User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

...

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

ATT HD NC EAR HM AH AIV CSD NEW PER ESP RM VPR TSD AFD

????
/Release to us
/Welker Cochran
/Mingaud
Translation
Useful language dump
/sandbox
/Wikipedia:Time machine
/List of pocket billiards games
Archive 1: March 27, 2006
Archive 2: June 26, 2006
Archive 3: August 11, 2006
Archive 4: November 1, 2006
Archive 5: March 30, 2007
Archive 6: June 24, 2007
Archive 7: September 13, 2007
Archive 8: December 22, 2007
Archive 9: June 16, 2007
Archive 10: March 27, 2009
Archive 11: December 20, 2009
Archive 12: November 23, 2010
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly

---

If you leave a comment for me below I will likely comment back here as well, but I might also duplicate on your talk page, depending on context or if you request. Please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end and note that new posts belong at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Thank you for the renames!

Is there any way a non-admin user like me can help with the backlog?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that there were; not for that particular backlog. However, there's lots of other places to help. Take a look at this! Scary aint it? .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! Instead everyone's over at ANI bickering. They should come back to the party, that's why we're here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of necessary things happen through ANI but yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary drama and bickering in the mix that is a hug time drain. Not one of my favorite places to visit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Robert A Foster

Hello you have deleted a page for Robert A Foster. Please could you put it back on or can I make a new one? He is in the New BBC 'Just William' and is a up and coming actor.Many Thanks 9:00,29 Nov 2010 (GMT)

Hi. The entire contents of the page you (I assume) created and I deleted was {{hang on}}. The prior contents of the page, deleted by a different administrator, was [[Just William (2010 TV serial)]]. So the page was basically a blank slate with no tailored text at all upon both creations. If this actor is notable (see also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers) then I suggest you create the page as a subpage of your user or user talk page so that you have time to work on it before "going live" by placing it in the main part of the encyclopedia, and so it doesn't get deleted again as having no substantive content. There is an article wizard which can walk you through the steps. You say he is an "up and coming actor". Well I don't know if there are sufficient sources to support an encyclopedia article, but this statement makes me wary. Please see Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. Note that if the page is an appropriate topic for an article, it would take normal English name punctuation, which means the middle initial would take a period, i.e., Robert A. Foster.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of International Association of Physics Students

Hello! You deleted the article for the International Association of Physics Students based on copyright infringement from the webpage iaps.info. It did seem that way, as the article was mostly copied from iaps.info, but it was done by the Executive Committee of IAPS, so we would like to ask you to reinstate the article. If it is needed we can put a statement on the homepage allowing wikipedia to copy written content from our page or something like that. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by P.O.E. (talk • contribs)

Hi P.O.E. I have taken the liberty of adding a section header to your post and adding your signature; on talk pages (but not in articles), you should sign your posts so that people can follow who wrote what.

Regarding the above page, there's a few matters you should understand. We cannot use copyrighted text simply because we have been given permission. Instead all of our text must be freely licensed so that our end users can take the material and use it themselves under our licenses. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The upshot is that for us to use the material—which means allowing our readers to use it and modify it even for commercial purposes—we have to have a verified release of the material. To do that, you can follow either of the methods listed at the page. Specifically, please look at the subsection of the page entitled Granting us permission to copy material already online.

If you do that, it will take care of a first hurdle but I don't think you should bother because the text itself is not appropriate for an article it its current form. This is an encyclopedia. Can you imagine a proper encyclopedia articles saying things like "We support our members..."? What you should do is start from scratch and try to write a proper encyclopedia article that cites to reliable third party sources and contains neutral language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I actually never read the original article, and was just tasked with doing an article for IAPS, and I thought it would be much easier this way. Anyway I'll write a new one then. P.O.E. (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For moving the right page instead of the copy and paste one! Sure is better to keep the right history! Cheers - «CharlieEchoTango» 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anytime at all:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Red links!

Hello again! I have a problem... as you can see on my user page, I have lately been quite active creating musician templates. User:Memphisto insists that "red links are discouraged" in templates, citing WP:RED: "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first..." Fine. In fact, duh. It also says, "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." This is exactly my aim. As I said on his talk page, templates are meant for links. Red links are meant to encourage people to build articles. I even went through the process of disambiguating each of my links as needed - so I can simply click on the red link and create a page when I have the time - and yet he continues to revert them to plain text. This is incredibly frustrating and counterproductive. Who do I talk to to stop this nonsense? Thanks for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikkitywack. Mesphisto's right that the first paragraph of WP:RED indicates that red links to appropriate future topics of articles should be included in articles but not in templates, among others. This statement is not referenced again in the body of the policy and no rationale is provided, so its instruction is by assertion only, which good policy statements don't do, but it shows support for the other side of your position, even if it's murky. Statements in policy pages are given a lot of weight while they remain, until directly challenged and changed/removed. The language was added here. Sometimes when you look at the history of a policy to see how some text came to be included you find the edit summary links you to a discussion where the insertion was discussed, but this appears to have been one user's insertion. The way we interpret policy, the fact that it's persisted for a few years without challenge is itself sometimes taken as an indication of consensus. I tried some searches to see the state of past discussion but did not find much on point. I myself have created templates with red links, e.g., {{George Stevens Films}}. I think the way to go forward is to start a policy discussion at WP:VPP. I would not approach the text there as you have here, as: "I'm clearly right; the person reverting me is wrong; this is ridiculous." Instead, you can refer to the genesis of the issue as an example, but couch the discussion as a dispassionate exploration of what is best policy and why (because that's really what's at issue). If you don't want to do it, but want me to start that discussion, I will do so. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yeah, I added that "in fact, duh" bit in a last-second fit of pique. I would never include such language in an official proposal. Thanks for the digging. I figured as much. The quote does seem rather antithetical to the whole idea of red links (especially, imo, when it comes to templates, which should consist entirely of links...) The roots of my paranoia about this topic started here, when a user erased a whole line of text, arguing "navboxes are for articles not a summary of the band's releases." Having meticulously created so many musician navboxes (including verifying the physical existence of every album, single, etc. the best I could) I came up with what I thought to be the perfect defense against such well-intentioned vandalism: red links! He/she was right, in one respect, after all: templates are meant for links. As you can see here, I respectfully undid the edit and compromised by hiding the as-yet unverified singles. I have since made a habit of linking everything in my templates and making sure everything is disambiguated properly (see this User:Memphisto example). As to a discussion at the village pump, could I take you up on your offer? Just to see how it's done by a pro... sometimes I get overwhelmed, and then not a whole lot happens... On the subject of zeroing in on specific phrases (like "rather than using red links in lists..." above) in the revision history, is this an extremely tedious task - or is there a tool that helps? I'm curious to know when the "Good red links help Wikipedia..." phrase was added. Thanks very much for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've stirred the hornet's nest (see 19-26). I suppose I shouldn't have said anything about my red links practices here, but I guess there's no use in prolonging the inevitable. In fact, I think the Boney James template conversation is very relevant to my case, so this may be a blessing in disguise. My main point in that conversation was: templates full of red links are, in fact, foundational (i.e. extremely useful) in building underrepresented artist discographies. Not to mention it would be a shame for all my meticulous effort to go to waste (speaking of waste - I simply don't understand why these people want to destroy my work when they admit it will be necessary in the future...very confusing. And slightly depressing.)

On a side note, User:Mhiji - the author of the deletion nominations - went around to each of my newly-minted Boney James album articles and deleted my AllMusic reviews citing, "reviews should no longer be in infobox per Template:Infobox album/doc." Not moved. Deleted. Isn't this borderline vandalism? Shouldn't this be the province of a future bot (moving reviews from the infobox to this new "review box")? This is just exasperating... How do I revert these "good faith" edits with some kind of warning? (Am I right?) Wikkitywack (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Latsabidze

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I left this message for Cunard Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Cunard, Thanks for your edits on my article. I see you made some minor edits on it, I appreciate it. I also see that you have left a notice for User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze I hope he will reply your message soon. However, I would like to let you know that I left for him a message when i was recreating the article first on his workspace and than moved it on mine. I am sure he is all right with that. I also see you have put some tag on the article's discussion page. Is that something I should worry about? After various edits by different users Latsabidz'e article got better and I think notability is established now. I think it would be good if User43lover would remove Latsabidze's article from his workplace since I have worked on it fundamentally along with other wikipedia users (including your edits). I hope there is no danger for the article to be nominated for a deletion any more. If you have any suggestions please let me know. Thanks!

Re: L'italiana in Algeri→ L'Italiana in Algeri

This was not an uncontroversial move. User:Awien, who requested the move,[1] was already reverted once for changing the capitalization in the article [2] and had been directed to WikiProject Opera Guidelines on orginal language titles. With no discussion whatsoever, he put in a request for a page move two hours later as "uncontroversial". This move has also cause caused problems with the Template:Rossini operas, now producing redirects. See the discussion at Talk:L'Italiana in Algeri and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. This wan't your fault, as there was no reason to assume that User:Awien wasn't accurately describing the situation, but can you advise please? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure I'll revert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of any controversy since the supposed link to that page was red. Sorry about your trouble. Awien (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You were operating in good faith, so there's nothing to apologize for! Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Neal article

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to achieve, I just couldn't figure the formatting out for the life of me! Mkadams888 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That kind of formatting takes a lot of experience. On the subject of formatting, I just changed all the links you've created to Wikipedia articles into wikilinks. We only use the form [http://www.whatever name] to external sites. All internal links can be made directly, by enclosing the name of the article in double brackets. When you want the display to be something other than the name of the article you are linking, you use the pipe trick: [[name of article you are linking|What you want to display]]. If you want to link to an internal section of any article the link is to the name of the article, followed by a number sign and then the name of the section. For example, if you wanted to link directly to this post, and have it display "foo" the link would be [[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Stephen Neal article|foo]]. You might try taking a tour through the Wikipedia tutorial to learn these matters and others. Since you figured out referencing for the most part (what really matters), you'll catch on lightning fast. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you! I knew there was something I was doing wrong with the Wikilinks...Mkadams888 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Max saines (?) has been restarted as Maxwell Saines

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Article you G1-d in 2007 has been restarted. Apparently about the same person, but that's my guess. Just a heads-up.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: see User talk:Debam7--Shirt58 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. It was a blatant hoax, taking its text from Brandon Saine. User has been blocked indefinitely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Burton Guster

Thank you so much for that compromise. I didn't even think of doing a collapsed list, but this way, if people don't want to see it, they don't have to! Awesome!— Preceding unsigned comment added by T24G (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. I have to tell you, without the collapsing, I imagine very few would be on your side in in keeping this. Infoboxes are for summarizing content already appearing in the article and this content is not duplicated there (and it's uncited and accordingly can be removed as a matter of right per WP:BURDEN until that is remedied). Even having a reliably referenced list of all the aliases in the article body is arguably indiscriminate and presents undue weight. But having an infobox stretch the length of an article does not work at all. By the way, you and JDDJS should be aware of WP:3RR. If this compromise does not put an end to your content dispute, please don't edit war. Open a discussion at the talk page and stay calm. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have the link to a site that is a reference for the aliases, but it is blacklisted http://series(and)tv.com/shawn-and-gus-nicknames-and-aliases-on-psych/4324 (no parenthesis in the actual link). How would I go about getting that specific page unblocked? I saw something on the page that popped up and told me it was blacklisted, but when I clicked on the links, the pages it lead me to were quite congested. Any input would be appreciated! Thanks! And sorry about the warring, I'll try to not do that again (although I did have a discussion post)!  T24G  05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to that site were spammed; the log entry is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log#October 2010. However, it does not matter because it is a blog (see WP:BLOGS) and not a reliable source we can use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly what I would have preferred, but a fair enough compromise. At least the infobox isn't super long anymore (unless you show the contents). JDDJS (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Stephen Neal (Leonard)

I personally agree that the original name was more clear, but the article was created as part of a class project, and a naming convention applied across the board to all of the WSPA Statehouse articles written by myself and my classmates. Mkadams888 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit (great user name!)

Our project has used the Stephen Neal (Leonard) naming convention based on the WikiProject Visual Arts Manual of Style and suggestions for naming articles. I've worked to develop this project for a year now and have worked hard to compile the best advice for naming conventions. But busts just don't have a specific convention. However we believe that naming them with the artist in the title is in fact the best way for people to search, based on disambiguation issues as well as other artwork naming conventions. Consider something like an Abraham Lincoln bust. There are many, and the artist should be in the title. Please see my notes to the project on this very issue, restated here:

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual_arts)#Article titles. Two things are pertinent:

-"If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is better to disambiguate by the artist's name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists."

-"Avoid "Portrait of Fred Foo" titles, if the individual is named – just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary, even if the museum uses "Portrait"."

I would apply their suggestion about portraits to busts. For this reason, I would not include busts in the title, but rather would do something like this Christopher Columbus (Vittori).

We are currently in the midst of creating labels for each of these artworks that will be placed near the actual piece. It's important that the title that we point to on these labels is correct ("Find this artwork on Wikipedia! Just search Stephen Neal (Leonard)"). So, unless you can prove to me otherwise (and very quickly!) that the Visual Arts manual of style is incorrect, please don't move all of our article titles. Thanks again for your time/help. HstryQT (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help on these articles, Fuhghettaboutit! It's great to have such a positive interaction with you and the students in this project--as you know all of the students on this project are new to Wikipedia, so good first impression is terribly important. I'd be happy to have your thoughts on the naming conventions for artworks. We've thought a lot about it, and discussed it here most recently.

Naming artworks that don't themselves have clear titles is difficult. However, I think the decision we came to was a good one based on the naming conventions. It would be helpful to have your articulate your rational before going and changing all of the work we've done. Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I will move the one I moved back (unless you already have, I haven't checked), and then I will make a move a formal request to take the temperature of the community. My experience with naming conventions is that this is an out of the ordinary disambiguation scheme, not conforming to the disambiguator being "the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)" (see WP:DAB), but we have made exceptions in the past. However please note that the the consideration here is whether the naming scheme best serves our readers. It's better this is done now in a formal request so I and you and your label makers all have some assurance that the name has some stability, whatever it is. Note that formal move requests usually last one week, though the close of the discussion can get backlogged, and I will not have the time to make the request until tonight. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tanya Plibersek

Thanks a lot (for fixing the reference). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you had looked at it so many times your were reference parameter blind:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links

I do an occasional "recent changes" patrol in the "Help" namespace. Today I noticed that an IP has reverted your August 2010 rewrite of one section at Help:Interlanguage links. Do you care? Was there a consensus somewhere for your rewrite? Which forum would be the right place to discuss this? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I probably wouldn't have noticed for a long time. I've been on something of an enforced wiki break (see the message at the top of this page; still not resolved). I'll bring it up at the village pump I think, or possibly at WT:RED. Do you have any thoughts about the content?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a programmer's cop-out: if this kind of link were encoded as {{Redlink with interwiki|the missing article name|the interwiki prefix|the interwiki article name}}, then the template could format the link according to the current consensus but could be changed easily later. I prefer your formatting idea; a reader who tries out the redlink and the blue language-code link will quickly work out what is happening. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A belated addition: I've just discovered that {{Ill}} has been available to do exactly this job, since 2006. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neat! It's a bit of a self-reference that does not translate well to printing or to a legitimate mirror or fork (unless they incorporate the foreign Wikipedia as well, which is very rare). I actually just recently reverted the removal, and then another user blended the prior content and mine together which seems to work well. I think the template you found should be mentioned there. Thanks for following up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiBlame

Is back again. Regards, --Flominator (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pool (cue sports) vs. Pocket billiards

This may be of interest to you: Talk:Pool (cue sports)#Requested move. Outcome will affect the name of the category, too, which is already at CfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Carl H. Ernst

As apparent from the "what links here", Wilmer W. Tanner had a bunch of pre-existing redlinks in wiki (from species he discovered and such). Not even really taking any effort to generate any. These naturalists tend to be like that. I would like to get a page started for Carl H. Ernst (he is redlinked in an article of mine, Painted turtle.

1. Can you find any bio scoop on him? He is GMU emeritus and I can't find a profile.

2. How does one "search for the redlinks". If I wanted to see if there were other articles than ours, that call out Ernst already?

P.s. He has a huge number of books, some of which even sell (per Amazon). Commercial books, not just science monographs or the like. Although reasonably technical. He gets cited all the time in turtle work. TCO (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I did find that doing a Google search on Ernst, turtle, and wikipedia came out with a huge amount of pages where he is mentioned. The few I checked did not have redlinks, but did use his name in article text to express a point (not just references iow, but called out by name as significatn somehow to study of the creature). So, it would be pretty easy to non-orphan based on all the turtle articles that refer to him. (plus my pre-existing redlink). TCO (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

more addendum: there is some Muslim scholar with same name, but different MI, but still squatting on the FN-LN combo. So would need a disamb page and all that redirect stuff straightened out.TCO (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Starting with your second question first, to find if there are any redlinks, there are various ways to get there but ultimately you will be doing a what links here search for the title. Probably the easiest ways to get to that is to pretend you are creating the article by typing the name into search and then clicking on "You may create the page "Carl H. Ernst" (of course try other variations of his name) and then clicking the what links here on the left-hand side of the resulting page. Another way to get to the same place is to just type somewhere in edit mode [[Carl H. Ernst]], then hit "show preview", then click on the link you see, and once again do a what links here search. Yet a third way, probably the easiest though some might find it a bit technical (such as that you have to put in underscores for all spaces), is to do a what links here search on any random article and then change the url to search for your subject.

The Google search shows all articles where his name is mentioned, and many articles cite to Ernst, so it will not give you any clear idea of redlinks. In any event, I just looked for what the middle name H. initial stands for (using Google Books) and was not able to find out and, as you noted, Carl Ernst is taken by the muslim scholar, so the only relevant what links here search I can think of is with the initialed name, which shows just one red link in Conservation of painted turtles.

But the number of redlinks is something of a red herring. The real issue is whether he merits an article—whether there's sufficient information to verify content and to show notability, and that appears to be to be a definitive yes. As for a profile at George Mason University, I can omly find him mentioned on their site as a professor emeritus, no profile, but there should be sufficient material to mine from from these book sources, as well as these news result and these scholar results.

If you create the article, I will sort out all the DAB/Redirect/hatnote issues, no problem:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Yeah, I'd like to get the page and start linking him from turtle articles. It's not just the refs, but that he is discussed in running text a lot "According to Ernst, Ernst reported, etc." I will hold off on piping stuff in until we get an article up and all the name stuff is nailed down. FYI: I emailed Jeffrey Lovich, who is a coauthor on one big almanac and whose USGS email was public, to request a bio or profile or something (at least birthdate). I could also try his books, but I don't physcially have in hand, for bio on dust cover or such. Any other sources (who's who or such)?TCO (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Cohee/Horace Thompson Carpenter

Why was this page about an artist who lived from 1857 to 1947 moved to a user's sandbox? OTRS has received a request by a user who wants to review the article (Ticket# 2011012010000402). There is no reason to remove ordinary entries from the auspices of WP's users. Please reinstate the page in its ordinary place promptly. Asav (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asav. The user to whose subpage the entry was moved created the article just a short time ago; he wanted to work on it further as a draft until it was in better shape before it went live (and probably would have never created it in the mainspace if he was aware of subpages at the time of creation). It's little different than a user who creates an article as a subpage, as many users, do and then works on it there until they feel it's ready (and the article needed work). The fact that it was initially in the mainspace is ministerial. It's through this user's efforts that it was created and through his efforts that Wikipedia will have an article on the subject—a focused, interested creator is actually how all our substantive content comes about. That should be be given due deference. I'm not sure what you mean by someone wanting to "review" the article, but there's nothing stopping anyone from visiting, commenting on, and adding to an article simply because it is on a subpage. The point is that the person who was interested enough in the subject to create it, and who is actively working on the article (having made edits today), is continuing to build it with reliably sourced content. I assume the article will be ready to go live soon. There's no reason to treat its stay in the mainspace as sacrosanct when the only person who is building the content wishes to make it better before moving it back. I suggest you assure the OTRS person that the article will be live again, provide a link to where it is, and that they are free to be bold in editing it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have informed the user of this conversation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If there had only been one contributor to the article, I could understand that. But that's not the fact. Well, anyway, I have informed the complainant that the page has been moved. I expect it to be back very shortly. Asav (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the article, and it's in my sandbox for reworking -- mostly adding more content along with stronger references. One of the key new references will take days or possibly a week to add because it's coming from a turn-of-the-century magazine at the Library of Congress. Can I view the request (Ticket# 2011012010000402) to see if I can help the person who wants to review it? Thanks, Cohee Cohee (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Creatorship does not mean ownership, so please make sure the article is back in main space asap. OTRS correspondence is confidential, so I'm afraid I can't give you any more information about the complaint. Asav (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not asking for any information. I'm well aware of the confidential nature of OTRS. Once again though, I see this as near equivalent to a user creating an article as a subpage from the start. Since I know of no good reasons to light a fire under such a user to finish developing an article there in great haste, I see no need to here—especially since there has been no reason given for the haste and because the subpage can be edited by anyone. Ownership has nothing to do with the matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that's fine, as long as the piece doesn't stay in userspace limbo too long. (Hey, Just trying to keep my customers happy :) Asav (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Asav: I (user Cohee) am the one who asked for information about the "complaint" (using your descriptor) -- I am surprised that WP would allow hostile people to hide behind the anonymity of OTRS and snipe at those who do WP work. I agree with Fuhghettaboutit -- Wikipedia work should not be driven by demands that discourage thoughtful research (and researchers) and drive the quality of WP work downward. I am stopping where I'm at on the article -- it can be moved back to the mainspace at any time now. I will share the remainder of the research with non-hostile researchers. I recommend you make your excellent point, that "creatorship does not mean ownership", with the complainant of Ticket# 2011012010000402.

Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for your defense of the improvements being made in my workspace. Let’s move on. Cohee (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cohee: Asav's first post may have been a little demanding sounding but I certainly haven't seen anything from him/her that approaches hostility, not was anything described about the OTRS ticket that would lead me to believe it was or was not hostile. You mentioned something on your talk page about having received hate mail. It's possible this is related to that but it's also possible it has nothing to do with it. Just separate in your mind whatever interactions you've had that neither I nor Asav are privy to. All you and I know about the OTRS matter is that someone wanted to "review" the article (and Asav is obligated not to reveal the identity of the person or detail on the matter). I will be monitoring the article because some alarm bells have been raised, but I am not jumping to any conclusions, and though you may have more reason tthan I to draw conclusions regarding the ticket, I think you shouldn't so jump either. Meanwhile, since you say you're done improving it (which is a shame; I see no reason for you to stop), I will move it back to the mainspace now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuhgettaboutit and Asav: My reference to hostility had nothing to do with either of you -- it referred to someone who had been harassing me about the article through e-mail, off-Wikipedia. Since the request for restoring the article very clearly took the form of a no-options demand, it seemed to follow the harassment. If that was not the case, please accept my apology for drawing the wrong conclusion. The hostile person harassing me by e-mail misunderstands how Wikipedia works, unfortunately, so I'm not going to reward her bad behavior by giving in to the harassment. I will separate the two! Thank you for your guidance, and your assistance.Cohee (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I think it's fair to let you know that I have added some comments to a discussion that is taking place about a warning template you appear to have created in 2008. For more background why I feel this issue is important you may also wish to refer to recent developments at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog, a project I started and is now in operation. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 31, 2011. You can view the blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Masako Katsura (1913–1995) was a carom billiards player most active in the 1950s who trailblazed a path for women in the sport by competing and placing among the best in the male-dominated world of professional billiards. First learning the game from her brother-in-law and then under the tutelage of Japanese champion Kinrey Matsuyama, Katsura finished second in Japan's national three-cushion billiards championship three times. In exhibition she was noted for running 10,000 points at the game of straight rail. After marrying a U.S. army officer in 1950, Katsura emigrated with him to the United States in 1951, where she was invited to play in the 1952 U.S.-sponsored World Three-Cushion Championship, ultimately taking seventh place at that competition. Katsura was the first woman ever to be included in any world billiards tournament. Her fame cemented, Katsura went on an exhibition tour of the United States with 8-time world champion Welker Cochran, and later with 51-time world champion, Willie Hoppe. In 1953 and 1954 she again competed for the world three-cushion crown, taking fifth and fourth places respectively. (more...)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the wording of my edit. I stand by my semi colon though! ;-) Pol430 talk to me 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually the language is not that much different than what it was had when I originally created the template. It was the subsequent edits that introduced most of the problems identified in the discussion. Unfortunately, I never noticed the changes (I have way too many pages on my watchlist). Listen. I have to give you the heads up. I regret it now but it was for your own good. In the heat of the moment, I put in a call to the BPR about you. It really isn't as bad as they say, and it usually only takes a few weeks of ICRI before the "client" is cured and introduced back into society;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yesthankyouforthattheyseemtohavecuredmealready LOL! Pol430 talk to me 09:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wilmer Tanner

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats man. Let's keep racking up hardware!TCO (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First lady of billiards

Nice to see something like that on the main page. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for coming by! I just got away from a family dinner--first moment I've had a chance to see it on the front page. It does feel good. So many hours went into it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, and a really nice change of pace. Congrats! MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

Hi! No hassles with having discussions on my talk page. :) I'm always happy for assistance, opinions or criticism. In this case, the editor has an open WP:CCI that I was helping out in some time ago, and I think we'd hoped that the discussions we had back then had made a difference (mostly led by Moonriddengirl, as it often is). I took care of this one article last night, and also spent some time looking through the recent DYK and GA submissions - I've got a few things tagged to follow up on, but there was nothing serious in them bar a phrase here or there. However, I'd planned to start catching up on other contributions as a check next. It seems, from what you said, that there is still a problem. Anyway, I'm happy to chase it up, or you can, or we both can, as you see fit. I fear that after the previous CCI things might need to be handled differently this time around. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the investigation Bilby. Are all the article's supposedly cleaned? I ask because in the random article I looked at, J. Andrew Noel, I couldn't find one sentence that wasn't a copyvio. I have warned Racepacket. Please see User talk:Racepacket#Copyright violations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to change that link. The warning was removed immediately by the user. See instead here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A reuse permission email regarding the Cornell Chronicle was submitted a year ago to OTRS, but was deemed inadequate. The edit to the J Andrew Noel page was made in 2008. I think you have the CCI/Noel sequence reversed. I believe I have done a good job in policing copyright problems. (E.g., [3] [4] [5] [6]) Your discretion in accordance with policy is appreciated. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You think you have done a good job in policing copyright problems? This is like the fox dining in the henhouse on a chicken he just killed while explaining he is a good vegetarian. Your massive copyright infringements still persist and others are taking care of them. You edited Boyce McDaniel today, and failed to remove whole paragraphs of text you lifted wholesale. I just looked at random at an article you created last week Landis Report, and immediately found it was a copyvio from here. I'm beginning to wonder if any of your additions to articles are kosher. I'm off to bed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I will look at the Landis article. I suggest that you that you re-read the CCI direction page. I do believe that I am staying on a vegetarian diet. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i have modified the Landis article to avoid the similarity. I should note that the sentence correctly summarized the two items referenced in the footnote and that the website you referenced (which I have not read in some time) is a public domain government website. As I said, I will create a Boyce McDaniel subpage for Bilby's review rather than edit the article directly. Racepacket (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Moot now. However I too would have thought they were public domain at first glance--the article on them says they are an "independent agency of the Unites States government" (of course, even if the material is in the Public domain, the use would still be plagiarism). But they indicate at the top of their page: "ACUS is a public-private partnership", and at the bottom: "Copyright © 1964-2010 Administrative Conference of the United States, All Rights Reserved."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for François Mingaud

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

F. Mingaud

Got your message, but I'm a bit buffaloed by it. Did you mean to send it to me? Does it refer to another article (I slightly tweaked Mingaud, I think)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Look at the main page

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish#Look at the main page's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-catfd-notice

Template:Db-catfd-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My apologies for the lack of response on behalf of the CONTRIB team, Sven Manguard Wha? 08:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Emily Horne

I have added information and I can provide proof that she has used the name Max-Accastes Quierberon and Max Quieberon. I have pictures of her marriage license to Husband #6, pictures of her in Ireland on her honeymoon with #6, I also have pictures of her facebook page. I can provide if you like. She is now prowling American Military websites and tangowire for her next victim. I have IM from the men on her facebook page for verification of this information. I also have a letter from her father that states her sister is not dead, he father was nothing but a radio operator in the military and a number of other informaiton as proof that she has remarried while on probation and she is still not a nice person ( I can say meaner words but they probably are not appreciated on this page. ) I will check back but I am not sure how to work wikipedia and would appreciate an e-mail address to send proof too and because it has been a long time since I programmed. 98.166.253.47 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never edited the article on Emily Horne. There has never been a page created by the name of Max-Accastes Quierberon, nor Max Quieberon. I see that they are listed in the article as pseudonyms (uncited I might add)—what does any of that have to do with me?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha I see my connection to you: I rev-deleted your defamatory edits about a living person at WP:EAR. It was not your headline there that was the problem, it was your nasty gratuitous post below the headline. Don't do it again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

close

No big deal on Nativity of Jesus. So do you want to close it now that there is no consensus so we can move on... Else just ignore this message. Enough wasted talk there. History2007 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I can't close it now either for the very reason that after a cursory review I don't think I would have closed it as no consensus. Consensus is not a head count but based on strength of the arguments made in the context of applicable guideline and policy. Your closing smacks of bias because you were involved. Me reverting you and then closing it a different way could give the impression that I reversed you because I wanted a different outcome, even if that isn't the case (and I try to avoid 'even the appearance of impropriety'). Someone else may very well also close it as no consensus, but an uninvolved third party should make the decision now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us just forget about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Maxoff

MFD - thanks.  Chzz  ►  17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lilly Wood and the Prick

The article has just been moved to main space, thank you for the help :). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

section header in the contesting speedy deletion link

Hi, I reverted your edits to Template:Db-meta/sandbox. The use of a section header is problematic because it does not display correctly in the transclusion. I am also afraid that newbies will take the "..." as a queue to start typing there and end up putting the whole rationale in the title. Lastly, as the talk:foo/hang on page does not exist before the speedy is contested and it should not be used for anything else there is no reason to start a new section. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We can leave off the ellipses; all posts should have section headers, whether the only post on a page or a new post on an existing page; and I'm not sure what you mean about it not displaying correctly—it did for me. Can you tell me what error you observed? The section header acts to focus the person on what the task is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that you reverted me using rollback. I'm sure you intended nothing by it, but please note that you should never use rollback for anything but obvious vandalism; never for good faith posts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, for me the transcluded header displays as though it has nowiki tags around it. Is the sandbox version working fine for you now? I don't understand why all posts should have a section header, can you explain the idea behind this? Sorry about the rollback, I did it because the undo function did not work and I when I tried to remove it manually preview showed me I was breaking the the template. Thought it would be allright if I posted an explanation on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note—I am at work and stealing a moment. I see what you are talking about now. You're transcluding the rationale from the talk page into the db template itself. Why are we doing that--doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it place on the talk page? If we are going to do that we might as well not have any post to the talk page at all, just make a place in the template for writing a protest. But I don't think we should and I foresee many problems doing it this way. Users may include signatures with unclosed span classes or wish to use template themselves which would break the db tag; they may add their own section headers which would break just as you're seeing and more. Regarding reverting, just go to a page's history, click on the date you want to revert to, hit edit, then save page. That is how a manual revert is done (see WP:REVERT. I will probably not be able to respond further for about ten hours. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not placed on the talkpage, but on a separate talksubpage talk:foo/hang on. To the best of my knowledge transclusion has no problems handling other templates, unclosed span tags, hide tags, other transclusions or whatever else you can trow at it. I just tried to break the template and actually discovered. how to get section headers to display correctly (use a double transclusion), but could not get it to malfunction. Perhaps you have better luck. Thanks for the stuff about the manual revert. Yoenit (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Stealing another moment. Forget whether it can be transcluded; why should we transclude the talk page protest note inside the db-templates for view by the public? All admins are supposed to check the talk page before deleting. So, even if it can be done without breaking the db-tag, I see no purpose served by transcluding the rationale like this. This is the behind the scenes stuff that doesn't belong in plain view in the tagged article itself. As someone who has reviewed thousands of db-tags, I can tell you that sometimes we get "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!" and worse, such as BLP violations, as the talk page response. Should we transclude that in the article? Having a separate subpage where the hangon rationale goes is also no good for quite a few reasons. We occasionally see the need to keep talk pages of CSD discussions even when the article is deleted, but now we would have a subpage forever. If we wanted it at the talk page we would have to move it there, but what if the talk page already exists? Shall we do history merges every time. Where an article is tagged and then kept which happens many times a day, once again any deletion discussion is part of the proper history and the same problem arises of now having a separate page with its own history. This is unworkable and I'm baffled why we're going down this overcomplicated route. A person wants to dispute a tagging; they click the contest this speedy deletion link; they get taken to the talk page; they place their rationale; the admin reviews it and deletes or not. Simple. Clean.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you raise good arguments. If the material is posted directly on the talk page a header is indeed required. Thinking about it a bit. Yoenit (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile it on but another problem with this is multiple db tags. It's not uncommon for them to be added at the same time, and it's also not uncommon that a page will be tagged under say A7, declined, and then retagged uner G12 as a copyvio days later. With this subpage setup, the second tag will immediately be transcluding any rationale of the subpage that was created through the other or prior db-tag as the case may be. Finally, note that admins are not going to be very happy about having to delete three pages (the article, its talk if it exists, and the subpage) rather than two if they decide to delete—this raises yet another problem: when admins access the deletion interface they are given a reminder by the software that the article they just deleted has a talk page if it does (see MediaWiki:Deletedtext) which would have to be expanded somehow to recognize these subpages and provide for them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I wanted to use a separate subpage is that template coding can check for the existence of such a page and show up as contested if it exists. If we let the contestion rationale be posted directly to the talkpage we have to figure out a new way to let the template detect this, or every page with a talkpage will show up as contested. Yoenit (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 360 Ground

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and am not sure on how I can keep my new page out of spam, please it would be great if you could advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruka (talk • contribs)

Well it was written in the first person exactly how you would expect a commercial to be written: "forward thinking" (non-neutral positive opinion); "We love..." "Our mission..." (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article—"we"? "our"?); and much more. Material on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, using neutral language and giving proper proper weight to both positive and negative aspects of a topic. Putting aside these problems with what the text said, there are also major problems with what the text didn't say. For inclusion in Wikipedia, articles must show that the topic is notable, generally meaning that the world has taken note of the subject by writing about is substantively in reliable sources that are independent from the subject—newspaper stories, magazine articles, books, etc. I think you will understand best if you read the business FAQ. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

James Durbin

Thanks for the page move! I'd given up hoping any action would be taken on my request until after James Durbin (singer) either exited or won American Idol 10. You have restored my faith that Wikipedia isn't entirely being subsumed by pop culture ;-) Qwfp (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anytime Qwfp! I didn't do it for any ideological ant-pop culture reasons but have you ever seen this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I think the Great Pokémon Merger happened a little while before I started editing, but I remember the Pokémon test was still frequently mentioned. That reminds me that I had an idea to use Special:Random to conduct a somewhat more serious survey... the couple of times I've tried an informal pilot I got the impression several shelves of the bookcase would be filled with very short articles on living organisms, sportspeople, geographical places/features and pop singles. Qwfp (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Special:Random is a ticket to see just how deep the the hole is that lack of a real enforcement mechanism for verifiability has allowed to be dug. Ugg. Yeah, the shelves are threadbare.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:US Navy Department decorations

Thanks. All the characters were there, just not in exact order (that we silly humans made the computer require from us). Done. Zzzz..... Dru of Id (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha

That simple? Thank you muchly for the help Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately simple but difficult to divine. I tried about ten things before figuring that out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Motive for Metaphor

How did the description lack significance/importance? pls edit/suggest/add, dont just hand-of-god delete. ross{{subst:unsignewd|4metaphor}}

Hi Ross. Based on your username, you appear to be editing with a conflict of interest in seeking to write about Motive for Metaphor. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it properly only covers encyclopedic topics—things that the world has taken notice of by writing about them substantively in independent, reliable, third party sources—newspapers magazines, books, etc. While we are not on paper and so have abilities other encyclopedia;s do not, essentially if you wouldn't expect to have an entry in Britannica, you shouldn't expect an entry om Wikipedia; an unsigned band is an not normally notable for purposes of an encyclopedia, which is be definition a tertiary source, synthesizing already published material. The article did not indicate any importance or significance because it said your band was unsigned and did not make any statement indicating the world has taken any notice of it. When and if the band becomes well known, media will write about it; documentaries will be made; its members be interviewed for TV, and so on. When that happens, an article about the band will be warranted, but even then, unless I;'m wrong about your close ties to this band, it shouldn't be you that writes it. Truly notable bands don't write their own articles; other people are interested enough to do so without prompting. Regarding your "hand of god" comment, note that when this article was tagged for speedy deletion (by another user), you received a message on your talk page about this. That was up for about 5 hours before the deletion, though it didn't have to be since the article met a speedy deletion criterion. Wikipedia gets 1,000s of articles every day that are similar to yours and must be removed quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A Cookie!

Toontown59153 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for answering to my question in the Help Desk. Toontown59153 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasty templates

Hello. I get why you tagged Jamie Rodda with a {{Hasty}} template, but why Ben Bruce Miller? If you go to the article creator's user page he states that he is Ben Miller. I doubt a vanity page about a Wikipedia editor is ever going to be notable. BurtAlert (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

99 out of 100 articles tagged within moments of creation would have been speedy delete candidates an hour later. It is that 100th article and its creator that not tagging hastily addresses most importantly. It also has a drama-reducing secondary effect even for some of the 99 because some, who would not have said anything when their non-notable subject is deleted when it can be assessed, will squawk if it's deleted before that assessment could have been made. In either case, we don't know what people will write until they write it. We do get valid COI vanity articles. Yes, they are rare, but the point is that there's no benefit in tagging empty articles moments after creation and many reasons not to do so which has been discussed many times at WT:CSD, memorialized in footnotes at the criteria, and is highlighted in a few ways at the top of newpages.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind! BurtAlert (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonawe

Thank you for your answer. But if you have no objection, I would like to ask yet one man hwo is the User User:Akerbeltz. He knows both the English and Scotish Gaelic and have made contribution to the article Bonawe. And by the way, since you is a native English spiker, would you answer how do you pronounciate the name of Bonawe? Of couse, if you do not want to answer this quation you may do not do that. Cheers. My talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs)

Responding at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Is there a way to "turn off" and "turn on" (disable and enable) the Table Of Contents from appearing on one specific page of mine ... (i.e., not as a default for all pages)? If so, how is it done? Specifically ... my user page ... User:Joseph A. Spadaro. Can I eliminate the TOC on that page only ... without eliminating the TOC's when I read other pages? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Sure. Place on the page __ NOTOC __ but remove the spaces before and after the word. The reason I didn't just use nowiki tags is they don't work with these; not sure why. You can also force a page that doesn't have a table of contents because it doesn't have at least three headings to display one using __ TOC __ (same spacing issue). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for my (very late) reply back to you. I got side-tracked with other things. Thus, the notes on my Talk Page got buried and neglected. Thanks for the help above. I now know how to use those commands and functions. By the way, apparently, the nowiki tags now do indeed work with these TOC commands, as well. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Question

Hi, hope all is well with you. I had a brief question about the Credo accounts. I just noticed this (don't spend much time at the Village pump). and would like access, if possible. Is this signup over? Many thanks and enjoy your weekend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marmaduke! How's everything? I know about as much about the credo accounts as you apparently do (that is to say, very little). I stumbled upon it when I logged in a few days ago and actually for once read the sitewide messages that I usually ignore. I only know what it says at the top of the page: that it is limited to 400 accounts. Having just visited the page, I don't understand why the sign up is hatted and says it's closed when there are only 252 names on the list, but it is. I hereby give you my permission as ruler of the universe to add your name and ignore the closing. Sorry, wish I could actually do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know. I didn't see that notice. Maybe next time. Have a good weekend. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rational

I was about to add information to my CSD but you had deleted the article before I had a chance to post it. Otherwise I had intended to rationalize by editing the following: {{db-attack|This tag considers that other articles have been deleted for this attempt. Also you can see the off wiki publications of this user which is negative POV and WP:OR}} My76Strat (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Worthy of mention is that the user has the same negative linked information on their talk page. It probably should be considered for deletion as well. My76Strat (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm always a fan of people explaining their CSD rationale's when it's not obvious. People often just slap a G3 on what is vandalism, but which is not immediately obvious without some explanatory text. I think this one was pretty blatant though. An article titled "itsacult" with a url to a page where users are bashing a particular religion (to me all religions are cults) doesn't need anything further to show it falls under under G10. I edit conflicted with your second message. The user's talk page has been deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting aside is that another admin removed the CSD tag and restored the attack link. It is the same new admin who effectively ruined my RfA by discrediting my CSD intentions. I have been reluctant to CSD an article since, and I feel certain that they genuinely believe I have some ill intentions. Part of this record is because I believe it would be used against me as an indication that I have no clue. But I agree with you that removal was in the best interest. My76Strat (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the link had to at the very least be removed. Deleting the page was not necessarily required (and of course I could have revdeleted the placement of the url) but leaving links like that lying around is not a good idea and it's all really moot now as I have blocked the user indefinitely for good cause. My rationale can be seen on the talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the admin My76Strat is talking about. As I've stated on my talk page, I wanted to remove the link, but not to delete the page ... I actually made an error and reverted to the wrong revision; thanks for taking care of it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Attribution_history

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Attribution_history.
Message added 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies...

Yoenit has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

Sorry for somehow missing that message on my talkpage and letting you think I did not want to reply. I was distracted by something else after our discussion last month and completely forgot about the issue, untill I stumbled upon the village pump discussion. Mea Culpa Yoenit (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

No problem at all; I've done the same thing in the past. I've pretty much finished tweaking the template. I've folded in the text from hangon, with some tailoring of course. The red text at the bottom informing the creator that they haven't edited the talk page will disappear once the talk page is edited. This will provide an easy way for an admin to see at a glance whether there is talk page content to check or not. I think the button I replaced the link with is a good attention grabber. Any suggestions? Criticisms?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy button

You have new messages

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Db-meta/sandbox2 - problem?

This new template is coming along nicely. I've thought of a problem, though: It says "This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation", but that's not exactly true. Nothing is written to the article or the talk page when I click the button, so there is nothing to alert the admins at that point. If I then spend 20 minutes on a carefully-worded explanation, by the time I've saved it the article may have gone. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right. And I'm not sure there's any fix for that, but if there is, I know it's way, way beyond my coding skills (such as they are) to make the link provide a message inside the db- template to alert admins that it has been pressed. We may simply not be able to have an equivalent for that. The thing is that in practice, I don't think that alert actually stops any admins from deleting pages or makes them wait. The only thing that does if the page is a proper deletion target, is the rare effective talk page post (which is sort of the whole point). But I can see the loss of this ability as being the biggest sticking point. That language has to come out for the moment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just got an answer from one of our best template programmers that this is essentially impossible to do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

A pie for you!

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

A pie, just because? Love pie. Thanks! By the way, I've been to Hungary. Next time bring some of that ridiculously delicious ice cream you have over there. Never tasted anything like it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page.
Message added 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page.
Message added 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

just wondering if you were waiting for me to react Yoenit (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re: {{Nn-warn/sandbox}}

I don't know if you already saw in the change log but I tested a tweak that would allow the user getting the notice on his/her talk page to directly click through to contest the deletion. It used the same code as your "Or you can edit the Talk page" comment in the next sentence. It worked great when the test was against a mainspace page but failed against a Wikipedia-space page and presumably would fail against all the other namespaces as well. I'm sure that I've seen code that solves this problem but it's beyond my skill to implement (and I can't remember which template it was so I can't clone it). Hoping that you can make a better run at the problem. Rossami (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest! I know why it's breaking for anything outside the mainspace. To isolate the code, in {{fullurl:Talk:{{{1}}}... it's supplying in {{{1}}} the name of the page, prefixed by "talk:", which is the format of mainspace talk pages, but for a page title that includes a namespace, it would be supplying Talk: before the title. So for example, Wikipedia:Verifiability becomes [[Talk:Wikipedia:Verifiability]], instead of [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]]. I think I might be able to figure this out though my coding skills are pure autodidact (I'm getting better though). I fool around with what other people who actually know what they are doing have done like it's a puzzle. I have just enough understanding to make that work by remembering that another template does something I want one I'm working on to do, and then I go study how they got that result. I'm leaving for the day now, though I'll look at this again tonight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalker Do {{TALKPAGENAME}} or {{TALKSPACE}} help at all? See Help:Magic words. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalking is always welcome:-) Magic words may be part of the solution but the reason they won't work as is is that this is a user talk page notice, and the link we are looking to place is one to the talk page of the article tagged for speedy deletion. In other words, {{TALKPAGENAME}} when placed on a user's talk page will call up the name of the talk page it is placed on. What we need is to call the name of the talk page that the article tagged for speedy deletion is on, which is provided by the parameter in {{nn-warn|talk page name}}, which then defines what {{{1}}} is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to do it. The only thing I can think of is to use some kind of conditional parser: if mainspace then {{{1}}}. if otherspace then ??, and I can't figure out what to replace those question marks with because it would have to recognize the parameter, and then insert talk: and space in between the two parts of the title. I'm sure Happey-melon or MSJG or a bunch of other users could do this no problem. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the user is referred back to to page they created where they can click the link in the template. In a way this may present an easter egg to some users, because they may not read the text but just click the shiny button and so not get the benefit of the text in the CSD template that they would if they didn't bypass going back to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Try {{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}. For example, "{{TALKPAGENAME:Wikipedia:Help desk}}" gives "Wikipedia talk:Help desk". -- John of Reading (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fucking brilliant. I thought the magic word would only recognize the name of the page it was on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Favour to ask

Looking for a few random people to help me out with something...

There's a liaison project between Wikipedia and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.

Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Wikipedia community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!

The article Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was started by Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs),

The article California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, re. lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)

If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.

I hope you don't mind my asking...(I thought of you, 'coz of our recent talk about template stuff...and mostly 'coz I know you're a very helpful and skilled Wikipedian)  Chzz  ►  06:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look in the next few days the (change of the CSD process, which you helped out with, has been all consuming for me the past week). I never mind anyone asking!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For ridding wikipedia of the hang-on template. The new button is awesome. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:-) Thanks! ¡Viva la Hangon Revolución!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Fetchcomms/Sandbox 5

Do you think you could use some updated code and try that out again? I think I've got the reason prompt box working now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Book:Marika Gombitová

Thank you heaps and love to ya! Uzerakount (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

-=="Norm MacDonald" article title debate: Norm Macdonald -vs- Norm MacDonald== As of April 2011, Norm and Comedy Central have named his new show "Sports Show with Norm Macdonald" --lower case 'd'. Also, on the show's webpage at Comedy Central, you can click on a link that is a bio page for "Norm Macdonald". I don't see how this debate can go any further. Someone needs to change the title of this article to "Norm Macdonald" ASAP! After all, this is a living person who deserves to have his name spelled the way he obviously wants it spelled. If you agree, could you make the needed title changes? Don't forget there is another page (Norm Macdonald) that redirects to "Norm MacDonald" article. RedEyedCajun (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded at the article's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Compromised acccount

Sorry one of my freinds has my account name and password. He got on and screwd with stuff. It wont happen again. --Androllercoaster (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Change you password immediately (best to a strong password), don't give it out ever, and always log off. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Indentation of second part in help desk template

When I use Template:Edit refs and try to indent it, only the first part is correctly indented, while the second part isn't (see WP:HD#Help). Is it possible to change this behaviour of the template text? I think it looks a bit awful this way. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition

You forgot to move the talk page when moving the article. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and done. I do so many moves that I sometimes operate on automatic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Template/Navbox admin...

Hello again! Do you know who among the administrators has a special interest in templates/navboxes? Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it have to be an admin? Unless actual admin intervention is needed, there's no need for it to be an admin and you widen the pool of candidates vastly. Off the top of my head I don't know of anyone especially involved, but I could probably track down some names pretty easily depending on the purpose. In that regard, you haven't even hinted at your reason for wanting to contact those with special interest, which could influence my answer greatly. For example, if it's prettifying them, or deleting them, or coding them, or changing policy applicable to them, my answer would likely vary and be better. Can you explain a little bit?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. (I apologize if this becomes too rambling - feel free to ask for clarification.) Without getting into too much detail, I have some ideas (for musical artist templates in particular) I'd love to brainstorm about concerning new features (which I guess falls under "coding", "changing policy" and perhaps "prettifying"). I feel it must be with an admin who has a serious interest in future development of template structure and purpose because my (apparently "too bold") experiments have earned me the ire of a particular user who has systematically defaced several of my templates (citing opinion-based Wikipedia essays) and shows no signs of stopping (since I've invested so much time and energy into these templates, it really pains me to see them dealt with so dismissively). I thought this would be a good time to reach out to a sort of knowledgeable mediator before this user continues their relentless quest. In short, me and this user (and the larger community) need to have a discussion. (Sort of a cease & discuss...) Honestly, I'm a bit too upset/depressed about this user's actions to talk to them directly for fear of further damage... Wikkitywack (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I don't know him well, but on the technical end of matters there's User:Happy-melon, who is a template wiz. I think user:MSGJ is also very technically proficient as well as User:Mr.Z-man. For someone who I have the impression is involved in the area, User:Rich Farmbrough comes to mind. See e.g., here. However, I have no idea about these admins' mediation chops or willingness to get involved (or even if you are on the correct end of matters). The fact that they are template gurus tells you little about whether they are the correct people to approach about help in resolving a conflict. Note that if you have a very specific proposal in mind, it might be a good idea to work it up and then post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you are being hounded by a user, I mean really hounded, then you might bring it up at WP:ANI (and be sure to post diffs if you do!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the leads! Wikkitywack (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

opossum moves

Thanks for closing the opossum-related move request. Would you be interested in closing the other two for the sake of consistency? I'm not entirely sure why they were listed separately: Talk:Northern_Three-striped_Opossum#Requested_move, Talk:Derby's_Woolly_Opossum#Requested_move. I'll be happy to help with the moves themselves if you close them as move, but I am "involved" to say the least so I will not close them myself. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anytime. I will take a look later tonight. These types of moves do take some time because each typically has at least two redirects, though luckily, this type of subject matter does not have many fair use images that need fixing, and since the sort keys remain capitalized, they don't need fixing either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There is yet another at Talk:Northern_Three-striped_Opossum#Requested_move; would you agree it should be closed the same as the others? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

db-meta, hangons, and encoded titles

Since it appears that you did most of the coding for the new hangon thing with db-meta, I thought I'd drop a note to you first. There's a problem with the hangon form creating the wrong talk page if the article title has HTML-encoded characters. For example, there was the speedy deleted article Sriram's IAS. Clicking the hangon button results in the talk page being created at Talk:Sriram&. The create isn't properly decoding the encoding. Looking at the HTML source, the hidden form is:

<input type="hidden" name="title" value="Talk:Sriram&#39;s IAS" />

I was wondering why I kept seeing so many orphaned talk pages ending in an ampersand with the boiler plate hangon notice. Since the template is very complex, I didn't want to attempt to fix it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. So it's the ampersand in the html for the apostrophe? Hmm, I'm going to need to enlist the help of someone with more technical ability than I have. I'm at work now but I've dropped notes on three users' talk pages who might have some input.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something to do with how FULLPAGENAME and co. deal with apostrophes. To illustrate, if you consider the following:

• Sriram's IAS
• Sriram's IAS

then they look identical. But they are not, because {{#ifeq:Sriram's IAS|{{FULLPAGENAME:Sriram's IAS}}|equal|not equal}} reveals that they are equal. For some reason, this causes the inputbox to not work correctly. For example, compare the following:

I don't really have a solution for you, though. It may be worth bringing this up at WP:VPT in case anyone has any ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Without really understanding what is going on, I've found a version that seems to work. If you ask "titleparts" to take the name apart and put it back together again, the unwanted encoding is undone. Thus {{#ifeq:Sriram's IAS|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME:Sriram's IAS}}|255}}|equal|not equal}} reveals that they are equal. And here is a button that jumps to Talk:Sriram's IAS:

The next step would be to try this in {{db-meta}}, with page={{TALKPAGENAME}} replaced by page={{#titleparts:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|255}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, right now I think John's workaround is the only way (quite intuitive, might I add). Also, talkback here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I love coming back after a few hours and everything's pretty much wrapped up. Thanks everyone for looking. It took me a few minutes to figure out why 255 but I got it at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions—should be enough for any title imaginable; I just checked and Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict is only 91 characters. It may be a disgusting workaround as you say John, but results are what matter. I'll go add it in now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, all! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity)

That you for userifying the Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity) page. Unfortunately, it doesn't have many more references than the spanish page. Oh well, looks like a sprinkling of secondary among the primary...Naraht (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are insufficient independent reliable sources from which to write a viable article, tag it with {{db-user}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for helping with the Pierre Dangeard article. --Tschips (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAN Question

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit! Long time no see, and very glad to see you're still around! As you know, I only come to you on the day of your daughter's wedding... no wait. I only come to you when I need the best advice possible. There's an excellent article that several dedicated editors and I have put up at GAN a month ago, and it's just languishing in the backlog. As an "old-schooler", I'm sure you've heard of Ted Bundy; this thing has what's approaching 300 citations! I figure it's a shoe-in, but no reviewers have bitten yet. What should we do with such a clearly GA-class article? Do you know any good reviewers, or could you make some time to look it over and give some advice on the talk page? We've got a good group watching it and willing to discuss recommended changes to bring it to GA (I want it to be FA, personally). Any advice you could give would be much appreciated as always! Thanks, Fuhg! Doc talk 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Doc. Of course I'm familiar with Ted Bundy and I scanned the article but only passingly because I find the subject matter so repellant. It certainly looks like a good article. You're right that it's been at GAN for quite some time but then again, GANs can be excruciatingly slow. The last two articles I had at GAN were listed there before the review started respectively 50 and 48 days, so I don't think the time lag you are experiencing is unusual. At 22 days, the nomination is not really languishing. So I guess I'm giving you the annoying "just be patient" line. However, what you might try is listing this at WP:PR (the step before FA candidacy) simultaneously. That way it's on two tracks for improvement and promotion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dang: I had no idea it could take so long to get it reviewed. You're certainly right that it hasn't been languishing when it can take double the time to get it noticed. The subject matter is indeed repellant - one editor working on it said that it gets 200,000 hits a month. Tells you something about human nature, no? Thanks for getting back to me, and I will definitely consider your advice about WP:PR. Thanks! Doc talk 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about Norm Macdonald surname in article

After I had to correct yet another person adding content using MacDonald version in the article, I decided to take your suggestion of "(possibly the article itself should mention the naming discrepancy)." I tried my best adding a section about the confusion about his surname. However, it didn't go over very well. If you have time, could you comment on the Norm Macdonald talk page. I feel if this isn't addressed "somehow" directly within the bio article itself, people will continue to add content using the MacDonald version. The result will be a Wiki bio further propagating the name confusion. I really don't have time to continue correcting this name confusion forever, so something needs to be mentioned within the bio. But what and how? Any suggestions? RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving into oblivion . . . almost

Thanks, I goofed. I accidentally wrote-over my clipboard's contents. I also used a different method to archive than my original archive from three-years ago. So I just duplicated that one as well.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit to WP:Article titles

Should be "News Archive", presumably? I can't correct it since the page is protected.--Kotniski (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

Please visit the Norm Macdonald (or Mac-whatever) talk page, as I added a final note. Thanks for your contributions there. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fantastic Planet 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fantastic Planet 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Template talk:Wikify.
Message added 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man

Your name looks familiar. Banned me? (It's a long list.)

P.s. Could you fix the chemistry portal template (up in See also). I want it in formation! Ooh-rah! TCO (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have an... ahem impressive block log (temper issues?). Anyway, I'm not on that list and don't remember your name though we certainly could have interacted at some time. Regarding the chemistry portal, I'll take care of it, but not tonight, since it requires me to create a new template and I'm out the door in about five minutes. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes when I get to it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are a manly man. Have a romping Friday night! Bring one home for me, please! TCO (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pge move

Hi, thanks for moving the WB Yeats page. I was hoping you might to the same for Portrait of monsieur Bertin, with the Monsieur capatilised. The target is a redirect at the moment, hence my asking. Ceoil 17:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil. It's done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks matey. Ceoil 15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Steve-VietVet

I don't know if you've noticed or not but you put your welcome message on Steve's user page and not his talk page. He won't get the yellow messages bar that way. Dismas|^(talk) 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dismas. So annoying that I did that; the message was tailored to the welcome message I had used and since another user had welcomed in the interim (in the correct place of course) my message had to be altered.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've done the same thing a number of times. Dismas|^(talk) 23:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

{{talkbacktiny}}

I updated it. What do you think? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Σ. Some definite improvements! Thanks. I like that it now tells the person what time it was added (in retrospect, this was obviously missing). I made one change. I don't think we need "message added". Just like after a person's signature, a time stamp alone after any message is immediately interpreted as providing when the message was left.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A note of thanks.

I suppose you get a lot of comments so I won't bother you too much. I would just like to thank you for answering my question so smoothly and succinctly. Take care and *thumbs up*.--Lead holder (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome (and it's no bother at all).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Once the merge is complete on Ron Bruder can Ronald B. Bruder be immediately redirected, or does it still need to go through a discussion to make sure nothing was left out? Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, forget the discussion. It might actually get some support votes because it's at the help desk but generally, there's no need for a discussion when what's at issue is duplicate articles (unless the issue is that there really is nothing to merge). Merge discussions are really for whether two articles on related but somewhat distinct (or perceived to be distinct by some but not by others) topics should be combined. The issue isn't about what's left in or out normally but whether the merge should take place at all. Normally, if you are the one who is willing to do the merge, you only bother opening a discussion if there's some controversy that's likely. Otherwise you just act boldly. It's sort of like move discussions; you do not need to make any formal request except when there's something controversial. That being said, take a look at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Most merge discussion aren't even listed in that central place, and you can see that there are multiple discussions listed there from October 2010, with no input after seven months!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your prompt and advisory comments on my talk page. I’m also very grateful for your point of view regarding my question about my possible COI in relation to the artist Z'EV, It stimulates me to start cleaning the article. All best regards. Je VH (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kburton97

I have reblocked Kburton97 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Let me know if you believe this was too harsh. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. I probably didn't look at enough edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Richard Granger. I'm not inclined to get into Wiki-rows, and chase User:MarkDask who is the same age as I and we both should know better, but his contributions trail looks as though it may be all drive by taggings as gibberish, and his description of his WO interest as "a hobby" irritates me. Midgley (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll take a look at his edits, but you should know that anyone can add a speedy deletion template to a page but only an administrator can do the actual deletion. Here, I don't think a single admin on Wikipedia would have acted on the (obviously inapplicable) tag, so there was nothing to worry about:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Sent you one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Since 10.28.2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Since 10.28.2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:How2title - thanks

Thank you for making these improvements [7]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Anytime. I must admit I did not study the methodology proposed below the front end in any depth, but while I was taking a fast read, I was thinking that it might be confusing, and might be improved by the instructions providing a example for each section of a past naming dispute/situation that had the guide been used, would have funneled users to the correct starting point for determining a proper title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the guidance on my talk page regarding File:The Creator's Testimony cover page.jpg .

I have used this tag now {Non-free book cover}, with the following rationale,

Rationale- It is the book cover of the book 'The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy'. It is the use at the wikipedia page 'The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy'to illustrate an article discussing the book.It is from the first edition of the book published by AuthorHouse on 03/16/2011.

I think this is the best I can do. Is it OK?

Anand Khare 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)