User talk:Zucchinidreams/Archives/2010 1

Huggle

Huggle can only be used by editors whove been granted rollback permissions, which are generally not given to very new users. While I see you making some constructive contributions, what really matters for Huggle is to show the ability to detect and properly revert vandalism without being so aggressive that you take away good edits too. Also, things like this won't help. —Soap— 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that personal attack, but I was angered by people's cultural illiteracy. I didn't enjoy the fact that one non-representative text was being used as a football to get a contentious issue of a page, and I overreacted.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've apologised for the Personal Attack BTW.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe

It might be a good idea to start discussing your removal of information from the Sutcliffe article on the article's talk page. Those things that you consider irrelevant might be considered by others to be very relevant. The removal of 1980's victims' given names springs to minds, as the article has not been improved by now only calling them "Bandara" and "Sykes." Also, Wikipedia is not written to satisfy the curiosity of "casual" readers - it is an encyclopedia. GwenChan 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of fact that most people clicking on the Peter Sutcliffe article will have been directed there via google. This, and the fact that it's free, infinitely decreases the likelihood that a large number of specialists would automatically want to view minor info. I may have gone too far with removing the first names of people. However, exact details are what the notes section is for, per WP:Cite.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand cite – we cite sources to give verifiability and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. We don't use citations within the article as a kind of external link for the reader to follow to find the information! The notes section is not meant for "exact details," it is so that any reader at any time can check the sources for themselves. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. Whether the article is free or pay-wall, high or low traffic, we do not write articles in a dumbed-down fashion simply because the reader may be a bit dim. Please exercise more caution before excising information from articles. GwenChan 16:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I will restore that, but my intentions were good. For an article to be of wikipedia standards, info should be readable by the general inquirer, not an expert. Furthermore, WP:NOTLINK applies to information which is, to all intents and purposes, able to be written within an object of balancing articles to explain their subject. If you write an article about train timetables, then WP:NOTLINK applies only to the article being written about the subject in general, and does not apply to including info. about the X29 to Hull, okay.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be "an expert" to want to know the names of a killers victims! GwenChan 16:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that, and I will quite happily revert those edits, I was talking about the amount of trivial dates for things like house-keeping or court statements. If it isn't broken in the notes section, why fix it?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

References

The references (http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/arrest.htm etc) you are adding to Peter Sutcliffe are very useful, however would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates and perhaps bear that in mind when formatting the links? As it is, they will all need to be rewritten. The article was previously rated as B class on the quality scale, and I'm concerned that your additions and alterations are not a net positive to the quality of content or quality rating of the article. Thanks. GwenChan 12:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Gwenchan, I know this may sound naive, however, I was wondering how you would suggest formatting the link additions I have made. Thank you.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You could use either the templates, or "hand craft" them, which is my preferred way. Where there is already predominantly one style or other, it is usual to adopt the same style in newer templates, but this isn't essential. For a website, a simple referencere would be <ref>Author, The (date authored) "[the url of the linkSPACEThe title of the article]" The Website name (Retrieved XXX-XX-XXthe date you added the link)</ref> GwenChan 13:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Should add, if you use the same webpage multiple times you can use the style above, but in the first use of it call it <ref name="author">etc</ref> and in subsequent uses you can simply use <ref name=author /> GwenChan 13:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Images for free-use

Sutcliffe, William, Peter

[1]( nndb.com/people/700/000110370/peter-sutcliffe.jpg. Peter William Sutcliffe.)--Zucchinidreams (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you added a link to an image on an external website in a recent edit, possibly in an attempt to display that image on the page. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external websites on Wikipedia. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request an upload. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Fox hunting. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. I am not too clear who you are calling a sock, but please desist. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't desist; any fool can see that the commentary on that talk page was duplicated.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SutcliffeL010605 228x307.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SutcliffeL010605 228x307.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of removal of image @ Peter Sutcliffe

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Sutcliffe. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GwenChan 09:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GwenChan 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi, I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I notice you have been removing a number of Redlinks from articles. However, in case you don't know, Redlinks should not be removed for links that stand a good chance of being created as an article in the future, or which probably should be created - using Redlinks is one way in which editors decide what new articles to create. Have a look at Wikipedia:Red link for some guidance. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(PS: Apologies if you already know this and I'm teaching you to suck eggs) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's okay; the advice was helpful, and I'll try my best to follow it! Regards!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, best regards, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References --> Notes

Hey, is there some reason you're renaming the References section in a bunch of articles to "Notes"? If there's been some MOS change I'm not aware of, I'll stand corrected, but otherwise References is both more customary and more explanatory about the contents of the section. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes is a much more trackable way of writing down references, plus I do believe that the missing manual states that notes is a correct way of making a reference section 99% of the time.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I found the relevant section. If I could make two suggestions in light of that, (1) if something ain't broke, don't fix it, and (2) if a section contains only references rather than "explanatory notes" (e.g., Kelly, Wyoming), then probably References is a better description than Notes. And I'm not sure how Notes could be a more "trackable" way of keeping references; thinking about a typical book, references will generally be in a "References" (or "Sources cited," etc.) section, while "Notes," if any such section exists at all, would usually be a blank section for the reader to add his own notes, for instance, in a cookbook, owner's manual, or the like. Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think of notes as lending more consistency to texts. If you think I have done somethinkg untoward, you may change it: the changes are easy to see and revertable, and obviously they're all in my ocntibutions section! Thanks.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really not a problem. I was actually a little surprised when I looked at the last few days' Featured Articles at the variability that there seems to be: notes in a Notes section and references in a References section / everything in a References section / references in a Notes section and a bibliography in the References section, etc.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:32, 28 October

2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it: someone should draw a defining essay which people abide by, or may be even a template, else wikipedia readers might be left in the dark at the secitons being changed around so often.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks

Hi, here you removed a redlink as "non-notable" - but a moment's search revealed him to be somewhat notable, and even to have an article already. I have created the redirect at G H Quincke. Please don't assume that "redlink = non-notable". Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Disappointed to see you are not following through with your plan stated yesterday at AN/I to become an "adopted" editor, especially as you still seem to be having a few difficulties. Also, did you notice that you have placed the Experienced Editor award on this page (6,000 edits and 1½ years' service)? GwenChan 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I put the template down to copy-edit it, nothing more. Should be removed shortly. I hope I'm making less mistakes, but nobody's perfect, and I'm currently reading through the entirety of the missing manual. I hope that assuages some of your fears about me.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your talkback request to User:DuncanHill

I moved it to User talk:DuncanHill... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Theuglybugball.co.uk

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Theuglybugball.co.uk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Collingwood College, Surrey

Hello Zucchinidreams. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Collingwood College, Surrey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Just to let you know that it is normal practice to put the talkback sig at the base of the users talk page, not at the top, regards. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)