User talk:Bellerophon

Welcome to Pol430's talk page Pol430 is currently: Offline Update: On • Busy • Work/Class • Off User page Go to my user page Talk Click here to goto my talk page, where you can leave a message for me. Email Please do not email me for routine matters! Only email me for matters you do not wish to discuss on-Wiki. Adoption Check out my adoption school Awards My awards and recognitions Contribs Click here to see my contributions to Wikipedia Sandbox Take a look at my work in progress Tools Tools Edit count Take a look at my edit count This user has a zero tolerance policy on vandalism. Welcome to Pol430's talk page! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page, under a new level 2 heading. Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos An edit you made [1] involved adding an extra line space between the categories and the stub, and your edit summary linked to the above page, but I could see no mention there of adding lines. Could you clarify your edit? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Hi, in short I have no idea why AWB added those extra lines, perhaps it felt it was tidying up the whitespace. This edit was made almost one month ago using a previous build of AWB. 'Typo fixing' was the edit summary I had selected at the time hence why it appeared, this was based on the AWB documentation which suggested it was an appropriate edit summary when regex typo fixing is enabled. I have since refined my settings in AWB to skip only whitespace changes, and I have changed the edit summary to 'clean up'. I only use AWB to scan new pages to perform very general clean up's of articles, and for my work as a copy editor. I hope that has answered your question, if you disagree with the edit feel free to revert it. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your swift reply. I don't know much about AWB and other automated tools, but from your response it seems its perhap closer to being a fully automated process than a semi-automated one, as you say you have no idea why the programe added those lines. You say that there have been changes since the time of the edit that mean this type of edit won't be done in future? However, I note you also state that you have changed your AWB settings so that 'whitespace only' changes would be skipped, but a) does this mean that whitespace changes combined with other changes would still be done (i.e. as per the Pinehurst example when the orphan tag was also added), and b) if other AWB users do not apply your rule then they (via AWB) may continue to make whitespace-only edits? Sorry if my questions may be a bit basic - if there's an easy guide on AWB which may be of relevance to my query feel free to point me there. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC) AWB is a semi automated process, and ultimately I am responsible for any edits I made and accept responsibility accordingly. My AWB setup will still make whitespace changes, but only if other changes are made. Other users could make whitespace only changes if their settings dictate that. I didn't notice it added the orphan tag in that example, so yes my current AWB setup would make that same edit again (if I click save). It is possible to decline specific changes suggested by AWB by double clicking the relevant line in the diff preview. It is also possible to use custom edit summaries and change the edit summary for each edit. However, the purpose of AWB remains to make tedious tasks easier. If I do a new pages scan AWB will pick up 500 articles to check. Whilst I am careful that I do not allow AWB to make destructive changes, It is possible I may make edits that some users feel were not particularly needed. There is no easy guide to AWB but more information can be found at the project page WP:AWB. Whitespace changes by AWB users have been discussed before (I forget where, maybe AN/I). Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 13:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I have had a chance to look through WP:AWB (not read through every word!) and had a quick search for ANI/whitespace issues. Having done this, I have a few minor follow-up points and then I was intending to make a post at AWB. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use states that whitespace only edits should be avoided, and you say above that indeed your AWB settings have been tweaked to avoid this. I take it this means that AWB is not set-up so as to prevent whitespace-only edits (or indeed any other 'insignificant' edits), and that it is solely down to AWB users to follow the rules? Anyway, that is a bit by-the-by. I have gone to the general fixes page of AWB and this sub-section [2] is the only one I can see that might be dealing with why whitespaces may be being added to some articles. Do you know any more on this, or if not this will be the main question I will be asking at AWB. I would like to use the Pinehurst example above when I post, and I may link to this discussion for background info, if that's OK. Anyway, if you have any further points to make on this let me know, else I will ask a question at AWB and will post a link here when done as well. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Xebulon Hello Pol430, User Xebulon continues disruptive editing as seen here [3] ignoring your warning. Please warn this user against edit-warring again. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Talkback: Talk:WP:UTM Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Message added 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. — SpikeToronto 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC) GOCE drive news Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. Participation GOCE January 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Progress report We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk) Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC). Lulebo Thanks for letting me know about Lulebo, I'm not too familiar with the notability criterias for companies. Is a company notable enough if it has around 70 employees, owns and manages approximately 11 100 apartments, and has a turnover of around half a billion SEK? Otherwise, I suppose you can delete the article. Thanks! --Skizziktalk 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Hi, speedy deletion is not used for articles that fail to meet notability criteria, but because an article does not make any credible assertion of notability. If you were to edit the article and add content that shows how the company is notable then the tag can be removed. Managing a lot of houses does not equal notability. Managing a lot of houses and receiving coverage in the media, because it does a very good (or bad) job of managing those houses could be notable. Does that make sense? Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the answer! I thought a company was notable if it was big enough, but it make sense that it should have been covered in the media too. I don't have time to do the research now so I have no problem if You delete it. It can always be recreated at a later date when someone can dig up more sources. --Skizziktalk 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Comrade! I'm glad to have found you! I seriously need your help concerning the addition of false information being added to wikipedia by a stubborn, poorly-informed user. I have messaged him over and over, and he will not relent, and accuses me of vandalism whenever i correct his mistakes. It is regarding the band Dying Fetus, and their genre. the user is Blackmetalbaz, who insists that Dying Fetus is a hardcore punk / grindcore band, while they are neither - i have known the vocalist/guitarist of dying fetus, the only remaining original member for almost 20 years, and i can attest 100% that they are not, nor have they ever been punk; they are Death Metal - a combination of brutal death metal (drums and vocals) and technical death metal (guitars). He told me specifically that when he writes their music, that is one thing he keeps in mind. I have explained my case logically, rationally, and passionately, but he is quite dense, and refuses to admit that he has made a mistake. He found a website that erroneously classified them as hardcore, and has taken that as golden truth. it is untrue. please take the time to look into this and correct his misinformed action. John Gallagher and dying fetus would greatly appreciate it, and i would again adore wikipedia the way i did before this menace ruined it for me and thousands of other hardened Dying Fetus fans. just look at the discussion on their page! Thank you in advance! - AE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.125.204 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Seems strange that you contacted me for support, seeing as I was the patroller that reverted your last edit to this article. Anyhow, a quick Google search gives several websites that show the band as a death metal group. User:Blackmetalbaz has provided a ref to verify his content and I see no reason to dispute his edits. Pol430 talk to me 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Hi, please delete the page Maurice Helfgott as the author requests deletion and the person who the article is about does not want an article on wikipedia. Re: Mangalorean Catholics It is i who should be thanking you. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Regards, Joyson Noel Holla at me! 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Halo dear sir user Shshshshsh uses group sock puppetry he edits with mutually agreed groups I have not done any nonconstructive edits I have explained all my edits you see the article now you please stop abusing fellow editors please please please u please stop group sock puppetry and warn others with the privilages u ahve please please I have not revrted all ur edits - what i did is correct u please check the article please stop abusing me plese please dont send messages - i dont know how to use talk page - film fare awards are not equivalnt to oscars - national awards are - You please stop abusing me) I have not added any unsourced information (Kaverijha23 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)). Within a second Now, that was quick! Thanks - DVdm (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC) You're welcome :) Pol430 talk to me 10:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Nikolai Tikhonov While it's true that the Nikolai Tikhonov article has reached GA-status it may be wise to get a good English writer as yourself to fix any minor, or for that matter, major issues with the article. --TIAYN (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC) NPP 'warning' Hi Pol. I appreciate your interest and work on the warning template project, but with all due respect I feel you are not taking a global view of what some of those templates are for and the work their parent projects represent. Barging into a discussion without reading it from the beginning and not following the links to problem it discusses, and then making an out-of-process major edit without joining in with the consensus building is not the way we do things around here. You'll notice however, that I have not had the discourtesy to revert you edit and replace it with my own - yet. I would much prefer to win you over to providing some positive input for improving the NPP system as a whole, rather than innocently disrupting it in good faith. --Kudpung (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I have replied to your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-patrolled Pol430 talk to me 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Hi Pol. I have a habit of keeping business on the business pages, and personal comments on the user talk pages, so I'll continue here, because from the uboxen on your user page I would have thought you might have had a deeper understanding of our policies concerning the constant deluge of crap pages, the importance of New Page Patrol, the crisis it's in, and hence my reasons for kicking up such a fuss. You made your edit 'at the risk of a rebuke' so you already had an idea that it might not meet the entire approval of the community. 1. There is no such thing in Wikipedia Realpolitik as 'tacit' agreement. A tacit understanding is a fallacy, an abstract manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances. It's like if no one said don't drop a bomb on Buxton, we can go ahead and nuke the whole of the Peak District. Less cataclismic would be to claim that if nobody !votes on an WP:RfA everyone can have the admin tools by default, or the WP:AfD system would be superfluous because we could delete or keep according to the mood we're in. Your edit to the template was neither discussed, nor had you participated in the discussion prior to doing it. In that thread there was absolutely nothing that could be construed as an agreement for anything, other than perhaps a consensus among one or two others to lecture me as if I were some kind of lame-brained newbie and push me aside because I'm not a member of your WP:UW cabal. 2. The discussion was in no way 'cyclic' either - perhaps you got your rhetoric mixed up and meant something else - it was going straight ahead and waiting for someone to synthesise the best of three or four suggestions for a rewording. Hwever, as you have the support from an admin, I suppose there's little else I can do but to appeal to common sense elsewhere. In the meantime I'll leave you with these thoughts because I don't want to be accused of talking about anyone behind their backs; I trid above to end on a friendly note, but you weren't interested, but I'll nevertheless close with another friendly and genuine suggestion that I very often make in more collegial areas: if you need any help understanding editing or policy at any time, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page:) Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)BTW: there is something wrong with custom format of this talk page. Kudpung, You are a well established and respected editor, who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia. I think your efforts to restart NPP are extremely valuable, and will benefit the project enormously. Your cathartic release above and here (particularly the sweeping remark: "unfortunately, such projects as WT:UTM often attract those who will never make it to adminship, but who want to acquire a feeling of power over other editors.") are both unfounded and puerile. I'm not going to bite to each of the comments you have made above, because what time I do spend on Wikipedia can be better spent elsewhere (WP:GOCE for example}. I appreciate that you did not agree with my edit, but would like us to move on from that and enjoy a collegial relationship here on Wikipedia; what say you? Pol430 talk to me 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC) The difference is, that I always remain objective, and appeal to friendly and more collegial collaboration. To suggest that my complaint is cathartic and puerile, would have other, more sensitive editors running and clutching the skirts of aunty ANI. Fortunately I've worked with people for a very long time and I'm made of stronger stuff. With equal fortune, another editor has reverted your template to an acceptable form that conveys the very message I made the error of being polite and discussing first on a project page that claims to be the authority on templates. I've read your sandbox draft and laud and support your interest in moving the templates forward away from their current chaos. But please do not lose sight of what those templates are for, who is going to be using them, and who is going to be on the receiving end. The effect they will have when they leave the template factory is more important than the making of them. Let's leave it at that, and thanks for fixing your talk page code - I didn't want to commit an indiscretion by doing it for you. Happy editing! Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to read through my sandbox, I will endeavor to keep your advice and comments in mind. I hope also, you won't mind me asking you for your feedback on the completed version? With regards to this talk page, I wasn't aware I had fixed the problem, and forgot to enquire about it in in my previous edit, could you point me towards it? Pol430 talk to me 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC) templates Hi Pol. I would be most happy to give you any feedback. Don't hesitate to ask me on my tp any time. I haven't been able to fix your format problem. It's probably be a local problem. FYI I'm using MacOSX 10.6.5 and Firefox 3.6.13. the problem is not apparent when I switch to Safari 5.0.3. So it may be affecting any Mac users on Firefox. I've made a screenshot at User:Kudpung/Sandbox#Screenshot. Let me know when you have viewed it so that I can get it deleted again. --Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Hi Kudpung, I have viewed the screenshot, I see that the section headers are numbered, how weird! I'm a Safari user, but within Windows and I have never seen that before. Pol430 talk to me 08:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh the numbering is an option you can check in your user preferences. It's particularly useful when viewing pages that have a lot of topics an d sub sections on them. However, check how your text spills over the blue border. --Kudpung (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Ah right, my mistake, yes I now notice the text spilling over. I don't experience myself, perhaps it's a browser issue? Pol430 talk to me 14:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC) GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive Greetings from the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We have reached the end of the month and the end of another successful drive; thanks to all who participated. Statistics 54 people signed up for the year's first Backlog elimination drive. Of these, 40 participated. One of our goals was to reduce the size of the backlog by at least 10%. We managed to reduce the backlog by 633 articles, or about 12%. Another goal was to eliminate as many 2009 months as possible from the queue. We eliminated January, February, March, and April—4 out of 12 months is not bad! In addition, we eliminated 37% of all remaining 2009 articles from the queue. Chaosdruid copy edited Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya for 32,711 words, which is the largest single article completed in one of our drives so far. This article counts as six 5000-K articles, and Chaosdruid wins the "most 5000-K articles" leaderboard category. Way to go! A complete list of individual results is here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the November 2010 Backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering the barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for participating in this year's first Backlog elimination drive! We hope to see you in March. Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (talk), The Utahraptor (talk), and Tea with toast (talk) Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC). Talkback Hello, Bellerophon. You have new messages at Redtigerxyz's talk page. Message added 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Thanks a lot. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Golgenie Hi there Pol430, Thanks for your help with my last page. I noticed that you flagged a mistake of mine for deletion. I messed up the initial page tag, like an idiot. However, the article I am looking to post has the same content. I have been objective in every aspect here, I think. Could you point me toward the area I am going wrong in, because it's a little frustrating when you think you've got it right. :) Anyway, I have to clear it with another wikipedian first, as an article wth the same name (not written by me) has been taken down. I dare say you will be notified anyway, but I will leave a message when I am clear to post. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Tom Tompey (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Hi there, when you say you 'messed up' I assume you mean you got the article name wrong? The page you have created is called "Golgenie" when the business you refer to is called "Goldgenie"?! I could fix that quite easily for you; however, the page Golgenie has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G11 (Advertising) by another patroller. I have to say I am inclined to agree with them, aside from the promotional tone of the article, the company does not appear to meet notability criteria or make any credible assertion of notability. On that basis I am disinclined to remove the speedy deletion tag. You can place a {{hang on}} tag on the article if you would like to be given more time to edit the article and make it less promotional, and to find some reliable sources with which to verify the articles content. Pol430 talk to me 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Hi there Pol430, Yes, that's an accurate run down. I have altered the article in line with another patroller's comments, and would like to submit this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompey Would it be possible for you to run through it before I post it? I believe it now fulfils all criteria. Many thanks again for your kind help, Tom Tompey (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)