User talk:Yellowdesk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

  Yellowdesk — User talk —  Contributions  — Email  


To leave me a message on a new topic, click here. Please sign your message with ~~~~
I prefer to reply on my own talk page to discussions started here. Tell me if that doesn't work for you.



Archive #1 September 26, 2006 - April 2, 2008

Aloha Airlines[edit]

To some extent the 60 days might be excessive. However it does not apply to established editors. I suspect from what I have seen that the problem is with new and anon editors. The anon editors can not be easily communicated with via comments on the talk page. So the protection is the only way for avoiding the revert wars. If at some point you want to unprotect this before the 60 days and see what happens, drop me a note. Once this is out of the news I suspect that the problem will go away. Also over time, the article will be rewritten to show its cargo only status, further reducing the problem. Today we can not say when this will all change and everything quiets down. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for cleaning up my edit a bit on the Wikileaks page. I ended up slapping current-events on there, and I guess I'd forgotten what it meant (Man, not editing seriously for 6+ months messes up your memory of templates). I'm assuming though, that there's an "ongoing" template of some sort. Not sure but it seems like something like that might be better, since Wikileaks keeps pumping out more documents, turning their threat of document-based retaliation into reality.

So basically, thanks! Now, however, I need to go template hunting :P. Logical2u (talk)

I always like to hear some feedback and opinions, even though I was more used to seeing massive amounts of tags than none-at-all (Although that may be because I did a lot of vandalism reversion). (Must, resist, urge, to use, Current, tag! Just joking, I think you have the right idea when you say the dates will give people the point of it's "currentness".) Logical2u (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Singapore spaceport[edit]

It is future project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the article already explains as much. The template {{tl{future}} is superfluous.
The purpose of the template is to use in articles which describe future events. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That does not change the obvious needlessness of the use of the template. The text of the article indicates the futurity. Need there be banner to restate the text? To what extent does the presence of the {{future}} template further inform the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no "obvious needlessness". The template has been created with this purpose only. There is another template which describe a person is recently died. Now the reader can understand this only by reading the article. As per your own logic, if an article does not have any reference, there is no necessity to add "unreferenced" tag as the reader will understand viewing the article that it lack reference. The purpose of the template is to describe the article, to tell the reader about the article before (s)he starts reading. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious needlessness is the redundancy of the template, restating the indication that the topic is future activity, obviously contingent to the reader. Those words being: proposed, spaceport and The estimated completion date of the spaceport in 2009. What aspect of all of those phrases are not redundant in relation to a banner restating the same to the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season 2007-08 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The 'Current sport' template is needed at the moment. crassic![talk] 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a couple years and ten thousand edits late on the welcome. Your assessment is erroneous. You'll eventually learn how to communicate effectively with fellow editors.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"current" templates[edit]

Hi Yellowdesk. FYI, you've tagged {{current motor sport}} for deletion, but haven't listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Conversely, you've listed {{Current PW}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21, but haven't tagged the template. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting AG boxen[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about this. I totally forgot about the 24hr delay between Clement and Keisler! Everything is now fixed! - Thanks, Hoshie 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense[edit]

I don't want you to think I was picking on you. If you don't date a cite tag, a bot will come along and do it. So I was simply getting it out of the way. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert the last few of your edits to the Electoral College (United States) article in order to return footnotes 44-61 to normal. For some reason, one of your most recent edits to that article had caused those footnotes to be merged into footnote 43. Feel free to again make the reverted edits, as long as the footnotes aren't destabilized again. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Massachusetts[edit]

Thanks for attempting to clarify Ted Kennedy's beginning of term. Can you correct an error you left on the table? The 110th Congress got left on a wrong line. Thanks. —Markles 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

done -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Help desk searches[edit]

I see you have some reference links and templates on your user page. You may (or may not) be interested in {{Help desk searches}} which I recently made. --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request comment[edit]

fwiw.....I'm canvassing for general expertise regarding a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles and would be delighted to get, if possible,

thanks, re: semi protection, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. - Yellowdesk (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how it gets on in a couple of days. If he comes back straight away just buzz me and I'll prot. for a week. Thanks for your message, friend! ScarianCall me Pat! 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

Would you please revert the edit to the summary submission for 12:40, 9 June 2008 75.207.232.31 opposed to the one added later by Bdushaw. Bdushaw's summarization is a poorer version compared to the previous submission. A common reader will now not be able to understand how this issue is related to the US Attorney firings, which it is.

Also, is there some way to prevent Bdushaw from constantly removing others' submissions to the page. For the past three weeks, he/she has constantly reverted others submission without providing valid reasons. Now, he appears to have locked out other users from the page and is continuing to remove others submissions.

Lastly, the user did not vandalize the page. If you review the submission, he/she simply summarized the original submission since it was already linked to a separate page.

  • It's odd that a user with one edit (at the time of your inquiry) has such detailed concerns about another editor's activity. I see that the edit you are interested was an automated bot reverting an IP editor's change: by 75.207.232.31
    I have to guess you were the IP editor in question. In any case, the Cyril H. Wecht summary there at this moment succinctly makes the connection you desire, and has a link to the voluminous details at the Cyril H. Wecht article.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the edit currently on the page does not do that and overlooks key points that should be in a summary related to the dismissed U.S. Attorneys controversy. No, I am concerning the summary that was first changed by a bot, then reverted back, then changed by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.238.20 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bowles[edit]

Haven't I? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia[edit]

Anybody can edit wikipedia and anybody can undo anybody's edits regardless. Nothing is set in stone. I was previously the editor User:Southern Texas, I am no stranger to using talk pages. An idea is brought up, it is boldly implemented and then discussed. That is how wikipedia works.--William Saturn (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes on background for the banning of User:Southern Texas and associated sock puppets:
Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008
This is not accurate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the list of self-admitted socks of the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_Henry_Harrison&diff=next&oldid=144474057, subsequently cited at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#Case_of_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_sockpuppetry. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that I am "Southern Texas" but I am not Uga Man. That should be made clear. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Your credibility on the topic is zero with me and more than a few others. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin[edit]

Couple of comments, I hope it doesn't come off as too opinionated. Just food for thought for you going forward.

You replaced the current event template with the future election template because it was " All speculation about election". However, Speculation can be a current event... and more importantly... if it was all speculation... why would you put in a template that definitevly says it relates to an upencoming election... such a template goes beyond speculation and states the speculation as though it were fact fact and would actually be completely inapropriate.

I realize that, at this point, it's been solidifed that Palin is McCain's VP pick so these comments have little bearing on the present... I just wanted to present food for thought.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The candidate in question was McCain at the time of the change. Speculation about candidate McCain's interest. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenerife disaster[edit]

Hi. I've started a discussion about the naming of this article. Perhaps you would like to give your opinions here. Thanks. Abc30 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OFHEO statement[edit]

Fresh from the press: http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=456&q1=0&q2=0 :) GordonGross (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up[edit]

Perhaps you can contribute in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates about the FHFA action? __meco (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

bailout[edit]

freddie and fannie chartered by congress...-Tracer9999 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

revert.. valid source. see three revert rule. get consensus from talk before removing or be blocked -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

you deleted 2 times.. next is three and your out -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

lol.. your right.. I revert back... Im fine with your previous text -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Subprime article[edit]

Thanks; I've been tangling with some folks that are really full of themselves and getting cranky. I'm working on splitting off major sections of the subprime article and populating them. The trick is leaving the key ideas intact in the main article. I'll start a few tonight. I want to get the main article down to a summary length; can't boil the Ocean with one article, with the way the waves of crises keep spilling out.Farcaster (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007-2008[edit]

Financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a current event because the situation is rapidly changing. Our article is unlikely to accurately, or fully, track the rapidly changing situation. Fred Talk 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article will always lag the latest news coverage. Fred Talk 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That is well and good, but it is not what the {{current}} template tag was created for, as a reading of the guidline for its use will show. It is unremarkable that any topic is in the news, as a few thousand topics are constantly in the news. George W. Bush, for example. It is also standard that all articles are out of date, and this too is unremarkable. The template is intended for those rather few occasions in which many, as in many dozens may edit the article in the same day, and perhaps several hundred edits a day are being saved, and everyone is stepping on each other's edits. For example: 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the article which was the cause of the template's creation, which had 460+ edits in 48 hours. I think you can agree this is not the case for Financial crisis of 2007-2008, which has hardly had at this moment 50 edits over the past three days, 30 by a single editor, with the participation a grand total of one dozen editors.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AIG[edit]

Thanks for your continued diligence on this page - lots of detail to sort through, amidst all of the opinion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the news updated with your nominated entry[edit]

Current events globe On September 26, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Washington Mutual, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Slowking Man (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Current template[edit]

Thanks for fixing my incorrect use of {{current}} -- I obviously had a severe case of the brain farts today. Todd Vierling (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington Mutual template[edit]

The template at the top is a current-event template. It or a more generic current-event template should stay until editing has died down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The template is not needed, and is redundant, as all of the entity changes have been described on the lede of the article. Closure of the subsidiary, Washington Mutual bank, receivership, sale of assets to JPMorgan Chase, filing for bankruptcy of the Holding Company.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Copy vio of legislation summary[edit]

I have found the government source at Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tag removed. Good work. SilkTork *YES! 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed bailout of United States financial system[edit]

Ah, well you have a point. It would still be historic for the House to go along with such a shenanigan. If the Senate can just shelve any spending bill from the house and reload it with any sort of spending it wants, blue slipping is essentially meaningless. One of the original Senate sponsors of the bill was Paul Wellstone, who has been dead since 2002![1] But, I guess I'm bordering on WP:CRYSTAL here, I'll try to find a reliable source (as opposed to the blogosphere) reflecting these concerns. -- Kendrick7talk 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's even more bizarre, since it seems like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was actually already signed into law in April, making H.R. 1424, passed in May, moot. -- Kendrick7talk 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

HR 1424 on wikisource[edit]

Re: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._1424 Can you edit the source to make the divisions not be a subsection of the prior division in the table of Contents? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has already taken care of it. Cheers.   — C M B J   03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington Mutual Takeover[edit]

There's a big blur in the information that's coming down about this Washington Mutual thing.

If your auto insurance company made an actuarial prediction that you were about to have an accident, then showed up in your drive way and sold your car to your neighbor for ten dollars, that's much more representative of what happened with Washington Mutual. That part about the shockholders not getting anything in the deal would be like saying that no allowance was being made for the fact you still owed ten thousand to your dad for the car.

The primary banking assets were stripped out and sold. The holding company that remained then went into voluntary chapter 11. So actually the soul of the company is still alive on the operating table. And the media is all about the body being stolen. But the interests of the stock holders lie with the holding company. And there's wide speculation about what's left. Preliminary reports filed by Washington Mutual claim the company is still worth 33 billion. The company claims 5 billion in cash and says it owes 8 billion dollars in various forms of debt. The bankruptcy filings also claim that there are resources available for the unsecured debt holders but there is no information about how much that will be.

People don't make enough distinction between a voluntary chapter 11 filing and "being Bankrupt" or "being Bankrupted" This is a fine opportunity to educated the public.

I'm truly fascinated by this case! From the perspective of many it's the biggest bank robbery in history. Mid september JPMorgan chase informed ten interested subsidiaries that there might be an opportunity to acquire a major west coast bank and told them it needed to raise capital. At the same time nearly 19 billion in deposits were being withdrawn from the Washington Mutual Bank. The FDIC contacted JPMorgan Chase Mid September about the possibility of the banks failure. So with the information out and JPMorgan Chase telling ten friends so to speak, very soon the word spreads and the Washington Mutual banks bonds are downgraded while certain large depositors flee and the FED lending backstop falls down. So it's one thing to proffit from the misfortune and it's another to profit from a misfortune one caused.

Let's not help them bury the body shall we?

This is no small matter. In Seattle 4200 employees of Washington Mutual who worked at the corporate offices were pink slipped. The city will suffer from the loss of the 200 (low guestimate) million dollar payroll. Houses will be sold. People will suffer huge business losses. A major lender with strong ties to the region has been lost as well.

Let's make the Washington Mutual Article Very Clear about the nature of this transaction because the historians telling us about this in 20 years won't do us much good now. Don't bury this event in bizness lingo.

DH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.153 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • And what exactly is unclear about the article as of this date? Yellowdesk (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits at attorney controversy page[edit]

Yellowdesk: Thanks for taking the time to respond. While i'm new to taking wikipedia edits seriously, i'm not new to wikipedia. But one of my weaknesses is lack of knowledge on policy. I'm almost certain that there is a policy/guideline that calls for stripping our irrelevant information ("kitchen sink" stuff i call it.) In this instance we have an article that's about a controversy over alleged abuse of power for political reasons by the Bush administration in the Justice Department. Someone then includes over 1,000 words about other alleged abuses of power by the Bush Administration, at other times, in other places, etc... While all of this kitchen sink stuff might belong in an article titled "A review of alleged abuses of power by the bush administration" it's entirely innapropriate to include in an article about the specifics of the firing of 9 federal prosecutors. Do you know what the specific guideline on irrelevant information in an article might be? I'll bet one unit of whatever currency didn't lose value today that such a guideline exists. Best and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An invitation: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding.... read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

Current events globe On 2 October, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

SpencerT♦C 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Hi there Yellowdesk!
Symbol support vote.svg Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Well, to be honest, I was looking at names through recent changes. I'm trying to get as many users as possible, so I asked. Will you join?--LAAFansign review 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you. I don't think I can take on attending to articles beyond my present overcommitted interests, which have not been sufficiently attended to, including these and their relations:
and their related articles.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


No worries. See you around!--LAAFansign review 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thacher Proffitt promotion[edit]

I deleted the link added by Thacher Proffitt (talk · contribs) because it was a link to the Thacher Proffitt web site, which is a conflict of interest. Also, they're not a neutral source; they were one of the major law firms promoting mortgage-based securities. Can you find a neutral source? --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I have seen now about five or so law firm analysis such as this. Each far better than any media-published analysis, of which I have seen zero comparable. The alternative to the actually useful summary that Thatcher Proffitt etc. published, is to post several law firm analysis by a non-self-promoting (via Wikipedia) firm. We might find that the Thatcher Proffitt one to be as good or better than any of the others. There are probably about 50 that have been published, perhaps only for client viewing. I suspect there will be no such analysis for six months, if ever, available to the average citizen, put out by a media-entity. As such, any such link though biased, actually provides a useful perspective to the reader, and has many elements of being a reliable source. I say as much without having recently read the policy regarding links. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Treasury as a source[edit]

Thanks for the tip, I might keep an eye on that. (And here, over lo these many months, I'd all but convinced myself that you were a high functioning bot capable of only complaining about the "misuse" of {{current}}! Ah, well, this project never ceases to amaze....) I'm usually sponging off slate.com most days, but after they went in the tank for the bailout, I switched over to Huffington post, which, while not an RS per se, isn't bad for an aggregator, and updates quicker than Slate. I actually like the liquidity injection/equity plan, though, which, aside from making way more sense than the "troubled assets" plan, shows how prescient I was about where this was going.[2] -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Except that Paulson was against equity until the last week or so, and his original plan did not contemplate equity. Not to mention that he and his associates realized too late the gigantic mistake made in not supporting Lehmen Brothers: only after rescuing of AIG with the credit facility (and 80% equity /warrant stake via the Federal Reserve Bank) and the complete drying up of the commercial paper markets after many institutions and money markets lost money on overnight commercial paper. Paulson, a conservative on several different dimensions, has been moved by events, terror, and Bernanke, the scholar of the Depression, not by his own views. Witness the outrageous and dead on arrival "unreviewable by courts" clause in his original proposal.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, my original read of the situation back then was incorrect -- I figured Paulson really wanted to take equity, but didn't want to come out and say that for fear up upsetting conservatives in Congress, which explained to my mind all the no-strings-attached language in his original proposal. I didn't realize that Paulson was such a dyed-in-the-wool free marketeer, while it was Congress which, wisely, left the equity solution in as a plan B, which all means I might owe a few apology letters to Sens. Kerry and Kennedy and my Rep if this whole thing works out. -- Kendrick7talk 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mid September[edit]

This edit is not optimal as you can see if you look at the history of the TED spread. There is a spike beginning in mid-September. Fred Talk 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The TED spread is not the only measure of activity on the topic, I dare say. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 stock market volatility[edit]

Are you planning to de-merge this back into a separate article? I wasn't sure from your statement closing the discussion. FWIW, I think it is probably better as a section than as a separate article. Ronnotel (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, no. Just trying to mark the conversations that are dead so we can tell what the active merger/move conversations actually are. Marked now as "merged". -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Goma[edit]

Hi! You stated that the reference didn't say anything like that, when this is what it says; "Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts intensified to find a peaceful, long-term solution to the current conflict.

The top U.S. diplomat for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer, was to meet with Congo President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa Thursday, and may travel to Rwanda to see President Paul Kagame, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington.

Wood said Frazer, who is accompanied by a senior researcher from the National Security Council, will try to "get all of the parties to agree to respect international law and human rights."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also spoke with Kagame and was in touch with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Wood said." It states that diplomatic efforts intensified; then, after saying who spoke to Kagame about peace, says "... Rice also spoke with Kagame."

See what I'm saying? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This item is posted on the wrong editor's page, as your edit diff shows. Replied on your talk page.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sweet jellies. No idea how this happened, but I'm really sorry. Pretend this never happened. :P Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete references[edit]

  • I removed them because they were out of date - a rumour < an acceptance. If Rahm's people have denied the acceptance, then they can both go back in. But without the denial, it would have pointless to include the original. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason it's not pointless to keep prior citations, is that they may be used for other purposes in the article, and when they're gone, there's more work for the editor. The offer is no rumour, by the way. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • By that logic, no reference should ever be removed, in case someday, somewhere, an editor might want to use them. And every imaginable reference should be listed. If a reference isn't being cited, it should be removed. Simple. Worst case, go to the archive.-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah - "the offer is no rumor, by the way"??? I never said the offer was a rumor. I stated that HIS ACCEPTANCE was rumored, as per the source. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You have been unclear: "rumour < an acceptance" whatever that means. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's moot now, but "rumor < acceptance" means that an acceptance is more important (greater than) a rumor. 153.108.64.1 (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current[edit]

Please quit inappropriately removing Template:Current, as you did here. You are not following the current guidelines for its use. We need a template to notify readers of the incomplete and tentative nature of such articles regardless of how often they are edited. And please do not modify the guidelines without participating in the debate regarding proper use of the template at Template talk:Current. Opinion there is clearly against your position. Fred Talk 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Your view of inappropriate is contrary to the guideline for use of the template. I call your attention to the stupendous number of edits in the 24 hours before I removed the template from Global financial crisis of 2008: five, and that there were a mere four editors, one of which was a bot. All of these are indicators that the template's presence is superfluous. Please to take a look at Template:Current#Guidelines.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of Template:Current[edit]

Please discuss use of Template:Current before engaging in mass reversions. It use is covered by guidelines, not policy. Others may differ regarding its appropriate use. Please note that much of the discussion at Template talk:Current does not agree with your strict point of view. In fact, the consensus is otherwise. Fred Talk 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I call attention that the consensus you claim does not attend to the history of the template, its creation, nor past discussions over its several year existence, nor does it contemplate a negotiated understanding of how the guide should be revised. I am quite interested to understand what edit war you speak of.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

FINANCIAL CRISIS[edit]

MEASURES TAKEN BY INDIA DUE TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: ITS REALLY VERY UREGENT SEND IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND IF POSSIBLE TOMORROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.128.185 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing proposed engine design box[edit]

I don't think that series of edits was useful or helpful. Greglocock (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

{{future single}}[edit]

Interesting take on the above template, i like it. but shouldn't there be a message on the template page saying it has been depreciated? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OFT v Abbey[edit]

Can you recommend an appropriate alternative template? Wikidea 11:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Alas no. To what end? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Current}}[edit]

I noticed you removed the current template from Superstars of Dance. I'm not going to re-add it because it is extremely no big deal, but your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. The guideline for the template states: "This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change as the event occurs and understanding of it develops." An ongoing competition meets that guideline, IMO. The guideline about hundreds of editors at once says "may also be used" - implying that it is not a requirement, nor even the main reason to put the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation names[edit]

I ususaly use the first letters fromthe words in the title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change ref names.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BJ Lawson[edit]

Proposed deletion of B.J. Lawson[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article B.J. Lawson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable person whose only claim to fame is that he ran for Congress and was unsuccessful. His campaign seems to have been a run of the mill affair without any real controversy. The article appears to have been written to support candidacy

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have not responded further on this suggested deletion. Is he still going to be around in politics ie. running for elective office or is he just a "oncer"? Albatross2147 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama[edit]

Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a current event?[edit]

I believe North Dakota HB 1572 could be considered a current event. While the passage in the North Dakota House is merely news and not a current event, the bill is now moving on to the North Dakota Senate, where it could pass or fail. That will be a development, expected to take place in the next few weeks.--Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination?[edit]

I notice that you had previously asked User:Teratornis if he were interested in becoming an admin. I'm also interested in proposing him; would you like to be a co-nominator? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already added my proposed text to the page that you created.
Why don't we give Teratornis until Monday to update his proposed responses to the standard Q&A, and then, whether or not he's done so, create the nomination page and ask him to accept the nomination? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

don't just remove "current" templates[edit]

Recently, you removed the "current" template from linux.com, among others. While I understand that this template is not to be used unless it is being actively changed, what you have done is removed all indications that this article is completely out of date. I've gone and fixed the linux.com article by adding an "outofdate" template, but you need to go back and review all the removals you have done to make sure that you haven't caused readers of the other articles to be under the false impression that the article is current. Wrs1864 (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Every article has a standard disclaimer that makes it clear that no assurance of accuracy or currency is made, and for all articles, such lack of accuracy or currenty is a standard state of affairs. See: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Just because "other problems exist", that doesn't justify you removing the relevant information that something has changed recently about the subject of the article. If, instead of removing the paragraph at the top that talks about the "current event", you were removing a paragraph from the lead, you would likely be flagged for vandalism. While your intentions are good, what you are doing is very close to vandalism. If you can not determine if an article is up to date, whether it needs an "outdated" tag, or if the "current" tag is still appropriate, you shouldn't modify the article. There is no reason to force others to go around after you and clean up the stuff you removed. Wrs1864 (talk)
  • I am interested to understand how you interpret the standard wikipedia disclaimer as some kind of problem.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the "current" template removal on Cougar Helicopters Flight 91. This is still a current event (the accident happened less than two weeks ago; the TSB is still investigating and releasing new information; and the FAA has announced that it will shortly ground all Sikorsky S-92A helicopters in the US in relation to this). Further, the guidelines you cited don't have anything to do with how many times per day the article is edited. When the event is no longer generating 1-2 news items per day, the tag can be removed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The guide indicates that the template gives notice that the article is undergoing rapid change because an article is being edited by many editors, which I'll note there were zero in the 24 hours prior to my lifting the template, zero being significantly fewer than "many". The guide also notes, that the template it is not intended for for articles merely because the topic in question is in the news (and that if it were, tens of thousands of articles would have the template at any moment).
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Quoting the guide directly, this template is for "articles which involve an article about an evolving current event which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving. This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change." The fact that it was not edited for 24 hours prior to your removal of the tag does not change it from being a current event, or news. Many edits are not required - and in fact that point says the tag may be used when the article is heavily edited - not that a high edit count is a requirement for usage. This topic is not merely "in the news"; it constitutes a fairly significant national event in Canada (front page news across the country for about a week), with repercussions in the United States and the rest of the world. The FAA has yet to release it's advisory on the make/model of helicopter in question, and that too will be a significant event.
Do I expect the current events tag to remain indefinitely? No. In fact I would have proposed the removal myself after the FAA announcement, or on Thursday this week (which would've been two weeks after the accident). However, I don't think the tag should have been summarily removed from the page without at least some discussion first - the letter of the usage guidelines notwithstanding.
In any case, I'm not going to revert again; since someone else has already reverted me it seems there is some consensus that the tag is no longer necessary.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it is *NOT* redundant. I don't know how you can think that removing relevant information is ok. You could replace it with *better* information, such as a different template, but what you are doing is close to vandalism. The general warning doesn't mean you can throw whatever crap you want into an article. Wrs1864 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Outside opinion: Careful with the temper, Wrs. Others: You'll find in Template:Current that the {{current}} template is used to mark, for a short period, articles which might well look different if you hit reload (before you jump on me: yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration). While articles marked with {{current}} are current events, its explicit purpose is not to call readers' and editors' attention to current events; please note especially the final guideline point, which directs to WP:How the Current events page works, with its instructions on marking an article as a current event. — eitch 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Teratornis[edit]

It's up and running, and going well. Thanks for all your help on this! I just added my "support" opinion, belatedly; wouldn't hurt if you were to do the same. So, all in all, I've got my fingers crossed that we'll be successful in adding another good person to the ranks of admins. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mass. towns with city forms of government[edit]

Since you're more familiar than me regarding this issue, I would like to ask you if you are aware of the statute that states that such municipalities that call themselves towns but with a city form of government are classified by the state as cities. For a background of the issue, see the most recent topic at Talk:Braintree, Massachusetts. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic Protests[edit]

Scheduled event! :( -- Cat chi? 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure[edit]

The Brightman Street Bridge Replacement will remain that even after completion, until they name it or eradicate the previous bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The template in question is superfluous, since the bridge will be undergoing construction activity for years. This is nothing special, and hardy significant, and already indicated in the article lede and contents and photographs. The template {{Bridge under construction}} is superfluous in this case, and most others. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

These are all legitimate templates that were created for a reason and are used on a regular basis. Please don't remove them from articles. Thank you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnfos (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
You really deserve this barnstar, regardless of whether I agree with you on certain issues or not. You always say and do what you mean, and you've stood firm to keep wikipedia as honest as possible. William S. Saturn (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking[edit]

Hi, I see you were involved at WP:Content Forking, and I'm wondering if you'd take a look at my proposed revision to the lead.

This is a very interesting topic so I plan to do a really close reading of the page sometime. But I won't make any changes without proposing them at the talk page first. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Ahh, how did I get the impression that you're a contributor? Well, I noticed you made some edits to an article I created, "Second-tier Mexican sugar", and I was so shocked that someone cared about the topic, that I visited your userpage to find out who you were. And the first thing I checked was "Essays, and Collaboration", and that's what sent me off to "Content forking" in the first place!
  • I agree with your assessment of my proposal -- it does change the meaning. I was wrong to frame it as a "paraphrase" -- it's a revision to the policy. So I am going to have to take a really close look at this page and figure out what exactly is being said there, and make a new proposal at the talk page. Eventually. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and tags[edit]

Dear Yellowdesk,

Please stop removing the {{current}} tags from Ted Kennedy. The one you just removed says, "This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." and is appropriate as various memorial events, etc. develop.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен

There is already such a tag at the top of the article, hence the second one is redundant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen that you were warned several times in the past not to remove these templates. According to the guidelines page, Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days. Millions of people around the world read this website and would find it pretty odd that a current template would not be on Kennedy's page. miranda 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kennedy[edit]

Your own edit added a summary of the article into the article body itself. Why would there be a summary within the article that you're trying to summarize? Only the lead should summarize the article. Also, it is not uncommon for a visible page to have maintenance templates; the whole point of the templates is to clearly bring attention to article problems so that they will be noticed and hopefully fixed as soon as possible. With highly visible articles, there is often a better chance that someone will get around to resolving a maintenance template.

Merging the long lead into the article just hides the problem, not resolve it. The biggest problem with the article is that it is too long; I've added a template to the article suggesting that the Senator section be split into its own article, and then that new article summarized in this one. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like the length issue has been discussed a few times before, so I wouldn't be opposed to the removal of the split template and the intro-toolong template, but I would not agree to merging the long lead into the article as it doesn't make sense to summarize the article in the body itself. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Already done on the split template. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The link works for me. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude or snippy. I'm a little tired, and probably shouldn't be doing any talk page discussions right now. I've started a discussion at the article talk page, and I'll let it go for a while and see what happens. -Rrius (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions[edit]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions. Thank you. —Markles 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Current/Future Tags[edit]

If you guys think that the Current and Future sporting event tags on each event is not needed then you guys need to remove the Current Sports Events and Future Sports Events pages from Wiki too because they are just as useless when you take the tags off of each sporting event page. I personally think they are needed to make it easier to find certain sporting events, if not then eliminate all tags not just some. But that is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimace08 (talkcontribs) 7:32, September 17, 2009

  • The discussion has certainly reached that topic over at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. The method for easy access to finding articles is via categories, which do not redundantly and superfluously restate the lede of the article, warning of the standard state of affairs, that all articles are subject to correction, error and change. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Twitter is not a reliable source"[edit]

While I understand that Twitter and other self-published sources generally don't meet the WP:RS criteria, a post by Major Garrett, Fox's senior White House correspondent, would qualify as having been "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources). It's irrelevant now because plenty of other people are reporting it, but I think it's worth noting that such a post is a reliable source. Thanks :) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps so. It's still a poor quality reference, especially in comparison to the then-available national journal sources in this instance. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, when I added that reference, the only national publication reporting it was Huffington Post, whose post (at the time) only said "Major Garrett says..." (I could be wrong though.) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a Senator until the oath of office is taken.[edit]

  • The Senate is the gatekeeper, and no Senator-elect or Senator-designate is in office until accepted and has taken the oath of office.

See Article I, Section5 of the United States Constitution:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

For example, Roland Burris, from the Senate Biography. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001266

" ...appointed December 31, 2008, to the United States Senate for the term ending January 3, 2011, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Barack Obama, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009; took the oath of office on January 15, 2009."

Seniority is determined on the date of oath of office, as Al Franken can testify. He was elected at the same time as all other elected senators, but did not become a senator until months later. Burris had a delay as well. If Burris's credentials were accepted, he would have the same seniority as all other Senators, allowing for the Senate rules that give value to service as governor or as member of Congress.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the oath. That is not when an appointed senator's term begins. The Senate can refuse to seat someone, but only when the senator doesn't meet the qualifications or the election or appointment is deemed to be the result of corruption. When an appointed senator is rejected, the Senate isn't saying, "he can't be a senator", it is retroactively saying, "he was never truly a senator". That the date of appointment is the date the terms begins is settled as a matter of law and tradition. I have listed several senators as examples at Talk:Paul G. Kirk, Jr.. Getting back to Burris, he is an exception because, unlike most other appointed senators, his date of appointment is not his seniority date. That fact is a result of the bizarre happenings at the beginning of this year, including the late understanding by Reid and Durbin that, based on Supreme Court precedent, they almost certainly could not just vote to refuse to seat Burris. -Rrius (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With Kirk and Burris, we are talking about appointed senators. There are different rules for appointed senators, senators elected to fill a vacancy, and senators elected for a full term. The terms of appointed senators begin on the date of appointment. The beginning date of terms of senators elected to fill a vacancy depend on whether the Senate is still in session at the time of the election. The terms of senators elected for a full term begin on January 3 so long as their credentials are presented at the beginning of the term. Thus, even though the contest was not his fault, Franken was in the same boat as Jay Rockefeller was at the beginning of his first term. Rockefeller wanted to finish his term as governor, so he didn't show up until January 25. As a result, his term began that day. Franken presented his credentials on July 7, so that is the day his term began. The applicable law is just different from the law applicable to appointees. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The U.S. Senate gate-keeping in relation to Burris demonstrates the procedural possibilities, and that a Senator does not take office until accepted, and has been allowed to take the oath of office before the appropriate authorities. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • List of appointment dates, but not dates when became Senators. Some appointment dates were effective upon resignation from another office. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_appointed.htm
    • You keep repeating that a senator is not a senator until he takes the oath, but I have shown you proof positive that you are wrong in that. Please respond to the evidence. On the point about appointments not taking effect until after resigning from some office, as in the case of Gillibrand, yes, that's true. In those cases, that date is considered the date of appointment. In turn, that date is considered the beginning of the term. Anyway, how about a concrete example of what I'm talking about:
Lincoln Chafee was appointed on November 2, 1999, and sworn in on November 4, 1999. The Congressional Record for November 3. Chafee's biographical sketch says he served from November 2, 1999 to January 3, 2007. -Rrius (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • An appointment date is equivalent to an election date. Until the individual in question is accepted, and allowed on the Senate floor or permitted to vote, they are merely another citizen. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Please read this document, especially starting at page four of the internal numbering. As I said to you before, the law treats the beginning of terms differently based on whether the person was elected to a full term, elected to fill a vacancy, or appointed. I think the key thing you fail to grasp is that the Senate's decision on seating a person is retroactive. If the Senate declares the election or appointment invalid or that the person does not meet the constitutional requirements, the decision relates back to the date the term began. Take the case of someone elected to serve a full term beginning January 3, 2009. Under the law, their terms begin January 3, but the Congress didn't convene until January 6. That in turn meant none of them could take the oath until then. Even so, the rights of their offices commenced at noon on January 3. Had the Senate decided on January 6 that one of them was not validly elected, that person would have been considered never to have been a senator.
Another way to think of it is in terms of agency law. If an employee acts outside his authority, the employer can ratify the action, in which case the employee is considered to have had the authority at the time he acted. In a similar vein, the Congress has chosen with 2 USC sec. 36 (for appointed and some specially elected senators) and sec. 33 (for senators elected to a full term) chosen to say that terms will begin before the Senate passes judgment. Again I urge you to read the article I have linked to. -Rrius (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A good example of 2 USC 36 in practice is the case of Gladys Pyle. She was elected to the Senate in a special election November 8, 1938, and served as a senator from November 9, 1938 to January 3, 1939. Her term started November 9, not November 8 because the law says if you are elected during an sine die adjournment of the senate, your term begins the following day. Also, since the 75th Congress was adjourned and never reconvened, she is one of the few senators to serve without having ever taken the oath of office.DCmacnut<> 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough for the past. I stand corrected on that count.
For the appointee-designate and senator-elect, we can't know their status until after the fact, after the assessment on credentials has been made, and once it has been made, the term is retroactive to the effective appointment date (Gillibrand) or credentials accepted date (Burris) or whatever credentials and oath and other conditions established the date (Franken).
-- Yellowdesk (talk) September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Back between election day and January 6 we used January 6 as the "assuming office" date. It didn't really violate crystal ball because there was no reason to believe any of them wouldn't seated. Because we any intention to not seat someone would be signalled ahead of time, it is okay to assume they are going to be seated unless there is some warning, as in the case of Burris. For senators-elect, like the person about to be elected in Massachussets or who like Franken are going to take their full term seat late, it is fair to use the date on which it is reported they will take the oath. The appointees are really the problem. It is always going to be controversial to say "Assumed office [future date]" when they haven't taken the oath. An answer might be add two new parameters to the template: |appointed_date= and |takes_oath=. I'll propose it at {{Infobox Officeholder}}. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


For the articles, lists and info boxes, can this be resolved by relying upon a single canonical source? Could this one be acceptable...and if not, what are its inadequacies? One potential weakness: "service date" is a term I have not researched back to statute and Senate rules.

"Senators of the United States 1789-2009: A chronological list of senators from the First Congress to the 111th Congress". Senate Historical Office. September 2009. Retrieved September 23, 2009. 

suplemented, perhaps by:

"Appointed Senators". United States Senate. Retrieved September 23, 2009. 

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The closest we have is the Biographical Directory. It is sometimes wrong, but rarely. When you find it is wrong or questionable, the best thing to do is e-mail the Historical Office (historian at sec.senate.gov). I've had good experiences with them. -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

HIV Vaccine[edit]

I re-added the current event tag to the HIV Vaccine article. I believe it is indeed more than appropriate to have that tag up. The tag does not state that another article is undergoing serious revision, it merely states that the article is related to something that has just happened (these vaccine results becoming public) - though the article is not ABOUT that particular study, it is certainly related to it- , and it states that information may change quickly as events develop further, which they abosolutely may! This may turn out to be a hoax, or more information concerning how the vaccine works might be published, or problems with the study might come to light. I added this exact paragraph to the page's talk section - if you seriously have a problem with said tag being on that page, please talk about it there. Thanks amigo! Spiral5800 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Just note that the template guide says: "Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days." -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated Mass. Appointment issue[edit]

I have started a discussion about how detailed the discussion of the new appointment law should be at Talk:List of United States Senators from Massachusetts#Appointment section. -Rrius (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Uganda 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill[edit]

Is there ambiguity that it needs locating to "Uganda"? I ask because it seems that US and UK legislation doesn't get located at, say, UK Terrorism Act 2006 or US Energy Policy Act of 2005, and it looks a bit biased to do this with other countries. No issues with the year being added, though after the title would be more standard. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, there is ambiguity. There are hundreds of legislatures. Specify the locale, and the legislative year in the title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Does this apply to US legislation also? Pseudomonas(talk) 08:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, if it is ambiguous, a North Dakota bill not located in the title of the article, and about a topic that can apply anywhere should specify the locale. In the case of anti-homosexuality bills, for the last 50 years, they have been a constant in legislatures world-wide, even though there has been a growing human rights trend over that same period, it is desirable to locate the legislation in time and geography. Here is an exemplary title: Massachusetts health care reform, an article that was once titled after its legislative name, "Chapter 58", neither descriptive, nor geographically located. Some legislation is perennial, and is re-introduced year-after-year, without successfully passing. This is when it is desirable to indicate the year of the legislation, unless the article undertakes to describe the history of the so-far un-approved legislation.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Chongqing gang trials[edit]

The current tag is indeed "intended for articles edited by many on the same day": have you looked at the article's history from 13 November? --Paularblaster (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The tag was never appropriate. There were a mere seven editors on the 13th. Merely an actively edited article, like many hundreds of other articles. There were the astonishing three edits on November 14, and the stupendous single one edit (my own) on the 15th. Not even actively edited when the tag was removed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up – Dubai World[edit]

The Dubai World crisis and its impact on world finance markets is probably going up on the main page (see WP:ITN/C). You might be interested in expanding some of the articles involved. __meco (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

you edited this article[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asa_Seeley

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

AFD was merge but the all the merged information was deleted so this is essentially a way around to delete. If you feel "keep" is the 2nd choice, then consider re-creating the article. I might add that unsuccessful, not carried out, assassination plots of presidential candidates has been the subject of AFD keeps (articles about a questionable plot against then-Senator Obama). I have no opinion either way except that there should be an open process in decision making. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • My interest was merely to remove inappropriate use of {{current}}. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Capitol[edit]

Thanks for your edit, but I undid it - I think you might have missed the fact that the references are followed by sources, which lists the Federal Reserve website with full inflation data here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • You're right, I did not see that. Thank you. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

check out this thread at the village pump?[edit]

I thought you'd be interested since it revives this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)

cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Current event template on Breakaway (FIRST)?[edit]

Hi,

I tried to find a "current"-style template for this article. {{current sport}} didn't seem to apply -- although those of us in the FIRST Robotics community might consider it a sport, I didn't think the majority of Wikipedia readers/editors would. I went with just {{current}}. I noticed you removed the template with a link to its guidelines for use. I agree with your reasoning

The way FRC works is that a new challenge is announced on the first or second Saturday of January, the build period for robots is from then until late February, and the competition season is during March and April. This article is about the current year's challenge, and I'm pretty sure information will be added to the article will be added throughout the season. (Actual competition pictures as in articles of previous year's challenges won't start showing up until early March.)

So, it's really a current season for a game that is only played during one year.

I think I'll just leave it without a current events template, unless you or someone else can point me to one that might apply.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have been an FRC mentor since 2002.)

--Tckma (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnetar Capital[edit]

thanks for working on that!! Decora (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1[edit]

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of similar articles, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Alex (2010)[edit]

Please elaborate on why the current tag was removed. I do see that the guidelines say it should be used when frequent edits are made to a page, and that TS Alex is only updated several times a day. However, the guidelines mention that natural disasters would be targets of rapidly updated information. Rather or not information comes out every few minutes, advisories come out periodically throughout the day. Having the tag warns readers that the page may not reflect the most recent advisory (editing doesn't happen instantly) and reminds editors that they need to "keep on their toes" to keep information relevant. Admittedly, its use doesn't follow the strict wording of the guidelines, but, since it follows the spirit of the tag, I feel it should be used in this instance. Nickm93 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The tag is not meant as a caveat to readers that the article may not include the very latest updates on the topic of the article. Its object is only to alert editors that particular attention needs to be paid to the fact that the article is revised very often, so that necessary steps may be taken to avoid duplication of information, edit conflicts, etc. We do not want to alert readers about the issues you mention. In fact, the template would be deleted if that was how it was being used. __meco (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis added. From guide:

  • As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.
  • It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Any article about an ongoing event would inherently run the risk of having an edit conflict, since new information will cause the page to be amended. This does not necessarily, in my opinion, have to occur hundreds of times a day. In this particular case, the release of the latest advisory would mean editors need to update the article at that moment, creating the possibility of a conflict edit as mentioned. Now, there appears to be a bit of a difference between what the template itself says and what the guidelines advise. Reviewing dated discussions (ironic for a template called current), I see that several editors are not supportive of, or are confused about, the prescribed use. In any case, these are just guidelines, and I feel that the article should have the template. Nickm93 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've added the current tropical cyclone tag instead. Is this better? Nickm93 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • By the standards of Nickm93, tens of thousands of articles would have the template, because some item about the topic appeared in the news recently, and some potential conflict might occur. This is obviously unworkable as a policy.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why there is a disconnect between the guidelines and what the template says I'll never understand. While my argument may be too overreaching, it follows common sense. The template, something with which you are very familiar judging by the bulk of your edits, says that it is for a current event with rapidly changing information. The thousands of articles you mention would easily meet that criteria. The guidelines may not be met, and this is going to cause massive confusion for new editors, like myself, and even experienced users who simply don't follow the logic, as I've seen in prior discussions. Although I feel revising the template is something I shouldn't take up, I ask that you recognize that your efforts to rid Wikipedia of unnecessary current tags will never end if this disconnect between what the template says and what the guidelines say continues. Nickm93 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yellowdesk. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 07:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Yellowdesk! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for changing that tag on Dominique Strauss-Kahn - I knew there was a better tag and meant to go find it, but got distracted. Much better now. Tvoz/talk 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotes about Steve Jobs[edit]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-06/reaction-to-steve-jobs-death/50674146/1 Might want to add some of those quotes to the Steve Job's Wiki page. 107.10.36.174 (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Tom

Clean up tag on Occupy Wall Street[edit]

Any suggestions? Adding references in what seems to be the incorrect manner (for which I am still not clear what the proper manner for this specific citation style is) creates just as many errors. It is my belief the referencing style was purposely chosen to discourage further contributions. I can fix the errors at the end of the list...in fact have already done so once, but a revert simply put them back. However the addition of references to the Paul Levinson information under the "leadership" section, seems to be done correctly but still causes the error. I am continuing to research this and learn what the correct method is. Can you tell me what was done wrong there in that instance? I have suggested a simpler style so these errors do not appear and do not create work for others. A silent consensus exist for me to do this but requires a good deal of work which I have begun....but to continue to clean up after those messes are created simply supports the use of this referencing style. I agree with the tag, intend to leave it but ...others may not agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you are taking up this topic with the wrong editor. I'm not sure what you're thinking of. Perhaps an editor before or after me in the edit history is the one you desire to talk with.
    --Yellowdesk (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If so then apologies. The diffs appeared to show you as the one who had placed the reference tag at the top of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see my error. You removed the "current events" tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Amber Smalltalk[edit]

For Amber Smalltalk and other open source software articles, it is natural for most of the information available is on blogs and web sites devoted to the particular topic. People who have devoted a great deal of time to the development of the software are often only thoroughly documented on the same kind of sources. It seems that there is an effort to exclude all those sources as unreliable, making it difficult to rescue articles that are, in my opinion, truthful and accurate, important to the people involved, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

For Amber Smalltalk, an interested editor can keep the current article on their hard drive or even on their own talk page, and bring it back when the sources accumulate. Why go through such an exercise? Well, the article is worthy, but the real reason is that the standard for the sources is too strict. I don't know what is to be done about it, but at least I can communicate with another editor who sees the same problem I do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the thoughts. I do see opportunity to argue for some limited flexibility in Wikipedia:Notability (software), but it is dismaying that a significant, though young project with a heritage like like Amber Smalltalk might have nothing besides blog posts to indicate its existence, and thus subject to removal.
    Having worked on genuinely controversial topics or articles, I understand the desirability of and soundness of the rationale for having a measure of acceptability on citations. I admit I don't have an actionable proposal for the wide grey area, for open/free software and the like, between good third party reference sources and reports (blog posts) by respected participants or by outside of community observers.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Infobox ANZC team[edit]

Hey, Yellowdesk. I've removed {{Current sport-related}} from Infobox ANZC team per your suggestion, and replaced it with a link to the team's current season in the infobox footer. It's about time for me to start updating these netball templates again. Thanks for the heads up. Liveste (talkedits) 23:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Current event templates in Twinkle[edit]

FYI: WT:Twinkle#Tag suggestion. Amalthea 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks[edit]

Based on its current state, it's pretty clear that 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks needs some serious work. I've started a discussion about how to go forward at Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks#One cleanup possibility, and you're invited to participate. Thanks in advance, DoriTalkContribs 05:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Kevin White (mayor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of the Commonwealth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Boston Garden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kevin White
Kevin White (mayor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to WGBH

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jill Stein position on super PACs[edit]

I see you contribute to Jill Stein page. Just a quick note I added a small section on current position on PACs...the secondary reference is rather if possible..if you are a supporter of this party it would be nice to have a more solid new paper account. Further..see page Political action committee is you want to bring in any of the over 60 references you will find there to expand/modify.Pbmaise (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Chief Justice of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Current[edit]

Regarding your removal of a {{current}} tag:

You stated with the edit, "Removed {{Current}}, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines.", while the guideline you cited actually reads: "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day" ... As the page in question (Anomalous Transport Rocket Experiment) is a new and relatively low traffic article, I'm not going to fight your edit; however, the guideline as cited does not mandate the circumstances you claimed. If strictly such conditions are indeed the common usage of the template, then the guideline should be adjusted to indicate just that. If not, you should revisit your interpretation of when and where the {{current}} tag should be applied. For example, the tense of the entire article in question is due to shift in the very near future, with much of the article to be revised at such time. A {{current}} tag serves in this case as a heads-up to editors that just that type of updating work will need to be done. {{current}} does not, should not, simply mean "beware of redundant edits". JimsMaher (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The "may optionally be used" phrase indicates that the {{current}} template is not mandatory on such high-editor-volume occasions. The guide specifically recommends against using the template on those occasions that a topic is merely subject to being updated, in the absence of high editor-volume, which appears to be the situation for the article in question:
"It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence."
It is the natural state of affairs that all articles are subject to updates, and a well-written article indicates the temporality of the topic via the article's lede, text, and citations.
--Yellowdesk (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Right. So, after re-reading the entire cited guideline (ignoring the ignore-guidelines guideline) and your response above, I'm left with the same interpretation. To clarify, I'm left with the same interpretation as my original interpretation. You can see how words get interpreted differently depending on perspective? The point is, you're taking an interpretation that says (only if) 100s of editors, while I'm taking the interpretation (also if) 100s of editors. That is, there are plenty of high-traffic pages that don't qualify as current. And there are plenty of current pages that don't have the requisite heap of concurrent editors. And the "it is not intended" clause refers to the fact that every page is living through reinterpretation of history or news or whatever, and is not specifically worded to exclude every page (currently active news or otherwise). Please note, I've changed the tag on ATREX to {{current spaceflight|article}} ... which I thought I was avoiding questions of appropriateness by simply using generic {{current}} since the mission in question is only an "edge of space"-flight mission. If you insist on removing that tag as well, that's your prerogative. Consider the timing of you removal of these current-tags, as someone thought they were relevant, it is possible they inform more than just editors (food for thought). Still the guideline for {{current}} needs clarification. Succinctness is a terrible thing if it leads to misinterpretation ... unless that's what we're going for. JimsMaher (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I invite a particular proposal for improving the text of the guide for {{current}} that would aid the innocent first user of the template.
    The template is superfluous or redundant in all but the rarest of occasions, as the guide attempts to indicate.
    A bit of the history on the tamping down of non-appropriate occasions of the template's use can be found in the talk pages and the talk page archive of the template. The spaceflight current template is one of the few surviving cuurent templates that have yet to be deleted that came out of the historical proliferation of copies of {{current}}.
    --Yellowdesk (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.155 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue what these "current" templates are supposed to be used for. You've removed a bunch of them from various articles related to the current Paralympic Games. The tag is not about the "temporal nature of the subject" as you claim. The template is placed on articles that cover events happening right now. It's purpose is to warn the reader that the article's content will change many times in a short period - while the event is actually happening. Some of the articles concerned are edited in excess of 100 times a day, every single day, for the entire duration of the Games. It's not about the "temporal nature of the subject" its about the high rate of editing of the article over a specific period. As an "editing template" it relates to the process of the article itself - not its subject. Roger (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Explanation Re edit to .22P vs. NP.22 article[edit]

I was (and I am still) expecting MANY edits to the article P versus NP problem , due to reasons which are explained on David Eppstein's Talk: page. (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=514401484#Explanation_Re_edit_to_.22P_vs._NP.22_article ).

Do you still think that this "expectation" (of many edits to the article) is off base?

Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The forecasted impact of edits has numbered exactly three edits, five hours later, rendering the proposed use of the template superfluous. The template is a functional item, for those rare and actual occasions in which there are many editors applying many edits at the moment of adding the template to the article.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sita Air Flight 601[edit]

Thanks for removing {{current}}, I was not aware of that. You learn something new everyday... LegoKontribsTalkM 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebenezer R. Hoar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George H. Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ebenezer R. Hoar[edit]

Thanks Yellowdesk for your contributions and improvements to the Ebenezer R. Hoar article! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 shahbag protest[edit]

I couldnt help but notice you removing the "current event" disclaimer from this page. This is a current even that is happening in Bangladesh at the moment. Multiple people are editing the pages on an hourly basis. And the protests are far from over, its only been a few days. Information is changing rapidly and there are still many things people aren't sure about. Due to that, i feel that removing the disclaimer was not an appropriate thing to do at this time. shyrsatrShyrsatr (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that in the recent four hours, a mere nine editors have edited the article, which indicates at the present moment the article is merely actively edited. This is significantly fewer than the instance for which the "current" template was created, in which many dozens of editors are vying to edit an article within the same hour. Naturally, if the volume of edits rises to a point where an editor-warning is desirable, feel free to re-instate the template. Yellowdesk (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Current template, yet again[edit]

When you removed the {{current}} template from the article 2013 Russian meteor event, you said, "intended for articles edited by many on the same day" and cited the guidelines, which themselves say, "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." Have you looked at the edit history of that article? It's gotten well over 1000 edits in the last 4 days. I think that qualifies. In any case, I'm not going to argue this with you, since (based on other discussions on this page) you seem to have an issue with that particular template... - dcljr (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Any editor, including you, who finds that it is appropriate to re-instate the {{current}} template, because of of massive participation causing editor confusion or edit conflict, is welcome to do so. I do not engage in edit wars, and typically do not log into the English Wikipedia daily. In the prior hour to my edit in this particular case, there were only seven edits, by six editors, including one bot, and in the prior hour to that, there were merely six other editors participating. In my view, at the time of my edit, editor urgency had passed and the article was merely actively edited, and that there were neither hundreds, nor tens of editors competing to modify the article. I do inspect the history of edits before removing the template, and I also check if there continues to be a large number of editors recently participating, and there was not activity warranting the use of the {{current}} template at the time of my removing it.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
thanks தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me usage of {Current} (#TIL)[edit]

I was gonna say

Maybe Google would have said, but I'm time short. You recently reverted an edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysore_Medical_College_%26_Research_Institute&curid=1113299&action=history (Removed {{Current}}, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines)

I understand {Current} was not to be used.

But, the situation is: There is a case pending at Supreme Court, the result will decide how the admission is going to be. And there are discussions all around. So, how do I notify people that it is a "current" event.

But then I realized that by stating the same in the article, you don't need to include an extra box to attract attention.

Thanks for that! :D P.S. How do I reference a template without causing the template to appear? asdofindia (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


  • Format is as follows:
    {{tl|current}} 
    

Yellowdesk (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I would like to say thank you for removing the current template off Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I was meant to do it myself today, but I've been that busy with real life stuff that it completely slipped my memory. In previous years the Eurovision articles have encountered severe edit conflicts during the semi-finals and grand final, and members of the project discussed using one of these templates during the course of each live broadcast as a precautionary measure - which it did help reduce edit conflicts dramatically. The next being tomorrow (between 20:00 and 23:00 BST) and again on Saturday (between 20:00 and 00:00 BST). I'll add a reminder somewhere so that I make sure someone from the project removes the template as soon as each live broadcast has been completed. WesleyMouse 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Current}} and {{Current sport}}[edit]

I added the {{Current sport}} tag to 2013 Indian Premier League just to let editors know that the tournament is ongoing. However, you removed it. I am not going to re-add it because it's no big deal. But the edit summary you gave was totally baseless: "Removed the redundant and superfluous {{current sport}} template. The first sentence of the article clearly states the temporal and changing quality of the topic." And btw, there's nothing in the first line of the lead that points out what the {{Current sport}} tag is trying to say. (And how can tags be superfluous, may I ask?) Looking at your contribs page, my question is "Are you just increasing your edit count with these baseless edits?" --v/r Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No.
It is unremarkable that a tournament is ongoing and that there is news about it, and as the first paragraph of the article then indicated, the ongoing and changing nature of the topic was clearly stated, rendering the additional template superfluous and a redundant repetition of the article lede's text. That text being: "The tournament features Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

nine teams and is held from 3 April to 26 May 2013."
Yellowdesk (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the second line of the lede. And tags are just informative, don't get so much pissed off that you remove all of them from every article. I suggest a bot does these tasks instead of an editor. And I think there should be another parameter like |end= which determines when the event listed in the article will be over. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There is such a bot, not created by me; I forget its name. It apparently is not always operating. It has indeed has been helpful in removing the current template from some articles. It actually is redundant to have a tag indicating a temporal quality to the topic, and at the same time, indicate in the lede the temporal quality of the topic.
Yellowdesk (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Current template on Curiosity[edit]

Thank you for removing the current template that I had placed on Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube? that I had posted the day before. This was the first time that I had used such a template. I did so because the game had been completed on that day, May 26th, new information was coming out rapidly, and I noticed many new users were editing it by the minute as new information came out.

Obviously, it was right for you to remove the tag on May 27th as you did after the news and edits had died down. However, I would like to ask you some advice. In your opinion, was I correct in placing the Current tag? At the time I felt that the magnitude and frequency of edits coming in justified it. Was I correct in doing this, or is current reserved for bigger events with more edits than the page was seeing? Thank you! Wall Screamer (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag {{current}} was created immediately after the March 11, 2004 bombings in Madrid Spain. When the article was created, it had about 300 edits in its first ten hours, and a high number of edits for the next several days. The template was created a couple of days later, when editors were still interfering with each other's edits. So, the template is intended for those rare situations where many editors were stepping on each other's edits on an article. As for Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube?, it had a moment with 20 edits in one hour, and perhaps 40 or so edits during the whole day. Perhaps for an hour, if the editors were stepping on each other, the tag was used for its intended purpose.
Yellowdesk (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Shaker Village, Harvard[edit]

Thanks for the rewrite. Do you have sources (not challenging the information, just like to know! - but would be good to have in the article). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation added to Harvard,_Massachusetts#The_Shakers:
National Park Service (no date). "Harvard Shaker Village Historic District". Shaker Historic Trail. National Park Service, United States Department of Interior. 
Yellowdesk (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Cellucci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Bill Clinton]]; but was not confirmed by the [[United States Senate]] and served as Ambassador.) Cellucci was succeeded by [[Jane Swift]], whom became the first woman in Massachusetts history to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yellowdesk. You have new messages at [[Talk:2013 Southeast Asian haze#The template|Talk:2013 Southeast Asian haze]].
Message added 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo () 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yellowdesk. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Southeast Asian haze.
Message added 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo () 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA Current event tag[edit]

I don't really mind if that template is removed, but we should probably discuss it at the talk page. There seems to be some confusion as to why the template was placed there and, of course, it shouldn't be there forever or even past this weekend, but we should be sure there is consensus for it. I would support the removal if discussed on the grounds that the article seems to have been edited adequately for clarity and any confusion of the event should be clear after a few days and that seems to have past.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • At this time, there's no point in having the {{current related}} tag on the article. There has not been an edit on the article for 24+ hours, and the tag fails to indicate what supposedly current event the article is related to--which the guide for use of the template indicates "Use of this template without indicating the topic or article that it is related to may result in prompt removal of this template."
As to the claim that the reason that the template was added is a matter of confusion, this edit, at 14:50, June 26, 2013 by editor Moncrief, without edit summary, is the source of the addition. The lack of edit summary indicates to me that the template's addition is weekly supported by any rationale. For the above reasons I have removed the template today.
Yellowdesk (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Yellowdesk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiroshi Yamauchi[edit]

Hello, I noticed you edited Hiroshi Yamauchi's page saying that he was the second largest shareholder in Nintendo. However, if you look at Nintendo's official Status of Shares, you'll see that he was, in fact, the largest shareholder. I assume you changed it because a news article, incorrectly, referred to him as the second largest shareholder. But I think Nintendo's official info is a better source.
Greetings!
Cancerbero 8 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The Nintendo source is five months old as of the date of death, dated March 31, 2013. The cited source, name="BBC_death" ("Nintendo visionary Hiroshi Yamauchi dies aged 85". BBC. September 19, 2013. Retrieved September 19, 2013. ) indicated otherwise than the largest shareholder. The sources conflict, and are not dated with the same date.


-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Launching template[edit]

I noticed that you've just engaged in a mass removal of the template {{launching}} from articles. The template is designed to be left in place when inactive and hidden through use of a parameter rather than needing to be removed and replaced several times a year. Most of the templates you removed were correctly placed and hidden. I don't have the time to go through and sort them out, so please can you put them back in. Thanks --W. D. Graham 09:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Current sport template[edit]

Hello. Why did you remove the current sport template from the 2014 World Sprint Speed Skating Championships? It is a current event. Sure, that's obvious from reading the lede, but people are often only skimming through ledes, and may read dates without realizing that a date is the current date.

What harm did the template do? What's the purpose of it really? If you'd removed it from an article that was covering an event that wasn't current anymore I'd understand, but this appears just silly. I would of course have removed it myself after the competition. Aren't there more important things to go after?

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the template, because the first sentence of the article already had indicated that the information in the article was likely to change, for a period of time stated in that sentence, from "18 to 19 January 2014".

The template failed to add new information to the article, and was redundant and superfluous, and therefore not desirable.
I stated as much in my edit comment, here quoted:
      "The temporal and changing nature of the topic is clearly stated in the lede. Removed redundant {{current sport}}"

You may check the first sentence of the article at that moment here: at 21:25, January 17, 2014 GMT.

I invite you to consider what contribution the {{current sport}} made to the facts already indicated to the article in its text, and how the template was not redundant and thus superfluous to the already visible iinformation about the topic of the article.
Yellowdesk (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do what you did: just repeat what I've already said: "people are often only skimming through ledes, and may read dates without realizing that a date is the current date". Now, could you please answer my questions "What harm did the template do?" and "What's the purpose of it really?". I'll add a third one: is there anything in the template documention that is violated by the presence of the template in the article?
Please note bullet points 1 and 5 in the guidelines: "This template is for articles which involve an article about an evolving current sports-related event which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving. This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change." and "Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days.", respectively. It appears to me that this fits my use of the template exactly.
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're dedicated to its importance, that's OK with me.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Baker[edit]

Please read and cite your sources next time. The deal has not been completed.[3] And a physical exam is more than just a technicality; just as Grant Balfour. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew Wiggins may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions|official announcement]].}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NPA[edit]

Hi. You deleted a template, quite correctly, from the Natural Philosophy Alliance page. If you look at the subsequent edits, both to the page and its talk page, you'll see trouble brewing. I'm limiting myself to trying to keep the page grammatically correct and in compliance with the MOS, as best I can. However, I think the page might benefit from an admin keeping an eye out for an edit war that's due to break out any day now, between an SPA FRINGE-fighter and a true believer.

I've been too badly burned in encounters with FRINGE-fighters in the past to want to engage substantively.

Whether you decide to add this to your watchlist or not, thanks for your consideration and your good work building up the encyclopedia.

David in DC (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dismissal of US Attorneys article assessments?[edit]

Hi Yellowdesk, long time, no see :) I've been poking around Wikipedia again and took another look at this article. It seemed to me it was overdue for some reassessments, and I thought about nominating it as a "good article" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Nominating However, the procedures suggest checking with a regular editor first. Hence this message. It seems to me the article has been quite stable, and it reads well (to me at least, hardly impartial). Yet it is still rated "C" class, by several groups, which seems odd to me. Happy to make the nomination, but wanted to check with you first. Bdushaw (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks Bdushaw, for checking in. I really appreciate your thoughtful inquiry.

I think there might be a fair bit of work involved, but maybe some outside reviewer will take it as is. If you're up for giving it a go, feel free. I suggest you also poll Remember if you have not.

I took a look at the leading editors list for the article (see lower on the web page). I'm surprised that there are so few editors above 50 edits, and that among all editors with greater than 10 edits, only two have edited since 2013.

I elected to just now rate the article as "B", which I think is as high as it can go without an outside review. You could also poll the participants of the Legal articles group, and the US history articles group, for points of view. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Quality_scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Assessment#Quality_scale.

If I were to give the article a going over, here is what I would think about:
The article is in many ways like a beached whale. Although it has had a lot of stability, there is a great deal of literature that has come out since the events occurred. It has also suffered from some point of view deletions and rewritings over the years. I recall the inspector general and other special counsel investigative reports are not well summarized, and may have had citations deleted to them, for example. Because the events happened a number of years ago, it is highly desirable to incorporate text and citations from books and biographies that have been published about the events, as well as from long-form journals and scholarly assessments surveying the history and consequences of the event. For example, there are a number of books out about Gonzales, and his fall from grace, as well as of or by other leading Justice Department participants. Since James Comey is back in government, leading the FBI, we are unlikely to see more of his views, besides his testimony in Congress.

Unfortunately also, there may be a lot of dead links, and it is desirable to review, and find the paper copies of some of the sources to cite. The website / journal Talking Points Memo had an archive of released documents and email materials, as did the congressional investigating committees, and other journals. Those archives and references to them probably need to be reviewed, because they may have gone dark. The topic is also related to the Bush Justice Department's views on privacy, secrecy, torture, espionage, and the office of Legal Counsel, about which more histories are being written.

The article in many ways could use some thoughtful organization reflecting the place in history the events hold, both in the Department of Justice, in Presidential and the oversight of Congress, as well as a follow-on to the subsequent careers of dismissed US Attorneys and other participants, many of whom are still active. I would speculate that the article merits upgrading, but getting a "Good Article" takes a gigantic amount of work, worthy of a collegiate master's thesis, since there are many hundreds of references to review, and probably more than a hundred references that are worthy of adding, in view of the subsequent literature that has been created.

The Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Criteria is interesting. Whether a "Good Article" criteria, especially its demand for "summary style" can be matched with such a large topic is doubtful, without major revision and breaking the lead article into even more sub-articles. I did find this comparison educational Wikipedia:Compare_Criteria_Good_v._Featured

I see I asked for an automated review in 2007, see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/May_2007#Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy. Maybe another one of these automated reviews would be useful too.

Cheers,
Yellowdesk (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I heard that my name was mentioned so I came here to throw in my two cents. I agree with everything Yellowdesk said. I don't think anyone has really worked on this article in a long time and I think the article needs a major update before it could be called a good article. I think a "B" is a appropriate given the status of the article at this time. Remember (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Remember, I was just about to call on you! :) I'll set the idea aside for now. One of the reasons to contact the regular editors is they have to be available to deal with the questions that come up during a review. I don't think I can do that, so it falls on you two, in practice. I'm glad we agree the article is better than "C" grade, however! I did put the article up for review under the WikiLaw project (although Yellowdesk unilaterally raised that grade to B already). It does look like quite a lot of work to update the article to the more recent documents. I'll go back to editing neutron. Cheers, Bdushaw (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't intend to discourage you, Bdushaw. Might it be worthwhile to think of it as a slow moving long-term project?
    And hey, Remember, I wonder if you too might might similarly be up for a slow-moving effort?
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I would love to work on fixing this up but I am so busy in real life that it will probably not happen for a long time from now. So don't count on me being able to participate to fix the article (although I would love to see it become a GA or FA). Remember (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. My main reaction is that this is a history written as the events themselves were happening, which is always a fool's undertaking (but something I've done a number of times here myself :-) It also took place during 2006-08, the high point of WP editor numbers especially on controversial political articles. So a lot was written on this subject. There isn't just Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, there is also Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings, and Template:Dismissed attorneys table. This adds up to a huge amount of low-level information, most of which doesn't need to be in WP. This is especially true of things like lists of documents and block quotes of federal statutes.
If you look at existing GA articles political controversies, such as Old Court – New Court controversy, White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Question Time British National Party controversy, and Amina Bokhary controversy, you'll see they are generally shorter than this sum of U.S. attorneys articles and do a better job of summarization. Even the main Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article has way too much day-by-day, blow-by-blow, charge-and-response coverage. I think it needs a full rewrite to focus on what's important and better summarize what happens, and I suspect most or all of the subarticles don't need to exist anymore. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with those thoughts. Remember (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)