User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 9

User:Mr.Hilter

Can you please change the block template you placed on this user's talk page? He deserved blocking for his edits, but not for the username. I would hate to see users come across the talk page and think we have a policy against names that resemble dictators - which we obviously don't. the_undertow ^talk 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not understanding. Per WP:U: "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, promotional or offensive." I'm trying to think of a more offensive username than one chosen to resemble Hitler, and having trouble.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my line of reasoning is just because Santa and Satan can be transposed, doesn't mean my future children will be barred from celebrating Christmas. Hilter is not Hitler, and if were to verbally introduce myself as Mr. Hilter, I would get nary an eyebrow raise. Besides, Hitler is a valid last name. I don't think usernames that 'resemble' something politically incorrect are a violation of WP:U. It was a good block, based on contribs, but a horrible one if solely based on the username, which could have turned out to be the user's legal name. the_undertow ^talk 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your example of satan/santa is inapposite. We can brainstorm lots of anagrams of offensive things that are innocuous because they don't raise any specter of likelihood of confusion for the offensive thing. Thrile would be an unremarkable username and we should only block that user once we know by some conduct that it is an anagram of Hitler. The username Hitler should be blocked immediately as offensive regardless of whether the user adopting it has the real last name Hitler. The peculiar circumstances that a user finds themself in by having a name that will be taken as offensive by the vast majority of people means that it is offensive, regardless of those peculiar circumstances and intent (and you better believe the persons stuck with that last name already know this). Hilter, unlike Santa, is very likely to provide offense to a vast spectrum of people as it has a linguistic similarity to Hitler that, at least to English language speakers, will be immediately and viscerally felt. And of course, it is not irrelevant that, lo and behold, the name turned out to intentionally have been chosen for just this reason, to be the next best substitute for Hitler. By the way, I can't help but mention as an aside, and I'm certain you were just speaking loosely, but to understate the matter, your use of the phrase "politically incorrect" in this context was not a good fit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention by User:GlassCobra that a username that is potentially disruptive is not a good one. I can see how this would be potentially disruptive. My staunch ideologies of 'no more policy' is conflicted with his revelation. I agree with what you said above. However, that being said, I still believe the user 'HILTER' should not be unilaterlly blocked for his username, but for his actions and as I see the fallacy of my own argument, I still urge you to change the template to reflect the user being blocked for the edits and not the name itself, as if the user had engaged in a pattern of positive edits, it would not have come into question. the_undertow ^talk 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to change into a more particularized message using {{uw-block}} but please understand that do so solely because I see no harm in the change and don't wish any bad feelings between us. If I had come across this user, engaged in a pattern of positive edits as you say, it would have come into question for the same reasons. Only the manner would have differed: probably a tailored message for him in the same vein as {{uw-username}}, but the username would have to go, regardless.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do see your point, but edits aside, the message sent to others can be misconstrued. Hitler is still a last name, even today. Hilter, is really much different. Orally, the difference is rather obvious. Look, I respect your call, and am not going to replace the template, but I still think that the user's name would not have come into question had the edits been good ones. Are you in extreme opposition to my changing the block template to reflect the bullshit of the edits? I just don't want to send a message that User:Saltin is blocked because User:Stalin is controversial. It's your call dood, and I usually don't delve into this type of political arena, but I just would really rather see the user and all who visit the page know that he was blocked for being a vandal and not because we, as admins, took a cursory look at his name and didn't give him a chance. the_undertow ^talk 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post reads as if you didn't read my last carefully. It says "I see no reason not to...I will do it but only because..." and already have:-) I have no idea of your familiarity with the issues but I can assure you hilter would not have stood, even with only positive edits and without me involved. You are talking about probably the most hot button offensive name in existence and hilter is pretty damn close (exactly as was intended by Monty Python; if you don't known what I mean by this, read the unblock request).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodness...

[1] Guess he showed us huh? Jmlk17 08:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I removed the username per the name itself, without looking at the bullshit of his contribs. If he was at AIV, I would have blocked him without question. I'm not heartless; I just need a reminder on sensitivity from time to time. the_undertow ^talk 09:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(regarding Jmlk17's post) Yep, and showing us his true colors now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...

User Dondesnet 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help with the infobox, which it what I needed. I have noted your comments and will be adding the sources, links etc to the page. However, Most of the information contained in the earlier article, together with the reference material is a gross distortion about the facts concerning the individual and is shockingly bad. It is a very good example of the misuse of Wikipedia and its democratic rights. This is a serious matter and I have requested that the page be protected or semi-protected.

Response and something for you to look at

Thanks for the help, here is what I have come up with. Tell me what you think. Sacharin (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Among a few other tweaks, I have added a parameter so that if a user types {{name of template|Name of article}} they get the name of the article they edited set out in the text, and if they don't, it still makes sense. My question now is why is this template needed? It seems to me it's fully redundant with a host of particularized templates at WP:UTM (and the many at the deprecated but still useful ocassionally, Template:TestTemplates) and is too generic (we want to inform users exactly what they did). For example, for plain vandalism we have {{uw-vandalism1}} which is a template series like many there; just change the 1 to 2, 3 or 4 ({{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}). For particular types of vandalism we have numerous templates, many of them escalating series as well. For example, for blanking content {{uw-delete1}}, for tests we have {{uw-test1}} and so on. There are a huge host for all manner of particular conduct. Don't mean to be discouraging, but I don't see it's usefulness given what we already have. But of course, I'm just one opinion. By the way, if you decide not to bring it into the template space, you can keep that article in your own namespace and access it from there (just type {{User:Sacharin/Sandbox}} and it will place the template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Sorry for the delay in responding, I created this template specifically for new users making test edits, so as not to scare them off and to make them feel more welcome than some other templates do, but is is my first template so I will be practicing more. All the best, Sacharin (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: attack page template warning

Hey SWik78. Regarding the attack page warning you left at User talk:Drewbitha, when the attack page's title itself is an attack, as that one was, by posting the article name through the template you're leaving behind the some of the defamatory content which I don't believe should be done, just as we make sure to not leave any defamatory content in deletion summaries when we delete attack pages. For that reason I have removed the name of the article from your warning. User is blocked by the way. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense. I'll remember to do that from now on. Peace. SWik78 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the citing help!

I bang my head against the wall for missing URL and braces, but sometimes you just can't see what is in front of you. As far as citation/noncitation, I'll study the options with the guidance you have given me. Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On problem #2 -- is there any way to force the footnotes to appear with the section/page references? Right now, all they show is the base reference (i.e., the GAO report, but not the sections). For example, ref name=foo foo section3 /ref just comes up as a footnote reference to foo, not foo section separated from other foo sections. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was working on a reply to that section of your question while you posted this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the distinction between inline citation and inline citation template, and am experimenting now; at least one more thing is coming out the way I wanted it.

Your explanation of the "GAObackground" vs. "GAOpolice" was a little unclear, so let me feed back where I am confused. Part of my confusion may come from my realization that I don't understand, at a programmer level, exactly what nowiki does.

If I understand, I only need to do a single full citation template (or equivalent) for the GAO Report and common information such as URL and date. Let me assume that I write ref name=GAObackground (or, possibly, you might mean just GAO). What I don't understand is how, if I then create GAOresults in addition to GAObackground, the citation will know that it links back to the full GAO report bibliographic material. My initial thought would be that the subsequent inline refs would have to have something that points back to the original material, and then knows how to override it.

I have been trying to find the page with a detailed explanation of nowiki. Do you know where it might be hiding? I'm actually an old library systems programmer, and I suspect I will work most efficiently if I have a programmer-style understanding of how things work.

Again, thanks! I don't know if you're aware of it, but there had been an edit war of a couple of days, and finally, I think, the participants are starting to play nicely. It is a real relief to get back to writing rather than being a diplomat. Isaac Asimov once said he disliked writing, but he loved to have written. I actually enjoy writing, and enjoy having the result of being diplomatic. I don't, however, especially enjoy being diplomatic rather than bopping everyone with a clue-by-four. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see the way you didn't do a full bracketed /ref at the end. I've seen this elsewhere, but wasn't sure what it did. Is there a page I should be reading? Is the purpose of doing it this way so it knows there is an existing reference? Is this, perhaps, what I need to do for my GAO example? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand why I confused you with nowiki tags (it is a result of your looking at my messages in edit mode rather than as regular text). Let's get that out of the way first. surrounding a piece of text in nowiki tags tells the software: DO NOT FORMAT WIKICODING. So if I type in edit mode <nowiki>'''Boldface markup'''</nowiki> what you will see when I save is '''Boldface markup''' rather than Boldface markup. What you did was look at what I wrote in edit mode, rather than in saved mode and thought (I think) that you need to use nowiki tags for citations. No. My messages were intended for you to look at on your talk page in regular reading mode. The reason I used them was because when I gave examples of citation markup, the software wouldn't show my text, but rather would have propogated them; you would have seen where I used reference markup, instead of <ref>text</ref> this--->^[1]. I hope that's clear, but let me say this if it's not, I never meant for you to see any nowiki tags but was using them to format my text; don't use them for citations!

Regarding the GAO issue, no I know of no way to use a single reference. So here's a working example (this you should look at first on this screen, and then in edit mode to see how it was done.

First sentence using background section of GAO

Second sentence using background section of GAO.

Third sentence using background section of GAO.

First sentence using result in brief section of GAO, have to use a new reference.

Second sentence using Result in Brief section of GAO

Reply to 'Welcome Message' at Sarmad (talk)

Sorry, for that improper use of welcome template, as i was doing it first time so did it wrong. I will be careful in future. Thanks! for making me correct! Sarmad (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiona Sampson

Thanks for removing the speedy tag. I happened to notice that the article had been tagged as a speedy (it was fewer than ten words long), so set to work on it - the subject is one of the foremost British poets of the modern era. Imagine my surprise when I went to update the page after spending an hour or so on it to discover that RHaworth had deleted it in the meantime (presumably without giving the subject a Google check). So I recreated the article, but left the tag in place, inviting RHaworth to remove it via his talk page... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. You copied the minimal prior text before it was deleted, then worked on the article but when you reposted it in developed form, you left in the prior speedy tag which you had roped in when copying, so no one actually tagged the newly posted version for speedy deletion. I guess when I "declined speedy deletion" I was just talking to myself! It's sometimes shockingly incongruous when you see something you know is ridiculously famous being nominated for deletion, even when the basis is proper such as a one liner which tells the reader nothing. I forget where it is but I remember I came across a deletion discussion for Bertrand Russell, with some actually serious discussion, until some wiser heads came along and said something like "ummm...probably one of the top ten thinkers of the 20th century...a nobel prize winner," etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly :-)... Just a quick question: Would it have been appropriate in this case for me to have removed the speedy tag? Or is that something that should be left to an admin or the person who put it there in the first place? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends. If a tag is clearly improper on the basis stated, remove it. If an article on Bertrand Russell says nothing but "an English philosopher" that meets both CSD A7 (no assertion of importance" and, arguably, CSD A1 no/little content. We have to be able to delete articles on an objective basis solely on the text present, without having to Google or have any knowledge of the subject. On the other hand, if you know about a subject, there would be nothing wrong with (a non-creator) removing the tag with an edit summary such as "removing speedy tag, will add content and sourcing in a few minutes." In this case it's something of a mix. Even the article's state when you first came across it had enough for some to believe A7 didn't fit—that is, that "award-winning" (which is all it said), took it out of A7 range—but that's pretty thin. However, there was no reason whatever to recreate it in the form you did with the speedy tag in place, when the speedy tag at that point was patently no longer relevant to the expanded and sourced content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Many thanks for that. I'll follow your advice in future. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Mercury (Movie)

Good call on the close. If you're attempting to wipe out the history of the hoax version, you may want to look at this diff. At one point after Geo wrote up the 2005 one the creators of the hoax reinserted their stuff. That diff shows the last vestiges of the change-over. Pairadox (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement. It was an unusual situation. Hmmm, I was thinking maybe I should restore to the 03:09, January 9, 2008 version but that would leave you out of the current text's article history which would be a GFDL no-no. Okay, I think I just took care of it. I think I did the right thing from a situational standpoint, but mechanically it is very messy!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Clothing improvement

Yes, eerie how that happened. Possibly an instance of Zeitgeist. NuclearWinner (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thought you should know. ..I just gave another "final" warning to a user you also gave a final warning to, see User talk:DJshnizle1994. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Another admin has blocked him for 24 hours. I would have blocked indefinitely ,as the user has enough contributions now, all vandalism, to be identified as a vandalism only account, but I don't want to tread on another admin's toes. If you see a resumption of more vandalism from him after the block expires and I'm around, just drop me another message. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm keeping an eye on both the blocked user and his/her sockpuppuet. I'll let you know if any more vandalism occurs. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image help

{{helpme}} Let's see if this works. I notice that the image Image:Wind turbine 1941.jpg was approved to be copied over to the Commons, but BetacommandBot couldn't find any category for it on the commons, so it flagged it as no category given. 1) How do I tell BetacommandBot which category to use, and 2) How does one avoid this problem? There is a wind generators category on commons, and a wind turbine category could be created on commons for this and all the other images of wind turbines. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you would find people who know just what to do and advise if you post about this issue at the Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. This is something of a specialty area. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try it. Just because it is a specialty doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to drill down to this level of assistance from some sort of help guide. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

peerreviewer

Try adding the line allSpaces_PR = true; somewhere on your monobook.js. I believe that should work, but its been a while since I've looked at the script, so let me know if it doesn't work. Thanks, AZ _t 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Old references"

Following on from thread started at the help desk

Hi. The issue is at List of 7th Heaven episodes, not the Degrassi pages. Thanks for trying to look, though. The most recent diff is here, though it has occurred here, here and a couple of other occassions.

At her talk page, it seems she does this regularly to other articles too, and she has numerous warnings.

If you can help clarify what refs are okay, and what aren't, perhaps put something in the article's talk page. If I'm wrong, that's fine, at least I'll know! Regards -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Her rationale for removal is nonsensical and looking through her talk page shows multiple users warning her for removing references and reference sections in the past. I left a mild warning and hope that will be enough. I know it followed more strenuous warnings, but they were quite divorced in time. I'll try to keep a watch. Removing references really gets my goat. So many of the our problems on Wikipedia stem from lack of sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed you said you'd block her - are you an administrator? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Moore

On 24 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jimmy Moore, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Help desk temps.

Wow! Cheers very much. They'll come in handy. Thank you :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Jean Balukas

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

References

So basically you eventually want 99 or more references for 7th Heaven? Are you NUTS!!!! Wonder why I'm removing old ones, think about and no I'm not being "authortive" it's called common sense and looking ahead.

Also when you revert back, you undo other changes I've made to fix up the episode listings. Now I have to go back and undo it all, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with our three core content policies, which are Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are inextricably linked with one another and require citation to reliable sources for information. I'm not sure where you think you are but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that by definition synthesizes already published information. I never said anything about you being authoritative. I said I don't enjoy being authoritative but that I would block you if you continued removing existing sources from articles. Apparently the immininent threat of being blocked is the only way to get your attention to an issue that has been raised by numerous separate editors over an extended period of time. If you don't wish for intervening edits to also be reverted, don't make patently improper edits that require reversion. You can't get away with foisting the onus of separating your improper edits from your proper ones on me or anyone else; that is your burden.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed references from another article (List of Las Vegas episodes) after all the warnings you've received. You were given more than fair warning and have been blocked for 48 hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Mutual link fixing at the help desk

For me it isn't so much getting in before everyone else, but it's providing a quick response to a user so that they don't have to wait for too long. Anyway, for some reason I was convinced that WP:PEOPLE was a redirect to notability guidelines, and made that mistake a few times. Oh well. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My recent request for help

I would just like to say.... Aatomic1 (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're :-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Re: Adrienne Shelly

There are references on the Stagedoor site, as well as their message board. http://www.stagedoormanor.com/alumnibbsbook.html The messages are about 10 from the bottom. It is mentioned in a few print mags, pre-net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.148.62 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can do. Forum boards are not reliable sources but the main site may be.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Antebellum Bulldogs

Thank you for the clear and understandable instructions. I am in the process of having my host/designer make the change reccommendations that you gave me. I was rebuilding the site on my user page while I waited for your response and unfortunatly faithlessthewonderboy took a fancy to it and deleted it, again for copyright infringements. What exactly is the copy right infringement. I cannot remember quoting anything directly off the site. That was in an effort to not advertise. I just want to introduce the breed. It will be in an article from Purina on rare breeds this spring. My attempt to introduce the breed on Wikipedia has failed miserably. Many thanks for the words of wisdom and I will let you know when the "removal" has taken place. Will you be able to restore it or will I have to rebuild it? One final question, how the heck do you do a spell check in here? Canis Pugnax (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I spoke with the website designer, he insists on leaving the copyright for his protection. Now how do I make the article where it does not infringe? Non-free content criteria Policy? Canis Pugnax (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Canis. When you last posted the article, it quite clearly had sentences lifted directly from the website. That is a copyright violation and the reason for its deletion. However, subjects on Wikipedia must be on notable subjects and they must be verified. Both of these polices require citation to sources; the first shows that the world has taken note of the subject by publishing information about it in reliable sources, and the second makes sure that not just the subject, but the information about the subject, already exists in published form. This is a requirement of an encyclopedia because it is by definition a tertiary source, synthesizing already published information. So while you must cite to sources, what you CANNOT DO is copy and paste copyrighted text from anywhere, be it an online cite, a book, or what have you. To make this as clear as possible: You can use already published sources as a source of information—in fact we require it—but you must say it in your own words. I don't want to lead you down the garden path. if you post a new article which does not infringe on the website's copyright, you still must show notability and verifiability, or the article may be deleted on those separate bases. Unfortunately, having done some cursory research, I haven't found any other sources but the website itself. Of course, as someone familiar with the topic, you are much better situated to find those required sources. Please note alos our policy on no original research. I just don't want to set you up for disappointment thinking that so long as you don't violate copyright, your work is done. As for spellcheck, just copy and dump any writing into Wordperfect, Word, etc. if your computer doesn't have a feature to do it for you anywhere (some do). Best of luck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Logimommy

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

the reason there was no question on the user page is that I saw they had placed the template as {{tl|helpme}}. I corrected it and that is why there was no question. Sorry for the confusion. I did put a notice on the talk page that they need to fill out the question to get help. Awotter (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm weird. I wonder why the page was created like that. In any event, note that those of us who monitor the helpme category are alerted to it in various ways such as through and IRC feed or in our watchlist through a special monobook program which adds the category, and often find users placing the template without a question, so while I understand your rationale, making the template appear without a question was sure to get that type of response:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Robinepowell

She is removing references again with this [2] as her justification. She's been warned multiple times but has decided it's her job to remove all references she feels are outdated. She has no concept of a retrieved on date and you have blocked her before for this behaviour. Now she's doing it again today. KellyAna (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's blocked and for twice as long as her last. The problem is that she doesn't seem to get it no matter how many times it's explained. The diff that's more disturbing is this one in which her rationale is (paraphrasing) that since not everything is yet verified, removing existing references is fine (and she's going to do it). I see she's adding the futon critic again too. Maybe when she returns she will discuss before acting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

After an entire season of dealing with her, I doubt it. She has blatant disregard for the rules especially when it comes to references and reverting. I appreciate your working with her/myself/and all others that are trying to get her to comply. She left a similar message on my talk page to the one you referenced. She feels her justification for removal is that it doesn't exist for other years. I find that bothersome. I try and reference now that I have learned the importance (seeing good pages put up for deletion because of lack of references). It's weird to see someone so against references she removes them. Thanks for the block, we'll see if it helps.KellyAna (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, she strikes me as earnest—yes, wrongheaded and painful to deal with because nothing seems to get through, but nevertheless devoted to the subject matter. Maybe the blocks will get through to her in a way discussion couldn't.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply on my talk page. We'll have to see if the block got through despite the tirade. She hasn't edit the list yet, so we'll see. But in the interim, thank you for addressing the issue on my page. KellyAna (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

She's at it again removing references after being warned many times. She has no clue about the "retrieved on" dates and just keeps removing all references. KellyAna (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Be as harsh as you can be. I took the brunt of her attitude after you left her the warning. While she didn't actually change any pages, she told me she could do what the hell she wanted and I couldn't tell her what to do. KellyAna (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My post was over the top which is why I toned it down. I know you're annoyed but it's not about punishment, it's about minimizing disruption and harm to the encyclopedia. A firm hand can sometimes foster where insults will only serve to inflame. I want her to go off and edit in peace rather than persist in doing what she's doing because I've insulted her personally.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Biting Question

Hi Fuhghettaboutit:

This relates to your answer on S's talk page. When I saw what MER-C was doing to S's edits, I asked a question on MER-C's page.

I'm going to copy the gist of it here, and hope for an answer from you, partly because MER-C is offline, and also because I think it's important.

"== Treatment of Newcomers ==

"On the evidence I see, I object to your reverting of the links that User:S put into the Paris Hilton external links section.

The two links are definitely relevant to Paris Hilton.

I see you also reverted other links by the editor.

Maybe there is some factor I am not aware of in this situation, but I think the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy applies here. Seems to me that removing most if not all the links placed by a new editor, here for only three days, is defying that policy.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this. "

(I think the situation was aggravated by the fact that the first message posted on S's page was the bot warning about an image, the second was the message from MER-C about links. I added the welcome message later when I first saw the situation.)

Feedback please. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it might be that posting a standard spam warning in response to the link might be a little bitey, since it's not clear that the user is spamming per se, the links are inappropriate and have to go, and not after some good grace waiting period either; inappropriate content is removed as we find it. Thus, the focus on the speed of removal is misplaced. As I said, if there is anything bitey here, it is the tenor of the standard warning left on the user's talk page regarding the links, because of the assumption the warning contains about the reason they were added. That is not to say that I wholly agree that the spam message is out of line. A user who posts multiple links to a single site and little else is following in the shoes of the multitudes of spammers who we deal with on a daily basis. If you're looking for a don't-bite-the-newcomers-situation to champion, I assure you you can easily find much more clear cut instances to focus your energy on than this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll think about this. I'm not planning to go on a DBTN mission. I just happened upon this one because I think the Paris Hilton article is a good one on which to learn and practise NPOV & BLP.

But out of curiosity, how might one be likely to find the clear cut instances you refer to? Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Go hang out at AfD. Some amazing examples present themselves at times.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Quick question regarding ContentAgenda. Is it possible to put an external link only - such as Broadcasting & Cable, which is also a Reed Business pub? The item put up was not meant as spam, but I understand the policy. Thanks... (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking whether you can place an external link to ContentAgenda's website into an existing article, or whether you're asking something about what a redone article on the company should contain. As to the former, certainly—but it should meet our external links guideline. If the latter, the article must show the notability of the company by providing references verifying the information stated through citation to reliable sources. It must not sound like an advertising campaign, avoiding gushing promotional language, but rather treat the subject from a neutral point of view, and the material must not be copied from any place, infringing on the company's website. Also note that we strongly discourage those who are involved with subjects from writing articles on those subjects as they have a conflict of interest. If a subject is notable, someone uninvolved will eventually write an article.

From your post, I think you are confusing the two different deletions of the article by separate admins. The first time it was deleted as spam by a different admin, and indeed, it was full of peacock language and sounded like it was lifted right out of a marketing brochure. When I deleted it, it was not on that basis but because it failed to assert importance and thus fell under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I can't even remember if I replied or not, but thank you for your tips with my monobook, they were very helpful! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You did but you're welcome again:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info on how to look at deleted articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Baseball pocket billiards

Hello and thanks for the kind words about my copyediting of this article. (By the way, I really enjoyed the article—which I can't say about many some of the articles I copy-edit.) Anyway, you added back this sentence to the second paragraph: Each players is allotted nine innings to score as many runs as possible. I removed the sentence because the very same statement is in the first paragraph. It seemed/seems very repetitive to me. I don't have strong feelings about it, though, and I'm going to leave it to you to make the decision. If you do choose to retain the sentence, however, please change "players" to "player." That players-vs.-player mistake is what convinced me to copy-edit the article in the first place. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please help me?

All right so I did everything I could to get my image on the article, but it just doesn't seem to work. The first time I got an image on there, but I had not labeled it right so it was the wrong image. Then I labeled it right, but it wasn't my picture. No, instead it was a picture people I didn't know. And it had nothing to do with the topic.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall Ps: Thank you very much. You are very helpful and I'm sorry for bothering you so much.

I would gladly help but I'm stumped. You must have attempted these edits under your ip address or under another user name. I say this because I looked at your contribution history and I see no image uploads, no edits to any images and no attempts to add images to any articles. You also have no deleted contributions. This means that I don't know what article(s) you are referring to, nor what image(s). Drop by with this information and then I'll help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the image into the Wikicommons. I'm suppose to upload on to here as well? Where? How? Also the article I'm trying to help is the Tonkinese(cat breed) article. They said they wanted a picture with the cats full length and thats what I was trying to give them.Rem Nightfall (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall

No, if it's a free image the Commons is the best place to upload it, and you wouldn't then upload it here. But why would I know or think to check at the Commons? As far as I can tell we have never before interacted (at least not with you using that username). In any event, now that I know (:-)) the image's name is the problem. A local (Wikipedia) image has the same name and local uploads override Common images if they have the same name. So the only way around it is the rename the commons image or delete the local image. I have just done a bit of research about renaming on commons and it can't be done the way we do it here (moving to a new name). Instead: you must upload the file again under a different name and should then mark the old one for deletion like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}. I suggest as a new name: Tonkinese or Tonkinese stretch—something descriptive, specific and unlikely to have or ever to have a local image by the same name (neither of the ones I'm suggesting do). Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with user

User:Jazzeur seems to not understand that he can't be a reference based on policy. He actually added content to All in the Family with "I am the source" clearly not understanding an editor can't be the source for articles. Could you have a little talk with him? KellyAna (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Kellyana. He seems to have gotten the message because his latest edit to the article was to add the information with a source. Please note that his contribution was made in apparent good faith and could be described as lots of things—disputable, unsourced, unverified, etc.—but not "vandalism," which should be reserved for intentionally destructive edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. I guess I jumped to the "vandalism" edit summary too quickly. I've got tunnel vision about references and "I know" just tweaks me. I have tons of "I know" for NASCAR but I know I'm not a source. I just wanted him advised. If he got it, I'm good with that. Thanks for the help. KellyAna (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering both questions but someone else had already answered the first one. I have riddles on my user page now.Chubbennaitor (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Letter 7's userpage

Wow that wasn't just a "stab" you took at it, it was more like an [Wikithesaurus word needed]. Hey can you give me some ideas on what to do with my userpage, and give me the html code you used on his?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 04:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait nevermind, after looking at Wikipedia:User Page Design Center, I think I can do it on my own, but any tips you can give would be appreiciated.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sunny. Thanks for the kind words. Yep, it's easy—you just steal the code from someone else's userpage and modify. What I did for that was go User page examples from the design center, grab a page's code (The actual page plundered was User:Nightstallion). I'm not much of a coder at all—in fact I have a very meager understanding, but just enough to dabble pretty well. If I have any tip to give it's this: grab images off of the Commons. Everything there is free to use, so you won't have problems with fair use images in your userpage (verboten), and there's 2,483,782 images (as of today) to choose from. The images of 7's I used for the page took me about 30 seconds to find.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm not much of a coder either :).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the design and the link! Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created {{Oldprodfull}} ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO and other flag templates?

Happy Editing! — 141.156.217.11 (talk · contribs) _{23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)}

Project

It's nothing to do with that, i have started a project for improvement of ancient history pages on wiki. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient European History that's it, thanks for the help man. Tom.mevlie (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Great and you're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Interesting userpage. Basketball110 01:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I've ever gotten a comment about it before--it's rather utilitarian but different than most. I hate all that distracting animation everyone uses. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete Worden

Maybe the deleted article should be userfied at User:Creonlevit/Pete Worden 2 with a note to Creonlevit who had edited it after User:Creonlevit/Pete Worden was copied to mainspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea; doing so now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help.163.1.181.208 (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

... and thanks for fixing my committed identity display; although after you did that I thought of yet another way to do it, not ideal either. At least it's staying within its bounds! --Coppertwig (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. I wasn't actually sure you realized I had done that, given the lack of the orange bar from user page edits and because your request to fix the display was a small aside in a helpme response you had given. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting VW Golf

Hi, thank you very much for your kind help. Will wait a few days before actually splitting to see if there is any resistance to it. Regards, --328cia (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Gtstricky's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Help

Thanks for your help :) Porterjoh (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Click

Thanks for pointing out Template:Click to me. Is that template specific to Wikipedia, or is it included in stock MediaWiki installations? I think it should be mentioned in the help pages about links or images, but I'm not sure whose help pages. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know (<--I mean that; please take this with a grain of salt, I'm no mediwiki guru) all templates used here are local, i.e., created here for specific purposes. This template was created by a user here on December 12, 2005. I think if the latest version of mediawiki software is downloaded, a person should be able to copy the template's code from here, create the template there, and it should function, but I don't think that mediawiki comes with a large stable of stock templates, just with the capabilities to run them. Aha! I was just searching and came across Help:Navigational image. That page has other inormation on this issue and links to template:click. The page is a very poor read though, and doesn't look like it's been updated in a long, long time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations on List of events named massacre

Thanks for the citations. Just to double check... these sources actually substantiate that the NAME of the events include the word "massacre"? They meet the inclusion criteria listed at the top of the talk page? Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Finding them is a simple matter. One needs do no more than type the exact name of the massacre into a Google book search in quotes. For the the St. Brice's Day massacre, for example, see this search, and the resulting two sources which I cited (out of many more found), showing the actual name's usage, are here and here. In a sense, the Google book search itself is an even better source than the book citations found through it because it shows the catalogue of books all using the exact name. But citing the books is the better practice because the books are forever, while for all we know, Google books will come and go. I have never understood why Google books isn't used more. A wonderful resource for finding all manner of citation from the highest quality sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, everything you need to know to fill out {{cite book}} is at your fingertips there. The digitized book page has the name of the work and author (just copy and paste), provides the page number, and for the rest of the information, for most, you'll see on the right hand side of the page a section called "Contents" with a plus sign (+) next to it. Clicking on the plus sign lets you access the title and copyright pages of the actual book, which gives you the publisher, year of publication, and ISBN, usually with the correct hyphenated spacing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for replying to my question on the new user board. I appreciate the good lookin out. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have learned my lesson. Wikipedia:Humour doesn't belong with the help-page andno biting newcomers.

Thanks

Thanks for your help!```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flute2!% (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)

Many thanks for your excellent copyediting - you managed to clarify the text and its meaning expertly. Can I trouble you further, just to ask what you thought (if anything) of the proposal itself? Many, many thanks for your contribution nonetheless Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have to retaliate by telling you that I only did so because I enjoy tightening already very well written and thought out text:-) As I'm intimating, I am in strong agreement with the proposal and would support its elevation to guideline status. This issue has arisen over and over. The Virginia tech massacre and the numerous AfDs that followed is but one example (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). We need a guideline like this. By the way, I added the example of Adrienne Shelly because I know about that (I created that article), but I'm now having writer's remorse. Feel free to remove if you think it is too specific or out of keeping with the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind comments. I actually felt that your example was good, and I think guidelines are generally supposed to have more examples than policies - so never fear, your writer's remorse is unnecessary! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

newbie

Thanks for reading and editing my first article. And for the nice compliment. Van Smith I have been following your suggestions. Mike Presson (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I have just responded to you over at WP:NCHD regarding your tag removal question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Glenn Strange and The Mummy's Tomb (Pictures)

Hello,hello. I am having a hell of a time with 2 images.Glenn Strange and The Mummy's Tomb. Templates are an issue always with me here. Please help. Thanks so much! I appreciate it. Electric Japan (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the changes I have made to Image:Glenn Strange Actor.jpg‎ (diff) and Image:The Mummy's Tomb.jpg‎ (diff). Both now appear in the articles on them. Both of the Fair Use Rationales (FURs) are incomplete, as you didn't provide me the name or place of the source you took the images from nor is that informaiton available on the upload pages. You must tell me that so I can add it to the FURs. Give me the URL of the webpages you downloaded them from; the name of the book you scanned, etc. Note that it appears you uploaded multiple images of Glenn Strange. Fair use cannot abide many images. It's fair use to have one photograph of a deceased individual in an article on him. It's not proper fair use to have five. You see what I'm getting at? By the way, I am glad to help out, but I'm just curious what brought you to me. Was it my listing at Wikipedia:Editor assistance, or something else?:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES

Glenn Strange: http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com The Mummy's Tomb: http://www.1000misspenthours.com

Thanks! I spent a great deal of time with the problem. I knew I could count on you. Real great! Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw some comments about how handy you are on Wikipedia. A true lifesaver. I put in a great deal of effort to make things right on here. You have dependence on here. Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Again

I thank you for the time you took out to help me with the additions to the page. You know how to make yourself stand out to be the best Wikipedian on here. Thanks a lot, Electric Japan (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the kind words and again, you're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Frozen noodles

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Frozen noodles - good catch. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader

You will have to put in logic to adjust the header. Secondly, this can make for some very ugly templates. See Talk:Circumcision -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "put in logic", and explaining it to me is undoubtedly more trouble than it's worth. Please simply revert, tell me to revert, or fix it.:-) By the way, if it is reverted, maybe you can explain what's needed over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Archive links by default in talkheader template so that those more technically savvy than I are informed. By the way, I did look at Talk:Circumcision but didn't notice any problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I've fixed the code but I guess everyone's gonna be a bit more wary about implementing my code now. Sorry for basically causing you to make a bad edit, but thanks again for making it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and don't worry about it. It's something of a testament to the effectiveness of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If I hadn't of made the edit, Avraham wouldn't have noticed it, reverted, and then we wouldn't have his input, and known what needed fixing... albeit, a highly visible template that effects many pages is not quite the best place to test this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling "corrections"

I was looking at your list of spelling corrections at the top of your talk page. I'm not clear on whether you are using this list for some type of automated correction (?), but I noticed a few inconsistencies:

Sherbert is an accepted alternate spelling of sherbet, but was listed as incorrect

Mischievous is the correct spelling, but was listed as being corrected to mischevious, which is not a word.

Aggression was listed as being corrected to agression, which is not a word.

I'm not trying to be malicious, I just thought it was important to point out, especially if these corrections are being automated, so as not to proliferate misspellings unnecessarily. —P^urpleRA^IN 19:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at mistranspositions when the spreadsheet was made, which has been defunct for over 2 years. For example, see this diff, where the correction was made from mischievious to mischievous and not the other way around. Sherbert/sherbet was only done five times after which I abandoned it as an alternate spelling.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Good to know these aren't being propagated any more. Sorry to bother you about it. —P^urpleRA^IN 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But note that, as I just explained, they were never being propagated! Only the spreadsheet shows the reversal; the actual corrections were made from the misspellings to the correct spelling.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your significant contributions to the help desk, I award you this Nothing444 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Email watchlist changes

i am new & a bit lost so excuse if written on wrong space. just wanted to find out if i can be automatically emailed when there are edits to any article i am watching? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorz8 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, coming here is fine! I welcomed you and I signed your post for you at the help desk. Your post at the help desk, though, is going to get you a lot more eyes looking at your question and unfortunately, i'm not sure of the answer. There may be a userscript that enables this, but I can tell you that there is no built-in Wikipedia feature that does this. However, are you aware that you have a watchlist? You can reach it anytime while logged in by going to "my watchlist" from the links at the very top of any Wikipedia page. In the meantime, just monitor your help desk post for an answer. By the way, when posting to user talk pages such as this, or discussion forums such as the help desk (but not in articles), you should sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~) which automatically formats to your signature when you save. You can also place the tildes automatically by clicking on the editing button which looks like this: . Though I don't know the answer to this question, please do not hesitate to ask me another.--Fuhghettaboutit talk) 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you online now?

Hello. I am trying very hard to follow your instructions carefully. I am giving it my all now. Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied at talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully

Hello! I had some difficulty getting it into the Frankenstein Monster section. Can ya help me out. If not I will try tomorrow. Great talking to you.

Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you want to place it into, but here's a common form of the code we use to place images in articles: [[image:name|thumb|caption]] You can also specify left: "left|" (right is default, so there's no need to specify it), and the size by adding a number: "100px|" but most images are right justified and the default size is fine. So for this image you might use:

[[Image:House of Frankenstein, Glenn Strange, Boris Karloff.jpg|thumb|[[Glenn Strange]] and [[Boris Karloff]] in ''House of Frankenstein'']]

Hope this helps. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A Reply Concerning Cookies

I am posting here because you may not still be monitoring the cookies thread you started in the computing forum. I posted a reply you may find helpful. Please check it out.

Chrissekely (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the BIG help

Again, I say thanks for the help in making it look good. You are a BIG help. Great, Electric Japan (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

OMG!

Hello. If I told you how long I have spent trying to upload 2 images you would not believe it.

James Franciscus and Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman on the Lon Chaney Jr. page. It is very, very difficult to do. So many obstacles. I had no idea it wolld be like this. Thanks, Electric Japan (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

need admin

Fuhg are you an administrator? Mike P (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, how can I help? By the way, you can check whether a user is an admin by going to the user rights log or check the alphabetical list at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Also, many administrators have a symbol with a tooltip on their user page in the upper right corner identifying themselves as an admin, and almost all admin userpages will show them as administrators in the categories at the bottom of the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You've been nice to help me before. How do I address the issue discussed here? I was told I need an admn due to the redirect. I would like the article retitled Jose Mojica Marins and Zé do Caixão redirected to that page. Thanks! Mike P (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also rewrote the intro to be more in keeping with the title and with our style. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks awesome. Thanks! Mike P (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My statistical proposal

I have clarified my idea at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29. Should I duplicate it for those who write scripts or my idea is still too unclear? --Quellem (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hide bars / nav boxes

Hi again! I have a couple of problems with user subpages that I hope you may help with:

1. I've created a subpage User:Retarius/Wikimarkup Guide where I will place material for guidance in editing. I copied the Editor's index there as well as answers to my Helpdesk questions. There are also other materials I'll place there in time. I know I could just link to these big files but it takes a while on my system to open the pages; if they are all together on one page it saves me time. Because of the lengths some of it will go to I'd like to use a compression device on the page to make it easy to navigate. I've tried both hide bars and navboxes. They appear, but without the command section (show/hide) and the enclosed material is locked up, unreachable! I think it may be that they don't work on subpages - the same code works fine on my user page, talk page and sand box. Do you know of a fix?

2. I created a subpage to store useful text, called User:Retarius/Warehouse. Unfortunately, I left a space I didn't want on the first try, so I created a new, correctly-named page and redirected there. Now the dud, User:Retarius/ Warehouse still appears on my list of sub-pages anyway. Can it be got rid of?

Thanks, Retarius | Talk 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Retarius. I deleted the misnamed page. In the future you can simply add {{db-userreq}} for such pages in your own userspace you want deleted. For the first issue, I do not have time to research what's going on right now (I am at work). While I might find an answer later, if you don't want to wait and want to be virtually guaranteed an answer, ask the question at the help desk or, given the technical nature of the question, you could try the village pump technical. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you saw I attempted to break it up into discrete sections, without luck. If it's something other than sheer size I don't know what it is. I tested on my user page and talk page and it wasn't working so I don't know that it has anything to do with the fact that it's on a subpage. Try the places I advised above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks for your efforts. I tried the help desk; whatever it was seems to have fixed itself. Retarius | Talk 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:79.69.199.112

I see where you are coming from in deleting the contributions this anon user has made to my talk page and the talk page of many other users, but I do think that I am old enough and wise enough to handle my own talk page in my own way. I was only away from WP for a few minutes to read the morning newspaper. --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we've never met, I couldn't know your talk page preferences in order to treat it differently than the numerous other pages this user spammed. So either you are saying I shouldn't have reverted any of these contributions, which seem to be belied by your opening sentence, or you are ascribing to me powers of divination I could not have. You received an orange bar alerting you to the edit, and have every power to revert me and handle this user's post as you like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. I would not have deleted this from any editor's talk page. Leave them for the editor himself. What good does it really do, apart from raise the drama? My first sentence was only recognising that your heart was in the right place. But so, he spammed user talk pages. Is that a big deal? I grant that there may be issues such as BLP that require rapid intervention on user talk pages, but I do not see that this was one. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you but I think this lessens the drama significantly. If the message is left unreverted, twenty users now have this post on their talk page and may waste time investigating this baseless complaint transmitted in an improper manner (i.e., by canvassing). Reverted, some may still, but it's more likely a not insignificant portion will see by the revert that it is being addressed and not waste their time. Second, short of blocking this user (which another admin actually did but that's neither here nor there), the reverts coupled with a warning are more likely to stop the conduct in its tracks that a warning alone would not. With just a warning, the user just sees someone doesn't like what they're doing. With the reverts they are shown that it's also fruitless because its being easily undone, and let's be clear—each time this message was placed on another user's talk page, the drama and possibility of further drama increased as well as the invite for more users to waste their time. I don't see how taking action that lessens the likelihood of more spamming "raise[s] the drama". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Bduke: please refrain from reverting people who ask for assistance on my talk! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting the vandal spamming his complaint about me to 20 different editors. In a way, that was my fault. He's been bugging me all day from various IP's, so when he "threatened" to go to "other admins", I breezily said "excellent idea", and assumed it would show up on ANI or something. Didn't expect him to harass other people. In future, I'll be sure to direct unhappy people to ANI specifically. Anyway, thanks for the reverts; I figured I couldn't do it myself without looking fishy. --barneca (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome and I agree that it would have not looked good at all for you to have done so. As you can see above, not everyone was happy with the revert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of the blue comment

"not obviously offensive (to humans)" LOL! I had thought the same thing, but figured I would leave it to an admin more experienced with offensive usernames to sort out. Those few I block are usually blatantly promotional. I just stopped by to see what had come of it and saw your comment. :D (Also worthy of consideration: my dog is remarkably difficult to offend; I'm pretty sure he wouldn't bat an eye about being called "dogbreath", particularly if there were cheese involved. Then again, he has lived most of his life with the nickname of "Stinkfoot" after an early unfortunate incident involving his trodding in Something That Should Not Be Named. His feet no longer stink, but the memory lingers....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I love it when an edit summary like that gets noticed and out of the blue posts are the best kind! The only thing that offends my dog is not getting his share of human dinner. However, we seem to have a problem. I really did write that edit summary for human consumption, and never thought we needed to say: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that any human can edit, but apparently we are being monitored and you and I have opened up a hornet's nest. I am hiding a terrible secret in in the box below, a message left for both of us, and am now very scared of retribution for my human callousness:-(

We are very offended!

EEP! Sorry dogs! Let's not forget our past, eh? :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

New articles per day

Hi, I saw your post in Village pump (policy). You gave some stats. Do you know how many articles are made each day, does anywhere have this information. It would be very useful on a dailt basis. SunCreator (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Statistics. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Goes to read....Thanks :) SunCreator (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, that was quick!EA210269 (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a maze of rules, at least for me, so I have to say, I didn't know about G4. I do now, there is always something to learn! I will remember when he will recreate it after the protection expires, and recreate he will, I'm sure. Still, many thanks for your fast action, it will hopefully discourage him a little.EA210269 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, April 17, 2008 (UTC)

Bunnykill

I noticed that you AfDed Bunnykill citing CSD A7, so I came to you to see if you can give me some guidance on what you deem to be fitting the criteria to avoid getting another speedy nomination. At the moment I've started a sandboxed write up at User:TheDefiniteArticle/Bunnykill so I can run it by your good self to see if it is encyclopaedic enough.
If possible, could you leave comments on the sandboxed article's discussion page? Thank you.
TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied in depth at User talk:TheDefiniteArticle/Bunnykill.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That was brilliantly useful and exactly what I hoped for - in light of that I will try my best to meet those criteria and suggestions and when I feel I have done it justice, I'll come crawling back in hope of meeting your approval. Good day sir.--TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:HCOTM templates

Hi. Thanks for your message.
"Indices" is the original plural of "index" (which, as I guess you know, is what anything following a vertical-line in a [[Category:...]] statement acts as). Using a Greek letter for items not part of the main encyclopedia, such as μ ("mu") to indicate a stub or stub-related item, looks well-established in Wikipedia. (If you're into science, you'll probably know that "mu" is used to denote "micro", so I imagine that's why it was adopted to indicate stubs.) τ ("tau"), the Greek "t", indicates template-related; ω ("omega"), the last Greek letter, indicates WikiProject-related (the character resembles a "w"); there may be others.
I imagine the reason for using them is because they occur after the English "ABCDE...abcde..." sequences in the ASCII character set, so anything cataloged using them wouldn't intrude on articles cataloged under "ABCDE...". I'm surprised there isn't anything about all this in Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting -- there may/should be something somwehere in the Manual of Style, if my vague recollection is correct! Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there's a few "ω" templates in Horror templates, I could move them into a WikiProject Horror templates subcategory if you like. I've seen similar kinds of categories elsewhere. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FREAKING GAY!

Thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard I had that on there way before i created that stupid page for it.

--Bryan 01:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

THATS BULL SHIT!

IT TOOK ME 3 HOURS TO DO ALL THAT ALL THAT TIME FUCKING WASTED!

BULL FUCKING SHIT!

I SHOULD BE ALOUD TO HAVE ALL THAT STUFF ON MY SITE! IF ITS YOURS IT SHOULD BE ALOUD TO BE THERE! WHO CARES IF IM NOT FAMOUS! THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT

I'm sorry you wasted time but this is an "encyclopedia"; isn't there anything about that word that gave you pause? You must have come across printed encyclopedias once or twice and already known that they contain information on subjects already written about; things considered knowledge; they contain no entries on people's dogs, their houses, their garage bands, etc. While we are not a paper encyclopedia, which permits us to cover many more topics in more depth than a paper encyclopedia, of course as an encyclopedia editors can't be alllowed (not aloud) to have entries on just any subject. Wikipedia is not many things. Your userpage is not yours by the way, not "your site". We give users some leeway to talk about themselves there, but it is part of the encyclopedia and it cannot function as permanent storage for an article intended for the article space but deleted from there. By the way, have you ever considered the possibility that using the words gay and retarded as invectives may have the effect of making you look very foolish in the eyes of many people?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

You're always popping up to help me. Thanks for your awesome copy-edit on Multiple Maniacs. Mike P ^talk 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anytime! I almost had a stroke my first viewing of Multiple Maniacs when the Lobstera....ummm....assault? happens. That may be the most perfect non sequitur in movie history (certainly the most perverse). Beats anything in Pink Flamingos by a mile.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted thai location article

I'm not sure that's a copyvio, you should ask the user who added it--it's a project for the Thai ministry of tourism or something like that to add info about thailand to wikipedia. It's possible they're the original copyright holder and the others are copying them. It's admittedly travel guide stuff but is a good start nonetheless for a country we don't have too much about. Mangostar (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It can;t be used presently even if the user adding it is the author, as it is explicitly copyrighted by statement on the external page. In order for it to be used here the author of the text must either:

• Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Born Distinction on behalf of Tourism Authority of Thailand presents all the information about the destinations in Thailand. All the information brought on to the WIKIPEDIA by User:borndistinction are the true source from Tourism Authority of Thailand i.e. TAT is the owner of the content. So born Distinction has not violated any copyright violation.

Bord Distinction declares that the content contributed are released under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 and later--Borndistinction (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read my post above. Telling me is not what you need to do. You must either change the site notice on the external site, or send an email in the form and to the address noted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it is likely that the other sites are the ones improperly using the official content. What should TAT do in this case? Please reply on Borndistinction's talk page also, I doubt they know enough about wiki to check back. Mangostar (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. I don't find that this content ever existed on the tourism of thailand website but only on this site which states "All rights reserved by Thai-Tour.Com" (and also states near the bottom of the page "TAT License" which shows some type of relationship). In any event, if any of this material does appear on the TAT site, that in turn prominently states: "Copyright © 2003-2007 Tourism Authority of Thailand". So if the information is indeed from TAT, then that would have to be shown to be the origin of the content and then, once again, either the external site needs to post a release, or an email needs to be sent. There may very well be a language barrier here. Born has made some edits which show an effort to comply, but has not followed the instructions. Stating here that the content is released is meaningless because the account is anonymous. Anyone can claim they are the author of external content or the official representative of the author. That's why we require an email associated with the site be sent, or the site itself post a release notice. It also appears likely given born's statements, that this is a shared account and should be blocked, though I won't do so until that is transparently shown to be the case. I'll post a further message on *¿their?* talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a role account but it seems silly to block it, considering all the language issues we're dealing with. (And because the copyright holder of all the contributions is the same, since this is an official TAT project.) See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand#TAT_to_.22improve.22_Thailand-articles_here - I guess we could ask for an OTRS email to confirm that this account is in fact a TAT account, but it would be a crazy coincidence for someone else to claim to be the TAT suddenly after the TAT made press releases saying they were going to start editing wikipedia. Just based on common sense and the TAT license designation, as well as this material appearing on multiple websites and the TAT claiming they wrote it, don't you think it is likely that this is content that is indeed written by the TAT and licensed to various websites? I don't know if you'll get a response from whatever site happens to be hosting the content. I would think that an email from the TAT confirming that Borndistinction is in fact them should be enough?? Mangostar (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the content? Is it hosted on the TAT official site? Visiting there I haven't found it. It could be TAT's content is distributed to hosts without being also on their site, but if TAT can point out a page where the content is on their site and send an email associated with the site, that would clear up much of this. If it isn't on their site, then the fact that the other site says "TAT License" may be enough, if explained in an email or in a letter by snail mail sent to the proper addresses which I trust I've said enough times. So far, I haven't seen any post where any claim of emailing or mailing to anyone has occurred. All I've seen is GFDL notices posted on Wikipedia, which is just shy of useless to verify anything. I don't want to be bitey, but there are a lot of unanswered questions, and I'm not much for taking action based on speculation. There's little transparency here, a lot of questions, and the content itself is not in a form thus far that can be used without modification, even if any copyright issue was cleared up. I'm only involved to the extent 1) I reverted a text dump, noting at the same time that it was a copyvio, but the copyvio issue was a sidenote; I would have reverted that edit without any hint of a copyvio based on the content, and 2) I deleted the spinoff article you created from the reverted content. I'm not willing to undelete until such time as many more ducks are put in a row in an accessible way, this is too murky. I'm not otherwise involved. If you follow the issue, which I'm not planning to, and there's some real and definitive resolution on their content and its provenance, point it out to me and I'll undelete. Of course, you always have the option of going to deletion review. That might help get some resolution to the issues involved; many heads with different experiences are better than one. If you do, please link this conversation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearing your doubts

To prove that user:borndistinction is the representative of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, check the link for the endorsement letter by TAT [3]. TAT has sent an email to the wikimedia also.

To prove that the content for the Narathiwat Province from the external website is copyright of TAT, check the link [4], they've added the phrase "Courtesy of www.Tourismthailand.org"

Moreover, the content are also under the process of being uploaded on to the TAT's website as it hasn't been uploaded yet because the site is under improvement process.--Borndistinction (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Userbox you added to my page

Hey there, cheers for the userbox! :-) ACM2 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Karina Pasian

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karina Pasian. 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. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Toestepping moves

Haha, nah not at all, I wasn't doing it right anyway! Glad the problem got fixed. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Intangible asset finance

Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. We'll see if it actually helps stop those edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag templates for deletion warnings

Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit ... now that the Flag templates for deletion warnings are "official" (with WP:FLAG-BIO and the others in Wikipedia space), do you have any comments on them? Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{08:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)}

naming conventions merger

Thanks for doing it! TONY (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPad

Regarding your "endorse" vote on the Deletion Review of ZuluPad, I have just posted a new draft version of the article, with sources cited, here: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. Please consider reviewing this new version of your article. Your comments on improvements that could be made are welcome, of course. If you feel that this new version of the article meets the Wikipedia quality standards, I hope you would consider changing your vote to allow the ZuluPad page to be created. While you make a good point that a new page can be created as long as it is substantially different from the old deleted page, VanTucky has argued that the ZuluPad page should not be re-created at all because of the community decision to delete it two years ago. A new community decision to allow it to be re-created would be of great benefit. --Omeomi (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Omeomi, Let me hopefully clarify some matters so that you understand better what is going on. All one has to do is review the text of WP:CSD#G4 to see what it says, which is essentially that an article on a subject that was deleted at AfD (that is after debate with consensus achieved to delete) is only subject to speedy deletion for recreation (that is, without debate, but speedily and unilaterally), where the reposted article does not ameliorate the basis for deletion given at the prior debate.

In this case, The reason for deletion at the article for deletion debate was notability concerns. So let's identify exactly what is neeed to take this outside the ambit of CSD G4: you need to putatively show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"—that is the general notability standard. That is more complex than it may sound. It has basically three elements: 1) independent means the sources must not be connected with the subject; 2) significant coverage means a source just passingly mentioning the subject, or having a sentence or two on it is not sufficient; and 3) reliable sources means what it says through that link; the long and short of it being that not just any old source is good enough but should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Forums, download sites, blogs, other wikis are not normally reliable sources.

If the draft, which I haven't yet looked at yet, attempts to address these matters in a real way, then the new article is no longer subject to speedy deletion. But, a recreated article that putatively meets these standards is in no way insulated from a new deletion debate at Articles for deletion (AfD) and do not be surprised if it is taken there. Unfortunately, the deletion review, instead of really addressing the speedy deletion aspects of this, has basically degenerated into a speculative new AfD, which is not its role.

After writing the above, I have just now looked at the draft article, and it is my opinion that it no longer meets CSD G4 and should not be deleted on that basis. It is also my opinion that, in the current draft form, it does not meet our notability requirements as few of the sources contain substantive treatment and all of them are of questionable reliability; that once reposted, the article will likely (and should) be deleted at a new AfD debate, if brought. I hope this helps in some measure to clarfy matters and what you should do, which is go find some much better sources, if they exist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for taking the time to explain this in such detail. Since you mention the article's "current draft form", I thought I would mention that another user has found and posted a quote from the newspaper article from The Record (Bergen County). His post is on the Deletion Review page. He also mentions that The Record has the "second largest circulation of New Jersey's Daily Newspapers". I have updated the draft User:Omeomi/ZuluPad page with quotes and a cited source to reflect this. I hope you will consider reviewing the draft page again. Also, if you do feel that the article should no longer be deleted on the basis of CSD G4, I wonder if you would consider changing your vote from "Endorse", in order to allow the article to move to a new AfD debate without being speedy deleted again. Additionally, these are the sources that I feel are notable: The Record, Lifehacker.com, and Gizmo's Tech Support Alert, and to a lesser extent BestFreeApps.com and DownloadSquad.com Thank you for your time. --Omeomi (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Omeomi. I am not changing my comment from endorse because I absolutely do endorse the speedy. As I've said a few times, his speedy was proper because the article met CSD G4 when he deleted the article; that is what the endorse means and regulars at DRV know that's what it means. What may be confusing is that many are treating this as AfD part2, when all that should be going on is a DRV of the basis for deletion, i.e, was the speedy proper, or not (which results typically in endorse or overturn). You shot yourself in the foot by bringing a DRV on a valid speedy (I donlt mean that ass criticism; how could you know, but dems da facts). None of this would be going on if you had simply recreated the article in a form you have in your draft, without ever bringing the DRV, which had no good basis, because now the process is running well beyond its mandate. As I've said, the subject of the DRV should be whether the speedy was valid or not (it was) which should then result in the options of overturn the speedy or endorse the speedy, not a colloquy on whether a changed article full of cited sources meets the requirement of of notability policy; that is not DRV's function. I am not re-reviewing anything because I've already said that I don't think recreation would be susceptible to CSD G4 deletion and any deletion, therefore, has to go through AfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for taking the time to detail this. It seems you have a very good understanding of the policy. I wish all admins had the same degree of understanding, so the deletion process wasn't so messy. Anyway, I appreciate the respectful dialog. --Omeomi (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....

for the vote of confidence at my RFA and for the positive feedback about the answers! I appreciated them both very much.--Slp1 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

remediate

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit ... I added the Wiktionary link for "remediate" to Template:Hasty because I was unfamiliar with the word ... I'm 58 years old, and have worked on national and international standards for digital product definition interoperability (CAD/CAM data exchange), and had never encountered the word before ... so for me, it wasn't a "common" word, and that's why I linked it. :-)

BTW, I mention {{Hasty}} in the WP:FLAG-PROTOCOLs, and am looking for other places to mention it ... do you have any feedback on the Flag-templates that I have created, e.g., WP:FLAG-PROF?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk) _{00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

Hi. Has this ever happened to you? It's happened to me a number of times: You learn a new word and then within a short time you hear/read that word numerous times; it's everywhere, and you realize it someone just escaped you but it was always around. I'm not saying it's common as dirt, but it really isnlt an obscure word. I'm sorry if my revert bothered you. Regarding flag templates, I must apologize again; I but I can't say I would use it. It adds an additional layer of bureacracy to deletion; you have to first warn with it, then remember that you did, then check back, and then retag if action hasn't been taken. If I feel that way I can simply mark with an existing and tailored template addresing the exact problem I see with the article, e.g., {{notability}}}. I also think many places where these would go, Prod provides enough of a velvet glove and gives users ample time. I don't like biting but I also don't think we need to coddle and we just get way too many speedies to use this process for any large number of articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can't stress enough that these protocols are for questionable rather than irreparable articles ... anyone can remove a PROD (including the author), which is why I created {{Oldprodfull}}, and the 3rd Step of WP:FLAG-BIO contains a boilerplate {{Articleissues}} that I use quite often on all kinds of articles ... I guess that leaving a "paper trail" is a bit of administrative bureaucracy, but I've found it most handy when articles have had to go to AfD ... as for "remembering", well, that's what I use the Watchlist for, and I only devote one editing session each week to checking previously flagged articles.

This all resulted from a Very Bad experience over a year ago when I was still somewhat of a newbie, and was accused of tagging articles for deletion (PROD or CSD) Too Quickly, and it evolved as my attitude changed (I got lots of feedback from other editors before I moved them from User space into Wikipedia space) ... I would never suggest that they should become Official Policy, but they offer a guideline for both Deletionists and Inclusionists that attempts to strike a balance ... just doing my part to try to make things less unpleasant for others, like you did by creating {{Hasty}} ... and that "Some Other Editor" addition must have been my evil twin talking. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)}

Help desk answer

Just wanted to drop you a note and tell you your answer at the help desk about Singer/Songwriter was great. Nice Job! Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It's rare to get positive feedback like that!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with a new article

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I'm working on putting together my first article and I want to make sure it'll survive. Would you be willing to take a look at my sources and give me your opinion on whether or not they're good enough for notability? I'm concerned because I've only been able to find one source but that one source has covered the topic several times. Thanks for your consideration! Skiguy330 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I'm especially thankful that you helped clean up the ad-speak. Fabrictramp looked it over and said that might be a problem, but even though I'm not affiliated with the company I wasn't sure how to fix it. Thanks again! Skiguy330 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with merging articles

You kindly responded to my query on the Help page abt merging two articles on the same person but I am having trouble understanding the instructions you referred me to, esp the bit about deleting the minor page but also keeping it for the page history. Further advice wd be appreciated. Graham Graham Lippiatt (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class

Indeed, that was my mistake; I've added links in the poll discussion now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny line

"I am writing an article on exploding cigars and I want to cite a Bugs Bunny cartoon as a primary source for its depiction of that device." I read this and immediately started laughing :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs)

Reading that line again, alone, I see exactly what you mean! Almost absurd. The article is in development here by the way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One question: should the article perhaps be entitled Exploding cigar instead of Exploding cigars? Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I had already considered that and while my visceral feeling is that it sounds better in the plural, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) has a good rationale for why it should be singular so I'm going with it. The article has a good way to go before I'm ready to post and DYK it. Thanks for taking an interest:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also quite liked it. Good show! -Oreo Priest ^talk 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that the line you changed was a little too punny; informal. I reverted the image back though. Neither image is on point. The cigar makers is a much more interesting image, still in the subject area, and also that long cigar didn't balance well at all with the text (aesthetically). Thanks for reading!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)