Jump to content

User talk:Killiondude: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 283: Line 283:


Ooh, ta very much! As you prob guessed, it was a stupid typo. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; ">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, ta very much! As you prob guessed, it was a stupid typo. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; ">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

== Thanks for the Feedback! ==

Thanks so much for the feedback you gave on the page I'm working on. I still have some work to do, but once I'm finished, what would be the best way to move the article into the mainspace without losing the edit history? Thanks! [[Marisko]] [[Special:Contributions/76.8.195.98|76.8.195.98]] ([[User talk:76.8.195.98|talk]]) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:35, 6 April 2009

I'm against any sort of flagged revisions, and I think it is very hypocritical for Wikipedia to implement it (since it seems they will in the near future).

Links for quick access... cleanup tags category needed Special: NewPages monobook needy cleanup User:Chzz/vo

California Historical Landmarks, etc., and NRHP infobox

Hi, i just noticed your December 2008 suggestion at Template talk:infobox nrhp. It happens wp:NRHP participants, including me, worked to include features to cover California Historical Landmarks and other designations into the NRHP infobox. Actually, those features have been in place for several months within an NRHP2 infobox test version, but just now the NRHP2 infobox was copied into the NRHP infobox. So, anyhow, there are new features and new documentation explaining it available, to cover places like Manzanar which is NRHP and California Historical Landmark and has other designations too. Also, for places that are California Historical Landmark and/or LAHCM but NOT also NRHP, i developed a local1 template. It is used in many articles within various list-articles of LAHCMs. Hope this responds to your suggestion! I'd be interested in corresponding, in terms of developing CA Historical Landmark articles, if you are interested. doncram (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet. I took a look at the revised NRHP template, and I like it. Does the new NRHP template have the desired outcome of template:infobox local1? I see that Manzanar uses the NRHP infobox. Just wondering what the difference is (if there is one) now. What do you have in mind for CA Historical Landmark articles? I'll admit that my work on landmark articles isn't extensive, but it is something I enjoy doing. Killiondude (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By design, the NRHP template works only for NRHP sites; it will always display "National Register of Historic Places", so it is not usable for the many/most California Historical Landmarks which are not NRHP-listed. The local1 template is a fork off the NRHP template coding, which works for CHL-only sites. About what I have in mind, I'd like to have a Task Force on the CHLs as part of a not-yet-set-up WikiProject Historic Sites. The task force would work to develop List of California Historical Landmarks, whose Talk page i note you visited, but which has been mostly inactive. It would serve as a forum to further develop the local1 template, for example. I am about ready to propose/set up the world-wide wikiproject. My own experience in wikipedia is mostly on U.S. NRHP sites, and I am a very active participant in wp:NRHP, the only wikiproject or task force in wikipedia that is focussed upon historic sites. Would you be interested in the worldwide wikiproject and/or its CHL task force? doncram (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very interested in the CHL task force. I like the idea of a worldwide wikiproject, but I'm more of a local history enthusiast. I would definitely help out though. Killiondude (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) There will be a little niche (or not so little) for you to work on CHLs with others there. :) doncram (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: school districts in yolo county

Re: List of school districts in Yolo County, California Shouldn't that page only include school districts? I saw that you added a bunch of private schools to the page. I sort of disagree that individual schools should be listed, otherwise it contradicts the title. Killiondude (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"

I have no strong opinion. I guess the list should be moved to public districts or somthing maybe? As there are a number of private schools some of which are part of larger groups (such as the catholic schools). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but private schools generally don't have "districts" (other than catholic schools) that I know of. If you take a look at List of school districts in Los Angeles County, California they also only list (seemingly public) school districts, not schools themselves. I wouldn't rename the page, given that every county in California has the same title (List of school districts in X County, California). Killiondude (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question

First off I'd like to thank you for answering why my page was deleted. But I'd like to ask you how I would cite my sources, because I read the page, but I still didn't truly understand how to cite them. The facebook group homepage states most of what was stated on the page, although some of the knowledge was through speech even if that. I could ask the creator to add all of the information that I stated and put it on a history section of the group. Yes although we are not a very large group, I believe that a wiki article will increase the popularity of the group and may lead us to eventually creating a website. Granted, it's simply a novelty idea, but then again so was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that has pretty much turned into a cult following. I even remember when it was a stupid idea on Something Awful forums. If sources are the problem, and the home website has an insufficient amount of data, then I will agree to drop the page. But if citing is just the problem, I would like help properly citing the page. Darkraptor (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

First of all, thanks for your cordial attention.

I am not 100% error free writing in english because my native language is spanish, however i will be happy if you check any grammatical errors on the article that im writing about the Venezuelan pianist Zamora.

Thanks again.

Regards, --Zfans (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: deleting disambig for Queen (Alex Haley) articles

To tell you the truth, Killiondude, I am open to you deleting them. That was my first time creating a whole article (I created a separate article for Alex Haley's Queen) I need some help so if you think that you're right, I have no qualms with it. Thankee for doing it!! Shalom, Rivka (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY vandalism

You should at least try to read what is on the talpage of the article. I've been working on the article in Spanish and this article is absolutely a joke. see WP:NPOV.--Amnesico29 (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using huggle and I saw that you removed like 40,000 kb of information, without an edit summary and you already had been reverted by ClueBot so I thought you were a vandal. I do see what you mean now. But I don't think you should just removed entire chunks of the article. It can be re-written better to stay on topic and to be neutral. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for feedback

Greetings. Thanks for your feedback. I'll continue my edits. Andremun (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've made some edits. Could you please recheck the article of the University of Valle. Thanks! -Andremun (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll wait for your other suggestions. Meanwhile I'll correct the ones that you gave me. Regards -Andremun (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I joined wikipedia a few months ago and read a lot of guidelines before I ever posted. I tried being "adopted" but no one ever responded to my talkpage. (Then again, I didn't actively seek it.) It's just here, I'd like some input since it seems not a lot of people edit that particular page I was working on. I look forward to your input! Red Summer Rain (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add my questions to you here, if you don't mind, instead of creating a whole new topic. Do you know how I can get more people to see the EmEditor page I am working on, and provide their help? Red Summer Rain (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can post a request on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Software or the other Wikiproject that it is within. You can also place an {{Expand}} tag on the article. I'd say your best bet is to place note on one of the WikiProject's pages though. Killiondude (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Hemingway project?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Composting toilet article

Thank you for checking ... I have added a couple relevent cites, may be able to do more - I'm aware of the OR problem, and if you've checked previous versions of the page you saw just how much "OR" from a POV slant I removed. It's a pretty difficult topic to reference well due to the fact that it really is about a specific product as well as a concept, otherwise we have nothing but the DIY section with the antique chair over a bucket picture - the references to particular makers have to do with technical differences in their approaches, and I intentionally linked to deep pages showing the inner works [which I have to assume is copyrighted and I can't use directly] ... and as a long time composter [and a compost toilet owner :eek: ], I've tried to "paint a picture" of the products [without favor] and the process [safe microbial composting] and how it fits into the sustainable- environmental- waste- management sphere - Wikipedia does, after all, ask for "expert input" on topics .... the "see also" section is large for now to forstall wandering crusaders adding to the article about other related but inappropriate topics, as the history seems to be that some consider any hole in the ground a "composting toilet" ... further advice on this or any of the other articles listed on my user page is welcome, thanks again Red58bill (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Of course I hope you didn't take my feedback in a negative way--I've seen how much you've helped the article. I was just pointing out a few ways to possibly make it better. I understand that sometimes "concept" type articles (such as this) are hard to reference. By chance, do you have access to ProQuest or any similar type research databases? I just looked up "compost toilets" on there, clicked on a few of the hits and the articles it pulled up seemed to have some good information in them. I have access through the college I attend, but my local library also has similar databases that one can look through at home as long as you have a library card. You should check out if your library does that too (assuming you live in the US, because I don't know if libraries do that outside the US). Ooo, also check out Google Scholar at www.scholar.google.com. I just searched "compost toilets" there, and after a couple minutes of looking through the hits I found some good content. I might be able to help you more, but lately I've been swamped with schoolwork and midterms are this week. I'd just like to see the article not rely so heavily on specific brands, and more on the concept itself (not that brands should never be mentioned, but the content is currently a little unbalanced right now). Killiondude (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No offense taken, I appreciate the perspective. Don't have easy access to ProQuest, but I have checked google scholar, and will be pursueing some there - got sidetracked on apple related articles, my real expertise, but will continue to improve composting related articles, hopefully to a stage where some of them could be semi-protected to avoid some of the childish tampering, they're useful technical topics that appeal to a broad public [and Master Composters are pledged to public education] .... also thinking the article "home composting" should be created to merge the stubs of home-style only techniques into, as home composting [along with industrial composting] is a subcategory of Category:Composting .... might bug you about that later! - thanks again Red58bill (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made some improvement on the toilet article, adding ref/cites and removing inline brand mentions ..... google scholar did help some, but unfortunately most of the links there are to sites requiring purchase of the article, with no more than minimul abstracts available, although I got some leads to find other ways. Now I'm onto a different aspect of my mission - would appreciate it if you could check the idea on my talk page and add any comments you can contribute. Thanks Red58bill (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo page

Thanks for your help with the Comodo page, Killiondude. I haven't given up on it; I needed to show my proposed edits to the legal department and it took them almost two months to respond :P. I got your suggestion on my talk page that I do my edits right on the actual page. I am still struggling with how to do links and I don't want to put up a page that looks really sloppy. I'll let you know when i get something useable; just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your looking at it from a neutral perspective.Katharine908 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm glad that you're back, I was a little disappointed because I thought you gave up on Wikipedia. I'm going to place a "welcome box" on the top of your talk page. It has a ton of useful links. Use it as reference to the policies and workings of Wikipedia, but if you ever have any questions feel free to ask me. What sort of links are you having trouble with? Internal links to other articles? Killiondude (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me yet, Killiondude. I am dogged. One way or another I will get that page up. Thanks for the moral support. Katharine908 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Killiondude. Thanks for updating the references on the Comodo page. I could see that I should have done it myself, and I definitely intended to get to it...one day. I appreciate it.Katharine908 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You put a lot of work in the page so far, which is really cool. The least I could do was lend a hand :-) Let me know if you need anything else. Killiondude (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for Francis Andersen article

Dear Killiondude,
Thanks for your response to my query on the Francis Andersen article. I see that if I want to expand this article I should look for references first and base my article primarily on information I find there. But to what extent is it appropriate to add some information based on my own personal knowledge of the topic?
Another question: since this is the biography of an author, how many of his published works would it be appropriate to list? Thanks for your encouragement. Sincerely, Tekone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekone Yoshimori (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool, you're learning quickly. To answer you: Wikipedia doesn't like adding information that isn't substantiated with references (called original research), but it doesn't take long for one to find an article around here with little to no references. If you add information without substantiation, then you just run the risk of another editor deleting it (as well as it being frowned upon). To answer your second question, I've been asked this question before. It is hard to say. I think only the most notable works should be listed, especially for authors with long lists of works, because otherwise it borders on becoming a directory (and Wikipedia is not a directory), but that's just my opinion. I would say to just use discretion for that matter. Killiondude (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

I wondering if you would be interested in undergoing formal Dispute Resolution, instead of participating in these edit wars, which have continually proved that they solve nothing. There are clearly two sides to this matter. A more experienced and higher level administrator is needed to solve this problem. I will not request resolution until you and several other users support the idea. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no dispute. The link violates external link policy. There has been consensus to show so. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Freshwater Fishes

So I took the plunge and made my first page, and you tagged it (is that the correct terminology?) as needing cleanup. I'm eager to do this, but am having trouble finding out exactly what I need to do. I know from previous experience with editors here that you folks are awfully busy, so I don't expect you to tell me excatly what I need to do, but some broad hints would be useful. For example, I already know that the capitalization in the title is nonstandard, but don't see how it can be edited in the same way the rest of the page can. Looking forward to hearing from you.--24.18.105.64 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:Busaccsb? I'm assuming so. I tagged the page generally because it didn't seemed organized well. Also, I'm going to move the page to List of Washington freshwater fish because that's a more proper name per the Manual of Style (you have to move the page to fix the title). I'm not too into animal-related articles, so I'm not an expert in how to format them Wikipedia-wise, but see List of Estonian fish. The way they lay the page out looks very organized. One thing I noticed in your article is that words in section titles were wikilinked (internally linked to other articles) which is not something that should be done. So my advice is to look at the List of Estonian fish article and sort of mimick the layout. Nice job on your first article though :-) Contact me at any point if you have any further questions. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am User:Busaccsb. I've made a lot of contributions in editing lead sections of naval ship articles (my hobby), but this is my first attempt at a page. I want to do it right, because I next want to do one on marine fish of the state and then probably aquatic invertebrates (there aren't many freshwater species of these so mixing would be good). This information needs to be made more readily available. I was looking for a good template page but couldn't find one, so I'll definitely take a look at the Estonian page. One quibble and one question before I let you go and get back to work. First the quibble: although many people find it pedantic and annoying (and for that reason I'm not going to push it), "fishes" is a word. It used to talk about kinds of fishes, e.g., species, rather than fish in general. Note that the reference I cite is called "..fishes..", not "..fish..". If you check book titles on Amazon, you'll find many other examples (there may also be examples where people haven't bothered). The pedantic part comes from the fact that "fishes" is used pretty much only by fishery biologists and ichthyologists. So if you want it to be fish, not fishes, so be it. The important thing is to get the material up. Second, and I asked about this earlier: how do you edit a page name, or is this something only an editor can do? Okay, that's it for now. Thanks.--Busaccsb (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't realize that "fishes" was an actual term... whatever you think is best. I'm no expert :-) I briefly mentioned how to edit a page's name in my previous post. You have to click the little tab at the top of the article that says "Move" and that allows you to "move" the page to the correct title. I think to move it you have to be a logged in user, and you have to be an autoconfirmed user (had an account for several days, and made a certain amount of edits, which I think you fulfill both requirements). Feel free to move the page to the appropriate title. Oh and by the way, you are an editor! By editing any thing on Wikipedia, you've stepped into the role of an "editor". Since this is your first page, you might wanna check out WP:Your first article and WP:BETTER; a couple help pages for those new to making articles.
Okay, I reformatted as per your suggestions. Please check it out (and remove tag if you think it is okay now). I'm not going to worry about fishes/fish at this point. I will read the pages you suggested. As for the editor status, I meant those folks within projects who seem to have more rights than other people. Speaking of projects, I would like this page to be part of the same projects (WikiProjectFishes and WikiTreeofLife) as the Estonia page. How do I add/recommend this page be made part of those projects? Thanks. Busaccsb (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed out WP:BETTER in my previous post because WP:LIST is what I should've written. I just checked out the page. Nice job! I just removed the tag. Don't let anyone fool you on this site---NOBODY has more rights than others here. To have the article attached to the WikiProject Fishes group, you just attached the Project's banner on the talk page. Anybody can do it. I'll do it real quick. Killiondude (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help--Busaccsb (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Would you have time this month to co-nominate the Spokane article? The reason I ask is because this week Im off on spring break right now and have a little more time to goof off and do stuff on Wikipedia; I dont know if this is the case with you though. If I remember right, a FAC could last as little as 2 weeks or something, and go on for I forget how long... Anyway, if another time works better for you, or you dont to co-nominate it anymore for any reason, thats fine too. Oh, and thanks for fixing Nehrams' list. Anon134 (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. I'm not on spring break this week, but I can still help out when I'm not at school. I've actually never spent enough time to get an article past B-class. Nice job, I'm thoroughly impressed. I'm slightly disgusted over the whole reviewer for A-class situation. I'm going to post on the Talk page for Spokane about that in a second. Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:HSITES

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there are several California-interested editor members now, very much including Cbl62 and now also Rosiestep who just joined. Also maybe Dmadeo/Dm (who has taken and uploaded CA pics, and who greatly improved List of NHLs in CA), Einbierbitte and myself, and others. I happen to think that establishing interest for some task with respect to California is very feasible in this group, perhaps leading to forming a first Task Force of the wikiproject. I seem to recall you were very interested in getting something started, now what? Your move. :) doncram (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post something on the talk page about getting the task force started. :-) I'm really glad to be a part of this WikiProject, especially while it is just forming. Killiondude (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacaville

I suppose we can get a quick and dirty "second" opinion if we need to. Then one of those requests for comment, which take forever for some reason. Another tack is to alternate reversions with me and "get" him on the 3 revert rule. Mediation is way too time consuming and too early to discuss. I'll try to follow your lead here. He's going to lose, it's just a matter of when and how soon. If we could dream up a face-saving way, I'd take it, but unfortunately here, it's all or nothing. Student7 (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the attempted help.....well, I'm pretty sure I'm trying to create one of those graph pages that shows (in graph form) how many edits you've done. Buddpaul (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Can you give me a link to an example of that? I've seen those before, but never on Wikipedia. I've seen them on the toolserver and other websites that do that for Wikipedia users, but never here. Killiondude (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna check out WP:COUNT for a huge list of tools that will count your edits (some of them may put it in graph form). Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your awesomeness

The Special Barnstar
For always being there to lend a helping hand and making Wikipedia a better place. Thank you. Anon134 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thank you very much. This is actually my first barnstar. I actually haven't done too much work (in my opinion!), but I really appreciate that. I sincerely hope you aren't getting frustrated with the FAC. Not everyone on WP tries to be as courteous as they could be (unfortunately).... 07:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gable Mansion

Updated DYK query On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gable Mansion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of mammal common names

Hi Killiondude, it appears that whether it is appropriate to capitalize mammal common names is a contentious issue that to my knowledge has never been resolved. My understanding is that the Wikipedia policy is that changes from lower to upper case or vice versa are forbidden at least until some decision is made about this issue. I am on the side that prefers lower case (since these names are not proper nouns, and there is no tradition of capitalizing them in formal prose - meaning other encyclopedias, scientific journals, serious books, etc.). I thus request that you not make such changes. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the opossum template at the bottom of the page and went with the consensus on that template. So take it up with the people who wrote all those articles. Killiondude (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - this is a direct quote from that template: "Currently, there is no consensus regarding the capitalization of a mammal species article. The only agreed-upon guideline seems to be to not change the capitalization usage on an existing article. When listing the article on the template, please list the capitalization exactly as the article is titled, even if the other species on the template are capitalized differently." So I believe it supports my position. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. In the future, I'll read the template pages first. I'm sorry. Killiondude (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mIRC cat upmerge

That "upmerge" wasn't done for a reason— the userbox had been modified and people though the category wasn't in use. Why do you think someone never "merged" it? Tothwolf (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. What exactly was modified in the userbox...? Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the code from the userbox that populated the category. This left far fewer names in the category (It left only users with [[Category:...]]) on their Userpage. You need to be careful, this happened in a lot of places and hasn't be corrected yet. Tothwolf (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and please, no talkback templates...those things are annoying :) Tothwolf (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, one of these categories was just undeleted yesterday or the day before (for XChat) when I fixed it's userbox. What actually happened is a guideline was misinterperted regarding userboxes and categories. Categories should not exist for all userboxes (think of how many would exist if there were categories for each random userbox...) and back in 2006(IIRC) a clause was added to this effect. It is unfortunately written ambiguously and people have in the past thought it meant no userbox should have a category and a large number of userboxes were edited to remove their categories. Most "Wikipedians ..." and categories for "WikiProject members" have never been a problem though. Tothwolf (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just doing what the UCfD discussion said. I honestly have no care for it either way, but it seems like there should be some discussion about it or something... According to the UCfD, that category needs to be deleted, and for it to be deleted all the pages with it on it need to have that cat removed. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we'll get it all resolved and fixed up. Might as well leave the user pages as they are for now as there is no point changing them again right now. Tothwolf (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to include some links too. There was also some discussion just a bit ago on ABCD's and Black Falcon's talk pages as well (the discussion got scattered amongst many talk pages, unfortuantely). Might want to check the edit histories before doing bulk edits in the future though but no real harm was done here, so no worries. Tothwolf (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've worked on any of the web browser categories yet, but it looks like they had a similar thing happen. The category code in the userboxes appears to have been removed and it has left many of the categories very empty. I'll see what I can find out and we'll try to get this mess all sorted out and fixed though. You might want to hold off on any other big "Wikipedians ..." category changes until we can sort it all out though. Tothwolf (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't work on any web browser userboxes. I haven't worked with any more category stuff since you brought this to my attention. I plan to keep away from categories until this is resolved. Killiondude (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a safe thing to do. I'm going to hold off fixing any more of these until it gets sorted out for the same reasons. Btw, there is an easier way to migrate/move/redirect categories than editing all the pages linking to them with something like AWB. The {{Category redirect}} template can be used on the category page and will place the category in Category:Wikipedia category redirects which is monitored by a number of bots. Any pages in the category will be recategorized into the new category given as the first parameter to the {{Category redirect}} template. A currently in-use example is Category:Internet Relay Chat bots, bouncers and proxies. If any pages are added to that category, they are automatically recategorized into Category:Internet Relay Chat bots. Tothwolf (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeouts

Suddenly I'm seeing many instances of cases where bracketed terms that didn't link to other pages now appear as strikeout. On my page List of Washington Freshwater Fish, I went through and removed the brackets, so the strikeout disappears. Is this is what we are supposed to do when we encounter stuff like this? Busaccsb (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be looking at the "difference" version, where it shows you what exact changes were made between revision, rather than the article itself :-) If you take a look at the actual article, there are no words or characters that have a strike out through them. Killiondude (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

test

It seems to me like some of that is important information that can assist those editors that remain. It should not have been removed, IMHO. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yeah thanks, exactly what was intended. Didn't even notice it! Thanks! - Allied45 (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IP User welcome

I think when I re-welcomed them, I thought that they could have been a dynamic IP address, so I wanted to encourage them to get an account. My bad for being completely oblivious. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is Addicting

So, I can now see why you like wikipedia so much. It is quite interesting, and now I see why you can waste hours at a time finding new things. Well, maybe wasting is the wrong word to use. But, nonetheless, I have found a new hobby, and I have you to thank. Unfortunately, I am not sure how many people I want to tell because having wikipedia as a hobby kind of sounds geeky to me :) So, I am done, and I see it says to sign a post by typing four tildes, interesting. Well, you know who wrote this, so no need to sign my name :) The End 67.159.149.199 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments

Yes, it's annoying, but at least it's an indication that the editor has seen the posting. The effort to hide/delete the talk page archive is more of a problem.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved User:Chzz.ref to User:Chzz/ref

Ooh, ta very much! As you prob guessed, it was a stupid typo.  Chzz  ►  10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Feedback!

Thanks so much for the feedback you gave on the page I'm working on. I still have some work to do, but once I'm finished, what would be the best way to move the article into the mainspace without losing the edit history? Thanks! Marisko 76.8.195.98 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Killiondude&oldid=282126963"