User talk:Mrzaius/archive3

Mrzaius will be largely inactive until he rebuilds or replaces his desktop, which will no longer POST.

• User talk:Mrzaius/Archive1

Superhero!

why did you you removed speedy the article have not change for the one which was afd before the movie WP:NF by far no improvements to the article just the date no cast info in offical website no nothring. tell me one thing or one souce thats make the article good to keep on here if there not it should go and come back when it haves more infoOo7565 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was quite plain in my edit summary - another established user had already objected to prod. AfD seemed warranted, but CSD certainly did not. There was nothing incorrect about the article as I left it. Still, no great harm was done by its deletion. MrZaius^talk 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry i was just saying that the article had already been up for afd and then article deleted so speedy was corrected added thats all i was saying if you thopught of anything else i am sorry.Oo7565 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re reverting Template:Infobox Country

Hi again Sean,

Reverted edit

Thanks for your quick action and clue to what I'd overlooked in your post above. I returned to the sandbox and made a couple of corrections; hopefully Infobox Country as intended is now working. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All we have now is a the end of an HTML comment, --> ... Is there one that's closed twice?

Seems likely... In which article/s are you seeing it?  Thanks, David (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

United States again. It's still up as of this writing. Also confirmed presence in India, Belgium, United Kingdom, but not Rwanda. Hopefully that'll help hunt it down.

Thanks; I'm hoping it will. I've just been testing the United States instance and the problem doesn't seem to be directly related to the previous oversight, so I've reverted the template again and will go hunting. So much for progress, David (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got it! Tested and saw no obvious errors on...

I think so...!  While checking, I also spotted what appeared to be a missing pipe-symbol within the time zone processing (courtesy of the United States instance again) so hope to've rectified that too. Time now for something completely different (unless you've found a non-compliant article...)  Thanks again for your help, David (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

United States

The article about the United States is most likely too long already. I am concerned that we should be brief. I thought that stating that this applied until the American Revolution implied it was the British. In the context of settlement, 150 acceptance of convicts is most significant. If you think it needs expanding, please help by expnading. What do you think? I just read the comment about "which colonies". Again I think it is a pertinent comment, but we must maintain brevity. This fact is most relevant in the context of European settlement, but I don't think we should put down the whole history of convict settlemnts here. The statement has been in place for many months. Alan Davidson 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have been distracted when typing. There were tens of thousands of convicts. The "150" was supposed to be 150 years (1620s to 1770s). I will need to do some research, because if as you suggest there were more convicts from other nations, that too should be included. I am only aware of the thousands from Britain. I should add that I wanted to be brief hence only 14 words. I think in 14 words it makes the point. Alan Davidson 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Income & class merge

Hi. As you probably know I think the Income and Class sections are of the outmost importance to the US article. But seeing it as we are trying to prune down the number of sections and that either section only consitutes one short pragraph, merging them might be a possiblity. I don't really like to see income section merged into the econ-section lead, but would rather see the income and class sections merged - if they have to. Let me know what you think, Signature^brendel 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Great job on improving the article and nominating it for FA! Signature^brendel 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look good. Thx. Signature^brendel 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Any time! MrZaius^talk 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

tip on Wibberley site

Thanks for the tip. I'll see what I can do. I still have to log 25 books by this author, with full bibliog. ref. Then I'll reconsider the descriptors for grouping, and see if I can do a Tufte for cross classifications. Btw: when this site was vandalized & Paul caught it, he missed the false middle name, "Francis", which I rectified. But I notice that the mischief infected two other web sites, which look to Wiki: e.g. Fantastic Fiction http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/leonard-wibberley/

Know of any way we can undo this harm?Alethe 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Answers#See also

Hi Mrzaius,

To be honest, I wasn't paying close attention and thought those were external links. I still disagree about including them, but not strongly enough to argue about it. If you're familiar with WP:NOT#DIR (and your long edit history suggests you surely are, probably more than me) and really believe that this directory of alternates belongs there, I'll move on to something else.

FYI, the site www.uclue.com doesn't have an article, so isn't included. It is another alternate run by a lot of the old GA researchers. It had an external link, which was rightly taken out by someone a while ago. I sort of know, peripherally, some of the people involved, so I can't really write anything without violating WP:COI, but IMHO if the other services "deserve" articles, Uclue does too. Something for you to think about when you're bored. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually would be a good idea to fork the those links into a meta article discussing common themes in all of those sites, including Uclue, if WP:NOTE can be demonstrated for it & an article created. For now, however, the Google Answers page is the closest thing we have to a meta-level article on the phenomena, with most of the other sites either explicitly mimicking parts of it or having been explicitly created as replacements for it. Hopefully I'll get around to it over the weekend. Thanks for getting me thinking about it, MrZaius^talk 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Check out the virtual markets section in Knowledge market. MrZaius^talk 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed and edited the section in Knowledge market; see what you think. Overall, your changes to the organization of Google Answers in the last 2 days has been a vast improvement. Well done. The GA article could still do with an overall copyedit review (tense consistency, occasional slightly cheerleading tone, facts to be sourced, tagged, or deleted,etc.), which (unless you really want to do it) I will attempt myself in the next day or two.

Time tracking

Thanks for the explanation on Time Tracking Comparison page, it was very helpful and insightful. Take care.

United States FAC

It's way past my bed time. I will check in the next few days. But, just remember, i didn't mean simply fix the specific sentences, etc that I mentioned, but I merely used them as examples. You (or others to help you) need to go thru the whole article.

Just remember, FAC is tough, particularly with countries (it has to be), and I think the US process has quite a way to go yet. So don't give in easily, keep calm, civil, and in a positive mind frame. The most important thing to remember, is that you are close to the article and it may seem perfect to you, but the article is there for the benefit of fresh readers. I feel qualified to say this as I've just been through the FAC wringer with Indonesia. happy editing. Merbabu 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alethe query re mulltivariates

DrZaius,

to use your preferred name.

I've gotten the Wibberley page in basically good shape now, tho' his last 20 publications (acc. to LA Times) are proving a challenge, esp. since his Calif. family hasn't replied to recent queries (maybe absorbed writing 'Dream of Jeannie' movie).

This an excellent case for multivariate cross classification, since data are many, & author very versatile. What I'd like to do is to cross-classify with some kind of perspicuous & attractive notations, which would please even Tufte. Presently we have the 3 conventional descriptors: dates, publishers, gen'l classifications. Clear, relevant other classifiers are: sea, biography, religious, historical, political, scifi, truly for children, boy hero (a la Stevenson, his inspiration).

Can you think of a way of introducing other colors, or little icons to show these things? (I have made a graph for a fn, which shows something of history of postwar publishing. How may I show you this? I have a Mac, but failed to dragndrop to this page.)

Would be most appreciative if, with yr greatly superior computer knowlege plus Wiki experience, you c'd advise. I think this could be a paradigm page.

Alethe 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

multivariant graphics

DrZaius, note how yr introduction of a grid, if left only on that category, accomplishes i) setting it apart, ii) making its content so clear that one could dispense with its heading.

However, what I seek are Wiki-possible ways (e.g. coloring, adding small symbols to line--rather like colored bullets--the way asterisks are often used) that I don't see on the bar above, for coding entries for several variables. Even in yr grid, we have only 3 variables: overall category, publisher, year. I'd like (deftly) to code also some pertinent descriptors:

of the sea/not religious/not mainly for boys/not* short, novella length/long in print/not comic/not historical/not biography/not fictional/not

Note that the Jefferson series is fictional, but also biographical and historical, not of sea, not religious, not aimed at boys...

In addn, I've already done a colored histogram of W's publishing career. Is there a way I could send you that file?

Thanks for interest & help Alethe 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, re Wibberley page query...

Of course political satire/not, scifi/not scifi, or fantasy/non are important markers, since bookstores stock some of his books and websites such as www.fantasticfiction.co.uk lists some--plus Wiki's own Boolean scifi-writers-who-are-catholic.

Re the [*] in my previous message, 'juvenile' was a label given lots of books because libraries automatically order them. Alethe 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Various 12-step group articles

Thank you for stubbing the articles I recreated. They do organizations easy pass WP:NOTE in terms of the amount of information published on them by secondary sources, as I noted here. You are correct, however, that the articles themselves do need a lot of work. — Craigtalbert 08:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave (put back) the notability templates (if you haven't all ready). I just finished a re-write of the Emotions Anonymous article a few days ago. I know the information is out there for the rest of the groups, I'm just a little tired of doing research/writing at the moment. — Craigtalbert 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Scollref

Hi,

For scrollref, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Template test cases. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I sandboxed it in my userspace - Did you spot an error I didn't, aside from the stylistic issues of to subst or not to subst? MrZaius^talk 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not spotted an error. IMHO, I believe not subst'ing is better, so that if either reflist or scroll box changes, it only needs to be changed at one place. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The original intend of multiple column is to eliminate some white space. Now with the scroll box, I see little need to support multiple column in scroll box. What do you think? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I can see the benefit to a columnless approach in terms of readability, but I can also see the benefit to a more compact 2-3 column approach. Somewhat torn, MrZaius^talk 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved for future reference/inclusivity to template talk:scrollref

Microsoft MIX

If you want to merge the article somewhere, go ahead and do it. Just keep the redirect so that a link does not show as red. --soum ^talk 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Threw the tag up because I wasn't one hundred percent sure that it was relevant to MSDN, if not notable enough to warrant seperate coverage. Investigating and trying to find out what specific arm of the corp is hosting MIX. MrZaius^talk 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving Pages

Doesn't matter in the case of very new pages, but, just in case you weren't aware, there are procedures in place to move an article over a preexisting redirect without losing the edit history. Flag the redirect with template:db-redirect to get it deleted, and then you'll be generally be able to move the other page over it within 12-24 hours, depending on how backed up the WP:CSD queue is. MrZaiustalk 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about it. Thank you for hipping me to the information. — Craigtalbert 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

XD

So I found you randomly while scrolling around, and...

 Americans who avoid fast food for more than a month at a go risk permanent paralysis.

Seriously?! o_0 I've been avoiding McDonald's so I can have as much In-N-Out Burger when I want when I go back to Cali this summer, but...

• coughIdon'treallybelieveyoucough* Øřêōş 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

categories for Leonard Wibberley article

Apologies for my somewhat dense reply to yr grid suggestion. Yes, I do see how more cells could be added to ranks, providing the cross classifications I seek. I'll try it. What I was looking for was something more visually attractive, done in terms of colors or little logos.

The USC library classification of ms etc. given them by Wibberley family now provides something like completeness, plus another basic classification, so I'll have to take that into consideration.

Thanks again for your help improving this article. Alethe 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

linkfarm RfC

Hello Mrzaius. I see that User:Timeshifter is causing troubles again at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software. Sigh, I thought this had all been resolved, guess not. You may wish to add a comment at Talk:List of mind mapping software#Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software. This linkfarm RfC will likely be a precedent on linkfarming. (Requestion 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Page size

Here's the code I added to monobook.js:

// Script from [[User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js]]
importScript('User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js'); //[[User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js]]
// Script from [[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

It adds a 'Page size' option to the toolbox when you're in mainspace. CloudNine 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Waldheim

The trivia was removed because it was either unsourced or original research. Restoring trivia without solving the problem isn't constructive. Can you provide sources for the trivia you've restored? Rklawton 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but a large chunk of it, the references in popular media & the Paul McCartney and time capsule references, are not at all controversial. I don't believe most of them required citation, under my reading of WP:CITE, but I'll see what I can dig up. Give it 24 hours. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, thanks for the citewebs. Feeling a little rushed, hence the barebone citations I'm dropping in. MrZaius^talk 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Valete

Other articles have the last fm link. There are no other sources available, and the Myspace page is from Valete himself. I think the source should be accepted if its from the person the article is about. Thanks --Iluvlipstick 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If any article uses last.fm in an in-article citation, they are almost certainly in the wrong, as it is in no way a verifiable source. That said, the main reason I struck the external link was that it was non-English and a commercial third party. The one or the other objection might be weak on their own, but together, *shrug* That said, there are some verifiable, published sources discussed in the Articles for Deletion debate that you may be able to translate portions of and use quotes from it to replace the parts of the article that have an unencyclopedic tone, and to remove the blogspot source. MrZaius^talk 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valete:

I don't know how to use quotes as references, but I'll try. I've also found another article about him from the magazine Visão transcribed in this site. In the introduction it says he “jumped from the underground hip hop to the radio playlists”. Cattus ^talk 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to translate a one or two sentence quote and simply include it in the article using blockquote, or even to include a smaller translated quote in the article text proper. Given the quote, just cite the quote like you would anything else, but word it <ref>"Translated from.... rest of source, date, access time, etc".</ref> MrZaius^talk 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Cattus ^talk 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the Peter Lyman article

		The Original Barnstar
		Well done for your work on the Peter Lyman article. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Frenay

With all due respect and at the risk of being a pest, I'm curious why you are so eager to have the article about Robert Frenay deleted. If I can quote parts of the the wikipedia guideline,

"Ideal stub article

See also: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.

Any registered editor may start a stub article.

When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it.. . . Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State, for example, what a person is famous for,. . . Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to enhance it."

I don't see how the article I've written isn't exactly what's described above. I probably should have added the stub template, but I didn't know that. One of the complaints on the Afd discussion was the lack of references or citations that don't rely on Frenay's website, his book or reviews of his book. Honestly, I've found it very difficult to find facts about Frenay's life so I haven't been able to find many references but I'm continuing to look. I don't see how that impoverishes his ideas or make them or the thinker of them less notable.

It almost seems like you're convinced that the author of the article is just trying to sell books. I'm not. And actually neither is Robert Frenay. His book can be read for free online. I'm just interested in his ideas and think his writing is profound and his biography is notable for those reasons.--Markisgreen 04:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your suggestions on the talk page for the article. I guess I misunderstood your objectives. Thank you very much for the help.--Markisgreen 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup - If I were hell bent on seeing it deleted, I wouldn't be digging for new references. My problem was that the sources before your edits of this evening, which, by the way, I thought were quite positive, was that the only third party source was rather weak. Given a more adequately sourced article, I'd pop off the note and ref tags in a heart beat. Note that all that I did after the AfD was repeat that comment and flag the article with cleanup templates aimed at building a stronger case for note and stronger references section. Remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but it looks like you already spotted the above. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 04:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Freenode

Hi there. I noticed your revert of an edit I made to the Freenode article. I removed the details primarily because they were unsourced, which is reason enough for their removal. While I also think they're unnecessary, the detail of him not wearing a helmet could imply that his death was his fault, which isn't really an appropriate assertion to make without verifiable sources. Please let me know. Thanks!   user:justen    talk   06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a matter of fault in my mind as it was completeness - Hard to imagine a cyclist reading that he died of head injuries and not wondering whether or not he was wearing a helmet. That said, the most authoritative source I've been able to find thus far was the IRC log where the death was announced. Barring the availability of better sources or the availability of the same log from freenode itself, it might not hurt to trim things down a fair bit. Taking another look - MrZaius^talk 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No dice - Strangely enough, I can't find any major media coverage, unless you count wikinews. Apparently his paper, http://cron.com, only posts 30 days of obits and 6 months of news. That isn't helping much. Reverted to your edit, although I believe the information should be restored if a stronger source becomes available for the same reason stated above. MrZaius^talk 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did spend a bit of time looking for better source material myself, without much luck. I'll take another crack at trying to find an official obituary or other mention.   user:justen    talk   16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gray knight

If you think I've been harsh with this, and wish to recreate, the text is here If this is asserted as notable, presumably from the spelling it needs to be made clear that it's in a US setting? Jimfbleak 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, you commented on the content of my talk page. I replied to all the queries, even the abusive ones, and you should note that very few of the articles have been recreated (Acen Ravzi was a special case, where an edit war was raging). I spend a lot of time on new page/csd patrol, so I'm bound to get queries from people who don't understand why their adverts/neologisms/textdumps etc are deleted. I sometimes get it wrong, but I do my best.

In the case of Gray knight, your tags attracted my attention -wouldn't it have been better to add a reference to assert notability? Jimfbleak 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged - just wanted to make sure it was said, given that the grey knight page was deleted so quickly after the move. Didn't really have a chance to look for grounds to assert note. Spent time enough on the CsD patrol, albeit not as an admin, to know what you're talking about, but to also see a fair number improve rather dramatically in the first 10-20 minutes - Just thought I'd drop in a friendly reminder. That said, I now believe it'd be better to deal with the topic and the hopefully deleted black knight context-less page in the White knight article. Thanks for the original text, MrZaius^talk 12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to my RfA

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to clarify something with you. In my RfA, you chose to oppose my nomination in the neutral section. Is it an oppose or neutral comment? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I had initially intended a neutral post. Would correct that rather than move it, if you like, if you acknowledge that more than just a sheer number of Google hits is required to demonstrate notability/the availability of adequate sources. Pointing to a handful of individual pages rather than just to the Google search in the links posted by the user I referenced would have probably resulted in a support - don't remember seeing anything negative from you aside from those somewhat minor posts. They just seemed to conflict with your stated goals/reason to RfA. Per my most recent edit summary, will up to neutral if you reread Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Easy to forget a point, and I suppose it's possible you have some reason to disagree with the WP:GOOGLEHITS section of it, although I do not. MrZaius^talk 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion comments: NOPEC

I'm disappointed with your comments on the deletion page for NOPEC:

Neologism with no evidence of use after ~8 months. Note that there was also a US Senate bill by the same name, but that appears to be unrelated.

As the examples I gave show, it is not an especially new term. You are correct that it is not connected to the US Senate Bill. It is an industry jargon term that denotes the set of non-OPEC oil exporting countries. Here are some examples of the use of the term in the industry.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/mckillop021807.html

"CAN OPEC AND NOPEC STOP THE OIL PRICE SLIDE ?"

(It is clear from the context of the article that NOPEC means the non-OPEC oil exporting countries.)

http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07032401.htm

"Continued and sustained oil demand growth inside OPEC and NOPEC exporter countries, specially Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria combined with physical depletion and erosion of oil production capacities in the majority of these countries, ensures a tight supply context. "

www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041100_ciep_vanderlinden.pdf

"It is generally assumed that world energy demand will grow, that import dependence grows, that there will be a growing competition among major net-importing coutnries and that the number of net-exporting countries will decline due to a relative shift in balance between OPEC-NOPEC producers."

http://www.sav.sk/journals/ekoncas/ekon203.htm

"Even though the high oil prices after two oil shocks raised oil revenues in OPEC member countries, they also gave rise to start the production in non-OPEC (NOPEC) countries."

Ordinary Person 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even had that been in the article, which it wasn't, there wasn't any real content beyond a simple definition that might have been a better candidate for the Wiktionary or simple cursory coverage in OPEC. That said, I never saw any sources unrelated to the seperate senate bill - sorry if I somehow overlooked a post with the above, as that would have led me to transwiki and/or merge rather than nominate for deletion. Note that the article was left in place for a goodly chunk of time waiting for references and a clear assertion of the subject's notability. MrZaius^talk 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article was left in place for a goodly chunk of time waiting for references and a clear assertion of the subject's notability. Yes, I should have dealt with this problem earlier. I apologise. Ordinary Person 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothin' personal of course - I remmeber digging around a fair bit, trying to find sources, but finding nothing reliable that wasn't a reference to the Senate bill. MrZaius^talk 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia/Albion, Illinois

Still kind of new to Wikipedia. I feel the Trivia part on Albion needs removed, especially the comments on Bruce Mendenhall and put into a different article. I could be wrong. Would like to share ideas and learn some things more about Wikipedia. I live in Edwards County and wanting to learn how to do Wikipedia articles right. I have done articles on Post Mark Collector's Club, West Salem, Illinois, Bone Gap, Illinois to name a few. Thank you MrZaius!! 7-15 schaser1

Actually, someone's already created a stub for Bruce Mendenhall. Since he's pretty one of only three people linked to the Albion article, and the only part of the trivia section that can be backed up with sources, that warrants preservation in a Notable residents style section. Spooked a little bit - I kinda think I saw that guy back in college, when I was working at the Shell truck stop in Grayville, Illinois. MrZaius^talk 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ERD (disambiguation) entry

Why did you delete my addition to the ERD disambiguation page?

199.250.32.249 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)David Goldsmith, ERD/ORR/NOS/NOAA, July 16, 2007

Disambiguation pages exist to list articles with potential name collisions, not to collect external links. A page on NOAA's ERD would probably survive if created, and then could be linked to on the disambig page. MrZaius^talk 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Emergency Response Division already has its own well-developed pages, so a link should be sufficient (a full-fledged article would be redundant, and subject to becoming out-of-date, whereas ERD's pages are maintained), but an article simply for "wrapping" such a link seems like a waste of wikipedia resources.

Acknowledged, but we still discourage external links on disambiguation pages, as, again, they exist to explain or work through article name collisions, not to cover yet-uncovered topics. That said, "a full-fledged article would be redundant" by your standard for nearly every topic here, as strong reliable sources are required of any article to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability.

If you believe your organization meets our standards for note, there's very little reason not to cover it. An article here takes, at most some 300K of space, images included. Normal articles take well under 100K, so don't be concerned about using WikiMedias resources on a per-page basis. On your final point, an article to wrap to one link would be inappropriate, but the link doesn't warrant mention on the wiki without coverage of the topic at hand, unless it's used as a source on some other article - here's a guide . Please see WP:EL for our external links policies and WP:DISAMBIG for our disambiguation policies if you have any further questions. MrZaius^talk 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrollboxes and references

Thanks, I never knew this before when I saw it at another place being used on the template for it. Just seemed like a nice thing to use for the United States article (maybe a <--> note should be put on there for future situations that others may do later?). Kinda wonder why like other websites have to make a link to have certain articles within it a button to bring to a printable page (if that's something possible to be done on here). I'm sure something is in the works though, since what was done for lots of references was great at that time. That-Vela-Fella 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We actually already have it, but unfortunately the scrollbox still renders on it and, more importantly, sticks around even when you hit the print button, resulting in missing information from the printable version of a page. Check out the "Print this page link" on a sandboxed article and try to reproduce it - There's a slim chance it's been fixed, but I don't think anyone ever did. MrZaius^talk 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Measuring article length

Hi, Mr. Zauis - I have done a lot of work on the Democractic Party article and added quite few refs. I wanted to measure the length of article prose, excluding the refs I added, but don't know how. I'd appreciate your help. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and your quick response as well as the suggestions on my new article which I have adopted. Happy editing, Signature^brendel 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Osage Plains

Hi Mrzaius -

Please don't keep reverting the stub on Osage Plains. It's standard stub-sorting practice to list individual state-geo-stubs if there are fewer than five states dealt with in an article. US-geo-stub is reserved for things which cover very large parts oif the country and large numbers of states (like Sun Belt). Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are five. Btw, the word is spelled "of". Please see my comment on Talk:Osage Plains. MrZaius^talk 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then there should be five categories, not just three, and some mention of the other two states somewhere in the text. And it's not consideredf cool to make fun of someone's arthritic fingers. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when you can find much, much more eggregious examples at Special:Contributions/Mrzaius without even going beyond my edit summaries, especially considering my lack of arthritis ;) That said, yes - the other two cats are definitely needed. The article text proper is nowhere near clear enough in its current state - Quite understandable why you'd be going off the cats. Regards, MrZaius^talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and yes, where there are categories its easiest to use them to restub, especially when you're going through big batches of stubs at a time. as for the arthritis, it's midwinter here and my fingers become very stiff when I'm typing - roll on spring! Peace, Grutness...wha? 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:NoMoreLinks

I think that one should be moderated, as who decides when there are enough links in an article? People should be able to add more links as long as the external links section isn't too big and as long as, of course, they're compliant with WP:EL. I'm not sure the best way to get that template moderated would be a TFD, which would probably be unsuccessful anyway. Yonatan ^talk 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I'll take a stab at it, but if there's inordinate push back, I don't think a TfD would be too terrible far out of line. MrZaius^talk 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Red link cleanup in Software Comparisons

I have done as you suggested on my talk page, and cleaned up two more of the software comparison articles. I will continue looking for more of these to clean up as time permits. Wrldwzrd89 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - Thanks! MrZaius^talk 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

American diplomatic missions

I notice you renamed the article and reorganised the layout of American diplomatic missions. This was not cool man.

There are 171 other Diplomatic Missions by country articles which follow the same format. If you want to make a change to the entire style, then at least seek consensus first. This takes more than four hours to do! Note that other editors will be loathe to reedit the other articles to fit whatever format you suggest.

I will propose a revert to the last edit by Krokodyl on 19:33, 22 July 2007. Kransky 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The move wasn't, admittedly, but the layout was in no way in violation of any of the norms of the wiki. I would strongly oppose the revert to that poorly spaced revision. See talk. MrZaius^talk 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lolcode

Well, sure, lolcode might be "real" just as any other fake programming language might be real that an amused programmer might create in a day. But it's not notable. I shouldn't have complained in my comment that it was fake; I should have complained that it was not notable.

If you believe that lolcode is sufficiently notable to mention on Wikipedia, then consider that the same amused programmer might create Dick-Cheney-Code, Ha-Ha-Guy-Code, 4ChanCode, and another fake programming language for every noun in the English language. Would you think that every one of these fake languages ought to be mentioned in the articles for all those nouns? Tempshill 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it attracted major media coverage, yes. That said, the lolcode article didn't have adequate depth to warrant retention, and I did support a merge. The topic's notable enough to warrant coverage, just not full blown separate coverage. The bar for note is somewhat lower for subtopics. MrZaius^talk 16:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky

Thank you for your edit to Confederate government of Kentucky. You may or may not be aware that this article is currently at featured article candidate. If you would like to offer comments for improving the article, or if you would like to support or oppose the article's promotion to FA status, please leave your feedback on the nomination page. Thank you. Acdixon 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ConnectKentucky

Thanks for re-creating and properly expanding ConnectKentucky. I tried to expand it at one time before it was deleted but couldn't find appropriate sources. I've nominated this article for DYK. Acdixon 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks, MrZaius^talk 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Sure thing, dear Mrzaius! I've recreated the deleted content at that subpage as you requested; although I'm afraid there's little material there, compared to the excellent article you've written now. Please, let me know if I can ever be of more assitance to you. Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't kiddin' - Thanks anyway, though. I really appreciate getting to take a peek at it. MrZaius^talk 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:24.192.16.130

User:24.192.16.130 (talk) is (usually) User:Lockesdonkey, i.e. me, and I have noted such on both the main user and user talk pages. I was editing from another computer in my house (mine was occupied), and the computer I edited from freezes when I log in. Considering that you appear to have checked the rest of the user page before you wrote that message, I would kindly advise you to see if the user page exists and if there's anything on it before doing this again. If I sound annoyed, it's because this has happened several times before...except this time I had a good reason for not editing under my own name. Thank you. Lockesdonkey 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for annoyance - 99.9% of the time no user page exists on anon users, so while I apologize for the oversight, keep in mind that it was just a welcome template. Feel free to rv. MrZaius^talk 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Theobald

I happen to know the guy, and didn't know until today that he was an actor (just saw Following)! Being an early collaborator with a major Hollywood director, and a leading man in his first feature film is quite notable, no? Jeremy is also quite well known in biomedical publishing. I've fleshed out the page. Fences and windows 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks for the cleanup! MrZaius^talk 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your editors to lolcats

Please see WP:RS. Blogs are CLEARLY not reliable sources, I have no idea why you think using one as a reference is ok. At the very top of the page, it says clearly Editor's note: P-I Reader Blogs are not written or edited by the P-I. They are written by readers, for readers. The authors are solely responsible for content. - this has NO notability or reliability to it anymore than blogspot, live journal, or myspace. Please be more careful in the future --Lucid 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter were fairly plain. The sources for the etymological makeup of the lolcat captions et al/the only two sources that go into any real depth on the subject are both blogs. That said, I would quibble with your claim that the source has no notability (albeit not the reliability point - will not contest its removal, assuming that was done). The simple fact that it was being syndicated by the site of a major newspaper raises the bar considerably. MrZaius^talk 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welsh rugby clubs

I have started to input pages for as many Welsh WRU affiliated clubs as is humanly possible (for one guy). I have investigated other lesser leagues (such as the FA low tier leagues, as low as level 20 in places) and have found no corresponding requirement for deletion. The Welsh league is a cultural tent peg in the history of Wales and the affiliated clubs who have connections in such bizzare manners as war, aircraft disasters, politics and the such need their place in the world. I think if this was a link to Aztec ball games and their history no one would request their deletion; but as Welsh sports (lets face it THE Welsh sport) we are almost apologetic in its importance. By investigating the history of the sport I have found there are so many gaps created by the people that thought their own clubs were unimportant that they discarded their own history; and now cry for evidence. We need to make this a viable Wikipedia category so we have an anchor in history, because believe me the people who care have no organised movement to store this information; and that includes the WRU. It's reliable, you know that, and as the first person who appears to care about this part of history, reflect all clubs and not just 'their' club and their wacky drinking songs, I'm sure you know it makes sense. Before I started this page WRU National Leagues had only three leagues and apart from the Premier League were all red. Please remove the deletion, I will expand them all in time. Save the lower leagues, Save the world. Let me complete this. If you have a viable reason to delete these pages please give evidence to refute. Thanks.--FruitMonkey 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I only flagged one article for deletion, and, when that was contested, I did not nominate it for AfD. What I am interested in seeing is a more clear case for notability under WP:ORG based on secondary and tertiary sources. The handful of the articles with BBC sources would be decent guides to use when attempting to bring the others up to snuff. Let me know if you'd like a hand, MrZaius^talk 23:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) PS: When you say "please remove the deletion", I assume you're asking me to remove the cleanup templates. However, being just that, not nominations for deletion, they should remain in place until resolved.

Silly People

It is the right of the free world for them to decide who is silly and who isn't. It cannot be considered vandalism for me to offer people to choice to follow a link to a page where they can express which individuals they feel are silly.

People should be free to edit this page at their own will. It is not the place of you or anyone else to decide who is silly and who isn't. Allow this page to go on and allow the people to decide. Atraxus 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Exercising those rather silly rights here is in plain violation of WP:BIAS and WP:OR, hence the nom for deletion and the multiple accusations of vandalism et al. MrZaius^talk 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So who decides what is silly and what isn't? I think you're objections are silly. Atraxus 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Joke's over. You're going to get yourself blocked again if you don't cease your disruptive behavior. --ElKevbo 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have a job or something? Atraxus 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"blatant bias inherent in the addition of nearly all members to this cat" Purely out of interest, what do you mean by that? Atraxus 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding someone to a category of "silly people" without a reference seems to suggest that the user who added the person to the category of silly people feels that person is a silly person.

To reword in a slightly easier-to-follow fashion, not every person will feel that, say, Robert Mugabe is silly. To add him to that category is to show a bias. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Precisely - MrZaius^talk 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't you let it play out through a succession of user edits rather than an administrator decision as is supposed to be the way that wikipedia works? Atraxus 00:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to have citations for things. Having a category for "Silly people" is unencyclopedic. And in this instance, the Wikipedia community is deciding what will happen to that category, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 18#Category:Silly People. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That and because of the long-established and broadly accepted OR and BIAS guidelines/because vandalism and bias=bad. MrZaius^talk 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a category backed up by citations. Atraxus 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually it's backed up by citations used to reference relevant text in the article. For example, Paris Hilton is in Category:Incarcerated celebrities. This is backed up by numerous citations in her article in this section. It is not the done thing to directly cite categories themselves, if it's even possible. Does that explain things? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's miles ahead in terms of an explanation than anything I've heard thus far Atraxus 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)