User talk:OnePt618/Archives/2010/June

Thanks for support

Thanks for the support fighting the vandalism on Mount Zion College of Engineering Kadammanitta ... :) OnePt618 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my work. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly Speedy Deletion of St Ursula's Day

Hi, help me understand why this was deleted - it was simply a redirect to St. Ursula. Redirects don't have to, in fact shouldn't have, meaningful information. I'm not excited by this, it just seems an odd thing to do. When is a relevant redirect not allowed? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

hi Bermicourt! Now your intent makes sense. The page you had created had consisted of a single link to another page, which wasn't a well formed redirect. If you intended to add a redirect, you need the redirect tag in front of the link. See WP:R for more details. I hope you re-create the redirect page with this in mind, and I look forward to your future contributions! OnePt618 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooppss! I suspect it was just a typo when I was tired! Cheers! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you weren't watching

I saw your message, but my nomination was for A7, clearly an "unremarkable company or group"; it was not A1 or A3. (Note, I'm not watching this page; reply on mine if you need to.) — Timneu22 · talk 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal to speedy delete Mark S. Scarberry

You proposed a speedy deletion for Mark S. Scarberry after the stub was only nine minutes old. I realize that your account was created less than 48 hours ago, so you may be unfamiliar with WP:SPEEDY. Please read that policy. I added a brief justification for notability on Talk:Mark S. Scarberry. I trust that is sufficient for you to remove the speedy deletion tag you placed. Novaseminary (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the references you cited on the talk page belong on the actual article.  :) Populate the actual article and notability will be a non-issue. OnePt618 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that the person is notable, then a speedy is inappropriate (and so is a prod or even AfD). Please remove the speedy tag immediately. Feel free to send it to AfD if you actually believe the person is NN. Novaseminary (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done. Thanks for the feedback! OnePt618 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Presentation of a Barnstar

		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar
		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar is given to recognize new editors who have made great strides to contribute to Wikipedia. I, Quinxorin ,present this award to OnePt618 for a large quantity of edits and welcoming new users when you're still a new user yourself. Quinxorin (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

whoo hoo! Thank you, Quinxorin... That means a lot. Like I say on my user page, it's time to give back to the site that gave me so much. Truly appreciated.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref converter

Please be careful when converting reference templates. It seems that your edit of Approximant consonant assumes that any use of {{ref}} and {{note}} is to create footnotes, which has been superceded by {{reflist}} (or <references>). However, a number of places use those first two templates to create explanatory notes that are separate from the footnotes. The information at {{ref label}} and {{note label}} show that there is consensus in reusing {{ref}} and {{note}} this way. You should go through the pages you've been using ref converter on to make sure you haven't untowardly made the same assumption elsewhere. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

yikes, you're right! Thanks for the correction and I'll be sure to let Cyde know. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello OnePt618, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings! I hope you're having a good day, and it keeps up! Cheers. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue

Hello, I see that you are a new and enthusiastic editor. That is a good thing, but please show some patience before you tag a new article for problems. I had just created the article Slider (sandwich) and was looking for sources to cite when you swooped in just two minutes after I had begun working on it. Allow other contributors to finish before doing this, or ask on their or the article talk page.

Thanks. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I did not add speedy delete tags, merely some cleanup tags. You might consider the {{inuse}} template when actively working on a page to signal that the page isn't ready yet. Or, host it on your User page. Thanks!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemao Market

Hello there! I just closed the deletion discussion you opened since you withdrew it, however I noticed that you removed the actual template from the page yourself. That's actually something that the closing admin (or non-admin, when performing a non-admin close) is supposed to take care of. No worries here, though: Just try to remember in the future. Cheers. Cliff smith ^talk 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ewps. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the kind warning :)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your adopter is trying to catch up...

and finally got around to reviewing some of your contributions! I'm going to be doing this very similarly to an editor review. This is the first time I've had a semi-experienced adoptee to work with, so bear with me, please. I started by reviewing your contributions, edit summary usage, and edit analysis. Here are my comments:

• Your first edit was to start a new page? I'm amazed! I haven't even created an article yet!
• That first comment goes for most of your early edits. Removing weasel words, new page patrol, tagging stubs...you really jumped into all this! That's terrific!
• Your balance between article work and everything else (esp. userspace) is very good.
• Recently you haven't been using edit summaries...any reason why? I think it's best to use them all the time. 1. because it helps other users know what you're doing, even if it's minor. 2. and you may not ever worry about this, but it's very important in RfA. Of the two, #1 is the more important reason, of course. The edit summaries I have seen look good, very informative.
• Have you thoroughly read most of the main WP policies? The Five pillars and such? I would especially suggest a lot of attention to deletion policies, since you like to work in those areas. In general, it's a good idea to check out just about anything you see linked. Even if you don't read the whole page, read the nutshell version. That way you'll become familiar with all of our numerous policies. I'm even still learning some. And it takes a long time. There are some days I log on and read the entire time - just trying to keep up with everything. That's how I learn.
• Do you use popups? I've found them to be very useful, especially for checking through my watchlist.
• I suggest (you don't have to follow this advice) getting involved with the WikiProjects you've joined. This doesn't just mean editing the pages related to them. Watch the project talk pages. Look at working in some of the departments (assessment, outreach, etc.). Show a general interest in the project. You don't have to, but it's good experience.
• Be patient. Think twice. It will help you avoid mistakes.
• Always, always, without fail, assume good faith and be civil. Not that I've observed you not doing those, I'm just stressing it. Heeding those two policies is invaluable. I promise.

Okay, those are my comments. Really, you've done a terrific job so far getting involved. If you have any questions, feel free to ask away! That's what I'm here for. I could also make suggestions for places to work, guidelines to read, give you assignments, etc. if you want, or you can just carry on as you are! That's totally up to you.

Thanks for the Wikicake! That's one I hadn't seen before. Also, just because I'm curious, where around WP did you see me? I didn't pick up on any overlapping when I looked through your edits. It doesn't matter, but I'm a curious person! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed CSD.

I remoed you recent csd tag from a article. While I ultimately agree it may not meet notability it does claim it and therefore a prod or afd is needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I appreciate the time you took to write this feedback!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I bot-proof against this?

The edits you did with AutoEd took an article that looked like this, and converted the HTML-style subsections to wikified (equal signs)-style (∆ here). I normally use wiki-style ones in articles. But here, the subsections are so short, you end up with mess of close-packed [edit] tags mashing up against pictures. I can’t show a version using a historical permalink. Is there a tag I can use to keep AutoEd from screwing with this article? Greg L (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! AutoEd is not a bot, rather a helpful editing tool. Your preference for HTML headers is actually frowned upon; according to H:HTML, "There are some minor differences though: editing such a section won't prefill the edit summary, and the browser won't jump to the beginning of the section when saving the page. Thus, you should use the wikitext equivalents instead." Please keep in mind that you can't (and shouldn't) try to prevent others from editing articles; no one owns any particular article. See WP:OWN. Thanks and have a great day!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you write “my preference for HTML headers”? I wrote “I normally use wiki-style” headers in articles. This one was an exception because of the way the subjections were so short. Why did you write “Please keep in mind that you can't (and shouldn't) try to prevent others from editing articles”? People are free to come there an improve any article on Wikipedia but there can be differences of opinion on how best to handle unique circumstances. What I was asking for was for that particular aspect of AWB to not do that to the headers on that particular article because of unique circumstances there. Given all that (ignoring what I actually wrote, accusing me of ownership because of a reasonable request) I find your conclusionary ““Thanks and have a great day!” to be patronizing wikipleasantry that wasn’t sincere. Paraphrasing something your wrote, just because someone runs about with an AWB trying to make one-shoe-fits-all edits, doesn’t mean they can ignore valid feedback. Have a nice day!! No actually, that wasn’t a sincere last sentence, just like yours wasn’t. I don’t appreciate God-damned rude accusations masquerading as being civil—they aren’t civil. I suspect you just resort to pre-canned responses you pull from you mind in response to people coming here to complain about what you’ve done and you just resorted to poor form as a knee-jerk reaction. Don’t bother leaving a talkback tag on my talk page. If I want a dose of you, I’ll seek it out. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. I see that after you dished out your metric butt-load of rudeness (and completely ignoring what I actually wrote), you did the same edit again. I’ll take you to ANI if you keep up doing edits straight on the heels of completely ignoring what I wrote (B.S. like “my preference for HTML”). Greg L (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• P.P.S. Since dealing with you is such a profoundly distasteful experience, I revised the way that section is handled (∆ here). Since the subsections are so short and that causes [edit] tags to crowd together all mashed up against the adjacent pictures, there is no need to have editable sub-sections; an editable section suffices perfectly. There is no need to have those sub-sections in the Table of Contents. Accordingly, the sub-sections no longer use wiki-style (====)-type sub-sections nor do they use HTML sub-sections; sub-sections simply aren’t needed. Thanks and have a great day! Greg L (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted at the Wiki-etiquette thread. Airplaneman ✈ 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Here's the Deal Don't Touch Me.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Here's the Deal Don't Touch Me.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there OnePt618, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:OnePt618/Here's the Deal (Book). In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jean Cretien

Hey OnePt, regarding this edit, in the article about Jean Cretien, spelling honourary with a "u" is correct. As Cretien is Canadian, the article uses Canadian English, so you will see a lot more "u"s, and it may be spelled centre, not center. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The rule of thumb is if the article is about a Canadian subject, use Canadian spelling, American, use American, British, use British (and so on). Hope this helps.--kelapstick (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but I recently found out that the 'u' is dropped in many (but not all) of its variants, including honorary. See [1] for a discussion on this. Thanks for the kind heads-up though.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read...After clicking on the link (to see what the source said), I found it was broken. I have since removed it. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

C'est la vie. ;) I've learned a lot on Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings and recommend it as a good bookmark to keep around. Take care! :)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I had looked at some of the references in Honorary Canadian Citizenship (note the spelling in the title and the lead as they don't match), and the government spells it honorary...very strange that there is no u in honorary in UK/Canadian spelling...I will bookmark that page, much thanks for the English lesson. Cheers. kelapstick (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Learning Management systems

Thanks for the support. I want to know that would other editors delete my content. I dont know how it works. Any help would be greatly appreciated.{Priyankgupta86 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi and a genuine welcome to Wikipedia! You definitely show good faith by your edits; your original addition was reverted because it smelled too much like advertising a certain point of view. If you want to write a draft of your proposed changes on your talk page I would be very happy to help you review it and give my opinion. Please let me know how I can assist you further.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Former accounts?

Hello OnePt. The topic in the header was brought up at WQA, and I would like to ask you here, in good faith and away from the drama, if you have edited under an IP address or former accounts. You certainly "hit the ground running", so to speak. It's a simple question and should help dispel any suspicions any editors may have. I myself had not thought much of this until the WQA thread, but I'd like to clear this up once and for all for your own good. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just answered on that page, and I don't blame you for asking. No, I have not edited Wikipedia in the past. If I need to have a CU done to prove it, that's fine with me. I don't begrudge you for asking as it means you care about the integrity of the site. In a twisted kind of way, thanks :)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sanjay Khosla

You tagged this article for deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It quite clearly doesn't meet that, please take a look at the that link. Unless the article is a hoax (which it isn't according to the sources) or a blatant copyright violation (which I was suspicious about, and certainly some of the wording is similar to the source, but I don't think it's a direct enough copy to be a copyright violation, if you disagree with this take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems), then I don't think it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Peter 13:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Linuxmdb is Jeff Merkey, banned user. The articles that his is creating are puff pieces for his company. The articles that he is editing are BLPs of Novell executives that he has vandalized in the past. I have posted a note at AN/I. RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider speedy deletion tags or AfD. Taking it upon yourself to blank the pages is not the right approach.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you point me at a template? RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

yep, WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD will teach you everything you need.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer!

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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 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 userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Rollbacker!

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Mifter (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism

You recently reverted one of my edits under an accusation of vandalism. You apparently have a track record with many other contributors of doing the same. certainly, if you lived in the Sierra Vista, AZ and had first hand knowledge that would be a different case. I second the motion that "This should have been an issue for discussion, not deletion for vandalism." Citations have been added to news articles and the content reedited. Also, more detail and references will be provided to support the original editing. It is easier to be critical than competent.

I don't care enough to argue about the content, but I certainly resent the accusation of vandalism, which is defined by here as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This contribution was certainly not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C8tiveme (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You recently reverted one of my edits under an accusation of vandalism (snake oil article). I could certainly see an argument that those edits went beyond the scope of the page, but the contribution was clearly relevant and similar to another contribution explaining the use of the idea of "snake oil" in music. This should have been an issue for discussion, not deletion for vandalism.

Existing content: Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves The lyrics describe that, Papa would do whatever he could / Preach a little gospel, sell a couple bottles of Doctor Good. "Doctor Good" is most often interpreted to be a kind of snake-oil elixir.

My contribution, on a different song, similarly presents the lyrics with brief content: Steve Earle recorded a song entitled "Snake Oil" for the album Copperhead Road, which implies that theRonald Reagan administration was selling snake oil. "Well ain't your President good to you/ Knocked 'em dead in Libya, Grenada too/ Now he's taking his show a little further down the line/ Well, 'tween me and him people, you're gonna get along just fine."

I don't care enough to argue about the content, but I certainly resent the accusation of vandalism, which is defined by here as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This contribution was certainly not vandalism.

99.162.226.228 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The text you added was "which implies that the[[Ronald Reagan]] administration was selling snake oil." Implications have no place on Wikipedia. If you have a reliable third-party source for the reference, you're welcome to add it again, but please add a proper <ref> tag. Thanks.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant that Earle was the subject of "imply", which is acceptable if he has said that is what he meant to imply, but yes, it could use a reference. (I changed it so that the reader can draw inference, as adding a reference would not really add to the main article.) However, MY POINT IS THAT THIS IS NOT VANDALISM!! That is a serious accusation. You can certainly give it a "unreferenced" tag and revert the edit, but to mark it as vandalism in inappropriate and amounts to slander of me, especially as such accusations are logged. The vandalism tag is not a replacement for discussion of content. If you are the serious editor you are pretending to be, you should learn some basic Wikipedia guidelines...

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Perhaps you might try that "careful thought."

Here is the full page on vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking

99.162.226.228 (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I won't discuss this further, and any additional commentary from anon IP addresses will be deleted.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Zorats Karer‎

Hi there. I have a question. How was the edit before yours identified as vandalism? I am not familiar with any of the tools used on Wikipedia, but I will read up on whatever you may tell me to in your reponse. Thank you. COYW (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the whole article was re-written in a style not befitting Wikipedia's usual style. I recommend reading WP:MOS and for the author to propose such sweeping changes in the article's talk section first. Thanks.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Then, my question becomes: Was it a good-faith "fail" or was it vandalism? I will read up on what constitutes vandalism, as well as your suggestion. Cheers! COYW (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)