would. By the way, was my response to you at WP:NCHD any help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Edit conflict#Prevention says: "This feature will only trigger an edit conflict if users attempt to edit the same few lines." I don't know the exact rules. I often make a blank line before replying (not for ec reasons). This (possibly in combination with you making no blank line) may have prevented ec. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I'm sure that's what it is. I prefer getting an edit conflict actually, to alert me and then decide whether to post anyway—I just wish they would finally fix bug 4745.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, it appears our AfD discussion on the Unknown Ruler of Persia wound up in a Delete conclusion [3]. To be frank, I was surprised it turned out that way -- even though I nominated the article for deletion. However, this leaves Wikipedia with a three-year hole in its ancient Persian history coverage. Oh well. Hope life is treating you well. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I noticed the close and I actually agree with it—the subject is just too limited by its focus just on the "unknown ruler" to an unverifiable subject. I thought about rewriting the article and moving it to Parthian Dark Age; in that broader topic, which is verifiable, the lack of ruler clarity could be then given context. That would have "saved it," but I just didn't feel motivated. In any event, that prospective article can always be created in the future and there are so many missing articles in my main interest area. It was, as you've already said, a rather interesting deletion debate. There aren't that many that stick out in my mind and this one does. Since you appear to me to be a Japanese film fan (as am I), may I recommend a favorite? If you haven't seen it, check out Tampopo. Oh, and don't be shy about dropping me a message anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And feel free to drop me a line if you would like my input on anything. If you are looking for a fun AfD, get your puns sharpened and check this out: [[4]]. Also, I know Tampopo and I like the film. If you want to hunt down a fine Japanese film that is too often overlooked, seek out Sandakan No. 8 -- the film is barely remembered today, which is odd since it received an Academy Award nomination. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you opted to ignore consensus and keep the article, you could've said: "And now for something completely different." Ecoleetage (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am going to attempt a rewrite of this -- there is plenty of material out there. If you can locate any artwork that we are able to use for this, I would appreciate it. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am at work so my time is short. I just did a search for a movie poster to upload. Check this out (see entry 382). As you can see, it appears no posters exist. I'll see about doing a fair use DVD/VHS cover upload later today.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film never had a commercial VHS or DVD release, just bootleg offerings. That might limit us if we go that route. However, it is a public domain work - would that enable us to use a screen shot? Ecoleetage (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, yesterday I asked for any updates regarding the article's review. Is there anything forthcoming? If not, I'm not exactly sure what to do regarding its promotion; would you prefer I ask for a second opinion? I would appreciate it if you get back to me. María(habla conmigo) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly, and had been meaning to drop you a note. I just haven't gottten around to the task of looking again for sources for what I already looked for but failed to source:-) I am also very hesitant, in the absence of a source specifically saying words to the effect of "the history of exploding cigars is not well documented", to say anything of the sort. Seems to me to be squarely in the realm of original research. For all I know, even if I can't find further sourcing, there's a book in a library somewhere that has a detailed history. Go ahead and remove the article from consideration for the moment. When I get around to it, I'll drop you a note. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I completely missed your reply here! Sorry about that. I have removed the article from the GAC page as a withdrawal rather than a fail. Let me know when you're ready for the article to be reviewed again. María(habla conmigo) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Overlooked the other article. However, as Mytilus is the more accepted name for the mollusc, I suggest merging the Mytilis article with the Mytilus (mollusc) article. Mytilis then would be a redirect. What do you think? GrahamBould (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate reaction is that we should always favor articles with significant histories as the direction of merges, i.e., when you have an article with a two year history and 500 edits verses a new article with ten edits, we shoull merge the new into the old. It does get more complicated if the new name is a better title for the subject. I have posted a question about this at the talk page of WP:MERGE as there doesn't seem to be any existing guidance on direction of merges.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am still a novice to the Wikipedia world, but perhaps you can help me out...While I admit I was trying to write an article about our company, I was doing so merely to provide general information unlike our Web site's "About us" page. After some research on other pages, I began an article, and meant to go back and add to it, only to have it speedily deleted. I just want to know if I can do this and if so, can you please help me? I just really want to know what I can do. Thanks so much!!!
Garcise (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can write the article but it is strongly recommended that you do not do so as you have a conflict of interest and would be hard press to write the article from a neutral point of view. In any event, articles must be on notable topics which means here being the subject of substantive treatment in independant, reliable sources. So in order to have an article you would have to cite real world reliable sources for the content, and cite sources unaffiliated with the company. See also the separate notability guidelines for companies. Another aspect is that articles must not constitute promotional advertising. Though I deleted the article on the basis that it didn't indicate importance (section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion), another criteria is section G11, which allows speedy deletion of articles "which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." All this means that while you can try again, indicating the company's importance this time, it really isn't a good idea for you to write the article and it very well may be that an article on the company cannot meet our requirements for encyclopedic content. I know i've thrown a huge number of links at you. Sorry about that. Let me just post one more. A lot of this is explained at our business faq. If you actually only click on one link I've posted, that's a good choice. Okay, I lied, one more: if you'd like to post your article somewhere where posting about your business would be welcome, please go to Wikicompany. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No longer considering myself a new-comer, I want to help make the community better for new-comers. But in the case of my move and merger proposals lately, it looks like I ended up trying to do too much. Sorry about that. My last proposal for assistance pages is on Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests#Merger proposal. If this is agreeable to you, could you help to facilitate it? I'm going to be on vacation for a few days and probably won't be able to attend the discussion. If it doesn't work out, then I say, let's Fuhghett about it! --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would bend to consensus but I'm nevertheless opposed to the merger (apparently the lone voice in a wilderness) so performing the merger is not really my cup of tea:-). I'm a bit confused by your latest proposal. You're now switching the proposal from merging VPA into the Help Desk to merging it into WP:EAR? Why the change?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! For a certain few, when i clicked move, I got the red message telling me to go to requested moves which I did. It didn't really make sense though why I would need to. I feel like the page was locked at the name since I couldn't move it to the name I wanted to or to any other name for that matter. Grk1011 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The software sometimes does strange and mysterious things. I had one thought: I have heard that if you're editing from a TOR node, this can trigger the software treating you like an un-autoconfirmed user. In any event, it was not a problem. Feel free to drop by with any issues you may have if you think I might be able to help.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) --15:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While cleaning up the bio requested pages, I noticed that you created a Redirect page for Claudia Zacchara. I would suggest that it is better to delete the redirect page and leave her as a redlink -- that way anyone with an interest in this character will immediately notice that a bio needs to be created. (As a bluelink, she will eventually be deleted from the bio request pages since it would appear that request has been completed. Also, anyone clicking her link on the List of General Hospital characters#Z is directed to the same link, which is a false link. I hope this sounds reasonable. CactusWriter21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CactusWriter. Some past history: The article was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Zacchara and recently recreated as an article from an existing redirect to the same target (the redirect was originally created by User:Elonka); then deleted by me as a G4 and Elonka's redirect recreated by me. Do you think there are multiple reliable sources substantively treating the subject from which a verified, tertiary source article can be written? I can't so no definitively but I doubt it. For that reason, I think it's better to leave this as a redirect so that article creation is not invited until an article on this fictional character can be created in conformance with WP:FICTION, if ever. If you feel really, really strong about it, I'll do it but I don't think it's a great idea. We have a plague of unsourced or solely primary sourced, in-universe fictional articles on subjects better treated as part of a list just like List of General Hospital characters. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The strength of my feeling on a fictional character is... er, well... relatively nonexistent. My interest was only in cleaning up blue links on the Bio request page, but I'm perfectly happy to let this stay as it is. No problem. CactusWriter06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Long time no chat! I've left some musings, one for you in particular, on this silly down-trou/pantsing topic, at WT:CUEGLOSS#Down-trou.
PS: I've left a proposal at Template talk:CompactTOC8 with regard to making it work on multi-page articles, since we'd need something like that in order to split the glossary up into multiple pages (or at least it would be extremely helpful for the reader; I guess it wouldn't be necessary, per se.)
PPS: Remember how you only found a handful of articles that mentioned William A. Spinks in your NYT archive search a year or so ago? Now that they've made really old articles free to access, for some reason there are suddenly a whole crapload of them. I think I can at least double the depth of that article, and I'm only on page 1 of the search results. I wonder if they just weren't done scanning all the articles back in 2007 or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Stanton. Regarding pantsing/down-trou, I left a note at WT:CUEGLOSS regarding the changes to the introduction and mentioned that I removed the entries from eight-ball as undue weight (not everything that can be sourced must or should be included) and stated that while I don't think they belong in the glossary either its scope is much larger than an article on the individual record so I won't protest further. Regarding the NYT, maybe they had them but they tweaked their search function to better find material? Regardless, it's good to know. Maybe I'll find that other articles I've worked on now have more sources to draw from. Regarding Spinks, I just took a look at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and found a bunch of articles; 1 short article (can't link directly) searching "William Spinks" without the "A.", 2 searching "William A. Spink" without the trailing "S", and 8 searching Spinks billiards. The search page is located here. You just say the word that you've solved the technical problems of splitting the glossary and I'll be ready to do whatever needs doing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keen, thanks, I'll take a look at that stuff, after I'm done ploughing through the NYT stuff. As for the split, I'm not sure how long the geekery will take, but I note that there are plenty of much larger articles on WP, and no one has keeled over dead or anything, so I won't lose sleep over the delay. Need to re-work {{Cuegloss}} to work across multiple articles, too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn Eagle direct URLs: After you click on something in search results, you should be able to right-click on the scan (or just barely outside it) and in the contextual menu should be something to do with "this frame" (what exactly depends on your browser); you should at very least be able to open the frame in its own window, which will give you the direct URL to the piece. If the piece is incomplete, go back to search results page, and click the "Page" icon top-right of the item in the list for a scan of the entire page (if you click on textual parts, you get blow-ups of those sections, which is what you were looking at the first time off of the results page). This full-page-scan page you can get a direct URL to by right-clicking in the whitespace just above the scan, and again you should get one or more options to do something with the frame. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] You won't believe this. Okay, so I get me a free trial to Ancestry.com (just have to remember to cancel within 14 days) - I highly recommend it, as their old newspaper archive is quite impressive - and I'm digging around in the public records, chasing down William A. Spinks. I finally nail him down to a birth place, father's name, a wife, her birthplace and maiden name, you name it. I save about half of that, and continue. I spend two hours developing the details further, fully sourced. The I discover - oh crap - the W.A.S. I've been looking at vital stats on is a farmer, and a flower farmer for the most part at that. Dammit. So, I don't bother saving that, and remove the rest of the stuff, and start digging thru the Ancentry newspaper archives. LOADS of stuff, about equal to the NYT and BDE material combined. Then I run into a local history article from L.A. county, written in the 1970s, about the origins of various street names; two are named after Spinks, and the article goes into how he was a billiard champ, co-inventor of modern billiard chalk... and a farmer. @#$%!!! Now I have to do all that digging all over again. Aside from that, what a trip. This guy was also responsible for the development of the Spinks avocado cultivar, and there's a bunch of material about him in that regard out there (I've been skipping it - and encountered it pretty often - because it didn't seem relevant). D'oh. I wish I'd known about this from the start; the DYK would have been a lot more catchy: "Did you know... that modern billiards chalk was co-invented by an electrical engineer and a flower farmer?"
PS: If you try out Ancestry for the archive, the way to use it effectively is to do a search, then from search results page click "New search" on the left and in the slow popup window then select "Search news archives only" or something like that. You'll get a new popup with a simpler interface that only searches the news stories. That said, the vital stats collection is pretty hot, too. Just don't forget to cancel, if you don't want to be billed a bunch. The service ain't cheap.
It gets weirder. I'd run across a "William A. Spinks" of the era, connected with the oil industry in California, but figured it almost certainly wasn't him. I was wrong. I guess all this farming and avocado hybrid development and oil investment explains why he virtually disappeared, billiards-wise, ca. 1910. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip on retreiving those PDF codes. I have just started my free trial at Ancestry.com, and you're right, it would be a shame to miss the cancellation date to the tune of $155 plus tax. I found the newspaper search and looked for more Moore material (Jimmy that is) and found some articles which look promising. Not entirely happy about having to download their image viewer. So many of these site-specific programs have spyware or quasi-spyware programs bundled. Regarding Spinks, I feel your pain about doing all that work, throwing it away and then realizing it was all good after all.
On the topic of Spinks, I finally got the billiard encyclopedia back. The encyclopedia, at page 240, has an excerpt (or complete, it's not clear) from an article on Spinks by the cousin, Edmund F. Hoskins entitled History of the Development of Billiard Chalk as Used Today, which details Spinks' bringing back of a chalk sample from France and the manufacturing process. It's an inset and I don't see any information on where the article was taken from but I could scan it and email it to you if you'd like—I already plan to take the Encyclopedia to work and scan some of its beautiful images. The article details that the 1897 patent Spinks and Hoskins filed was accompanied by a sworn statement from Jacob Schaefer (Sr.? Jr.) in which he stated that the chalk improvement "he believed had improved billiard playing more than anything else since he commenced playing billiards." I thought you'd like to know this also: in the encyclopedia's bibliography there appears this listing: Ball to Ball Billiards, William A. Spinks & Co., 1911. There's some detail on that book here which shows it was published in Chicago and apparently written or edited by Edmunds, whose nickname was "Bill Yards". The book has no listing at Worldcat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff! Thanks. I've already got the Stein & Rubino (2nd ed. - did you notice that a new 3rd ed. just came out, with something like 100 more pages?) Enc., so I can look at that directly. Not sure what you mean about Ancestry's image viewer. I did not encounter that, and do not use it. When I do a search and click on a source document (in the panes that come up with info from documents, there is usually a little icon of a scan of the document, and you can click on it), it loads in another window, with a zoom function; if you zoom it to 100% and right-click on it you can save the JPG scan of the document page. Schaefer statement was almost certainly by Sr., as Jr. doesn't appear as an important figure until later, and I am building strong evidence that Schaefer Sr. and Spinks were good friends (likely a mentor-student relationship) as well as occasional competitors. I also ran into Ball to Ball Billiards in my digging, and initially added it as a parenthetical note to the mention of Edmund F. Hoskin in the article, but it seemed like BtBB was simply a short pamphlet (I could have misread something, so I'm not 100% sure) and thus not notable enough to mention. The company published some other books, too, that I've randomly run across while searching. I guess they are all collectors' items now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally side with EdgeNavidad (re: Artistic billiards Gaugin pic), and have been meaning to remove a lot of purely decorative images from a lot of these articles; they don't add anything meaningful in-context, and seem to serve only as icing (e.g. Schaefer cigarette card pics all over the place). Then again, I'm also the principal author of WP:MOSFLAG, so I have a particular, declared stance on decorative images. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›12:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an advocate of random decoration. The image in question is not "purely decorative". That would be some curlicues and ribbons. The question to focus on is how perfectly on point is a particular image; what degree of relevance does the image have as used? There's a continuum that images fall along when answering that question. We might say at one end of the scale would be a point labeled *"an image showing the subject of the article"; next to that would be: *"directly relevant and adding enriching non-written pertinent information to text appearing in close proximity to the image;" next: *"generally relevant to the subject matter of the text appearing in close proximity to the image"; next: "generally related to the topic area but not directly interacting with any particular part" and so on all the way to *"wholly unrelated to the subject matter, but pretty". Here we have a famous image by a famous artist showing three balls on a table without pockets. Yes, it's somewhere past the mid-point of my scale, but it's certainly not at the far end. When you have an article screaming for illustration, there's no better, more relevant image to place, and you can add a striking image that's not totally inapposite and certainly not unencyclopedic, I think such an image belongs until something better comes along. I also think we can apply the smell test to a lot of this. Imagine you know nothing about the topic and come across a particular image in the article. Would you say to yourself upon viewing, "what the hell is that doing there?" or would you say "mmm hmm" and keep reading?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I am notably further to the left of your scale than you are (if directly depicting topic is far left, and totally off-topic far right). As to your final question, there is a third answer, and it is the one that makes me lean so strongly in the direction I do on this: "How does this relate?" Such images are really frustrating for readers (including me; I know this experientially) because the reader will go digging around in the article, from top to bottom, trying to find out how Schaefer or Gaugin or whatever relate to this exact article and they will find nothing and be pissed off. Vaguely-related pics are like asterisks* that don't actually have a referent footnote; you look and you look, and "there's no there there". Outside of WP:CUE's article space, I terminate such images on sight, but I've largely been leaving them alone within it, because I know you put them there and I don't like to get into editing disputes with you. :-) I think I did nuke a couple of instances of the "two Victorian ladies and little girl" pic from some articles, but I also think I've run across it again recently... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No victorian ladies additions from me. I understand how this (the fruitless treasure hunt) could result from certain images in certain articles, but I doubt anyone would do so for that Guaguin image or many other images in billiard articles; the context is too clear for such confusion. A case-by-case analysis is what's needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "rugby player" is a better disambiguator stylistically, but I think both perfectly serve the intended purpose of making sure someone searching for a person by X name finds the correct person by that name. Since right now the Wikiproject is arguing over the names, I'm going to leave it consistent with the other articles at rugby.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For players of rugby league we've decided to do away with the "player" and "footballer" suffixes as per the discussion here. I've also seen (basketball) and (ice hockey) used frequently too, so maybe those sports have had similar consensus.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into the details here (actually, just see User talk:SMcCandlish#Mike White (baseball); its covered well there), but sports WikiProjects don't get to randomly make up their own style or naming convention "guidelines" if those conflict with WP-wide consensus, which "(rugby)" after a person name does, without changing the larger consensus. WikiProjects are not special clubs with special exemptions (and active editors of a single article's talk page even less so). Any further discussion of this should probably happen at WT:NCP, since I doubt Fuhghettaboutit needs random parties arguing on his talk page. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". I'm amazed at how difficult it can be to get really, really basic policy concepts across to people who have decided to just ignore it all and do whatever they feel like. It's like the decision to create an alternative process against policy just short circuits the capacity to understand what the real process is. I think I've lost 10% of my hair in 6 hours. I think you can classify this one as a disaster movie, you with your popcorn. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved in that discussion now. But anyway, the consensus to remove 'dual code' seemed pretty decisive but Devereux's article's been moved back again.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(originally posted at WT:CSD) Do you think the fact that you have been on the receiving end of unwarranted and misdirected attacks gives you license to do the same? Your past thread was a nasty personal attack on one editor which continued on to paint others with a massive brush, and this, coming right on its heels, cannot help but be seen as a continuation of the same.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did not attack anyone.
I said speedy deleters need to be viewed with suspicion under present circumstances. That is not an attack. It is an unfortunate fact, and I have proposed to changed it. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to "speedy deleters need to be viewed with susipicion". Your prior post was an attack on an editor who made a good faith mistake, which had already been dealt with and your post ended with "I hope you're all proud of this" and started with a section header "Speedy deleters help vandals". My post refers specifically to your present post being tainted by the context that it follows right on the heels of that prior post. Not incidentally, insulting the group you are about the have a discussion with is self-destructive; everything you say becomes fruit of the poisonous tree (to bend a legal metaphor). Many people, and I'm one of them, are genuinely concerned with problems on both ends of speedy deletion—improper tagging and improper deletion. A good faith discussion untainted by insinuations, insults and divisive posturing is welcome. Since you brought it up: regardless of whether you are warranted in viewing speedy deleters with suspicion, what purpose is served by stating that? Your goal is to raise real issues, to discuss possible solutions with an ultimate aim of making changes, right? All you do by making this statement is raise people's dander and get bogged down in discussion of the divisive statement itself. It does nothing to further your goal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alana_Austin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion is not in cause here, yours was wholly justified. I clearly made this precision in the deletion review. This is a misunderstanding, CenariumTalk15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I smiled when I saw your name and figured I better hassle you a little. We seem to mostly frequent different dark corners of WP.--Kubigula(talk)22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It sort of amazes me when I see very often the same names repeated in every contention debate. Don't get me wrong; some of those people are almost always on the right side, civil, etc., but they seem to seek drama-intensive forums. I avoid them like the plague and am off in my area of arcana or toiling in the dimmer admin salt mines. As always, drop by for any reason--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what can I say? That article's barely started with regard to information content, so speaking of FA is premature as it fails the comprehensive prong of the featured article criteria by an order of magnitude. This is not like Jimmy Moore, for example, where there isn't much out there despite assiduous searching. There very well may be enough written about Wanderone to actually make an attempt at an FA that the other articles in our bailiwick cannot hope for. What's there now is a good start, but that's all it appears to me to be.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why this page was deleted. The page was not disparaging; merely factual. It was not an attack page. It was not negative in tone. It was not unsourced. Though nothing fancy, it was informational. Crimson30 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a DRV almost immediately after your note, here, and must apologize for not dropping you a note sooner. If you look at my contributions you'll see a great and unusual drop in activity the past week or so; I've been very busy in real life. I never saw it as an attack page, but rather an article that had solely negative content about a living person, and used just one source to verify that negative content, which was not done through inline citations. The DRV looks like the opinion is to restore and stubbify, removing the copyright violating content others have noted. Regardless of the outcome, I do no think it is a good practice to have negative articles on BLPs such as this without multiple inline citations. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the DRV. By the way, I don't see how it's a negative article. It simply presents facts about his actions that make him noteworthy. Crimson30 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama-ayers controversy (or whatever you kids are calling it these days)
I am completely uninvolved in the writing of this article. My only relationship to it is that I closed a requested move survey. You may wish to speak to someone else actually involved in the article content. However, what I recommend is to post to the article's talk page. Doing so will target many people involved instead on just one, and in my case, not quite the right person. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for feedback about how to make my page indicate importance and significance. I've been trying to follow similar pages from List of project management software; my first attempt was similar to Cardinis, and because my first page was nominated for speedy deletion, I altered it to reflect more about the actual company, like EnterPlicity. Neither really explain the importance or significance of either their software or their company. What's their secret? I'm trying to get onto and stay on the List of project management software, as my company clearly falls into that category. Thanks for any feedback.
Danken00 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danken00. The most fundamental way to indicate importance/notability and avoid deletion is to cite to reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article, which verifies its information content. All information on Wikipedia should ideally be included only on the basis that reliable sources verify the information. A separate guideline, notability, holds that not just the information in the article, but the subject of the article must be the subject of substantive treatment in independent reliable sources. The article as it was posted doesn't provide any indication that the subject is known yet to people in the wide world. As an encyclopedia, not only can't Wikipedia be used as an advertising service, but it can't be used to announce new, unknown and unwritten about things. I hope that helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks a lot, that makes things a little clearer. Will pay a bit more attention when posting my next article. Cheers. Danken00 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fuhghettaboutit,
Before I speedied the article, I Googled it up with little success. There was only 1 article linking to it. Also, all of inline citations were (and still are) unreliable, and have absolutely nothing to do with the subject in question [6][7][8]! I still suggest that this article should be re-placed up for deletion, or at least the references should be reviewed. --Superflewis (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the first few sources cited don't appear to mention him. Even if none of them do, however, the article still asserts notability. What trips up many people here is the word "assert"/"indicate" (the word has bounced back and forth between these two). To meet A7, an article only needs to assert/indicate importance; it's a very low bar. This is as distinct from what needs to be present to actualy show notability and verifiability on the merits, such as at articles for deletion. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying my help desk question at my talk. I feel so stupid... anyway, I won't be needing to figure it out anymore because now I have it in my favorites bar as my link to Wikipedia.
Hope to cross paths again soon! MeisfunnyGabHow was I?01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. There is no reason to feel stupid at all. The help desk is for asking questions, and from answering questions there for years, I can tell you that many, many users have found themselves in exactly the same situation and many never were able to retrieve their passwords, as you did.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with the SD request posted by an anon user on Pengwern. His reason given - "Welsh nationalist hoax" - is absurd, of course, and presumably illustrates his/her agenda here. In case similar tagging occurs again I'd like to assure you that whilst the article itself attracts more than its share of woolly and dubious contributions it is nevertheless a 100% valid entry as Pengwern, regardless of whether or not it was an early kingdom as such, has an important place in Welsh literature, tradition and culture. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thanking me! Rest assured that there was no chance the article would have been speedy deleted by me no matter what the speedy tag claimed. Articles on places like this are simply not subject to any speedy criterion (well unless they're G4 reposts, created by banned users etc., but you know what I mean).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember those old VfD discussions on old orphaned talk pages that you undeleted back in July 2007? Well, you can guess what I'm about to say, can't you? :-) Have a look at this. Of those eight pages, only seven survived. I noticed this when I saw a discussion at User talk:MZMcBride. He and User:Ilmari Karonen seem to be sorting out a more permanent solution to tagging pages so they are not swept up by admin bots. See my comment here. Another, more permanent solution, would be to move all the old discussions to "AfD" titles and update the links and redirects. Anyway, I thought you would want to know about this. One thing: can you remember how many of the pages you tagged with your "do not delete" message that the adminbots (very politely) ignored? I found eight, but were there more? See also the redlinks at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003 and Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/Jan to Apr 2004. Didn't look further than this, but some of the deletions may, of course, be for privacy or other reasons. Hopefully the deleting admin will have said something in the log if so. Anyway. A bit depressing to see the deletion cycle repeat itself, but hopefully this time it can be permanently stopped. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, that depressing and what's more so is that it wasn't just those 8; there were many, many more. What I did was drop messages on all of the deleting admin's talk pages about the pages they had deleted and asked them to restore. The 8 I personally restored are just those deleted by admins who weren't around. I don't know how many there were in total, but I think it was something like 50 pages. I'll take a look tonight. I have been on a slight wikibreak the past few weeks so I'm slower to respond than usual. I am getting ready for work so this message is without the benefit of a real look. I wonder if {{Nobots}} would work? I think it only is effective with bots that are "opted-in", and bots tagging talk pages for deletion probably are not. Hmmmm.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Wikipedia can be a difficult place to navigate and research what actually ocurred with particular pages. What you probably didn't realize when you wrote your post above was that I deleted the article on May 13, 2007, and at the time I deleted it, the only text present was "King Gordy is an american rapper from Detroit,Michigan." This link will take you to the version of the page as it was at the time I deleted it. Articles which fail to provide the most basic information content, and fail to assert any importance, can and should be deleted. Once someone came along who actually cared enough to create the article with some actual content, the prior reason for deletion was irrelevant and would not apply. Now that you understand a bit better, care to revise your post?;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some vandalism located in the first sentence of the bisexuality article and I can not understand how it's being done. I checked the history and looked through the article for the source, but was unsuccessful. Thanks for any help. Farmercarlos (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Farmercarlos. This one would be a hard one to figure out without quite a lot of experience. What happened was that a vandal defaced the template {{Sexual orientation}} with the nastiness you were seeing and that template was transcluded in the bisexuality article. Meanwhile the vandalism to that template had already been reverted. However, the bisexuality article was displaying a version of its text which was cached at a time the template was still vandalized, so the vandalism was still showing, even though it was already rectified. What I did was purge the page cache of bisexuality and Voilà. If you are still seeing the vandalism, you may need to clear your computer's own cache! Thanks for bringing this to my attention.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your close of Vector (geometric), you suggested that you weren't moving to the apparent consensus title because it hadn't been officially requested at RM, and because it could be performed by anyone. Please don't let the existence of an RM request for a particular title prevent you from moving to a different title that was agreed upon during the course of discussion. Also, the move wouldn't be possible for most users in this case, since Euclidean vector is a redirect that doesn't point at Vector (geometric). Not meant to get on your case, but just as a friendly note. Dekimasuよ!02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. I didn't do it because discussion seemed ongoing and having glanced at the redirect history, I saw the single edit which in most case would mean anyone can move the page over the redirect. You're right though, the redirect target was to another page, which foreclosed a non-admin move. In any event, if you guys decide on another name, you will be able to do it now without intervention. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For "However, when said without an adjective ascribing good or bad characteristics to it, a roll always refers to a shot that favors the shooter.[1]", could you add a quote illustrating this? I'm not thinking of one (and in fact have thought of non-adjectival negative uses, e.g. "Sheesh, Dave, what kinda roll was that? Maybe you should have some 'aiming fluid'." :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like it needs to be tweaked. I guess it's possible if the surrounding language is contextually negative. Maybe "normally refers to positive..." With neutral language it is normally positive. For example, "he got a roll"; "he got rolls all night"; "what a roll" "you have to get rolls" are all positive. Brandt defines it only as positive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for deleting and salting Beans Syndrome. I did the Speedy Delete tags on that one and I am glad to see that silliness is going to be kept offline. Hope all is well with you -- and, yes, I do plan to get to do a rewrite on Fear and Desire, as promised a while back. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ecoleetage, glad you stopped by. You do realize that salty beans are a culinary abomination? Seriously, I do that as a matter of course when a person keeps recreating an article. It actually easier on them in the long run; they keep creating, getting warned, and ultimately blocked. Protection takes the ball right out of their court. Regarding Fear and Desire, do you remember that we discussed the apparent lack of any poster; that I even found a website saying that there were none known to exist? I found a partial one on a German website and it's in the article now. I am a big Kubrick fan but have never seen this film but I'd be glad to help where I can if you start.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have that on my to-do list. I have a couple of Orson Welles articles that I need to clean up, but Stanley comes next. Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made a mistake as I just copied part of my post from the instructions to contact administrators. In fact, I can't see the "edit this page" section of Admin Ryulong's talk page and instead there is a section on "view source".
I provided my reasoning on the talk page as soon as I included the hangon template. This is a valid English term and I believe it to merit a redirect. If you disagree, I would gladly discuss it with you on the talk page.
No, it isn't too late -- and I actually nominated it for DYK when I completed it. But thank you so much for the kind gesture -- I greatly appreciate it! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ecoleetage (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Reg Anand page.
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for that note.
I am the writer of the blog http://anandtranslated.wordpress.com . I am not sure about the legality, guidelines regarding linking your own content. It is translation of Anand's works to English which I have done. Its creative commons.
Hey, i am the creator of this popular web series,people often want to know about the series and wonder why dont we have a wiki? I continue to make them and people (like you) continue to delete them..why? can that be answered please? And i saw your reasoning, it gives you no right to delete my page, it is of purpose to some, and many who find it useful. comment back please.Starsking (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello starsking. I have every right to delete because it does not belong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It may resemble other websites that are other things, but it really, really is an encyclopedia with all that entails. Subjects of articles must be based on reliable sources. Information must be verified. All content must have been already written about in the real world because an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, it never announces new things. Because of this we have clear speedy deletion criteria. And as an administrator I do have a right to enforce them. If you had posted the article with an indication of encyclopedic importance I would not have deleted. Think about it this way: if you opened up a paper encyclopedia, Brittannica for example, would you expect to see some garage band no one had ever heard of? How about some youtube video series that is not famous and that has not been written about in real publications? There are places on the internet that are not encyclopedias that you can write about the web series all you want. Have a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the series has been noticed by newspapers, websites(real publications), etc. does that count? My main point is..if i have to back up my reasoning for keeping up a wiki page then, i can. ALL the other CRAP on here, should be double checked and i can actually find some pages that you might like to delete, anyways i dont want to seem rude or too upfront. I can post references and such, if necessary. Starsking (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:CITE. If you can post the article citing to reliable sources, independent of you, and discussing the subject in detail, then it certainly wont be speedy deleted. The bar is set very low for speedy deletion. All you need is an indicaiton of importance, which a few sources would provide in spades or even just an indication in the article of importance. However, in order to insulate the subject entirely, you need to show that it is actually notable, that is, the subject of substantive treatment in reliable sources, which is what that word means here. So, even if it is not speedy deleted, it may be nominated for a deletion debate at articles for deletion where the merits of keeping it or not will be debated for five days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for my speedy deletion nomination is the spelling error in the title. In fact the uploading article creator themselves appears to have noticed this, and has since created a correctly spelled The satyr play and euripides' the cyclops, which has not been nominated for deletion. -- roleplayer15:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dina Cocea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi there, I left a query/warning at User talk:Kroton2#Al Este - possible linkspam . It seems there's a series of re-directed pages and photographs all promoting a vineyard. I wonder would you mind having a look? I can remove the linkspam, but am unsure how to handle the pages themselves. Can you give me your view on the best way to proceed? Thanks Nelson50T11:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there's some advertising going on, but the main article is not a G11, and the truth is that most articles on small companies are started by those with COIs and COI is not a deletion basis but just a cautionary policy. I have prodded the Medanos (appellation), as an advertisement masquerading as an article and something of a dicdef. By the by, the term gets 0 google hits. I have also placed tags on the main article and made other edits such as reducing the giant pictures and the like (the images used are from the Commons so we only have ontrol over how they are used here, not their existence). At this point there are essentially two options. Either take over the writing—look for sources, remove all promotional language, etc. or take it to AfD. I'd look for reliable sources first, and if none are found, only then take it there, citing in your rationale WP:V and WP:N among other policy or guideline bases. As for the redirects, well redirects are cheap, no real harm so long as the article exists. If deleted, all of them should go too. By the way, in your warning to the user, you cited to the the oath: "I will never insert links to my own sites into Wikipedia's..." That's a oath for members of the spam WikiProject; not really useful to cite to third parties you are warning. Keep an eye out for more promotion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the idea (to have redlinks). The new template has already been connected with its corresponding articles. It is vastly different and has been split 3 ways. None of those previous links should redirect to the new templates in anyway, so will a bot not delete the deleted redlinks, this always happens when templates are deleted. (the template was moved to "main" template of the 3 new ones and not deleted so history is preserved) Epson291 (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, many thanks for letting me know this. The only reason I knew it had been deleted before, is that I was the one who asked for it to be speedily deleted last night...which it was. Only for it to reappear again today![9] Is there a template to ask for a second speedy on something that has been recreated?-- Myosotis Scorpioides16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Just retag under the original basis or whatever actual CSD applies at the time of reposting. The reason G4 does not and cannot apply to previous speedy deletions, is that a person can write a two sentence stub with no indication of importance which gets deleted as an A7, but then repost with much better content that doesn't meet A7. The same is true of many other tagging bases. G4 itself, even when applied to articles deleted on the merits, is invalid if the reposted content addresses the reason for deletion. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what's wrong with the talk page deletions that I requested? The articles have been moved to different names, but for some reason the talk pages weren't moved. There's no useful content on the talk pages, other than a project template. All of the articles (under their new names) have talk pages already, so there's no reason to keep the old talk pages. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I see now. They should have been moved with the parent articles. I'll G6 them so long as the talk pages have no other content but WikiProject banners, as I think most do. If there's substantive discussion of the articles, I'll have to do history merges.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was under the impression that the link to the external page would be sufficient. I have all the info from this page, so the whole article would be one big reference I guess.. Maybe I can place a ref next to the foodplants? If you could show me what I need to add to a article to create a ref, that would be much appreciated. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be my pleasure! However, I am right now leaving for work, and I am gearing up for the Thanksgiving Holiday, so I may not be able to get back to you until Friday (though probably tonight). In fact I'm late for work right now so, gotta run!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you recently deleted a number of talk pages of redirects relating to Dungeons & Dragons using CSD G6 as a reason. Having those pages tagged as part of the D&D project is important to the project, even if the article they are related to never was anything other than a redirect. If you could restore the pages it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
I was the one who requested the deletion of those pages, so if there's any restoration to be done I suppose I could do it. However, I thought those pages were less-than-useful for reasons I have explained here. I think having these talk pages with project templates on them is not a useful thing to have. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think these are just clutter; unimportant pages that will never be useful and serve no purpose. I agree that pages which existed for a substantial length of time are worth keeping since there are all manner of ways that links to these pages could exist, both on-Wikipedia and off, that would be broken by their removal. Here, we are talking about talk pages that existed for a matter of one day, in total. These pages are, thus, analogous to creating talk pages for any old redirects for the sole purpose of placing WikiProject templates on them, and I cannot imagine any persuasive argument for that activity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although I think that instead of just being deleted they should at least be redirected to the appropriate other talk page, and then both Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles and Category:NA-importance D&D articles can be added to them manually, without the {{D&D}} template. I guess it really doesn't matter though; I'd brought up the issue at the request of another user, and your position makes sense now that I have thought about it more. My apologies for any trouble this may have caused. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for putting speedy deletion on this article. As mentioned on revision history i was going for dn which means disambiguate this link but hit db due to the beauty of a QWERTY keyboard. Oops. extraordinary (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You deleted the page below for a G12 w/o more warning, but it was just under edition. 13:29, 30 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "TMap Test Management Approach" (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: of http://eng.tmap.net/Home/TMap/The_4_essentials/Business_Driven_Test_Management.jsp and other pages from the site)
I finally managed to understand why you deleted it. I agree with you (this is my first contribution), but I was unaware of the "copyright release sentence". Can I get back the text of the article in some way (here or email), so I can improve it with my own word and release the copyright ? I didn't have time to make a backup, you deleted it so fast... thanks--Raynald (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I tried to incorporate it in: Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla. I added the ref to a small section though, because I used some other info from the Dutch wiki too. Furthermore, I didn't have a date of creation, so I used the date the site started (1998), I hope that is okay? Cheers and thanks again!Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article had no sources to back up the claims, thus I added the speedy. It appears now that I made an error in tagging. I sincerely apologize for the tagging. It has been a looong day for me. Willking1979 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just be careful to separate the requirement to 'show notability (a topic for debate on the merits), from the requirements to meet A7 (just an asssertion of real importance that might meet WP:N if a search was conducted). Truthfully, I doubt the article will survive at AfD though I haven't looked for sources yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so I can see now you're not a bot. The move/splice features are new and I'm not familiar with them. Or I'm severely misinformed. Either way, thanks for returning the lost info. But would it not have been faster to move them yourself and inform me of such? --Hurricane Angel (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the naming conventions in the subject area to be sure you are correct that they should be capitalized. Many of our capitalization conventions seem counterintuitive and many of them are specific and idiosyncratic to the particular subject. For that reason, I would prefer you perform the moves. It's easy, just click the move tab at the top of the article. With regard to placing the content from the now deleted cut and paste article on your talki page, I would never add that to the original article myself for two reasons, first I would never take credit for something someone else wrote (I would be upset of someone did that to me), and second, it would violkate the GFDL to do so. By the way, the move function was instituted in or about September 2004:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to cause you confusion with the recent changes at Cite Book. Citation bot is making its way through citations fixing the changes; unfortunately it got stuck in a loop a couple of days ago without me noticing, but it'll work its way round the rest of the affected pages as fast as its edit rate will let it. Hope you see the eventual benefits of automatically producing a consistent output format, even if the transitional period is a bit rocky! All the best, Martin(Smith609 – Talk)22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice about working from the example and giving me the link to Revenge of the Lawn.jpg. The step that I am not clear about is uploading to English Wikipedia instead of Wikimediacommons, which another editor had suggested in response to my Helpdesk question. Can you give me a better idea where to upload the image for the book cover? I don't know about English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.Hammerdrill (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You have to upload here because the Wikimedia Commons is only for free content. Fair use, which you are going to be using here, is verboten on the Commons. On the left hand side side of this page you'll see a bunch of links under the heading "toolbox". The second to last from the bottom is marked upload file. That's the link to set you on the process. In the page you are taken to, one of the links is marked "A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source." The link in that sentence is what you want. This is a direct link there. That page attempts to guide a user through the process of placing a fair use rationale, but since I've already provided the code, simply blank the content in the "Summary:" box and ignore the licensing box at the bottom. Just go ahead and upload the file (since you already uploaded an image to the Commons, I take it you are familiar with the process of clicking on browse and choosing the relevant image you wish to upload from your computer). Once that's done, click "edit this page" and paste all the content from the example image I provided previously (while in edit mode) and replace the few parameters that are different. Voila! I will also post this on your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, if you check it out now it won't be as I inserted it, because it has already been edited! It appears I made a no-no by giving the information for the book I read instead of for the first edition. I can understand that wikipedia has a policy of using the first edition, but practically speaking, I gave the page numbers in footnotes for the edition I read. That is from a book published for the United States in 2007. (I gave both dates originally, 1954 and 2007.) Maybe the plates are the same, and the page numbers won't be a problem. I'm just thinking as I type, but it was the same publisher, so I bet they used the same plates. Anyway, if you do check out the product of your great help to me, it won't any longer exist as I entered it!Hammerdrill (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming back to you about my infobox for The Road to Samarcand. Would you advise me to remove the image for the book? Here's what I'm thinking... The information below the image now all relates to the First Edition, but because the image is not from the First Edition, I see it as inconsistent and conflicting. (I requested help on the discussion pg about finding a First Ed. cover.) I want to get the rating for this article higher, which was C when I published it. I believe it is now so improved it can qualify. Do you mind checking it and giving me your opinion? I am definitely going to nominate it for a B listing. I'm nervous about trying for Good Article status. Regardless of what other flaws it might have, the absence of a First Ed. image strikes me as obvious, and maybe enough to hold the article back from GA status. Whaddayathink?Hammerdrill (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on the talk page. In short, a first edition cover would be a nice addition. That's about all. Keep the image, and their is nothign wrong with using a later edition for your references. What I think may be the sticking point at WP:GAC, if anything, is that you haven't cited many secondary sources. The book itself is primary material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your advice. I researched the piece further and put in additional secondary references. I'm sure there is more to be done. In the meantime I have decided to submit the article to see if it can be rated as B. Thanks again.Hammerdrill (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my article 10 minutes after I added the hangon tag; that is NOT! enough time to come up with a reason why it shouldn't be discarded :( Jrg dnn (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting my article, I will read the guidelines on how to write an article and start in a sandbox and then move it to the mainspace as soon as its ready Jrg dnn (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my error. You are exactly right. I completely used the wrong reason for deletion, and agree with your advice to the editor completely.
--digitalmischief (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the person in consideration here has deleted the site can best be considered "discriminating." JIMSJ Organizations is a small-business that offers free and paid web hosting, as well as email service and applications. Please reconsider your decision. "Jimsj" is a reasonable article to include in Wikipedia as it provides informative knowledge about the business, JIMSJ Organizations, as well as its services. Please view the JIMSJ webpage [10] if you have any concerns.
The article does not violate any copyright policies, nor does it contain "nonsense," etc. as described in Wikipedia's Critea for Speedy Deletion.
If the person in consideration here feels that this page is still not worthy of consideration, please respond, stating the reasons as to why "Jimsj" is not a reasonable article for inclusion.
Please acknowledge the webpage's importance. This webpage does not stand anywhere next to common autobiographical nonsense and articles about "The Monster That was in my Shoe," etc. Note that the undersigned will respond to your questions or concerns, if posed necessary.
Hello. The article was not deleted as a copyright violation, nor as nonsense but under CSD A7 twice and once in October as blatant advertising. The article fails to provide any indication of importance of the subject. An encyclopedia is a very particular type of reference work; it is a tertiary source containing entries on subjects already substantively written about in the real world by secondary sources. We therefore can only have articles on subjects that are notable enough to have been the subject of publication by third parties. It is the nature of an encyclopedia. The way to post an article that "sticks" is to write it from that perspective. All the information should be verified by citation to independent (meaning wholly unrelated to Jimsj), secondary, reliable sources which have published material about Jimsj. For most things in the world, that can't be done because the subject has not caught the world's interest, so no one has done such publication. Every day we get thousands of articles about companies, bands, people, etc. which exist in the world but have no claim that makes them worthy of being the subject of a reference encyclopedia. Jimsj appears to be in this boat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I wrote a page for "Windsurf Resource" and also left comments as to why it should be included in Wikipedia and should not be deleted. This morning, you deleted the page as "G11 blatant advertising" without providing an explanation as to what specifically was wrong or what needs to be done to achieve your acceptance. Could you please fill me in?
Please tell me why it was deleted. I am not making money on this, and I explained before that it is a resource similar to the Windvisions web site which is notable within the windsurf community. Is the problem that I need to rewrite the article so that it is in better form for Wikipedia? Or is the problem that even if rewritten, there is no way you would accept an entry for Windsurf Resource? Or is the problem that the article for Windsurf Resource needs to be written by someone else who may be more neutral? Or is the problem that you question the notability of Windsurf Resource? Please tell me how to achieve Wikipedia standards for this article. Thanks
Mlestina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlestina (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is set forth in the deletion summary. It was deleted as blatant advertising under CSD G11. Regardless of your affiliation or lack of affiliation with the website, the page read like a puff piece, advertising the site. It was full of peacock words and promotional language and content. The article was the antithesis of neutral point of view writing, which is a core content criterion for encyclopedic material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the most amazing... I'm at a loss for words. Already enshrined at the top of my user page (although it might be more fitting at the bottom: "leaving Brooklyn..." but nah). And not for nothing but, I write this message from, yep, Brooklyn:)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't do both. If you enable Twinkle in gadgets, there's no need to add anything to your monobook.js. You only need to add Twinkle in your monobook.js if you want to customize it. The version in Preferences-->Gadgets, provides the default settings. After you add it, you need to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache (on many computers, done by hitting control+F5). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing the page move request at talk:14th Dalai Lama (and fixing all the talk archives while you were at it!). Some of the other Dalai Lama pages couldn't be moved due to existing histories on the redirects: could you help move these across? These have been taken care of. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I wanted to mark it for speedy as an attack, but decided to be more conservative and start a debate instead. Thanks for taking the initiative. Scapler (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit-under the criteria as to why you deleted my article about BringIt LLc, it states that my article that is simply just promoting a website and is required to be rewritten-however i listed refrences and don't know how else to accomidate the proper guidelines. Can you help me and give me some tips on how to better write this article, so I will not be delited and my article can stay on Wikipedia? Your help would be greatly appcreiated. Thank you in advance.
Vertz22 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Sarah[reply]
The reason for deletion is set forth in the deletion summary (as you can see it has been deleted three time, by three different administrators, each for the same reason). It was deleted as blatant advertising under CSD G11. The page reads as marketing copy, intended to promote the site and very, very transparently so. It was full of peacock words, promotional language and content and written from the first person "our patented software". The article was the antithesis of neutral point of view writing, which is a core content criterion for encyclopedic material. This is why those who have a conflict of interest—a vested interest in the topic (and I know you do given the content)—should not be writing articles on those subjects.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this has been deleted on the grounds that it was promotional and not a significant advertising campaign. I strongly disagree - this long since gone beyond a simple advertising campaign and is a somewhat of a cultural phenomenon in the UK. It has been running for many years and has reached the state that cinemas are now literally twice as busy on Wednesdays than any other day. The pre-showing adverts for it have also gained a cult status due to their tongue-in-cheek, irreverent handling of well known actors. (I'm not affiliated with Orange, I just wanted to read the article).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmtlewy (talk • contribs)
Hi. Since this was deleted through the proposed deletion process, if anyone objects restoring is usually granted unless the article is very clearly improper. Accordingly, it's already done. Note though that this does not mean it will not be nominated and deleted on the merits at articles for deletion. The main problem with the article is that it is entirely unverified. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how to use this. Just responding to the message you sent. I apologize for changing the articles...It was just an experiment to see how long it would take for someone to change it back. Me and my friends were always curious. So I have a question, are you employed by Wikipedia to make sure people do not post material that they're not supposed to?
And how did you find out that I changed that article so fast? I'm impressed.
And you also seem really smart. If not employed by Wikipedia, what do you do? Just curious. I'm sorry if I made you mad before. It was all in good fun, but I know kind of disrespectful so I won't do it again. Sorry. Please respond on my talk pageAnm33 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think copying one wp p. onto another for WNXB-TV. is really blatant copyvio, WP being a gfdl source. Please take a look at the user User:Ellinejerk contribution history & deleted contributions. I deleted 2 of the pages as vandalism, but as she's contributed other TV articles I'm not sure. I don't usually work on this subject, but either it's real, or she's a good editor being stupid today, or we have a bigger problem. Advice? I'll look here. DGG (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I would have replied sooner but I didn't notice your edit for a while because I got another message moments later, so the orange bar only served to alert me to one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being bold going through and removing those huge reference lists. You beat me to it, as I was leaving some commentary on the talk page of one, before setting out to it. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The user obviously means well but, yeah, what a pain. I could have done it in moments with rollback (which some users had already used for a few of them) but that is in itself inappropriate being earmarked only for obvious vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Many a good faith user has felt more bitten by an acerbic edit summary or one which implies vandalism than by the reversion itself, which has in turn led to much avoidable drama. I try to always acknowledge on reversion of this type of material that the user's good faith is not at issue; only the appropriateness of the edit in question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; when you get into the specifics of genetics, things can get complicated. One note of caution: when you come upon an article on a subject that you are unfamiliar with, don't assume it's nonsense. For this article, if you had checked the website actually cited in the article as a reference, you might not have understood the subject, but you would have immediately seen it was a real subject. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
um, did you read my rationale on the talk page? In the real world, the team doesn't exist, the stadium doesn't exist, the league doesn't exist. Googling on the coach shows that this is an article on a fantasy football team presented as though real-world. That, to me, is vandalism and doesn't deserve to survive the 5 days for an AFD. dramatic (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been very tired. Of course when I see a G3 I normally check the talk page. For some reason I actually remember looking and seeing a red link (possibly I actually did and it was a cache issue). In any event, a bit of Google research to make sure it was a hoax seems to turn up the origin of it, it's apparently a fantasy football club on Hattrick written here as if it has a real world presence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Subban page was recently deleted by you, on the grounds that it had been re-created (not by me) after a previous delete. Subban may not have been notable then (when the article was first deleted), but there's nothing that says that one cannot obtain notability later. In fact, don't you think he is notable now, as he partakes in the junior world championships of ice hockey? A few hours ago, he scored the 4-0 goal on Kazakhstan.
Hi LarRan. Of course I agree that notability can change. The issue here is that the reposted content stated nothing more than the previous article did (actually less), and as such, does not address the deletion bases at the debate. If a reposted article makes additional claims that were not included in the article at the time of the deletion debate, then that article is not subject to G4, which is not the case here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for the reply. But are you sure that the issue now is the fact that the article was re-posted? If he has acquired notability now, shouldn't the article be marked "please improve" instead of deleted? Shouldn't the issue be whether he's notable now or not (I'm not insisting he is), rather than whether the content is identical to previous content or not. LarRan (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. Think about it this way. An article on Albert Einstein (to choose an absurd example for emphasis) that said only "was an Austrian scientist" is subject to speedy deletion as failing to assert importance under A7. The speedy deletion criteria do not ask for us to turn to Google, or even, when we know that an article is on a notable subject, make the claims and do the sourcing for the person who is posting the material. They are lines in the sand because we need them to be in order to function. If someone wants to take the time to create an article on X which: asserts the importance of the subject, provides context, is not a copyvio, does not contain an attack, etc. then let them do so. The act of creating content is not sacrosanct. The subject may be notable now; he may have been notable before, but that is not the issue. If you want to take the content and add further to it because you wish to devote your time to finding additional material, I'll gladly provide a copy of the article. Otherwise, let it be recreated with material (not potential for material that a third party asserts may be possible to claim, but actual material) that changes it from the same content that was already discussed at a deletion debate and found wanting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit - it reads quite a bit better now. :) I assumed it would need at least a quick pass, but I thought I was going to have to ask around until I found someone. It's much appredciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"any credible claim of significance or importance"
I understand that we may well disagree about what "credible" means.
Please do not assume that because we do disagree, that I have not bothered to read. It is acceptable to disagree with me, as it is to disagree with you. It is quite rude however for me to say "Obviously, Fug, you didn't bother to read the article or you would agree with me."
All that said, I do understand that you believe the claims in the article are credible. I believe they are not, and will clean the article up a bit, giving other editors a chance to show any credibility to the claims. On review, looking at the article, I **AGREE** that it should not be a Speedy candidate, I just disagree with your assumption about the human posting as "Sinneed". All the best. sinneed (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I used a fairly harsh axe on the article. All this OR had been flagged since July. There is nothing to indicate that any of this is real. If an interested editor comes along, my axe-work can be easily reverted... but I think there is no danger of that, really. All the best. sinneed (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are bringing up brand new wording added to A7 on December 24. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Credible refers in the criterion to something that you can determine from the text of the claim itself—specifically to ward against statements of the type: "my brother is the greatest skate boarder alive" (the actual example used in the discussion to add that language). I can see how you misinterpted it and this may require a reassessement of the addition. In any event, if you have concerns that an article is not credible, because you know something about the subject, or have done research indicating it is a hoax, you don't tag it as A7, which does nothing to inform a reviewer of your concern, you tag it with {{hoax}} and possibly CSD g3 with an explanation if it is outrageous, but best to prod or bring it to AfD. A simple db-bio tag placed on an article which makes patent claims of importance fails to inform anyone why A7 would apply and is a mistagging.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am a strong believer in WP:CRYSTAL, which should only be relaxed for very highly anticipated things that have lots of sources. Otherwise, the article isn't really about the topic at all, but about the release of the topic (though a Cher album might fit the exception). The point is not that I think this article should or should not stay based on other grounds, but that it can't be deleted under a criterion that clearly does not apply by its plain language. On that score the issue is as stark as can be. A9 is inapplicable to an article if the artist has an existing article, period. To pursue deletion of this subject you have to go through the proper process; use proposed deletion or take it to articles for deletion. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out - I'll go back and fix any that I messed up. Since I'll be using that pre-formatted reference for a lot of salvia articles, you saved me some work by pointing it out right at the beginning. Does this mean I can manually change the page(s) parameter when I copy and paste that reference, depending on single or plural, and have no problem? First Light (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. If you are citing to more than one page, use |pages= and if to a single page, use |page=. Depending on which you use, the template will automatically place p. before the page number for a single page and pp. for multiple pages. Note that anyplace where you manually add p. or pp. will result in an error. In other words, if you were to type in the template |pages= pp. 12-13 the template would still add its own pp., resulting in: "pp. pp. 12-13". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bigger problem than I thought. Looking back, I found many references like that, including a bunch in Narcissus poeticus that's about to go on the home page DYK. I know I didn't copy and paste those. So I used the cite tool I've been using, and I notice that it only outputs 'pages' plural. This is the cite tool that shows up at the top of your edit page as a toolbar (if you click the box in the "My preferences"--->"Gadgets" page - the box that says 'refTools'). Seems that isn't a very helpful tool if it only outputs "pages". Do you know what I'm referring to? First Light (talk)
I have never used that cite tool. So I went to preferences and implemented it and I now see what you are talking about. I then went to the button itself right clicked and looked at properties to see what the URL of the image was, and from that found its image page at the Commons: , which in turn gave me the user who uploaded it: User:Mr.Z-man, who is an administrator here. From there I was able to track down User talk:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar (so it is his gadget). I'm going to post to his talk page now with the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I realize that one could manually change page(s) after the cite tool outputs the code, but I bet I'm not the only person who has been caught by this. I'll keep using it for now, but will manually tweak until I see it working right. First Light (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking with our counsel on what the copyright rules are for government entities. IANAL but, since just about everything we do is subject to FOIL (freedom of information act) and is frequently republished, why would wiki be different? Nyitguy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I now, FOIL (that's ... Law, not ...Act; FOIA is for Federal information requests) allows disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents and doesn't bear upon whether the documents are copyrighted or not. Your counsel will know more of course. The point is that for our own purposes, we require that all information used here be under a free license or in the public domain, and the material is clearly copyrighted per the website.
Please understand that this does not mean you can't write about the subject, in detail, and cite to the material you were copying as a source (though note that secondary sources are much preferred). As is often repeated here: "You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. A quick search turned up the following statement, from our page, Wikipedia:Copyrights: "most state and local governments in the United States do not place their work into the public domain and do in fact own the copyright to their work." And from Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright: "Most state governments retain the copyright on their work (California being a notable exception)." I will duplicate this to your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for intervening earlier when someone reverted my work to an earlier version. This now keeps happening. It ought to be obvious, as you have pointed out very helpfully, that I would be the last person to vandalise what is substantively my own work. As you can see, I had got to the stage of finishing the sixth reference on the Chemetco page. Whoever reverted it has now left a skeleton of a page. Is there a way of making it clear that I am a trusted contributor and should be left alone to make thse improvements to the refererences? How can the page be got back?
Thanks for your help with reverting the vandalism and for giving me the inside track on inline quotations. I appreciated that
Astral highway (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
On a separate issue, do I need to 'defend' myself against the conflict of interest template that has been placed on my site? Is it possible to verify if this was placed by the person doing the wipe on the page last night?
Thanks again. On your point about perhaps disclosing how I am related to the plant -- where is the best place to do this, and how? A short note on the Chemetco talk page? I'll comply accordingly. Astral highway (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m writing in hopes you’ll reconsider your deletion of Stephano Sabetti on 29 November, 2008. I wasn’t notified of a proposed deletion, and so I guess I missed the announcement of the planned action. At any rate, I would like to address this issue presently.
You cite notability as the primary reason, and add that it’s “mainly an advertisement, anyway.” Though Dr Sabetti has worked primarily in Europe, he has written extensively with several books available on Amazon.com. He has spoken at various Psychology conferences in the U.S. and done workshops at Esalen Institute in California. Over the years, he has been the subject of articles and reviews, albeit primarily in European media. I would be happy to provide any and all citations that I have regarding press articles and/or curriculum vitae items you might want.
Specifically, what might you need to support his body of work? He currently has several institutes in Europe, has trained thousands of individuals throughout his career, and he currently even has an excerpt from a lecture on You Tube. Though he may not have achieved the “bestseller” success level of others, I and many others consider his contributions to the Mind/Body/Spirit field to be of significance. I have been involved with editing for several of his books, and so I feel competent to write the article without being too “personally attached” to the individual.
As a suggestion, I feel we could address the issue of “self-promotion” by downsizing the length of the article significantly. In an attempt to be thorough, I can see where the article gives the appearance of self-aggrandizement. Would it help to greatly reduce the size and fulsome details of his spiritual teachings, perhaps even deleting most if not all of his quotations?
I would appreciate your consideration for re-inclusion to Wikipedia for Stephano Sabetti, and I would be willing to accommodate any suggestions you may have to make this happen. I thank you in advance for your kind attention. LEMspare (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LEMspare. The deletion summary is not mine, it is the person who placed the proposed deleton (prod) tag. I simply implemented the deletion, upon the prod tag expiring with no one protesting or removing the tag. In any event, the proposed deletin process is informal and allows anyone to protest which immediately makes the deletion controversial and inapplicable. As such, your request for restoration is a simple matter—I've already done it. Note that this does not mean the article will not ultimately be deleted on a separate ground and through a separate process, such as at articles for deletion, which is a more formal consideration on the merits of the article. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that having looked at the article it miserably fails our neutral point of view policy, is dangerously close to blatant advertising. It reads like an infomercial actually. I know you spent a lot of time writing it and I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but to become an encyclopedic article it needs to basically be rewritten entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fughettaboutit. Great name! No, I never nominate things I've written, but if you feel it's deserving, go right ahead. And thank you for noticing. Happy New Year to you and yours. Best regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're most kind. I have a few articles that I would enjoy working up to FA. By the way, I love the Fuhgettaboutit sign on leaving Brooklyn! lol. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were so helpful with the 'Quaker Joe' entry that I thought you might appreciate the entry on George Baker Leavitt Sr., a New England whaling captain who married an Eskimo woman in Alaska and lived out the end of his days in Honolulu. Thanks again and have a good weekend. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to rewrite the article, greatly simplifying it. I guess I mistook the notability denotation for a certain thoroughness and connection to outside links, e.g. other individuals with whom he's worked with unquestioned notoriety.
Unfortunately, I barely got the message to you and find now that others have not only joined the fray, deleting both the article and my "obvious spam user name."
May I have a channce to rewrite the article? And how should I now do this. I must say I thought deletion of my username was a bit over the top, as I offered to do any and everything to comply with your standards.
Thanks, I'm sorry I'm new to contributions, and as I said, I meant only to be provide footnotes and links to substantiate the work
LEMspare (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LEMspare. Basically, the article must not sound like a commercial for the man, but an encyclopedia entry. What you need to do is avoid all peacock language and write the article from a neutral point of view, stating just facts, and wherever possible citing to reliable secondary sources for the information. You need to review that neutral point of view policy in detail. You might also find Wikipedia:Autobiography of interest. As for the deletions, they were done as blatant advertising under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion (not on notability grounds). I know you say this is over the top, and I can sympathize, but as I already also said, this article read like an infomercial. It really was quite blatant. If you are goijg to attempt a rewrite, I suggest working that up in a subpage of your user page; say at User:LEMspare/Sabetti, Cheers.Fuhghettaboutit (talk) --13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope you can provide some insight. The Armorize Technologies page [14] was deleted as it does not meet the "criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"
I am attempting to expand this into a technology discussion but wonder why it is removed when blatant corporate pages (similar companies) such as those listed below remain.
Hi I am just leaving so I have to keep this short. Looking at different pages and saying, "but these also exist" is not a valid argument because of the nature of how pages are created and patrolled. See What about article x? Note that blatant advertising CSD G11) and failure to indicate imoportance (CSD A7) are completely separate bases for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your patience and suggestions. I will redo the article, greatly simplifying it with the suggestions about neutality, etc. I do want to quickly clear up one point, though. When I said the speedy deletion was over the top, I was referring not to the fact that blatant advertising qualifies for speedy deletion. Instead, I was referring to the fact that I had just received your first response when it appeared that another editor deleted both the article and my username. Thus what I felt was "over the top" was not the swift deletion of the article but of my username without giving me a chance to right my egregious mistake.
I was not aware of the date consensus... But do tell me, how come the Neptune article uses British spelling like "centre" and "colour" and American style dates? Shouldn't there be a consensus about consistency on that as well? That is, all American, or all British! Q43 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ErikTheBikeMan (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Good catch with the hyphen; its use in this featured list is convincing enough for me. I'm happy with "List of 2008 box office number-one films in the United States" etc. if you want to proceed with the page moves. Given the lack of interest in the discussion I'd say that this is about as uncontroversial as you can get. :) PC78 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gymgirl101 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
An easy mistake to make. If the page had been created properly, i.e., with a link from where it was split from, you wouldn't have had any problem. Anyway, glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because it's now three words makes me think think getting rid of the capital letters may be okay—the underline and red is enough—which I don't think worked when it was just using (SHOUTING though was the point). In that regard, I like the change to "how to use" over "using". So I'm going to go change it to lowercase. This is just a quick note (I'm stealing a moment while at work); I'll provide a link to past discussion later. If memory serves, it was changed to bright bold underline with some discussion; and then someone protested and I provided an analysis showing some percentage reduction in use of the {{RD}} series of templates which we correlated with the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have it backwards. If it's false, a hoax, or even if its real but non-notable, or because it fails WP:CRYSTAL or on other grounds, prod it or take it to Afd. This is not about whether it should or should not be deleted on its merits but whether it is a valid speedy candidate right now, which it is not. If the prod is removed then at AfD if there is information provided in the deletion debate to verfy it is a hoax, it may even be speedied as vandalism under G3 at that time. But not until you have shown that it is invalid on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I found the Editor Assistance page, and saw you were listed there. At my age I'm "fuhghettin" a lot anymore, but on to the topic at hand. I'm relatively new, and I enjoy page patrol, spell checking with lupin, etc. I put my first real effort into an Ethan Phillips article a while back, and just recently tried to improve the Twilight (1998 film). When you get a chance, could you look at the Twilight article, and offer any constructive suggestions. Most of my previous previous writing has been more editorial and essay in nature, so I'm kinda new to this "just the facts Ma'am" (it's an old Dragnet quote) style of writing. Thanks, and have a good day. Ched (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Ched. I'll be happy to take a look. I just made some minor manual of style fixes. By the way, I know the quote and show well, and a bit of trivia: while Dragnet is most famous for that phrase, it was never actually used in the the show, at least not using those words:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! ... You are good, do you give private tutoring lessons? No I won't keep pestering you for every little thing I do, but I'll bookmark your page so I know where to go when I run into a brick wall someday. Thanks again my friend, many folks would have just thrown up a link to WP:MOS or something - I appreciate your work. Ched (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't do "here's a MoS link":-) The article is a fine start. With some fleshing out it could be submitted for good article review. You obviously did some film article research to bring it to the state it's in. A good place to look for ideas is to emulate the style and format of similary situated featured articles such as Halloween (1978 film) and Dog Day Afternoon (which you may have already done). Unfortunately, the wall I've butted against with many articles I've worked on is that the lack of subject matter material is a bar to reaching featured article status. Not everything gets the coverage that Dog Day Afternoon does; just not enough material out there to write with the breadth of coverage required. Feel free to call on me anytime. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am FURIOUS at you for deleting my page. You have NO IDEA how long worked on that! I have a lot of nasty words that I could use, but I chose onot to. I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It wasn't a civilt hing to do. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmerfreak1 (talk • contribs)
I'll give you a chance to start again. Would you care to calmly discuss the reason I deleted the article, and possibly get it undeleted if it turns out I was wrong about it? I will waste little time on this if hystrionics continue, but will give you my full attention and consideration if you are ready to engage in civil discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know the links on that link you gave me as well as trying to search through google isn't working. I'm actually looking for something faster. Like maybe 20 or 30 edits per minute fast. Is there anything like that over here? Spinach Monster (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible. We edit manually or sometimes script assisted, and doing either, the most a human being is capable of is about six edits a second or so, which actually requires far more time than that because of time spent setting up those edits, i.e., having 20 browser tabs open, all already with the intended change made and edit summary provided, and then clicking save for each open tab. Only bots have the ability to make the number of edits you are talking about and for sustained periods of time, and we do not even allow bots to make the number of edits they are capable of because performing numerous edits per second is a drain on the servers. Note that you must get approval to operate a bot, obtain a bot flag, and must have a separate account for operation of the bot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how do I do 6 per second without being a bot? Right now i'm at 124 today. I know it sounds like it's just for my ego, but i'd like to know what the upper limit of human capability is and see if I can achieve that goal. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good edit—making the template return an error message when used on a non-talk page. I'm not sure having a separate category is needed because while the mistake is made, it's rare, will probably be more rare now because the error message will be effective in having users rectify the error, and as you intimate, the place for it to be seen is if it shows up at the main category page and in the table. I can easily add the non-talk page category to my watched categories (using User:ais523/catwatch.js) but I think many users access the category simply by stopping by every once in a while. None of those users will ever see the non-talk page problem unless they separately start visiting the non-talk page category. So even if the non-talk page category remains, it should still separately show up at the main category page or you're going to end up hiding the error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I misread you post. Sorry. It still categorizes into both. Reading more carefully, I'm not sure I understand your question, or more precisely, I think I may understand what you meant'. You ask, "should {{editprotected}} categorize pages into Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests so that VeblenBot can list it at... Well it already does, doesn't it? Do you possibly mean, "even if it's not an actually protected page" as was the case with the one I removed? If yes, then I think so. If not then I'm sorry I'm being dense!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to skim through your replies, but meant to ask if "{{editprotected}} should not whatever...". I must have forgotten to add that one word when I originally posted my comment. I have also corrected my original comment. --Lightsup55( T | C )08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time.
Although it is highly unlikely that an article discussion page is protected at all, edits to the talk page shouldn't be necessary even when it is protected. Thus, {{editprotected}}/{{editsemiprotected}} template should not be used on a non-talk page to request an edit to a talk page (i.e. requesting an edit to Talk:Google from article Google). Instead, the issue should be brought up elsewhere (i.e. the administrators' notice board (or BLP noticeboard for BLP articles) if the issue is important and not disruptive). When the talk page is unprotected (which would be automatic), the user can and should copy and paste the comment he/she was to add to the said talk page on the talk page.
What I'm trying to say is that now {{editprotected}} is coded to produce an ugly big red error message and has a seperate category for when it is used on a non-talk page, that should be it (i.e. don't categorize into Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests). Someone using {{editprotected}} on a non-talk page should be treated just like any other test edit. It would just be like making articles into Christmas trees or making links that look like the Googlelogo.
Yes, the template doesn't belong on non-talk pages but don't you think it will be easier to spot if it categorizes? Because the template addition doesn't shout error to a recentchanges patroller unless they visit the page or actually know the use of the template and that it's only for talk pages, it's less likely to be spotted than some random test edit. It may stay around for a very long time unless it categorizes so that someone coming to edit protected requests finds it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original thought (when I made the changes), but I then thought to see what you think (as you are an administrator) about just having it categorized into the other category. Anyway... I have thought of something else that could be coded into the template. {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:action}} (a new magic word in the MediaWiki software) could be used to see what the protection level is of the page where the template is being used. Using of the ParserFunctions (i.e. {{#ifeq: string 1 | string 2 | value if true | value if false }}), I can have different text show. For example: {{FULLPAGENAME}} {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{void}}|is not edit protected|current edit protection level is {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}}} and {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move}}|{{void}}|is not move protected|current move protection level is {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move}}}} will give User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 10 is not edit protected and is not move protected. For talk pages, the problem is that the {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:action}} magic word only gives out the protection level of the page on which it is used on. So in that matter, I could have a different error be produced when the template is used on a non-talk page based on the page's protection level. Now if the MediaWiki developers could add another parameter to specify the full page name of another page, I could further enhance the {{editprotected}} template to state the article's/subject's (i.e. User:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 10) current protection level. --Lightsup55( T | C )00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I am an administrator doesn't necessarily mean that I am very well versed in template coding! I do dabble, as you can see from all the templates I have created (listed on my user page), but you are far more technically proficient than I am. Frankly, I glazed over trying to follow your conditional parser function explanations:-) So let's make a deal. You go find someone else who can actually follow along competently, and I will try to remember the next time I have a template problem to ask you for help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that with you being an administrator, I thought that you might have better insight (or advise) as to whether or not the way how {{editprotected}} currently categorizes the pages it is used on when used on non-talk pages. After that, I kinda just rambled on about another change that could be made (although it really isn't necessary). --Lightsup55( T | C )03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question: is it possible to use HTML code rather than Wiki code when I edit/create pages on Wiki? I know HTML, and while I'm still learning Wiki code, I get the two mixed up. Is there an option to simply use HTML? If so, how? Thanks! hannah.JOY. (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some HTML works, but most others do not. Here is a list of the ones I know that work:
<!--hidden comment text--> to produce a hidden comment (edit the page to see it) - Note: Hidden comments do NOT show in the actual source code of the rendered page in your web browser. This is a normal function of the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses.
<div></div> - various uses - mostly used with standard attributes such as class="" id="" and style=""
<span></span> - various uses - (same as above)
<u>underlined text</u> to produce underlined text (NOT recommended as it confuses readers into thinking that it is a hyperlink)
<i>italic text</i> to produce italic text - Wikicode alternative: ''italic text''
<b>bold text</b> to produce bold text - Wikicode alternative: '''bold text'''
<b><i>bold and italic text</i></b> to produce bold and italic text - Wikicode alternative: '''''bold and italic text'''''
<sub>subscript text</sub> to produce subscript text
<sup>superscript text</sup> to produce superscript text
<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote> to produce a blockquote of text - Wikicode alternative (shortcut): {{quote|your text here}}template
What does NOT work:
<a href="http://www.google.com/">Google</a> instead, you must use:
[[Article]] or [[Article|alternative text]] to produce an internal wiki link to another page on this wiki (the examples given would make a link to the page titled Article on this wiki along a with link to the page titled Article on this wiki with alternative text as the link text). See Help:Piped link and Help:Pipe trick for more information.
[http://www.google.com/ Google] to produce external links (the example makes an external link to Google).
This is what I can think of from the top of my head. I'm sure there is more, but I just can't think what they are at the moment. --Lightsup55( T | C )21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Hannah. Lightsup has done a good job above of listing for you many of the html codes that we have the ability to use (and some of them have no wiki markup equivalent). The thing is that you really should use wiki markup language for the basic editing functions, such as boldface (html: <b>boldface</b> wiki-markup: '''boldface'''), italics, linking, indenting and the like. If you don't, someone else will inevitably be along to fix the trail of html you leave behind, so it creates work for others. I think you'd get a lot out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. You might also find the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet useful. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to use the internal wiki link function to link to other languages, such as the German Wikipedia's article on Adolf Hitler. For more information on that, see Help:Interwiki linking. Also, you can still use the internal wiki link markup to make links to some places outside of Wikipedia. For example, a link to Uncyclopedia's article on Guitar Hero or a link to an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server. The current interwiki map is available on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki: meta:Interwiki map. Note that when making links to files/images of the File: and Image: namespace, categories of the Category: namespace, and interwiki links, you must place a colon (:) before the namespace and page name. For example, [[File:Wikipedia-logo-en.png]] embeds the image on the page while [[:File:Wikipedia-logo-en.png]] creates a wiki link to it. That reminds me, the <img src="http://www.example.com/something cool.jpg" alt="alternative text" /> HTML tag also doesn't work. To embed an image, you must first upload the image and then use [[File:Image file name.jpg]] to embed the image on the page. For more information, see Wikipedia:Upload, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Images before uploading an image or embeding an image on a page. --Lightsup55( T | C )01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah there little doggie! Hannah's a beginner. There's only so much a person can digest in one sitting. We could recapitulate enhanced image syntax next, but I think she needs to get a handle on the basics first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18:51, 7 February 2009 Fuhghettaboutit (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of banks in Northern Cyprus" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
Why delete this page? It belongs in the category "List of banks in Europe" where all "Sovereign states, Dependencies, autonomies, other territories of Europe" are represented?
I have deleted most of your post as as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is a cut and pastee from some previous discussion I am not involved in. The topic we have between us is your cut and paste move of List of banks in Northern Cyprus to List of banks in North Cyprus. The deletion review for the category has nothing to do with the page I deleted and I don't understand why you are mentioning it. As you can see from the fact that the paste target is red and thus still deleted, it has not been made into a redirect, so I also don't know what you mean on that score. I think it may be that you misunderstood my post because of a language barrier.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fug, you've helped me before. There is a user editing as 70.137.130.4 (who also edits as 70.137.173.82) causing some problems in several areas. In addition to causing an edit war on several articles, has contacted several users on their talk pages because he thinks they're on drugs and is giving warnings and advice. He also leaves edit summaries like ("propylhexedrine=crap,
makes you only nervous and disinhibited", "flunitrazepam=redneck date rape drug, temazepam=just some old lousy sleeping pills", "like huffing glue or smoking shoe polish", "unheard of, just old lousy sleeping pill for grannies", or "rm feeble minded ranting by idiot"). He apparently has experience in this area. When I advised him on his page, I began getting lots of things from him like "watching too many movies?" "Call a priest for an exorcism", perhaps ridiculing me on my film articles which he has also
carried onto Lituraturegeek's talk page if you will check out the exchange at the bottom of his talk page, he's totally inappropriate. I had to archive a whole page of junk on my talk page here: archive 6 near the bottom if you care to see it. How can I get this user reeled in a little? Mjpresson (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJ!. I've taken a look and though there are some bizarre edit summaries and posts (especially that attack edit summary early on that you mentioned), the ip appears to be in many cases reverting unsourced additions, which not a problematic activity (see WP:BURDEN). Much of this is in the nature of a content dispute and I don't have the time or inclination to spend a massive amount of time to sort all of the edits to come to a plan of action—especially when the subject matter is specialized and not in my bailiwick; there is nothing clearcut here. What I'm really saying is, if you find specific problems that are actionable, for example 3RR violations, first warn ({{Uw-3rr}} and if appropriate, bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring citing specific diffs. Or if you see an attack edit summary, warn the user ({{uw-npa1}}). I just don't see any clear path of action right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. You were kind enough to nominate an article I wrote for DYK, and I wonder if I might run something by you? I've expanded this piece considerably and would like to work it up to FA. This is a dumb question, but is there a formal process for that? Or would you even suggest it in this case (i.e., is what's written enough on this topic?). Any guidance you might give would be much appreciated! Thanks. Here's the piece.[15]MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your suggestions. The article was in pretty rough shape when I got ahold of it a few days ago and I've tried to upgrade it. I studied under Hersey so I've tried to both incorporate some feeling of the man while hewing to journalistic standards. I hear you about FA standards. I can easily scope out a lot more sources (the part you reference about his childhood, for instance, was in the piece when I got ahold of it). My intent was, frankly, to at least honor a wonderful man and an extraordinary teacher by a piece somewhat approximating his stature (which it most certainly was not before). I will look at the FA guidelines you suggest, and can easily incorporate far more references if need be. No worries there. Many thanks, once again, for your assistance. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help concerning the article that was deleted. I have redone the article, and I believe it can hardly be thought of as either over the top or egregiously an infomercial. Before posting it however, I'd like your sense as to whether it now passes muster. It's cut down from 35 pages to a manageable 5, just the facts without peacock terms and excessive reference and outside links to his works.The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LEMSpare/Stephano_Sabetti
Well, unfortunately, I am a currently unemployed attorney. :( I was working at McCarter & English doing temp and document review work for a while, but the NY/NJ metro legal market is deader than Vaudeville right now. I'm seriously considering going back to school for another masters' degree, possibly in public administration/public policy, both of which have long been interests of mine. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just noticed this query. I'm a bit unclear what the question means, as the article was entirely rewritten and basically re-footnoted. Also, I was a previous contributor to the piece in January 09, September 08, April 08, March 08 and February 08. So much of the text I had already contributed. But not liking the way the article came together -- it seemed splintered -- I rewrote it and added almost all the new footnotes. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I was writing you at the same time you were writing me. Well, I think you'll get it from what I wrote on your talk, but DYKs are only for articles either created within the past five days, or expanded fivefold in the past five days and they technically only count the prose portion of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I could have moved the text from the extensive footnotes into the main piece and easily solved the problem. It's funny because I sent the article as now written to a friend who's a senior editor at Newsweek and she was quite complimentary about the piece. Take care and thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Note that quality has nothing to do with it (unfortunately). If you take a poorly written but long article and turn it into Shakespeare but the expansion doesn't even come close to the 5x expansion threshold, it doesn't qualify. I thought here the degree of expansion might be enough but clearly not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate your having nominated it. As far as expansion of the existing piece, quite a bit of the previous work was done by me, but as I say, the entire article was jumbled and confusing so I felt like it needed reworking. Most articles I work on here I originate, so it's not usually an issue, but I wanted to see this particular one improved upon. Thanks again and have a good day. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Chris. It comes with the territory. Rest assured that I haven't mixed up your posts with Reiso's and I perfectly well understand that wanting to edit a page that is locked and which you know how to fix but you must appeal to and the wait for intervention from a third party is sure to foster frustration. I just think it's a necessary evil.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added note [4] to the Jack Benny article to reference the Lawrence Welk Academy Awards show. I don't have a copy of that show, so could you explain exactly what was said that pertains to Meyer's occupation or national origin?
Gjm5025 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I restored the footnote;—the article's first—I had added on January 17, 2007, which was thereafter blanked by a new user. I have little memory anymore of exactly what Benny said, but you can see from the diff when I added it, and the edit summary I used, what I was verifying. I only remember that he was talking about growing up and about his father's store. Wish I could be more explicit. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I've taken your constructive criticism and ukexpat's, and I think I've addressed the issues. 1. I've greatly reduced and stated the simple, one or two sentewnce descriptions in Professional Development and Teaching Themes. I see now where the subjectification, even subtle references to "better approaches" may be seen as touting. 2. I've searched and found direct inline references for the articles, TV interviews, Radio Interviews, and articles written by others about Life Energy Therapy. 3. I've removed the registered trademarks.4. I've taken the notability issue to heart. It was noted that the articles had to be about Sabetti, not just mentioning him in passing to be considered valid references. I've seen and heard the interviews, and I can assure you each one of these articles concerns onlySabetti's work. You mentioned this, I believe.5. I've removed Sabetti's books as references. They now only appear as Works. I must admit, and I thank you so very much for your help in getting me to sharpen this down, that many other articles I find in Wikipedia would never hold up to the level of rigorous scrutiny we're imposoing here. This high standard only serves to make this work better, so please don't misunderstand me. But I find countless articles that have no referencesa at all; they're allowed to "fly" perhaps because the names are better known.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your looking at the newest iteration. I've left the footnote sources in as references too. My understanding, from reading the citations page is that this is generally done when the articles apply to most of the topic, but a key to Sabetti's work lies in the interconnection between and among elements of the theory (thus wholeness). So they mostly apply to the whole general theory, except in isolated cases where they discuss the "organization,"for example.I'll take them out of the references section, leaving only the footnotes if you deem it proper.
Hey there Fuhg... awww forget it ... <copy / paste>: - Fuhghettaboutit, how you doin? It's me again. Sorry to bother you, but after your help with the Twilight film article I bookmarked you as a great help. Anyway, the article I'm looking for guidance on is Study skills. I know it's not a film or TV show or anything, but you didn't get the admin mop without having a good skill set. I admire your writing abilities, and copyedit skills. sooo ... on to the question, or rather request for guidance. The Study skills page was up for deletion, and being the patron saint of salvage lost causes, I jumped right in. At the time I got there, it was basically a student version of an essay/how to article. I'm not asking you to work on the article per se, but rather give me some guidance. The over-abundance of information available has caused me to lose sight of the forest due to the number of trees (so to speak). If you could give me an idea of the section headings I should be concentrating on, it would be a great help. The topic has potential, but needs direction (at least that's my opinion). If you could offer my poor wandering soul a bit of light toward the proper path it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers my friend, and if you are too busy on other projects - believe me I completely understand. In fact, I'd much rather be working on Star Trek or film articles, but I thought this would be a good learning experience article for me to tackle. Thanks buddy, — Ched (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I did the tl thing to helpme tag - plenty there to feed my knowledge thirst for a while. appreciate your time greatly. ;) — Ched (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you help me with an image problem? I want to add this image to this section of the Kelly Monaco article. I cut and pasted the image's file name, but as you can see, a different image pops up when I try this. Interestingly, when I remove "thumb" portion of the tag, the right photo is displayed, albeit too large. I've never encountered this phenomena before. Any ideas? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So it had nothing to do with the way I was formatting it? For future reference, how do I tell if it's a caching problem, and how do I purge such things? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it was nothing on your end. Anytime you see an image by an exact name displaying two different ways you know it has got to be a cache issue because, well, there's nothing else that can account for that. It can be difficult to figure out which cache is the culprit and there's three involved: yours, the image's and the page you're trying to include it in. The tricky part is that even if it wasn't your cache to begin with, once you visit the other two pages your computer may cache them because of your initial visit, so after you purge them even if that fixes the problem you were originally seeing, you may still see the error because of the new caching issue on your end. So, first purge your cache (see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache; for many browsers CNTRL+F5, or CNTRL+Shift+R works) then purge the image page and the article page. See Wikipedia:Purge (you can go to edit this page, go to the URL and change the end from &action=edit to ?action=purge and then navigate to that page, or you can install the purge clock [go to preferences→Gadgets→User interface gadgets and checkbox "Add a clock..."]). As soon as you have purged the two pages, purge your own cache again and see if the error is still displaying. If it is, try a null edit to the two pages and then purge your own cache again. If none of that works, it's probably a job queue issue and there's nothing you can do but wait. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new article this morning (my first!) it is very early stages but that is how I compose stuff. I thank you for your advice I should do it in my own user area-- but the links were so weak I kinda thought it better to link to a non-existent or stub article than to just leave it missing. I later found a better article but Wikipedia's search well you might as well ask the cat. I have amended and crossreffed that article.
I made the fatal mistake of doing it early on a Saturday morning when I couldn't get my reference books for citation-needed etc. Waiting for Refbot to stick a few in for me, I don't see why I should bother when a bot can do it.
But in a few editions it will be OK-- but am still not sure whether to merge or keep it separate and cross-refer.
Most computer articles seem to be written by newbie computer graduates and (a) they know bugger all, they have never been on a firing range trying to fix an error of one part in two million and (b) they don't know how to write simply but effectively. I don't always get it right but at least I try.
Hi Simon. If you look at your talk page you'll see that you've confused me with User:Xeno, who left you the message you're referring to. You can see this because he signed his post, as I did mine, and on that front, please try to sign your posts to talk pages such as this (but never in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your post, which automatically formats to your signature when you save. There is no such thing as a bot that can add references to random articles (and there probably never will be until such time as that same bot can pass a Turing test). Bots may fix code, performing exact repetitive operations where it is told "if you see this, this or this, change it in this way," but they never do something like look up a relevant book which verifies a particular sentence and cite it in the article. You have to do that, and verifiability of information added to Wikipedia is not optional. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's displeasure with my crop of his PD pic
Hello i was making a Wikipedia bot and i tagged the user page with the {{bot}} template i was in the procces of building the bot but after i received a message from user:Daniel Case if i was gonna get it approved i told him yes i just want to have a script ready before i do.I don't understand why my bot was removed i been editing and reverting vandal edits on wikipedia for years now i don't understand whats going on maybe you can inlighting me with whats going on.
Hi, I am TagSmallPig. Thanks for answering my question.
Atually, I used to have used other person's real full name to write articles on wikipedia and he doesn't know about this.
Now the account name has been changed into a new one, but the real full name still appears in the edit history. I feel erring to have adpopted other person's privite information to post articles. Can the personal private information be changed under such case? Thanks very much for your help. Pig 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TagSmallPig (talk • contribs)
Hi,Fuhghettaboutit I am TagSmallPig. Thanks for answering my question.
I used to have used other person's real full name to write articles on wikipedia and he doesn't know about this.
Now the account name has been changed into a new one, but the real full name still appears in the edit history. I feel guilty to have adpopted other person's privite information to post articles. Can the personal private information be changed under such case? Thanks very much for your help. Pig 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TagSmallPig (talk • contribs)
Thanks very much. You are so kind. :-) Pig 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TagSmallPig (talk • contribs)
Hello, thank you very mucho for your opinions... I am very new at this, so I really appreciate your time...
As you recommended I already post on the administrator's talk page about my apologies to the case of the platelet-rich plasma article.
I agree with you that not ALL the article should have been deleted, but I requested his personal point of view and opinion on how could I do in order to republish the article and what should I delete of it in order to accomplish the requirements.
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Cssiitcic's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey. :) Firstly, sorry for the late reply, but I've been busy recently. I really did not mean to be “rigid”. It would have been better in my opinion to add it directly below the archived discussion, though. However, I do not object your revert as well. Best wishes, — Aitias//discussion20:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing these days? Had a favor to ask - would you have time to do a quick copyedit check of some work I did. Another admin (well, more to the point, an experienced editor) asked me to look over an article, Tim Richmond. I did what I could to the best of my abilities, but would love to have a good copyeditor tweak my work. Specifically the last half of the NASCAR section, and the Illness section. Full Disclosure: after your help on the Twilight (1998) film article, I did tag you as a great copyeditor. If you are busy with your preferred pursuits at wikipedia, I won't be offended, but if you enjoy the role of copy-editor, I would appreciate any input. Hope life is treating you well ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Royalbroil has already nominated for GA, I'm not clear if further editing would jeopardize the "stability" part of GA at this point or not. You probably are more familiar with that aspect of things than I am. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)01:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Don't worry about stability. Not only is that more about warring, rather than a copyedit, but GA is slow. If it was nominated last week, set your watch for 14 more days or so before review. I just finished the copyedit and may look at it again in the next few days with less bleary eyes. I was really flagging by the time I got to the second half.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit! I wondered what was going on - I guessed that you probably found it at WP:GA until I read this thread. I had new, but extremely good, copyeditor User:Sift&Winnow do a grammar review the article. It's always good to have another pair of eyes review the article! Sorry that I caused you some edit conflicts; I left the article alone so you could work on it. You found numerous grammar (etc.) problems that needed cleaning. I made a few more changes because your edit caused inaccuracies (like Richmond (himself) had the 64 race winless streak, not the team that he just joined). I have replied to your comment on the talk page. I did the article completely from scratch because it had major tone issues and I had asked Ched to review what I did. Ched wants to understand how the GA process works, so he's going to follow the article through the process. Royalbroil13:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you from me as well. I really appreciate you taking the time. Sorry about the confusion (and I left a more formal apology at the article talk page). Hope life is treating you well, and I appreciate you not only improving my efforts - but for actually taking the time to teach me how to improve as well. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day - teach him how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. ;) .. Thanks again! — Ched ~ (yes?)15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if it seems like advertising , im not. I am not the owner/creator nor am I in anyway invested in the organization. "Res ipse loquitor" it will speak for istelf when the article is finished. Im not trying to advertise anything, rather im trying to expound upon unique economic conditions arising during this time period. More examples and information are to come I just want to have the foundation already there
deleting admin, please note that this article has undergone substantial revision since initially being nominated for deletion, on Feb 27, 2009. Since then there have been multiple third party sources added, which detail in depth the history behind the subject, his impact on the local Denver scene, his affiliation with notable musicians, and a broadcast radio show he currently hosts. The AFD process has failed to take these changes into account, and was closed with a summary judgement, which I feel was based on the obscurity of the subject and not the notability. I took this into account when I had the article userfied, and made necessary changes to the article in hopes to withstand the thresholds for inclusion in wikipedia. riffic (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Riffic. I believe the article is subject to CSD G4; that the new page you posted is substantially identical to the deleted version and that the changes you made upon reposting do not address the reasons for deletion expressed at the deletion debate.
When the article was deleted as a a result of the AfD debate on February 27 it had 7 references mostly to blogs and other unreliable sources—and those that were reliable were held to not constitute substantive treatment but trivial mention. Looking at the reposted article, you have three additional references, two are to other pages at two sources already held to be unreliable sources (another Optical Atlas page and another Westword blog page). The only new source mentioned is the article, "Cheeseballs and oddballs in town" at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which we can't check ourselves, and I note that at that journal's apparent online site, the article you cite is not found through their internal search engine. I also note that they have a community blog there where the article may have come from.
Even if you tell me it was not from the journal's blog, and is too old for the search to find the article, all you were using that new citation for was verifying one sentence in the article, that another group was named by Little Fyodor. This leads me to believe that this sole new source does not provide substantive treatment, but is just another passing mention. I thus do not believe the reposted version was different from the deleted version except in cosmetic ways. You always have the option of taking the original deletion closing, my speedy deletion based on it, or both to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and in fact, if you ask me to, I'll help you with that process if you want. If the community finds that the original debate was improperly closed, or my speedy deletion should be overturned, I will happily abide by that consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I appreciate your response. I would like to have this reviewed by DRV. Most of these sources actually do discuss the subject at a length longer than a "trivial mention" and the stuff from westword are published articles in a newspaper, not blog entries. This newspaper just uses a blog engine to publish their articles online. Newspaper articles are reliable sources under all wikipedia policies. I also don't see why the stuff from optical atlas should be considered unreliable, this is a blog, yes, but they have a long history of publishing about these Elephant 6 related bands, and it has been used as a reliable source in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, things don't always happen here immediately. These sources aren't perfect but they're at least actually new stuff and independent. I think the article can withstand speedy deletion again as a repost (CSD G4) with them added. I am posting the last content of the deleted article at your already existing subpage User:Riffic/Little Fyodor (actually, I'm going to fix it so that the article's page history is there as well). Once you have added some content using these additional sources, then move the article (do not copy and paste) to the live version, i.e., to Little Fyodor. I can't guarantee that it won't be tagged and deleted again under CSD G4, but you'll have a much better argument with these sources included at a deletion review, than you would if you had taken it there now. Also, note that even if it's not speedy deleted again under G4, that does not mean that the article cannot be taken again to articles for deletion (AfD) for a debate on the merits of the article's suitability. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have disabled the article's categories. When you are ready to move it, just place back the missing doubled brackets (]]) for each category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version of the article after move under Riffic's user space is not much different than the versions that have been deleted in the past. It's been speedily deleted by another admin and the article protected. This is the right thing to do here. This musician doesn't appear to be notable. After an AFD and numerous attempts at improving the article, significant coverage in reliable sources has not been brought out. Maybe after some time has past and this artist receives some more coverage, the article can be revisited, but to continue to beat on it now is counterproductive.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you give for that passage, and for which you've reverted my cite tags, does not verify the claims but simply repeats them. Yes, the author's a plastic surgeon, but in that passage he simply says "physicians have concerns", and "claims have not been substantiated", both unsourced. If he said "I have concerns", then we could cite that book as the source for his opinion, but he seems unwilling to go out on that limb. What's needed here is a scholarly cite from a study. MuffledThud (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you at all that a better source could be found and a source relating the results of a direct study would be great, and a double blind large sampling study under rigorous conditions would be even better, but that doesn't mean a putatively reliable source reporting on second hand material necessitates a fact tag. Most everything reported in reliable sources can be taken a step closer to a wellspring, but a source reporting facts that is cited in an article doesn't take a fact tag because its reporting on another source. If we did that every newpaper article that wasn't based on a direct interview would take a fact tag—after all, how do we know where they got their material? This is not The New York Times reporting of course, it's some doctor writing a book on a subject and just touching on this material. If I found something better when I popped the subjet into Google books I would have used it, but it still verifies what it says.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you a message that perhaps you either missed or haven't had time to look at. I've made the changes you and ukexpat have suggested- greatly shortened the article again, made inline references conform to other articles and interviews done expressly for Sabetti (for notability), and removed references to his work, listing them only as Works. Could you please have a look and see if it's now ready? I also put section on references, excluding Sabetti's works. I've used these references in footnotes. Should I have them in both places? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LEMspare/Stephano_Sabetti. If there's anything else, I'll be happy to do it. I'm sorry to importune you, and I greatly appreciate your help --LEMspare (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LEMspare (talk • contribs)
No, I haven't done anything about submitting for DYK. That would be excellent if you feel so inclined. And, yes, I actually had already mentioned the Hispanic publications as an area that was still doing well, along with two or three other categories. Please let me know if you need any more info. Thanks again! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed a comment on that DYK nom. I'm unclear of the meaning, although I suppose what he is getting at is making the hook something else in the piece that is not quite so obvious. (Although I suppose the meaning could be that everyone knows newspapers are going away.) In any case, let me know if you need any suggestions for another hook. There are, it seems to me, a myriad to chose from. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I'd been tracking it and saw that it was, in fact, in the queue. And I completely agree with your restoration on the hook. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, did you see that U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin (D.-Md.), introduced a bill today that would allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, with the attendant tax breaks? Talking about a timely hook! [17] I've already added the information to the piece. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, if there's time I think we should take advantage of this news, breaking this afternoon, about the introduction of this bill in the U.S. Senate. The fact that a U.S. Senator feels the need (without another sponsor, so far) to introduce a bill allowing newspapers to go the non-profit route in claiming tax breaks says a great deal about the deterioration in the newspaper situation. I don't know if it's still possible to amend the hook, but this is one that's hard to pass up, because of the breaking nature of the news. Doesn't mean the bill will be passed, but even the introduction of it speaks volumes. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. On further reflection, I see no need to change the perfectly good hook that there's now. I inserted the latest information on the proposed Senate bill in the piece. Thanks again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, back in October 2008, you helped me create an article on the mystery writer Cara Black in a subpage (User:LovesMacs/subpage), and you added some biographical information with references. In the time since then, someone else created an article at Cara Black (author). I think there's material in my subpage that would improve the article but because it's mostly your edit, I think you should get the credit for it. Would you mind reinserting your additions to the Cara Black article? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk)13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lovemacs. Very nice work, this. Many users would have simply pasted the content with no notice in the edit summary or to anyone (a GFDL violation as I think you must know given your precautions). What I did was move the subpage to Cara black (note the lowercase) and turned that into a redirect, thus preserving the page history, and performed a GFDL merge (see the page histories, each noting the merge). I most properly would have moved it to Car black (author) but I didn't notice at the time of the move that the author's article was not at Cara Black but at the disambiguated name. Thanks for the heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm aware of the GFDL because it's linked underneath each edit window, but I don't fully understand it (specifically the "invariant portion" clause). I did know that the list of authors had to be kept in the page. Thanks for doing this. LovesMacs (talk)13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error: The named reference Brandt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
--WikiWes77 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
04:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
, which in turn gave me the user who uploaded it: User:Mr.Z-man, who is an administrator here. From there I was able to track down User talk:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar (so it is his gadget). I'm going to post to his talk page now with the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John Hersey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
