User talk:CharlieEchoTango: Difference between revisions

A while ago I reverted some edits made by an IP on the Lenovo Template. The same IP made edits on the X Series page. The changes are alterations to dates and references, all of which are incorrect. I can't restore the version before the edits because other people have made constructive changes.

If I undo each change, will it impact the ones made after it (the constructive edits)?

Trevor coelho (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Denniss reverted the edits, but no, manually undoing changes will not impact the ones made after it. The edits in between will only be affected if you revert to an old revision. Sometimes you will be technically restricted from undoing a change because that change has been written over by a subsequent edit, but even if you can undo, for successive edits it's better to simply edit the article and fix the dates and references all at once, using an old revision to copy paste if needed. That way you can avoid clogging up the history of the article. In any case, that IP won't be making further unconstructive changes, it has been blocked 6 months. Hope this helps! Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that clears things up. Thanks loads. Trevor coelho (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and PROD

Hi Charlie. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

paul thomas article

Thank you for your help with my first article!

Cheers --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, keep up the good work! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask your advice: Professor Paul Thomas is more that just an academic - he is a retired Vice-Chancellor and President of a University - so really I cannot say that he is a vice-chancellor but he is a founding vice-chancellor of a university - I guess that was all was trying to say here - I just think that australian academic is oversimplifying and understating his area/field of notability. Just asking these questions because I need advice on the best phrase to describe his noteability - any suggestions Best wishes Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an understatement in that he is after all an academic, broadly construed, and we try to keep disambiguation entries as simple as possible. He could also be considered an executive, or if you feel it would be more accurate, university vice-chancellor, which is still a bit long, but better than the whole 'founding university vice-chancellor and retired president' or any variation. Hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me CharlieEchoTango :) could I please put back your original edit "Australian university vice-chancellor" for my article? Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean to the disambiguation page Paul Thomas,

Done. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - learning all the time! Di --Dsouthwe (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shyena Deletion

The reason you gave while removing the speedy deletion tag is "not a valid deletion reason and certainly not G10".

I believe that Shyena does not require a new page. I hope you had gone through the Talk:Shyena. I have mentioned there that the article does not add any new information about the subject than what is already available at DRDO Torpedoes section. I thing the article should be merged with that section and the original article be deleted.

Also, what is G10 and/or G7? Can you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up my edit summary, which is why made a null edit to say I meant G7, not G10 (elaborating below). What I meant to say is that your reason was not a valid speedy deletion reason. If you want to propose a merge, you have to go through the the proper merge procedure, if you want a deletion, then you have to go through a community discussion. You can't unilaterally decide that this article should not be there any more because its content happens to have been put elsewhere too, especially when the article you want deleted was created before Shyena was even mentioned in the DRDO article (old version as of October 2009). And in any case, you should not have used the {{db-author}} (the G7 I was referring to) since you are not the author of the Shyena article. Hope this helps. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But do you agree that an article page with a single line and a single reference is not warranted and it is much better to keep consolidate it in the DRDO page?

From WP:MERGE, I have found 2 reasons why it must be merged.

Reason 1: Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
Reason 2: Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

Can you help me out? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I do not have an opinion on the merits of a merge. On the one hand, I see no issue with a short standalone article (e.g. stub) if the topic is considered notable, on the other hand, I can see how it could be more relevant to integrate a stub in the larger article if it makes sense. As I know next to nothing about DRDO, I make no judgement on that. You can however propose a merge and start a discussion on the talk page of the larger article (while remembering to notify the other article's talk page) and discuss this with fellow editors to gain a consensus. Or you can submit the smaller article to deletion via a community discussion and see what others think. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The first reason you cite does not apply here, the larger article is much broader in scope than the stub, they are not duplicates of each other. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subect of the article is not notable. But I am dropping this issue for now. The whole process will take a lot of time as i'd have to read and understand what i have to do to propose for deletion via a community discussion. I'd better spend my time doing something else here. Thanks!

And with reason 1, i meant that the text of both the article and the subsection in the DRDO article is exactly same and adds nothing more to the scope. Anir1uph (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you install Twinkle, it is very easy to do (and you can do a lot of other stuff with Twinkle in your day to day editing). Simply select 'XfD' from the drop down menu and follow the instructions. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! I have added the article to the AfD disscussion page. Twinkle works really smoothly! Again, thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precise objections?

Dear CharlieEchoTango (may I call you CET?), I want to thank you sincerely for your advice on my attempt to post on Wikipedia. I take greatly to heart admonitions about the danger of writing on topics to which I am close, such as the 1970s theater arts scene in Richmond VA (which seems to have been misremembered or strangely, too sketchily recalled by others) and on my own career there. I am a professor (UC Irvine) used to certain practices for objective research writing, so somewhat familiar with these risky areas. However, I see only the general comments that warn me to "avoid" problems, but cannot yet discern where my writing may be specifically at fault. Can you help me with any particulars, as I can more readily clean up real errors than guess where another may be spotting them? Thanking you in advance, KFFOWLER (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KFFOWLER,

The bigger 'red flag' here is that it is an autobiography, and we try to be very careful about this. As an encyclopedia and with an eye on neutrality, Wikipedia strongly discourages individuals to write their own biographical article. That said, this is less of an issue in this case, since you have done a good job writing a fairly neutral and encyclopedic article so far.

Specifically, there were a few not very encyclopedic sentences that you have sinced fixed. You have done great work writing the article, but I'm a bit concerned by the lack of sources for several statements, for example "asked him to join the faculty in 1980, and it is at Irvine that Fowler's mark as an educator, particularly as the head of directing, was made" or "He recalled that when he was a grad student he learned as much from his student peers as from faculty." Sources are important because Wikipedia does not permit original research, and articles must only reflect what has been published or noted elsewhere. I also notice that two of the sources are to Wikipedia itself, which is an issue both because Wikipedia is a tertiary source (per our no original research policy, we prefer secondary sources) and because citing ourselves would be self-reference.

Because these issues can be fixed fairly easily, I have approved your article for the mainspace (e.g., it is now a 'live' article) : Keith Fowler

Just a few things I feel is important to mention :

You do not own the article, so if someone else wants to edit in the future, they may do so. Furthermore, while you still retain your copyright on what you wrote, by submitting your article on Wikipedia you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL;
In light of your conflict of interest, you must be more vigilant than anyone else that your edits are in line with our content policies. Many Wikipedians are, rightly so, wary of self-promotion or any other behaviour expected of the subject of an article (removal of criticism, etc).

Hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. And yes, you can call me CET. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., just so you aren't confused, someone else removed the sources to Wikipedia I was talking about above. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply and action are greatly appreciated! I will keep working on the piece & will cut or better source according to your v. clear comments. This is new and a bit tricky for me, as you may guess. In many articles, self-referential statements are used not as evidence but to help elucidate. I'll need to work a better angle on that, as I understand we're after encyclopedic style and not the chat that sometimes expands academic articles. My aim (and the reason I wrote myself in) is to supply data for theater arts people who are otherwise missing a fair chunk about the surge in arts drama from the mid-'50s to the '80s from the NE to Virginia. I don't understand quite why memories have been so short re. that period. That's why I began with my own mentor, who built a famous summer theater in Williamstown MA, & am working up one on a deceased colleague after whom a major new playwright's award was established--and even I didn't know! Let us hope Wikipedia is the way to make amends. KFFOWLER (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, keep up the good work! And yes, Wikipedia can be a way "to make amends", so long as the aim to make amends is complementary to the aim of building an encyclopedia. Cheers, and best of luck - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

Got iT!

Thanks, CET! Goodness, I didn't expect to post that. ICT is a theater directed by my alum caryn morse desai, and I only posted some handout publicity as a most basic start - a template to change, adapt and build a skeletal history before going on to source it. I paused where I did because I saw ICT prefers the "re" ending of theater & wanted to treat that with respect. So, my fresh question is whether we're given any grace period at startup - before the cleaver drops?! Sorry to be a pain; I'm in hospital with, I guess, way too much time on my hands! KFFOWLER (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a pain at all; Wikipedia editing can be a steep learning curve, especially at first. The Wikipedia community is thankful for your efforts to make our encyclopedia better. That said, to answer your fresh question : there is no grace period for text taken from elsewhere without explicit permission for use through a free license. Because copyright violations have legal implications, we are very aggressive in removing them on sight. If you want to use handout publicity as a start to build a draft, you should do so offline using a text editor; but before uploading to Wikipedia you should ensure that the adapted text is not close paraphrasing and does not violate our neutral point of view policy. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see about starting the edit offline. Meanwhile I shifted stuff over to a "safe" place that was recommended by you-- or someone! I'll submit when ready. KFFOWLER (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETING MY ENTRY

KWAME J.T. ISMAIL IS A REAL PERSON, PART OF REAL ORGANIZATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP DELETING THE PAGE!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by STATiKC (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the "No explanation of the subject's significance" part. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of elements

Hi, re your edit here: please remember that PERSONDATA and DEFAULTSORT should go before {{stub}}, which should be the last thing apart from any inter-wiki links (see WP:FOOTERS). It makes life easier for stub-sorters if the stub tag is in the right, predictable, place. Thanks. PamD 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea. Thanks! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to apologize for making your life harder, I created that dab page you were talking about in this edit summary. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ... are you going to fix all the incoming links which were going to the actor and now go to the dab page? PamD 08:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a few wrong ones too. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Institute of Technologies and Applied Sciences

Hi, no intention of wheeling on this, didn't realise that there had been any previous decisions. The reason for deletion I gave was actually as an advertisement, the essay bit was an additional comment (just as I might delete a biography for notability and add the comment "unsourced BLP"). If you think I should avoid such comments, intended to help anyone planning to recreate, I'm happy to do so. The article consisted of a spammy lead para, followed by a chunk about the courses offered, nothing significant about the institute itself. it was obviously intended to promote the courses. If you are unhappy about this, I'll recreate and AfD instead. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a speedy reply. The article might have been intended to promote the course (and it probably was, considering the prior G12 deletion), but deleting on perceived intentions amounts to assuming bad faith : the actual text was not promotional or spammy, certainly not enough to meet the 'unambiguous' part of the G11 rationale. I'm not "unhappy" per se, but I think it would be a good idea to undelete the article and take to AfD instead. It might very well be deleted there for notability concerns, but I do not think there was any valid speedy deletion rationale here. Again, thanks for the quick reply. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IOU

Thanks for helping me out prevent I.O.U. (hip-hop group) to be speedy deleted. I added some more information (from their website with a few online sources) and also added a "more information" label as I agree the article is incomplete and needs more work. I started a talk page to discuss why it should be kept or deleted. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Abdelkweli (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 Thanks for jumping in quickly to support [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london|my RfA]], which was successful and nearly unanimous.  Be among the first to see my [[L-plate]]! – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic <font color="#FF0000">'''L'''</font>]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|(talk)]] 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
+== IOU ==
+Thanks for helping me out prevent [[I.O.U. (hip-hop group)]] to be speedy deleted. I added some more information (from their website with a few online sources) and also added a "more information" label as I agree the article is incomplete and needs more work. I started a talk page to discuss why it should be kept or deleted. Let me know what you think. Thank you. [[User:Abdelkweli|Abdelkweli]] ([[User talk:Abdelkweli|talk]]) 14:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)