Welcome to Mattbr's Talk Page Archive 2! July 2007 – November 2009 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbr/Archive_2.
Is there's a list of accepted abbreviations in entries to follow wikistyle - eg $10 million, $10m (which the FT, Guardian, BBC et al use) or $10 mn (correct, says the ISO)? Please?
Wikientries use all three forms.
Similarly is Prof Hugh Jolly (ex-StMary's, W2) really Prof. Jolly. And is David Tennant Dr Who or Dr. Who?
I used to be a journo before getting kind of academic and I'm used to having a set style to work to - for example, I worked on a provincial daily for a while where Hong Kong was Hongkong (like the bank ending in SBC). And the Mirror until about 2000 had Regent Street written thuswise: Regent-street (v. 19th Century)
Kind of yes and no. The best place to find out these things is the Wikipedia:Manual of style, but here's my take. Probably the best thing is to not abbreviate if you can as this is an encyclopaedia and a few extra characters won't harm anyone and it leaves no room for ambiguity. For example use $10 million, Professor Jolly and Doctor Who (notice the article is at the full title). For other (real) doctors I would use 'Dr.'. You will find that different editors will have different styles, so you are best sticking to the style already used in the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English). Hope that helps, mattbr18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting me right on that. I can cut and paste code but I have no idea what it's really doing.... I was quite pleased with myself for having got as far as I did! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me)14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Usually templates that have parameters, such as {{tnavbar-collapsible}}, describe on the page or on the talk page what you need to do to get it to work correctly. For more on templates in general, see Help:Template. Happy editing, mattbr14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi your recent edit [1] to Victoria Cross changed Warrent to Warrant even though this was a direct quote from a 150 year old source. In those days a form of old English was used. As such should it still be changed even though it is a direct quote. I would have thought it should be a verbatim quotation. I am inclined to revert Warrant back to Warrent or add (sic) if needed. Woodym55517:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I hadn't realised it was a quote. I have reverted those changes and wrapped the text in {{lang|ang}} (which defines the HTML language as Old English) and will stop AWB wanting to make that change to that text in the future. Thanks, mattbr17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your quick and productive response. I will use that template for the other direct quotes in the article. Thanks again Woodym55517:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for that flawless RfA. My second nominee is also doing fantastically well so maybe I should do this more often! Anyways, now that you're an admin, it's time I let you in in the little secret that admins keep for themselves: adminship is a complete bore and isn't a great way to make new friends. Pascal.Tesson23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I have removed the fair use image and replaced it with some text instead for now. If you would like to use an image of some variety, I suggest you search the images at Wikimedia Commons, all of which can be used here on the English Wikipedia. When you find a file you like, just include it in the same way you would with an image uploaded here. You could also use any image here that has a free licence. You may also find Wikipedia:Userboxes of use if you want to change some other things. Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions, mattbr07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your help on abbreviations. It’s still woollier than I feel comfortable with – you could find Dr. Crippen on one entry and find Dr Crippen on another – Crippen is a better example than Who, which is a TV show and, as far as I know, the Doctor’s been spelled out in full in its titles since William Hartnell first hurtled through time and space.
Oh, yes, I see you jst made adminship. Can't do pix, but verbal congrats anyway.
Cobra (UK English), (COBRA, US English) stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A and the emergencies committee that meets there — correctly, the Civil Contingencies Committee, set up under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. But, if you look up ‘cobra’ (lc or CAPS) in the Wikipedia you get a snake. To get the real answer, you have to key in ‘Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms’.(NB No mention of A)
(Now, a question or, rather, three)
Should a reference work assume (slightly inaccurate) prior knowledge of something before explaining what the abbreviation for it means?
If I wanted to do a COBRA (UK committee) entry, should I, please?
I just wanted to put a factual page about the j.o. collins company on Wikipedia. It didn't have advertisements, and you can remove the link to the official website. I was just curious why that isn't allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrickgolden (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the way the article was worded made it sound like an advertisement for the company to promote it, and as this is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view, advertisements are deleted. The company also fails to meet our notability guidelines, specifically those for companies, as it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopaedia. I hope that explains. Regards, mattbr20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the question was: 'Should a reference work assume prior knowledge of something before explaining what the abbreviation for it means?., what I meant was that should I want to know what Cobra/COBRA is, you'd have to know what it was an acronym for for before you could find it in the wikipedia - when I tried I had to key in 'Cabinet Office Briefing Room' to avoid getting a snake. Were I not politics-nut and news-junkie, I wouldn't have known how to get the answer to my question. From what you say, it seems someone inetlligent with a knowledge of the more recondite things one can do in the world of wiki, has already done a disambiguation, which would direct the politics virgin to the the right place. The entries don't make it clear that that Cobra/COBRA is the Civil Contingency Committee and its Secretariat, the friendly reptilean name is used, I suspect, because the full name sounds a bit threatening.
Those of us d'un certain âge ('who're getting on a bit to be nerds') remember the Regional Seats of Government in which national and local government planned to cower after the Soviet Union nuked us (viz Channel 4's When The Wind Blows and BBC TV's The War Game) - and getting chased by police who wanted to arrest us while we tried to expose the RSGs, which successive governments refused to admit existed - until about 1990. (Enough of the ramble.)
Yes, some degree of knowledge is assumed as people usually have some idea of what they are looking for (eg COBRA contains ministers and meets at a time of emergency), and the description after the link should provide enough information for reader to know that the link is the place they want to go without being too long (usually no more than one line). Feel free to change to description to make it more clear. On the link, do you mean my reply to the question? If so, I'll copy my reply across shortly. mattbr08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, pix. I’ve read the how-tos and I think I was less confused beforehand.
I phoned the press office for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and they/it emailed me snaps of Lee Mead, one’s quite useful for the top of page mugshot – it’s a 1200x1806 pixel jpg – and the 2007 poster art – a 4982x4235 pixel jpg - for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat page, rather than using the 1991 poster art, which is what’s on the page now. As they were issued as press handout images, in the knowledge that they were heading for a new role as wiki-illustrations.
As far as I can gather I have to declare that these are publicity shots, somehow and upload them –equally somehow – to the wikipedia. Once they’re up there, as far as I can gather, it’s surprisingly straightforward, apart from boiling down a pic that’s 1200 pixels wide to something like 230 pixels, so it fits in a traditional biog box. At a rough guess, it would be about 346 pixels deep. (I’ve been looking at page tops in ‘edit’ as a bit of self-training — emulating what others do is a way of learning — and cancelling my way out, so as not to mess up other people’s work. I even copied a pic from Any Dream Will Do (TV series) to the Lee Mead page as an exercise. Without major loss of life.)
But it hasn't helped me with uploading and tags. They still have me stumped.
So what do I do, please?
And if one says ‘imagesize = 230’ (or some such) in the box details, does that automatically resize the pic on the entry page (with a little click-me-to-expand-me thing), please? It would seem logical to me — but that probably doesn't mean much.
Images are a bit complicated here, and unfortunately there are a number of hoops to jump through before they can be used, especially if they are not available under a free copyright licence. I assume both images are copyrighted? (This is going to be a yes unless it clearly states otherwise, so I'll assume they are.)
There shouldn't be a problem with the poster, and firstly you'll need to scale down the actual image to under 300px in width (any good image editing program should be able to do this, if you have Microsoft Office try Microsoft Office Picture Manager – if not let me know). Then go to Wikipedia:Upload, select the promotional photo option and fill out the details in the boxes at the bottom. Give the file a descriptive name (such as 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat poster 2007.jpg'), and choose the poster option from the drop down box. Now with non-free content (as this poster will be), you will need to meet the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which means you will need to include a rationale as to why you are using it. The best way to do that is to use the {{Non-free media rationale}} template as described at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and on the template description page. Fill out the template fields and put it in the summary box, then you can upload then use the image.
The one(s) of Mead are more tricky as Wikipedia doesn't allow any non-free images of living people which could be replaced by a freely licence image (whether one exists already or not). Could you describe the image before I go any further?
And on the resize thing, yes it should resize it and you can always click an image to take you to the description page. mattbr22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright. I phoned the Really Useful Group's publicity people ands asked for pix to use on the wikipedia. The images they emailed me were for that purpose. I assumed that meant they were publicity shots — and therefore usable.
As a journo, I bceame more savvy than most about copyright law — it put food on the table. So I phoned theatrical publicists Peter Thompson Associates for pix to avoid any unpleasantness and asked in so many words for a mugshot to use on the Lee Mead page in the wikipedia. I assumed that meant they were released for that purpose.
If necessary, I could email Peter Thompson and ask them them to give me permission in writing to use in the wikipedia of the pictures they released for use in the wikipedia.
This is where it gets a bit complicated. Unfortunately permission for use on Wikipedia is no good (they can be deleted without discussion ("speedily deleted") under speedy deletion criterion I3) as the material still has restricted use. The licences the site uses allows free use, including for commercial purposes, by anyone, providing the content is licence under the same licence and the source is acknowledged. This means that you, I, or anyone can take the whole of Wikipedia and sell the infomation under the same licence (the GFDL), acknowledging Wikipedia and make a profit (though don't forget it is free here!). There are a number of mirrors and forks of Wikipedia about. Copyrighted images are allowed if no free alternative could be made that provides substantially the same information, so for example single and album covers, film posters, logos and images of dead people are allowed because no freely licensed alternative could be made, but in the case of living people, anyone could go out, take a picture of that person and release it under a free licence, therefore any copyrighted image is potentially replaceable and fair use cannot be claimed. So the poster is fine, but any images of Mead with a non-free licence cannot be used (there are a very small number of situations where they can be used, but they mustn't be replaceable and general promotional shots are).
Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them as you did with Dhime/Dhimay because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In future please use the move tab at the top of the page to move an article as this also moves the article history. See Help:Moving a page for more information. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thanks, mattbr17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I had done this in this case because there was no significant history in that page. Clearly, the page was created by cutting and pasting my edit in Newa music. I hadnt created a page back because I did not know the standard spelling and much reliable data on the instrument. There is no need to redirect "dhime" to "dhimay" as I have not seen my spelling of "dhime" being used anywhere else. Thank you. --Eukesh17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any alteration of the encyclopaedic content is a significant edit, and that contribution must be recorded even if it is changed later, so the changes made at Dhimeneed to be kept. Aside from making it much much easier to comply with the requirements of the licence the site uses by keeping it in one place, the move feature also means that the history of Dhime is clear so that if another article was created in the future at that title on a different topic, the edit history does not have those of a different topic. And if that title then has to be moved somewhere else and another topic created at that title, you can see what a mess we would get into with keeping track of all these edits if they weren't moved with the article!
The splitting of content from another page can only be done by cutting and pasting it as it is virtually impossible to be able to split the edits people have made to a page. The creating of the page by the 'splitter' is also a significant edit and needs to be recorded at the new article. There is no harm in leaving the redirect at Dhime for now, as this is the spelling that has been used here in the past and it makes it much easier to find the new article title. There are also a number of links form other pages to that title. Hope that explains further, mattbr18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional info. I get your point. There is just one thing that I would like to add. I think that new editors need to discuss at the discussion page of an article before making a "hostile takeover" and creating a stub out of a few sentences of an article. I think such edits are useless, unjustified and besides aiding to the "personal number of edits of the editor" aids to nothing but creating friction amongst editors. I work in English version sometimes only (I am more active in Nepal Bhasa, Hindi etc). I think you are more active over here. In my opinion, there should be a consensus that a editor cannot just copy and paste significant amounts of an article to create new articles in a page where s/he has no contribution, without discussing the matter with the other editors of the page. Thanks again.--Eukesh17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic has possibilities for expansion beyond a few lines and into an article, then there should be no problem with the split. If such a change has been made, no matter how many edits the person has, it should be welcomed. As this is a legitimate scenario, this type of action should not be discouraged, which it would be if discussion was forced, meaning that that person might not contribute and expand the topic. It is also difficult to explain that discussion is advised in this situation, as how do readers (of the encyclopaedia) find out without forcing them to read pages and pages of rules and regulations in the Wikipedia namespace, which would again discourage them. And also don't forget that an account with no edits might not have an inexperienced editor behind it! mattbr21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above page was deleted for plagiarism. Please restore as I have express permission from the web site writer to use the information in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Svsmoke (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately permission for use on Wikipedia is no good as the material still has restricted use. The licences the site uses allows free use, including for commercial purposes, by anyone, providing the content is licence under the same licence and the source is acknowledged. This means that you, I, or anyone can take the whole of Wikipedia and sell the infomation under the same licence (the GFDL), acknowledging Wikipedia and make a profit (though don't forget it is free here!). There are a number of mirrors and forks of Wikipedia about which provide Wikipedia content under their own name. Content copied here that is not licensed under the GFDL, as in this case, can be deleted without further discussion as a copyright infringement (speedy deletion criterion G12). If you want, you could ask them to release the text under a licence Wikipedia can use (the GFDL, or they can release it into the public domain), and there is information on this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission including some example letters. Don't forget to email the permission to the permissions address on that page if you are successful, and the source page should also indicate the licence chosen. Although I haven't looked into it fully, the person in question may fail to meet the notability criteria, specifically those for people, and the reason why the person should be included in an encyclopaedia needs to be asserted. Until that release it obtained, I cannot undelete the article. Hope that explains, mattbr21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across your wonderful template. I guess, I see slight problem with it. While the center alignment used in the template is fine for short lists, as well as the "dot" as separator, it could pose a problem for longer lists. Those lists could do very well with a left alignment and a "pipe" separator. Check the history of Template:Private Universities of Bangladesh if you are interested to know what I mean. That handsome template has lost its looks in an effort to comply to your ideals. Is it possible to have two kinds of formatting for longer and shorter lists? Or is it possible to make a compromise that works for both? Please, respond to my talk page. Aditya(talk • contribs)21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly standard to have centre aligned text in a navigational template like this whatever the topic as they are mostly based on a standard template (which this uses). The use of the dot has also become common as the use of a pipe breaks the master template. To help, you could use Template:! to generate a pipe or you could try splitting the list into two or more (such as North and South) to break it up a bit? mattbr22:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should standardization completely rule out the need for navigability in a navigation box? The particular case I mentioned has created has become difficult to use, and pretty demanding on time and patience. While the average Wikipedian may have plenty of both, we can hardly assume the same about people who come to the Wikipedia to look for useful information presented in concise and friendly way. I am looking for a way to improve the longer lists, not a way to demolish standardization. Is there no way that we can improve on the standard template? Aditya(talk • contribs)09:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't have to use the standard templates, but they just help to create a more uniform appearance in the boxes across the project. mattbr10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - was wondering why the photo I post of Ryan Roxie keeps getting removed. The photo was provided to me by Ryan Roxie who has requested I post the picture on his wiki page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.43.48 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The photo keeps getting removed for a number of reasons. I deleted it because it was licensed for use on Wikipedia only, which we cannot accept (such images can be deleted without discussion ("speedily deleted") under speedy deletion criterion I3) as the material still has restricted use. The licences the site uses allows free use, including for commercial purposes, by anyone, providing the content is licence under the same licence and the source is acknowledged. This means that you, I, or anyone can take the whole of Wikipedia and sell the infomation under the same licence (the GFDL), acknowledging Wikipedia and make a profit (though don't forget it is free here!). There are a number of mirrors and forks of Wikipedia about.
It was then deleted again because copyrighted images are only allowed if no free alternative could be made that provides substantially the same information, so for example single and album covers, film posters, logos and images of dead people are allowed because no freely licensed alternative could be made, but in the case of living people (as in this case), anyone could go out, take a picture of that person and release it under a free licence, therefore any copyrighted image is potentially replaceable and fair use cannot be claimed.
The current version of the image currently has no copyright information on it, and will be deleted if this information is not provided. In all these cases, a notice is placed on the image description page to say that it will be deleted and why it will be deleted. Information was also placed on the talk page of the uploader (User:Poster idol, which I assume is you) in two of these cases providing notification of deletion.
I've noticed that you've recently speedy deleted Image:BBKingTrey.jpg. I'm certainly not judging the decision to delete it, but I don't know if anyone affiliated with the Phish articles realized it was in jeopardy -- there was no message left on the talk pages of either article. We just decided to delete an entire section of Phish (a GA) based on that image: "a picture is worth a thousand words". I don't know who originally uploaded it, I don't know the source, but I would have put some effort into keeping it, had I known it was tagged. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. — MusicMaker537603:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the image page did not fully specify the source of the image only saying 'Press release for "All Access" DVD release, 2003' which isn't accurate enough (Who issued the release? Was the image obtained from a third party? etc) so that the proper copyright status/holder can be determined. The image had been tagged since 17 July and the uploader was notified, but unfortunately there is no requirement for the image uses to be tagged before deletion. The uploader hasn't been active for over a year and has no email specified so it is unlikely that the source can be obtained from them. The best thing to do would be to try and find the image again (the original text may help you) and upload the properly sourced image. Also as a non-free image, you would need to ensure the image meets the non-free content criteria and that a non-free media rationale is specified for it. Hope that helps, mattbr17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the uploader hadn't been active for over a year, don't you think it might have been wise to notify someone else? I understand that you don't have to, and I know that these unsourced images are presenting a problem, but in the past, we've received messages on the articles' talk pages, and the problems have been rectified. Thanks, though, for giving me what was there as a source -- I'll try to see if I can find the image, get it properly sourced and whatnot, and re-upload it. — MusicMaker537621:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user tagged the image as having no source and notified the uploader. Images tagged for more than seven days may be speedily deleted at any time under criterion I4, and there is no requirement for any other notification, apart from tagging the image description page, or checking of the activity of the uploader (I only did this so that you knew that this was a dead-end). This copy of the image needs deleting, and it is unfortunate that a replacement has not been found before the deletion, but that should not cause the deletion of a section in an article. The event depicted should be notable for the significance of the event itself, not whether there is an image to show this event. The use of a fair use picture should include a critical commentary including the importance and significance of the event and if the text can be removed from the article just because there is no picture, then the event should probably not be included in the article whether there is a picture or not. Good luck with finding another image, mattbr22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wasn't terribly clear. The section that was deleted was a section delineating several of the artists who have "sat in" with Phish and was removed before the picture was deleted. It was basically just a list that presented a citation nightmare and didn't necessarily convey any more information than the picture of a band member playing with B. B. King conveyed. The event depicted in the picture didn't require explanation and, for the most part, established its notability on its own, and did it better than the paragraph did. But, since the picture is gone, I'm not sure what we're going to do. I'm in the process of trying to find the source, but it looks like it might be a useless endeavor.... — MusicMaker537622:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the event in the picture didn't/doesn't require any further explanation in the text then it probably shouldn't be included as it is clearly not that a significant event. If the meeting was a pivotal point in the career of the band (eg this meeting was the start of a long relationship in which King became a co-writer with the group leading to a number of hit singles) then it probably should be included. There is more on the inclusion on non-free content at on the site at Wikipedia:Non-free content. mattbr18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and in future there isn't really any need to let someone know, as the page will be deleted in due course. If you feel the page should be salted, writing in the edit summary should suffice. Thanks, mattbr15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14:39, 25 August 2007 Mattbr (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Belarusian Wikipedia" (Speedy deleted per (CSD r1), was a redirect to an non-existent page. Using TW.)
Hi there, you seem to have had a bit of trouble with page moves and the James Gleason article. I have moved the original page back there so we can work out exactly what to do. You mentioned there is another actor and a producer with the same name. Before creating a disambiguation page, are these two notable enough to have an article here on Wikipedia? If so, we can work out where to put the pages. If not then we don't really need to. Let me know and we can sort it out. Thanks, mattbr19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Thanks so much for your help on the James Gleason page. The issue si that there was a comment on that pages talk page in reference to the fact taht there is an actor currently living who is doing a great deal of work (lucky him.) and so, while he does not have a wikipedia entry, it would prove helpful to be able to have the disambiguation. Both actors are in the IMDB and so there is at least some information that can be included in an article here on Wikipedia. Mabibliophile14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look at the IMDb entry for the second actor and he don't seem to have had any recurring major parts (I don't know if any of the others are of any significance). Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the guideline here. Do you think that he would pass the criteria there? From the IMDb list, it looks doubtful. If yes, then I would put a page at James Gleason (disambiguation), linked to via a dab link at the top of the main page, as we don't usually have a disambiguation page at the main page for a list that only has one existing article. Once the article is created, then the pages can be moved as appropriate. If not, then there isn't really any need for the page as there is currently no prospect of it becoming of use. mattbr19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mattbr! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.
If you do not re-register within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the active members list and put onto the inactive members list (if for any reason you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just move your name back).
I left a question for the nominator. The nominator did not give me a heads-up about the nomination, which is a conventional courtesy for other kinds of deletion nominations.
It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.
I don't know what the nominator is talking about with his assertion of redlinks. I don't remember the template containing redlinks. Nor do I see the existence of redlinks being listed as one of the criteria that would have made it eligible for deletion.
I am new to template deletion. Could you clarify for me which of criteria that make a template eligible for deletion this template satisfied?
Thanks for your courteous reply. I was shocked to learn that the nominator was himself an administrator. I'd characterize his reply as more or less a Foxtrot Oscar. I am afraid that as I have more interactions with the wikipedia's corps of administrators I come across an alarming minority who seem to think that elevation to adminstratorship frees one from the obligation to comply with WP:CIV.
The nominator said he told me that he wasn't familiar with the recommendation in the deletion policies that nominators give that heads-up. He suggested that those provisions must be recent -- since he started working on deletion. I know these provisions aren't recent.
I checked his contribution history. This administrator is an active participant in the deletion fora -- including closing debates. I think it is really shocking that he thinks he can close discussion -- and delete articles -- even though he is not familiar the policies he is administering.
The main reason I think the refugee camps I have written about are worthy of coverage is that having stayed in one is advanced by American counter-terrorism analysts as sufficient reason for them to be held, permanently, in extrajudicial detention in Guantanamo. My memory may have played me false. I may not have started this category. But the nominator's posting history shows that they didn't advise anyone.
My recollection is that one of the elements of this template, like those other two templates, is that it includes any articles it was transcluded into in a related category. So, whose responsibility is it to make sure any categories a deleted instance of a templated was transcluding into an article stayed included? If it is my responsibility, as the person who originally transcluded it, I am in need of a reminder of the wording of that category.
Could you get someone to keep an eye on Kathleen.wright5 who seems to be creating unnecessary wikilinks all over the place in some BBC articles - just newbie over-enthusiasm, methinks - but don't know how I should report this.... had to RV some of her stuff. Cheers Zir18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you see Kathleen.wright5 and something like "Internal Links Added" in the history, then take a look at the discussion page & you'll find someone moaning (probably me) ...... Zir23:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me in the middle of updating the documentation! :) {{cleanup-rewrite}} already supports specifying if it is being used for a section, it just didn't say so in the 'Usage' section (it also supports adding a reason, also not documented) which I was in the middle of updating. Both {{rewrite-section}} and {{sectionrewrite}} are both only for sections, and it seems silly to have 3 templates when 1 will do. If you want, you could make the section templates transclude {{cleanup-rewrite|2=section}} or move the functionality to {{rewrite}} which is currently a redirect (it has a past incarnation of the template though in the history, making moving more difficult). mattbr21:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOu didn't pass the parameters to template Notability - just in case you have done or will be doing other conversions. RichFarmbrough, 19:44 16 September2007 (GMT).
The talk page has been moved, and in future please use {{db-move|page to be moved here}} so the admin knows what needs moving there and can perform the move for you (the target page is automatically deleted during the move). Thanks, mattbr14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Matt. I see you are using AWB to tag lots of pages as being part of WP:BBC. This is great, except for the fact I now have the task of going through them all to assess them. :P If I got my self approved for AWB, would it make my job quicker? I would be able to join in the hunt for more article to assess :P Thanks, Tiddly-Tom16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest it's not that much quicker to asses articles using the standard AWB (I think there is a plugin that makes it quicker but I haven't tried it, I think there is also a script about too) but it does make it easy to find and tag articles using the list comparer and the prepend function. I have added you to the approved users list so you can use it, but please read the rules of usefirst (by editing with AWB you confirm your acceptance of these rules and failure to abide by them will result in your name being removed). There is a user manual if you get stuck, but let me know if I can help. Happy editing! mattbr17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am starting with some simple cleanuping. Can I, and is it advisable to get it to remove multiple wikilinks from articles? And can I get it to automatically remove the clear up tag when I have done it? Thank You Tiddly-Tom18:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am doing Spelling, General, Autotag and Unicodeify, if all theise are sorted, does this meen it has been cleared up? :P Tiddly-Tom
Removing multiple wikilinks is one of those things that needs judgement applied to it, so getting it to remove them all is not really advisable. For example, multiple links to the same article in the same sentence/paragraph is not advised, whereas the same link at either end of a 100kB article is probably OK. Plus there is piping and linking to headings to take into account, as it may not be apparent (to the reader) the same article is being linked to.
Again cleanup is one of those subjective things, and doing all the automatic things doesn't necessarily mean the article has been cleaned up, eg the refs might be a mess or there is excessive bolding or the Headings Have Capitalised Initial Letters when they shouldn't ortherearetoomanylinks or too few links or there are too many or too few headings etc etc. They are also mostly minor formatting things that shouldn't really be done without doing something else at the same time. Fixing typos is one of those something elses, and I usually run with the edit summary "Typo fixing and other fixes". Don't forget though that some typo changes it makes are not really typos, eg it may be in a quote that is spelt wrongly, it may not be in English (best to wrap it in a language template such as {{lang|2-digit language code}} (if inline) or {{lang-de}} and variants (if the language name is in front) as AWB doesn't fix typos wrapped in a template (they also set the "language" of the text as read by browsers)) or it may be a name. If it is correcting something it really shouldn't be, such as a common first name, just report it to the typos talk page and one of the people there will remove it from the list.
No problem, I like long replies :P Other than the Clear Up categories, what else do you suggest I could try while getting used to AWB? Sorry if it seems that I am pestering you, just tell me to go ask someone elce if this is the case ;) Tiddly-Tom19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the other general thing is fixing links to disambiguation pages, but it is most useful for doing something specific you want to do to lots of pages, such as adding project banners, adding/removing/changing a category, updating infoboxes, and anything you can do with the find-and-replace feature, and also generating a specific list of articles to work through eg pages that are in Category:A but not in Category:B. You might also find something to do at WP:BOTREQ. If there is something you want to do (within reason), it can probably do it in some way, if not the devs are always open to feature requests. mattbr19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I think I might give something like that a go when I get board of what I am doing at the moment :P Is the Cleanup back log the best place to look, as I have skipped over 1000 pages so far and only got 34 edits! Thanks, Tiddly-Tom20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For doing typo fixing, it doesn't really matter. I usually pick a page and load the what links here (do pages in different topics so you don't check the same pages all the time) and let it go, do something else until it finds a typo and beeps at me, make any other fixes and save or ignore and then go back to the other thing I was doing and so on. If you want to properly clean up the pages making manual edits as well, then you are definitely in the right place! mattbr20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(←)Yes, go to 'General' > 'Preferences', tick 'Flash' and 'Bleep', then on the 'Set options' tab tick 'Skip if no typo fixed' and then start it running and minimise the window, then when it has found a page with a typo to fix, the minimised bar thing at the bottom of the screen will flash and it beeps. mattbr21:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could tell you were about when I saw pages going into the category :P You don't happen to know where I can find the plugin for assessment do you? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a play with Kingbotk's plugin, but I couldn't use it to assess articles, because I could not get it to show me the article at the same time. How do you find, and then tag the articles? Tiddly-Tom17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use the ListComparer to find articles, just load the contents of Category:WikiProject BBC articles in the List 1 box and then load the articles of another category in the List 2 box, such as BBC television programs, then right click and convert to talk the second list and hit compare. If you then save the Only in List 2 list, these are the talk pages that are not in the WP:BBC cat and therefore not tagged. After closing the ListComparer, you can then load this list back into the main Make List box, add some basic text to the Append/Prepend box (I use {{BBCproject|class = |importance = }}) in the More.. tab and select Prepend, add an edit summary and go! It should then add the empty box to the beginning of the talk page (move it as required), right click in the edit box and view page in browser, view the article and add your assessment into AWB then save. mattbr21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have did what you above suggested for around 60 articles. It worked well, thanks. Today I try to do the same, I set up everything the same, but I don't see what I am adding to the article in the edit box! If I could move it up, I could see it (I know because if I click and drag up, and then copy and then paste into word pad, it comes up with what I am adding! Can you help? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Just wanted to ask you whether I should put the {{editprotected}} with {{tl}} ( {{tl|editprotected}} ) or without ( {{editprotected}} ) when requesting a change. Thanks in advance. iNkubusse?20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What content was it? Without knowing I cannot comment further on why the content was deleted, but the deletion summary should inform you as to why and it should contain a link to a page providing further information. If you let me know which page it was I'll explain further. Thanks, mattbr20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes - I took a mistake in using a pipe rather than a colon - I had used the magic word previously and simply forgot which to use ... and using the pipe did not return a redlink and appeared to work properly. Shall I replace the instances I placed or have you already done so? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE, leave the page the way it was, do not revert the changes please.Rockk3rtalk to me
I understand what you are ssaying, but you don't need to worry about the article's history if it's going to be splitted beacuse I'm fixing everything, please let me get done and then check it out, you'll see that what I'm saying it's better, I would appreciate if you could help me, instead of reverting, don't take this the wrong way, I just want to ask your help. thanks
I'm new here and don't know too much about talking to an admin or something, I'd appreciate if you help me with this, by talking to any admin you may know or something or by telling me how to do all that and finally merge the article into 'WarCry'. thanks
I assume you are talking about Luis A. Márquez? Sorry, it was not your edit I was identifying as vandalism but the previous edit. As you can see I restored the non-vandalised page, reverting the vandalism that had occurred by the IP. Apologies again, mattbr19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did some work on this. Do you perhaps know enough German to translate the rest, even roughly? (I moved it to the name used in deWP, accepting their authority. It seems to be the one he used in his published books.) DGG (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for youre help and guidance on the above article. To be honest before you mentioned about it eventually possibly being a "Good article" I hadn't really thought about that possibility too much. It would though be great (excuse the pun) if eventually it could qualify for that status. So, what would you suggest could be done with the article to achieve that standard (I realise it is for the future, just so that we are aware what we need to do!). With the weekly show information, it has been mentioned that once the series finishes then all the info can be "collated" (for want of a better word) and then changed in the same way that Any Dream Will Do lists the songs. However, I also thought that maybe another article could be created which would then be a copy of the weekly shows as they are listed now and that could then be linked to on the main article page. I know I haven't explained that too well, but hope you know what I mean?! I could use one of my sandboxes and try it out. The show has only three weeks left now (Q/F this weekend). One more question before I stop, just each week IP users come along and add info about the Sunday show before it airs. Mostly it has ended up being correct, but when it is added there is no way of verifying the info, plus last week someone added that Jessie Buckley had been eliminated and entered a totally made up song, and also totally made up comments attributed to Andrew Lloyd Webber. Would it be worth asking for the article to be semi-protected until after the results show tomorrow? I ask as with it being Q/F stage this week and the S/F next week it is highly likely that this will happen again. Thanks and apologies for such a long message.♦Tangerines♦·Talk16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to start is probably Wikipedia:Good article criteria as these are what the reviewer checks against. It may also help to look at other comparable existing good articles, such as The Apprentice (UK Series Three), or featured articles to see how they go about things. Probably most of the info is there at the moment that can be, it's mainly the layout of the content and how it is written that is the probably the hardest part, making sure the article is logical and goes somewhere rather than getting really into detail on one point and skating over another and then jumping around. I think the content that needs adding includes a section on what happens to the contestants after the series, and probably expand the criticism section into a reception section, which gives some other info on how critics received the series, detail any awards or nominations, and maybe a bit on viewing figures, such as those at the start, any mid-series lows/highs and the final, and any trends there might be. Maybe you could try with Any Dream Will Do first as all that sort of information is available?
I think the weekly information as it is now is fine, and I don't think it needs collating as it is easier to see what happened each week in the current format. I don't think any content needs moving anywhere as the page isn't really that long.
As for protection, it probably won't happen unless the adding is persistent and disruptive (I haven't looked over it), as protection isn't used as a pre-emptive measure, but you can try. Otherwise you might just have to keep reverting as unverifiable, unreliable information, maybe leaving a quick note with the adder to explain why you have removed it. Hope all that helps and let me know if I can help with anything else. Cheers, mattbr09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, much appreciated. With regard to the weekly information, someone suggested that once the series finishes that it is reformatted in the same way as Any Dream Will Do. Do you think though that it would be best to retain it as it appears now (ie weekly format)? I will change the "criticism" heading to "reception" so that it can eventually contain all the info you mentioned. With regard to protection, I have added a hidden message where the Sing-off information goes for tonights show saying that any edits will be removed (because they are unsourced and can only be so until the show airs). Hopefully that might help prevent it, though someone has today instead used one of the contestants articles to add the information instead (which I have removed with it being unverifiable at present and left a message on the user talk page). Thanks again for your help.♦Tangerines♦·Talk15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I think the weekly format is probably the better layout as it provides a summary for each show as the series progresses, rather than just listing the information, and fits in much better with the overall layout of the article (ie lead section and infobox, format and pre-series, the contestants, weekly results, post-series, and reception). mattbr15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matt - a few questions (which should be taken as honest questions from a guy who's done very little disambig work and would like to learn more, rather than as criticism, express or implied, of your activities):
What made you decide to make Joseph Driscoll into a disambig page, rather than leaving it as a redirect towards Joseph R. Driscoll, the more notable of the two Joseph Driscolls?
You added a hatnote redirect to the disambig page from Joseph Driscoll (Canadian politician). Under what circumstances can you see somebody arriving at that article when they were looking for the other Joseph Driscoll?
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
It would appear so, but I haven't heard of the creators before and I don't really work on terrorism articles. You could try asking on the talk page of the article you would like to use it on, on a WikiProject talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. mattbr13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information regarding my edits for Dileep and Dileep (actor). I will follow the same in future. People have been trying to vandalise the Dileep page by copy pasting content from Dileep (actor). Is there anything we can do about it?
Thanks for your help on this page. One minor remark: Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to us (and other similar pages) clearly note that the references are placed in a section that is called "either a "Notes" or "References" section". In general, when someone uses one allowed style, it is considered impolite to change it to another preference. It is not important in the end, and I will not change it back, but it may be a thing to avoid in the future. Fram (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the Lifetime template as particularly useful as it creates a dependence on a template for a something that doesn't need it, it confuses new users by combining DEFAULTSORT and categorisation, and it doesn't really provide any indication as to what the numbers and text are for (ie producing categories and a default sort key for the categories on the page), again creating confusion. It may be easier to type out when adding the info to an article, but after that I see it as more harmful than useful. mattbr15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the discussion (after asking my question above), but it seems to be far from a clear consensus and the supposed confusion has been disputed. In fact there is quite a lot of support for the template as shown at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22. If you want to stop people from using the template I would suggest you take it back to TfD.
For the moment I am taking a position of neutrality on the issue. Where I am repairing articles I will retain whichever template exists already, Lifetime or DEFAULTSORT. However, If the issue isn't resolved by a clear consensus then I may change my mind later on. Road Wizard (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. If every person who has worked for the BBC at some stage was part of WP:BBC the list would be endless (think of all the actors etc), and most of these people are already covered by other projects (football in these cases). Try to keep people limited to BBC staff, those involved in running the corporation such as Chairman, Directors-General etc. mattbr22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a bit of work in upgrading AWB, and came accross some IW's that would seem to be missing from the AWB IW (and therefore the meta IW) sorting list..
be-x-old
cho
closed-zh-tw
cz
dk
epo
ho
hz
ii
jp
kj
kr
ln
minnan
mo
mus
nan
nb
nomcom
pi
pih
rn
tokipona
tp
udm
zea
zh-cfr
zh-yue
2 are closed/not used
be-x-old
closed-zh-tw
nomcom isnt a general use wiki, and "minnan" is an alias..
Would you mind updating both the AWB and the Meta IW sorting order? (As you seem to know what you're doing, unless you just updated from whats there?
Sorry, I just copied (with a bit of find-and-replace help) the lists across from meta as there were a couple I came across that AWB wasn't sorting properly, so I'm not really an expert! Could probably have a go if no one at meta responds; we'll see. mattbr09:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was going to look at the lead. I was thinking about GA possibly at some point; do you think there is anything else needed prior to nomination? I'm also not sure whether to alter the article to define it as more of a feature-length drama rather than a film and using the TV infobox rather than the film one. What do you think? mattbr17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always quite iffy about saying "television film", since that's really something that is used exclusively in US TV. Perhaps just "The 39 Steps is a 2008 BBC television drama..." or even "The 39 Steps (2008) is a British [[television film|single drama]]..." since "single drama" will be the category it's entered into at the BAFTA and RTS awards. As for the TV ibox, I personally find it hideous, but as you're the article's primary editor, it's really up to you. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was created as a redirect to a politician never known as David Filkin, there are potentially one or two David Filkins (an author and a television producer who may or may not be the same person), but Lord Filkin is never called David Filkin
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Government Law College, Mumbai, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. mjwilson (Talk/Contrib) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Erskine Perry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On October 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Langdale, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A tag has been placed on Template:GUE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Mattbr! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? for things needed to be addressed. Vicenarian (T · C) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Charles Langdale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)