Welcome to CMBJ's talk page.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.
I moved your comment to the talk page, as it wasn't really a discussion on the KotH's notability. I invite you to comment there. If you feel that it should be on the actual review page, you may revert it, but I felt it was more a discussion on the process itself. Thanks. I(said)(did) 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict)Hey CMBJ, I've seen your recent edits to the television episode article review project and I certainly understand how you feel. My pet project Futurama will likely come up for review in the next week or so and like you I feel the way the project has been handled so far has been less than stellar. That being said, I don't think they're targeting KOTH, it just happened to be one at the top of the list when they got started. Some episodes of other shows have already been reviewed if you look in the archive at the top (The Big O, Hannah Montana and Thats So Raven). If you check the discussion on the talk page the reason for bringing up the rest of the KOTH articles so soon was to go ahead and finish out one group before starting on another, not because it was any worse than any other show. I'd be happy to help you try to bring some episodes up to the guideline (once I've seen how the Futurama review goes) just let me know if I can help, I'd recommend starting with any that received more than the usual coverage in outside sources or received awards. Stardust8212 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CMBJ, I just wanted to say that I happened to be the one that tagged the KOTH articles. I really wasn't just targeting KOTH, I just came upon one of the episodes at one point and tagged it, and since most have infoboxes that link to other episodes I normally would follow them and ended up tagging most. I did stop at some point since the review process wasn't working (though I did tag the rest later, but I'm not sure what's going on with the review right now so I'm not sure what will happen to those), so all of the KOTH episodes on there right now were what I tagged at the same time. At the time, all of the episodes from other series that had been tagged had their full episode lists tagged at the same time (see these and also Futurama I think), so I just followed for completeness. I think, if this whole review is what's going to be happening, then each series should be evaluated at the same time instead of people having to come back each day to say what they think of each new episode on there (the episodes should still be evaluated individually anyway that it is happening). I didn't only target KOTH, as I added the tag to one other (almost) full series of episodes before the tag was deleted. I just wanted to leave you this note to tell you what happened and that the review isn't really just targeting KOTH (like others are telling you also). Phydend 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you coming to let me know. It sounds like a legitimate coincidence, but the way that the reviews are being conducted seems to easily convey a misconception to those less familiar with the project. I had already previously dismissed my concerns about these articles, but it doesn't seem that I am the only one that felt wary; as there had been others opposed to merging/deleting them, and I even received two messages here on my talk page regarding the topic. I apologize for being a thorn in anyones side, but we must all do what we can to make Wikipedia the best place possible. — C M B J 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Jim Neuhaus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Neuhaus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved the above to your user space at User:CMBJ/Contribs - I guessed you intended it to go in your user space! – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw that you had moved it almost immediately after. — C M B J 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I looked over the contribs and do see vandalism appearing all over the place. However, the vandalism comes in too sporadically to consider giving this IP a block/soft block. Blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive. If this IP's vandalism starts come in more heavily consider warning them with the appropriate {{uw-vandalism1}}-{{uw-vandalism4}} series and reporting them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after a fourth warning is given. Usually we block IPs based on 4+ vandal edits in the past 48 hours or a rather heavy period of vandalism within the past week and up the durations of the blocks based on the IP's block log. Hope all this info answers some of your concerns :).¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to all your admin requests is right here: [1]. Kind of obvious...but I guess you assumed to early. --haha169 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You answered. Good. --haha169 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that an admin had already restored the article's history. Thanks for pointing that out. — C M B J 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sometimes, the easiest way just may lead to the answer. --haha169 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag you applied is inappropriate because it tags the whole article as needing citations. Since the article is already cited in many parts, please tag the sections or specific facts you feel need citations with either a {{CN}} or {{unreferencedsection}}. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Memristor.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Memristor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Megapixie (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CMBJ, why did you remove the 'Events controversy' section of this article? It is very important. A subsection over judging controversies (in gymnastics at least) should be added also. Cwenger (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not removed any sections from Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. I'm actually the one that restructured the article and escalated the events controversy section to the top, because it is most relevant to the games. Have you mistakenly identified me? — C M B J 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed that you moved the section to the top. My bad, sorry! -Cwenger (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You objected to "sought to capitalise on China's centre stage" in the lead as violating WP:NPOV. While I see your point that it may inaccurately represents 2/3 of the subsequent parts of the text, it remains true of a minor part. Steven Speilberg clearly did just that, as the issue itself has nothing to do with the olympics. As an "in addition", I felt it was acceptable because the main political, human rights issues were dealt with in the paragraph above. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section section needs a complete re-write, and I don't think we need to waste our time on it until the rest of the article is near stable. Only then can we write something that conforms to WP:LEAD. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome you left on my 'talk' page. It's certainly interesting to take part in Wikipedia. As a contributor rather than a reader, I'm a newby with only one account. The only things I've contributed in the past have been a couple of typo corrections, made anonymously on pages I no longer remember. But in terms of technical writing, I do have some experience.
I would also not want to hide that I have an agenda... quite a long one, most likely, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered involving myself. In terms of topics on China, my programming team and some of my dearest friends are in China, and I owe them my allegiance. However, my best service to them is by serving fairness and truth, which must also be my best service to Wikipedia. The page on which I tried to offer constructive comment is not currently a page that gives any particular credit to the Wikipedia institution. It breaks nearly all of the submission guidelines, and in structure it is not a helpful component to which other articles can usefully link.
Anyway, I think it is a major challenge for irregular encyclopaedists to write emotionless, accurate and pithy summaries, ruthlessly self-edited to sit within those boundaries: they are not easy skills to master. So just for the moment, I'm going to keep to the role of providing constructive comment, and hopefully that will be judged on its merits and in accord with the submission guidelines. We'll see what happens. If I find that I'm wasting my time, there are lots of worthwhile things to do. (^_^) All the best, CMBJ!
Tsuchan (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very nice of you; thanks for the note. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why you are sticking up for him. He clearly has a bee in the bonnet about me, is a nuisance and a menace to civility. But anyway, it's just my two cents'. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that deposition should be used as a very last resort. Can you imagine if his 4,214/month edits, many of which are to very obscure articles, were all exemplary? Mentorship would be an excellent course of action. I request that you join me in endorsing it, because I see it as a win-win resolution that will ultimately edify Wikipedia. — C M B J 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that he's not a novice, I don't think mentorship is applicable. I never judge someone by the number of edits, and he seems to enjoy creating stubs often without references or sources and on stuff sometimes of very dubious merits, meaning there is all that much more potentially for the cleanup squad to take care of. He raises a stink when anyone tries to delete any of them. Naturally, I would accept enforced mentorship as a possible solution, but I also think a week on the touchline would do him absolutely no harm at all. I would still give him credit for not launching edit wars on the 'concerns' article. For him, I consider that is very great restraint. However, he still seems to be stirring it up elsewhere. Judging by his areas of interest, number of edits and his behaviour, I would guess that he's just a 13 year old school kid, so perhaps he does need to be led, to help focus his energies. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{cookbook}} template can be used (as seen in grilled cheese sandwich) to provide full recipes on Wikibooks. I see that you are a regular contributor to food and drink articles, so I hope this helps you. — C M B J 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your comment to my page. I'm a bit confused and unable to evaluate it because it appears that two separate editors have added templates rather than personal messages, which don't really explain in detail what purported editing error I may have made. Can you please be more specific? Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more confusing--why did you move a comment from August 17, 2008 to after August 28, 2008? That makes it confusing for me, and for others. Could you fix that? Badagnani (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid you wouldn't see my comment if it was twenty sections from the bottom. I've undone it per your request. — C M B J 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I always check changes to my Discussion page. Regarding recipes, I have never once added a full recipe to Wikipedia, and maybe in about three instances since I began here, I objected to straight deletion of recipes, asking that the text in the recipe be instead reworked into a straight description of what the dish is made of, and how it's made (though in prose form). Some article creators don't know that adding recipes (as one would find in a cookbook) isn't allowed. Rewriting recipes in prose form is actually what WPFOOD's guidelines specify, so that all articles about discrete dishes contain these basic pieces of information. I still don't know which article in particular you are referring to, where I may have made an error in editing. Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't condemning you for any particular edit. I saw that another contributor had complained to you about inclusion of recipes in Wikipedia, and I felt that I could offer positive insight. — C M B J 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've worked on cuisine articles for years, and certainly did already know that recipes are a no-no. You'll find that other editors sometimes will say anything in order to make another editor look bad; in this case an editor was apparently going around saying that I insisted on including a recipe, etc. etc., when what I actually insisted was that recipes that are mistakenly added be converted to prose rather than deleted entirely (leaving the article without the ingredients and manner of preparation). Maybe in the future you could first do some background checking on the edits to see what actually was going on in such instances. I have found the edits you generally make to be of high quality, and your conduct and demeanor at Discussion pages right in keeping with WP's ideals (something we don't always find here). Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you'll find that other editors sometimes will always try to pass on the blame onto others, to make [him]self look good. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When editing food articles, attention should also be paid to adhere to WP:NOT#HOWTO. It's not sufficient to convert a recipe into a list of the main ingredients... leaving detailed instructions as you would find in a cookbook is also not allowed. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CMBJ, you don't need to repost your, mine, and others' comments to my Discussion page, because I had already read them on yours. Happy editing, Badagnani (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you can fix the "About Me" section of my userpage? It looks retarded. --Pokélova (Pokémon Lover) (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! How does that look? — C M B J 07:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. How do I connect what I wrote to other pages in wikipedia or elsewhere? In other words, how do I make blue words? For example, I'd like to link to the wikidpedia entries about the Massachusetts tribe and about Susanna Haswell Rowson.
You can link to that article by enclosing [[Susanna Haswell Rowson]] in brackets. Alternative text (such as [[Susanna Haswell Rowson|Susanna Rowson]]) is produced by adding a vertical bar. See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet for a concise explanation of basic commands.
Footnotes can be enclosed with the <ref>Brown 2006, p.46.</ref> tag. Optional citation templates such as <ref>{{cite | author=Fred Bloggs | title=A book | publisher=A Publisher | date=2004-07-31}}</ref> may be used to improve consistency, and can even be automatically generated by a variety of tools. {{Reflist}} is used at the bottom of an article to produce the final list. Take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, WP:CITE, and Wikipedia:Inline citations for further details, and keep in mind that references must be reliable.
If you have any further questions, just ask. — C M B J 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at some of the edits you have made, and I see what you were specifically referring to.
Replaceable fair use Image:YouTube - Playback.png[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:YouTube - Playback.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the original uploader of this file, rather the person that provided a PNG version with an improved rationale. A free alternative most certainly cannot exist, because the UI itself is subject to copyright.
I was very reluctant to upload it in the first place, but is it truly inappropriate for an article to contain a low-resolution graphical example of its primary function? — C M B J 10:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't note that. I'll remove the tag.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 10:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "bad jpeg" tag is not intended as meaning "take the existing JPEG and turn it into a PNG image." This will not improve the picture quality and may actually worsen it. I have reverted to the JPEG version for the time being and kept the rationale. The image is clearly fair use in YouTube. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify; the version I uploaded was a lossless replication of the original. It was a freshly captured screenshot of the same video at the same time, and was produced using YouTube's high quality mode. I cropped it in GIMP, and reduced its size to 300px using a Lanczos filter. The unmodified version may be seen here. — C M B J 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been replaced with a fresh screenshot sourced directly from the PNG image. The decision by another user to put a "bad jpeg" tag on the original version was misguided because there were no obvious compression faults, and the image would have been considered acceptable as an illustration by most websites. The PNG version has not been resized as this smudged the numbers and graphics at the bottom of the screen, which would have spoiled the object of the exercise. The new PNG version is a bit crisper than the JPEG version, so the information has been stored "more efficiently" as the "bad jpeg" tag would say. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to address two issues at the same time. My personal opinions may deviate from current consensus on the matter, but non-free images of this resolution are often discouraged for legal reasons; and can even hinder an article from obtaining good or featured status. — C M B J 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not intended to violate any copyright, and is probably within acceptable limits. I did try resizing the image (with Image Scaler) but was not pleased with the results. If someone said that the image was too large it would be reduced, but at the moment most people will look at the thumbnail only. Incidentally, the "bad jpeg" tag added by another user was odd, since most of the image is a YouTube video which already has heavy H.263 lossy compression. Only pure graphics work better as PNG images, so to improve the original JPEG it was necessary to keep the original image size. Resizing graphics, text etc almost always leads to smudging and worsening of the quality, so it was disappointing that the tag asked for something that did not make much sense for improvement. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sense rudeness from this editor after he expressed his dislike of my editing his writing and commenting on his lack of good grammar. He seems to be alluding to not being capable of doing wrong. Should I just quietly tolerate this? Here is what he said on my talk page:
About 24K Friday and 99.5 RT
I use right grammar and good writing style and I improve other articles. All of what I said is REALLY TRUE. Live with it! Underblast (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I am simply interested in better writing and correction of factual errors for those articlesMaragool (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanztalk 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted an idea in the discussion - what about retargeting the redirect to an appropriate page that transcludes the template? 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have previously contributed to the debate on the article, and may like to express your views on the deletion of this article here. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is the first time I've logged-in to Wikipedia since your message, because I've been busy with work, leisure and other commitments. I have to admit, I found that working on this page was just too expensive in time - I'm sure that works of great benefit to mankind have been researched, written, proofed and published in the collaborative time spent on this page; so I took the Wiki advice to consider having another look in a few months. (Hehe, I don't think it's been enough months yet... I was just "passing through" on this occasion.) Good luck and all the best!
Tsuchan (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the introduction to the LTTE has been changed with the words terrorist organisation being changed. The fact is that the LTTE is listed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries including the EU, has assasinated two world leaders and pioneered suicide bombing. Its suicide bombers have killed more people that al-qaeda etc combined, please see the article for more info. Hence it is valid to list it as a terrorist organisation, and the lead in was arrived as a result of mediation from the Sri Lanka wiki reconciliation project. I have reverted your edits, if you feel that it is inapropriate please feel free to discuss on the wiki project. Thanks.Kerr avon (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contacting me. Comparable articles including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, and PKK do not use the descriptor terrorist. While I understand that this is a controversial and sensitive subject, we are obligated to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. The neutral presentation of facts alone has an unprecedented ability to convey the true character of any individual or organization. Additionally, unless this article intends to ironically secede from relevant NPOV policies such as WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, there must be a unique rationale to justify the use of a potentially biased term.
Pursuant to the the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, I have performed a single revert on the aforementioned text, and would like to recommend seeking NPOV/N or RfC should any discrepancies remain. — C M B J 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities[edit]
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Fein[1]. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the US Justice Department for 12 counts of genocide against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. [2]
My previous account is blocked by User: YellowMonkey, a Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues and my post is deleted by another sock subsecuently. please disscuss this issues at SLRC or take this for RFC. Thanks.Meliioure (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will pursue this request and contact you on your main account with the results. — C M B J 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The World Digital Library has launched today. You are invited to update/expand the article before it can be put on ITN. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll get working on it. Give me a few hours. — C M B J 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But please use edit summaries! Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I normally do try to summarize the majority of my edits, but given that this particular non-controversial article has no other substantial contributors and is pending ITN, I have opted for speed over absolute transparency. — C M B J 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article World Digital Library, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
Hi CMBJ, I noticed you answer on WP:RD/C to the screensharing question. Would you mind taking a look at my question about similar remote desktop. I've got the software (tightVNC) but I'm having extreme difficulty forwarding my ports. Any help would be greatly received. Many thanks, Shadowclouds6635 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Central Texas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
There is no neutral reference cited that defines any meaning of "Central Texas", there are many uncited assertions in this article, and these citation problems have remained unaddressed since reported over 18 months ago. This is in conflict with Wikipedia's core Verifiability policy and pillar Neutral Point of View principle.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" andWikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of thespeedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.—Danorton (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I reverted your edit to the South Park Mexican article. You deleted part of the introduction for POV reasons, which is understandable however, there is precident and consensus to reflect this. see [[Category:Convicted American child molesters]]. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.
I think you were wrong to start this as a separate article. It would only be justifiable if the main carisoprodol article had become way too long, which is certainly not the case. Carisoprodol is certainly addictive and almost by definition addictive substances have withdrawal syndromes. To leave it as a separate article, however, places undue weight and will probably lead to hyperbolic editing and even discourage people from getting off of it when they need to. Please consider just getting rid of it and adding your references to the main article.Rose bartram (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fulfilling your request for the time being, so that it does not turn into a breeding ground for hyperbolic sensationalism. However, the article should perhaps be recreated when someone (or myself) has time to further elaborate on what exactly the syndrome is. Specifically, there needs to be an explanation of the extreme dosages that are described in the journals. For example, one patient was described as having taken 30-50 pills (10,500-17,500 mg) per day -- and then quitting cold turkey. — C M B J 03:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. But I still think what is needed is a good section in the Carisoprodol article, which will be easily found by anyone searching on "carisoprodol withdrawal syndrome," not a separate page. Also, I'm not sure where you are going with the concept that it requires extraordinarily high doses. I have certainly seen a "withdrawal syndrome" consisting of discomfort, insomnia, anxiety etc. in people whose doses were not so high. That's why use is only recommended for two weeks or less, according to the PDR, a recommendation followed by virtually no one. What is in fact rare is medically dangerous withdrawal, and I agree that this needs to be made clear. The primary issue with people who have difficulty getting off lower doses is that there is often an addictive process going on, with all the biopsychosocial implications of substance dependance, and patients may tend to overemphasize the physical aspect.Rose bartram (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, CMBJ. You appear to have moved (renamed) Right- and left-hand traffic unilaterally, without any discussion or effort to determine and/or build consensus for such a move. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is a consensus-based project; unilateral moves like this are generally not in accord with the philosophy and structure upon which Wikipedia is based. The present title is the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building, as you'll see if you peruse the article's talk page and its archives of past discussion (always a good idea before proposing an article move). Of course, consensus is not immutable; it's possible consensus might exist or develop for your proposed title. However, proposing the move and discussing it is a necessary first step in the process. —ScheinwerfermannT·C02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is indeed the gold standard; however, discussion is not always a first step in the editorial process. The right of an editor to act unilaterally in good faith is an equally fundamental principle of Wikipedia. With that said, I, of course, do not go around deliberately undermining consensus. Prior to moving the page, I did in fact review the existing talk page, which did not contain relevant discussion. Given the circumstances, (extraordinary article name, major content shortcomings, featured ITN, excessively long talk page, impulsion, etc,) the two archives were inadvertently omitted from analysis. — C M B J 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't forgotten, but it could be the end of 2011 before I've got enough free time to take it on. — C M B J 05:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added a red link to Imp of the Mind to the OCD template. I covered a lot of it at Intrusive thoughts, and have the book in case you need info to complete the book's article, but I don't have time to work on it myself. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely strapped for time as well, but I'll let you know if I have an opportunity to work on it. — C M B J 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. You have new messages at Talk:Martian language. Message added 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On 7 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article North American blizzard of 2010, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
I've reinserted the threats section at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and added to the discussion on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, it should not have been blanked a second time without a fuller discussion and attempt to gain consensus. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. — C M B J 02:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any major objection to this move, however please be mindful of the distinction between a theory and a concept within the category structure. In various cases it is preferable to have an article for one or the other or both depending on the concepts involved. Also, for instance, it is usually preferred to have an "ism" article focused on a theory rather than an "ist" article focused on a person or persons.Greg Bard 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — C M B J 05:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, could you perhaps make it a habit to use the "preview" function more, rather than changing your edits multiple times? I just had four edit conflicts in a row before I could get in one edit on the AfD page. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make extensive use of the preview function, but as with many contributors, oft-times something will come to my mind after submitting. Sorry for the inconvenience. — C M B J 09:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
\[reply]
Unrelated to the above comment but relating to the restart idea...
Who is going to contact all of the users? Is a bot being set to do that in the event it's necessary, or is it being done manually? CycloneGU (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus favors restarting the poll, I will compile a list of participants and provide them to a bot operator. — C M B J 00:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I thought, was just checking into the idea. Looks like a restart so far; I'm against it somewhat, but if there is a strong consensus, what can I do? =) What must be done will be done I guess. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add this userbox to your userpage to advertise your opposition to WP:Pending Changes, and tell 10 like-minded users to do the same and vote!--Gniniv (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop you a relatively meaningless note and say how much I appreciate your level-headed, rational responses to my arguments on this AfD. I play in AfD quite a bit and it's nothing shy of a pleasure to run into the rare person, such as yourself, that I'm able to have a truly respectful disagreement with. It's clear that this article is heading towards a resounding Keep, either way, and, as I just noted in the AfD, I'm not at all upset about that -- and a small part of that is due to your level-headedness. Cheers! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gaza Baptist Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement I believe is not neutral because of the nature of the argument. Without any knowledge of the discussion people will naturally say "yes" without thinking because, in most cases, more options is better. Therefore I feel the question is biased.陣内Jinnai 04:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did the best that I could; regardless, if you really feel that way about it, I'll temporarily withdraw the request so that it can be reworded in a way that we are mutually comfortable with. What would you prefer that it instead say? — C M B J 05:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1-2 sentances just summing up the reason why this being asked. Something about the purpose of the infobox to be something to help the reader understand the work and the technical nature of some of the liceneses vs. the problems that arise from the few available licenses. I would also explain why the license field gained consenus (before you came) to be removed as that is important info.
Maybe a bit longer, but for this case without context, which many people won't have time or bother to read, it becomes biased for the reasons I mentioned above. I'm not the best as creating concise prose.陣内Jinnai 17:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
RfC: Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances?
Proponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is an indispensable tool which, according to statistics, has presented a negligible maintenance liability to the project and would be even more manageable under current proposals. — C M B J
Opponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is nonessential and an unjustifiable burden because of a problematic history including the use of technical terms, superfluous exhibition, and other general misuse. 陣内Jinnai
On 23 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Shelling of Yeonpyeong, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
thanks. i actually thought you'd messed up by creating a circular reference with no contents. so many people are editing on these wikileaks articles at the moment. i missed it because i reviewed my changes which were all at the top on the show changes screen and then there was an edit conflict with all your additions deleted at the bottom, it's unusual for me to have such an edit conflict of all of someone's changes at the top and all of the other person's at the bottom Tom B (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review[edit]
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 12 December 2010 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Hi CMBJ, you might be interested in participating in the rather practical discussion of what the cablegate citation template should actually loook like: Template_talk:Cablegate. Some editors are concerned about the "-gate", even though that's what WikiLeaks recommends. The template itself is at Template:Cablegate. Boud (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey what is your opinion on the following issue: Should the word "ceremonies" be centralized on calendars, such as the 2008 summer olympics calendar? I am having a dispute and would like to hear you opinion on here [5]. You created the calendar for the summer olympics and left the word centralized can you expalin your reasoning there as well. I am for centralizing the word, because ceremonies are not a medal event, and therefore should be centralized and distinguished from medal events. Thank you. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. — C M B J 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CMBJ. I expanded the lead of this article. Any feedback on this (bugs, improvements, etc.) would be very welcome. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll most certainly fulfill that request for you, though it may be a few days while before I can get to it. I worked a 26.5 hour shift yesterday and I'm still actively hammering down on the same project. — C M B J 03:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no rush. So far not much has happened to the article over the past two years or so. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Blue Ridge Capital.png. 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Congrats bro, I think your article will be kept, especially after I change my weak merge into a strong keep! Keep up the passion, and you'll always have me as a friend here on Wikipedia. Great persistence and tenacity arguing your merits on the discussion page--you have convinced others and you have convinced me. Stay passionate, 완젬스 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- TheHelpfulBot 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Reclosed just option 2 on the design, so others can be added easily. It doesn't need so many "support/oppose" groups. FT2(Talk | email) 06:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - done a mockup to test my wording and buttons. Some changes as a result. What do you think? FT2(Talk | email) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“U.S. Congress” is preferred in running text. I think “United States Congress” is more likely to be used in stand-alone phrases (like document titles).
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Gregg Reference Manual ¶ 525 (11th ed. 2011)
The name United States is usually abbreviated when it is part of the name of a government agency.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Air Force
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 10.33 (16th ed. 2010) (periods added)
“U.S.” versus “United States.” In running text, spell out United States as a noun; reserve U.S. for the adjective form only (in which position the abbreviation is generally preferred).
U.S. dollars
U.S. involvement in China
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Associated Press Stylebook (44th ed. 2009)
Congress. Capitalize “U.S. Congress” and “Congress” ….
You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
I think I've stated my opinion but may have put it in the wrong spot. Having two options "full" and "partial" blackout and giving each of them an agree and disagree section left me wondering where to put my opinions.
In 3.2.1 I stated that I prefer a global blackout and in 3.3.2.2 I state:
Oppose, with passion. The Wikipedia is a critical, world-wide public service. Perhaps the first of such magnitude. A full blackout would leave me rather disgruntled. Neil Smithline (talk) 3:12 pm, 14 January 2012, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
So that says I prefer a global, soft blackout. Do I need to update anything or is that enough?
While I have you... I hope that this vote is not the sole means of determining what will be done. There is popular support for a full blackout but I think that people are getting caught up in SOPA-fever and seriously underestimating the seriousness of a full blackout.
I think a full blackout of the wikipedia will be more newsworthy than why it had the blackout. I also think that people will love to claim that they helped bring about the full blackout. It will give them a claim to fame. Just as in the 70's and 80's it was cool to say you were at Woodstock, people seem to envision that in the 2010's it will be cool to say you contributed to the full blackout of the Wikipedia.
But I think nobody will admit it after it happens. While I am against government regulation, I view the Wikipedia as a public utility. You simply can't blackout unless they give you no other options. Considering that SOPA is looking like a dead-man-walking, I think that a full blackout is premature. The ball is already rolling and, IMO, a soft blackout should be enough to keep it rolling.
If I thought SOPA was going to pass, I would definitely favor a full blackout. If SOPA/PIPA actually passed in one of the houses of congress, I would consider a full blackout for the duration.
I don't think SOPA is something to be ignored (see my most recent blog post about it), but one must be careful that attempts to prevent SOPA can be more destructive than whatever, if anything, is likely to pass Congress.
I'm actually away from my desk right now, but unless you participated in section 3.2.2 before the creation of 3.2.4, then you should not have received the notification. From what I gather, the bot's operator may have accidentally sent the message out to every username on the page and this is most likely what happened in your case. I'll follow up with you in the next few hours. — C M B J 00:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following further review, I can confirm that the message that you received was in fact one of the few delivered by me personally, and I see that it was in response to this diff in n.3.2, which said:
Support SOPA has the potential to negatively affect major international events such as the recent Arab Spring. As such, SOPA is clearly a move against worldwide free speech. While only Americans can vote for Congressmen directly, anyone with money can support organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Being SOPA will affect the entire world and the entire world can take action, it seems to follow that the entire world should see the blackout. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which was placed above this cautionary note that appeared at the same section's end:
<!-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->
<!-- Please do not add any more comments above this line. Instead, use either the full blackout or soft blackout sections. -->
Commentary in sections other than n.3.2 was not considered when issuing any of the notices, but the rationale for notification (of anyone) originated because the concept of running a poll with a single blackout option summarized like n.3.2 was flawed to the extent that it could have easily resulted in a miscarriage of consensus upon a typical administrative reading:
Blackout
Consensus appears to be emerging that the community wishes to blackout the site using a click-through process, which would present the following work-flow: when a user attempts to access the English Wikipedia for the first time on the designated date(s), they are presented with a notice describing the SOPA threat and suggesting that they take action (see below, section “What action should users take?”). They then have the option to “click-through” the screen. Once they’ve clicked through, everything is normal: no content is removed or obscured, and normal editing applies. In addition, all users of the English Wikipedia would see banners at the top of each page with informational text that will include a call to action: links to locate contact information for local congressional delegations (if the user is in the United States) or U.S. embassies (if the user is outside the United States). The banners should be dismissable, as with the fundraising banners. Geo-located banners will continue to run for two weeks after the blackout period. The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this.
This ambiguous measure had already attracted 76 participants by the time full blackout even became an option in the poll. Many users had summarily expressed general support for a blackout or had simply voted with a signature, some users appeared to side with the majority but expressed reluctant support for a full blackout—presumably because the numbers had already been so badly slanted, and others elaborated in ways that made their views on the subject wholly indiscernible. Considering the poll's sensitive nature, the apparent risk of data convolution and the very limited amount of time to work with, the issue was brought to ANI and then requests for clarification were sent out. As you can see from my previous comment, there were obviously some obstacles along the way, but I think that inaction would have been a far lesser alternative. — C M B J 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks loads for taking the time to repeatedly follow-up with me. I'm sure you're busy (and hopefully feeling well).
I understand that the poll was put up in a rush, modified on the fly, and required babysitting by people like you :-) While I think the wrong decision was made, I do think it was wonderful to try and get user input the way you did. IMO, the most troubling thing about the poll was that only 1800 people responded. While freedom of speech entitles people to exercise their right to silence, 1800 people is a disturbing small number considering the magnitude of the law and the seriousness of a Wikipedia blackout. Considering that the major focus of anti-SOPA/PIPA publicity has been on its effects on free speech, I would have hoped that more people spoke up.
Regarding the cautionary note, I read it but did not understand that it was attempting to tell me that any comments I had should go in a different section. I actually read it several times as well as having read the instructions in other parts of the page. Even after you posted on my talk page, I still didn't understand.
I tend to be very literal in my interpretation of English and frequently misunderstand statements that seem obvious to others. I believe that the cautionary note was trying to say In this section, entries should only contain a single word (either agree or oppose) and your signature as introduced by four tildas. If you wish to add further comments, please add them to an appropriate comment section below. I'm still not certain that is what you were trying to say but I think I got it.
Whatever the details, I think you Wikipedians did a great job, didn't even come close to Florida's hanging chad debacle, and think that the general lack of voting is of much greater concern than any confusion people had with voting.
I'll end by saying that while I really appreciate your efforts, I think you Wikipedians were insane to attempt something this difficult with so little time. I think you did a great job and it was wonderful that you did it, but I think you're all nuts :-D
See if you can accommodate legislator and district links in the final version. They'll be useful to readers after the initial 24-hour lockout period concludes. — C M B J 04:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your efforts for the SOPA Initiative and for daring to inquire on Philippe's page as to why they can't change an image.Smallman12q (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1, and thanks for helping to test the (hastily assembled) CongressLookup extension! Kaldari (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but at least in the US the OSM data is mostly a direct copy of the Census Bureau's TIGER data, which already exists in shapefile form anyway. However, someone in one of the Proposal 9 discussion threads mentioned KML, and I think that idea might be the big winner here—KML looks like it'll fulfill our needs while being more easily parsable than shapefiles and human editable. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninvolved with whatever quarrel is going on over the article currently at Action of 25 January 2012, but the absurdity of this title has come up in at least two discrete ITN discussions. Would you mind at least giving it some vaguely identifiable name until those warring can work out their differences? I know that's going against protocol, but in this situation anything other than the status quo seems like a clear common sense exception. — C M B J 08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at WP:ITN/C. I've no objection the the article being renamed, but there is an established precent for this style of title. The move protection was as a result of a post at WP:AN, and is designed to prevent editors getting blocked for page move warring - it they can't move the pages, they can't get blocked for page move warring, can they? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the precedent you're referring to, but I cannot personally see using "action" as a static term ("action {date}") as opposed to {action} as a descriptive variable ("{action} {date}") for any article like this. But even if that's true, it's still an affront to common sense and in direct opposition to WP:NCE, which recommends that articles such as this follow the "{when} {where} {what}" variable format. Additionally, the current title goes against WP:STRONGNAT, which prescribes "{month} {day}, {year}" for American topics. I'm aware that it's generally bad mojo for an intervening administrator to take a position in this kind of setting, but again I think we're dealing with an IAR situation. — C M B J 08:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've made clear, move protection is not to prevent the article being moved to a better title, it is to prevent a page move war. Any editor is free to propose a better title at WP:RM and if consensus can be gained then the article can be moved. I've got no objection to a move, but I don't want a war over the issue. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that you've erred in trying to prevent an edit war -- I'm simply reaffirming the views of other contributors that the current name is demonstrably baseless and is interfering with a time-sensitive process (ITN), one that WP:RM wasn't ever designed to accommodate. There is no reason why an interim name—any sane name—cannot be used until those users work out their differences. As a side note, the fact that something this blatantly wrong is even a point of contention at or beyond WP:AN astonishes me. The situation at hand is nothing less than bedlamitic; it's the functional equivalent of someone creating an article named Weather Event January 24 and then successfully vetoing a rename to Cyclone Funso, or any alternative, such as Intense Tropical Cyclone Funso, or Tropical Cyclone Funso, or Cyclone Funso (2012), for the same invalid reasons and in spite of the same unequivocal guideline and during the same type of 5-day nomination debate. It's so disruptive that it's now the subject of broader debate in a discussion about the future of ITN. — C M B J 13:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 January 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
--Thanks again for letting me know about this. I try my best to pay attention to all of the items at ITN, but sometimes I miss a few. If in the future something isn't getting posted, just let me know, and I will get to it as soon as I get on (with my work schedule, sometimes I log in very frequently or infrequently...it just really depends). Happy editing, SpencerT♦C 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. ZZArchtalk to me 05:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. You have new messages at Zzarch's talk page. Message added 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. You have new messages at Zzarch's talk page. Message added 06:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Personally, I don't endorse the deletion of templates solely for the reason that they're serving a single use. But I'll go ahead and give you permission to run this one through as a speedy, if you like, since it appears that we would benefit from supplanting it with a new template it in the same namespace. — C M B J 05:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello My dear friend, a new source for the article Abdolreza Razmjoo
| Official WebsiteFarkoh (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any way to access the original text from موسیقی کرمانشاه or چلچراغ? Someplace online would be ideal, but even a scanned or photographed copy of the relevant pages would help a lot. — C M B J 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes I can scan tomorrow. Farkoh (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this address link book scanning Thank you.
[6]Farkoh (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the چلچراغ magazine, too? Can you scan it as well? — C M B J 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I follow I might find it,Chances are of course very low.Farkoh (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi,Unfortunately I could not find. Farkoh (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have (or know of) any other additional material besides that magazine? — C M B J 00:02, 6 March
Hi, dear friend I'm waiting for the result
Farkoh (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions:
What is the criteria for inclusion in Channel 3's database?
Is the database selective or are all musicians eligible for entry?
Does #3572 represent a special placement or is it just a unique identifier?
Would it be reasonable to describe the site as a national music chart like UK Albums Chart? If not, then what's a good working description of the role the site plays in :society?
Were all songs in this list (or at least one of these we're talking about) placed in regular national radio rotation at some point in time?
IRANSEDA is operated by IRIB from what I can tell, is this right?
Does this station only stream on-demand like Last.fm or is it also a managed broadcasting network like BBC Radio? man
Is there some alternative way to get the content from Chelcheragh?
Would they possibly email that page if asked?
If nothing else, can you approximate what points the text covered?
Does any other reliable material (newspapers, magazines, books) exist that provides written coverage of any kind? — C M B J 11:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been advising Farkoh. He has posted the article again, and I have userfied it again, salted the title, and told him what he needs to do - see User talk:Farkoh#Abdolreza Razmjoo, again. Do you read Farsi, and do you know what is in these scans he has been adding as references? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Nice job here. I've been crunching a few numbers myself over the past couple days and will be curious to see how our respective figures compare. Mine won't have pretty graphics, anyway. . . . Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CMBJ. Re this, I don't think it would be unreasonable or inane either, but I suspect it would be a colossal waste of time and energy. My guess is that per item 1 of Scope and responsibilities they wouldn't accept the case, since there has been no explicit allegation of misconduct, let alone any community attempt (failed or otherwise) at resolving one, and in the unlikely event they did accept the case, I suspect the outcome wouldn't satisfy anyone who has opposed PC. In the meantime, the proceedings would be a major distraction to editors (like you) whose input over the next several months could be invaluable to implementing some version of PC that causes minimal disruption to us all. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the way I see it. Fwiw, I have considerable respect for the two closers with which I had any prior familiarity, so I was not only disappointed in the decision itself but baffled at the sloppy explanation provided to justify it. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories[edit]
When your edits to address the DYK nomination issues are done, please be sure to note this on the nomination page itself. Otherwise, the reviewer will assume you're still working on it. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please revisit the nomination for further commentary. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly fantastic job on IBT Labs page. You're the Mark Knophler of Wikipedia. Looking at the page after my edits I am proud to have contributed to this page even a little. You've set the groundwork for an even more thorough telling of the story, which is well documented by writers whose work will be raised from obscurity. In the annals of chemical history, this piece is standout, even among the work I have read of top plaintiffs' council. By the way there may be some great stuff in Rachel's Hazardous Waste News -- reams of environmental history published over 25 years in this thing called the RACHEL database, all of it footnoted. You will find a treasure trove in there, and I think there could be an article on litigation called Kemner v. Monsanto, which really brought out a depth of understanding about the history of Monsanto and its dioxin problem (including falsified cancer studies, well documented).
In any event, CMBJ -- you have me fired up, and I am inspired by your talent and dedication. e Dioxinfreak (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments—I'm thrilled to hear that my work has served as an inspiration. Cheers. — C M B J 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wanted to inform you that I moved Self-medication to Self-medication (psychological) because there were too many misunderstandings about what the article was about. And then I removed the text you had written - because it should not be part of this article. With friendly regards! Lova Falktalk 08:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously aware of Woodsrock's proposal but strongly disagree with fragmenting our coverage of the subject at this time, particularly as the article's current content scope is so narrow even within its respective area of concentration. I've moved the article back and restructured it to reflect the uniqueness of self-medication in psychology, which should hopefully prevent any further confusion. — C M B J 10:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks so much for your note! i changed the ref because the original one is an editorial, not a news report. i don't know about you (and come to think of i don't know what wiki policy is.. do you?) but i don't consider editorials even in the NY Times to be NPOV.... so they are not usable for refs. What do you think?Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2 questions:
1) Do you have the article? Would love to see it -- I went and looking and could not find it
2) What is that court case? I am guessing it is the case referenced directly above the place where you added this (the St-Louis area dioxin case). But without referencing a specific case this is kind of a bizarre statement to leave hanging.
I had considered adding something about the Industrial Bio-test litigation under "other legal matters." Like the fox TV case, Monsanto was not a party to the IBT litigation but was involved. If your goal here is to get something on the Monsanto page about the Industrial Bio-test labs matter, I think that would be a more straightforward way to do that. How about if I do that and remove the free-floating thing above? Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) As for Steyer's article above, I do have access to it and can see about making it available to you; it is definitely an interesting read. However, if you can gain access to Factiva through a local library or other institution, it may be a preferable solution because there are multiple articles on the subject in their archive that are nowhere else to be found.
2) So far as I know, the 1991 St Louis case wherein Smith testified against Monsanto is not described elsewhere in our respective article. The case was one of four concurrently lodged against the company by Westinghouse employees—particularly, I believe, the one associated with the Bloomington factory—and was chronicled by the Post-Dispatch in several different articles as it progressed. — C M B J 06:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! With something as contentious as the Monsanto article I am hesitant to add anything that is not easily verifiable. There was so much utter nonsense in that article when I first came to it -- statements that I found repeated literally hundreds of times, with the same inaccessible "sources" cited... when I finally dug up useful sources it turned out that these statements were often complete misreadings, but have gained currency as "facts" in that community as they are endlessly passed around. Best example is description of the Schmeiser case which the anti-Monsanto crowd mischaracterizes over and over. I will go hunting for Westinghouse Monsanto litigation stuff. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked these up on Factiva added content accordingly. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, Kaldari, hereby award CMBJ the Graphic Designer's Barnstar for being the first Wikipedia editor talented enough to create tables that don't make my eyes bleed :) Kaldari (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)
First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).
Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CMBJ, I know I'm guilty of this sometimes too, but can I ask that you use the "preview button" a little more. It's not that great of an issue (and I edit my own comments as well), but after seeing this and trying to navigate through page histories to find old discussions and stuff, it's kind of difficult with the multiple minor repetitive edits. It's minor edits like this, this, and this that really jam up the history and can make it appear that you're just trying to rack up edits. I understand having a clear message that says what you want it to is important, but it's just the sheer amount of these edits makes following along on the history part of the page more difficult. Best, SpencerT♦C 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I've long exhibited a tendency to refine and polish my communications, ironically, and with all respect, I don't think that the aforementioned series of edits would be best characterized as an example of that behavior. The catch here is that, although seventeen edits were made in total, only four of them were modifications to my commentary—and that's over an extensive period of interaction. The other eleven edits (23:38,23:50,00:14,01:17,01:18,01:40,02:45,04:08,04:16,04:59,5:04) were incremental improvements to the proposed standard for inclusion.
Nevertheless, I certainly understand where you're coming from and I do apologize that my actions inconvenienced you. All the best, — C M B J 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I saw your post at the merge discussion and noticed that you've been active in the TPL page in the past. Wondering if you can answer a simple question which I'm struggling to answer on my own. Does TPL still exist as a currently functioning entity? I'm asking because there's a lot of material in the TPL article written in the present tense that I suspect should be converted to past tense (e.g. 24/7 staffing, honor system, weekly poetry readings, etc.). I live in NYC and am unaware of these activities continuing, but I was never that close to OWS so it's entirely possible that I'm simply unaware. I understand that it's possible TPL lives on in some form or another, but I wonder if some of these more practical pieces are still taking place. (And please note, whether all of this is in the present or the past has absolutely no bearing on the merge discussion, in my opinion) Do you have any idea? Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an interesting question by the looks of things. So far as I can tell at a glance, the TPL does still exist as a functioning entity. It describes itself as using a mobile distribution model and the catalog accordingly shows that new books were added in October. It also appears to have held a public workshop a few months back. The article almost certainly does need to be updated, though. I'll look into it further in the coming weeks. — C M B J 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved[edit]
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I saw you remarks in Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2012 in Wikimedia Commons. I can just explain you why I voted for this picture. First, I didn't vote in the first round. So, when I voted, it was the first time I was seeing the finalists. Two other pictures were in balance:
File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg: but after reading that this picture was photoshoped and that it's quite stupid because now the light bulb is litted (is on) without being connected to the power, I rejected it. This picture is well done but impossible.
Magnificent CME Erupts on the Sun - August 31.jpg: but it it a constructed picture, I think
Finally, I vote for the merops, for beauty of these birds, the moment this picture was taken (1 second later, it wouldn't have been the same) and the truth of it.
And I didn't see any substantial promotion somewhere else...
Khardan (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
From all these pictures, I think the following one: Commons:File:Grotte Saint Marcel bassins.jpeg would have been also in my top 3, because the way this cave is lightnened and the contrast between the stone and the water make it a very, very good picture. And it's not an usual picture of caves we used to see.
New Article Feedback version available for testing[edit]
Hey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like Option 2 but will there be enough admins to man both the AN/I and the AE? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in fact, Option 2 would not have any adverse effects on admin numbers at all -- it would in essence just be an actionable procedure that users can cite in incident reports at AN/I. Option 1, on the other hand, would create a specialized forum that looks and works more like AE, which might stretch our admin numbers thinner while yielding some improvements in robustness and efficiency. They're both viable constructs, it just comes down to a matter of priorities and preference. — C M B J 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Great idea. I think I'll go with option 2. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CMBJ. I often see you around the project being the voice of reason I thought I should thank you for that. I also want to thank you for keeping things moving forward at WT:AC and for the help you've been giving to Int21h's situation. That's very generous of you. You're a thoughtful Wikipedian and very important to the project. I appreciate all the years you've volunteered here. Thanks very much. 64.40.57.72 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CMBJ. I'm sorry to say that some bugs in code that the Article Feedback Tool is dependent on have resulted in us still not being able to deploy the latest version to en-wiki - although one advantage is that, because it's functioning on the German and French Wikipedias, the eventual release here will contain fixes for several newly-detected bugs without us having to bother you with them :P. At the moment, we're talking about several weeks of wait, I'm afraid - although the fix itself is not complex, it's dependent on Platform freeing up time to make and deploy it, and they're currently rather busy. I'll let you know when I have more news. Thanks :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about making the format 1:1, but rendering defects took precedence, so I left their data as-was. I've now reworked it to be symmetrical and everything should be in order. Regarding the duration, it appears from other material that 24 hours is a common metric for analyzing bupropion – see here. The drug is also indicated for dosing at least once daily, so residual effects are of little value for the purposes of comparing bioequivalency — especially considering that the source data is very lossy beyond that point. As for the article, I suppose the placement depends on perspective, but I personally see relative plasma levels as a function of efficacy more so than quality standards: some generic drugs may actually have absorption profiles preferable to their inventor's counterparts. — C M B J 02:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CMBJ; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement. I think the WP:RFC/U should simply define the problem. I put this as the purpose, here.Casprings (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CMBJ, just wondering where in Hays Co. this pretty pic was taken. I've been in or near the area several times but don't remember seeing this exact vista. Textorus (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks pardner for the coordinates, will have to check that out next time I am down that way - if the area isn't closed to the public which would be a shame. Textorus (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, clearly not. But nor do editors get a free pass just because their edit counts have a certain number of digits. It's much more complex than that, as you well know - that's the whole point of the discussion. In the context of workplace hostility, it is not always the supervisor/authority figure who creates the hostile environment - it is sometimes the employee/supervised person. But in the context of Wikipedia, the community has in the past determined that the problems caused by some editors outweigh the benefits of their content work - and that factors as well. It's an incredibly complex discussion with passionate viewpoints on multiple sides, and probably would have been a good place for me to keep my goddamned mouth shut. But it is what it is. Meant no offense to anyone or their defenders. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to come back and explain what you mean?[edit]
No, you didn't upset me. And "my" country happens to be the US. The my is in quotes because it most certainly is not the US I grew up in. My parents and all my friends' parents were in WW II, they most certainly did *NOT* fight and die to have their country become a subtle clone of Nazi Germany. The news is what upsets me. If I were smart I would not read it :)
If I came actross as too vehement I apologize personally to you but not to the general public. They seriously need their rears kicked. Hard.
Not that it woud help. I think the country is toast.
Can I ask what CMBJ stands for or is that too personal ? I'm addicted to riddles :)
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Since you had some involvement with the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). →AzaToth 21:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting IPBE because connectivity at this location largely depends upon a networking device that is automatically configured to reroute traffic through an intermediary provider's servers.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 November 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vona Groarke may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
]'''Vona Groarke''' is an [[Irish people|Irish]] [[poet]]. Groarke was born in [[Edgeworthstown]] in
Hi. I didn't look at the article's history until after I posted my initial comment at WT:MED. Had I realised you were involved and had done the merge, I would have brought it up with you first. Sorry. I hope you're doing OK, and know that I really appreciate all you do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, CMBJ. I was trying to organize the categories about graphics software, and came across the categories biovisualization software and bioimaging software. Since the biovisualization article doesn't exist, I'm curious to know, what exactly is the difference between the two? And if bioimaging software is indeed a subcategory of biovisualization software, then shouldn't free bioimaging software be a subcategory of free biovisualization software as well? Looking forward to be enlightened :) Cheers, Waldirtalk 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've closed the RFC with a request to hold implementation until you present your proposal; please post something in the next couple weeks. NE Ent 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have something up in the next week or so. —C M B J 21:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aiming for Sunday, —C M B J 12:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on List of people from San Marcos, Texas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Violation of WP's living persons policy.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened to come across my Wikipdia Talk page, with a message thread you left in 2008. I'd not seen that before. I basically gave up the idea of a contributory role in Wikipedia after the experience of that article. I've made the odd correction to a page since, that's all. Some great accomplishments have been made in Wikipedia, but my experience was not positive, so I found other things to do. When people discuss about Wikipedia, I sometimes share my small experience. The Beijing Olympics stuff was not encyclopaedic: it was basically just ill-concealed racism and prejudice, and I soon felt it's worthless to be involved in trying to fix it. But don't get me wrong... I'm a regular consumer of Wikipedia. Tsuchan (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]
Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of the iTunes Store until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Proud User (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Impax Laboratories logo.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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caught by a web host (proxy) block. Connection type necessary at this time for practical reasons. Previous IPBE permission removed as part of apparent cleanup effort. —C M B J 08:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
I've restored your IPBE. Ping me if for some reason you are still having trouble logging in. OhNoitsJamieTalk 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Per the above, we tend to try to use review articles and major textbooks for medical content rather than primary sources and the popular press. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content should've been appropriate in context, but the most important thing is that the subject is covered. —C M B J 07:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CMBJ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Feuer Frei!.ogg. 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 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).
Hello, CMBJ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Template:Kavalactones has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories 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! Orlady (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vona Groarke may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.png){kind=link}
The Wikipedia Library
