User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Billiard chalk 20050724.png



/Release to us
/Welker Cochran
Useful language dump
/Wikipedia:Time machine
/List of pocket billiards games
Archive 1: March 27, 2006
Archive 2: June 26, 2006
Archive 3: August 11, 2006
Archive 4: November 1, 2006
Archive 5: March 30, 2007
Archive 6: June 24, 2007
Archive 7: September 13, 2007
Archive 8: December 22, 2007
Archive 9: June 16, 2007
Archive 10: March 27, 2009
Archive 11: December 20, 2009
Archive 12: November 23, 2010
Archive 13: January 9, 2012
Archive 14: October 3, 2012
Archive 15: August 18, 2013
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly
/Giant nuthatch
/VE documentation

If you leave a comment for me below I will likely comment back here as well, but I might also duplicate on your talk page, depending on context or if you request. Please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end and note that new posts belong at the bottom of the page. Thanks.


Please do help me[edit]

Re: my question at the teahouse regarding the film article that I wanted to mark for deletion, which i did and did wrong and my edit was reversed,(which we can continue here at your talk page) or over at mine. Don't matter to me. I would like an extensive answer (please see teahouse answer and response). I was not offended at all by how you said what you said at the teahouse and have really benefited from your help in the past so, if we can def continue this "lesson" re: deletion, speedy deletion, and afd I would really love that. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I think I'm spent tonight though. Look for a response tomorrow:-)


There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me to grow[edit]

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
Thank you Fuhghettaboutit, for helping me to grow and feel good about myself as an editor Tattoodwaitress (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the BIG Screen summit-Steve Jobs..for .."JOBS"[edit]

I am a member of Princeton Global They specialize in 3rd party verification..and have already submitted a Historical Biography for me! I will contact them about the public page for me here! K.R.W.Wwkweinberg (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The Academy Awards..........Global best...M. Ghandi...for "GHANDI"

User on my talk page[edit]


There is a user who I (HostBot) invited, and they've asked me for help on my talk page. I am not sure what exactly they want, so could you step in? I think we should just try a clear explanation of what Teahouse is.


TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The user I was talking about was in the last section. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hee hee, I know! I was working on that now. I was just interested in seeing that post above!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Done and glad to help out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cue sports bios[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cue sports bios has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NickSt (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of article draft User:FGuerino/Information technology industry[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I don't know if you remember but you helped do some copy editing for a draft I've been working on about the IT industry. I've spent a lot of time trying to learn about and apply what makes a good article and I've spent a lot of time addressing many different types of feedback from a number of editors.

I feel that the article is now at a point where I'd like to start the process of copy editing to clean it up before submission to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Of all the copy editors that I've met on WP, I found you to be the most helpful. I know you're very busy but I was hoping I could impose upon you to kindly spend some time helping with the copy editing of my User:FGuerino/Information technology industry article. I've spent so much time on it that I'm too close to it and sometimes miss obvious mistakes, so I could use an extra set of good eyes.

Anyhow, I'm grateful for any help you can offer.

-- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@FGuerino: Sure, I will take a look soon. I absolutely know what you mean about being too close. I cannot tell you how many times when I've gone back to an article after not looking at it for a month or so I see all kinds of glaringly obvious things I just could not see staring at it for hours while I was involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks again! (BTW, are you in Brooklyn? If so, I'm a semi-neighbor in NJ.) --FGuerino (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I saw that you've done a lot of work to improve the article. Thanks, very much, for your help. I didn't hear from you so I don't know if you're done or not. I don't want to submit it for AFC if you're still working on it. Thx. --FGuerino (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@FGuerino: Not done:-) I'm just slow, and haven't edited much the past few days. Wikipedia is also slow; there's no deadline. I expect to be finished this week and will post a note when I think I'm done (unless you want me to stand down). It was a pretty deep edit, took quite a while, and I hope you didn't mind how deep it was. It seems to me there was a lot of repetition and circumlocution in the language and content, as well as essay style writing. That's, of course, very understandable as it's how many of use cut our teeth in writing, but encyclopedia articles are just different; state the facts, leave out all the gloss and narrative about the facts unless the reliable sources used provide the same. Just so you know, I am editing what I see and not doing a "review" per se.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit, I'm certainly not in a rush so take all the time you'd like. I just wanted to touch base so I didn't accidentally pull the rug out from under you by submitting to AFC. Would rather wait and know you're completely done. BTW, I'm very much ok with the deep edits. I'm new and don't pretend to understand encyclopedia writing, yet. I'm trying to learn and it's seeing your edits that helps me do so. So, by all means, edit as deep as you need to. Also aware that you're not performing a review and I'm good with that, as copy-editing was more of what I was looking for.
By the way, never saw the "ping" command before. Where can I read up on it? Thanks for all your hard work. I'll look for your note on completion. --FGuerino (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vedanta Society of New York[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Hey, Fuhghettaboutit,
I just wanted to say how much I admire the work you do at the Teahouse. An example right now is the time you took to unravel that incident of the user who was putting the names of tobaccos on to disambiguation pages. I've been spending some time on Noticeboards and I find it shocking how some Editors move from 0->Indefinite block in 60 seconds. I don't know if Editors become jaded but I see a rush to judgment and an alarming willingness to mete out the harshest punishment as soon as an Editor starts to be seen as an irritating problem (and that threshold keeps getting lower and lower).
That's why I really admire Admins who still AGF and don't automatically assume that an Editor who makes mistakes is being "disruptive", a label that is too freely applied, in my opinion. I know that when I start becoming a frequent Editor, I made my share of mistakes and I appreciate the Editors and Admins who came to my Talk Page and explained what I had done incorrectly. And I wasn't even a newbie! Just inexperienced.
It takes a little more time to dig in and find out what is really going on, beyond first appearances and I'm grateful that there are Admins like you who are willing to take that extra minute and don't have an itchy trigger finger on the block button. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Just curious, but what is the significance of Balkline and straight rail?

I agree, Liz. In my judgment, this IP editor did nothing seriously wrong, except edit in the politically incorrect tobacco topic area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Cullen328, I would have posted on your Talk Page, too, but I think I gushed enough there about how awesome you are. ;-) I still come to Teahouse because people there are so helpful. It's a nice antidote to spending time on the Noticeboards. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Liz. I believe that medical research has proven that AN/I rots your brain, but that time spent at the Teahouse has curative powers. That is my theory on talk pages at least, which I would never claim in main space. But I think you know what I mean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow such a pleasure to wake to this, really brightens my day! Thanks so much. Yes, I also at times see an alarming lack of thoughtfulness and time spent investigating before taking action like a block, with real people on the other end. I think some of it is being jaded, sometimes it's just youth, some of it is too much time spent trying to be too fast, and at times it's an inability to parse bad faith from what inexperienced people know (not just about Wikipedia, but what an encyclopedia is). But there are a lot of good admins who would have immediately declined that block. At the noticeboards (which I usually avoid like the plague), a great deal of the itchy fingers may be those who are asking for the action, not necessarily those who can take the action. But the point is certainly valid as to some. As to this incident, yeah the user really did nothing wrong. Notice that the warner said they were tailoring until they began using Twinkle. Still, they would have had to select a final warning from a list but I have always thought the automation of Twinkle and related tools, though they are major boons in some ways, cause a lot of problems (I've been around since before they were in major use). Anyway, you ask what the significance of Balkline and straight rail is. Just an article I wrote in a sphere I am passionate about. All but a few Wikipedia's pool and billiards-related good articles (and its only FA) were written by me, though I really have dropped off in my output. I link to that one in particular because I adore those games. Both of you, please drop by any time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
For improving the references at Thomas and Mary Poynton, and for being an all-round useful, productive editor, I award you this barnstar. Thanks for all that you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Orange County Waves[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for userfying this article for me. I just have a very quick query: There's already disambiguation page at Orange County Waves, should I move my article over that - or put the (WPSL) back on the title when I move it to mainspace? I realise it's probably not all that important but I just wondered what you'd advise in this particular case. Thanks again for your help. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Anytime. I've responded to the substance at your talk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Could you please move it for me now? I really appreciate your help with this. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Fast work on the expansion!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, rethinking Oliver North :-)[edit]

Thanks so much for your comments and the changes you made to my article. I am going to look up a few things before I post for review. Regarding the commons photo: there is a copy of the photo along with text on a military website. The page credits the photographer but says nothing about the writer. I think I just have the name of the site, date of the photo/date accessed, and link. That's what i think I need to look into, and is what you were referring to. Here is the link: GMarin 12:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lrh246: You're welcome. Regarding the public domain issue, you restated the material in your own words but for "914 concept drawings", which is not enough to require such a notice so I've removed it as unnecessary. By the way, you've probably noticed that I've moved you post to the bottom of the page. The top-posting at the Teahouse is backwards from every other page on Wikipedia. I've argued they should stop this as it teaches new users the wrong way but there's been no consensus on it. Anyway, I'm betting that's the reason you posted at the top here:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! Don't know if I'm posting at the top or bottom :-) hopefully i have it right this time. I'm writing you because I didn't understand your last edit. you said, "Per message on my talk page. The material was restated and "914 concept drawing", the only usage of the same wording, is not enough to require any such notice." I thought that meant you have removed the reference to the MTB photo with the few sentences of content. But it looks like the reference is still there. Can you explain your statement? I'm not following? Thanks! GMarin 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lrh246: Let me clarify. You had a notice in the references section which stated "This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Navy." That statement is never used simply because an article contains a public domain image. An image bears its own license and its display in an article is not incorporation of it. That message is for when you are copying text that is in the public domain. From your message on my talk page, I learned (or so I figured, but now I'm not so sure) that your reason for including that statement was because you had cited to the content on the website where the image came from. But the text you used was not copied; you had restated it in your own words, with only "914 concept drawings" bearing the same words as the source and had already cited the source. So there was no incorporation of content from the public domain to speak of. I accordingly removed the references section message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. That notice was there because I had a previous version of this article that incorporated material from other sources in addition to that in the image. Now what you say makes sense. Thanks for the help. I was accepted which is great, but still have major improvements to do! Help is always appreciated! GMarin 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we discuss before moving things again, maybe?[edit]

WT:YFA. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And why is that a minor edit? There was a link to the detailed version at the top if people weren't finding what they wanted. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Biosthmors. Yes, page moves from existing titles should be discussed where they would be controversial. This very much was a controversial move in my opinion (done by copy and paste it appears, with the talk page not moved) – a move of a major project page that severed the original connection from 110,000 links. Boldness is great but some things should be discussed before they are done in the first place. What I did was restore the status quo. A formal discussion of a page move can be opened through the requested moves process of course, which I think should have been done here, if at all. You could also see this as an enactment of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you were bold, I've reverted, let's discuss. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
All page moved are marked minor by default.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The way I was reading consensus on WT:YFA was that people had accepted the move. Was that not your reading? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
That discussion was (in order) one person commenting on your boldness and asking whether it should be moved; you stating yes it should be; another user explaining that you had done a cut and paste move and that the histories would need to be fixed; and another explaining they had fixed the page history mess. There was no discussion about the merits of the move whatsoever, much less an advertised, focused discussion about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't that be interpreted as hesitant acceptantce of the new page? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you could look at it like that, but it's plainly not a discussion about the merits of the move, and again, I think such a page move of this sort needs to be discussed. Not only is this a fairly major project page and a vast change, but the result of the page move here is quite unusual, where we're not just changing a title, but replacing the content with new content and a new history, yet on the same subject matter that preexisted, while having the old page still exist at a new title, but leaving all the links that pointed at the old content pointing at the new.

To expand a bit on that, on a typical page move, all the redirects to the page (here, which have about 7,000 incoming links) would normally the switched to point to the new title, and the old title itself (with about 103,000 incoming links) would become a redirect to the new title. This, however, was not just a change of title but a form of page replacement. When we have a page at a title and we want to replace it with new content on the same topic, we simply edit the page to say something different. When we move a page to a new title, everything that pointed to the old title usually points to the new – we've just changed the title for the same content. This was a replacement of content written since 2005 by many users over about 800 edits with all those incoming links pointed by users at the old content and its history, now pointing at another page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going offline in a few moments for many hours.


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin account possibly compromised. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks as usual[edit]

... for your behind-the-scenes work monitoring RMs and doing the technical closing. We need more of you! Tony (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Anytime! Thanks for noticing. Hey, Tony, I was just wondering: you seem to propose quite a few capitalization renames and I tend to think that many of these are rather uncontroversial (maybe not the one I just closed, but most). Have you tried doing them as technical requests? Was there push back? Not that I think it matters greatly if they're done as formal RMs instead, but the alternative is easier and quicker.@Tony1:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thx; I'll try navigating through that process in the future! Tony (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

unusual performers
Thank you for quality articles on film directores and artists in unusual areas such as Hadji Ali, and for {{TotallyDisputed}}, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 April 2009 and 23 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! I appreciate it (I wish I knew what you meant about TotallyDisputed though:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I liked it, matched my thinking nicely, I totally dispute (with myself) my role in this so-called community, just created Category:Wikipedians who are not part of The Community ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 283rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesome[edit]

TWA badge 2.png Barnstar of Awesome
You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your amazing work alpha-testing The Wikipedia Adventure. Over 180 bugs were identified and 143 of them have been fixed already! (The rest are catalogued as known bugs).

You. Are. Awesome. Check out your name in the game credits here: WP:TWA/About.

Thank you again :) --User:Ocaasi 17:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How you can help even more!
(and for which there may or may not be a super secret second extreme helper barnstar)
  • Start over fresh with a new account: Like User:OcaasiTWA17 (these are legitimate alternate testing accounts and are not considered sockpuppets)
  • Finish the game: Give some attention to missions 5-7 (which have been tested much less)
  • Try a different browser: If you used Safari, try Firefox (or Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera...)
  • Show the game to a friend or family member to see how they like it and if they get stuck anywhere

Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe[edit]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. 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.

-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass lowering of template protection[edit]

I noticed that you seem to be running some sort of bot-like script on your account to lower templates from fully-protected to template-protected. It would be nice to link to the consensus discussion that said we should do this wholesale in the reason field; I must have missed it, the last one I saw included specific objections to lowering protection on templates like {{!}} that are extremely highly used and have basically no need to ever be edited. Anomie 12:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Anomie. I use no scripts, no bots; all by hand. Anyway, that's not the real issue. I simply read at WP:PROTECT about template protection that the right is a "new protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes", and at Wikipedia:Template editor that "most high-use templates are still protected via full protection, as no mass changes have yet been made. As a result, template editors cannot yet edit most such pages". From this I took it that although we had the new permission implemented, it was rather less than useful because the very reason for the implementation was still being frustrated until we went through the slog work of making fully-protected templates editable by those with the new flag. So I started that slog work, thinking it was only a matter of willingness to spend the time, and not a matter of agreement of whether we should or should not do it. It seems a bit odd we have a new user permission and yet those with it will not be able to go ahead and edit templates – that when they come upon a template they wish to make a change to, they must still seek out an admin to use their higher permission to allow the change – I thought obviating that situation was the whole point of implementation. Anyway, I will not change any more following your message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
We really need to have a discussion about which templates should have their protection lowered. This should probably happen on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. I don't believe there is currently any policy or guideline on the matter! Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
PS, I have restored full protection to Template:! for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to protection level of Template:Class/icon[edit]

I noticed that you changed the protection level of Template:Class/icon so that template editors can now edit it. It seems that since the template is still listed on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, that template editors cannot yet edit the template. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, you commented here about Yodle, so I was wondering if you would be able to have a look over my sandbox article to see if it's OK? Thanks, Matty.007 12:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello Fugh!

I wanted to say thanks for all your help with the DYK for U2 by U2. They have promoted it! Yay! Thanks to you! Cheers. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for U2 by U2[edit]

Allen3 talk 16:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re your deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Engr. Patrick Ekpotu[edit]

It appears that the editor had also placed the copyvio draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Engr. Patrick Ekpotu. I've marked it for speedy deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Someone else took care of it:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fiches internationales de sécurité chimique[edit]

You just deleted Fiches internationales de sécurité chimique as a duplicate. Could you transwiki it to fr:Fiches internationales de sécurité chimique instead, since the French Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the topic? I was going to (my usual course of action when I see a foreign-language article on a notable topic that already exists in the English Wikipedia) when the article vanished. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 13:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Anytime! by the way, I see now that before it was ultimately deleted (still under A11), it was marked as a copyvio of [1], and it does appear to be. So, if you transwikied it, you may want to tell them over at the French Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The article was also deleted as a copyvio on the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. Cheers.--01:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me something new too[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png When you answered the question on national flags at the Teahouse, you taught me something new too. Much appreciated Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Skamecrazy123! Anytime. thanks for helping out there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User page deletion[edit]

Hi, you just deleted User:Dudemanfellabra/AllNRHPPages at my request, but I had also put on there asking the deleter to delete all the subpages of that page as well. Would it be possible for you to do that? There are quite a few of them, and I didn't really think making ~20 separate requests was necessary. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, missed it. Done now. U1s are so much easier than many other CSDs, mostly just needing to be checked to make sure the user page is actually in the userspace of the person requesting, so I go somewhat into automatic mode. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


You changed the title of the page to "Millennials" when the move instructions were as follows:

Generation Y → Millennial Generation – Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability. A plethora of media articles over the recent years use the word Millenials to talk about this generation. Generation Y can stay as a redirect. Vexorian (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 31.151. Those were not "move instructions". That was the nomination text in a requested moves debate. Requested moves is the formal process whereby users may seek the retitling of a page. A person nominates a page, and then there is debate about the nomination – to decide what should be done – after which an administrator (typically) closes the debate on or after seven days by gauging consensus (or lack thereof) in the discussion, keeping in mind applicable policy and guideline. I was the closing admin and it was my judgement that there was consensus for a move to Millennials based on the substance of the discussion. As you can also see, there was a subsequent, second move request seeking to move the page to Millennial Generation, which failed to gain consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The "proposal" wasn't followed. You decided on your own to change the page name to "Millennials" without a discussion about it. It's misleading to open a discussion with a proposal and then the moving editor (you) makes an independent decision that has nothing to do with the original proposal.
Again, the proposal was Generation Y → Millennial Generation. How is that consensus? (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a disconnect between what you're saying and the facts, as if you're somehow failing to actually read the discussion even though you seem to be referring to it. On the off chance you somehow are seeing that nomination text duplicated somewhere other than the actual move debate, here is the link: Talk:Millennials#Requested move. If you've already read that discussion and are still saying what you are saying, I'm not sure what to tell you other than please read it again more carefully. Note the three participants who agree that Millennials should be the title as the common name, and who discuss that Millennial generation is not such a common form, which is explored in more detail in the second debate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but a new move request should have been opened instead of just moving it to another term -- that comes up later in the discussion. It's to confusing to the reader to open with a proposal -- then change to another term that's completely different without notifying everyone in a more formal way. (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Not really. As I pointed out, this type of thing is done all the time at WP:AFD and other discussions. Closers rely on common sense to see what were the conclusions of the discussion. --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Frequently, editors use "common sense" arguments that are masquerading as bad communication. (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It would make no sense whatever to limit a discussion to determine the proper name of a page to whatever the person nominating proposed and nothing else and in the hundreds of requested moves I've closed I've never seen anyone be confused by this. If you are dissatisfied with the title you will need to come up with cogent arguments for a change. However, a retread of the same arguments that failed to gain consensus in the second move (which I now see was proposed by you) is unlikely to gain any traction nor is it welcome to open up a new discussion of the very same issue, grounded on the same bases, when the second move was only recently closed and doubly so where the same person is making the request. The Common names policy is an important part of title consideration and it has been shown fairly clearly that "Millennial Generation" is not very common, and far less common than Millennials. The issue of whether the page should bear a title that refers to the generation itself (i.e., "Generation Y" or "Millennial Generation") or to members of the generation (i.e. millennials) was the most fruitful area of inquiry but it would appear that if so, the original title, Generation Y, is more common than what you proposed. You need to either find a really good reason that was not already discussed or drop it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to spend alot of time on this right now. And most of this was discussed on the talk, but Common names policy is only one part of the title policy:

According to the instruction box at the top of the move request it clearly says that we must "Remember to base arguments on article title policy". See

The requirements are that titles must be:

  • Recognizable – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
  • Natural – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles, usually conveying what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precise – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Concise – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistant – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

So far, no editor had given good reasons for all five criteria. Using "Millennials" without "Generation" does not follow number 5 (Consistancy) for sure -- as most other articles on the generations topic use the word "Generations" in the title. The pattern is established.

The issue is that you dropped into the first move request discussion and quickly made a decision based on one part of that discussion. Again, it's confusing to the reader when a proposal is made and then someone who is not part of the discussion drops in and makes a decision to change the title -- before making a proposal to the group about the NEW title. I'm sure it was done in good faith and a review can be done later by another admin. I'm not asking for you to take any specific action. Just fyi. (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Simply put, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how requested moves works. All requested moves are closed by a neutral third party who did not participate in the discussion. There is not only not any type of "issue" about this, it is required – your continued and outré confusion over it notwithstanding. If you want to dispute my close, by all means, go to move review. Meanwhile, I am in total agreement with you that it's unproductive to spend any more time here discussing the underlying titling issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No. Simply put, I do not have a misunderstanding or confusion about what you've outlined and why. However, it IS confusing to the reader when a proposal is made and then someone who is not part of the discussion drops in and makes a decision to change the title -- before making a proposal to the group about the NEW title he/she is proposing. If you don't agree that's fine with me. I'm not interested in spending any more time on it for now. Thank you. (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
At this point it appears there's nothing I could say that will untangle this for you, yet your post shows the same misperception. I proposed nothing. I was the closer. Oh well. Barring something unusual, if you respond to this post, I will not reciprocate as this looks like our ships will continue to miss each other by quite a few miles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"No Homers" under any title[edit]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit! Thank you for the kind, lengthy explanation regarding the deletion of the No Homers Club article. I understand the current lack of in-depth coverage regarding NoHomers in 3rd party sources not related to The Simpsons, and we'll quickly remedy that issue. ;-) I won't go into the ridiculous amount of time I took to dig up all of the new references to the community & add them to the article (I even learned how to rip audio commentary tracks from DVDs this morning, ha). Our community was taken aback by the deletion (we didn't notice the deletion request until after the decision was rendered), since the article had existed on Wikipedia since 2005 I believe, and had survived prior deletion requests. So I'm sure you can understand our confusion. Just out of curiosity, have the general notability guidelines on Wikipedia changed in recent months/years, or do you consider it a mistake for the No Homers Club to have had its own, separate article for approximately eight years? Thanks for your time! --Ericwirtanen (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ericwirtanen: Hey again Eric. No, there's no change to notability. I don't have sufficient information to make any assessment to know whether pursuing a better version would be a mistake, or rather, whether an article is feasible at this time, because I don't know what new sources you have found and furthermore, I was not a participant nor have I analyzed the deletion discussion in any depth. I am simply implementing the consensus found by others and the mandate of CSD G4. Since the article you posted had essentially the same content as the deleted article, it was simply a matter of noting that and therefore finding that the rule applied (though I do see now that you had added some sources), regardless of whether I would or would not agree with the result of the deletion discussion if I analyzed it.

Here's what I've done. I've massaged the page history to avoid the copyright problem of you working on content without the origin of the prior page history by doing a history merge, and I've userfied the article to a sandbox subpage in your user space at User:Ericwirtanen/The No Homers Club and added a template at the top that notes it's a sandbox. Work on the content there. When you think the article is ready to go "live" again, you can then move it back to the mainspace (or you could drop a note on my talk page here and I'll move it for you). Or you could click the submit button marked "click here" in the sandbox template and that would submit it for review through the articles for creation process.

A few technical matters to note about working on this while it's not in the article mainspace:

 • No fair use images may be used outside of the mainspace, so don't waste any time uploading any new images or re-uploading any that are deleted in the interim until it's ready to go live (they will just be deleted again), and don't remove the nowiki tags (<nowiki> ... </nowiki>) I've placed around the existing markup for the images that still exist, since they must not display while it's outside the mainspace.

 • I've also places nowiki tags around the categories, since they should also not display outside the mainspace. Likewise, leave those in until the article is ready to go live again.

 • Do not add or re-add any links in any other articles to the sandbox. Wait until after the article is live again. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Oh wow, thanks so much for your time and assistance. Much appreciated. When/if in the future the article is ready to go live on the page again, I'll have the user who verified the original "" page deletion and one or two other regular editors such as yourself preview the new article & verify that the article fulfills the notability requirements. Obviously I can't control another editor here from attempting to re-add it, but I'll post a message on our forums saying to hold off for the time being. Thank you and take care. --Ericwirtanen (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anytime Eric. Please do drop me a note when you're ready to go live and I'll take a look.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hasty[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Hasty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - MrX 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Course Enrollment[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit- I notice you recently "enrolled" my course HNRS 1035:Natural Disturbances and Society. Is this an error? -- B.J.Carmichael (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@B.J.Carmichael: Hi B.J. Yes it was indeed an error. I had never noticed the "my courses" link in preferences and was just checking out the area. It is near a perfect violation of the principle of least astonishment that when looking at the course list, clicking on one does not take you to some type of overview page about the course but enrolls you in the course. Nor, after looking now, is there any clear way to un-enroll oneself. Methinks a bit of tweaking to the interface might be in order. Meanwhile, I see in permissions that you are a course campus volunteer and course instructor. If that gives you the ability to remove me, please do so:-) If not, can you point me to the method for doing so? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit:Hello Fuhghettaboutit- The courses are part of the Wikipedia Education Program and have been a fantastic method for collaboration among my students and Wikipedia editors. If any of the topics interest you in editing/suggestions for edits, we certainly welcome them. I was able to remove you from course enrollment and will pass this interface issue on. Best Wishes! -- B.J.Carmichael (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks B.J. If you need any help with a specific issue, or admin intervention, please feel free to drop me a line.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review request[edit]

At Talk:Call screener, I'd like your take on the recent restoral from redirect to article. You were an involved editor in 2006. --Lexein (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lexein. I'll take a look now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist & ref! --Lexein (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you're not busy, my next request is for review of User:Lexein/WIPHSCJ. I've asked at the deleting admin's page, too. Your thoughts are very welcome at User talk:Lexein/WIPHSCJ#Ready?. It's huge, so no problem if no time. --Lexein (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at EvergreenFir's talk page.
Message added 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Replied to you Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Acharya Tulsi:[edit]

I am surprised to note deletion of the article on Acharya Tulsi. He was one of the most prominent of the Jain acharyas of 20th century. Please see Mahāprajña for context.


  • "600 PLEDGE HIGH ETHICS; New Religious Leader in India Effects One-Year Conversion, May 2, 1950, THE NEW YORK TIMES. May 2, 1950
  • "Biggest Free Election in History" The New York Times Magazine, February 24, 1957
  • Jainism: A Pictorial Guide to the Religion of Non-violence edited by Kurt Titze, Klaus Bruhn, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1998, p. 144
  • Faith & Philosophy of Jainism By Arun Kumar Jain, Gyan Publishing House, 2009, p. 146
  • Selected Speeches of Dr. D. Swaminadhan, By Dr. Devarakonda Swaminadhan, Selected Speeches of Dr. D. Swaminadhan, By Dr. Devarakonda Swaminadhan, p. 303

Malaiya (talk)

Acharya Tulsi[edit]

I've replied here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for the note Jim. I see no need to respond further and still have no idea why I was copied on the thread above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I looked at the history, and you have never edited it, so not even guilt by association! Although this has a long history, it's been spammy for virtually the whole time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more wrong namespace pages[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for the answer at Teahouse. I did some more searches and found some more. If you can check and move appropriately Wikipedia:John Rollin Ridge, "The Life and Adventures of Joaquin Murrieta" (Article), Wikipedia:Lists of Pittsburgh Performing Arts Companies and Venues, Wikipedia:Emil Ruder, Wikipedia talk:Elaine Lustig Cohen (this needs to go to AfC, but only admin can move), Wikipedia:Ernest T. Collins. I think there are many more such misplaced pages and I can keep on finding them by looking at the Move Log. Is there any general noticeboard or some sort to report these? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Vigyani: Oh man. What a mess. Some of them were sandboxes and then merges without copyright attribution, so I can only redirect them. Some are educational assignments and have links back to the program so I've also just redirected and so on. I did one history merge, and deleted the last as a copyright violation. Thanks for the finding these. They have me tearing my hair out though. And part of the problem is it's very hard to explain to the people involved; to leave cogent and concise notes for them because the issues involved in variously botched merges, split page histories (with overlapping edits), redirects, wrong namespace moves, and the copyright implications of them all, etc. are not easily and comprehensibly encapsulated. If you keep finding them I'll keep cleaning up since I'm a masochist:-) No, I know of no central location, other than possibly just making a list and going over to WP:AN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Out with the old...[edit]

For 2014: Wishing you a Healthy, Happy and Fulfilling NEW YEAR! Shir-El too 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC) (image: NASA Mars Rover, sunset)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for removing help me after accidentally logging off before hitting the "Save Page" button. Your idea of turning setting things up so the the button is green when I am logged on is pretty cool. Thanks for giving me that code. I have just one question: Could I have done the the things you did to hide my IP address on my own? --Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anytime! No, only administrators can delete pages or revisions of pages.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible review schedule.[edit]

Hello User:Fughettaoutit; Your user page indicates a good background in FA and GA article reviews. My present thoughts are to nominate an FA review in medicine, do you have any possible interest? BillMoyers (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


Re this, it's not biting, and when s/he gets blocked for trolling I'll do my best to refrain from saying I told you so.

Common sense is a good thing.

— The Potato Hose 20:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@The Potato Hose: Can you imagine a person at a college being assigned such a study (or conceiving of such a study if told to come up with a project for an open assignment), as represented by the person in their post? I can. There's nothing here that on its face indicates this person is a troll. Nevertheless, your edit summary and your headline upon hatting the discussion stated there was, and explicitly pointed to the user's edit history as showing the same when it is actually a complete cipher, their post at the help desk being their only edit other than creating their user and user talk pages. Is it possible this person is a troll? Yes. Is that even unlikely? No. All beside the point. If that came to pass, they were blocked, and you said to me "I told you so", I'd respond with something like "you can't tell me I 'told you so', because I never claimed they were not a troll. Rather, I claimed that we should never bite people because we have a feeling about something but no evidence". Of course it's biting to shut down a discussion with a headline "Obviously one of the JW-obsessed trolls..." Calling anyone a troll, in advance of actual trollish conduct, is biting. Do you see the element of time here? The point is that even if they turn out to be a troll, your feeling having panning out, it still would have been biting when made, because at the time you did not have the evidence to make that assessment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, let's check our common sense at the door. — The Potato Hose 22:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't waste my breath further. That, and a bit of confirmation by looking at past discussion by others with you, tells me everything I need to know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It's obviously Technoquat. Why pretend otherwise? AGF is not a suicide pact. — The Potato Hose 02:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I also suspected Technoquat who has often trolled the help desk and often created a one-line non-personal user page for a new sock like [2] and [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be but we cannot chill conversation without evidence or profound positive duck test, with the person who is acting raising neither and falsely claiming there is something in a past edit history and pointing to that as there only basis when there was nothing there at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Beaver Cleaver[edit]

WP:STAGENAME doesn't apply to fictional characters because it's also part of WP:NCP, which goes to only real-life people. --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

George, read my close again. It says "applicable by analogy". What do you think that referred to? You might also read BDD's comment in the discussion. We deal with concepts, rationales behind policy and guideline, which are not hidebound rules of statutory construction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

TP 05[edit]

I thank you for the copy edit and reinstating the poster.--WillC 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For help on my talk page. Thank you. Mr RD 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks re: Accounting[edit]

Thanks for helping with the page move! -Well-restedTalk 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Royal Docks Business School[edit]

Hi, you deleted my page which was under review for the 'Royal Docks Business School'. Could you please un-delete it please so I can continue to edit it. I have put a lot of work into it, and I cant find my work anywhere, it just says 'this page has been deleted' :(

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by S naylor89 (talkcontribs)

Hi S naylor89. The deletion log entry is here As you can see, the basis for the deletion was that it was copyright infringement of previously written material. In short, you may not take copyrighted content written by others and copy and paste it here. Copyright infringement is a serious legal issue and we do not undelete infringing content. I will, however, provide you with the skeleton of the draft article (see below) for you to take and work from, including the lead which doesn't appear to have been copied and pasted, and the lists. I will provide all the citations you used. You can recreate the draft using that as the structure, but you must this time write it in your own words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Lego: The Hobbit[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit! My concern is that there doesn't seem to be another proper title other than the one with the parenthetical disambiguator (i.e. Lego The Hobbit (video game)). Lego The Hobbit already redirects to Middle-earth Lego sets ("Lego The Hobbit" is a Lego theme set and is one of the main subjects of the article). Likewise, Lego: The Hobbit seems inappropriate because of the potential for confusion. – Zntrip 02:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Zntrip: Hey again Zntrip! Since there's no article on the Lego set, only a list which includes it, our normal naming scheme would have both video game articles at their undisambiguated titles: the redirect at Lego The Hobbit should either be where the video game resides (i.e. moved there over the redirect), or redirect to Lego: The Hobbit if the article is moved there – and everything should have hatnotes. Even if there were confusingly named titles, the video games would be the primary topics based on traffic statistics (e.g., there were 47,000 views of Lego The Lord of the Rings (video game) in the last 90 days, and only 14,000 views for Middle-earth Lego sets in the last 90 days), and of the views of the middle earth Lego set article, only some portion were looking for the set on the Hobbit and some other portion on the LOTR, rather than the video games, given that it covers both sets. But, there aren't even any confusingly named articles.

Think about it another way: A person searching for the article on the video game is much more likely to find what they are looking for if it is at the direct name they type in (no one searching will ever type in ("video game)"). On the other side, a person searching for the Lego set itself, which has no stand-alone article, and who lands at the video game article, will see the hatnote on it referring them to Middle-earth Lego sets. But there will be far more people misdirected with the current titles, than if they were at direct names. I'll go take care of the moves, hatnotes and dabs. I have a great deal of experience with article naming issues and disambiguation but if you think I'm wrong on all this, don't hesitate to say so. We can always seek consensus through a requested move. If you feel strongly about it but are not familiar with that process, I'd be glad to initiate it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, even though I think it should be otherwise as above, it's just not that big an issue, especially where the video game on the hobbit is a basic stub. I have lots of things to do, so I'm going to simply take care of the request as you originally placed it; it's too minor to argue about and spend a lot of energy on:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for being so accommodating and taking care of it, much appreciated. :) – Zntrip 21:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion?[edit]

Hi, I would like to start a WP:CfD for the basis of discussion. But there doesn't seem to exist a header template for discussion. CfD has for a long time stood for "Categories for discussion" but I can't for the life of me figure out how to start a discussion since there isn't any template to do so as a tag on a category page.

Please help! -- Kendrick7talk 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Hey Kendrick. It always helps if you provide the specifics of what brought you here – what page this regards and what you wished to discuss about it – but I **think** I know what you're getting at. Let me restate your question and see if I'm on the right track.

There's some (unspecific) category that you wish to have a discussion about but it's not deletion you're seeking but some other intent of discussion, but the instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO for discussion only provide {{Cfd}} as the way to list, and that template defaults to the message "this category is being considered for deletion" i.e., there no listing template option that provides something like "this category is being discussed at Categories for Discussion"

If I'm right that this is the issue, CfD is not geared toward generalized discussion of categories. That's for the talk page of the category or some other forum. CfD, rather, is specifically for categories (and stubs templates) that a person is seeking to discuss the deletion of, merging of, renaming of (and less frequently its splitting or its conversion into an article). Since these are the targeted options, the templates set up to list discussions only provide those five options. What is confusing is that the HOWTO instructions say " • For discussion", when they really should say " • For deletion" before referring people to the {{cfd}} template. Does that answer your question?

Note that if you think the category really should be discussed there, I would go ahead and just list it, even if the CfD template is off target. It will still alert people to where the discussion is being held and there you can frame the discussion, what you're looking to accomplish, however you see fit. Wikipedia should not be seen as a bureaucracy where you can't shape things to fit your needs.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, OK, and I thank you for hearing me out, and I am willing to hear whatever through-way you might suggest. My issue is with a CFD discussion from May of 2011[4] which concluded, essentially, purge but keep. Which I think is somewhat absurd -- how is insisting that a category be purged any different from deletion? The nominator didn't ask for a purge, most of the #votes didn't either. The closing admin didn't bother to take it upon himself to conduct such a purge, and so essentially nothing changed. Or at least as far as I can tell -- trying to reverse engineer a purging of a category ends up being rather difficult unless you know exactly which users are involved.
Still, I would generally consider as moot a closure that everyone involved just shrugged their shoulders at and moved on.
But, fast forward to August of 2013, and a small group of editors decided to follow up on the 2+ year old CFD and delete any and all people and organizations who might otherwise properly belong in Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States (see the talk page).
And I'm told I can't take the May 2011 closure to WP:DRV because it's been almost 3 years already, but I'm starting to think that's a disingenuous complaint given the CFD was widely ignored. Within 48 hours of the attempted purge, I vocally complained that it had no real consensus, and I've been fighting with 2 or 3 editors who don't recognize WP:BURO as legitimate guiding principle of the project ever since.
What I would like particularly to do is relist the categories caught up in this witch-hunt (the irony isn't lost on me) which pertain to theology and not racism, sexism, etc. -- Kendrick7talk 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kendrick7: My understanding of the close, having just read it, is that it was not purge until they are empty and keep (which would be akin to deletion), as your characterization of it implies, but purge individuals and organizations from the categories and leave everything else. Admittedly, that likely results in a purge of the bulk of articles in some of them, and maybe all of the articles in a few, but certainly not all articles in all. (Randomly I looked at homophobia, which still has 48 pages in it without any individuals or organizations). Anyway, this is tailor made for a Request for Comment, and the same was actually suggested to you on the talk page by Obiwankenobi, though you might not have known what was referred to. I would think it would be much better way to tackle this than a new CfD on the same categories as in the prior – especially since it appears you are focused on one class of categories involved rather than all. One mistake often made in RfCs is not wording the opening statement neutrally (failing to do so taints the discussion). You'll get to argue your case, but do so after the statement. You might use something like:

Should Category:Opposition to religion and its subcategories follow the close announced at this Categories for Discussion debate, which in sum and substance, found that the categories included should be emptied of articles that are about individuals and organizations?

My other advice is to stay calm and rationale. Make your logical case with examples for why it should be X, and not Y, because of Z. You can be passionate about your position but you get nothing out of name calling, accusations of bad faith and so on. To wit, it's far more effective to say "removing individuals and organizations in Category:Opposition to religion is a problem for the following eight reasons..." and "Unlike the other categories the CfD was concerned with, opposition to religion categories are different because..." and so on, than to ever brand those who are carrying out the removal as being "on a witch hunt". Saying this does not advance your position one bit because it's pure characterization that does not address substance. (It also often has the opposite of the intended effect, turning away people who might have been swayed.)

By the way, I was wondering what brought you to my talk page. I ask this purely out of curiosity; you asking me this here is absolutely welcome. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you approve my script?[edit]

I'm sure you remember the forced change to AJAX search suggestions. In order to give non-coders a way to disable this annoying feature, I proposed a gadget a month ago and made corrections a few days later. The code is currently on the proposal page but I can move it somewhere else if needed.

At least one admin has looked at it but did not leave a comment, positive or negative. If you are able to add this as a gadget, I would greatly appreciate it. Connor Behan (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Connor. At the discussion I was provided with the following code to add to my common.css to turn it off, which works perfectly:
.suggestions { max-height: 0; overflow: hidden; }
Your code does the same thing? Anyway, I think we should have such a thing as a gadget – thanks for following-up on this – but I could not be the person to add it (though I will go support it), because I am incompetent from a technical standpoint to know whether the code you provided is the proper code, and this needs to be vetted by someone who understands it. Were the tech gurus to pass off on it, I wouldn't even know how to add it as a gadget to the interface .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I like this better than the CSS way because it actually stops the suggestion code from running. On slow computers, I noticed a lag if I hid the suggestions and typed in the search bar. Connor Behan (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I just got this added as a gadget FYI. Connor Behan (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Hi, you deleted my page which was under review for the reason Copyright violation in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rosen Chilikov. I can explain this misunderstanding. This biography of Rosen Chilikov a.k.a. DJ Wonder is my own work. A friend of mine who is a DJ has used a part of it with my permission to provide an info about several DJs in his event here: Could you please un-delete it because I've been working for a long time on it and I don't have a copy of the article, so it would take me a lot of time to try to recover it. I could ask my friend to remove this DJ Wonder's bio from his profile in residentadvisor site if this will help resolve the problem? I would appreciate if you help me. Baduizm (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Baduizm: Hey Baduizm. Okay so this gets a bit complicated (as copyright issues often are). Bear with me. I understand you are asserting this is text you wrote. Here's the issue. It's not that I don't believe you but we must have a verifiable release of copyrighted material; anyone can claim anonymously that they own copyrighted content and have the right to release it.

The second part you must understand is that we cannot use non-freely licensed copyrighted content by permission of its owner for our use. Instead, we require that any copyrighted material we use here (other than short attributed quotes in quotation marks under fair use) is released to the world under a free copyright license compatible with the copyright licenses our content bears.

So, what can you do?

Taking down the material from the website does not release your copyright nor does it change its status as previously written material. Don't do that. Instead, post the release at the external site. That will provide suitable verification of ownership of the content. So, what we would expect to see is just below the entry on the external site, the following message:

The text above about DJ Wonder is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Note the links, which should be made links there using HTML or whatever language the webpage page is written in.

Once you do that, and drop me a message here, I will undelete the draft. Note that the message to post there could be instead a release into the public domain, as follows:

The text above about DJ Wonder is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0).
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! Thank you for your advise. I think I understand what I have to do except for the part with making links active in the external site. I'm not familiar with html or any other language but I think that you can't make modifications in sites except if the site is yours and you have access and rights to make changes? I'm not sure how to make these link active in that site. And there is another thing - that external site is about submitting music events and because this event is past the system doesn't allow me to update it... Maybe you could help me with more information? Baduizm (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Antrim Forum[edit]

I cannot believe you deleted my Antrim Forum article. You are way out of line. It was an Olympic style Evangp (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Olympic style centers deserve their own article and you should know that. I don't mean to be rude. but I think you did it as a power type thing. Evangp (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's what it was. It has nothing to do with the fact that this was recently deleted after community consensus at a deletion discussion at which you participated, or that there are no reliable secondary sources unconnected with the center that treat the topic in any detail – the wellspring for establishing a topic's notability and verification of content. I'm sure I would have deleted it even if you had cited to substantive articles in the The Irish Times and the Irish Independent rather than Antrim's own press release about themselves because that's just how I get my thrills.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my remarks, but can you do me a favor? Can you help find something about the Antrim Forum that will make it clearly notable enough for its own article. I thought the Olympic thing was icing on the cake, but apparently that wasn't enough. Your help would be extremely appreciated. Evangp (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. The worst thing about this is that Google News (archive), which is such a key resource, has been useless for the past few months and will continue to be for some time while Google apparently is completely restructuring it. I often find reliable sources there when I can't anywhere else. Please realize that no amount of good writing can make a non-notable topic notable, nor does citing many unreliable or non-independent sources, and that notability, as we use that word here is not about importance or worth but simply about whether the world has taken note of a topic by writing about it substantively in reliable sources, which is what information in articles must be based on. Sometimes a topic just has not been written about enough in sources to sustain an article, and sometimes a topic is too new to have such treatment now but may in the future. I'll go take a look and report back (maybe tomorrow). Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Evangp: Okay, so I don't know that notability can be sustained at this time (and note what I said above about Google News archive; check it when it comes back on line in a few months), but I have found some local newspaper coverage that goes a bit beyond X played there, and Y played there and so on (which sources are mostly useless; not coverage of the place itself). See articles like this at the Antrim Times and this search of it. By the way, don't use naked links as your sourcing, as the article had before. For the newspaper article above, for example, a good citation form would be:

<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Antrim Times|title=Funding puts spring into Antrim Forum|url=|date=February 23, 2009}}</ref>

I haven't studied these results to see that they go beyond "X/Y/Z played at Antrim Forum" and other passing mentions, but see also:

It may be that almost all of the articles found in these searches are just passing mention but some may not be. I suggest, if you are going to pursue writing an article that sticks, that you do this at a user subpage such as at User:Evangp/Antrim Forum where you can work on it essentially at your leisure, until you're ready to 'go live' by moving the page to the mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for taking the time to help. It seems you've found a lot of good references. As you can see I've started the article here, User:Evangp/Antrim Forum. I didn't add any content, but added in 2 references. Evangp (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're really bored feel free it edit it. Evangp (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with my ISBN . . .[edit]

I have made note of the successful format that you used. I'm happy to know it--this has been a pesky problem. Many thanks! EMP (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Early morning person: Hey EMP. I went to WorldCat to find the isbn then used the isbn converter to format the isbn-13 found there. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Article move[edit]

Can you help me move the page Turn Down For What to Turn Down for What? It's a very minor move and does not really conflict besides using a lowercase 'f'. Guest (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. No problem; already done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the valuable help you are giving at the teahouse. I've seen your contributions a number of times (and I don't visit that often). Keep up the brilliant work. Have a great day, my friendCaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey CPD! Glad that post about newspaper sources helped and much thanks for the kind words (and the fried chickpeas of course). Feel free to stop by anytime if I can lend a hand or for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Some falafel for you![edit]

Falafel award.png Hey! What you need is some food (healthy, of course) after helping so many Wikipedians! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome pack[edit]

I just asked about this in the Tea House so I guess this is where you've come from. It is much appreciated and I'll take time to study it all. It looks just what I had in mind.

Btw, your name is great – even better than mine! :-)

Thank you again. Gnorman Gnome (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome template[edit]

I noticed that you added a Welcoming template with introduction and Wikipedia resource/help table with Wikipedia resource links on User talk:Gnorman Gnome.
Can you direct me to the Wikipedia Welcoming committee project page or another Wikipedia page that has this specific template (and indicate its displayed name).Wondering55 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Wondering55: Hey Wondering55. Note that many substituted templates (including the one I used here) can be identified by clicking edit page where you see it placed and looking at the end of the template's code. There you will often see a commented out note identifying what template placed the content, in the form <!--Template:Name-->. The template here was {{Welcomeg}}. For the committee see intuitively enough, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee; for a list of templates see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates and Category:Welcome templates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)\
Thanks. See my proposal for updating the template. Wondering55 (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Thanks for aligning my blue books, I would like to give you the honor of signing my guest book first. *trumpet sounds* :-) Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sign my GuestBook[edit]

Can you please sign my GuestBook, I would like to give yo the onor of signing it first. *trumpet sounds* *carpet rolls* (red) :-) Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Andrei! I am not for deletion or banning of them as some editors are but I don't sign guestbooks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not excessively myspacey, it's just for fun and to keep record of those who visited, like a book a guard might use to keep track of persons entering some sort of building.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Also note that I didn't give you a barnstar, it's just wikilove (as the Wikipedia community calls it).Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Template refref[edit]

I saw the template {{refref}} used on a Help Desk page. It contains "</references>, which is backwards. It should be "<references/>. Since you were involved with the documentation of the template, I figure you'd know how to correct this.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it myself. I should have tried "edit" but I didn't expect to be able to edit a template myself. I was assuming that was just the documentation.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: Thanks! Some mild dyslexia I suppose while I worked on the hellish code to get it all aligned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

NetDev Ltd[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, firstly thank you for informing why the page was deleted. However can we please have it re-instated with the suggested line of text confirming we are happy to have that text used on Wikipedia? Thanks LaurenceLaurence Drum (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Laurence. Assuming you own the copyright, as your post implies, in order for us to use that text you would have to go through a verifiable procedure showing you have the authority over the copyright, and would need to give up almost all rights to your copyright – you would have to release the material under a free copyright license that allows anyone to reuse and take and modify your content (even for commercial purposes) with the only right retained being attribution. For how that can be done, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We cannot use non-free copyrighted text by permission for use here, it must be released to the world.

However, you really should not spend your valuable time doing so since the content was, in any event, unsuitable as the content of a Wikipedia article, and in fact, if it wasn't a copyright violation, it would have likely been deleted as blatant advertising once moved to the article mainspace. It also did not contain any citations to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the company, which is the lifeblood of articles. Wikipedia does not exist as an advertising medium and please note our conflict of interest guidelines which are applicable here in you seeking to write an article on your own company. Anyway, tone can be fixed; lack of sources can be fixed if they exist, and since this was a draft and not yet in the mainspace, I would undelete if the issue was not copyright, but since it is, it cannot be undeleted unless that release of the content is obtained.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Would it be easier for to start from fresh? Build everything again? Thanks. Laurence Laurence Drum (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Laurence Drum, Flat Out, Samwalton9: Yes, unless you are going to deal with the copyright issue, you should start anew. However, I can give you the skeleton of the draft, just click show below, and copy and you can use that so you don't have to start from absolute square one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. We will look to start afresh. Laurence Drum (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Antrim Forum[edit]

Do you think the Antrim Forum is ready to have its own article? Can you see if you can find anything that would make it notable? Evangp (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have this User:Evangp/Antrim Forum. Evangp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Why is this page template-protected? Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) keeps most speedy deletion templates at semi-protected. Eyesnore (pc) 04:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Eyesnore. You're right that the majority of db templates are semi'ed with of course full move protection (not that it matters who provided that protection, but most are not by the great user you named), so I'll follow suit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Creationism conversation at the teahouse.[edit]


I closed the thread at the teahouse, not because I disagreed with you (I don't), but because the conversation had veered off into a direction that wasn't appropriate for that board. Happy to discuss here or at the teahouse talk page if you think that action wasn't warranted. (And, btw, thanks for all the good work you do at the teahouse.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lesser Cartographies: Hey Lesser Cartographies. Thanks for the note and kind words. I can see why you closed it but at the same time I don't think you should have until it actually degenerated into the discussion that looked like it might happen (but would not have, at least from my prospective reply post). Although in another forum I might debunk that nonsense, here I would not have. Instead, I would have explained that a debate about that topic was beyond the scope of this board, and then I would have explained that even if he feels that way, past consensus on this topic has been forged in spades, provided some links to those discussions and some notes about Wikipedia operating by consensus, explained WP:FRINGE, and concluded with something along the lines that he could continue to disagree, but he would need to change the consensus first. That might have been information that forestalled future problems. Or maybe that would have been useless. I have really lost me taste for this type of debate. In my experience it is mostly an impossible task and a wasted effort to attempt to change the mind of most adherents of this and related matters with empirical facts, when the position they hold is something they must ignore a mountain of facts to hold in the first place. Anyway, it's done and I'm content to let it lie. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, you raise a good point, and I'll be a little slower on the trigger next time. Thanks for your forbearance. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The same editor is RMing Rudolf Wanderone yet again[edit]

Talk:Rudolf Wanderone#Name. <sigh>  — SMcCandlish ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜^)≼  10:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (radio host)[edit]

I was looking forward to answering that "It's becos I is Canadian!" complaint, but you got to it first. Just as well, perhaps, you were more polite than I would have been. JohnCD (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Damn, now I feel regret, that I can't munch some peanuts on the sidelines and watch your response. The funny thing about that nonsensical complaint is that in my experience most American's view citizens of other states with more bias (if any) than they feel toward Canadians, who in large numbers they view [insultingly and paternalistically] as our harmless, friendly neighbors that are sort of honorary Americans who pronounce "about" funny, that they mostly know only through Strange Brew and as the birthplace of a ton of popular actors and other media personalities.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

asserted to be non controversial- maybe not[edit]

re [5]

While the two external sources used have the abbreviated "St"; the first sentence in the organization's own home page [6] uses the full "Saint" in their name.

Whats the procedure?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Hey TRPoD. Well of course a requested move can be done to gain consensus (though I would not balk at moving it back if you think this is actually controversial), but I was implementing the request of a user by a db-move, and checked Google Books first to make sure it was the apparent common name before performing the move, which it did appear to be by quite a margin. The official name is often irrelevant in article titles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
yes, after deeper look, that is what I am seeing too. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Any templates transcluded at WP:CASC are not accessible to editing by anyone but administrators. Administrators (like you) can edit cascade-protected pages. Eyesnore (pc) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eyesnore: Hey Eyesnore. I am aware of cascading protection's function and who can and can't edit cascade protected pages. By process of elimination, I am guessing this is related to this recent post, but I don't understand what about it prompted your post – what about it made you think that I might not understand the bounds of cascading protection? Can you clarify? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote in Bigfoot[edit]

Hi. I see you restored a long quote in Bigfoot, but as far as I can see it falls foul of our copyright policy. It's not brief, and it's not "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea", either.[7] I've removed it. But I'm no copyright specialist; if you are, and know more about it, please feel free to restore it with a rationale. "Brief quotes" and "extensive quotes" are obviously debatable terms, but this quote, used in this way, feels extensive to me. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Hey Bishonen It is rather extensive so I won't return it though think it's a great quote that does provide context. But note that it is part of an entire book, and therefore is probably well within the bounds of fair use which looks to "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" ([8]), though as has been said, our take on fair use policy attempts to be stricter than the letter of the law because our goal is to have free content. You may, nevertheless, be interested to know that for educational purposes, the U.S. Senate report accompanying enacting of the statute quoted above recommended that a good test for the bounds of brevity, what could be used from a prose work, was "an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Przevalski's Nuthatch[edit]

Following your language request, I stumbled into your sandbox. I'm working up Eurasian Nuthatch at present, and I previously wrote Nuthatch. I have Harrap & Quinn Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers, and full access to the online version of Hoyo, Josep del; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi; Christie, David A (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. I also have JSTOR access through Wikipedia. Let me know if you need to see any of these Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Great, thanks for the offer! I may take you up on this. Once done translating, I am going to then do a verification/clarification/expansion check, and may need access, though I am still at the early stages; still looking at individual trees and haven't yet seen the forest. Most of Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers which the description section I translated relies on is blocked out in Google Books. It certainly would have been helpful to be able to see pages 148-150 of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the HBW is easy, so I'll post that anyway. If you would like Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers 148-150 , best to email me since I'll probably do that as an attachment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Thanks for the HBW Jim! I've used it already in the threats section (you probably saw from the context of my Wikipedia email to you that at that time I wasn't then aware you had sent it). Anyway, it's coming along and not too far from a move to the mainspace. I'll do a history merge when I do. (I'm just hoping no edits are made to the existing stub in the interim, or that will complicate matters.) The evolutionary material in the taxonomy section needs completing, as does the geography in the distribution section, but please feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't seem to have received an email from you at all, not sure what's happened there. Can you try again, and perhaps ping me when you have done so in case it disappears into the ether again? Thanks, Jim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've sent a pdf of a scan of Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers 148-150 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Hello~ I just wanted to thank you for replying to my question in The Teahouse, and this is the way I came up with! :)

There's a ghost haunting you.~Ri_-_Writen by Ash~Ash (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Przevalski's Nuthatch[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, I'm really happy to see you are translating this article into English! It would be much more useful than the French version, but I'm not so good at the Shakespeare's language :) Thank you so! Please let me know if you find any missing data or mistakes. Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Replied at French talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Of Source[edit]

You've deleted my source for The source is a James Bond site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyliecoyote1990 (talkcontribs)

@Wyliecoyote1990: Hi Wyliecoyote1990. Yes, I did. And by doing that what I did was replace a user-generated content source, just like Wikipedia, with a secondary published newspaper article source. At the heart of all of our content policies and guidelines are sources; use of sources, types of sources, reliability of sources, how not to misuse sources and so on. See for a taste Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:verifiability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks i'll have a lookWyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Przevalski's Nuthatch[edit]

It's up to you if you want to use them, but at Eurasian Nuthatch, Taxonomy section, I've given cited derivations of "Sitta" and "nuthatch", and a sentence about the family Sittidae Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Hey Jim. Thanks for sending me the materials! It's posted. Love the etymology material at Eurasian Nuthatch and used it. Since I now see at WP:BIRDS that others have expressly offered to look at articles being shepherded towards FAC, I am going to shamelessy ping the group, scattershot: @Casliber, MeegsC, Sabine's Sunbird, Shyamal, SP-KP:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'll have a look after the Easter weekend too. I agree with Cas that taxonomy logically goes first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Jim, I just thought you'd like to know the email issue was definitely not on your end. It appears none of the emails I send through Wikipedia have worked for a while. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Wikipedia email not working when I send but works when others send to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a general problem at the moment, I've seen other comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fuhghettaboutit , thank you for your kind review of my DYK on Nancy Kelsey. Being a native New Yorker, I gotta say "love your name"! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your copyedits! Regarding your recent edit summary, the dates are supposed to be day/month/year per WP:STRONGNAT ("Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage."). As for US, the periods are extraneous, in my view, and I've seen both uses. I don't think it's an American vs. British difference. Again, thank you for your hard work on the article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: Ah, I had no idea there was a military variance to the U.S. convention. As to the copyedit, you're most welcome. It's probably best to simply revert my last edit, and then add back the copyedit changes (as you see fit). I am I think done for the night, but I'll visit the last two sections soon. I have an article at FAC right now, just below yours, so I just stumbled upon it out of proximity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries, that's why I posted here! I added most of your changes back; I left out "naval battle" -> "battleship" because C&R was arguing that the quality/quantity of light guns would determine the winner of a naval battle. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're a glutton for punishment[edit]

here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I suppose I am:-) (Actually, as I'm sure you'd guess this was more than one day's work. I had started this some time back and was doing it offline, in parallel with Przevalski's; it still needs some work.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhgettaboutit![edit]

Hi User_talk:Fuhgettaboutit! I want to thank you for the edits that you made to my submitted article about Zena Rommett I hope that this works. If you could, please let me know that you received this message. Thanks! Wayner27 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wayner27: Anytime Wayne. The article was not as gushing as I thought as the stuff I removed was in the beginning and I hadn't looked much further and I saw you removed the genius material, but it still reads a bit promotional; you might want to have a second go at trying to make it more neutral and removing any hint of peacock language. BTW, I'm letting you know through a ping, which you can use to. Just linking a person's user name will have the same result as brought you here, but you can also use various templates such as the one I used here, {{tping}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhgettaboutit! I removed "world-renowned" from the introductory paragraph. I restructured the sentence about beautiful lines. I removed the part about "dream of being a dancer." Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it! Wayner27 (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Przevalski's Nuthatch[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Beautiful Nuthatch[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse![edit]

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thanks so much for the fantastic answer!
WooHoo!Talk to me! 22:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Editwarring at Snooker[edit]

Someone has for a year, with no consensus and refusing to discuss to gain consensus, been engaged in a campaign to remove pronunciation material from this article or at least from its lead. Two of us have reverted him on it recently and demanded discussion, and opened a thread for it, but he just persists. Should this be an ANI matter, or...?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Yes, but probably premature right now. The discussion on the talk page (which I've just added to) is recent and is a fine way to gain consensus. If he reverts yet again, I think a note to his talk page asking him politely to revert himself based on that talk page discussion (and the fact that multiple editors have seen fit to revert him) would be the way to go first; advise him to please respect the consensus or discuss the matter to change the consensus. If that gets stop-gap gets no response then a visit to Wikipedia:AN/EW would appear ripe.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy on the nuthatch[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I see you reversed so of the changes I made on Przevalski's Nuthatch, and although I'd argue that all my changes were improvements (of course, I'm simply perfect), some of the reverses could stand to be clarified for readers. Reading "the area above the head" I understand that area to be sky unless the bird is upside down or wearing a hat, yet you include the forehead here - perhaps you mean the area above the eyes? Equally the belly is always below the throat in normal orientation (though the "Below," might be a mere flourish it is a confusing one). Blackish-gray is not a colour as black does not come in shades: it can be black or dark gray or a combination of black and gray. Belle (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bellemora: Hey Belle. Fair point as to "above the head" (fixed). "Below" could be snipped but the very occasional segue helps flow and it seems perfectly clear what it refers to when the last sentence ends with a description of the "cheeks and throat". As for blackish-gray, when a color ends in ish alone, it means a hue of that color, but any color appended with "ish" and hyphenated to another color means the second color is predominant but tinged with the former, i.e., reddish-blue means blue tinged with red (not a shade of red). "Blackish-gray" thus does not refer to a shade of black but gray tinged with black, or "gray (almost black)". It is also the actual color formulation described in the source, and is often used when describing feather coloration, as you'll see by following the Google Books link provided earlier in this paragraph.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. I'm prepared to let the "below" slide (kiss my hand in gratitude for my magnanimity if you like. I said kiss, not lick. Eurrgggh) as at least you don't say "down below" which could have a completely different interpretation (in my grandmother's circle anyway). The blackish-gray I think is wrong because black can't tinge the gray, not because I think it is trying to say the grey is a hue of black, but if it used commonly in the literature I suppose birdy people know what it means. I'm still not clear whether this just means, as I suspect, dark gray, or black, a transition from gray to black, gray with black flecks or e)none of the above. Anyway, not worth arguing over when I can apply myself to the lotts of articel in dier need of my righting skils. Belle (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse edit notice[edit]

Hi there, would you be wiling to add an edit notice to Teahouse Questions? The reason I ask is that I just spent ages trying to figure out why we lost a whole bunch of questions and it turns out somebody (probably accidentally) deleted the crucial ">" at the end of the current "header". I've fixed it now but to avoid the same problem in future I think it would be better if we had an edit notice instead of a marked up comment suggesting use of the "Ask a Question" button. I don't have the requisite permission to do what's necessary. Best,  Philg88 talk 06:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Philg88, for fixing the problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: You're welcome.  Philg88 talk 06:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@Philg88, Cullen328: Of course, but looking at the setup I'm not sure what would be workable. Do you have a suggestion for it? The existing page notice is here and already advises users: "To add a question please use the "Ask a Question" button on the Teahouse Q&A Board."

It doesn't make sense to add below that "If you would like to ask your question manually, please type it directly underneath the dotted line below. Thanks! - Teahouse Hosts", because then we would need to keep in the dotted line in the editing interface, which would still need to be commented out, which would then still allow anyone to remove the end of the comment out markup, resulting in the same problem you recently fixed!

Okay, so instead we remove the dotted line entirely right, and the edit notice would say something like "If you would like to ask your question manually, please type it underneath the code that ends in {{TH question page}} and please skip a line. Thanks! - Teahouse Hosts", but then we would be in just as much danger of users messing with the code at the top of the page as we were with users messing with the end of the commented out markup (and probably in more danger of that, and of users not seeing any message at all, since edit notices are before the edit window and far less likely to be noticed than a comment directly in the text). So I'm not sure what we can do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, sorry for the delay in getting back to you (weekend away - tablet access only - grrr...). You are quite right that the problem can't be addressed by fiddling with the edit notice. As I'm used to editing by section, I forgot about the bot and template stuff in the page header. Short of disabling access to the "edit source/edit" options on the toolbar, there is no way to stop users accessing the raw source (which wouldn't be desirable anyway as it would also deny access for maintenance purposes). The only solution seems to be to keep an eye on the page history/number of questions and investigate any anomalies. Best,  Philg88 talk 06:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse Question[edit]

Hi. I had asked a question at the teahouse and you had given a reply . However, I could not answer, because of real life business. One example of such page is the ISS editing page. There is a notice at the top. Zince34' 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zince34: Hey Zince. After my initial response I stated that I thought you were referring to Editnotices, and that's what those are – in this case a page notice which is at Template:Editnotices/Page/International Space Station. If you click edit at your user page or talk page you'll see above the edit window a link for "Page notice"; that's where you can create one for there. You won't see those links in articles when you click edit because they're only visible to users who can edit them, and edit notices outside the user an user talk namespaces can only be edited by administrators, account creators, and template editors. If you wanted to suggest one for a page, see Wikipedia:Editnotice#How to request an editnotice if you are not an administrator. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm really busy these days, sorry for being late to respond. But that was helpful. I'll try it out. Thanks! Zince34' 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait,I did not see anything like that. Do you think it will appear only on vector? Zince34' 05:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Zince34: Yes, you're absolutely correct. I'm not sure what is going on, but I just logged in under my alternate account, clicked edit at my user and user talk pages, and do not see the page notice links (even in the awful Vector skin). It's probably something to do with some tweak they've made to the software, which might not even have been deliberate and needs fixing, or if it was deliberate, the help/how-to pages may simply have not yet caught up (we may even be the first to notice the issue). Either way, the description at Wikipedia:Editnotice is incorrect. This may mean that you can actually create a page notice at your user or user talk page, but you have to go through the arcana of figuring out that that those pages are at User:Zince34/Editnotice and User talk:Zince34/Editnotice, rather than having a displayed link to take you there (which is less than stellar).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, but do they need a code or something on the page for it to work ? Zince34' 04:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, that ping did not work on your last post. I did not get any notifications. Zince34' 04:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, I got it right! Thanks Forgetaboutit!(i'm sorry, you username is rather hard to read). Zince34' 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've changed my username to HgandVenus, don't bother my sign. Zince34' 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@HgandVenus: Did you get this ping? If not, is "Mention" ticked at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Got this one right. The other one did not work because of the username change. Thanks! Zince34' 08:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

Sit tight a sec, I need to fix some of your edits, in a couple places you separated material from the source even though the copyedit was an improvement. I was hasty with the first edit when I saw the opening paragraph of the background section was moved, I thought it was tossed. We should discuss if that change of placement is a good idea. I didn't realize you were an experienced editor, I thought you were one of the drivebys that we've had a little trouble with. Montanabw(talk) 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm done now, do continue, 90% of your changes were very useful and the ones I didn't keep at least raised some issues that I either addressed in a different way or will mull over about how to fix. The rearrangement of the background section freaked me out, sorry I overreacted a bit, we can discuss that change at talk; I'm not closed to improving that bit, but not sure if flipping the order was the solution - I may have to do some heavier lifting, possibly moving some of it down to the Derby section. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Fuhg is one of the very best admins on this site. Doc talk 03:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
And an invaluable Teahouse stalwart. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case, pleased to meet you Fuhg, and mea culpa, round two! I took a look at the paragraphs you flipped and realized that what was actually needed was for the paragraph you moved down to be moved to a completely different section. I do appreciate your copyedits - even the ones that I reverted and didn't restore flagged my attention to things that were not clearly written or confusing to the non-horse person. Feel free to trot back over there and continue fiddling with things; I'm very open to improvement and I very much want as many responsible eyes watchlisting it possible. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For all the rest of you who are Fuhg's talk page stalkers, be aware that this article, California Chrome is continually evolving and needs vandal patrol; the horse races in the 2014 Preakness Stakes on Saturday afternoon (post time about 6 pm Eastern Time Zone, which I think is -5 GMT or something like that) and I anticipate at least a few mean-spirited vandal hits like this one, plus the usual crap. The article needs to be treated like a BLP - the horse has quite a fan base now, plus his owners are previously not-famous, ordinary middle-class people with fairly sizable extended families who may be watching the article. It got 25,000 hits in roughly the 24 hours following the Derby. If he wins, Triple Crown fever is going to hit and I anticipate this article having even more traffic. I'm kind of spooked because I've not worked on an article with this kind of traffic before, and I am VERY concerned about "getting it right" per WP:BLP because I really feel for the people around this horse who are getting caught up in the maelstrom of publicity. It's probably fun at times, but it's also gotta suck at times. So thanks in advance to everyone. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw, Doc9871, Cullen328: Thanks Doc! Thanks Cullen!, awesome to hear that from people I respect greatly. Montana, sometimes when you don't just tweak text in place but move stuff around the diff view can be very hard to interpret, and so since I switched the paragraphs I see why it wasn't easy to see what I'd done. Everything's copacetic. The reason I swapped the two paragraphs and tweaked the second to inform the reader CC had won the KD was that the lead is stand alone from the rest of the article, so you can't introduce things as if the reader already has context from the lead. (Pretend you're writing two articles: an involved treatment below the lead, and its summary above.) By the way, if anyone wants to take a look, since I have your attention, I have a FAC at Przevalski's Nuthatch, at which comments are welcome (I am not asking for anyone's support, just the 'more eyes the better'). I have CC on my watchlist now, so I will be on the lookout for vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, another person who uses "copacetic."  ;-) Indeed! Montanabw(talk) 20:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Hey Fuhgs, would you care to take a glance at California Chrome for me? I just added more material to the article and am at that too-bleary-eyed-to-see-my own typos stage. Feel free to make any minor tweaks, post any comments about bigger stuff on the article talk page, and if you move anything, be SUPER careful that the source goes with it, this is a GA. Many thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix all the edit conflicts, in about 30 minutes I'll be gone from the computer for a while and you'll have a clear field. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Could use a second set of eyeballs on the Belmont Stakes sectio of the article; with daily news coverage, I'm getting bleary-eyed about what is worth mentioning and what is not. Some of what's in there now is useful as an update of an evolving news story and may well be tossed after the race, depending on the outcome, but for now seems useful. But I would value a second opinion! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just moved over 150 separate refs to WP:LDR format, which is the only way to keep them straight any more (caught a couple of duplicated ones in the process and fixed some deadlinks too.) I appreciate your copyediting eye on the article, my only suggestion is to be sure that any edits for clarity don't exceed what the source can verify. Loved spotting that the Irish Times was red-handedly cribbing phrasing from wikipedia about the opossum! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Stop me before I edit again! Damn horse is turning into a meme. Moved much of the trivia to its own section, "Other". Need your hidden comments and probably a large bucket of cold water thrown over my head. Seriously. Will probably take a large axe to the article after the Belmont, but in the meantime am trying to keep up with breaking news. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Лазурный поползень listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Лазурный поползень. Since you had some involvement with the Лазурный поползень redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gorobay (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I think that the best advice to the IP who suggests that Wikipedia be deleted is: "Do not feed the troll." Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If he was a troll, and you're right, he probably was, then telling him that would do great violence to that very message; you properly just wouldn't respond!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadith of loving and hating Ali[edit]

I'm going to recreate the page about "Hadith of loving and hating Ali". I would like to know why the previous page was deleted. Knowing this will help me with making a better article.Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein, Sandstein: Hey Mhhossein. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad. That will go some way toward telling you why it was deleted but let me interpret somewhat for you. The essential issues were lack of evidence of notability and use of original research in the writing. What you should do is find reliable sources and cite them for all content you add (do not copy and paste any text you find however, you must write the content in your own words). Sources are used to show both that the topic of the article is notable, as well as to verify the information content. In my opinion the best path to writing an article is to gather good sources first, digest them, and then let what they say guide your writing hand, rather than writing what you know and then trying to find sources for it. Sourcing is the key to the door of the Wikipedia kingdom; it is what all of our content policies are built upon, even if each addresses a different aspect of their meaning, application and use. I suggest creating the article through the articles for creation process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


I got your message stating fixing typos in other people's discussions. I now understand the guidelines for that. Thank you for notifying me. I would not do that again. Thanks, TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Przevalski's nuthatch to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thank you very much, BencherliteTalk 18:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


Rider coming off.jpg

Gettin' off a' yer high horse, pardner!

Congratulations! In recognition of fake-blocking and in lieu of trouting, you are hereby declared to be "getting off of your high horse." Enjoy the ride! Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Heeheeheeheehee


Chestnut pony with flaxen.jpg

Congratulations! For your help with California Chrome and for saving me from myself when editing became an obsession, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

DYK for Blue nuthatch[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 15 June 2014[edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I would just like to thank you for your edits to Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. I work on overview help pages alot and rarely do I see others doing the same. Again thank you very much!!! Moxy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey thanks Moxy! I've had a hand is many of our help pages, guidelines and policies because I think they're critical to the proper function of the encyclopedia and ultimately to the end of catching and retaining good editors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen you in edit histories before on those types of pages. I think we have gotten alot done on the article...a page written out like a real article was long over due. The plain and simple overview of Wikipedia and a primer for newcomers are great but are a bit overwhelming were pages like the intro and tutorial are a bit simple. Needed a parent article.--Moxy (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's shaping up very nicely (nice job!), and now mentions a lot of the major policies, guidelines, help pages and essays all folded into the prose in a fairly logical way. I was thinking the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be included somewhere, somehow, and see you just added it. I don't think the page should be much larger than it is now, though I did think the article section deserved a more comprehensive treatment than anything else. I am wondering if there is some way to move that higher on the page. Articles are at the heart of everything after all. I'm off to bed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
What if we moved "Articles" up to its own section (with sub section article creation) and rename "Areas of interest" to "Other areas of interest". Take a look now... moved it way up right after "Wiki Community" section -- Moxy (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota Fats Request[edit]

Hi, Fughettaboutit. I just wanted to make sure you saw my response on WP:RX in response to your question about Minnesota Fats. John M Baker (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion on Wikipedia email. Not clear to me why my outgoing emails from Wikipedia would be affected, just because I have a Yahoo Mail address, but apparently that's the case. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@John M Baker: Yep, not really clear to me either but the tech gurus have spoken; see also bug 64795 I really think there should be a site notice about this, and may request one; there must be thousands of users with Yahoo! email addresses and it's not a good thing that they learn there is a problem passively, by composing and sending emails and realizing it failed without knowing why, or never learning and continuing to blithely send emails while being fooled into thinking the person never responded.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 20:07, 21 June 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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Help desk / dog-cat relationship[edit]

I am not sure if you were notified of my response in the help desk area by either the help desk itself or the tping thing that I copied off of you. About the dog-cat relationship page. I figured to write here as a just in case. Your reply was informative & helpful. Thank you for that. Marc Bago (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit,

I appreciate your steady work over the years on the notability guideline for books. That does a lot to help get cruft off of Wikipedia and good content onto Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@WeijiBaikeBianji: Hey WeijiBaikeBianji! Thanks for noticing. Just so you know, even though I started that guideline and have maintained it, I no longer really believe in it or in any of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. That does not mean that I do or would buck consensus on them, but my personal view is that they should all be scrapped in favor of a simple and objective standard, essentially the GNG with an evidence standard: sufficient, reliable secondary sources treating a topic in detail either exist and can actually be located to evidence that existence, from which a verifiable article can be written, or they do not exist (or cannot be located), in which case Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. I have no plans to raise this anywhere, because fighting battles I cannot win is not my cup of tea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That's about where I come out as a general principle. Write an encyclopedia article about something if, and only if, there are professionally edited independent sources that allow a basis for an encyclopedic treatment of that topic. Wikipedia in recent years is often punked by people trying to use Wikipedia for publicity, advertising, or issue advocacy rather than scholarship. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Downcasing birds[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I've just seen the edit you made to List of birds of Canada and the United States, changing uppercase bird names to lowercase. I've done a few of these lists now using AWB—it took ages to set up but now that it's done I can do lists very quickly and with no typing! If you're au fait with AWB and want to use it too I can make the list available to you, or alternatively you can ping me if you feel tempted to do all that by hand again! (P.S. When I was a newbie back in 2008 you were probably the first user I had contact with. You edited my user page to fix my broken user boxes. Lovely to have occasion to interact again!) Julia\talk 17:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Julia W: Hey Julia! Fantastic you stuck around and became an admin no less. Course I can see from that earliest interaction at WP:NCHD you had the seeds of one – astute questions following your own digestion of policy/guideline. Sorry I never followed-up there after your response (not sure I saw it then). I've never used any tools to edit Wikipedia (other than search and replace and similar) and I don't think AWB is available to me as taking a quick look at the page I only see it provided as an executable (a .exe file) and I am on a mac (and I don't run Parallels or Wine or anything like that). I truly do appreciate the offer. Out of curiosity, is it able to do things like recognize, for example, that a bird's name is at the beginning of a paragraph or follows a period and not to downcase in such situations the first letter of say "Ptarmigan"? Or it it more like programmed to do a global search and replace, but you have to go back and fix its Turing-test-failing errors? Please do feel free to drop by for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It does lowercase bird names where they start sentences—that's its one failing! I haven't worked out yet how to get around that. It's why it works so well with the lists though, because there's not much text body for it to happen in. And when it does, just double-clicking reverts—no typing involved. I set it up so that <space>Tern becomes <space>tern. Because each new item at the start of a list follows a bracket for the wikilink, it's not after a space and therefore isn't de-capitalised. [[Crested Tern]] becomes [[Crested tern]]. The real time investment was creating the list with all the hundreds of possible bird names and descriptors. Now that's it's done the other hard part is all the broken links that result, but I'm slowly thinning those out too. I'm also on a Mac but my laptop is Windows so I run it from there.
No worries about not following up all that time ago; I think I've done that to a few myself! And I appreciate the compliment. :) I cringe if I look at my early interactions! Julia\talk 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Keesings access[edit]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. I took a whack at the article before running it up to FAC, another set of eyes on the recent changes might be wise. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry[edit]

Trident13 - undisclosed paid contributions?[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Sorry to bother you. It appears that Trident13 appears to have been editing for pay without disclosing it, along side his wonderful and wide work in many areas (railroads, motorcycles, etc). In response to a posting at COIN here with very clear evidence of paid editing, Trident didn't speak directly to the issue and instead pointed to a past interaction with you that he seems to take as blessing his undisclosed paid editing and countered with a charge of violation of AGF. It seems to me that Trident must start complying with the disclosure requirements of the new Terms of Use, and should, all along, have been following the guidance at WP:COI. But he is just not responding directly to the issues. Since no admins are responding at COIN and since you were directly cited, I wondered if you would be willing to weigh in at COIN. I hope you do not interpret this as canvassing; I am following up with you since you were directly cited by Trident as supporting what he is doing. My key interest here is that paid contributions be disclosed as per the ToU. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)