PLEASE DONT DELETE MY PAGE, I WORKED SO HARD ON IT, IF YOU DELETE IT. TELL ME SOME OTHER PLACES I CAN HOST MY PAGE. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cassidy011|Cassidy011]] ([[User talk:Cassidy011|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cassidy011|contribs]]) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
PLEASE DONT DELETE MY PAGE, I WORKED SO HARD ON IT, IF YOU DELETE IT. TELL ME SOME OTHER PLACES I CAN HOST MY PAGE. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cassidy011|Cassidy011]] ([[User talk:Cassidy011|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cassidy011|contribs]]) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Responded at user's page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:Responded at user's page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Oh, yes, indeed, they are possible. :) I've had a few. Articles are often tagged far too soon for A1 or A3 concerns. :/ CSD policy recommends against deleting articles too soon if they appear to be incomplete, but particularly zealous new taggers don't always seem aware of that. Anyway, I'm happy if I was able to help prevent you having a bad day. I hope any reviewing admin would have done the same. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-occurrence network article by newby Johnfravolda
Thanks for guiding me in the world of wikipedia contribution.
I have attempted to strengthen the "co-occurrence network" page through the addition of references and links to web pages that employ the concept in presenting information.
There are some things that you may be able to advise me on that I realize now may further improve the discussion of this and related topics on Wikipedia.
The topic of "co-occurrence networks" can be considered a subtopic of "Literature Networks". Another subtopic under this heading would be "co-citation networks". Since both co-occurrence and co-citation networks are very similar concepts, they are probably best discussed together under the umbrella of literature networks.
So my question then is: is it possible to get the terms "literature network", "co-occurrence network" and "co-citation network" all to point to the same page?
I'm happy to help if I can, although you are definitely working out of my field. :) When we want to get terms pointing to specific pages, we create "redirect" page. You start them the same as any article, but their contents consist of:
#REDIRECT [[target page title]]
I'm not quite clear from the above if you're considering moving co-occurrence network to literature networks, although it sounds like you may be. Steps for that are at Help:Move. Let me know if you need assistance with it or if I can help in any other way. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I have done the major changes I plan on the co-occurrence network page. In that regard, I was wondering when the "tag" might be removed ("This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). Although I do plan to add figures and consolidate information about co-citation and literature networks in general, the page as it stands now has many references to primary work and describes a concept that helps support other wikipedia articles. Does it not merit the removal of the tag now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The tag was placed there as a convenience for you to keep others from deleting the article before you had reached the point where it was ready to stand. I'll go ahead and remove it, but for future reference when that tag is there to represent your labor, you're free to remove it any time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the above entries offer some sort of advertisement about what these companies do, why can't I be granted the same consideration?
-Tom Shawgo
21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The basic reasons why some articles are allowed to remain while others are deleted are set out here. Primarily it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is large, and sometimes problems are discovered in one article but not immediately detected in another. Sometimes there are additional factors to be considered that may make one article a candidate for deletion by one process and another not.
In terms of the articles you mention, I see that E-Loan has been tagged for promotional text; I'm really a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been addressed. It does have some neutrally presented information in it, however, and WP:CSD#G11 is for articles that would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. There are, of course, other considerations with some of those you list. Apple Inc. is a neutrally presented article with many references to verify notability and attribute claims. (Similarly, see this.)
If you would like to establish an article on this company, please read over the guideline on promotion and the notability guideline on companies. The rule of thumb there is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable and presented neutrally.
You are obsolutly right about me being a bit confused, im sorry to have wasted your time. Im trying to achieve something unique in music and i hadnt explained that a tall well in previous desription.
Now having read the criteria i am unsure if we do qualify. Im gonna tell you what we all about and see if you think we maybe are some sort of wierd sub section. if we are not then that is totally cool.
For ten years me a three school friends have worked hard at becoming an indiependant outfit that relies only its guile and own recource to record, tour, sell merchandise and raise money privatly (ie outside the normal of what bands usually aspire to do. IE get signed to a major, get an advance, go on a support tour and become famous. We have always wanted to do it differently. Noel Gallagher from Oasis was kind enough to let us use his large studio to make an album ourselves (he hasnt let any band our size use it) and we were asked by various big bands and big names to come play on tour etc with them.
We put together a new bizz model for how to achieve all the goals Majors do but with a much more favourable leaning towards the artist. It worked and we got backing to set up and more importantly have total artistic control over WE MAKE THINGS records. We are the guini pigs in a sense i guess but we do intend to further sign other bands etc.
We have had loads of great press and solid radio since releasing our 1st Single here in UK and altho it didnt chart (because we simply dont have the mustle behind us) the second single looks good and the album set for release in June has already got an offer from one of the biggest labels in Japan. we are set to do three main festivals this year Glastonbury, Bestival and Secret Garden party.
As i said before i totally realise why putting us in might open the flood gates but with XFM playlists and major support tours both iminent and already under our belts i thought i would at least write this opus for your perusal.
Hi. No time wasted. :) By confirming to me that the {{hangon}} template was unclear, you showed me that I needed to try to fix it. You're not the only person to have ever placed the "hangon" tag on your talk page. That's our mistake, not yours. (I presume that's what you're talking about. The article had already been deleted by another administrator when I responded to your "hangon", so the article itself took no time at all. My response to your note certainly wasn't a waste of time; I'm happy to help if I can. Anyway....)
In terms of notability, the exciting words there are "loads of great press". If that's the case, then your band meets the guidelines under criterion #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (You should probably re-read WP:MUSIC to see the footnoted exclusions there.) Can you assemble enough examples of that to demonstrate that you meet that criterion? As I mentioned on your talk page, college newspapers would probably not be helpful here, but city newspapers would help. Something to consider is depth and breadth of coverage. Listings of playdates would not help, but reviews would—especially if you have them from different regions you've toured. (You might qualify under criterion #11, too, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." It can be hard to demonstrate that one, though.) Whether or not the sources you have meet the depth and breadth standards can be a little difficult to determine. Sometimes if a band is borderline, their article will wind up in a deletion debate for other Wikipedians to consider whether or not the coverage qualifies. Again, more is better. More from different places is better still. :)
There is a problem, though, with your writing the article yourself. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages this, since it can be hard for those involved with ventures to write neutrally and to avoid "original research", that is, information you may know to be true but not be able to prove. It's recommended that you instead propose the article at "requested articles" or seek assistance at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Neither of these are necessarily fast processes, but if you have solid sources that will definitely help. The quickest way to proceed there is probably to write the article in user space (if you choose to do that and have trouble figuring out how, please feel free to let me know, and I'll be hapyp to help). Once the article is written and sourced, it will be much easier to ask someone from, say, WikiProject Musicians to have a look at it to make sure it's okay. If they agree that it is and that there's no conflict, it can then be moved to article space.
Whether your band currently meets notability guidelines or not, it sounds from what you say as though it's about to. Congratulations to you, and I'm glad that your integrity is paying off. :) If you decide that you don't meet guidelines at the moment, more than likely the conflict will not matter for long. Music fans tend to be enthusiastic participants at Wikipedia, and I suspect that somebody will create the article for you. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks so much for this. i think im gonna leave it to someone else and your words are lovely. maybe you come catch a show sometime. biggest best Wemakethings (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety
"Brooke shields herself from the brutal reality that is her life by finding solace in meaningless material goods and the never-ending pursuit of more and more wealth. But, little does she know, all the beachside condominiums and all-night free-for-all's cannot ease the ever-growing pain she feels at the end of each pointless and purposeless day, a pain that will never be satisfied by her decadence, a pain that will remain until the day she dies."[1] --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the source for the award? This user has been consistently adding misinformation to articles, so I don't trust his statement that he won an award. Where he does add references, they don't say what he says they do, especially re people's ethnic backgrounds. Harry the Dog WOOF15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at IMDb. But even if it weren't, unless it is a blatant hoax, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for clear cases only. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that IMDb is not a reliable source. Won't take it to AfD as you and another editor think it should stay if it can be improved, and that's OK by me. Harry the Dog WOOF15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
I appear to have a fairly tenuous grasp on what qualifies as CSD A7. Do you have any advice of how to determine whether someone or something is notable? If you want to see what I've been doing, you can look at my patrol log. J.delanoygabsadds15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that I am looking through your contribs and forming a reply, but my internet activity is blipping in and out. I don't think it'll take much longer, unless I have to keep rebooting my modem! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I am asking you to do me a favor (i.e. help me). If I was angry at you for taking a while using your time to help me, that would be unbelievably selfish almost beyond reason. J.delanoygabsadds17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here goes. I'm sure you already know some of this, but I'm trying to be thorough. :D
To escape speedy, an article does not need to prove notability or even necessarily assert notability as Wikipedia defines it. It only needs to include information that suggests that its subject could be notable. If an article suggests there is something unique or important about its subject, it's probably not an A7 candidate. Similarly, if deletion of an article on the subject ("schools" as the explicit example) is likely to be controversial, it's not an A7 candidate even if it doesn't suggest that it's important. Also, A7 only applies to people (individually or grouped, as in bands, clubs or companies) and web content. It does not apply to sub-categories of those, like books, software, albums, products, etc. There does seem to be a bit of a gray area around web content. Personally, I would apply it, say, to a youtube video even though I could not technically apply it to, say, a VCR tape. Is it fair that "Billy Hates Vampires is a youtube video made by Billy Sniggs, age 12, and Bobbi Jo Hardey, age 10" is speediable while "Billy Hates Vampires is a VCR video made by...." isnt? Probably not. There've been efforts to add products to WP:CSD#A7. If we can find good wording for it, I'm all for that, especially when it comes to non-notable products released by non-notable individuals. Makes no sense to me that even if the band is speedied, its garage tape needs to be PRODded or AfDed. But, currently, that's the way consensus goes on the issue.
I wasn't here when it was created, but as I understand it, A7 was devised to help deal with articles like "John Smith lives in Pomona", "My new band is super cool" and "Harold's Hardware is a store on East and Main in Podunkville." We get so much of this kind of stuff that it was determined that having it hang around for PROD or AfD was a waste of time & resources. The limitations were placed to help make sure that we don't get overzealous in deleting this kind of thing, since sometimes John Smith of Pomona could be very important. :) If his article says "John Smith is a famous architect from Pomona", it may not verify notability, but it does suggest that there might be enough there to warrant further investigation. If further investigation doesn't turn up anything, then a PROD or AfD may be appropriate. Typically I go PROD if I'm pretty sure that my investigation was conclusive. If I think somebody else may come up with more, I go AfD. (For example, I would not necessarily PROD an article of borderline notability on somebody from another country if I do not have access to good sources for that country. I'd either start by asking for feedback from the relevant wikiproject or, if pretty sure, list at AfD and notify the relevant wikiproject.)
Looking at some of your specifics, let's take the article on Paul M. English as an example. It claims he is the founder of a website that has apparently received significant attention. It's not unreasonable that he might have achieved notability in that capacity. He's probably not a good A7 candidate. I might be inclined to propose a merger of the bio to the website article, but I see there are one or two other possible assertions of significance there. I'd probably tag it for clean-up if I had encountered it. (I did just now, actually. As a general rule of thumb, I don't place more than three tags on an article. If it's a real mess, I will sometimes use {{articleissues}}.)
Looking at Cactus Jack (band), it is difficult to determine notability because the band is Serbian. It does suggest, though, that the band may be notable in the listing of five albums. Something like that probably warrants wider review.
Looking at Sayang dbsk malaysia, it seems that a number of people agreed with your assessment of the article as an A7 there. Can't say for sure why Iridescent decided to AfD it instead. If I had encountered that tagged A7, I would have agreed and deleted it.
You didn't ask about this, but I would like to make a point about WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. One common issue I see with new page patrollers (which, by the way, I used to be before I got the tools to work the other end) is a tendency to mark articles for deletion as "no context" or "no content" almost immediately after the page is created. I notice that you tagged Andrew Paquette that way a minute after its creation on May 18th. Please hold off with these tags until the creators have a little bit of a chance to add material. WP:CSD notes that creators sometimes work in stages, and we don't want to bite new content contributors by scaring the living daylights out of them a minute or two into their first efforts. They do tend to be puzzled and alarmed, sometimes offended, by deletion tags. I got a got a note from a creator about that very issue just a couple of days ago. I know that on new page patrol, you get into a routine, but it's a very good idea just to keep questionable pages of that sort open in a tab and pop back in on them a little later to see if development is ongoing.
You didn't ask about this, either, but I would like to suggest you re-read WP:CSD#G1. This is an often misapplied tag. You put it on the article Zott a few days ago, but G1 indicates that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." It was deleted by WP:CSD#G3, which would have been the proper tag for hoaxes and fictional material, though this one turned out to actually be cruft of some kind. Evidently its up for merger now.
Anyway, I hope that this is helpful. I've actually noticed your recent tags and been impressed by them. You may be working out some of the finer points, but you seem pretty much on top of things as they go. :) I'm glad that you notify creators. That is so important for so many reasons (just to name two, it (a) helps creators figure out what happened to their articles and (b) helps creators figure out how not to create inappropriate articles in the future; I could name more), and yet so many new page patrollers neglect it.
My pleasure. :) I'm always glad to talk to somebody else who values the project. I give Wikipedia a lot of my time, and I approve of others who do, too. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question, I tagged Benmatthews90 under G6, as it was obviously made by a new user who didn't under understand how userpages worked. What would you have tagged it as? (I mean, if you wouldn't just delete it... :P ) J.delanoygabsadds17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually move a page like that to userspace and then tag the redirect for deletion with WP:CSD#R2. Then I'd leave a note letting the creator know what I'd done at his talk page. (That's essential, I think, if you delete the redirect.) There's a template for that purpose, {{nn-userfy}}. I probably wouldn't have used that template on that specific page case, though, since it isn't exactly an autobiography. :) A personal note would be better in that case. I think given how little information it had the way you handled it is fine. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
this article was created by USER:David Lewis Paget, since when do we accept it that people write about themself in the main space on wikipedia? nobody is allowed to do so, why should we handle this user different? makes no sense to me. 79.233.109.158 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly discourage such editing, but do not explicitly disallow it. Such articles may be deleted after deletion discussion, but even blatant conflict is not in itself a speedy criterion, although it certainly may contribute to an article's being perceived as promotion and speediable by WP:CSD#G11. In any case, it has no relevance in determining a WP:CSD#G12. Nevertheless, this editor has been advised of conflict of interest guidelines on his talk page, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There was a deletion debate about Danny Welbeck at which it was decided that the individual does not yet meet notability guidelines. You can see that debate here. I deleted the version of the article created at Danny Welbeck on 18 May as a recreation of an article that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. In order to start an article deleted following a deletion discussion, the new version must address the concerns that led to deletion in the first place. I also noted that in that version, the language was promotional, which violates our neutrality guidelines. Since that time, I see that you have again created the article at Danny welbeck. It was deleted on May 20 by User:Number 57 for the same reason. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is a translation still a copyright violation?
Question
While I was writing this, NawlinWiki deleted the page :P Anyways..... This article even sayssaid that its source iswas this webpage, which is written in Chinese. I don't know a single word in Chinese, so I translated the page using Google Translator. The translated version, while obviously somewhat clunky, easily provesproved that the page iswas a direct translation (and copy/paste). Should I taghave tagged the page as a copyright violation? J.delanoygabsadds15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to question 1. That's a tricky one in terms of Wiki policy, as I don't know that it's clearly spelled out anywhere. In terms of US law, a translation is considered a derivative work, and only the original copyright holder has the right to make derivative works. It's sort of indirectly addressed at Wikipedia:Translation. I've scanned the help archives to see if this has been addressed, and I don't see that it has. If I encountered this myself, I would replace the content with {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}. When I placed it on "today's section" of the copyright problem page, as the template instructs, I would note the special circumstances. Then I'd head over to Wikipedia talk:Translation and ask there, as those volunteers should be up on the Wiki approach to such things. If I didn't get an answer, I would next hit up Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a translation is still a copyright violation. Similarly, if you take some copyrighted English text and change the words so that it's using different English words but still has essentially the same sentences saying the same things, I think it's still a copyright violation. It has to be rewritten to have a different structure. That's just my opinion; I'm not a copyright expert. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are derivative works necessarily copyright violations if the original work would be a copyright violation? I don't know much about the definition of "derivative work". If you summarize something, is that a derivative work? But it should be acceptable on Wikipedia – that's what we do, we summarize things. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offer
Also, to change the subject completely, I was looking through your "frequently used templates" page and I saw that you had a couple of paragraphs that you obviously copy/paste to user talk pages. Would you like me to make them into subpages that you can subst? I have a few pages myself, and I think that my subst-ing is pretty good, good enough that you wouldn't be able to tell that I subst-ed. Here is an example: I produced this by typing {{subst:User:J.delanoy/vandals|++}}
Hello Moonriddengirl.
I noticed that you revert a good amount of vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times recently, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm working on your original question, but will interrupt to answer this one. :) I do have a number of "personalized" templates. A user named ArielGold taught me how to make basic textual ones. Not very techie, so they aren't very complicated. :D If you're good with that kind of thing and are volunteering to help, what I really need is to figure out why this one only sometimes works. It doesn't work with every URL, and I don't know why. It didn't work on this page, for instance, and so I had to go back in and add it manually. Do you have any clue about that? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I tested it in the sandbox with a Wikipedia page that does not exist and a webpage that most assuredly does not exist :). (at least, not now.......must...resist...typing..."free domain hosting"...in...Google.....) It worked fine. The only thing I can think of is, are you sure you typed "http://" into the second parameter? Because, when I previewed it before saving, it wouldn't work without it. (The documentation said it wouldn't work, so, of course I tried it.....) J.delanoygabsadds15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure. I tested it again with that same page in my sandbox and got the same result. Before substituting it in, I did a "nowiki" version above which I cut and pasted. That shows exactly what I put into the template parameters. I can't rule out user error, since it's almost always my user error when I run into these malfunctions, but I'm not sure what the user error might be. :) (The documentation was written by Ariel, who coded that one for me. She's been offwiki for a long time, and she couldn't figure that one out, either.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was off doing "work" work. :D For future reference, no, I don't mind. If you can help me figure that out, I'd appreciate it. I've been living with it sometimes working but not always since Ariel first coded it for me. If you can't figure out, that's okay, too; I appreciate your trying. :) I've been thinking lately that I needed to find somebody who knows stuff to help out with it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MoonG. This might help with that url problem. Note here where it says something about a "url glitch". I don't fully understand, but I think it means that if you put in a url as an unnamed parameter, i.e. if you use a template like this {{templatename|param1}} then some url's with special characters won't work, but if you use it like this {{templatename|url=param1}} then it will work; alternatively you can do it like this {{templatename|1=param1}} which means the same as putting in an unnamed parameter as the first parameter, but I think will work with the url. You can try it and see. I hope this helps. Happy-melon probably understands this better than I do. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You understand it better than I do. You seem to be saying that if the template is coded to have "url=http://blahblah" then it might work. Or, if the template is coded to have "1=http://blahblah" then it might work. But if I just drop in the URL it might not because of special characters? --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm saying, though I'm not sure whether that's correct or not – you'd have to try it. I'm on a different computer where I can only get one window and stuff and besides I don't really have time to edit right now or I would try it for you. But to use the 1= you don't have to recode the template: just put in "1=" (or "2=" for the second parameter etc.) when using the template. In other words, "1=" defines the first parameter in the same way that putting in a first unnamed parameter defines it. Good luck! :-) Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll wait and see how things work out for J.delanoy, who is obviously much more savvy at this than I am. :D If whatever he's trying doesn't work, I'll try to implement your suggestion. I can always restore the half-working version I have now if I mess it up. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think of it, it might be better to move it to my subpage (all credit to you, of course), since I know of at least one other admin who uses it. Would you mind if I put it in that spot? --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third note: actually, maybe you could just copy it into that spot and overwrite the existing contents, if you don't mind my hosting it. And now I'll shut up and wait for you to reply. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Once I noticed it was your sandbox, I thought copy might work better. :) I won't delete your sandbox, no fear, but if I do, at least I can also restore it. Thanks for your help! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe you don't need to know this now that J.delanoy has found a solution for you, but I figured out what the problem is: it's when there's an equals sign in the url. You see, {{templatename|pagename|beginningending}} will assign "pagename" as the value of parameter "1" and "beginningending" as the value of parameter "2". {{templatename|1=pagename|2=beginningending}} will do exactly the same. But suppose your url is "beginning=ending". Then you try {{templatename|pagename|beginning=ending}} but what this does it is assigns the value "ending" to the parameter "beginning", and doesn't assign anything to parameter "2". You can easily solve this by putting "2=" just before the url: {{templatename|pagename|2=beginning=ending}}. Then it will assign "beginning=ending" to parameter "2". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Clever. :) I'll go with the volunteered efforts of J.delanoy, but if I need to template something with a URL again, I'll try to remember this issue. I almost wrote "remember this issue" but had to stop myself with a self-deprecating laugh. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I try to remember to always say "try to remember" rather than "remember": if one doesn't remember that, one is really in trouble!!! By the way, I think I knew the thing about the equals signs a few weeks ago but had to figure it out from scratch again as if I'd never known it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only problem, when I tried using Cyrillic characters without using the {{urlencode: }} parameter, it would not work correctly. In addition, when I tried using just one variable with the URL encode, it would not parse the "http://www" correctly, so I had to do it the way I did. There is probably a way to do it easier, but I don't know how. J.delanoygabsadds13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I lied, it doeswork. (So I am a genius!) Just put the whole address under the "url=" part unless it has Cyrillic or Greek or Chinese or whatever weird characters in the address. (Actually, since I assume you'll be just copy/pasting from your browser's address bar, you'l probably rarely, if ever, use the "characters" parameter, since all the weird character formatting will be done in the address bar when you go to the page you wanted.) J.delanoygabsadds13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go you, with your genius self! :D You're quite correct that copy/paste is my technique. Thank you again for helping out here. I am much grateful. :) Feel free to pop by my user talk page with questions and/or offers at any time. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, I just saw this video. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Sorry if you're doing something that actually matters, but I just had to tell someone. (No, wait this is an offer for you to laugh your ... off)J.delanoygabsadds14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. :) I've been meaning to try to learn more about intricate template syntax, but I never had a reason to before. Thanks for letting me experiment with your template! :D J.delanoygabsadds19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at your userpage, thank you. :) I've got a little collection of self templates that I use, but that one is probably the most important. It is a requirement when deleting G12 candidates that users be told about copyright policy. When speedy taggers do not place the warning templates on user pages, the admin has to let them know. The official warning presumes the article has not yet been deleted, which seems inaccurate and a bit odd. That template is a big help to me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to make of it. I'm not heartened by her ignoring my post to her talk page and blanking the page. It almost feels like a real but non notable subject that she's trying to build a set of articles about. Could not find anything on Google that would allow me to verify any of it. In fact, the internal links don't hold up at all, either. It looks to me like vandalism/hoax. I went ahead and speedy tagged the userpage feeling it was an attempt to evade a speedy deletion, but that was probably stretching CSD beyond the limit. The connection between the names "Cassidy" and "Kassandra Livingston" seems more than coincidental. I think we can afford to wait a while to see if Verifiability develops or if MFD is the answer. Cheers, 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey!
Can i have your help? please? i will NEVER ignore your messages again.
I Want to make my character pages without creating hoaxes. HELP!
Hi, Cassidy. Thank you for coming over to discuss this. The issue here isn't that you must not ignore my messages, but that we do need to be sure that you're working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :) Wikipedia is a volunteer-created encyclopedia. It is a serious project, and our goal is to create a valuable research resource. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute, because we believe that everyone has something to offer. But we do need to make sure that everyone who contributes understands what we're trying to achieve and helps us work towards that.
One of the things that Wikipedia does not publish is "original thought". We do publish articles on actual television shows and sometimes their characters (not always though; we try to make sure that the characters are "notable" enough in the real world that our readers will want to read about them). In this case, it seems pretty clear that the TV show you're describing is not a real TV show, given that I can't find any information about it anywhere else on the web and it involves some people who are pretty busy right now because of their recent and ongoing involvement with American Idol. It sounds like a very creative idea, but unless you can prove that it's a real show, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is probably not a good place for it at all. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, P.S.: the note above about you was left here by an administrator called Dlohcierekim, who left you a note about an hour before I did. We have been trying to figure out what you might be doing with these articles and what should be done about your user page. User pages are meant to help Wikipedia's contributors work together to build the encyclopedia, and aren't really meant to be a host of unrelated content. You can read more about what user pages are for here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cassidy. I'm sorry, but that wouldn't be proof that such a show exists and that these people have been involved with it. There's no mention of it in Carly Smithson's IMDb profile, here. The only google results for "David Cook" and "Growing Up Cook" are to your Wikipedia pages, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT A TV SHOW!!!
Its not a tv show, its a written series... if i can their fan mail addresses then i can tell them about the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidy011 (talk • contribs) May 22 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for any inconvienience, but I can't get any pictures, I am only 12, It is a book/ play we are doing at school, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperJ1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) There's no reason to be sorry about a desire to share information about your school play on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, though, it may not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. We try to be inclusive, but we also hope to keep content to what could be relevant to a great many people. If you don't disagree that the article should be deleted, there's no need for you to do anything; the proposed deletion process will go through and likely result in the article being deleted. If you do disagree, we should remove the deletion template and talk about the kinds of sources that Wikipedia looks for in making sure that new articles have widespread notability. Good luck with the play! --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
