User talk:Robo Cop/2011/March

Geocaching WikiProject Newsletter - September 2010

WikiProject Geocaching Newsletter Issue 2 - September 2010
Project news The project has been going for many months now, and it's time to get it going again. Come on; encourage people to join, start editing articles again, please do what you can. The project is still being built up, and the infrastructure is still being worked on. But despite this, we are now ready to work on Geocaching-related and other, related articles .	Some project tips Use the {{WP GEOCACHING INVITE}} template to invite users. It has the chain letter effect and is very powerful for recruiting members. Pass it on. A few moments checking other editors contributions is always appreciated. Don't be shy on using the talk pages. It's where a lot of stuff gets decided. A good point being made can change the content of an encyclopedia depended on by many people. From the Editor Welcome to the second issue of The Geocaching WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this newsletter will help members to find new things to do within the project that they may wish to participate in. Don't be afraid to suggest ideas through the main newsletter page, or even contribute yourself. It's people's ideas and assistance that make things like this possible. Thanks for being a member of the project and please make sure it continues by being active. This issue's contributors: Rock drum (talk · contribs) - Editor
Goals of the Month (Prioritized) The Project hasn't been really active of late, but to get it back, running again, please feel free to do one of the following: Inviting Users. Our most important task to complete right now is inviting users. Use this template. Create Templates. Create any templates you may find useful such as a userbox, etc. Discuss! PLEASE... discuss things about this project. Socializing is good! And, as always, Create Articles as listed at the Requested articles page! Complete Todo List: Expand to GA Geocaching Articles To Create Blue Switch Day Meta Tasks Invite more participants General Cleanup and fluff-removal

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Other questions or complaints? - It's all here

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Rock drum at 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

2011 NIT

You switched Florida Atlantic and North Texas for the automatic bid into the NIT. Florida Atlantic was 13-3 in conference which was the best, but didn't win the tournament. North Texas was 8-8 and came in second. Why did you switch it when the rule is the regular season conference winner, not conference tourney runner-up? 76.235.59.227 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I just checked this out and it was my mistake. I only read the first sentence of the paragraph and just realized my blunder. People paying attention to details like that will result in a fantastic encyclopedia. Thank you. MobileSnail 03:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corpus Christi Thursday Massacre

Please wait for about 5-10 mins. I'll write here, soon.  Chzz  ►  00:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I just redirected the AFC page. I wont touch it for fear of making things more confusing. If you want to undo it go right ahead. MobileSnail 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes; thanks. It looks like you maybe made it live, by copy-pasting? Is that correct?

If so, it'll need fixing. I can get that done.

Please don't do anything else just yet; except, let me know - here - if that is what happened.

We need to keep the history in-tact, and if you start editing it, it gets more complicated.

Maybe this is easier if you talk to me with this link.

Either way...I will help sort it out, and reply here.

I'll remove the message from the user-talk right now; that's fine.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding - all good now. If you are interested, see WP:HISTMERGE. Nice to have spoken to you, cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You too. Thanks for your assistance. MobileSnail 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7

Hi,

I have removed the CSD A7 you recently raised on M. Moleiro Editor, perhaps you could take some time out to check the guidelines at Criteria for speedy deletion as the tag appeared inappropriate to me as the article made clear claims to notability which would invalidate A7 even if such claims were unsourced. At the same time I have added a footnote supporting the lead based on one of the existing citations in the text and have verified it by checking the newspaper article myself. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I was a little aggressive with the CSD template there but my reasoning was that it was hard to tell if it was notable enough without any online references and only one offline one. MobileSnail 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a different point which I'll take a moment to clarify; reliable sources are not required to be available for verification on-line. For example, there may be no on-line images available for a particular notable artwork and the only way of verifying the descriptions and claims about it might be to physically go to the gallery and look at it, this does not make the information unverifiable and in extreme cases, we might have articles that are considered perfectly notable but there are no links to internet sources. This often arises in articles about things yet to get on the internet such as notable magazines which have long ceased publication from the 1950s-1990s (out of print, in copyright and not on-line). Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess the point I was trying to make was not that it is any less notable because it has no online sources, just that it is very hard to tell anything about the article without any way to make a quick fact check. MobileSnail 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Operative Professional

Operative Professional looks abysmal, but I'm worried it may be a school. What do you think? (Schools are not eligible for A7).--SPhilbrickT 13:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can barely tell within the context of the article. My best guess would be school, but it has no references to indicate. I'll try to strike a conversation with the creator. MobileSnail 15:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is very problematic; I wasn't sure whether it was a designation or a series of courses, or a school, or even where it was. Thanks for following up.--SPhilbrickT 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I left the speedy up, and told the creator to include some references. My guess is that we'll never hear from him again, and this article will be deleted. If he is able to get back to me, I will try to work with him to improve the article. MobileSnail 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Re: [1] I'm happy that you noticed it on the main page. Your GA review was an important part of the long process that lead to this article appearing on the main page. Thanks for your help. --SkotyWA^T_C 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Skotywa has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Calm

Sorry, I just got a little angry, since the IP user was doing this all the time... But I'll try to keep it calm... - Sauloviegas (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry and I didn't mean to be condescending or anything, especially since you have probably been around here longer than me, just figured you are a good editor and I didn't want to see you lose it over someone not worth your time :). I get really ticked too when repeated vandalism/annoying edits happen. MobileSnail 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Marketing Professional

I declined the speedy. Indeed, it was hard to tell what the subject was--until I notice the interwiki link to the German Wikipedia. It turns out it is not a company, etc., and so does not qualify for Speedy A7. And you give as a reason for deletion "had no references". That's not a criterion for Speedy, or even for deletion., except for recently created BLPs. For deletion, the rule is unsourceable, meaning it cannot be sourced. As there are sources in the deWP entry, I've simply copied them over.

Another editor (who is about to become an administrator) similarly declined your speedy for M. Moleiro Editor. Asserting the publication of wa wide range of books in an assertion of notability . Only an assertion or indication of notability is needed to pass speedy. It's much less than for AfD..

You might want to re-read WP:CSD and note that the criteria for speedy deletion are applied strictly, to only those articles that meet the definitions. It takes a while to get used to it--just use WP:PROD when the article is obviously unsatisfactory but does not meet any of the criteria. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comments. I will review the criteria. In both cases, I was somewhat confused as to what the subject was exactly. MobileSnail 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Boone Kirkman Gallery

Hello, Robo Cop. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  03:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Eschille93

Dear MobileSnail: I apologize for my recent vandalism. It was an experiment, and I hope you are not too bothered. How did you know so promptly that I had made edits?-eschille93

Hey there. Mainly by recent changes. The first time I checked one of your edits, it was random. A group of users typically monitor new edits for vandalism. The second time, I just so happened to see your name again so checked it out and it was once again vandalism. From there I just checked your other contributions. As long as you learn from your mistakes, that is fine and something I can respect. Why'd you do it in the first place though? To see if you could get away with it ;)? MobileSnail 06:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did it out of curiosity. I find it fascinating that something as impersonal as an encyclopedia can show living and breathing parts. I wanted to see how prompt of a response I could get. How much time do you spend monitoring activity, on a daily basis? ( Eschille93 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC) )

It varies. Some days multiple hours and others not at all. I do a little of everything, so not all I do is vandal monitoring. MobileSnail 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider it a hobby or an addiction? What do you enjoy the most about the site? ( Eschille93 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC) )

Sorry, got to go to bed soon :). Probably the fact that I feel like I am doing something good for the world by helping people obtain information through one of the most visited sites on the internet. MobileSnail 06:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you( Eschille93 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC) )

DYK for Boone Kirkman

Cheers, BigDom 08:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

69.14.99.128 is constantly changing the genre, adding "bubblegum pop" up. There is no reliable source that specifies the song genre as bubblegum pop. I've created a section on the talk page of Born to Make You Happy, so it can be discussed. - Sauloviegas (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. What they are doing is not O.K. Clearly there is opposition to this, and they are not making any efforts to work it out other than posting "Changing back to Bubblegum Pop, DO NOT CHANGE" in their edit summaries. I have given them a last warning on their talk page. If they continue to edit war without discussing their changes, I will report them to ARV. MobileSnail 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! I was saying to him that he should not change it unless he had a reliable source, and he still did it anyway... - Sauloviegas (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I saw somewhere in an edit summary that someone was reckoning bubblegum was in the 50s. Definitely wasn't. Late 60s and early 70s. It was the dumbing-down commercialisation that followed on the heels of the Merseybeat and Marquee rock with very often plastic groups put together to sing banal earworm songs. Not sure what the problem under discussion is, and my apologies for sticking an oar in, but I noticed it when checking contribs. Peridon (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

There's probably a template for this, but I haven't found it yet. (More accurately, haven't looked yet...) I've agreed your request for rollback, so with luck you should have it now. You're my first, so if it's not there, let me know. I had it for some time before getting a mop instead, but rarely used it. I couldn't see how to leave a summary with it, but as I wasn't even using Twinkle, that's not surprising. (I've got Twinkle now, but find I can still do some things quicker manually.) I liked your anti-vandal work, your use of warnings and your admission of a mistake. Be wary of tapping the mouse when thinking - I rolled something back by mistake that way. Embarrassing. As you're my first, may I request you use it carefully? Come to that, it should be used carefully anyway, and where possible 'undo' instead... Peridon (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the accept! I will use it carefully. MobileSnail 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the grant! MobileSnail 04:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dating BCE

Yes I understand that there is a difference between 4,000 years ago and 4,000 BC. The figures I quoted are from the Jain Sutras. Here is a link below. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe22/sbe2288.htm

The point is that since the Jain Sutras would have written before 1 AD, if a date of 4,000 years ago is given as of 2011 that would be the equivalent of 4000 BC because if somebody 2,000 years ago said something happened 4,000 years ago, then in 2011 that even would be listed at 4,000 BC or approximately 6,000 years ago. Since the Jain Sutra was written before 1 AD this is why estimating a date of 1 AD gives the same thing. Previously the numbers were from the text, but taking into consideration that the Jain Sutra was written at least 2,000 years ago means that it is 2,000 years old thus making the BCE the equivalent. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.86.244 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

damn

how are you so quick to spot my vandalizing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.191.37 (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. It's a program/tool called Huggle. It basically parses all recent revisions to Wikipedia by users I haven't whitelisted (explicitly trusted}, and shows me what they did to the page, if it is vandalism, I click a button and the program reverts it and warns the person. It's pretty fast, but allows you to make mistakes more easily. MobileSnail 04:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore changes

Hey I saw you reverted an edit by an IP author adding "N. Gay Street" to areas affected by the Baltimore riots in 1968. This actually is a legitimate edit, as Gay Street was affected by these riots in 1968. One of the references refers to this street in particular.

Featured Sound nomination

I'm sorry, but I had to close the Dave Niehaus call nomination. Featured sounds can only accept free use images, and the Dave Niehaus call is copyrighted. If you're still interested in featured sounds, you're welcome to nominate other files, (here is the criteria for nominations.) Thank you for showing interest, and again, I'm sorry I have to break the news to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I should have known that before posting in the first place. Thanks for the notification. MobileSnail 02:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I would like to request your opinion here at WT:GAN. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 01:30, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

 Done Left my 2 cents. MobileSnail 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology Controversy

Hi, you identified my changes as spam, but they were absolutely not. Sorry if the link was incorrect, but it was already in the text, cited by some other person before me (and it still is there, I don't know who wrote that part of the text). I rewrote what you deleted, I hope it's ok now (with no links in what I wrote, just a reference to a book). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.217.18 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I am sorry if I marked your changes incorrectly. My logic was that I had seen that you had added the same link on two separate articles, and that sent off warning bells to me. Since the link was not really formatted as a reference, and the URL revealed nothing about its purpose, I assumed that it was a spam link. In the future, to avoid people who use the same "spam-finding" methods as I do from reverting your links, you may want to format them using the <ref></ref> tags. At the bottom of the page you can use the {{reflist}} templates to display all of the references in the <ref> tags. Thanks!MobileSnail 02:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got it! I'll read that carefully and make sure I cite references in the standard way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.217.18 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, and happy editing! MobileSnail 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there, just a quick note that you shouldn't have undone yourself with that edit. You were correct the first time, it was blatant vandalism. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I wasn't sure, so I decided to play it safe and undo my revert. Guess it was. Thanks for fixing it. MobileSnail 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)