User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 3

Welcome to my talk page!

If I initiate a conversation on your talk page, I will watch it (for a limited period of time) for responses. You can respond on your talk page and I will read it and follow-up there as needed.

Please sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Unless you are contributing to an ongoing discussion, please start a new topic.

Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Adminship

Hey there, what's it like being an admin? :) Isopropyl 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Still figuring it all out & trying not to make any mistakes. We'll see how it goes... -- JLaTondre 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, best of luck. Isopropyl 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing part of RFD archive from June 17

You'd want to know why this text was cut off unexpectedly:

* Delete per nom.--SomeStrange[[User:SomeStranger|<font

See the diff.

Are you using a Mozilla Firefox with a google toolbar? If so, I strongly recommend you to disable that toolbar, otherwise it's better that you uninstall that toolbar. Editing a very long page with it can cause the huge bottom part of text to be accidentally blanked. I'll find more details of this for you. -- ADNghiem501 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, you can read Wikipedia:Article size#If you have problems editing a long article regarding that problem. -- ADNghiem501 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I found out about that problem after a broken edit on a different article and I de-installed the Google toolbar last week. I tried to go back and check all my large edits for the last few weeks, but I must have missed that one. Thanks for fixing! -- JLaTondre 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you miss some of the text you're trying to archive intergrated contents you remove from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, be sure to check the page history of that page, then find a version, and then edit that version to copy some source that is lost and paste it to the RFD archive. Simple! -- ADNghiem501 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your notification

Hi, I hope you're doing well. The incident to which you kindly notified me earlier in my talk page was a result of a broken edit and a minor mistake on my part, which I later amended, and the aforementioned entry itself was moved very soon after into Absolute Boy, which was subsequent to a requested move I had authored earlier. Thanks for fixing my mistake, and notifying me - I apologize for not having contacting you sooner. ~ Ganryuu (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- JLaTondre 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful nightmare

Thanks for the personal notification... my bad for not checking the file history first, glad you did. I've gone ahead and listed it at afd. --W.marsh 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Raccoon

This page should not exist. I originated it as a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. That article has been deleted.

There is no such thing as a Giant raccoon. Lou Sander 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006#Giant raccoon .E2.86.92 Raccoon. The redirect was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus. Personally, I don't see much merit to keeping it, but consensus is needed for a deletion nomination to be successful. You can always re-nominate it, but you would need to provide rationale that overcomes the previous keep votes for it to be successful. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello,

It's me your computer-challenged friend. I am trying to figure out how to archive my Talk Page. I have stared at the Guidelines - and still can't figure it out. I'm afraid of doing something in the process that will completely mess things up. What procedure did you use to create your archives?

Help!

Michael David 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By Guidelines, do you mean Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page? If not, I suggest you read that page. I use the move method described there. I move my current talk page to "User talk:JLaTondre/Archive#" (where # is the next number), add a {{archive}} to the moved page, and then edit "User talk:JLaTondre" to replace the redirect with the header box and links to the archives. If that's not enough, let me know what more questions you have. -- JLaTondre 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I was afraid I would, I screwed up somewhere. Would you please take a minute and look at my Talk Page and see what I did wrong. I really appreciate it.

Michael David 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- JLaTondre 23:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful!! Thank you very much. I did all of my college & grad. work on typewriters. The computers I learned to use for research, etc. were (and still is) an Apple Mac (the simplest) point & click. I'm still learning. I really appreciate your time & effort.

Be healthy,

Michael David 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD

I am extremely sorry for that. It was a careless mistake to me. I felt since it was already deleted that it didn't need to be on the page. I hope that didn't count as a warning because I want to try out for vandalproof and it would harm me. -ScotchMB 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it was intended as being informative and not a warning. It was clear that you were acting in good faith. -- JLaTondre 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, if you look at the page history, you could see that it was tagged for speedy deletion and it was removed. I felt if I put that on afd instead of tagging it for speedy delete, I would expose it to more people who would take more action on it. -ScotchMB 01:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. In the long run, it's usually easier to just restore the tag. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

speedying and deleting at once

Something you said over at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy caught my eye - is it actually kosher to delete something as a CSD without a separate party first tagging it?? That strikes me as a little TOO speedy, especially in cases of possible progressive saves... -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote the first paragraph of WP:CSD:

The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Non-admins can request deletion of such a page, either by listing it on speedy deletions, or by adding a {{deletebecause|Reason}} template.

The "on sight" is pretty clear and the templates are called out for non-admin usage. The vast majority of CSD's are clear cut. The criteria is pretty narrow after all. I've seen more issues with overenthusiastic users tagging articles than I've seen overenthusiastic admins deleting them. Progressive saves are not really a problem as generally there will be something in the first version that provides an indication of more to come. An article talking about the cuteness of someone's girlfriend is unlikely to change into something notable. Are there sometimes wrong decisions made? Probably, but that's why there's DRV. Adding another layer of checking would simply make the process less efficient with little gain. -- JLaTondre 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'd always assumed speedies took two sets of eyes. -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

T. Marshall Hahn

I finished adding some more details to the T. Marshall Hahn article. It just takes time to get the facts together and check them. Talk to Dr. M 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thank YOU

What should I change the {{RfD}} for? And which one is the page where I should move my comment to?--T-man, the wise 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion and Wikipedia:Requested moves are separate process with differing procedures. What you listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion actually belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can follow the directions provided at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Does that help? -- JLaTondre 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks again, man.--T-man, the wise 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In Response to Harmonism Redirect

I hope the stub my friend and I wrote is sufficient? The blanked redirect was an error in my computer, and I never wished to rewrite it. Rayonne 02:39, 28 July 2006 (EST)

Mistakes happen so that's fine. However, I have deleted the contact information from the article as that is inappropriate. Also, you do not cite any verifiable sources. A quick Google search could not find anything relevant. Please include your sources or this will probably end up nominated for deletion as non-notable or unverifiable. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 10:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Misspelled Article Name

Hello.

It's me again. The Article "Hely Hutchison Almond" is misspelled. The Proper name of the person is "Hely Hutchinson Almond". How do you go about fixing something like that?

Wiki computer-challenged Michael David 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Hely Hutchison Almond page and at the top, there will be a tab titled "move". Select that and it will give you the option to rename the page. -- JLaTondre 22:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it (and didn't even crash the site). I learn each time something new like this comes up.

Be healthy.

Michael David 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'Redirects'

Hello JLaTondre, thank you for helping me. I answered your question(s) on my talk page. So please look there.
VM 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking

Sorry, for that, I was going over lots of pages and did the wrong thing there. My bad. Thanks for the repair. Lincher 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RfD

Re [1] - Thanks. I didn't know it was already deleted, despite contest in its talk page. — Instantnood 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Harmonism article

Hello, JLaTondre. I'm a contributer to the Harmonism entry which is currently being considered for deletion. I gather the main reason this is so is because there is no citing of sources, and no outside information. The reason for that shouldn't be hard to realize: as Harmonism is a discrete cult, there is no public information whatsoever aside from this Wikipedia article. We currently have no other medium of communication, beside word of mouth, and would greatly appreciate your consideration from our point of view; to expand our group, we need a home base which has information on our practice until we can successfully publish a book on the matter. We've spent much time and thought writing and organizing this article, prudent not to release too much information, and it would make sense that the only citation necessary is the simple fact that the clan (including Rayonne and I, the chief contributers) exists and have written this article on our practice. We also realize that there is much misinformation and missing citation already in the religion/philosophy field (see Darkside for an example of this) and it is hardly fair not to let our well-conceived and growing practice have a small corner of this massive reference site, when there are things like that around. Of course, it is ultimately to your judgement. All I ask is your understanding and consent to keep our information up so we can continue to draft new members and be successful; after all, every religion and spiritual practice today began with a single set of beliefs. Thank you for your time.

-- Lord Skye III 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Move page

Thanks for your help. I did the same mistake when I moved Technical Analysis Software (Finance) to technical analysis software. I'm afraid I'll mess things up again. Would you mind helping me fix that?--Wai Wai (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --Wai Wai (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- JLaTondre 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My preferences

Hello, again,

I really hope you don't mind my coming to you for technical questions, but I'm still trying to learn these aspects of Wikipedia.

The problem is, my Preferences keep changing on their own. Sometines, with some Articles, the font will change & the date preference keeps reverting to 'no preference'. Each time I have to go back and save them again. Is it Wikipedia or is it me. I hope you can help.

Thanks,

Michael David 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be causing that. I have seen issues with link formatting (underlines come back) that if I refresh the page, it returns to normal. Trying clearing your browser cache and reloading the page. If that doesn't work, it could be something with your cookies, try logging out and back in and make sure your browser cookies for this site are set to remain from session to session. If that doesn't work, try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). A broader audience may give you a solution. -- JLaTondre 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions; I'll give them a try.

Be healthy,

Michael David

Hello, again,

I went to the Pump, and this is the message I got back: Everyone's having this problem. There's nothing we can do about it yet (check above for a few postings of this same problem). There are also several other posts and discussions on the page about this same problem. Although it's a pain, at least I don't feel alone on this one. Thanks again!

Be healthy,

Michael David 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Soyer Article

Hello, again.

This one's above my head. There are two Articles on the same person. One is Main Titled, 'Alexis Soyer', the other one is Main Titled, 'Alexis Benoit Soyer'. As you can see, the one Titled 'Alexis Soyer' is the most accurate & complete. How do you handle something like this?

Eager to learn,

Michael David 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is any worthwhile content in Alexis Benoît Soyer, edit Alexis Soyer and include that content. After that, or if there is no new content worth including, redirect Alexis Benoît Soyer to Alexis Soyer. Alexis Benoit Soyer (no caret over the I in Benoit) is a redirect to Alexis Benoît Soyer and it would need to be changed to Alexis Soyer. Does that make sense? There is a more detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages that also includes instructions on how to tag an article for potential merging in case one doesn't have the time to do it or if discussion would be needed. -- JLaTondre 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I got it right. When you have time, please check it out.--Michael David 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. :-) The redirect should replace the content (see [2]). Also, Alexis Benoit Soyer had to be fixed as it became as double redirect when its target was redirected (see [3]). But that was a good attempt for your first time. I also tagged the redirects with the appropriate category. -- JLaTondre 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Both I and Mr. Soyer thank you. He was starting to feel a bit schizophrenic having two separate Articles describing his life. Actually, that I could help him with. But lots of the technical aspects of Wikipedia are still a mystery to me. Thanks again.

Be healthy,

Michael David 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

re: RFD

Good evening. Thanks for your polite note. Please don't worry that I'm taking it personally. I do understand that reasonable people can disagree. That said, I stand by my arguments. I'll admit that it's more nuanced than can easily be fit into a one-bullet RFD discussion in many cases. You raised two specific points. Permit me to try to explain.

1. Page Move History: If a page has been properly moved, then the edit history of the page is moved along with the page. The history of who moved it is also shown at the new name. There is no GFDL violation caused by deleting the original title.
   • This is true for page-moves created since the most recent revision of the MediaWiki software. Now, the MediaWiki software does record the move in the pagehistory of both the origin and destination pages. Prior to that release, the page's edit history was moved but the actual move itself was not recorded. For older moves, you can only tell that the page was moved or who moved it by following "what links here" and checking the edit history of the redirect.
   • This leads to the more specific question "Is the pagemove 'content' for the purposes of the attribution requirement in GFDL. Wiser heads than mine have argued that yes, the title of an article is, itself, content and that changes to the title must also be preserved. This was a specific discussion amongst the lawyers who argue the finer points of GFDL.
   • Let me add, though, that I don't think I said that the redirect had to be preserved in order to preserve the page-move history for those redirects which have been made since the change to the MediaWiki software. I said it aided in preserving it. (And my apologies if I was sloppy in my language on a specific RFD discussion.) I think it's still useful to keep the redirect because it helps when attempting to sort out complicated histories when a page has been moved (sometimes repeatedly) to different titles. Having a confirmation of the pagemove on the origin-page is helpfulin such cases. Sometimes, the corresponding evidence in the destination page is quite hard to find or has become obscured by other edits.
   • It is not strictly necessary to preserve this history via the redirect. But as a practical matter, it's easier to preserve the redirect than to keep checking that someone properly documented the move with a manual comment on an article's Talk page somewhere.
2. Contribution History: While contribution history has to be kept, many redirects are created by replacing the original content with a redirect and not by merging content into the target article. This happens often when someone feels a topic is not suitable for its own article. In those cases, there is no contribution history that needs to be saved.
   • Technically, this is true. If we can be sure that no content was reused in any article, then we have no obligation to preserve the contribution history. As a practical matter, how do you know whether or not someone used content from the original version? How, in fact, do you know that someone didn't open the edit history and reuse content from an old version even after the redirect was created?
   • This, by the way, is one of the strongest arguments against our deletion processes generally and the reason that several lawyers have argued that the deletion process for articles creates a risk of violating GFDL. Where the content is harmful, vandalism or utterly unencyclopedic, I believe that those costs outweigh the obligation to preserve GFDL. As a practical matter, we have to be able to get rid of the bad content. However, where the content is merely duplicative, I believe that it is best to err on the side of keeping the redirect and the associated history. Redirects, after all, are cheap.
3. I have to add a third point, though. The most valuable reason I have for keeping redirects after a page-move is that they serve to direct the original author(s) to the new location so that they can contribute to the right article. Without the redirect, the original contributors often get frustrated when they can not find their good-faith contributions in Wikipedia. They either lash out at us for "deleting" (or worse, "censoring") their efforts or they recreate the article in ignorance of the pagemove. The redirect, on the other hand, brings them into the fold so that they can join the community of other editors working on the topic.
   • Note: This applies not only to editors who actively edited the article prior to the move but also to everyone who read the article at the old title. Readers can be equally confused when we move a title and leave no trace of the move behind.

I hope that helps at least a bit. As I said, reasonable people can disagree, especially as these general principles apply to specific cases. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We're on release 1.8 already.... I guess I'd lost track.
I'll concede I take a more conservative approach in this case. Where the encyclopedia is clearly better off without a particular redirect, I'm all for deleting it. Vandalism, fraud, attack pages, etc. all have to go. But we've always said that "redirects are cheap". And to a very large extent, that's true. Deleting a page does not actually get us any server space back. The only real cost we pay is in editor-time. The redirect must be watchlisted for vandalism like all our other pages. Now, that editor effort is not a negligible cost. Good editors are in short supply. On the other hand, unlike most of our articles a redirect is really easy to watch. You can't really insert subtle vandalism or false facts into a redirect. It's either pointing the same place as it was yesterday or not.
If there's essentially no cost to a good-faith redirect but there might be a benefit to someone - however small or theoretical a benefit, why not err on the side of conservatism?

You also had a thought about modifying the search engine. Personally, I use the search feature regularly and rarely find myself sorting through inappropriate redirects. They are usually appropriate hits which take me to the article I really intended to find. Or at least are no more irrelevant than many of the other hits on the list. But that may be a function of the kinds of topics I search on. What searches do you conduct that return high ratios of redirects?
Thanks again for your polite question and comments, by the way. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL doesn't require us to preserve what is effectively the 'file name' of the document. The fact that there is no good record of old titles is immaterial. In the case where the redirect page has substantial unmerged history, in cases where that content exists elsewhere without the history we are already out of compliance. In such cases the history should either be merged or moved to an unobtrusive title and linked from the page's talk as well as mentioned in an edit summary (for example old_name gets blanked and moved to new_name/merge01). --Gmaxwell 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to nonexistent articles

When I make a redirect to a nonexistent article, I generally create the article immediately afterward. There are dozens of places where people use alternate capitalizations of words in song titles, and your alternative of going to every article with an irregular use of capitalization and editing that article is an unreasonable use of time. Don't delete the redirect; just wait a bit and the article will appear! -- BRG 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unicode redirects

In Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 29#Various strange redirects, I thought I withdrew the requests for deletion for 〡 (Chinese numberal 1), changing the target from Vertical bar to 1 (number) and Ⓐ (circled A), changing the target to A. They were deleted anyway, and I'm bringing it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm informing you per policy, as I'm not sure which one of you deleted them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blank redirects

I took out the redirect because it was creating confusion. i have updated the page. i din't have time to make a new page at the time. thanks for keeping an eye out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randywilliams1975 (talk • contribs) .

For the blank redirecting, I took out the redirecting link since it goes to the main page. In other words, other than the redirection, there's no content in the page, and this looks awkward if you're already on the main page and you click on the link, the end up redirected to that same page. And in any case, I might need some help for the deletion. Joey80 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

yes the piercings are similer, but they are really very different none the less, i am trying to help reduce confusuion and meybe give people a place were they can elaborate on the subject further, isn't that the whole reson for this site. maybe instead of deleting info on the page all together maybe we can come up an agreement. have you seen the bmezine page [4] Randywilliams1975 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hello,

I may be completely dense, or else I've been asleep for awhile, but what on earth are the new references in the Category listings that show nothing but a + sign. I used to be able to find a list of subcategories there, but now, there is just the + signs; and when I click on it all I get is the word "loading".

Help!!

Michael David 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Example: I went to the Category:Suicides by sharp instrument and when I clicked on the + for additional Categories all I got is the word "loading" and nothing else. The additional Category should be Category:Seppuku.

-- Michael David 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. However, when I go to …sharp instrument here is what I see:

S

• [+]

When I click of the +

Here is what I get:

S

• [-]

loading

Curious: When I copied the S * [-] loadingto my clipboard to paste it into this message, here is what I got:

S

[–] Seppuku

loading

I'm stumped! ---Michael David 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Please keep in mind that I am severly computer challenged. I use Internet Explorer, and, as far as whether Javascript is working, I need to talk with my computer person first. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Thanks for your help & patience. I'll be back in touch as soon as I can.

Michael David 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel so dumb after all. I went to the Pump, and I seems I'm not the only one having problems with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Subcategories

Thanks again,

Michael David

Prod

If a prod has been removed from an article, you cannot re-prod it. The fact that Marudubshinki removed the prod from Human World without any explanation does not matter. You cannot re-prod it and you must take it to WP:AFD instead. Please see WP:PROD or ask me if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous what you have to go through to get something like this deleted around here. For 8 days I have been waiting for an admin to come along and see it. And now just because somebody (not you) decides to remove a tag without any explanation or changes whatsoever I have to go through more and more bureaucracy just to get shit wiped clean that has been hanging around here for months already. If you think a certain article merits deletion, help out, don't just delete tags and point me to more pages with names like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I don't speak in acronyms and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. I'm sorry if I seem to be ranting or attacking you (I can assure you I have nothing against you). But this is just very frustrating.--K-UNIT 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)