Jump to content

User talk:SW3 5DL: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 162: Line 162:
</big></big>
</big></big>
</font></font></div></div></div></div>
</font></font></div></div></div></div>

== People's business ==

I don't know how long you've been here, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dayewalker&diff=prev&oldid=334686596 wikipedia is everyone's business]. Nothing on here is a ''private matter'', unless it actually has to do with [[WP:OUTING|revealing private information against the rules of wikipedia on a user who has not revealed such information publicly]]. Anyone can get involved anywhere else, you have no right to tell anyone to stay out of any discussion on anything. Please do not reply to this message, I don't expect you reply to this, I simply expect you to now be aware of this fact.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:09, 29 December 2009

Help with user page

The easiest way to copy what I have going would be to go to my page and click edit. Copy the code and modify it to fit your needs. If you need any help, leave another message and I'll try to assist. Morphh (talk) 1:21, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg

Biographies of Living Persons

Make sure you read WP:BLP. This will help guide you when editing biographies of living people. Morphh (talk) 2:59, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Malke 2010, not sure what template your looking to place, but here is helpful tool that lists them by category. Morphh (talk) 1:33, 09 August 2009 (UTC)

=

Scotland talk

Howdy, archiving would be acceptable, as there's alot of repetition in those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki things

Your comments

You express yourself clearly, very well said. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I hear you 3rr

hi, to make your case you should say to him that you ask him to revert his last edits that violated the 3rr and give him the chance to revert, then if he doesn't at least you made the offer to him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see two clear reverts...as I told someone else, 3 reverts and then a warning on the users talkpage and then if the user makes another one give him the opportunity to revert on his talk page and then if he doesn't you can report him and that is a strong case, these days I would not report unless all of those step were met, that way your reports will be strong and you won't be wasting your energy reporting, never mind, next time if you want to make a report follow these steps, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take care not to make too much noise, discussion is the key, tomorrow is there waiting and the day after. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Malke 2010. I've replied at User talk:EdJohnston#Edit War Notice Board. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. If you want assistance in opening an RfC, ask me or any other admin. It would be a good-faith gesture if you would withdraw your 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clear issues

that section clearly is excessive and has many issues, it should not be there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, looks good..I like the ideas..carry on. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come by and "put in your two cents" as the Yanks love to sayMalke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

religion controversy

Hi Malke, presently, if you missed it, I am recovering from having my good name, or not good name... dragged through the muddy waters of ANI, please don't comment there as the report had lost its legs. If the religion discussion stalls or appears to be going nowhere, after a degree of time, then take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanksgiving, i'm in the uk, but still, why not, best wishes to you to. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Externals

Aw, thanks, you too. This article is also a bit comparable, It clearly would be good to read the WP:EL article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the checklinks tool for Rove, you can use it for checking the links on any article, just change the name in the box at the top, anything red is broken and needs looking at, perhaps repairing with the internet wayback machine, google it, its a tool for repairing links to past versions of the page that are sometimes archived on the web, and anything with connection issues it inneed of checking, blue is OK, ask me if you want to know anything. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbin is the last option, here is the Wayback machine add the web address to the box when you go there and see if there are any pages saved in the big internet memmory, if there are then replace the new link for the old one, if there aren't any saved versions then we look for a replacement citation, if all that fails then it would need to go and perhaps the content be replaced with something similar. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to do much there really, I had a bit of energy for the copy vio template on the religion section and a bit of energy for the external section as it also has a template and that small removal which I thought was wrong in the lede, thats about it, but I am around if you want to ask me anything and if I can point you in the right direction I will, yea? Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stuff

[1] [2] [3] [4]

[5] [6]

[rm description as "scandal" - this is a [[7]] as it breaches NPOV]

[8]

Chhe (talk)

[9] [10]

{{subst:WQA-notice}}

For a citation to appear in a footnote, it needs to be enclosed in "ref" tags. You can add these by typing <ref> at the front of the citation and </ref> at the end. Alternatively you may notice above the edit box there is a row of "markup" formatting buttons which include a <ref></ref> button to the right - if you highlight your whole citation and then click this markup button, it will automatically enclose your citation in ref tags (i.e. <ref>citation</ref>).

Note, if this is a new page or if there are not already references previously cited, it is necessary to create a "References" section at the end of the page, thus:

== References ==
<references />

or

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

See: Wikipedia style guideline on use of footnotes for more details. His family moved to Salt Lake City in 1965 when Rove was entering high school. He became a skilled debator.[1] Rove described his high school years as "I was the complete nerd. I had the briefcase. I had the pocket protector. I wore Hush Puppies when they were not cool. I was the thin, scrawny little guy. I was definitely uncool." Put up by a teacher to run for class senate, he beat his opponent by riding in the back of a convertible sandwiched between two attractive girls inside the school gymnasium,[2] right before his election speech. While at Olympus High School,[3] he was elected student council president his junior and senior years.


[4]

Jonas Salk

[11]

paterson evening news reference [12] [13]

The Salk photos in the article were tagged but the problems are fixed. There is no clear reason why they would be deleted and I assume the "problem notice" tags on them now will eventually get removed. The best, easiest, and safest way to check copyright status and ownership is with a copyright search. If it's not listed as having been filed or renewed then it's safe to assume there is no copyright. I doubt that any newspaper would even be able to confirm whether they ever filed any notices since that would take them a lot of in-house or legal research through old (non-computerized) records. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I enlarged the photo I could see the names of the newspapers taped up in the guy's window. So before I left the question on your talk page, I emailed all of those papers including the New York Times and the New York Daily News. If they come back with anything interesting, any anecdotes about the times, I'll add it to the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic work

Articles with unsourced statements
Subtotals
February 20071,115
March 2007423
April 2007527
May 2007488
June 2007641
July 2007564
August 2007601
September 2007561
October 2007644
November 2007617
December 2007703
January 2008802
February 2008713
March 2008881
April 2008778
May 2008794
June 2008805
July 2008906
August 2008846
September 2008836
October 2008894
November 2008847
December 2008954
January 20091,024
February 2009719
March 20091,235
April 20091,092
May 20091,066
June 20091,099
July 20091,169
August 20091,133
September 20091,163
October 20091,118
November 20091,114
December 20091,005
January 20101,513
February 20101,167
March 2010850
April 20101,767
May 20101,457
June 2010967
July 20101,581
August 20101,260
September 20101,377
October 20103,739
November 20101,575
December 20101,453
January 20111,613
February 20111,385
March 20111,466
April 20111,423
May 20111,447
June 20111,496
July 20111,489
August 20111,633
September 20111,757
October 20111,488
November 20111,555
December 20111,541
January 20121,716
February 20121,513
March 20121,616
April 20121,682
May 20121,651
June 20121,553
July 20121,702
August 20121,821
September 20121,586
October 20121,603
November 20121,657
December 20121,679
January 20131,856
February 20131,635
March 20131,713
April 20131,764
May 20131,691
June 20131,734
July 20131,618
August 20131,745
September 20131,526
October 20131,754
November 20131,669
December 20131,619
January 20141,881
February 20141,675
March 20141,779
April 20141,718
May 20141,807
June 20141,599
July 20141,688
August 20141,672
September 20141,787
October 20141,745
November 20141,740
December 20141,752
January 20151,835
February 20151,872
March 20152,034
April 20152,047
May 20152,051
June 20152,128
July 20152,158
August 20152,194
September 20152,045
October 20152,363
November 20151,966
December 20152,124
January 20162,358
February 20162,134
March 20162,145
April 20162,159
May 20162,197
June 20161,946
July 20161,949
August 20162,186
September 20162,231
October 20162,053
November 20162,321
December 20162,479
January 20172,632
February 20172,222
March 20172,380
April 20172,416
May 20172,547
June 20172,408
July 20172,382
August 20172,438
September 20172,299
October 20172,744
November 20172,333
December 20172,760
January 20182,855
February 20182,748
March 20182,568
April 20182,900
May 20182,872
June 20182,880
July 20182,858
August 20182,867
September 20182,676
October 20182,661
November 20182,516
December 20182,858
January 20193,417
February 20193,216
March 20193,189
April 20192,891
May 20192,992
June 20192,902
July 20193,106
August 20193,397
September 20193,165
October 20193,140
November 20193,663
December 20193,872
January 20204,267
February 20204,834
March 20204,027
April 20204,869
May 20205,721
June 20206,222
July 20205,639
August 20205,642
September 20204,756
October 20206,728
November 20205,226
December 20205,383
January 20215,600
February 20214,696
March 20215,599
April 20214,923
May 20215,696
June 20215,067
July 20215,428
August 20215,632
September 20215,227
October 20215,682
November 20215,698
December 20215,743
January 20225,482
February 20225,006
March 20225,817
April 20225,245
May 20225,847
June 20226,257
July 20226,598
August 20227,737
September 20225,932
October 20227,042
November 20226,435
December 20226,521
January 20237,493
February 20235,816
March 20237,137
April 20236,926
May 20237,655
June 20236,971
July 20237,436
August 20237,330
September 20236,893
October 20236,999
November 20238,114
December 20238,285
January 20248,466
February 20248,562
March 20248,698
April 20247,843
May 20249,002
June 202410,229
July 202417,966
August 20249,084
Undated articles9

Well the "General Fixes" part is done by WP:AWB but it is currently hamstrung because someone doesn't like that it gives references names. The other specific part is dating tags such as {{Citation missing}} - this puts the articles into dated categories, to help with cleanup. To find out more about robots see WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't as good as it should be. We have 203,000 such articles going back to at least January 2006, see table on right. And there are other categories almost as big. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Copy from talk page:

Excuse me, but I did not "simply revert". I moved the content to the appropriate main body article section. The lead section of an article should not contain content that is not already included in the article itself. Per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. I also corrected citation format style rather than the blank links with no appropriate identification, title, date, publication or author. Yeah, you're right, it does take a lot of work. It takes even more work to correct errors in citation addition, verify citations, some of which did not, in any way, support what you said it did and for which I had to find proper sourcing. Let me remind you this is designated a good article and thus, the style, citations and content that you added does not pass good article muster. The rest of the content you added to the lead isn't at all supported by a stark link to the Writer's Guild, which, when his name is searched, states simply "Sorry, this member has chosen not to publish any details." This content would not go in the lead unless it is already contained in the article. I note also that you were told here that the content should go in the personal life section, which is not where you put it. When you make an addition to an article and click save, it is no longer your addition. At the bottom, below the edit window, in tiny letters, it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I did not simply revert your addition, I moved it and cleaned it up. Please be so good as to return to the personal life section the cleaned up content regarding the marathon and remove the unverified content you added to the lead. Otherwise, in this case, I will simply revert it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't get snarky. It's just wikipedia. . .relax. If the citations need clean up, mention that in the talk page and tell the user to get on it on that user's talk page. People learn from their mistakes. If an editor has to go back and clean up their own contribution they won't make that mistake again. Also, I did move the marathon thing to the personal section. I had not finished editing when you came along and reverted/moved. When I was putting in my edit, I noticed the lead could use some work, so I went looking for citations. So you can imagine, when I came back I wondered what had happened. I always use the talk page, I think it keeps things cool. Nice to meet you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just delete your post, I archived my talk page for the month. What needed to be kept for some reason, was archived. You can learn about basic referencing at WP:REFB and about using citation templates, which is what most good or featured articles use, at WP:CT. I would encourage you to notice if articles are designated as good or featured articles so that you can be better aware of the absolute need to cite everything that is added, to format citations properly, and to just be aware of what is considered good. Featured articles have a gold star in the upper left-hand corner, and you can enable article ratings assessment at the top of each article by going to User preferences at the top of the page, then click on "Gadgets", and at the bottom of the page at User interface gadgets, check the box for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article", save and check article pages. It should say "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top of Edward Norton then. Again, though, let me reiterate. There should be nothing in the lead of an article that isn't also in the main body of the article. The main article states and cites that Norton worked on Frida and The Score. It does not mention The Incredible Hulk in the main article. Since you feel it's helpful to clean up your citations yourself, I'll leave you to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get an article to good article status takes a bit of work. Featured articles are even more work. You can find the basic criteria at WP:GACR, but the better way to see what is expected is to look at other good articles in the category in which the article would fall at WP:GA. The best way to learn is by working on one. They take time and commitment. I'm in the midst of finishing up my work on an article right now and hope to have it ready to nominate by the end of the week. One of the things that come up in reviews for them is the ability to cover the content adequately without indulging in too much rhetoric and hyperbole but still conveying what is necessary to fully cover it. It's a bit of a slippery slope. I think in regard to the trust, it's more important to cover what he is doing for the charity rather than belabor how he managed to promote it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll check the article later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the flowers. I don't get them often these days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lede/lead

[[14]]

colors

Malke2010

Hello, SW3 5DL. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Malke 2010Believe inBig Dreams

signature test

this is how it looks now Malke2010 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the season!

People's business

I don't know how long you've been here, but wikipedia is everyone's business. Nothing on here is a private matter, unless it actually has to do with revealing private information against the rules of wikipedia on a user who has not revealed such information publicly. Anyone can get involved anywhere else, you have no right to tell anyone to stay out of any discussion on anything. Please do not reply to this message, I don't expect you reply to this, I simply expect you to now be aware of this fact.— dαlus Contribs 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ NPR article with biography
  2. ^ [
  3. ^ Newsmakers go forth from Utah Olympus by Lee Benson, Deseret Morning News, July 20, 2005
  4. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html Frontline interview with author William Slater] NPR published PBS Frontline interview, posted April 12, 2005