User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 12

Just to clarify

This does not fit within the ambit of an attack page--not a disparaging article with no other purpose. If there are statements included that are negative/contentious and unsourced through an RS, remove them but deletion here is an AfD issue I think

The entire article is about a user created video which was created with the singular purpose of specifically attacking climate scientist Michael E. Mann. There is no other purpose for the page other than as a coatrack to attack climate science and climate scientists in general. Is there any indication that this "video" is notable and encyclopedic? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

G10 is for pages whose sole purpose is to attack the subject of the article. It is not for pages on topics, which themselves disparage a secondary subject. To make that distinction I am drawing clear, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is antisemitic drivel, whose sole purpose is to attack a group. That does not mean that writing an article about that topic is an attack on the group. This may not fit that distinction as clearly, but I have read the page, and I do not think its sole purpose is to attack Michael Mann. That said, I think this should be taken to AfD, and I'll do so now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not think its sole purpose is to attack Michael Mann, then you aren't paying attention. This is an astroturfing campaign against climate scientists and climate science in general, just like climategate. It has no place on Wikipedia, and the editors who keep creating these sets of articles should not be allowed to edit. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You might be right that the video was created as part of an astroturfing campaign, and so what? We do not have to like or agree with the subjects of our articles, nor does it matter what the original intent was. By that logic, we should not have an article on serial killers unless we agree with what they do. Personally, I am disgusted by the idiots who deny climate change. I take it you feel the same. Again, so what? You have to separate your biases about topics from whether an article on a topic belongs. The considerations between them have little intersection. I find it hard to believe that millions of bleating morons shell out money to drink sugar pills and/or water labeled "homeopathic", and I'm morally outraged that we let this go on, because some of them actually spurn real treatment in favor of such snake oil. But I will vehemently defend the right to have an article on homeopathy, and there's no contradiction in me stating the first, and doing the second.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how any of these analogies apply. Let's deal only with the facts. Tell me, have you seen the video? If so, where did you see it? Who created the video? What is it's purpose? What sources talk about and name the original author, describe the production aesthetic and design, and argue for it's importance in the cultural canon? There is a huge, gaping chasm between an article on the topic of homeopathy and a paid propaganda piece that has zero encyclopedic and educational value. Any PR firm can create a viral video and manipulate the media to mention it. Is this a notable example of this type of propaganda? Why? This article was created to continue the attacks against climate scientists days after the previous attacks were retracted after months of this nonsense. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for political propaganda solely designed to attack people. If you feel the need to "vehemently defend" this obvious nonsense, then there is something seriously wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the video after declining your tagging (well, half of it). Yes, it's a propaganda piece. Irrelevancies. You're missing the point. The topic is either notable or it's not. That is what needs to be decided, and what I defend, and the motivation of those who created the video is not germane to that issue. You ask "is this a notable example of this type of propaganda?" I don't know—that's what the deletion debate is for (Are the sources reliable? Has it been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources? Is the article only marginally notable and so BLP concerns should weigh toward deletion? etc.) Whether it is notable or not is not decided on whether we like it, agree with it, or the video creators' intent. As for "zero encyclopedic and educational value", you seem to be again resting on your biases about the video, rather than how we decide whether an article is warranted. To me, it is encyclopedic and educational if the wider world has taken note of it by discussing it in reliable published sources, no differently than the topics I used as examples. The difference, or course, is that we have not yet determined whether it is notable. If it is not, if we can't write an article from reliable published sources significantly discussing it, then it should go. Do I need to repeat again that that discussion has little to do with how we feel about the topic? I hope not. You seem to be under the impression that I have made up my mind on whether we should have an article on it. Not at all. I have made up my mind that we should discuss the merits of its notability at the deletion debate to determine whether we should have an article on it on valid bases.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What notable website hosts the video? Who is the notable author of the video? What is notable about the video, aside from the fact that it is a 100% attack piece against BLP's? The current article is a coatrack, using a non-notable video to discuss and criticize climate change. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability. For purposes of notability: I don't care who the author of the video is; I don't care what their purpose was.; I don't care what website hosts the video. I care whether the wider world has taken note of the video by publishing significant coverage about it in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (and that it is not just a brief flurry of news that does not equal lasting significance).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, not that this isn't entertaining, but you realize the deletion debate still has no comments? I thought I would have seen you there already:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally don't waste my time arguing about propaganda that should be deleted on sight by a rational person with average critical thinking skills. I would like a simple answer to three simple questions: Who is The No Cap-and-Trade Coalition [1] and who is Minnesotans For Global Warming [2], and what makes them notable enough to use Wikipedia as a web host for their PR? Is this PR/propaganda encyclopedic in some way? How and why? Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Still hammering away at irrelevancies. The authorship of the video is irrelevant. Who sought to disseminate it and their motivations are irrelevant. Since I'm beating my head against the wall, and given your personal attack. We're done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Argyroxiphium grayanum

On December 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Argyroxiphium grayanum, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating and seeing this article through to a successful DYK! I missed it, what with holiday overload, so just now am learning about it. I am very grateful and thrilled. Happy New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawa (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong

Yeah, that sucks big-time putting a diatribe where a thank-you should have gone. Just one more reason not to diatribe in the first place. As if there were a shortage. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Had to be. No hard feelings!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind help with the templates and formatting. John Watkins LLD (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit behind...

But a hearty laugh from me. Startled my dog into demanding a snack. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:-) I know it's just around Christmas time for some but I occasionally leave an Easter egg or two lying around any old time. Often no one, including the intended recipient, even notices.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello again. I've been on something of a mini-hiatus from wiki, but wanted to drop by and wish you and yours the best of holidays. Have a good new year, and thanks for your help in the one we're finishing. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Biting the bullet

Okay, I've been putting this off long enough. I'm going to activate my second RfA shortly. I seem to recall you were one of my potential co-nominators. Another created the RfA page months ago (w/o asking first - assumed I wanted it right now because of the "admin hopefuls" user box or something). It's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2, if you care to add to it. There were a couple of other co-nominator folks from back when. I'll give them a chance to put their word in before accepting and activating it, probably around Dec. 27 or so to give people time to get back to WP from holiday family stuff. If you'd prefer to simply comment pro or con on the nomination, then by all means hold off until it goes "live". :-)  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Happy hollerdays! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed and I will gladly nominate or co-nominate! However, right at Christmas is a bad time my man. Also, I take this very seriously and am not one to dash off a nomination. You have to give me some time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm involved in a dispute that should have been a simple RFC but has gone off the rails, myself. Better to wait until early 2010. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Hey

Hey. Thanks for helping with the Gautham Hospital matter. lol, that's a pretty big coincidence. Anyways, I've done some minor edits but nothing like the active members. But anyways, thx Occamsrazorwit (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. Hope to see you around.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fughetaboutit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Please interevene and give your opinion in the article. Muhammad and assassinations

3 users have removed entire sections of the article saying it is , no noteworthy, unreliable e.t.c see edit history

I explained that the article had major neutral point of view problems in my last note to you and needed reliable, secondary sources. I am not well versed in the subject area at all so I avoided addressing the article's content more specifically. It has been looked at by users far more familiar than I and found to be unsalvageably point of view and deleted. I would only dispute that consensus if I had knowledge of the subject and actually disagreed with the result for valid reasons, and in that event I would go through a process such as deletion review. But here I have no basis to question the articles for deletion result, which I find unsurprising given that I had recognized and advised you of the very problems that resulted in its deletion. I also see you have been blocked again for more sockpuppetry so I'm probably talking to myslef in responding at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

And another real easy one - which, again, I don't know if I'm right or wrong; so I ask you! This concerns an image I uploaded, File:Thedoorssep1968.jpg, and the aggressive tagging for deletion by one editor, with no response from him so far as to truly, specifically "why". He claimed it wouldn't pass WP:NFCC, but I only see 3(a) of the policy faintly applying to the article, and I could fix any other minor omission. There are no "public domain" free images of The Doors that I know of, and since Morrison is deceased, it's impossible to create a new free one. Is only one non-free image allowed per article? If I took a digital picture of this image from a screenshot on my computer, then claimed it as "my own work" and released it into the public domain... is that how one goes about it ('cause I've read you can do this, but I find it detestable)? I'm a little confused, and I know you can "set me straight" after checking my talk page and the "Files for Deletion" page. As always, I appreciate your sage advice on this matter :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Doc. I don't know where you read about that (and I'd like to know) but it's nonsense. That's like saying you can paint a reproduction Monet and claim the image is your own creative work. No that's not free and the copyright of the image, as residing in the original photographer, is unaffected. Image copyright is not something I've concentrated on. I guess it all comes down to interpretation (as you noted) of "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" as well as NFCC#8 Contextual significance. Sorry Doc but I'm really not sure on this image. The page already has multiple images. The people who deal with images for deletion are better suited to discuss this. I would note though that I don't think you're right that Floydian tagged it multiple times. He tagged it, then Amalthea uploaded a reduced quality version for purposes of NFCC#3b so that even if kept, the image that will display is of a lower quality, and she placed a separate tag regarding deletion of the prior version, not the later version. I would suggest that you give your reasons for keeping it more clearly at the IFC discussion page. That is where a decision will be reached and I don't think you've said it very clearly. You imply that it's an image from the end of their career and casual rather than formal, but you don't say that outright. For example, something like: "I think this doesn't fall afoul of NFCC#3a because all the other images on the page of the group as a whole are from the beginning of their career and are posed, while this image is from the end and is a candid photo, so it conveys distinct information that prior images do not; it's not a second image 'convey[ing] equivalent information'". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks again for your time and thoughtful response. You're absolutely right about Floydian not tagging it multiple times - that was a "knee-jerk" reaction on my part. I've become more interested in images recently, and while I know WP frowns upon using copyrighted images, I feel that with appropriate tags, credit, and explanation, those same images (which can be had for free with no copyright info anywhere on the web) are often better served here on WP. Especially with the current and future generations of video-dependent viewers - images can actually make people want to learn more. I've just gotten acquainted with some of the "A-V" crowd here, so we'll see where that takes me! I appreciate the better argument "style" for dealing with these issues, and I will use this approach as a rule. Thanks, as always, for your help! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's working! (but how?)

First of all, it's an honour to post in your talk page, Fuhghettaboutit.
Second, I asked a question in the Help Desk here, and with their advice, I started to post the templates in 3 of the articles in the category, including Alex (A Clockwork Orange), and I see you corrected it.
My question, how did you come accross it so quickly?
Did my posting of the template alert you (some special red light blinking on the computers of administrators :-D, or is there some category showing what articles have had the template placed?
Thanks.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an honor to have you post, and this is an open invitation: if you have any questions, feel free to stop by anytime. It is a indeed a magical category only accessible by administrators so, unfortunately, you won't be able to access it. You must be prescient though because there is in fact a red blinking light involved. I'm not allowed to divulge any more about it or I could be kicked out of the cabal. Sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I get ya? Even a little bit? Real answer: I have 14,364 article on my watchlist (I know, it's rather ridiculously huge, but thousands of them are deleted articles, which will only pop up if they are recreated). I have so many because I have enabled in my preferences to add to my watchlist any page I edit. When I checked my watchlist I saw the edit and just happened to check the diff whereby I saw the category addition, and acted from there. It was pure serendipity. By the way, if you want to get better results, when you add the category, leave a detailed edit summary—maybe something like "tagging for category appropriateness: does this belongs in category:fictional pedophiles". You are far more likely to have someone stop by to see what you did if they get an inkling from the edit summary. And yes, there is a category the template you added places the article into: Category:Articles with unsourced categories, which is actually a far more likely way users will find the edits than what happened here. Regular article categories, as I'm sure you're aware, appear at the bottom of an article, but there are also hidden categories, which display maintenance categories such as this one. In order to see them, go to your preferences → Appearance, and tick the box marked "Show hidden categories". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Again, thanks.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Valdez Villarreal

Want to be pedantic about changing his name? Then change every intralink connecting to that page. And whlie you are at it, erase all the reliable yet offending references in Spanish that quote his real name. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded in detail to your more involved post on the same issue and making the same arguments at the talk page of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete move

I noticed that in moving Edgar Valdez Villarreal you didn't get the talk page moved also; it remains at Talk:Édgar Valdéz Villarreal. Can you fix that; Talk:Edgar Valdez Villarreal is a redirect with history. In addition to the above, BatteryIncluded has made a similar nonresponsive reply there, indicating that he still doesn't get it. I intend to take this up further with him. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ack. Done. I sometimes miss that the talk page wasn't able to be automatically moved, while I'm fixing double redirects and fair use rationales. I'm responding to the user's less than civil post now at the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I just get "hounded"?

Hi, Fuhg! Me again, asking for another small bit of friendly advice. Recently, an admin who seems to focus heavily on excluding images (even those tagged appropriately for fair-use) took quite an interest in me, and basically WP:HOUNDed a large group of my contributions, nominating eight separate images for deletion in one session, and altering another article I'm trying to improve (Randy Meisner), saying the images on that page didn't qualify for FU there. I feel targeted here, and every image I have uploaded has passed the initial tagging procedure. I basically suggested he might be hounding me, but that since he was an admin, what could I do? His response was not to deny hounding me, but to confirm that even admins are not untouchable for this behavior. Was I WP:HOUNDed by this editor? I need your help, and if you're busy, maybe you could direct me to an admin who specializes in image policy (if you know of one)? Now I have to defend eight different images at once, when they all initially passed, and received no objections until this one editor took exception? Thanks for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Doc. Nope, you did not. Hounding would be seresin following you around to different places bothering you about all different types of issues as a pretext to cause you annoyance (often done because of a personal animus, after previous contact). The old term conveyed the behavior involved more intuitively: "wikistalking". Here, seresin, who focuses on images a lot, came across one of your image uploads, and then probably looked at all your image uploads and nominated the ones he felt didn't meet fair use policy for deletion, left an appropriate warning on your talk page about it, and moved on. Far from acting as a typical stalker, none of your other edits have been questioned by him. His edits right before tagging the images you uploaded was to tag other images by other users, so I see no targeting here, but just a user policing an area of the encyclopedia that they focus on. I can see how the fact that he did this all at once might annoy you but this is far from following you around, stalking your edits for pretextual reasons. I do similar things. For example, If I find a user has posted an article that is a copyvio, I then check their other contributions for the same behavior. Fair use images are a tough road. They are often in a gray area of acceptability and if you do a lot of these uploads you can expect that they will get questioned. Make sound arguments at the deletion discussions and focus on the merits and not on who made the nomination. If they get deleted, just move on and know that if you do a lot of fair use uploads for articles that already have free images some are inevitably going to be listed, sooner or later, for deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've noticed that the deletionist image patrollers are a very tough group to deal with, and I'll probably have to research more before doing any more uploads for awhile. All the opposing arguments seem to fall into this "gray area" (3(a), 8, etc.), which is really unfortunate in the case of deceased individuals (like Pamela Courson). I haven't really said anything about seresin, and I won't - and I've moved on. Thanks :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

hehe

I just wanted to say that you have the most awesomest name ever. It made me laugh for a while. kbai Tim1357 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Check User

Hi there. Yesterday Wikipedia sent me the following email: Someone from the IP address 86.14.213.153 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

Someone obvously tried to enter into my wikipedia account. Is there any way to verify if this IP address is being used by an existing wikipedia editor, via checkuser? It could be that this person who vandalized my user page is behind this. Any hints and tips are highly appreciated. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amsaim. A Checkuser will not be performed simply to find out who made a false password request. This happens all the time and it's as easy as entering any user's account name in the login field and then clicking on "I've forgotten my password". The only person who get's the email is the account holder, so that person making the request does not get any access to your account. As the e-mail says, "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you." The person learned neither the new or your old password. This can be done to annoy, or simply because a person is playing around. I note that the IP address you've indicated made two edits yesterday and none since 2007 before that. I would just ignore it. Yes it's possible that it could be the same user but there's nothing indicating that other than timing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TV transmitters

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I feel rather feel disappointed to see the article TV transmitters has been merged with another article. I am further shocked to see that I am accused of copying and pasting other articles. No, I fervently deny this. I am not new to Wikipedia and I know the rules. I never cut and paste the articles created by other users and I consider this as a kind of vandalism . (Even when I plan to move an article, I always consult with the page creator.See the talks for Treaty of Niš for example)

But, the article Television transmitters was just a redirect page and moreover in my opinion the target was somewahat misleading. (You can see that in page history) That’s why I originally used the rather awkward name TV transmitters . I am a professional in analog TV transmitters and I tried my best to contribute.

Now the page TV transmitters which I am proud of is no more a page created by me. This isn’t fair. As a compromise I suggest to continue with both pages, Analog TV transmitters (or analog television transmitters) created by me and Television transmitters (redirected to another page.)

Have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nedem. I can only tell you what I found and what it appeared to me from the articles' histories.

• On June 16, 2005 a user created the title "television transmitter" as a redirect to "transmitter", here
• On September 29, 2009 you edited that redirect at television transmitter to this content
• On October 9, 2009 the article at television transmitter still had that content of yours with very minor changes, here.
• At 08:09 on October 11, 2009 you created TV transmitters with content that was identical to the content that preexisted at television transmitter (at this revision, which you won't be able to access but the history revision is shown as "08:09, October 11, 2009 Nedim Ardoğa (talk | contribs | block) (5,220 bytes) (←Created page with 'Television transmitter is a device which broadcasts an electromagnetic signal to the television...').
• Within the same minute as the above edit on October 11, 2009 (so I can't tell if before or after), you redirected television transmitter to TV transmitters (here).

So all I can tell you is that the page histories (now merged into one, less one revision), after careful review again, appear to confirm that on September 29, 2009 you edited what was a redirect at television transmitter, to add the article's main content; then, after some minor revisions by others, you redirected that content to TV transmitters on October 11, 2009 and created that page with the content you had originally written and posted at television transmitter. This still appears to me on all fours to be a cut and paste move. Sorry. That's what I see. It is still a page created by you. The history of the page is only that another user originally created the title as a redirect. The page history still shows you as the content creator by the first edit after the redirect was created.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hey Fugh, I wanted to make a request for rollback rights to you. Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, my friend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the complete explanation (which explained some things I had wondered about). I appreciate all the assistance you've given me here. It's made my wikipedia experience a very good one. As always, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds dirty

Did you ever do anything towards a Finger billiards article? This is re: way-old discussion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't. Just started. Thanks for reminding me. On a tangent, are you procrastinating on your RfA:-p? By the way, you need to check your email more often!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Had other stuff going on (tournaments and thangs). Maybe one tonight; won't know for another 20 min. or so. Anyway, yeah, I am kinda procrastinating. Things have been so peaceful, why stick my face in hornets' nest? >;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Fuhghettaboutit's Day!

User:Fuhghettaboutit has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fuhghettaboutit's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fuhghettaboutit! Peace, Rlevse 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much my friend.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

afd notification

Hey, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephano Sabetti, for an article you've been involved with, more or less. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No Issue This Time - Just A Request

Hi again, Fuhghettaboutit! I've been fighting vandalism from the start, and I've always been curious about trying out Rollback. After a quick glance at the list of admins willing to grant the privilege, I saw your name. I figure if I'm not eligible, then you are the best choice to explain why! I've never even been template warned for anything, I'm here almost two years, and I'm approaching 2,500 edits (just started getting into fixing disambiguations - interesting way to take a "mini-tour" of WP articles!). I promise I wouldn't abuse it, and use it mostly for overt vandalism - what are my chances? Thanks for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit! I definitely will use it very sparingly and only for truly blatant vandalism. I see what you're saying about the examples of undos that I called vandalism that weren't, and I'll be more careful about using that label when I undo in the future (I will use undo far more than I'll use rollback anyway). Thanks again, Fuhg, and I promise you (and WP) won't regret allowing me the privilege. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're just monitoring your watchlist for vandalism then you'll only need to sparingly but if you target vandalism, such as by spending time at recent changes, then you might use it a whole lot:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I will most certainly target the vandal horde from time to time, as they are an insipid bunch. Sorry for the late reply, but I've been working on establishing the copyright for File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. This journey led me to a photographer who was actually at the infamous Doors concert in 1969, and as a result of the research, hopefully the image will make it into Wikipedia Commons. Thanks as always, Fuhgettaboutit! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Balktack

Hello. You have requested images at SMcCandlish's talk page.

DYK for Yank Adams

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yank Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

tks for all you do!!

This editor is a
Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

..Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia....Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Buzzz, greatly appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

about "Wuhan information technology outsourcing service and research center"

Hi！ The item "Wuhan information technology outsourcing service and research center" was deleted for G11.I can't agree it.Because the center is not a commercial compamy but a government organisation.It is not a advertisement but a objective statement.Litsoft (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Litsoft. The page in question has never been deleted under G11. It was deleted twice as an unambiguous copyright violation under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please see its deletion log entry. The warnings you see on your talk page are from people who tagged that page for speedy deletion (as well as the other pages you created with slightly different names all on the same topic), while the deletion log entries shows the actual bases a page was deleted under. The pages were indeed blatant copyright violations, and I have just discovered that your user subpage at User:Litsoft/Wuhan Information Technology Outsourcing Service and Research Center is likewise a copyright violation and I have deleted that as well. You may not post copyrighted text on Wikipedia and continuing may lead to further blocks. I hope you understand better now the reason the pages were deleted and will not repeat this activity. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation.But the artical on www.cnsourcing.org/eindex.html is just wrote by me and I can prove it. In that case it should not belong to the G12 because I own the copyright and I can prove it.In this case ,are that page can be restore?Litsoft (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again litsoft. We still cannot use the text, even if you wrote it, until such time as the copyrighted material is properly shown to be by you and you release it in a manner we can use it — which means allowing other people to modify it and use it under a free license. To do that you must either:

1) include on the external site (not here, or in the article, or on your talk page, but on the external site so we know you are the actual author) the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike]"; or

2) email from an email address actually associated with the external site, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, a communication containing a statement that you are releasing the material under the free licenses above.

You should also be aware that even if you do so, the material, as written is not appropriate for an article. It does read as highly promotional advertising and might very well be deleted under G11 once the copyright issue is behind you; it was also completely unverified, not citing to a single reliable source. I could go on, but the point I'm trying to get across is that even if you take care of the copyright infringement problem, the content still needs to meet our policies for encyclopedic content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and response.So if I rewrite the page using new words which are not the same with the article published on that web and I rewrite the page using an object sense for it will not read as promotional advertising,if in that case, is the page can be restore?Litsoft (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bummer

Hello. You have a new message at SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Zarate

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit! I noticed that you deleted the page on Jonathan Zarate. I raised the point on the helpdesk but nobody wanted to help. They told me to fix it, or to live with it; even though I thought it was a most controversial and distasteful article. In future, what can I do if I find a page like that? Someone put a speedy deletion message on my first ever article, and I've seen other messages dotted around the place. What kind of message could I use on an article like this in the future? Thanks a lot in advance. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fly by Night. You'll see that while you were writing this I was posting a response at the help desk. The long and short of it is that negative content (and in this case extremely negative) that is not well sourced that affects living people (in this case both the alleged killer, as well as the alleged victim's family and friends) must be removed, and immediately. The tag you could have used on the article was {{db-attack}}. I note that the criterion this tag arises from, WP:CSD#G10 calls for the article to be entirely unsourced, and it did have a naked link to a NYT article, but I don't enforce rules blindly; this was too extreme to stay without rigorous sourcing throughout in my opinion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your interest and help in the article on Tom Laughlin. It is greatly appreciated.BillyJack193 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help on my first article. V generous of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Security1234 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

INCREDIBLE

		The Law Barnstar
		I'm so excited by the state & federal law templates you made. It's going to provide a huge leap forward for law articles. Thanks for being a model of wikipedia at its best. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I looked at the templates; I think I've picked up on how its done, and I should be able to take control from here.
• Question: I'm unsure how I should be employing this template, i.e. whether to type {{U.S. state jurisdictions}} or {{subst:U.S. state jurisdictions}}. Can you tell me what would be the relative advantages & disadvantages of each?
• Also, FYI I'm going to add some <!-- invisible text --> to the template, which will become visible in articles when subst: is used. (We could still make this work if we determined that the template works best when subst: is omitted; I would just create a template called {{U.S. state jurisdictions generator}} which substitutes to create {{U.S. state jurisdictions}} plus the invisible text :)
• finally, would you mind posting replies on my talk page? It makes it a thousand times easier for me ... :)
• Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for keeping me updated. I'm exceedingly happy with the templates. For example, I applied it to felony murder rule; three hours later someone created three new articles and told me about it on my talk page. I also think that all these empty redlinks will be a great way to capitalize on all the procrastination that will occur when people are studying for the bar.
• FYI, I am going to use the subst: option. Also, I did move the "commented out" material to the top, and made it a bit lengthier, because I think that will be a faster way to spread awareness of the template.
• btw, I'm a 3L in a new york law school. CPLR, you say? Civil Procedure in the United States was actually one of the first articles I seeded using the {{U.S. state jurisdictions}} template; I've been gathering research material on the history of New York civil procedure here. Of course, that's probably the last thing you want to touch when you get home from work ... but it's there if you want to fiddle with it.
• Cheers, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at the help desk! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC Sunday March 21

Hey, is that a fellow Brooklynite there? I'd like to invite you to join us at our Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC event at Columbia on Sunday March 21.--Pharos (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite Pharos. I am indeed writing this from the King of the boroughs. I will not be able to make it but it's appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, maybe you can join us for other future events and projects, some of which are listed at meta:Wikimedia New York City. You can also join our handy-dandy mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your "reformat first reference for full attribution as an example to creator" help at Antonia Malatesta of Cesena. I am a newbie -- that was my 2nd page. Aloha! Peaceray (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Peaceray

Glad it helped! I do that a lot but few people actually take the example and run with it (many new users are unfamiliar with edit summaries and the exitence of the page history and I think many don't even notice; so many also post some article text and never return). If you need any help with anything, please feel free to stop by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The one who was beheaded was a different Antonia Malatesta

Here's a quote from http://genealogy.euweb.cz/gonzaga/gonzaga2.html#DL3 [3] "E7. Rodolfo, Signore di Castiglione dello Stiviere, Solferino, Suzzara e Poviglio, a general, *18.4.1452, +k.a.Fornovo 6.7.1495; 1m: 11.1.1481 Antonia Malatesta, natural dau.of Sigismondo Pandolfo Signore di Rimini (+beheaded 25.12.1483)" I would have used Antonia Malatesta (birthdate-deathdate) for the one who was married in 1408, but I could not find either date for her. Antonia Malatesta of Rimini is more common than I thought! Thanks for checking! Peaceray (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Peaceray

Deletion of User talk:Europebusiness

You deleted User talk:Europebusiness as a copyvio and promotional page. However the history of this user talk page held warnings that should be preserved. Indeed the user was already blocked for having a promotional user-name and for spamming. I have restored the non-promotional revisions, and have reblocked the user, preventing the user from editing even the talk page. Please be careful to check history when deleting, particularly when deleting a user talk page. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Masako Katsura

On March 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Masako Katsura, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not your fault but a general vent: I held off on posting this to await International Women's Day and then it gets posted right during the start of the Oscars and is off the main page by the time it's over—got about 1/6 the views of any normal DYK. Grrr.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy followups

I followed up on a few of your recent speedy declines. Thank you for your follow up on Ruth Berman Harris, and I think your declines on Susan Whitman and Bangladesh Air Force are well put. I did want to mention the declines on Talking To Space, and Cuban Cigars. The Talking To Space article, and the band page it referenced, were created at the same time and was recently speedied itself. That page should have some sort of indication of a problem on it; at the least a notability tag. Similarly the Cuban Cigars article, as you very helpfully pointed out in the summary, has some copyright issues as well as fork problems. I would only ask that there's some indication of the problem left on the page so it can be fixed by someone else. I tend to watch articles I speedy until they've reached some conclusion, but I'm not sure all editors do this. Issues that are important, like copyright for example, ought to have some continuing indication so they don't fall through the cracks. When we just remove speedies without fixing it or leaving some mark on the article, it's possible that these problems don't get addressed.

All of those articles I referenced above seem to have been taken care of. Thank you for your help; this is just a helpful suggestion, not a criticism. Shadowjams (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I am monitoring to see what the original taggers do! Rest assured that if nothing had been done by others within a day or so, I would have taken action (you'll note that I was watching Talking To Space and once the band article was deleted, I then deleted it because the A9 applied [I expect you noticed after you posted above that your link to it was red]). Regarding Cuban Cigars, I think a separate article belongs (though of course it belongs at Cuban cigars), though I have no problem with the redirection of the split. The attribution issue is fixable with split-to as I mentioned in the edit summary and ({{splitfrom}} on talk:cigars) and a dummy edit with an edit summary in the article. Though of course my watchlist is a reminder, I keep a log on declines offline and let me tell you what I wrote for Cuban Cigar: "Cuban Cigar- rd or fix att and {{main}}" I know that's a bit cryptic but to me it means: redirect if no one involved bothers to do the work; and if they do, or I feel like taking on working it into a separate article, fix the attribution issue, and pare down the section in cigar and place {{main}}. Thanks for looking out. Your note above is in the same vein as notes I sometimes leave for others, which are sometimes not well received.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed follow up. When you keep your notes do you do the entries by hand, or do you have a semi-automated method of doing it? It'd be useful to have something more precise than a watchlist, but only if it were convenient. Shadowjams (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{{quote box}}

your revert of the changes to Quote box had assuredly broken templates all across wikipedia - {{quote box2}} and {{quote box3}} were redirected into it just yesterday. can you self-revert and point me to a place where you see the template broken? it will be a matter of moments to fix whatever you're seeing, I think. --Ludwigs2 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. See also my post to the template's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hull and Barnsley Railway

Hi. I've reverted your recent edit - the problem is - as described on the talk page (q.v.) is that a heading "History" isn't right since sections 2,3,4 etc are also history - complicated by the fact that the article covers more than one topic (via redirects)Shortfatlad (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

also are you actually seeing any display issues - if so what? Shortfatlad (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, just saw the post at the help desk. How about "Early days" or "Early years"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision of {{oldcsd}} tag

I have boldly made a slight revision to your {{oldcsd}} tag to allow it to be used by non-sysops who remove CSD tags. Hope you are okay with it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey TransporterMan. Very classy to inform me and a good edit. I think maybe we should stick the word 'experienced" just before editor in the change i.e., "uninvolved experienced editor". You're right that we should not give the impression only admins can remove the tag, but at the same time, we want to address the problem of removal by newbies not familiar with and not following the CSD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do it. And, hey, we may not be able to own articles, templates, etc. here, but proud parents deserve respect. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New cannabis in Australia page

Hi, thanks again for all your help and advice tweaking and moving the Cannabis in Australia article. I will try and source some images for it and add categories too. You mentioned you might be able to help me nominate the article for placement in the Did you know template featured on the main page. If you could that would be awesome, thank you. Cheers, bessmorris 06:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Sure. I started to read the article, wikifying with some minor copyedits as I went, looking for a good hook (as they are called) for the DYK. It should be something punchy, relatively short, and must be cited in the article with an inline citation. It will be in a form like: did you know

... that Cannabis in Australia ______________.

The name of the article must be mentioned and linked in bold (getting people to the article is of course the point), but it does not have to be the first text in the hook. Do you have a suggestion for the fact to be used? The time limit for making the nomination is five days from the move to the mainspace which you did today, so there's no immediate rush.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't been around I have submitted a hook. See Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 26. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks so much. Off the radar for a couple of days, so I really appreciate all your help. How should I go about trying to get the article to be considered for good article status? I am working on images and extra links. --bessmorris 02:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs) Will I find out about the Did you know status when it is decided? Thanks again. --bessmorris 02:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Hey Bess. My pleasure. It's rare to see a new user writing articles like you are. The hook will be reviewed for compliance and if not rejected, in a few days it will make it into one of the queues where it will sit for a few days until it is the first queue, then it will be placed in template:DYK and transcluded on the main page; it'll stay there for 6 hours or so. The user who places it will then drop a message on your talk page (and on mine as nominator) stating that it was featured. You have to follow it yourself to catch its appearance on the main page.

In My opinion the article is not ready for good article submission. Two things holding it back: first, the lead is not a summary of the article (as I explained at the help desk), and far more critically, the referencing needs work. You are provide a single citaton at the end of entire paragraphs, rather than after each sentence, and there are some sections that aren't referenced at all. The references also appear to me to need better attribution. For example all books should have ISBNs or other id information; magazines should have SSNs; page numbers should appear where appropriate in larger works; you might try using templates which standardize reference formatting, such as {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} (I previously reformatted many of the naked link citations that were in the article using cite web). I also named all your references, which would definitely have been a problem at a good article review; that is, where you used a reference more than once, I changed it so that it would only have one entry. The actual process is simple, just go over the WP:GAC and read the directions. Basically, you add a tag to the talk page and list the article on the GAC page in an appropriate section.

By the way, you'll note that a bot signed for you above. This is because you're not placing your signature in a normal fashion. Are you typing it manually? If so, try using four tildes instead (~~~~) which automatically format to your signature and a time stamp when you click save. You can place them without typing by clicking on the button just above the edit window which looks like this: . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks again for all your help. I will try and work more on the references and add some pictures to improve the quality of the article. OK, here goes with the signature! --bessmorris 07:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Thank you

For the addition of the box on the Moscow Metro page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.88.179 (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

William needs you

		William Windsor needs help!
		I am trying to bring the article William Windsor (goat) up to good article status; as you previously helped, I wondered if you might have time to look at it again, and perhaps help improve it. All contributions welcome. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (No, this is not an April Fool thing)

 ChzzBot  ►  17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cannabis in Australia

On 3 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cannabis in Australia, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Garfield Heights Ohio

I cited my sources for the information on falled offices on the talk page for this article. If that isnt enough I listed a "citation needed" after the article-allthough this is all a matter of public record and there can be no dispute as to its authenticity. As far as defaming any living people such a claim is nonsense. Who can say they have been defamed? Those of us who live in this city are proud of those Officers who gave their lives-its a damned shame if you dont feel the same way. All the same thank you, at least you were man enough to sign in Meanfrank (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Do you really impute that I have something against these officers? Well I hope you will look at the policy I cited again. This is to protect their families and friends. If you read the BLP policy I linked, you'll see this is not about defamatory material at all. It is about making sure that when we talk about issues that affect living persons, whether the material is negative, neutral or even praise, we get our information exactly right, and the only way that happens is by high quality sourcing—present and evident in the article using inline citations so that others can check the same sources not just to verify the material, but to make sure for themselves that everything is correct. It's great that you placed sources on the talk page. It is insufficient to place back the material unless it is used. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that only properly records information that already is published in the world and we need citations to make sure our material is correct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mop

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You are not the first to ask! I am about to go on vacation for couple of weeks, so maybe when I get back. Thanks again. – ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Masako Katsura

Hi! As for this picture, http://park.geocities.jp/matukinrei/fhoto/km.JPG
Matsuyama died on Dec. 20, 1953. [4] And the life of photographs' copyright was ten years in Japan then. So, if it was taken in Japan, the image is public domain and we can use it. But if it was taken in the USA, I mean 1952 in San Francisco....I don't know. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99.99% sure the photo is taken in Japan. Greenleaf is in uniform and Katsura is wearing a Kimono. The background details are also convincing. However, according to Commons:Licensing#Japan) if a photograph is anonymous or pseudonymous, the copyright lasts for 50 years after the publication or the death of the author, whichever is the earlier, which is why I was talking on the WikiProject page about the anonymous issue. If the copyright author is know, then (again, according to the Commons page) it's life of the author plus 50 years, so it'd be out. If it's U.S., of course it's definitely out. Are they wrong over at the Commons? Can you point to where you're getting the ten year period from? Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the linked Commons page carefully again. The second last paragraph. It says "Copyright protection for photographs published on or before December 31, 1956 has been ended, whether the author is alive or not." The information about ten years period is found on page 27 of this official pdf and ja:著作権の保護期間#写真の著作物 . Oda Mari (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha! You're right. Excellent. I am going to upload it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was scratching my head a bit because I couldn't understand how I missed the text you pointed to at the licensing page. It was not that I wasn't careful in my reading; the text was added after I read the section! See here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And here it is: File:Katsura, Matsuyama and Greenleaf.Jpg (it's been added to article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Wonderful! Here's further information to confirm the addition to the Commons page on April 18. I didn't know the change and your question about the anonymous issue. I found the old law extract in English. See Article 23 and the very last sentence. That was revised and extended to 12 years on July 27, 1967, then to 13 years in 1969. The protection for photograph published on or before December 31, 1956 has ended before the 1967 revision. This is the top page of the site. The site seems to be very helpful. Don't scratch your head anymore! Oda Mari (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering my Help Desk and for being the first person to leave me a message! :) Joal Beal (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. As a brand new user who comes over to the help desk, asks an appropriate question and already knows to sign his posts, you seem quite clueful. Please feel free to stop by anytime and ask anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have another question and I hope I am not being rude. I have been glancing over an assortment of Revolutionary War articles and I am finding a lot of mistakes and silly vandalism. How often are these articles checked for accuracy? Thanks! Joal Beal (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm was quite serious. You can ask me thirty questions. I may not be around the answer all the time, but put rudeness out of your mind. There's a lot of crap on Wikipedia. Tons of stuff is unreferenced, poorly written, contains unreverted vandalism and so on. The answer to how often is a hard one. There is no central authority checking each article for accuracy, just thousands of people editing by their own lights. Sometimes corners of the encyclopedia can get quite dusty and aren't watched by many. In other climes, vandalism will rarely stay more than a few seconds. It very much depends on how many users are interested or have been involved in an article and have placed it on their watchlists. So when you find a mistake, a partisan screed, poor writing, etc., rolling up your sleeves and fixing it is the best response (and tagging with appropriate templates if you are uninterested or don't have time) because (this may sound like a slogan but it's true) you (and me) are the encyclopedia staff. All this is not to say that Wikipedia isn't great and rewarding and accurate in many areas (see, for example WP:FA and WP:GA). I am of the opinion that until we start enforcing requiring sourcing in a manner that has teeth (and the verifiability policy as written, and the way we enforce it, is a far cry from that) we will never begin to see a way out from under the masses of crap.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

• The Masako Katsura footnotes you've recently added are indeed helpful and clear. My only suggestion is that you proofread them again in a day or two to catch any remaining small errors. In the first sentence of the second note, for example, I think you mean "both object balls" rather than "both object ball". Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed that and found and made a few other typo and fluidity corrections.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Noriko Katsura

was alive in 2002. The dead Katsuras were Masako and Noriko's son Kazushige at that time. Oda Mari (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Oda. I have updated the article, and your timing was impeccable; I was just posting to the featured article nomination on a question related to this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I sent you a mail. Did you see that? Oda Mari (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not and I just checked my email and found it in the spam folder. Damn thing is almost useless. I get tons of spam which makes it through no problem, and then when I get an email I want like yours, it decides that's spam. Grrrr. I will be emailing you back in a few minutes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Upgrade1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion, please?

Hello again. I found this article - Kenya Deaf Children Trust - and I don't know what to do with it. I can't find any references in a Google search, and the article looks like a mess. Can I nominate this for deletion? Thanks! Joal Beal (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I tagged it with {{db-org}} as it did not indicate any importance and a search of Google books and News Archive found zero results. You could of course have done this, or if your thought it didn't apply, nominated it for deletion using {{subst:prod|concern= reason for proposed deletion}} (note that prod is for uncontroversial matters). If you felt that neither speedy deletion nor prod was appropriate, the other option was to take it to articles for deletion. Note, of course, the recommended due diligence you should attempt before doing so, set forth at WP:BEFORE. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Julie Stoffer

I was reading through the reasons for deleting and salting this article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julie_Stoffer...vandalism is a reason to permanently delete an article? I feel like Stoffer is a highly notable person not just per The Real World but also per her work on the The Electric Playground, appearance in Eminem's Without Me and controversy relating to her expulsion by BYU. I think enough time has passed since the previous edit warring that recreation should be attempted.--The lorax (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Access some of Highbeam for free!

The Highbeam database (which Encyclopedia.com also uses) is full of zillions of newspaper archives. Costs money. Unless you get clever like me, and figure out that AccessMyLibrary.com is also using it, and provides free access as long as you can identify some "local" library that has paid for access to it. In my case, I searched for something (e.g. "Golden Cue"), found abstracts and was given a mini-form to fill in with my ZIP code for full access via a local library. I thought it would make me go to the library and use a computer there, but I plugged in 87111, it said that the entire local library system was participating, and just gave me full access from home. Schweet. So, if your ZIP doesn't help, use mine. The archives don't seem to go back to the Yank Adams/William Spinks era, but oh well. PS: Someone posted a stub at boccette, so I created a Category:Finger billiards to hold it. It awaits its {{catmain}} article. ;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Partial retraction: It's not the entire Highbeam Research database, but it's still 30 million+ articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Stanton. I just tried using the zip code you gave me and it worked no problem at all. Thanks! I've added it to my list of free sources. Another good free one is Old Fulton NY Postcards with 12,698,000 articles as of today. Just so you know, newspaperarchive.com, which I think I mentioned to you I had signed up for some time ago, has (or at least claims to have) over a billion articles. I could not have written Masako Katsura without it. I've been very frustrated with how her FAC unfolded by the way. A user who appears to spend his time opposing every FAC that has FU images in it was the only contributor for some time (though I did create File:1952 World's Three-Cushion sheet.gif to take care of one objection I agreed with). A second user popped up to agree with the first, never replied to any nuanced discussion, and meanwhile there was almost no discussion of the article's actual content. Finally someone actually addressed the content, all concerns were addressed, but it was archived while this was ongoing. I'm going to resubmit as soon as I can. Hey, you never commented on my post here. At least tell me you want to throttle them. I guess it's legal but what a scam. It's now selling for $66.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Random perusing and saw this. The scammers have a sick amount of WP articles on there—I've found ones on my favorite topic there—and Amazon doesn't seem to want to do anything. Not much we peons can do. I'm just glad that I checked up on the company before I bought two books I wanted. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's legal to repurpose WP content like that as long as it's credited properly, but sheesh, that really is retarded. Who's going to pay $60+ for something they can get for free with any web browser? The Katsura situation was just about as lame. Hopefully the problem critic will be off doing something else... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD can close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The golden cue - nomination withdrawn. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hawaiian alphabet/temp

Is this WP:CSD#G8 material? fyi, I know the backstory on these ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No not at all. Did a history swap of Hawaiian alphabet and Hawaiian Alphabet and missed talk page. Thanks for the catch. It's fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspected is was just missed, so I didn't tag it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page mentioning you

I don't know if you saw this, but there was a page called Fuhghettaboutit (again) which may or may not be related to that other one that you're posting about. I believe I saw it before it was deleted, but I dont really remember what was there. —Soap— 14:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I was aware of the ones from 2007, but not the recent one. Just retaliation for deleting this attack page. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Deleted page mentioning you

My response? Oooooh...I wrote a musical! :-D --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 17:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that I do so little non-admin work nowadays (98% of my work involves disamming or templates) that I have no idea how I could've made someone mad. I assume its an admin action they didn't like. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's the fact you are an admin. I'm really not sure this was targeted. It was a bit strange and not a very blatant attack. The user might have just taken some random names from WP:ADMIN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallam Street

Thank you for your help. Your changes have done the trick. Interestingly the gap in the text problem persists with Vista/Explorer 7.0 but not with Vista/Chrome, Vista/Firefox or XP/Explorer 8.0 . --Portlandvillage (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad it worked. Is it possible it's persisting in Explorer 7 because of a cache issue?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings

I wonder how we can make the move requests stop? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, other than continuing to block on the quackiness of it all, you've got me. user:Yadontmind, user:Notconsensus user:Bleedonpad, User:4challengingt, User:Prettydifferent; they just keep coming. The thing is it's all isolated to this article. With such a focused SPA, they really don't do much damage. I mean the next time I guess we can reopen the original Crashingthewaves investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but I really don't know what it would accomplish.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly just want to merge the article and lock the redirect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Doing that... you let the bad acts dictate the result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It was either that or have a guy come in monthly and do article renames. I think in principle, others do want to merge, but not give this sock a victory. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		"Best. Admin. Ever! Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Americana

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks to you my article has twice as many references as it used to --Ishtar456 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two in a row. I'm on a roll baby! Now let's see what unsuspecting user I can bribe into giving me another. Seriously, thanks much!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cyrille Dion

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent flurry

Nice to see all this flurry of barnstars and other goodies on your page. :-) But no surprise there. Thanks again for all your help here, and wishing you and yours a lovely and relaxing summer. As always, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

yet another...

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For not only helping me, well beyond the call of duty, on the Americana (film) article, but also for being the most helpful and patient fellow Wikipedian I have come across to date. Ishtar456 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ishtar. Much appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for the trying the gallery template in place of the multiple image template. Only problem is that on a smaller monitor (15") the photos and race result chart stack instead of fitting on one line. On a larger monitor the gallery template looks good but i need it to work on 15" monitors as well. Can you revert the change please?68.5.39.2 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

gallery template worked perfectly.....

fughhettaboutit, originally i had asked you to revert the gallery template you inserted ... but please don't. Turns out it works great. thanks for your help and Ukexpat's help tooVintagesportscars (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk Trojan issue?

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, at the discussion Wikipedia:Help_desk#Heavily_referenced_article_disappears_in_only_two_weeks, you mentioned an external link attempted to give you a trojan. Can you be specific as to which external link? There are a couple. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey... Fuhghettaboutit! As the wisest admin I've encountered here, I need your advice again (since I know it will fair and well-answered). I started my first SPI here way back on May 23 concerning socking by a community-banned editor: all the editors responding in the report are very familiar with her. A CU was performed and a couple of socks were blocked, but it's now a WP:DUCK situation to prove it's SRQ. An AN/I discussion was started here, and the subsequent section is so far 8-1 in favor of an indefinite ban for socking by this extremely WP:TEDIOUS editor.

My question is simple: is it WP:CANVASSing to notify the other editors who voted to community ban SRQ (it was 16-0, and would have been 17-0 if I was able to vote at that time) of the AN/I discussion/vote? I would ask only for their attention because of their previous involvement in the ban vote (for or against, but none were against), and invite them to voice whatever opinion they might have. I know SPI's can take a while, but my experience with this editor (along with the others involved) leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was a)Deliberate disruptive socking by the banned editor, and b)That the ban should be extended to indefinite as a result. I want to close this case, as it is dragging on and totally obvious. I appreciate any advice you can give me in this matter. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc! Yeah, it would meet almost meets the definition of canvassing. It's a discussion you are involved in and have a "side" on, and the people you want to inform, since they were all one one side of the previous discussion (even though it was unanimous) are partisan because they has a side. I know its sort of different, in that many discussion have two sides and if you inform everyone neutrally, then that might be claimed not to be canvassing but even then it's common for people to seize on the giving of notice as improper. You end up with a discussion that becomes about how the people arrived, rather than the issue at hand and it taints the discussion. Think of canvassing as a third rail; don't even come near; avoid "even the appearance of impropriety."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As usual, your advice is excellent. My only concern was that is a banned user, and that maybe the option I was looking at would be different solely because of that. Now it's at 12-2 in favor of an indef block, and hopefully more editors will naturally come to the thread and close it before the cows come home. Thanks again, Fuhg - you rock! Doc9871 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

more later! ww2censor (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:George Sutton.jpg

I'm sorry, but I felt that I had to tag File:George Sutton.jpg for deletion - a file you uploaded way back in 2006.

It says that it was created 95 years ago, and I'm sure you are aware that the life-plus-seventy-years criteria for US pics does not cover that. Apologies,  Chzz  ►  01:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. However, it was published in the US prior to 1923 so it's public domain:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding, by the way, is that where the period is measured normally by life of the author plus 70 years, if the author is corporate, it is 95 years from date of publication, so if that applied here, it would have been correct, but of course, the whole scheme was wrong because it was prior to 1923.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being so gracious about it, and for elucidating; I've learnt a little more, too. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hi. I'm interested in getting Rollback rights. I occasionally have to revert 2 or 3 consecutive vandalism edits to religion-based articles that I watch (e.g. Atheism). I have read WP:Rollback and I understand that it is only to be used for reverting vandalism, and not for other objectionable edits. Here are some of my edit stats wikiChecker. (PS: I got your name from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests). --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hereby anoint thee a rollbacker. You probably know this already but let me just clarify one mechanical issue which takes some users by surprise. If rollback it used it rolls back all the edits of a user back to the last entry in the page history at which another user edited. In other words, if a user has made 15 consecutive edits and you hit rollback, it will revert all of them, so if only the last was vandalism, don't use it. By the way, I know you were just speaking loosely, but I do not think of atheism as a religion-based article (quite the opposite!:-) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for reiterating the finer points of the Rollback process :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits

Wanted to thank you for cleaning up the references (and other stuff!) in my Harry Lewis Nelson draft page User:Bcnelson/draftHLN. I just don't know the mark-up language well enough (yet) to have done such a good job. I made a few more changes and would appreciate it if you could look at it again (and possibly work your magic on it). Although I suppose that the page is already on your watchlist since you've made edits to it, and you already know that. Bcnelson (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. The article is shaping up fine. I'll give it a second look soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(Jimmy James and) The Blue Flames

Do you have any sources for your claim that the band The Blue Flames is not called Jimmy James and the Blue Flames? I noticed you moved the article but could see no source for this claim, and by the Hendrix publications I have, the band is called by the longer name. If you have a source, I will stand corrected, that is fine :) Andre666 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andre. Please look at the article history. The entire front end of the article is and was before I found it, about how the name of the band was not actually Jimmy James... but just The Blue Flames. I took that as I found it in the incredibly poorly written article, only sourced through a general reference that is not accessible (a least online). If it's not correct, please move it back (and remove the whole screed about it being not the actual name).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel J. Bernstein (1918-1970)

I noticed that you removed the page because of possible copyright infringement. It is not in copyright violation because it is part of my work at the Ruth Lilly Special Collections and Archives, IUPUI University Library. Can the page be made available again? Are there ways to avoid such issues in the future? We do put citations to the collection in the entry. bburk (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)~~~~

Hi bburk. I have modified your title so it's more clear to others what deleted page we're talking about (especially since there is an existing page on a person by the same name). On the external cite, the material is clearly marked at the bottom: "Copyright © 2010 The Trustees of Indiana University." If you want to use it here, the copyright must be released under Wikipedia's free licenses: the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The upshot is that for us to use the material—which means allowing our users to use it and modify it even for commercial purposes—we have to have a verified release of the material. To do that, please follow either of the methods listed at the page I linked above. Specifically, please look at the section I am now linking to entitled Granting us permission to copy material already online. Hope this helps. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. We are placing our archives guides under a cc license. Can the Daniel J. Bernstein (1918-1970) entry be reinstated? Thanks, bburk. bburk(talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again bburk. I will gladly undelete the article, but only after I can verify the compliance, by either of the two methods listed at the link I provided in the previous post. And, for text it must be dually licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)—Not just CC. I'm not 100% sure from your post if you were giving me a heads up and already know this, and will be soon posting the licensing on the external site, or were telling me this thinking that by telling me of the release, you thought that would constitute compliance. If the former, just drop me a message when you've complied; I'll check and undelete. If the latter, as I've indicated, it has to be by a verifiable method, either through the OTRS system with an email associated with the external site, or the posting of the free licenses on the external site (again see here). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I've posted the licensing on the external site at http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/special/collections/philanthropy/mss010 so it can be reviewed for compliance. Thanks. --Bburk (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's restored. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I will work on cleaning it up!--Bburk (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Twinkle problem

Everything looks normal on this end. The four tildes show up and the help me link shows up properly. When you say template do you mean which warning template I used?--Bobby122 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually they didn't:-) This is the page after your edit. They were fixed later, see this diff. Yes, which warning template you used, and thanks for responding so quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad it's fixed now :). I used the vandalism level one warning and thanks I try to respond quickly.--Bobby122 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD/Notability

I CSDd Elizabeth Humphreys Penrose with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals in mind — this was the source of my confusion. Does A7 have lower standards than notability, I ask because — while now I agree my CSD was uncalled for — the subject of this article does not seem notable.--Supertouch (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. That is a confusion that gets many users. A7 is governed by what it says. It is a very low bar, much lower than notability, and you do not look at what WP:N or any of the subject guidelines say when you decide whether to apply it, you look to the language at WP:CSD, which is:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

There are a number of things here to parse, such as that A7 only applies a limited subset of things: real persons, individual animal(s), organizations (but not schools), and web content and it only applies if the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Note the word indicate—not prove, not substantiate, just indicate. So, if I write: John Doe is a famous painter" that indicates importance and significance and A7 does not apply. And of course, since reliable sources is our standard foe notability, and this is a lower standard as actually stated in the criterion, if seemingly reliable sources are included (about the topic itself of course), that invalidates A7. Notability, on the other hand, is something that we require in articles but not as a speedy deletion basis. Whether an article is non-notable may be discussed on the merits at artiles for deletion. That is where notability must be shown. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Supertouch (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Censured ?

Why you censure the article of a new search engine ? Censure ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.219.126 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is "censor", but there is no censorship to speak of. Assuming your post is about Yaanb Search, and you are user User:Altlinux, please read the post at your talk page: "Speedy deletion nomination of Yaanb Search." Explore the links that are in that post, especially the ones entitled section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion and the the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

hi, I just want to let you know that Americana passed GAN. Thanks again for all your help.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have officially high-fived you on your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Created Lift-Ticket

Can you created the page about Lift-Ticket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be a lot more transparent about what you intend? I declined all of your move requests because they contained no rationales for the moves. Your post here is also a bit opaque.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cullen Center

Alright, I sent you an e-mail. Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Now I have great information about the founding of the Cullen Tower. Thank you very much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you intervene?

Hi, would you mind taking a look at my complaints about user ArthurRubin here and decide if anything needs to be done? I am alleging that he is targeting me for reversions of valid links I add to articles, while not deleting equally valid links that were put in the same articles by someone other than me (e.g, reverting a link of mine from quintic equation (fifth degree equation) to sextic equation (sixth degree equation), or reverting a link of mine from quartic equation to sextic equation while leaving alone a link to quintic equation, etc. All told he reverted seven new links of mine today while deleting no equivalent links that were not mine. I think he may be retaliating because I challenged him here over a previous reversion of a valid link of mine. While he appears to engage in many valid reversions, a look through his talk page and its archive suggests that invalid reversions are a recurring problem.

Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Duoduoduo. If there is a large scale pattern that is clear, please take the incident to WP:ANI. Currently I see an edit dispute, but not any large scale reversions such that hounding is evident. I think you went quite a bit overboard with your message on Arthur Rubin's talk page, unless I'm missing a long running history of past rancorous interaction. It's better to approach this in a far calmer manner and I think far more likely to end well and get your desired result. For example, think about how different it would look to others, and to Arthur Rubin, if your message instead was "Hey Arthur. I saw you reverted my edits in a bunch of articles where I added X and Y to the see also section with the edit summary, "excerpted summary"; I think these links are quite relevant to these articles. Can you please be a bit more transparent about why you reverted them? I am certainly willing to expand on their relevance if that would address your concerns about them. Thanks." Instead, your post was basically going in 'guns blazing.'

Considering that you made many more edits during the same time frame as the reversions, this would be hard to characterize as hounding, so your message, quoting chapter and letter of pages on what constitutes hounding, and saying he was "clearly trolling", when I, as an impartial observer (as far as I know I've never talked to Arthur Rubin, though I may have; I have a lot of edits), do not think it is "clearly trolling", was an escalation that was not likely to get you a favorable result from Arthur Rubin or others looking at your post. I am not saying that you have no reason to question the removals, or that your edits should or should not have stuck (I really can't fall either way; these edits are not in my bailiwick at all), but I think the tone of your reaction was shooting yourself in the foot, and it's hard to stuff that genie back in the bottle once released.

So, in sum, I think you should move along. As I started with, if a real pattern develops, one that would be evident to others who've never seen it before, then make your concerns evident, and do so dispassionately (and of course, provide diffs). Finally note that I am not a fan of large see also sections. They are not the heart of an article and should be kept trim, with links to only the most relevant related content. I am not saying these weren't, but the sections are certainly overlarge as it is. By the way, I will be posting a link to this thread on Arthur Rubin's talk page, as I try to never speak of other editors without informing them. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your suggestion would work with 99% of the people on Wikipedia, but not with someone who has a history of edit warring. I have no stomach for that. Basically, anyone who likes edit warring more gets his way. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncontroversial requests

When dealing with Wikipedia processes I'm not very familiar with, I try to take the directions at face value and follow them as best as possible. It did not seem totally unreasonable to me that someone could object for some reason to moving Big Four (boy band) to Big Four (band), so I assumed I should not list it as an uncontroversial request. The criteria for an uncontroversial request does not include, or allude to, reversing a move that was made with zero discussion or support; I know I have seen several other past move discussions that were also prompted by such a situation. If you (as someone with apparently more experience in this than I) agree with me that the criteria for an uncontroversial request should encompass this situation, I will suggest at WP:RM that the criteria be changed. Propaniac (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Propaniac. I do the same—approach new processes with caution. The uncontroversial section is not supposed to be an exhaustive list (thus "e.g. spelling and capitalization") but it wasn't that the user moved it without discussion or support that rendered the move uncontroversial to my mind, it was that the need for the overprecise disambiguator was moot. As you noted at the request, the page "ha[d] since been moved to Big Four (thrash metal bands)". When a page is at a title that has a disambiguator that is not needed, or no longer needed because of other moves or deletion, removing a disambiguator or reducing one per WP:PRECISION, is uncontroversial in most cases. Just as a side note, if a page was moved without any consensus and it is very clearly improper to anyone passingly familiar with naming conventions, I very well might act upon such a request if listed at uncontroversial even if I knew the mover might protest. To me uncontroversial can also means that I know that all knowledgeable users will agree on a move; that there is zero likelihood of a requested move ending in another result. I'm not going to elevate slavish adherence to process over substance in such circumstances. But that's would only be for the most clear cut cases, and many users would deny such a request; that type wasn't what I was referring to at the discussion. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 04:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weird transclusion syntax

Ever seen anything like {{:The Cleveland Show (season 1)}} (the colon being the interesting bit)? I can't figure out how to edit the content at List of The Cleveland Show episodes#Season 2: 2010–2011. I'm assuming this is some wikisyntax feature the introduction of which I missed. There is neither a [[Template::The Cleveland Show (season 1)]] (invalid page name) nor a Template:The Cleveland Show (season 1). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is completely bizarre. I just tried about ten things to try to figure out what it's transcluding and how, and nada. Going to go try more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this possible? Template:The Cleveland Show (season 2) has never existed; I didn't think a template could be named with a leading colon, and sure enough, there is no "[[Template::The Cleveland Show (season 2)]]" (the second colon just breaks the syntax so it doesn't even become a red link); it's not transcluding anything from {{The Cleveland Show}}.... okay going to try heading over to the template help page to see if there's anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, when in doubt, ask at the help desk. I am intrigued.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Per the help desk, I got it. It's transcluding the content of the article The Cleveland Show (season 2), just as you can do for any linkable page by placing it inside curly braces, and normally, you'd notice immediately that it was doing this, because you'd see the entire article from its lead to its categories, but here, the article being transcluded has <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags around the content we're seeing, so when the page is called, only that content is transcluded. Any page outside the mainspace is transcluded simply by curly braces, but for mainspace articles, you need a colon before it to make it transclude, or it defaults to thinking it a template, and you just get a red-linked template rather than the content. A very strange way to use the syntax, and probably not a good one (if someone removes the onlyinclude tags, for example, everywhere that the article is being transcluded will suddenly show the complete contents of the article inside the other one. That was a fun and educational diversion. I was totally stumped.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Funky stuff. I didn't even know that <onlyinclude> existed. It post-dates the last time I read the docs on this stuff. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Created General Joseph Colton and redirect to General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe)

Excuse me, can you create General Joseph Colton and redirect to General Joseph Colton (G.I. Joe) now? 75.142.152.104 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Need some help with something

Thank you! −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving House of Night. -- James26 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

More help?

Thank you for sending me the deleted files on Yoshukai karate. However, two photo files that went with it also seem to be missing. Is it possible to retrieve Yoshukai logo.png and Yoshukai.jpg? Pkeets (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The first was uploaded from the original which is here. I'll email you the second but I cannot send attachments through Wikipedia's email program. Just send me an email from the address at which you received my last message, and then I'll send it to you directly. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I had deleted it, but I can't find your email to reply. Would you send me another please? Also, how were these files placed in Wikipedia? Would I have license problems in using them again?Pkeets (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. I should have said, "or you send me a wikipedia email"--whoever sends the email to the other gives the other their email address, the sender never gets the other's. In any event, I just sent you a blank. The images were attempted to be used as fair use and not very successfully. See WP:NFCC. By the way, I didn't get the feeling before that you were asking for this material because you planned to repost the articles--you do realize that these articles, having been deleted at AfD, will be deleted as reposts (under CSD G4) unless they address the deletion bases substantially?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The new Yoshukai Karate article is already up, and I have addressed the deletion bases, adding third party sources, independent documentaries, a fifty-year history, and international scope. However, I'm uncertain how to use the photo files that didn't reattach when I put the article up. These were not my files, so I can't set them up for fair use. However, I expect the original articles were put up by representatives of the local organizations that do own the files? The Japanese Yoshukai article came across as badly translated, for example, so I gather it was put up from Japan. What do you think about the photo files? Pkeets (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Splitting

Yes, I know, and if I'm able to go back to editing that article that is what I will have done by the time everything is said and done. I've re-written many articles, although none as complex as the Kosovo article. Right now I'm waiting for a response from Avala regarding why he reverted my edits as vandalism and whether or not he will do that again if I start working on that article again.

HWD WofFame

Should I wait until the CfD is resolved to categorize the entries again? Purplebackpack89 04:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really up to you. Having articles in or not in a category is not a burning priority in general. If you expend the effort, know that if the decision is to delete the category, it's wasted effort. On the other hand, I take it you wish this category to be kept. Seeing what articles fit within the category could help any argument you might make. What you were saying at the undeletion request was that the category is different because unlike people, only very famous fictional characters get stars; that it's more selective than it is for humans. To demonstrate that, people would need to see what's in the category wouldn't they?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of the bot undo it, actually... Purplebackpack89 05:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad

Mea maximima culpa — incompetence, not wheeling, sorry, restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We all try hard and we all mess up. I blocked Cydebot (a bot that deletes categories) yesterday instead of removing the instructions to delete a particular page because I couldn't figure out where the instruction page was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the story?

Hello, This week I had to revert an unhelpful edit by User:Kljx465 on Chris Tompkins, and I left a level 1 warning on their talk page. Then another editor left a higher level warning then you apparently deleted their user page. So I presume there is more going on here than comes to the attention of a casual editor such as myself. Is this person more dangerous than the usual level of immaturity seen sometimes on Wikipedia and are they liable to be back and attacking "my" (no ownership implied) article so that I need to pay closer attention to it than usual? Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Trilobitealive. The user is one or two edits away from an indefinite block and if there's more vandalism (and someone reports or I notice) that's what'll happen. The user posted an attack on his user page against a presumable living person, who is probably another 4th grader (just guessing) that shares a name in common with the subject of the article you wrote. Deleting attack pages, no matter where they arise is de rigeur. I am guessing by context that the shared name was the reason for the vandalism, which actually had nothing to do with the subject of the article you created. Note that I have just removed that edit from the history of Chris Tompkins. So, in sum, just a pre-adolescent acting out. Keep the article on your watchlist, remember that WP:AIV and WP:ANI and the help desk all exist, but there's nothing to worry about. You can always contact me here directly, not just about this particular incident but about anything. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Trilobitealive (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Berman Harris

Hello. In March you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [5]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheeky buggers. I know our licenses allow this kind of stuff but it still pisses me off. About 95% of the text of this book is my copyrighted text since I wrote most of those articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK

Ok, what brought you to my page? I thought it received no traffic. I am no fan of Adolf. I removed the link. RIPGC (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw your post at the help desk, where I am a regular, and wanted to know what city you referred to as an "article about a neighborhood of a city" without telling us which article. When the article is not named like this it can often be gleaned by looking at a user's contributions, and the easiest way to access a user's contributions is to click on talk in their signature and then choose "user contributions" from the toolbox menu. Thus I ended up at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Exceping the fifth revert that clearly fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP you are right, and of course since you believe that my rollbacks were in bad faith, revert them with a good summary (other users can rollback you) and if you feel it necessary, remove my user right. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Viral video

Hi, and thanks for your help deleting an edit to this article. I've just noticed that the content added is still visible in the history, in the four subsequent edits (including the one where I removed it): [6],[7],[8],[9]. Is it possible to revdelete these as well? Or do I need to request oversight? Robofish (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Robofish. Frankly I'm not sure what to do here. We need the other revisions for copyright purposes. I'm not sure the edit is so extreme that it outweighs that concern and I am very new to this feature (well we all are, but I have little experience in application). removing the diff does do something as it can't be explored now directly but can only be stumbled upon by someone reading an older version. Maybe you should hit someone else up who has more experience, or repost the adminhelp, stating the concern you've raised here. Certainly, if you go to oversight you'll be talking to users with vast experience with just this type of thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

VidTaggr

Hello

I will accept that the VidTaggr site does not have a large catalog, but the Back to the Future reference is a good reference. Please REVIEW the link to verify (http://vidtaggr.com/taggs.aspx?v=vtd0888571-ab), rather than just removing the reference. This level of Wiki-bullying is un-needed and only serves to drive good followers away.

Please RE-ADD the Back to the Future reference. The SPECIFIC reference has a lot of good information that SHOULD NOT be added to the wiki article. If you believe the content from VidTaggr SHOULD be added to the article, please let me know. Otherwise, the reference is a good one. If I do not hear back from you via Talk, I will assume that you have not reviewed the information at http://vidtaggr.com/taggs.aspx?v=vtd0888571-ab and will re-add the link myself.

Thanks for your time.

Dave (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your fine work and dedication

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit! In reply to my thanks for your assistance at the help desk, you left a message on my talk page, saying:

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to furnishing the clear, concise explanation you gave me at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on.

I sometimes hear Wikipedians express pride about their high edit counts, the many articles they've created, & etc., and that's understandable. But I do wish it were more generally recognized that this wonderful place would necessarily implode of its own weight in the absence of so much behind-the-scenes generosity. I wish more contributors here would follow your lead and help out in the vital infrastructure work that's required to keep things here running well. It seems to me that your own work here is exemplary in this way.

By "exemplary" I mean:

• You create compelling articles. ( I'd very much like to make the acquaintance of a few Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroos. I had no idea such a delightful animal existed. And your article about the film Anguish scared me all by itself, without even seeing the movie! )

• You help new users with an admirable patience and painstaking clarity, and

• You also work to keep the engines running smoothly behind the scenes in a score of underappreciated but crucial ways.

I've thought several times previously of saying some of this, but I hadn't interacted with you directly before, and it would have been too much of a liberty, coming from a complete stranger. But I'm very glad to have an appropriate opportunity to say so now. So thank you, again, for your extraordinary dedication to this remarkable enterprise, and for your very generous work to sustain and improve it so consistently and for so long. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuhg rocks: it's no coincidence that you were quite impressed (like I and many, many others are). He probably won't change - but he'll continue to change opinions on how to approach the project. Always the best... Doc9871 (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course that had to be my last post for 30 hours. Sorry to leave you hanging but wow, the above was something to come back to. I don't even know what to say (and words failing me is not one of my problems). Well, first, I'll thank you to describe me properly. It's true. For many questions the person never returns and most people just say "thanks", which there's nothing wrong with, but yours was unusually gracious. Your post is very high praise indeed which I'll wear as an uber-barnstar (and Doc puts it over the top (hi Doc!) I had to laugh when I saw you'd highlighted Anguish, of all the articles I've written. What a strange and twisted little movie it is and I think the most underdeveloped article I've started (psst: I just got Masako Katsura featured). Thanks for brightening my day!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! LOL re "describe me properly" and the accompanying image. Sorry! If I'd known I would have brought along a few sheep - or vandals? - to throw your way before posting! The article you wrote for Anguish was salient for me, I think, largely because of the film's multi-level story-within-a-story structure. That structure is appealing to me because the problems of parsing multiple levels of recursive or hierarchical meaning are central to set theory, semantics, and epistemology, subjects that have always interested me. But Masako Katsura! Beautifully done, and such research, too! Kudos... Well, her story is going to make some screenwriter very happy one day: It seems very rich in the themes it offers. Hmm ... you write well, have you ever considered trying your hand at a screenplay? ... I'm no professional writer myself ( I just like writing, and tend to get carried away with my own ideas ;-) but that just seems an appealing possibility, is all. Anyway, I notice from your user page that you appreciate amusing place-name road signs. Ever notice the one in this article before? It made me smile, anyway, when I came across it the other day. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a modern version. I prefer tribute in... bearer bonds:-) I've never been to Fucking though intercourse is a nice place to visit and blue balls is not far if you can't get up to intercourse. Personally, I want this sign.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those; I own myself bowled clean off the field in the area of prurient-interest signage links. I'm afraid I'm a little low on bearer bonds this week, though. Will any of these suffice? But back to work, now, I think. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I've found your Masako Katsura article just sort of floating through my mind a dozen or more times now, since you first pointed it out to me, above. As I found myself thinking about it yet again, this is pretty much what I found I was thinking:

"How did I miss that one and praise the other two much shorter ones I'd seen instead? Yeah, those are good articles, even very good articles ... okay, 'compelling' was a fair descripion, yes. But there are lots of very good articles on Wikipedia. Not many great one's though. Only seen a few. Masako Katsura is a great article. It doesn't club you over the head, though; much more subtle. Makes me think I might enjoy learning billiards, something I would have considered pretty boring before I saw it. Hmm. I should probably tell Fuhg."

So now I have. Really nice work. No reply necessary. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous mootch

To: User talk:AliceJMarkham, User talk:Bearcat, User:Fuhghettaboutit, User talk:Jehochman, User talk:Jokestress, and User talk:Pmanderson

Hi folks,

While I know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, I've read edits from each of you and figure that you might have something to contribute to my RD question Being private verses public?. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it, though even your attention here is appreciated as well. Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unused Templates

Templates you may have created; Template:Infobox Station Begin, Template:Infobox station begin, Template:Infobox Station Example, Template:Infobox station example, Template:Infobox Station Header, Template:Infobox station header, Template:Infobox Station Main, Template:Infobox station main, Template:Infobox Station Services and Template:Infobox station services, have been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I created none of these templates, though It may look like I did. The ones where I am the first edit results from having moved them to a new name and deleting the preexisting redirect at the old title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stirling work

Hiya. I'd like to thank you very much for your contributions to the references for European Go Championship. For a non-Go player to put in such effort is truly commendable. We'll have to learn from your dedication & source-finding skills. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Trafford09's talk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Round Rock

Re. non-free on Round Rock, Texas, your re-removal here - thank you for that.

Also, I wanted to let you know about the discussion User talk:Chzz#Round Rock,Texas, in case you hadn't seen it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Anytime, of course. Fair use is a slippery and unnateral concept to many. I hadn't seen it but it looks like you have it under control and the user seems quite reasonable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are working on Round Rock, Texas citations. If you have some you want me to work on specifically, to help out, let me know and I will dive in. I use the formats set out in the Wikipedia reference article and they are pasted on my User:Austex site (Under the Citations section) so that I can copy and paste the format to ensure that each one is done exactly the same as others. Take a look at my User site and see if you have any comments. There are so many darn ways to reference citations, including just freehand at times. 173.174.103.100 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I see your ANI post. You can help WP by doing some things. I will strongly consider taking my thing down but not right this second because that would be giving in to bullies. Also tell people that trying to get me blocked is escalation and not helpful. You post sums it up better than I can. In fact, you can even mark the ANI post as resolved because you are a voice of concillation, not a party to the event. You should also tell Toddst1 that he does receive many complaints about him on ANI, more than any other person, so he should be very mindful of acting like the most upright admins possible (but say it in a nice way). With all that, everyone can walk away and resume editing. Besides, maybe in a few days, you might see a tan/yellow box on my page somehow disappear and not taken out by someone else. RIPGC (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Above user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Gaydenver.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

		Cookies!
		Well said at WT:TITLE. Thanks for sharing your experience at WP:RM, which is invaluable. has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling it as I see it. The argument is essentially over process, and I hate arguing over process when the substance is staring us in the face.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1925 Article?

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. Did you ever receive a copy of the 1925 New Yorker article you requested at WP:REX? If not, email me. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Emailed. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Melvin Rees page

Fuhghettaboutit, my source is Crime Library, which itself is sourced by numerous books, including one of those you cited. If you can help me better source the article, I would be very grateful. --Scoutstr295 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstr295 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep your advice in mind, and conform to the Wikipedia standards. Thanks for the talk and the photo. Cheers back, --Scourstr295 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstr295 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lelean Memorial School

So what really is the problem with that article?. It was created by the same person who owns its facebook page. All it needs is a bit of a rewrite thats it...

and please archive this page..its a pain in the posterior for users on dial-up to open...--Stemoc (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and do the rewrite if you want. The notice on the page provides a link to do so, it says "To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage..." The problem with the page is that it is a copy and paste of copyrighted material and we need the copyright owner to release the material under a free license compatible with ours, or into the public domain (not just permission for us to use it here), and that has to be done in a verifiable manner, which is not provided by an assertion on Wikipedia that it is so. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If the material is rewritten to no longer be a copyright infringement, that would take care of the matter. Otherwise the clerks at copyright problems will get to the page and review it but it appears to be backed up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncontroversial moves, etc.

• Hey, thanks for the tip about uncontroversial moves! (See Talk:Cheryl Bentyne. I have been hesitant to post in this section because everything seems to get lumped into the contested section below, including a few of my past uncontroversial moves - I had no idea an "&" could cause so much furor!) I have a question: I've been revamping a lot of templates lately - how do I delete an obsolete template? Same as a normal page I suppose - is it db-move? I've never actually done it before, so I wanted to check with someone knowledgeable. The template in question is Template:Pussy Galore (band) which contains an unnecessary distinction because Honor Blackman's bond girl has no use for a template. I've already created an alternate template (Template:Pussy Galore) that incorporates all the old information and a whole lot more. Thanks for your time! Wikkitywack (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • One way to delete it is to ask how to get it deleted and then voila! But the answer is {{db-t3}}—each of the speedy deletion criterion has an assigned letter and number (G=general; A=article, R=redirects, T=templates, F=files, P=portal, C=category), so if you find the correct criterion, whatever its namespace letter and number is, the speedy template will be db=that. The uncontroversial section at RM is underused, largely because people don't realize it's there, but also because knowing what is uncontroversial is a matter of experience. A page that has an overprecise disambiguator like Cheryl Bentyne did, is pretty uncontroversial. By the way, I couldn't do a history merge of the template because there were overlapping edits and it wasn't really needed, and I'm also aware you didn't create the new template, Soul Crusher did, but that was a cut and paste move, and if you find these in your template travels, you can list them for fixing at WP:SPLICE. {{Pussy Galore}}}: that has to be the most awesome name of any template on Wikipedia. I remember the first time I heard "Pussy Galore"--I think I was thirteenish, many moons ago, and I got a big kick out of the name and I still get a sophomoric titillation when I hear it. Octopussy didn't help either...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ha! I thought I created it by accident but it looks like all I did was change "title = Pussy Galore (band)" to "title = Pussy Galore (band)|Pussy Galore" - my mistake! And after putting all that work into it, I guess it felt like created it! Thanks for all the info! Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • PS, how long does it usually take for uncontroversial moves to get moved? Wikkitywack (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Usually they're acted on in less than a day, but it can be a few minutes at times. Stop by anytime, for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Tyrell, Greg Kurstin & image deletion, etc.

• Hey, it's me again! I was wondering if you could look into the abuse that's going down over at Steve Tyrell. I and a couple other users did some much-needed repairs a few months back (added a birthdate, cleaned up some "fansite" issues, etc.) - and now it's been laid to waste by some ip addresses. Frustrating. Meanwhile over at Greg Kurstin, User:Depressedowitz has repeatedly deleted my properly-sourced birth info without comment (kinda weird too - he left the sources hanging in midair!) Also, is the proper way to delete File:Bosshogst.jpg db-f1? I added a much cleaner image: File:Boss Hog album.jpg. Thanks for your time. (Oh, and if you could duplicate this on my talk page, that would be great!) Wikkitywack (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi again Wikkitywack. Haven't had a chance to look, but I will soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I found an interesting sort of buggy thing with the new Template:The Posies. I put it under review for uncontroversial moves the other day (from Template:The posies to Template:The Posies - gotta have proper capitalization!) and whoever moved it must have left out a step. Because whenever I click the little "e" in the upper left corner of the template, it gives me this message in the edit box: #REDIRECT Template:The Posies. I think I kind of grasp what's going on, but I don't know how to fix it! There is a loophole to editing though - if you go to the template page and click on the "edit this page" tab, everything works. But something is definitely amiss! Wikkitywack (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • NEVERMIND I believe I fixed it...just changed "| name = The posies" to "The Posies" with a capital "P" and everything seems to be working just fine. That was pretty easy (I hope!) Wikkitywack (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Article_from_The_New_Yorker

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, did you already download it? Doc Taxon (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Doc. I dropped the ball on this one. See my comments at the exchange.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Fuhghettaboutit! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 963 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Longenecker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may avoid hell if...

you follow ekadashis fasting. Read here: [10]. So stop any meat-eating, including intoxication like tobacco, alcohol, and of course eggs, flesh, blood, onions, garlics, tea, coffee etc. This is for whole life and any next life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to reign in my instincts not to hasty action on this. Nothing makes me angrier or more disgusted than proselytizing. Go away and don't do this again to me or anyone else. Now I'm going to go see if you're up to these revolting activities elsewhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep calm

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I appreciate that User:Qualities108 is troublesome to deal with and that he well deserved a warning but please can you redraft your warning to him in a way that doesn't abuse his religion as "volcano worship". An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it and all religions have a fair few oddballs as followers (as do we Atheists so we can't get too superior over this). Probably the single most counter-productive way to try to deal with religious oddballs is to give them an opportunity to turn it into a religious slanging match. It is far better to calmly brush off their feeble attempts to impose their views via extreme verbiage with a simple list of the rules they are breaking and the sanctions they face if they continue. Regards. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, it's a very good post (yours I mean); it expresses a sentiment I might have written to another user under slightly different circumstances; it appeals to my better sensibilities and says "you know better" without saying it outright. The problem is that unsolicited proselytizing pisses me off like few other things, I am simply not going to return to the users talk page at all, except to the extent that I may neutrally inform him of an ANI post if and when I do so (my time is very limited right now). I have not studied the user's posts in depth though the multiple articles with religious text is a problem. More importantly, you might note from the screed you reverted here that the user says "I WRITE THIS TO OTHERS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALLOW PUTTING THIS VERY IMPORTANT TEXT TO WIKIPEDIA CALLING THIS VANDALISM OR SPAM" which indicates to me that this user is an... ahem... reincarnation of a previously blocked user given the specificity of the words and the newness and relative few edits of the current account.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured in other languages

I did see it, thanks for your comment. Funny thing is you referenced an old discussion, and then mentioned Julius Caesar at 13. The old discussion contained a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records, which mentioned that the record-holder was Einstein at 12. So based on your information, I updated the record. The unfortunate thing about that, though, is that we`re clearly working with a guess and check methodology, so there might another article we`re just missing. I tried a whole bunch of obvious possibilities (DNA, King Tut, Evolution, etc.), but couldn`t find one to beat Caesar, so we might just be right on the money....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 07:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm Movin' On deletion

Thank you HEAPS! Benuliak 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just realized that it may sound "ironic" for others, leaving them think that you might deleted some of my work, godforbid. So here I go again - Thank you heaps for following my request to delete my article (due to my using non-english keyboard and making some typos). Be well Benuliak 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyime. For future reference, you can make such a request directly on the article by placing at its top {{db-g7}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hacky fix

I've just completed the exhausting journey of transporting Merle Haggard's discography into a navbox. My template contains navbox subgroups in liststyle, which is great, but it messes up the odd-even striping. The best I can do to get it back on track is jump from group7 = Singles to group9 = Collaboration singles. Is there a less hacky way to confront this problem? The "evenodd" function suggested on the navbox subgroups page doesn't seem to work... Thanks, Wikkitywack (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with this type of template's functions. If I can't help, you might want to post at the help desk to get more eyes on it. Anyway, looking at it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. I tried looking at other uses in templates to see if there was one where a similar problem occurred and was fixed in some way, but no luck. Sorry Wikkitywack, it's beyond my experience to help here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	WP:Y --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks extra!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, I'm coming here, because you're an admin and you seem to be active (I'd rather avoid attracting much attention on this and, so, I'm not posting on ANI). Could you please take a look at [11] and tell me if you think it's appropriate for a kid to disclose so much information about himself? I think it's definitely not and the page should be deleted asap... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for referring to you on WT:RD. diff I did fix the link error later :)--Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Template capitalisation

I noticed you did lot of work on this: if the following are helpful to you, great - and feel free to update them, if you have moved on sorry to trouble you.

• User:Rich Farmbrough/temp1 My list of infobox templates where I had doubt about the capitalisation (one or two obviously correct are left because they collide with an incorrect title)
• Wikipedia:Templates with names differing only in capitalization - does what it says on the tin.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. Yeah I standardized about 1,500 template names, mostly those having the infobox designation. I did this straight from looking at Category:Infobox templates and its subcategories. Is there any way in your first list to update it to only show those still needing to be moved? The problem with that list for my purposes if I wished to continue, is that it shows the redirect names of ones I or others have already done, with no way to differentiate to separate out those that still need standardization. What do you think should be done going down the second list? I would think for many (where the templates are actually the same functionwise) the idea would be to change what the articles use to just the one with the better name and then redirect the bad name to the better. Is that something like what you had in mind for the entries on that list?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The first list is not as bad as it seems, for example I cleared out the "Infobox M"s - I use popups I think it is, so I can mouse over and see which are redirects. I pulled out all the redlinks, a few days ago. I was considering pulling out the redirects automatically - could be done but I'd loose the section counts and stuff.

The second list - yes where templates are "the same" they can just be merged and the others redirected - I did that for a football team that had four different navboxes. Where they are different there are a number of cases:

• A and a exist
• A exists and a->B
• A->B and a->C

In the first case one or both should be renamed (for example "Foo band" becomes "Foo band sidebar", "Foo Band" becomes "Foo band navbox"), and one or both redirects orphaned, then pointed to the other/target so that we get (ignoring symmetrical cases)

• A->a C
• A->B a->B C

In the second case, very likely orphan a and end up with

• a->A B

And in the third making an intelligent choice between whether A suggests B or C more strongly

• A->B a->B C

Of course common sense and template naming experience may dictate something completely different - if A, B and C are all unsuitable names, or if the templates are unused.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the CSD help

Thanks for putting up the right CSD rationale for Naval Hormusji Tata-- I had thought it was just an essay on some unnotable individual, but you spotted (probably by the Google search I neglected) that it was copyvio. I'll watch for that in the future-- is there a good way to verify if a page is blatantly being stolen from elsewhere on the 'net, minus searching for snatches of it with a search engine? Cheers, Thurinym (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I see hallmarks of a copyvio I always check and will invariably delete with that rationale over a g11 (though I sometimes combine both) because copyvios are so much more insidious. I have no special strategies other than a Google search. But having done this many times, I find that it's often better to grab a small section of words that ring unique than a larger quote, which sometimes won't be found because of minor modification. Also, when hallmarks of a copyvio are present and a straight Google search is unavailing, I often try two things. First, does the page have an external link placed by the person to the homesite? If so, often you will find the copyvio as an interior page of that site (often at the "about" or "history" sections). If there is not such link placed by the creator, I search Google for the homesite, and then try to find the copyvio in the interior just as before. It sounds like a lot of work but it's actually very fast. The only other thing I'd recommend is to always glance at the bottom of the external site where you find the copyvio to make sure it's not actually material released under a free license. It's rare but it does happen (and of course, if it's a government website, the material is sometimes but not always in the public domain; if you find this then they're just plagiarists rather than infringers. Stop by anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Music merges

• I found several uncontroversial soundtrack/album merges that require your expertise (some of which needed tedious tracklist overhaul!): Americathon (soundtrack) → Americathon; Little Village (album) → Little Village; The Basketball Diaries (soundtrack) → The Basketball Diaries (film); Singles (soundtrack) → Singles (1992 film); Hype! (soundtrack) → Hype!; Mallrats (soundtrack) → Mallrats and, last but not least, my own special mistake: Microfish (Spys4Darwin album) → Spys4Darwin. Please teach me! I want to "be bold" - but how can I handle uncontroversial merges on my own in the future? Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also, is there a script/bot/something available to quickly add new navbox templates to artists with very large discographies? Thanks, Wikkitywack (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikkitywack. I'm going to do one of the merges, for Microfish (Spys4Darwin album) → Spys4Darwin, explaining as I go, so you can see each step and then continue on from there for others. There is no substitute, though, for reading Help:Merging carefully, and in this case, read the section on Performing the merger.

1. Determine which direction you're merging; that is, which page is going to be redirected once merged, and which will get the merged content. Generally, merge into the article with the better title, and of course that requires some knowledge of naming conventions. I also consider which has the more extensive page history.
2. Click edit on both pages and grab the content you deem worthy of merging into the other and place it into the other in the most logical way you can (this can sometimes present a difficult smoothing process).
3. Before you save the page with the merged content you MUST provide your attribution carefully in the edit summary to comply with copyright. This is a crucial step. A proper edit summary provides a link to the article where the merged content was taken from and says what you are doing, typically, Merged content from [[NAME OF ARTICLE]]. Here is the diff of my merge showing the content merger and the attributing edit summary.
4. Now go to the page that has been merged, click edit, delete all the content and replace with a redirect in the form #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}.
5. Once again before you save the redirect you MUST provide your attribution carefully in the edit summary to comply with copyright, and is the mirror image of the other, i.e., it provides a link to the article where the content was merged to and says what you did, typically, Merged content to [[NAME OF ARTICLE]]. Here is the diff of my redirection, and the attributing edit summary.

Hope this is a useful guide. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A Question...

Hey, Fuhg! I need some sage advice, so I knew I should ask you. Got a quick one for ya concerning using a possibly primary source for some edits I'd like to perform. I want to expand a section in The Doors article, and I want to know if this is a source I can use (among others). I plan on contacting him again (see this) to see if he'll give permission for some of his actual photographs to be used here, and I think his perspective is "unique" ;> So, is his website okay to cite in the article? I, as always, appreciate your excellent input. Cheers, Fuhg! Doc9871 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can indeed use that source in my opinion. It's David Levine's website so it's reliably published as to his own material, and he's a first hand witness, but just be careful not to interpret it in any way--quotations might be good and you probably shouldn't rely heavily on his material. Also, I think any use should cite the source not just as a citation but in text, e.g., According to David E. LeVine, who was at the Miami concert as a photographer..." I imagine you've already read it but if not, read WP:PRIMARY. One bit of advice--actually, I'll just do it: it's always a good idea to archive a web source like this that can disappear or be radically changed, and I just did. You can use this archive link in {{cite news}}. That link will never (or should never) go dead. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! I won't rely too much on just his source, but it's great one to use, IMO. The archive link will help a lot - awesome!

If I could bug you with one more quick question while I'm here, it would help clarify something for me: this one probably won't go my way, I have a feeling. I've kept this image in the Jim Morrison article for some time, tagged to the hilt with FU rationale - no free photos of him are known to exist. A good editor recently replaced it with this one, and I pointed out it was a drawing derived from this copyrighted photo - he put it up for deletion. Replaced the image with this, and I pointed out that it was derived from either this photo or this one, both from the same photo session. Now, is an "art" image derived from a copyrighted photograph preferable to the actual fair-use tagged photograph that was orphaned? Sure, it's a postage stamp: but it's definitely based on a copyrighted photograph. It's all very civil, of course ;> You're the best, Fuhg! :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All I ever get from questionable FU images is grief. Not my specialty at all. The stamp is apparently public domain but you seem to be questioning whether it's valid since it itself is based on a copyrighted image (do I have this right?) If so, I don't know but it seems a monumental uphill fight to claim that an official stamp of a first world government, under its postal service's imprimatur of authority to create the image, was a copyright violation in the first instance, in order to then claim it isn't really a proper public domain image because of that original copyright violation. I think that comes under the heading of 'tilting at windmills.' So, if that's unavailing, I guess the question becomes, where a public domain image is a drawing of a person, does this invalidate fair use of a photograph—that is, is the NFCC requirement of "No free equivalent" no longer applicable because the postage stamp drawing is equivalent? I don't know the answer, or whether there is a definitive answer, but the argument can be made that viewing a photograph is fundamentally different than viewing a drawing and so it is not equivalent. You can engage in WP:BRD with a really good edit summary that flags that issue of non-equivalency, or discuss it with the user directly, or you can start an WP:RFC on the article's talk page about the issue to test the community's temperature, or even start a deletion discussion of the image yourself and then lay out the issue in detail. I hope this helps because it's clear I'm thinking out loud, and don't know. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a tough one, I know. The FU image situation in general is rather hopeless, IMO: people target them to replace them with "free equivalents" all the time, even if it's a picture on a postage stamp. "Text only" arguments drive me nuts, personally. The vague language of NFCC#1 & #8 gives huge latitude to get rid of tagged images as well. Not sure what I'm going to do yet, but I definitely appreciate the suggestions. Thanks again, and Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

re:Large scale copyright violations

i will see that i will never do it again. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and thanks for responding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Vector

Hear, hear! – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

YoungGodSpeaks

I am creating a page for an artist. You tagged it to be deleted. What is wrong with the page?Sandramj (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

First, I am not the artist or related to the artist. Second, I am not promoting the artist. Third, I have read the pages that I was referred to and disagree with the findings. My dissent is based on this artist being the youngest to record a Bongo Flava song. Is it not the mission of Wikipedia to publish news that further knowledge and understanding of people, places, things, events, and ideas?

Moreover, the recreation of the pages is from me restarting because I am a novice Wikipedian. Excuse me!

Lastly, what may not be important to you or your cultural group may be important to others. Why people want to silence the promotion of Bongo Flava culture is beyond me, maybe because it is of no interest to them or you. However, it is my culture, and I intend to create many pages that promotes the understanding of Bongo Flava culture and its artists. The same way you are promoting your interests.

Thank you Sandramj (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read those pages and internalized them you would not be posting the material you have above. No one has anything against Bongo Flava culture and its artists. What we are against is having articles that violate the fundamental dictates of an encyclopedia, which, being a tertiary source that synthesizes already published, reliable sources, is not the place for articles on subjects that have not already been published about. In fact, one of our core content inclusion policies, verifiability requires that information in articles be written from previously published reliable sources. In lockstep, another core content guideline, notability, requires that the subject of an article be substantively discussed in previously published, reliable sources. Reliable sources do not include social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, blogs, forums, other wikis or other sites where the content is user posted content and so on—that is, the types of sources you were citing in the article. If you write a neutrally worded, article using reliable sources the article will not be deleted. Failing to actually read the notices I and other have posted and instead willfully choosing to interpret these deletions as part of some prejudice against your topic is going to get you nowhere and is a good way to get blocked from editing entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Norm MacDonald

Please respond to my query at Talk:Norm MacDonald if you care. — AjaxSmack 17:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

note

There's something oddly familiar about that user ID James W. Turner. If I can find it, I'll get back to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never been registered on Wikipedia before, I can promise you that. I only registered tonight and to be honest I'm a bit confused! But I guess I'll learn. --James W. Turner (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eirin Jansen

My article on Eirin Jansen was removed due to (unintentional) copyright infringement. Very sorry about that! I will say it in my own words from now. And I will remember this while writing future articles, thanks for your help. --James W. Turner (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied in detail at your talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at WookieInHeat's talk page.
Message added 06:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox country problems

Hi! Thanks for trying to implement the changes suggested to the Legislature section of Infobox country - I've had a look at the problem and I've made a suggestion on the talk page. Cheers again! --ZedderZulu (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hillary Armstorng move

Could move the associated talk page as well of the Hillary Armstrong page which you recently moved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Talk pages move automatically on many moves, and occasionally I don't realize the talk page move failed because the target also has more than a single edit redirect in its page history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SALT?

Repeated deletion: Mai Holdom. Salt seems appropriate. — Timneu22 · talk 12:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. It doesn't hurt though probably they'll just go away and make trouble elsewhere. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:TheKeeganBarrieShow

I see that you blocked this user for promotion. Although the account superficially was used for promotion, the apparently promotional articles appear to have been hoaxes, so I have replaced [12] your {{spamusername}} block notice with a "vandalism only account" one, which I feel is more appropriate. Please revert if you disagree. It is perhaps worth mentioning also that you did not "subst" your block notice, so that ~~~~ appeared, instead of your signature. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some mix of made up crap with real stuff and serious self-promotion. It really matters little. I'm getting tired of all the 12-16 year olds but it's hard to keep them down on the farm once they have unrestrained internet access. The changed block template is fine. You needn't have mentioned the substitution; a rare anomaly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wayward image

I'm looking for an image that I think you may have added. It's a full-color painting from a J.M. Brunswick & Balke ad, featuring two Victorian ladies playing straight rail (presuably), with a little girl on the side practicing on a chair. I looked on Commons for it but it didn't turn up where I looked, all thru Category:Billiards over there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Stanton. I think you're looking for . This one was not uploaded by me. It's in category:carom billiards at the Commons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove Award

Souvalou has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You have been a very good user! Here is a cookie to show how great I think you are! Please respond on my talk page if you want to!--Souvalou (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Souvalou!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yank Adams

As per your request at WP:RB, I have started to create sections for this article. The lead may need to be re-written for GA – I don't have the time to do it now, but will try to work on it over the next week or so. Also, do you know when he died? – S Masters (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Can I help you archive this page?! – S Masters (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the same day I posted! Thanks for starting. I may not have been clear enough—it's not just section headers. When I said reorganize the material I meant problems such as that it doesn't have a lead; probably the article's biggest problem. What's currently in the first and second paragraphs (after the introductory language) is not summarizing lead material, and I don't want to lose any of it but exactly how to incorporate it into the body and writing a good summary lead section has confounded me so I end up staring at it, and doing something else. As for when he died, I have looked and looked but the answer is no. Please see the following edit summaries speaking to that issue: hope, desperation setting in and resignation. However, I confronted this issue in writing Masako Katsura (my first FA) and learned at least how to note the issue in the lead and have just done so. Regarding archiving, I will, at 200 kb:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to write the lead sometime in the next week. Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki:Movepagetext

I've just now fixed MediaWiki:Movepagetext to include the text you asked at VPT. I was waiting for someone else to do it, and no one seemed to have gotten around to it. I had a little bit of coding help from User:Twp (just wanted to give him some credit). Hope all's well with it now. Killiondude (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much Killion! I was starting to think no one could be bothered and I was going to have to start hitting up some specific users with coding chops that I know just a little. I hate to thank you in one breath and complain in the next, but is there any way to remove all the inapplicable language from the top of the page? That is, file moves are now showing the new text in an information box, in addition to the text from the mediawiki page, i.e. they still say:

Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed.

This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions.

Note to admins: The "leave a redirect behind" option should only be unchecked when reverting pagemove vandalism, userfying a deleted article, or if there is a very good reason to do so, as this will break any links to the current title, and may make the page harder to find. If you accessed this from new page patrol, please patrol the page before moving it, because otherwise the page will stay in the patrol log (see bugzilla:17463).

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Appreciate your help with the moves! Sorry about WT:FILM; didn't realize how much you were going to do. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. One of the admin rights is the ability to move up to 100 subpages at a time. This is already a big project (I've been fixing all the redirects of subpages for the last 45 minutes or so on the move of the main page, thus the lag in moving the talk page) and moving the subpages one by one... it would take many hours!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I need a drink; my hand actually hurts from all the mouse movements. I just finished hand checking what links here and fixing all redirects for the 200 pages moved. I've only moved a page with this many subpages a few times and the 100 page limit was reached on the move of the project page and the talk page, meaning that there are even more subpages floating out there that have not been moved. I'm not sure how to check for those. The way to do it would be to check the prefix index and exclude redirects from it, but I'm not sure that is possible. Any ideas?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help! I will move the stragglers. It looks like this tool can list all the non-redirect "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/" pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's a great tool and shows there are still 560 pages to move. Short of asking for a bot to take up the slack, You might try taking the results, duplicating them somewhere, assigning numbers and then asking for volunteers through the wikiproject to each take on moving blocks of 20 or 30 pages each (and referring them to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Fixing double redirects for how to fix the double redirects since they may not be all familiar with that aspect of moves). If you come across stragglers that need an admin to do the move, feel free to drop by here with a list. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comeback 7

Good delete. I should probably have thought of that when I turned down the speedy and prodded it instead. GedUK  13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ged! ...I think. I have to ask: your post can be read two ways. As straight, for what it says, but it also could be interpreted as sarcasm, as I stepped on your toes in doing so. I really am not sure which you intended without gesture, tone, inflection and expression that would have left no doubt if we weren't on the end of keyboards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes you're right! I'm usually careful to check my messages don't have a double meaning!

No, I mean that totally straight; good delete! :o) GedUK  14:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Then, again, thanks! I have proposed in the past a specific criterion at CSD that would cover these] (without result), as they and similar do come up fairly often and are patently content that we are never going to keep at the end of some process for process' sake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I apologise, I didn't realise it needed to be linked. I've merged the second article now, this time with a link. Thanks in advance.--hkr Laozi speak 13:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at poster's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to delete a page

Hi there; It seemed to me that the topic was fully covered in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which redirects from Deletion. But if we want this article to stay as well, I have no particular objection. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Anthony. Long time no see. I made no assessment at all myself of whether we should or should not have this page or whether it is redundant. I undeleted upon request at WP:UND because it was expressly deleted by you under G6, as uncontroversial, and so it was uncontroversial to undelete upon request, which is exactly what WP:UND is for: undeletion of G6s and prods because doing so is considered uncontentious (as opposed to say, an A7, or deletion resulting from a decision at AfD, in which cases undeleting would be reversing another admin's action without discussion). But I do think that deletion here was not uncontroversial and were that pursued, would need to be decided at WP:MfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely; as I felt it non-controversial then by definition I have no argument about its un-deletion. I was merely responding to your comment, not attempting to argue the point! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Pelton wheel

Please see last post on the Pelton wheel talk page. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much!

		The Special Barnstar
		Hi Fuhghettaboutit I wanted to thank you very, very much your helping edits. I really do appreciate you taking the time to help. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi, haven't seen you about much lately. Hope all is well in your corner of the world. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing fine, thanks. Thanks for your note. Good luck with your projects. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regurgitator

How interesting, your research on Hadji Ali. I don't think anyone who's ever seen that footage ever forgets it. Let me ask you: how many regurgiators do you think were working during the height of vaudeville? Also interesting (and maybe a little racist) that Hal Roach thought that this, uh, unique specialty would be of particular interest to Latins. The Latin magician is interesting, too, because he's set up into an adversarial relationship with the Anglo butler — and wins. I'm lucky enough to own Los Politiqueras (albeit "only" on VHS); do you have a copy? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. In my research I've come across Harry Morton, "The Human Hydrant," (beer and wine and such) and The Great Waldo (live rats and mice), but there are many sources that mention these three "and others." In any event, I am far from being done researching and writing up this guy (I haven't even added the Laurel and Hardy connection yet). From what I've read though, Ali was the king of the vaudeville regurgitators. I love the stories of people who inhabited bizarre niches that history has mostly forgotten (see my last project, Yank Adams, who nobody's ever heard of today but was a household name in his time). I had never heard of the film until I started researching this (so no:-) I'm wondering: anything interesting in the credits about Hadji? Do they name his daughter (Almina) as his assistant?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no screen credit for Almina, and I don't even think any for Hadji. I'm digging deep in the memory banks here, but I'm quite sure I read that Roach wanted Latin audiences to conclude that Ali was himself Latin, not Egyptian. Plus, the studio was parsimonious with screen credits anyway. The thing I like best about those added reels is that there's a string quartet playing unique arrangements of the Leroy Shield melodies that are so familiar in their dance-band guises in L&H and Our Gang shorts. Listen, I admire your project here, and if I can be of any help from the Laurel & Hardy end, please feel free to call on me! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I just went back and watched Hadji again, and his costume was pretty Egyptian-looking. Nevertheless I'm quite sure I read that Roach wanted to pass him off as Latin. The Anglo butler (played by Jimmy Finlayson) took some abuse from Hadji as well as from the magician. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)