User talk:Hexhand/Archive1

Speedy deletion of "Contrafactual history"

A page you created, Contrafactual history, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. StaticGull  Talk  11:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(duplicate response from StaticGull's UserTalk page): Actually, I had created the page to provide a redirect, as per WP:REDIRECT, as per the successive edits, as "contrafactual history" is a term that discusses alternate histories and, as nothing exists to redirect it, I thought it might be good to have something there.. Sorry, I should have put up a men at work sign, or some such thing. Might I ask that it be removed from Speedy Deletion consideration?

Also, could you tell me how to avoid these misunderstandings in the future? - Hexhand (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

First of all, just looking at the article, it's apparent that it hasn't been expanded five-fold. Second, a word count and a check of the article's history confirm it. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The standard for measurement isn't just a "look and see" basis. First, the standard for measuring the "five-fold" is the number of bytes in the page. When you began editing the page substantially, on July 3rd, the article was at 13,000 bytes. Currently, the article is at 21,000 bytes. This information can all be found in the page's History tab. 5 times 13 is obviously not 21. I also checked the word count of the article. This is to make sure that the original number of bytes wasn't influenced by a high amount of images, tables, etc. So, I'm sorry to say, but as you can see the article hasn't been expanded five-fold, and thus is ineligible for DYK. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GA and FA is meant to drive the improvement of articles, as well as many other article improvement drives within WikiProjects, Collaborations, etc. You can check the bytes in the history of the article. And in the last 5 days, that article has been improved five-fold, thus qualifying it for DYK. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. We all get a bit upset at times. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask me. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just shrink them. Resubmission isn't needed. Just needs to be under 200 characters, including spaces. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. I'll let someone other "officially" check it off, just for the sake of impartiality. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Could you check this out for me

ok. How I find out how many characters are in an article is copy/paste all the text in the article to MSWord, remove any References/See Also/Further Reading sections, remove the table of contents and pictures and pic captions. remove lists, tables, and other info that is not primarily prose. (basically, any part of the article that is not prose is not counted) Once I do the above, I bring up the stats on the trimmed-down text and the "Characters (with spaces)" is the stat you're looking for. In the case of your article, it had 5211 characters of prose on July 12 (5 days ago) and now has 22106 characters. A 5x expansion would be to 26055 characters. Even though this is not quite a five-fold expansion (it's actually about 4.24x), the promoting admin may give some leniency, especially considering the very large amount of info was added to the article. If you don't understand what I did to arrive at the figures, let me know and I will try again. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you list it today, (July 18) you should list it under Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 18 and measure the expansion from what the article looked like in the last revision before five days ago (In this case, the last revision on July 12). If the article is close, but not quite a five-fold expansion, you should note this fact and possibly exactly how much it was expanded. (ie. from xxxx to xxxx characters) Again, while the rules do say 5x expansion, it is not a set-in-stone law and some flexibility is given in certain cases. Also, I've noticed that in cases such as yours where an already sizable article is significantly expanded (ie. a fair amount over 4x), they are more likely to "bend the rules" so to speak. While I can't guarantee this will happen in your case, you really have nothing to lose (and everything to gain :) ) by nominating the article. And even if it doesn't get accepted for DYK, you can still take pride in your work. You've done a fantastic job with that article. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - hope you don't mind my nosing in here but I have a couple of comments. First, DYK submissions should be submitted under the day that fivefold expansion began, not under the day of submission. If you do the latter then by the time they get checked and ready for the main page they'll be more like ten days old than five.

Secondly, I thought I'd suggest an alternative method of character counting, which is this website [1]. It's faster to load than Word, and I find it more convenient. Up to you though obviously. Happy editing, Olaf Davis | Talk 10:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MY bad on the first part. Sorry about that. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just glad I happened to notice it so I could point it out. The DYK rules are, admittedly, somewhat complicated. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gunpoweder Plot: flying Bacon

(copied from my talk page per request) Hi Hexhand. First, since you provided two hooks and only one of them relied on the fact about Bacon, I've approved the other one to go onto the Main Page. Sorry for the delay in getting it through! That takes the immediate pressure off the cite for Bacon's presence, though obviously it'd be nice to have one anyway. It's true that neither of the current cites really confirms it (well, except for the one which just quotes Bacon's Wikipedia article!) so maybe citing the documentary would be better - though I share your concern that it's a bit 'circular'. Do you know the name of the historian who says it in the programme? I think including that would be better than nothing - maybe just as a footnote saying "as stated by John Doe in the documentary" rather than a 'proper' reference. We could also try asking on the talk page of Francis Bacon and see if anyone there knows of a reference. What are your thoughts? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk) Ah yes, his name is there - my apologies, I'd skipped over that. Well, I suppose we should just wait and see if any of your three lines of inquiry turns up a source. The other hook has been placed on an upcoming version of the DYK template, by the way. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend, 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) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

...on your DYK! Mastrchf (^t/_c) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mastrchf91/PageHeader-- This page has all code you'll need. You can just copy the header and footer right into your page, and use each slot for a new FA/FL, GA, DYK, etc. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle is where the Triple crown "Home Base" is. Basically, you must have a certain number of DYK, GA, and FA/FL/FP/FS for each level. You can read more in-depth about it at that page. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted hooks

The hooks I reverted both featured Sun Prairie, Wisconsin as the nominated article. That article has already been rejected as a less than x5 expansion. If you are nominating a new article, please explain which one it is, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I would point out that at the time of the first DYK nom, the article had not had 5x expansion. Since that time, the article has been expanded 5x, which has been confirmed by two others (see my talk). Thus, I re-submitted the earlier nom and added a second one (which had not been submitted before). - Hexhand (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, give me a few minutes to check that out, I'm in the middle of trying to prepare an update right now. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bar Chart

Templates aren't my forte, but I'd advise checking along some pages/projects that deal with finance and economy, and maybe a suitable template can be found on a page. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, 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.

--JayHenry (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! :) - Hexhand (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lend a hand?

Oh no, I won't be doing that. I don't want to steal any of your thunder. ;-) But seriously, we'll see if I have any time for helping. Actually, I'm not sure if I want to eviscerate all of your hard work, by deleting stuff that everyone else seems to think is normal. Seriously, it just looks like padding to me, like people put that road and airport stuff in, just to get their word count up. *shrug* But I'll try to keep an eye on things over there. Happy editing! -Freekee (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew you weren't intending to pad it, only that you were copying articles where the editors had. But those are FA approved articles, so obviously somebody has decided it's good info to include. *shrug* I guess I won't recommend that you remove it, but I will say that I don't think it's helpful information. That's my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. -Freekee (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sun Prairie, Wisconsin

Even though we are having a disagreement in our discussion on whether or not to merge the city and town articles, I appreciate the AWESOME job that you have done so far on the city article! Keep up the great work! Royalbroil 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal, please don't consider a simple disagreement on the merging issue to be anything more than a professional difference of opinion. I am actually somewhat in awe of your contributions to the Wisconsin body of articles. If anything is awesome, it is your body of work. I dig your points of difference, but I think that an absolutist approach isn't as helpful here. I don't believe, for example, that Madison town and city articles should be merged - they are too different. I am of the opinion that the Sun Prairie town and city are close enough that a merging doesn't impair either. I ALWAYS welcome your assistance in any article I work in. And thank you very much for your compliment; I am a bit humbled by it, coming from someone like you. :) - Hexhand (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I left the message so that you were sure that this disagreement was merely a difference in our opinions on the topic and so you wouldn't be seriously discouraged or put off by it. Some people get discouraged when everyone is against them in a discussion. I've lost my share of debates, so I know how that goes. How would it look if we had articles for every town in Wisconsin, except one (Sun Praire's town article is merged into the city article)? Wikipedia is built by precedents, and merging these 2 articles would be a bad precedent in my humble opinion.

I'm glad that you are impressed by the actual articles that I have contributed and not just because I'm an admin. I'm still the same person that I was before I was given the tools. I needed the tools because I help with updating DYK. Royalbroil 04:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I didn't even see that you were an admin. I guess I shouldn't argue with you too much, or you will block me, huh? hahaha - just kidding!

Could I ask for a little bit of assistance in two different items, bot related to images?

1. In The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend, the images used in the article are a bit small, and Ned Scott mentioned that they could be larger, but I cannot get them to resize. Did I upload them in the wrong format to size?
2. I am unsure of the licensing of the images in an article I started, Contaminated currency.

Isn't being an admin fun? Thanks ever so much for at least taking a look at them. Yiour input would be helpful. - Hexhand (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good one! It looks like you resized the images, although they seem quite large. Usually only thumbnails (|thumb) is used because some people view Wikipedia on a 800x600 monitor, and 400px takes up 2/3 of the width of the screen. That contaminated currency article is excellent and interesting. I read the whole thing. Images from U.S. Govt websites are correctly licensed. Is that museum in the top image an official part of the agency? If so, then it's okay. Sorry, I wasn't watching your talk page for a response. Royalbroil 05:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your note over at Talk:Image use policy

I usually deal with copyright issues pertaining to Canadian images, so I am by no means an expert of U.S. images, but it seems to me that if the images that interest you are 90+ years, as you say, the following template ({{PD-US}}) would suggest that any pre-1923 U.S. images can be uploaded to the Commons and used on Wikipedia. Good luck. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Encouragement

Hi! I just want to say hi and to encourage you even though we do disagree about the merger issue. I do know you are trying to do the best you can. In friendship-many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Saw you question about too short for the Contaminated U.S. currency DYK hook. If you read the guidelines, the prose needs to be 1,500+ characters long with certain exclusion. I had this issue earlier this week and needed to add some text to bring it over 1,500. BTW quotes are not counted. This is a useful set of rules for the DYK hooks. Should I be sniffing my US notes? Just expand it a bit (I made it 1,309) and good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Contaminated currency

Hi there. I've removed some text from this article because it seems to be copied wholesale from two Observer stories here and [2]. Please don't cut and paste copyrighted text into articles - see WP:COPYVIO and related policies. You can, of course, rewrite it in your own words. All the best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I specifically did not make a judgement because I didn't have time to confirm the accusation, which I thought I made clear in my comment. I had to say something because if I did not, then we might end up inadvertently putting a copyvio on the front page. I or someone else will take a closer look at the article when we get the time. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Iain99 said he found "wholesale" copyvios, so until that can be confirmed or disproven, I'm afraid your article must remain on hold. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the version I was referring to was this one. While I didn't have time to read every word this morning, the differences between your version and the newspaper stories were so slight that I didn't notice them at all on skim reading. On re-reading, I see that you did indeed make a few changes, but unfortunately they are nowhere near enough to stop the page being a copyright violation. To whit

Your Version More than £15 million worth of banknotes are being destroyed each year because they are so heavily contaminated with cocaine, heroin or ecstasy that they cannot be put back into circulation.

Newspaper story [3] More than £15 million worth of banknotes are being destroyed each year because they are so heavily contaminated with cocaine, heroin or ecstasy that they cannot be put back into circulation.

Your Version In most instances the destruction is merely a precaution, but in several recent cases the levels of contamination have been so high the money has been considered a health hazard.

Newspaper story In most instances the destruction is merely a precaution, but in several recent cases the levels of contamination have been so high the money has been considered a health hazard.

Your Version In a raid on the headquarters of a Yardie gang which had moved from selling crack cocaine to heroin, £465,000 in bundles of small bills was recovered which were being stored in the same room that was being used to prepare the heroin and had become so coated with the drug that officers on the raid were advised not approach or touch the bundles with bare hands. They were eventually removed by a team wearing gear usually used to deal with chemical spills.

Newspaper story' In one recent raid on the headquarters of a Yardie gang which had moved from selling crack cocaine to heroin, £465,000 in small bills was recovered. The bundles of notes were being stored in the same room that was being used to prepare the heroin and had become so coated with the drug that officers on the raid were advised not approach or touch the bundles with bare hands. They were eventually removed by a team wearing gear usually used to deal with chemical spills.

...and so on for the rest of the section. None of the parts I've just quoted were in quotation marks or attributed to the newspaper as you claimed on my talk page (one was followed by an inline citation to the newspaper article, but this merely indicates that the facts, not the text, were drawn from the article).

Unfortunately, changing a few words here and there does not stop the text being a copyright violation - you have still copied the work, and subsequent alterations do not make it a new work of your own, they just make it a derivative work of the original. For the same reason, the current version of the article is still a copyright violation as it is still derived from the original, it's just a little more derivative than the old version was. You need to start from a blank screen and write something of your own, not start from someone else's text and then try to change it enough that nobody notices it's a copy. If you need help doing this I can offer some assistance, though I'm busy in real life this evening so probably won't be able to do much until tomorrow. Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are incorrect, Iaian. Neither I nor you can write our own take on the various sources, as it then becomes Original Research; my firm understanding is: we don't do that here. Presenting the info given us as sources allow us to objectively present that information accurately and without our personal interpretation of such; the temptation for synthesis needs to be avoided. Paraphrasing info is precisely what we do here, as our personal commentary (or advocacy, for that matter) is not citable. We take the information that is citable and fit it to the article. Now, while I admit that my tailoring was not as well as it should have been, your estimation that the article lifts the entire article is both misleading, inaccurate and smacks of bad faith.

While I could refute each one of your claims above, I think it is pointless to belabor the point. It needs to be reworded, and my subsequent edits have addressed that. You are welcome to contribute you ideas on how to improve be less derivative, but I think observing the OR line is important, too.. - Hexhand (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonfree images

Hey - I saw you got into a little tiff over nonfree images in userspace. Personally I think it's a very silly policy, but whatever. Anyways if you need any help with that sort of thing in future, feel free to give me a yell - there are many people happy to help with fair use nonsense. —Giggy 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giggy. You can probably expect me to come a-calling sooner rather than later. A question that immediately comes to mind is a side-by-side image of a town - one being a historical landscape image taken in the 40's or 50's (after 1923, I know) and the same image now, so as to emphasize growth of that town in recent years. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If the old image has not been freely licensed, then the overall image couldn't be used as a free image, unfortunately. However, if you're using it to compare then and now, and discuss this in the article, you could easily write a fair use rationale that image (or I could if you needed). —Giggy 23:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand

Hey Hexhand, I noticed you got involved in a slight altercation with User:Betacommand, this has now become a wp:ani case, and is being dealt with at the moment. Please don't let what happened get in the way of your very good editing, he is a user that should have been indefinitly blocked months ago. If you need any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talkpage. Chafford (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand_and_newbie-biting WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On the underlying problem with the images. Basically, the issue is that the 'fair use' license on the images in question means that each page showing the images must be justified under fair use law. Fair use allows limited reproduction of images for specific purposes such as education. It does not generally allow reproduction of them for 'decorative' or 'archiving' purposes. The user space is generally not used for any sort of educational or other purpose which would qualify for fair use... and the exact requirements to qualify are seldom well understood. Thus, while it might be theoretically possible to construct a scenario where an image could legitimately qualify for fair use in the user space, Wikipedia has a rule disallowing this in all cases.

You presumably just wanted to keep a handy collection of all images you have uploaded and display them for others to see. However, those purposes wouldn't qualify under 'fair use' law in most jurisdictions. The method someone else implemented of just linking to the images with a fair use license is probably the best compromise. --CBD 12:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was planning on linking them instead. I appreciate the confirmation that my plan was not a continued affront to the rules. I understand it now (which is what I was seeking, really).

As for the BetaqCommand thing. I might comment on the ANI, but I might instead treat Wikipedia like the interstate, where sometimes a driver will cut you off or lay on the horn without knowing how they are being perceived. He handled the situation wrong - I know it, others know it and likely, he knows it, too. No sense beating a dead horse here. Just like on the road, a driver who is bad enough will get ticketed or otherwise sidelined eventually. - Hexhand (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Contaminated currency

Huh? It's the same nom in both cases - contaminated currency. I really have no idea what you're talking about. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I had a closer look at the article and I agree with Iain that it is still too close to source, especially in the Britain section. If you rewrite that section, it might be approved for promotion, but I don't think we can promote it in its current state. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked beyond Iain's comments, I spent an hour going through the article. The British section is too close to source and needs to be rewritten. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am not seeing the closeness of which you speak. I have rewritten the information presented in cited sources (and not simply transliterated them) at least twice, and am beginning to fail to see the issues of which you speak. The problem with tossing around the accusation of copy vio is that no matter how much one re-writes the material, someone is going to say 'well, that's too close to the sources' - part of what I find quite upsetting with Iaian dropping that little bomb in DYK; it poisons the well. Of course its going to have proximity to the sources - we cannot avoid that without violating WP:OR. That my text used close to the same wording as those sources was an error - an error that has since been corrected, resourced and done away with. - Hexhand (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOR Hexhand. First of all, keep in mind that copyright is the law of the land, while WP:NOR is just a rule on a website; if the two were to be in conflict, copyright concerns would always take priority. However, you seem to be reading too much into WP:NOR anyway. It's intended to stop people from using Wikipedia to advance new ideas, theories or arguments, especially where this would detract from our neutral point of view, which is the most important principle of Wikipedia. It's not intended to put limits on how editors can express existing facts or ideas; we still have to express them in our own words, not stick to the words the sources use. I suppose you could argue that the judgement we have to use in summarising and rephrasing other people's writing (and for that matter, deciding which sources to use and which facts from them to include in the article) does constitute a little bit of original research, but this is not the sort of thing WP:NOR is trying to prevent - if it were, it would be impossible to write an encyclopaedia without breaking the law.

On the specific case, I agree with Gatoclass - in the current version, much of of the In the UK section, at least, still reads as if you've copied much of the text from the newspaper stories, reshuffled the sentences a bit, then changed some words here and there. This is still a problem because under copyright law, what matters is the act of copying - subsequently changing the text (even if you change it quite a bit) doesn't take away the original author's claim to it. You asked for specific examples, so here are a couple

"The disease is carried through the blood, and impaired users can easily fail to notice small traces of blood on their banknotes, and infection can then occur as the rolled note is passed around a group." ... "Without treatment, hepatitis-C can lead to chronic liver disease".

uses many of the same turns of phrase as

"The disease is carried through the blood, and users can easily fail to notice small traces of blood on their banknotes, which are then passed around a group. Without treatment, hepatitis C can lead to chronic liver disease." [4]

or this sentence

"More than £15 million worth of banknotes cannot be put back into circulation because they are so heavily contaminated with cocaine, heroin or ecstasy that they must simply be destroyed."

uses almost exactly the same words as

"More than £15 million worth of banknotes are being destroyed each year because they are so heavily contaminated with cocaine, heroin or ecstasy that they cannot be put back into circulation." [5]

...you've just rearranged a couple of the clauses, and replaced "are being destroyed" with "must simply be destroyed" - hardly a complete rewrite, I'm afraid.

You need to do things in a different manner - read the sources, decide what facts from them to include in the article (hint - it's rare that you'll need to include all of them; encyclopaedia articles aim to summarise topics, rather than include every last detail about them), then write about those facts, avoiding putting a completely new interpretation on them, but also trying to avoid repeating the phrases used by the original source as far as possible. You seem to have done a better job of this in the last two paragraphs in the current In the United Kingdom section. I accept it isn't always easy - when you've just read someone describe something in one set of words, it can be difficult to think of a completely new set of words to describe the same idea, and I'll freely admit that I also sometimes look back over what I've written and think that some parts are a bit too close to comfort to the original sources - but this is a fault of my writing style, not something I'm compelled to do by Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, I'm going to have a bash at rewriting some of it myself. I'll see what I can do. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying with specific instances of the problem. While you are bashing away, i will try to do so as well. I definitely think the article could be quite spiffy - and am a little surprised that someone else hadn't written it before. And I definitely think the DYK would be nice hooks. - Hexhand (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've hacked about with the British section, and I think it should be OK now. The bit on Hepatitis is still a bit too close to the newspaper article in terms of wording and overall structure, but it's getting late where I am, and I have other things I need to do before I turn in. You could have a look at what I've done and try to do the same sort of thing with that section if you like, but to be honest I'm not sure that it needs to be in the article at all - while it's interesting, getting Hep C from blood on a banknote is a rather different subject from banknotes in general circulation being contaminated with drugs, so it seems a little bit off topic for the article. The article should be long enough for DYK without it.

I agree that it's an interesting subject - I might see if I can get hold of some scientific papers and expand it myself when I have more time. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it because it was pointed out to me that contamination could be used to describe the problem with the hep-C issue as well. I will take a longer look at what you did and try to knock out something similar. - Hexhand (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your duplicated submission from July 26th. You cannot nominate the same article twice. I am getting rather tired of your persistent refusal to listen to advice or to play by the rules. Your article was riddled with copyvios and that alone could easily have been enough to disqualify it, but since you are a new user with apparently only about a month on the project, I have tried to explain the problems and to work with you to get your article promoted. Your response has been largely hostile, accusing me of vilifying you, rejecting my advice and now reverting of my edits. So I'm putting you on notice - if you revert an edit of mine on the suggestions page as you did earlier, I will block you for disruption, and you can forget about any more help from me in getting your article promoted. If you don't understand an action an administrator takes, ask them why they did what they did, don't revert their actions and then try to lecture them about policies which you clearly don't understand. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you because you were incorrect in calling the nom a duplicate. I did ask you for clarification, and waited while you continued to edit for four hours before reversing your removal. If you think I am being hostile, I apologize. If you think I am not showing you the proper respect for your admin position, understand that I don't really consider it all that special. Your quality edits and your conduct are the only things that either earn my respect or my disregard. Threatening to block me for reverting what I felt was a mistake is not a point in your favor, especially when I tried to consult with you about it first. Countering that was taking the time to explain that it was a copyvio,even though you didn't point out exactly where the supposedly a copyvios existed. Clearly, if I am asking where you felt they were, its a pretty sure indication that I am unaware how to fix the problem.

You note that I cannot nominate the article twice. Can you please point out where in the rules for DYK that it says that? As I failed to find such a rule, I submitted two different DYKs for the same article. Also, please feel to point out which policies that I "clearly don't understand," as well as how you feel that to be a constructive remark. - Hexhand (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start again.

You note that I cannot nominate the article twice. Can you please point out where in the rules for DYK that it says that? As I failed to find such a rule, I submitted two different DYKs for the same article. Also, please feel to point out which policies that I "clearly don't understand," as well as how you feel that to be a constructive remark.

You didn't submit two different "DYKs", you submitted two different hooks for the same DYK submission, ie, contaminated currency. If you want to submit more than one hook, you just submit an alternative hook alongside your other hook on the correct day.

Your submission was created on July 23rd, so that's the date it is filed under. You can't submit it under July 26th because it wasn't created or x5 expanded from that date. And you can't nominate the same article on two different days either. If you do that, people will just get confused and start reviewing or promoting the same article more than once, which is a waste of time.

As for your article itself - I am still prepared to feature it if you can persuade Iain that the copyvios have been dealt with. If he is happy with the state of the article, so am I. I don't think I can spend any more time fiddling with the article myself because I have dozens of articles to review, not just one. So my advice is to work with Iain to get it straight, if you can manage that in the next day or so I will promote it. But I cannot discuss this issue with you any more tonight because I am just about to go to bed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest edits Hexhand, you've addressed my worries, and as far as I can tell the article is now free of copyright problems, and have said so on the DYK suggestions page. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for both your advice and your assistance, Iaian, :) - Hexhand (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and well done. :-) Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

Sorry for the delay in responding. Others may have already chimed in, but my view has always been that it is impossible to show that undated images are public domain, and therefore they should be used under a fair use rationale or not at all. The only exception is where the surrounding facts can lead one to conclude that the U.S. image is public domain (e.g. the photo is of a building that we know was demolished prior to 1923). Sorry - that's probably not much help in terms of the undated images that you want to use. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Contaminated currency, 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.

--Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of (Pilot) Fringe

I have nominated (Pilot) Fringe, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Pilot) Fringe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

good night

Wikiquette Alert

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Hexhand and personal attacks/rudeness in an AfD -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol - replied to. - Hexhand (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe pilot

I' like to request you not to insist on restoring your own edits every now and then and stick to collaborative editing. Also simply because certain articles recieved GA or FA does not mean that the exact structure should be followed. They are at best seen as a guide to structure of article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but the Fringe article could stand to actually follow their guide somewhat, as it serves the purpose of an encyclopedia. As well, collaborative editing actually involves discussion, am I correct? Maybe initiating some of that would do us all a world of good. - Hexhand (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider those remarks for yourself. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD, when your changes are reverted, it is up to you to discuss. - Hexhand (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Was seeking a fair middle ground, as the article about the pilot was nicely presented and well written and the information did not require a deletion. I was not involved with any discussions about House or Smallville pilots, so cannot knowledgably comment on each one's individual merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you were aiming for a middle ground, and I applaud that. And thanks for the comment about the pilot article. I was trying to make it as nice as the FA articles. I guess it will get there eventually, if someone doesn't keep nominating it for deletion. - Hexhand (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it could get there... and others of equal quality... and perhaps even with Collectonion's assistance (lower those eyebrows). All one has to remember is that we have time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's to hoping, anyway. :) - Hexhand (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Collectonion is questioning the quick closure of the AfD, even though the merge is what she wanted and she could now simply easily sit back and let things be as they are. At the AfD the "keeps" were by far the consensus... and middle-ground "merges" like me barely a blip. If the AfD is reopened, you may well have your singular pilot episode and a quicker shot at a FA. She really does want what is best for Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed her behavior there. Unfortunately, my first interaction with her was to assume bad faith of me, and not even once apologize for it. It created a pretty bad impression of her. I hoping it improves, but that's on her. - Hexhand (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not judge by a first impression. What she saw was a duplicate article and acted accordingly. She is a terrific ally and a very sharp intellect. I am certain that there was absolutely no malice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia processes

While I welcome a DRV on the Pilot (Fringe) AFD, you should review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose .E2.80.94 challenging deletion debates because you have not followed proper Wikipedia process. Dreadstar † 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you recreate or undo the redirect that resulted from the AFD, you will be blocked for disruption. Dreadstar † 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I apologize for not personally coming to you to ask you to reopen the AfD discussion, but LeavesSleaves had already done so, and you chose not to respond, therefore negating the need for me to redundantly ask the same thing.

As for undoing the redirect (which you might or might not be aware is a de facto deletion of the article), it was performed to insert the DRV template into the article. When you delete the article - against consensus and preemptively - you also remove the opportunity to note that the deletion is being contested. My undoing of your redirect was not intended as disruption or a boot to the face; it was meant to address a mistake on your part. Sorry if that part was unclear. - Hexhand (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure eleven minutes is quite sufficient time in which to determine that I "chose not to respond". [6] [7]. Dreadstar † 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly found enough time to revert my addition of the DRV template to the Pilot (Fringe) article, and removing the contents completely, all before answering LS's initial question, twenty minutes later. As for those eleven minutes you linked, perhaps you were unaware that I was having difficulty in making the request template display properly. I decided to notify you anyway, and in the interim, DaveWild fixed it. Sorry, but if you make an AfD decision that you are fully aware (how could you not?) was going to be - at the very least - controversial, you'd best free up time to respond to questions in a timely manner. - Hexhand (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments directed toward me in the above discussed DRV

Your comments come across a bit assholic. You made some overarchingly bad faith assumptions there, and so you should also be slapped with the same trout, IMHO. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

I hate those damn summary templates (no offense to you for using it, but to the person that created it). Per the actual guidelines, we have to show that the image meets ALL 10 criteria, and that template does not detail all 10 criteria. You can keep the summary template, but I would look to this image for how to include more information to justify the image. It's also standard, which isn't great practice, but it's better than being limited in the data given.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You don't mind if I borrow it, do you? - Hexhand (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:LEAD#Bold title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. I've removed the bold off the series and wikified the normal text. - Hexhand (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

outside view...

I was making a few responses on the discussion page over at fringe pilot when a chunk of material disappeared. I hate to see 2 good editors at oddds, so I made a request for an outside opinion from a Project Film coordinator. PC78 is an respected editor, familiar with articles about films. He should have valuable input for the pilot article and the edit discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed you removed it because of its contention... and I saw the request for dialog on Collectonion's talk page before it was deleted. It would likely best serve to respect that unspoken request to not post there, and keep conversations on the article talk pages, being as neutral in questions or responses as possible. I looked at the article's recent history, and it would seem she is making some very decent edits and improving the article. Even as much as she might think it non-notable, she is making it a better article, and all within guideline and policy. If you disagree with the removal of an external link, you really must assume good faith that she is doing so for a sound reason. Ask her about it on the talk page. If the answer is not the one you hoped for or wished, ask for an outside opinion. But don't revert just because you think she is wrong. The article really is better and more encyclopedic than it was. Truely. And do not dwell on any past mis-communications. Concentrate more of future cooperations. She is stilll quite unhappy with the accusation of vandalism and 3RR violation and the earlier bad faith interactions that went on between you two... each giving and each receiving. But that boat has sailed and a simply "I'm sorry for earlier misunderstandings" will go far... as long as behavior reflects the sincerity of the apology. Please remember that you are not the only one looking to protect that article and others on Wiki from vandalism or poor editing. We have time to think things through and be thorough. There is never a rush... even if it sometimes feels like it (like at the AfD). If anything is edited, a first impulse might be to jump in shouting with arms swinging. The best option is to step back, take a look at the edit, and try to understand the why... and then ask a few polite questions. But a quick revert from either of you could then escalate into an edit war that would draw undue attentions. Peace, my brother.... peace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sound advice, Michael. Thanks. - Hexhand (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Yes, you're right this discussion should have been carried on, off the AfD page. I assume Dreadstar doesn't need me to support him. Perhaps the admin duties though, should not be confused with the editor's rights. As an admin he acted in a perfectly acceptable way in reversing a decision that became contentious to suit the consensus. Then, as an editor he has a right to his views and vote to "keep or not", whatever the rest might think, as do we all. I do think that assuming good faith is always the best way to keep good collaboration moving forward. We really can't judge other people very well, so assuming the best always seems preferable to any incivilities. Thanks very much for you comments and discussion.(olive (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Unfortunately, that isn't an accurate chain of events, Olive. He closed the discussion that was not contentious, closing it as a merge (which was a de facto delete, and shortly became an ordinary one, once I posted the DRV notice in the article). This is despite the clear consensus for 'Keep'; there was one vote for merging, and one vote for deletion (if I recall correctly). He has since said that he chose to end discussion out of WP:SNOW concerns, that the article wouldn't - or more pointedly - shouldn't survive. His interpretation of which articles have value and which do not then became open to scrutiny. As he is the author of at least five articles that fail that same test of scrutiny, it was appropriate to note the discrepancy, which puts the reasoning behind his vote and reasoning for this AfD (and the earlier one) into question. We are allowed to question questionable positions, so long as we remain polite and professional about it. As noted before, I wasn't as polite as I could have been. But I don't think I have any reservation s about pointing out Dreadstar's contradictory positions. - Hexhand (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I assume you mean removing the bolding of the title of the series from the lead sentence? It didn't offend me, though I'm not sure if that was the correct thing to do (as the MOS doesn't get specific with television articles).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD related ANI

An ANI thread related to the Fringe Pilot afd has been posted: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hexhand — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the tagging of the articles noted in the above discussion. You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:NOTE, and I would strongly suggest that you do not tag any further articles until you can demonstrate an understanding of the terms. However, if you are indeed familiar with that guideline I would more strongly direct your attention to WP:POINT - and especially that part of the nutshell that comments that those making POINTy edits may be blocked. Please consider this an official warning to that effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Less, thouhg i am a little disappointed by it. If my edits were in fact, Pointy - which I would ask that you illustrate how the tags for notability were such - why did you yourself improve at least one of the articles yourself to address some of the article flaws re: notability? They weren't "hoaxes", or represent an "inability to get the point", gaming the system or edits performed experimentally - which are representive of pointy edits. You might have just asked me before assuming I was being retaliatory. - Hexhand (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Episodes

Thanks for clarifying that situation. All I really wanted to do was get what was in my head into the system, while it was still fresh, in hopes that someone else in the community would be able to "dress it up" to meet the Wikipedia standards. I would have just copied the formatting from the other articles, but I am still very unfamiliar with the formatting codes used here. I imagine I'll be spending time in this "sandbox" that you talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycyberpunk (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)