User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

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

TALK PAGE

ATT HD NC EAR HM AH AIV CSD NEW PER ESP RM VPR TSD AFD

????
/Release to us
/Welker Cochran
/Mingaud
Translation
Useful language dump
/sandbox
/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
Archive 16: 25 March 2014
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly
/Reisman
/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.

Contents

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 [1]

While the two external sources used have the abbreviated "St"; the first sentence in the organization's own home page [2] 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)

WP:CASC[edit]

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.[3] 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" ([4]), 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 http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/villains/teehee.php3 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)

Smile![edit]

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)

Thanks[edit]

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/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)

Chrome[edit]

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]

Information.svg

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)

Troll[edit]

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)

Typos[edit]

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)

Gotcha![edit]

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

PONY![edit]

Chestnut pony with flaxen.jpg

Pony!
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 64795http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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)

Chrome[edit]

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)

Credo[edit]

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)

7HO FM and Bob Cooke (DJ)[edit]

There seems to be a nasty personal feud going on here, with SPAs repeatedly posting grossly BLP-violating scandal and gossip. I have issued strong BLP warnings to four of them, and done extensive rev-deletions on both the articles and their talk pages, but it will be worth keeping an eye on them. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter[edit]

I wonder if you'd be interested in a quick unprotection/protection, just to clear the weird edit notice from Jimmy Carter. —Designate (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

Your support on Cal Chrome and related equestrian-themed commentary made me smile. Thanks for the support and the giggles! Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

:-) I assure you if I was clever enough to work "fetlock" into that last sentence at the support I would have. Great article, great working with you!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
heh, there's always Forelock. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Przewalskikleiber listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

I have asked for a discussion to address Przewalskikleiber and other redirects. Since you created these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. Gorobay (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse Video Clarification[edit]

Thanks for clarifying the policy as I didn't see anything in the citation information. So the content wasn't the issue, the linking to the vimeo video was, good to know! Jab843 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jab843: Anytime Jab. I've actually asked a user (just see my contribution) who is well known in the community as a copyright guru for some possible clarification as to my last paragraph. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Hi, I just want to confirm with you that you are copyediting the Falcon's Fury article from GOCE. Correct? Even if your not, thanks very much for helping me out!!! :)--Dom497 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: Hey Dom. Anytime. I did see the article listed as GOCE but I am not a member. I just randomly copyedit articles sometimes. BTW, I see you removed the "and" from this sentence, with the edit summary "makes no sense": "After testing the ground in the "Timbuktu" area (presently known as Pantopia[3]) "interesting soil conditions" were found, and it was determined that steel beams and concrete were needed in order to reinforce the site". It could use some work, but without that "and" it really doesn't make sense. Read it back to yourself both ways. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, with or without the "and" it still doesn't make sense. I've reworded the sentence. Sound better?--Dom497 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tapovan Express[edit]

Hello, i was creating a new article Tapovan Express. I noted from an automated warning that you had deleted a similar article in 2013 & that i am required to notify you that i am creating a new article with the same name as i am not entirely sure what the contents of the article were.

Thanks

Superfast1111 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: Hey Superfast1111. Nothing to worry about. That past version was deleted as drivel. Yours, as you know, is not, so it fell under "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue." While we're here though, the article needs inline citations to reliable sources, not general references. Moreover, these general references are not only not reliable, but it's quite unclear how they are "references" at all. A reference is a citation to a source from which the information in the text of an article can be verified. In what way is a photo of the train or a video of it passing a station references for anything you wrote? References are generally books, news articles, documentaries, magazine write-ups, etc. that contain information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

What makes you think "agree a ceasefire" is not valid British english? Stephen 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After seeing your post and looking in a few places I am intrigued that it's used at all – I did just think it was an error – but it's less common in British English as well (e.g., 43 vs. 437 articles in the Guardian) and rare in the larger world ([5] vs. [6] or [7]). So yes, I made an error in thinking it was flat out wrong. But, it was the right edit anyway, even if I would have left a different edit summary knowing what I know now. When confronted with an expression that would appear as just a mistake to a large portion of English speakers, and the "correction" is unexceptional to those in the variety of English where the outlier expression is used, the universally known is the far better alternative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agreed that it was a fair tweak. I was rather taken aback by the snarky edit summary. Best wishes, Stephen 22:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mohamed al-Zahawi[edit]

Thank you for looking into this. I have not come across this issue before. I accept part of the article was a copy-and-paste, which I can now see is a problem. I am still interested in knowing: 1) Did the copyrighted material include things like place of birth, and date of birth? I am surprised that a website can copyright someone's basic details by putting them on a website. 2) Why was the sourced material deleted? It was not from the same website and was sourced. Thank you Contributorzero (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey CZ. Regarding your first question, Information is not copyrighted – creative expression is. That in turns means means that the place and date of birth are not copyrighted but the makeup of specific sentences is. Every revision of the article contained that copyrighted text, and it was the bulk of the article. If you want, and enable your email, I can email you the part of the article that was not a copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I don't really understand about enabling email. Could you put the non-violation part on my talk page? (or even on a Mohamed al-Zahawi page?) Contributorzero (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much preferable to email it for copyright reasons; your content so you should post it. Just go to your preferences, scroll down to Email options at the bottom of the page, enter an email address, confirm it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse-2[edit]

Hello! We seem to share the same "shift" sometimes at the Teahouse. :) Since many of the questions are reoccurring all the time, I've started to compile a page with useful answers for newbies at the Teahouse. Bits and pieces from it can be included and combined in answers. I don't now if this is a good thing to do, but it's always easy to forget something otherwise. You are of course free to borrow/tweak/alter/whatever you like on that page if you want to. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: Hey Carter! Sorry for not getting back to you. I was away for a few days. Good idea to make a page with useful language to draw from. I often take parts of my answers from ones I've given in the past, tailoring them to the particulars. Please feel free to use any from my past responses (with copyright attribution in edit summary of course). At the help desk we made a whole series of templates (I created a number) but which I think is a step too far for the Teahouse, given its cultural prohibition against any type of canned responses. Nevertheless you might find some of the language in those templates useful to crib from for Teahouse responses (though there really is a sharp contrast between the types of questions that frequently recur as between the Teahouse and the help desk). I've bookmarked that page so I'll be aware as (and if) it grows. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I see you just fixed a formatting error of mine on today's Articles for deletion Log. I'm just writing to say thanks. I'm new here and am still trying to learn the ropes; good thing there's a net! Out of interest what was it that I did wrong and how can I make sure I don't do it again in future? I don't want to waste you time again! Nyctimene (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nyctimene: Hey Nyctimene. You're most welcome. No waste of time. Wikipedia can be complicated. I actually was posting my response to you at the Teahouse just about simultaneously with your note to me here, and I pinged you there so I assume you are probably reading that response to you at the same time I'm writing this message, where I explain the problem with your AfD nomination. If anything is not clear there, please feel free to follow-up there or here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the quick response! I think I understand what went wrong and will make sure to follow the instructions more carefully next time. Out of interest is this process easier using Twinkle? How would you go about nominating something using this gadget? Nyctimene (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike Twinkle and don't use it but many people do and it does automate nominations like this. AFAIK, with Twinkle, you would have pushed a singled button, it would have asked you for the deletion text, and it then would have done everything or almost everything for you, so yes, it would have been easier. There's documentation at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. The thing is, using tools like Twinkle hides the underlying mechanisms, which teach you how it all actually works – which translates to a deeper understanding that is useful elsewhere. I personally think that if everyone first learned to do various nominations, warnings, notifications, etc. manually, seeing how it all works, and only then taking up tools, problems would be avoided but don't let that stop you for a second:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Fuhghettaboutit and good point. At your suggestion I think I'll try to do it manually at least a couple more times before thinking about moving to Twinkle. Thanks again for all your help! Nyctimene (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
That was right decent of you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

THEN[edit]

hi sir,then would you like to upload this image for me please?and also your talk page is too large to watch.Jojolpa (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Did you take that photograph and is the website hosting it your own? Do you have any information that that photograph is not fully copyrighted? I see nothing on the website to indicate it is under a free copyright license or is in the public domain. Note that we assume images are fully copyrighted unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary – that is, if you find any random image out on the web and see no copyright information about it, you must assume it fully copyrighted and thus normally cannot use it. I say normally, because we do allow uploads of non-free images but: only if they meet our stringent fair use requirements. In this case, that image would not be able to meet fair use because it is eminently replaceable by anyone going to the location and snapping a photo they could upload under a free license.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Hey North! Thanks so much.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I sometimes despair[edit]

about AfC. I mean it's important and I wouldn't want to do it, but really, "We provide"? How can any reviewer leave that in, let alone not check for copyvio? It isn't difficult, but I've found too much copyvio in AfC articles to feel confident about the process. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yeah, it was very blatant. People who may be very competent at reviewing for sourcing, notability, etc., may nevertheless simply not think in terms of copyvios because they don't deal with the deletion side of things day in and day out. Since we have for years our radar is very sensitive. Think about what it means that at WP:REFUND we have to reject undeletion of g13'ed articles because they were copyvios all the time (we even created a template for it because it was needed), when almost all of those AfC drafts were previously reviewed, and often more than once. Given that, imagine how high the percentage must be for unreviewed AfC drafts. Maybe we should compile a list of active AfC reviewers and create a mass message? I'm going to think about proposed text.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. You might want to ask User:Moonriddengirl also. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Just thinking aloud:
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who are active in AfC reviews. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to ''you'' in particular.<p>The issue is copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when [[Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations|hallmarks of copyvios]] in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.<p>If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for you to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied ''from the draft'' rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the [https://archive.org/web/ Wayback Machine] is very useful for sussing that out.)<p>If you do find a copyright violation, please ''do not'' decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using <nowiki>{{db-g12|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}} If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with <nowiki>{{subst:copyvio|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}<p>Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]]; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.<p>Again, thank you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--~~~~
We'll need to add some 'hallmarks', tips on how to find copyvio. I wonder if there already is some guidance. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations. It doesn't mention using the Wayback Machine or Google's search by customised time, both of which I often use. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I do both as well. I don't think checking for backwards copyvios (i.e., the wayback machine's main use) is going to be needed much for AfC drafts and I don't want to scare off people with too much detail. I've added a bit and will expand and polish soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've tweaked it a bit. (I know all my nested nowikis look weird, but I've tested without saving on my own talk page.) I would definitely add a fictional example, including the "we." :) And I would consider making this an ask rather than from a position of authority - instead of "What I was hoping to impress on you is the take up the practice" maybe "I'd like to ask you to help resolve this problem, if you don't do so already, by performing a copyvio...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller, Moonriddengirl: Okay, I'm fairly satisfied with the text as of now. Thanks for helping! Any suggestions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks very much for this and apologies for not replying sooner. Dougweller (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Great. BTW, I'm used to slow motion conversations here; days not minutes. I only pinged you 24 minutes ago!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
WFM. :) And these days, "days" are generally what you get for me, try as I might to do otherwise. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note[edit]

Typo "covey" => convey, if you haven't sent them all already. All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Crap. That would be 461 typos then!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 Thanks for the note :)  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice reminder, it is appreciated. It will have some positive effect, I'm sure, but some will still slip through, I've caught myself rejecting drafts for other reasons before taking doing a CV check, and I've complained about the missed copyvios from other reviewers. I do think, and this is quite unpopular to say, that the Foundation needs to step up and put a few bucks into helping automate what is essentially an automated check performed by overworked volunteers when they feel like it. We have CorenBot, but its inability to search via Google causes it to miss more than half the copyvios it is exposed to, and *that* is a problem that can be solved with money, corporate relations, or both. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Joe Decker: That's interesting. I never new CorenBot didn't have Google access, just that it certainly was leaving a ton of them out there. The percentage of G11s that were also undiscovered copyvios is alarming. Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly but they inexplicably never ask my opinion when they dole out the budget.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Pity, they could use a bit of your common sense. Random data point: After I wrote this I went and looked at the most recent 10 AfC submissions. As near as I can tell four were copyvios, two of which were caught by CorenBot, two of which were not. Hardly science, but it verifies my sense that you're absolutely right to think it's a big problem overall. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"indicia"[edit]

My experience is that many of the indications you listed are at most merely cause for checking further or even usually innocuous: a great many new editors routinely use the plural, or an incorrect tone, because they do not understand the requirements of Wikipedia. We're a unique type of communication, and what seems natural to us will seem very artificial to others. Some editors with a degree of skill are capable of writing error-free drafts, even in their initial edits. Many writers on commercial subjects use copyright and trademark symbols here because they are accustomed to use them in other writing, and do not realize our style is different. Many people, especially those preparing the drafts in a word processor, use smart quotes either as a learned routine or as the default setting of the software; some programs automatically correct to this if not set otherwise. Use of vague terms of quantity and weasel-word expressions is common in all forms of writing and permeates the encyclopedia; the need for exactness is not obvious. Promotionalism should be rejected, but promotionalism is not always copyvio. The world is full of promotional writing, and people simply imitate it. Indeed, Wikipedia is full of promotional writing, and well-intentioned people may not realize it is not wanted.

Moonriddengirl, I have learned most of what I know about copyvio here from you--what is your experience about these? DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
These are indicia only, that are common to copyvios which should invite a check, and ten years of spotting copyvios shows they are common indicators that should indeed warrant such a check (if that was not going to be done as a matter of course, which it should be). They were neither presented as conditions that require a copyvio to be present if they exist, nor require a copyvio to be absent if they don't exist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


  • Hello Fuhghettaboutit, it seems you have sent a mass mail about copyvio to all the active AfC reviewers. Have you discussed it (before sending that mail) with other most active members? Jim Carter 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Allenjambalaya's talk page.
Message added 06:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Allenjambalaya (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations at AfC[edit]

I have recently started reviewing AfC nominations. I note your comments on copyright violations. Most of the second paragraph of this short nomination is copied directly from its source. It seems a bit heavy-handed to start tagging the draft for speedy deletion. What would you do with the submission? It seems to me he the subject is probably notable and I could merely rewrite the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cwmhiraeth.That was not substantially a copyvio, or at least I cannot detect that the rest of the content is, so I just removed the violative content. But if you do come across any page that is, the fact that the topic warrants an article, is no reason whatsoever to keep illegal content. Yes, you can always perform a rewrite, but short of doing so and right away, we must not leave copyright violating content on view. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message[edit]

Hi. Your message on my talk page overwrote several sections, and therefore I have reverted the edit. I assume this is a bug with MediaWiki message delivery and I have reported it. Because of this bug, it was unclear as to which article/draft/edit you were trying to alert me to, please let me know! --LukeSurl t c 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Luke. Not sure why that would have happened. Hmm. Anyway, it was not about any particular article, it was a mass message regarding copyvios at AfC sent to active AfC reviewers. See above--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. The message you sent out escaped {{, but not }}. Some talk pages have/had {{ without a corresponding }} on them already, so when your message got delivered, the parsing went a bit wild. I replied here (times two) and cleaned up both talk pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message[edit]

As with LukeSurl, your message on my talk page disappeared several sections, and therefore I too will revert the edit. I assume this is a bug with MediaWiki message delivery and will report it too. Please help get it fixed. and... kudos and thanks for your many contributions. --Elvey(tc) 16:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message[edit]

FWIW your message came through fine for me. No overwriting. Content noted. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
helping without needing to be asked. Runne (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your copyright violation message and the bot[edit]

Hello. You recently messaged me and others about copyright violations at AfC. I am replying to engage you further.

I participate in AfC, the Wikipedia Education program, and WikiProject Medicine. You might imagine that students in the education program frequently do AfC or make new articles otherwise. I especially watch health articles myself. WikiProject Medicine is, in my opinion, one of the more popular WikiProject forums and we have been complaining for years there about all the plagiarism.

I cannot link to all of the discussions but in the last year, some Wikipedians partnered with Turnitin to create a bot on Wikipedia described at WP:Turnitin. This bot detects and flags copyright violations automatically. See the bot at User:EranBot/Copyright. I criticized this project initially, but when I checked the results, I was impressed with what I saw. As best as I can tell without working a lot with this bot, it works for what it does and could do a lot more if only people wanted it to check more articles. This project is still in a pilot phase, but as I understand, someone could direct the bot to look at any set of Wikipedia content. As I understand, this bot could check every AfC submission and note whether it violates any copyright.

From my perspective, reviewing the output of this bot and scaling this up is only delayed because of lack of community oversight and support. This is a commercial tool and that concerned me. Another concern that I have is that it would be difficult to scale up use of this tool only with volunteer support, and I am not aware of anyone who wishes to apply for a grant to explore and describe its limitations. I hesitate to endorse a tool which is not more understood and documented, but it seems like a good lead to me.

Have you heard any of this before? Is there more that I could tell you about this? To what extent is this tool relevant to the problem you describe? How would you feel about trying to apply this tool to AfC review somehow? Is there anything that I can do to introduce you to other stakeholders in this? To what extent would you like any part in developing this tool? Thanks for writing, and thanks for your attention. Thanks especially for being at AfC and for caring about copyright violations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your round-robin on someone's talk page and came here to suggest that you advise AfC reviewers to run this tool as a matter of course before looking at any other aspects of a prospective article. I don't know how it compares with Turnitin (above). Also, you could perhaps suggest to reviewers that they check the history of the draft and pay particular attention to any that have previously been flagged by CorenSearchBot? I too am perturbed at the number of major copyvios that are getting moved into mainspace by editors who who really should (or really do?) know better, and so was well pleased to see your message. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks for telling about that tool, and you're most welcome. I was not aware of it and have bookmarked. I will be checking it out and using it if effective (I was always under the impression that Yahoo! which this tools runs on for its search engine check was not as effective as Google, but haven't tested the pudding on that). I'm not sure what I can do to inform further or to add your suggestions, as a second mass message would probably be overkill and unwelcome (I also got some flak for doing the first [though partly b/c I apparently I left in an unpaired nowiki tag, which is entirely on me]). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I have issued my support for Turnitin at its signup up page. Thanks for the pointer to it. Yes, I think we should run this and others at AfC but also, everywhere, but the human factor is key. The way I see it, the biggest problem with copyright is the simple lack of understanding of it, its importance as an issue, and how to get people to start thinking about it often such that checking for problems becomes part of their routine, and concomitantly, support for tools like this becomes a priority. Of course, I also support initiatives to get our content creators to not post copyvios in the first place, but there's only so much we can do on that front, and from what I've seen, it has and will remain an endemic problem, regardless of any efforts to that end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if User:Moonriddengirl knows about this or the discussion below also about AfC. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Yes, she is, having participated in drafting the mass message. See above .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I was really wondering about Turnitin, as her name doesn't appear anywhere there (history, talk page ). Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, @Dougweller:, @Justlettersandnumbers:, @Doc James:: We want to scale up the copyright violation detection bot, so it will go over more edits, not just medical/drugs articles. I runed the bot to "statically" check all articles in main namespace in Category:Pending AfC submissions (by statically I mean go over the content of the latest revision, rather then check specific diff between edits). There is one possible copyright violation listed in User:EranBot/Copyright/AfC (1/19 articles on main NS). I'm running it on long pages (size>20000), and will do it for shorter pages later on so we can be sure Category:Pending AfC submissions is free of copyright violations. I would like to have your help with going over the possible violations listed there. Thanks, Eran (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@ערן: The one that was currently listed is confirmed. I have deleted it from that article (and restored that page as a redirect), deleted the draft by the same user using the same material, and warned him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
ערן I am unable to provide much direct support in checking the results of the bots and fixing problems myself. I can say that I personally checked bot results, and felt that its ability to find copyright violations is comparable to that of a human's, and would like for humans to go through the bot's alert queue and fix the problems. However, I find this kind of work tedious, and my experience is that the number of copyright violations exceeds volunteers' community attention and interest in addressing them in a rote way. Furthermore, correcting copyright violations is only part of the appropriate response, as some human needs to engage the people violating copyright to offer to direct them to the write way to contribute to Wikipedia, and repeatedly engaging new users only in this space is very tedious also and we lack a volunteer base to do this.
The support that I would like to give is endorsement of a grant proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation to hire community staff to do this tedious and undesirable work. I think that someone could enjoy doing it if they were paid, and I think the scale of the problem and the impact of having paid staff do this would be great for the quality of Wikipedia and improve the morale of the Wikipedia community who is discouraged by continually seeing this boring tedious problem.
If anyone wants to discuss the implications of requesting the establishment of a funded position to run a copyright detection bot and respond to its alerts, then I would participate in that kind of discussion and help write the grant. At this time I fail to recognize how any sustainable effort without funding could be established in the Wikipedia volunteer community to address this problem to a significant extent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry 5 days ago here I have offered to hire someone to address the issue of this work being tedious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for that message you've sent out to AfC reviewers - I've often wondered why things were left to sit as copyvios for six months (even with the page blanked). I notice there's more coming up as speedies from the Draft area, and the unrepairable spam there seems to be getting tagged at a higher rate - or else there's been a great flood... Peridon (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks for noticing. That's great – that it might have had an actual affect. The germ for this started after seeing numerous drafts requested by be reinstated at WP:REFUND that were undeleted copyvios, at the end of the process, often after multiple rejections already occurred, that no one caught when they were obvious candidates to be checked (and some that had actually been rejected as copyvios, and never tagged for deletion). There's apparently (I've recently noticed) even a category for drafts declined as copyvios at AfC that probably shouldn't exist, as any pages appearing therein should be immediately tagged as G12s, or sent to WP:Copyright problems.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 9 December 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 for your answer
Ochilov (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Italian Peoples Bakery[edit]

Hi, can you delete this redirect for me Italian Peoples Bakery? I created it by accident and need to move the primary article to that redirect because it is the proper name. Thanks! Valoem talk contrib 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Valoem: Hi Valoem, I have just looked and the vast majority of sources use the possessive "people's" as the title. Thus, this appears to be, and not by a close call, the common name of the bakery and thus its current location is where the title should remain. This would be true even if the bakery itself considers the non-possessive form its official name. I am guessing that the reasons for the request is because the bakery's website and storefronts do not use the apostrophe, but that is not dispositive. Nevertheless, I am not going to buck a ministerial request and have deleted the redirect. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you've answered my question. Just to confirm even if the storefront's slogan does not have the apostrophe, the apostrophe is still it's proper name? Valoem talk contrib 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Valoem: Yes, though I would not use the expression "proper name", but rather that our naming conventions provide that we generally title article's by the name that something is known by in a majority of reliable, English language sources, and that that name need not be the "official name". The two links in my post above provide lots of information about this. By the way, after looking at this, I have an overwhelming craving for some good Italian deli.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Haha thanks, looks like I have to move a few pages! Also I went ahead and restore to redirect to the proper name. :) Valoem talk contrib 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation at Template talk:Infobox person. Your response has made the most sense to me out of anyone's so far. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 00:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Thanks much for stopping by to tell me this! Feedback is actually rare, and appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you re: copying within wikipedia[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at ChaiMontg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Lucia![edit]

Thanks Carter! That sounds a bit subversive. Can I possibly interest you in a maypole dance around the Festivus Pole instead?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That sound even more suspicious! But since we already do something similair, please send the invitation! Face-smile.svg - w.carter-Talk 14:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Somehow this will all end with me as the outlander bound in a giant wickerman being set ablaze.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending?[edit]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Is there a reason that your talk page here is listed in the "Pending AFC submissions" category? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Hey Anne! For for want of a colon...[8] Thanks for letting me know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Been there, done that...—Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BNA search[edit]

Hi,
Could you do that BNA search you mentioned at the Teahouse? The thought actually struck me last night, and I found it to be quite a coincidence that you suggested it. The main dates of the wreck story is January 14-18, 1897. If you find anything, you might also mention whether or not there are any images included in the story, as that may help me find out whether some certain images in which I'm interested were published, and thus possibly in the public domain. Thanks, --Biblioworm 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Hey Biblio! Glad to help. I will take a comprehensive survey tonight (U.S. EST). I used to have newspaperarchive.com, which was incredible (billions, with a "b", of newspaper articles) but it was expensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Apollos the Apostle[edit]

It was a redirect page I purposely made without discussion. It should be deleted to clear out some space on Wikipedia. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey JudeccaXIII. No such clearing of space is needed. You created it as part of a page move, that you reversed. The very fact you thought the article might warrant that title is an indication of plausibility, as is the fact that numerous sources use the phrase to refer to the topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.