User talk:Evb-wiki

This is Evb-wiki's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

My personal toolbox

Helpful wikipages

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Linking of dates

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I really wasn't aware of the new rule of August 24, 2008 WP:MOSNUM. I've seen literally thousands of articles with linked dates. I've written a whole bunch of them myself. I guess I'll need to go back and remove linked dates from now on. Regards! --Popiloll (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Somebody had a bot that was going around. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing Texas

I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page?

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_plan Oldag07 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Fathers

I put my section back in since I don't see why it was deleted :) please don't delete it again I worked hard on it THANKS! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salveevery1 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is my sandbox, not a Wikipedia article. If you provide a reliable source for that quote, I may work it in when I get to that section. Also, I did not find that quote anywhere in the Edward Rutledge article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that!!!! it was scorced with another site and its on his wikiquote article since quotes arn't allowed on his article. (also his article gets vandelized alot!!!) sorry my other comment was short I needed to get off the computer.

01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salveevery1 (talk • contribs)

I wonder where you were earlier today...

when wikifan12345 was discussing his favorite subject, me [1].If you are not aware, wikifan12345 is one of the most badly behaved editors and I have asked him to just stop mentioning me and speaking to me, yet he continues. Also the comment you removed was not a comment on the editor but a breath of relief that he will stop addressing me. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is finally ignoring you, you ought to breathe your sigh of relief leave it at that. Instead, you attempt to re-engage him. Why not just let it go? --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

I suggested you withdraw your nomination for deletion on Nicholas Hughes. I am assuming that your initial web search didn't make you aware of his extensive list of publications. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the 5-day process play out. Since I'm not the only delete !vote, it wouldn't be proper to withdraw the nomination. A few more days won't hurt the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, strictly on determining how to allocate resources, User:Green Cardamom makes an important point. The deletion policies recommend reserving deletion as a last resort, when other means of improving articles fail. As GC suggested, a note on the talk page, consumes much less resources than an {{afd}}. It has a big advantage over an {{afd}} -- it is only going to be read by those who have an interest in the article.

Should specific {{afd}} be kept open even when it is clear what the conclusion would be, in order for the nominator to advocate for a change in how policy should be interpreted? Maybe. the Wikipedia doesn't have widely used fora for the proponents of different design philosophies to have a collegial discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of those various philosophies. Consequently, one sees afd discussions being used to advocate for or against different philosophies. On the other hand, it is very rare to see anyone change their views during an afd discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't seeking improvement when I nominated the article. I fully expected it to result in a deletion. I'm not fully convinced, but consensus is clearly against me. I've been wrong before; I'll be wrong again. Of course, I was not alone. My motive was pure. I'll sleep fine. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Houston neighborhoods

Please review and participate in the discussion to determine if/how Houston neighborhood articles should be merged/redirected to List of Houston neighborhoods. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Parodies of Sarah Palin

I have nominated Parodies of Sarah Palin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of Sarah Palin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Collins

Thank you for fixing the template image. I couldn't figure that out for the life of me.Lordknave (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry collaboration

WikiProject Poetry invites all members to participate in the current article improvement drive!

Our goal is to improve the quality of important poetry-related articles. There is no set deadline and participation is purely voluntary.

The current focus is: Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Suggestions for future collaborative efforts are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry. Thank you for your support!

--Midnightdreary (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Parodies of Sarah Palin

Blaise Pascal

I think you might want to check again, as you have reverted my good edit and placed an internal link in the External links section. I see nothing wrong with the link as either a "See also" or in the bulleted "References" section. However it does not belong in the "External links" section. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I've corrected it. I don't think it's a proper *see also* because it's just a link to a person who wrote a book about Pascal. I think the bulleted ref sec is the correct place. That's where I thought it originally was. Explains my confusion at your edit. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvement; thank you very much! ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bell (journalist)

I took your advice and removed the influences section. Let me know what else I can do, although I believe the article to be completely neutral at this point, as do others. I would also submit that the article is also clean at this point. WHoWhoOwl (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede needs to be expanded a bit to summarize the rest of the article. See WP:LEDE. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will edit that. WHoWhoOwl (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How's that? WHoWhoOwl (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Manual on Style & WP:How to write a good article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Donor cycle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donor cycle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donor cycle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Dbratland (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:CB750a.JPG

File:CB750a.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Honda CB750a.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Honda CB750a.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA article

Hey what's your problem? Why do you keep reverting me when I write out the full names of the US pres. and vice pres?Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summaries, we use their common names just like their article titles and avoid linking to a redirect page. Please propose the change on the talk page per WP:BRD. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Hi Evb-wiki! The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, mate. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn Talk 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Evb-wiki. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Could you please explain why you are taking down my external links and additions I have added? I have seen and read the linkspam page that you referred too several times and do not see how my additions fall into this category. I have NOT added links or information "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product". It is true that I have added links from the same website, but I am NOT promoting it. Please assume good faith before undoing my additions. The links are legitimate and go to a Yale University Library page. They are for the purpose of helping anyone seeking information find additional resources (i.e. find where original manuscripts, papers, journals, etc. are housed). I would appreciate it if you would reconsider what you have taken down. If you follow the links, you will be able to see that they are useful, beneficial, and add information to the articles that would otherwise not be available. Thank you. Selahobadiah (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Selahobadiah[reply]

Per the 2nd sentence in wp:linkspam, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more than external links, though. Why do you insist on taking down my additions to the text of articles as well? I have not only added to them, but also added references, therefore increasing the validity. And who is to say what stands under specific circumstances? I think you can see the links I have added are very valuable and only serve to help the articles. I am not infringing on anything else mentioned in wp:linkspam, and think the links I have added should be considered as a special circumstance. Have you looked at the links? When I added the links again, I even took away the second hyper link in efforts to show that I was indeed not promoting a website and only trying to help. Why take away anything that helps the cause of Wikipedia? Selahobadiah (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Selahobadiah[reply]

Texas

I notice that you revert vandalism on this article a lot (thanks!). Have you considered requesting rollback permissions? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Hello, I'm one of the main contributors to Holmes's article. I again undid your edit which moved certain information out of chronological order. I understand why you might think that details about Holmes's wife and children might belong in a subsection devoted to his family, since other articles are structured that way, but the entire "Life and career" section is written chronologically; to jump from Holmes's childhood to his married life, then back again, is confusing for the reader. I hope this makes sense. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you changed the section header; good thinking! María (habla conmigo) 14:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first scan, I couldn't believe Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who is arguably better known) was not mentioned. Burying the info in a section titled *Medical reformer* did not seem to make since. I understand about the chonological order, but sometimes that's not the best form. Of course, as it is we have 2 separate sections that discuss his family. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy at Death panel

Thank you for your edit to Death panel. It is apparent that this is a controversial topic. Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Death panel#Non-neutral point of view, soapbox content. Cnilep (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt text

Hi, I saw your edit summary question at Battle of the Alamo (and thanks for fixing my typo). Alt text is now required as part of the MOS, so that visually impaired readers can understand what the illustrations are. Now that it's an MOS guideline, it's expected to appear for all images in articles that are nominated at FAC, and I'm planning to bring this article to FAC soon. You'll probably see alt text pop up in a lot of Texas history related articles as I get to them. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen it appearing is several articles, and was curious. Thought it might have been a NPOV or OR issue, and wondered whether it was going a bit far. Thanks for the MOS update. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Houston

Thought you would be interested in this: Talk:Architecture of Houston/GA1. Postoak (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelback

Fair enough you remove my part about non-notable, after all the guy has been merely one of the leading social and media commentators in Australia for over 30 years. Bleeter (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan

Would you be able to weigh in on the "political correctness" section at Talk:Nidal Malik Hasan? We seem to have a very determined POV editor on our hands. Grsz¹¹ 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey, I was wondering if you could take a look at Al Qaeda#American operations (may be re-titled Al Qaeda#Fort Hood Shooting) for WP:SYNTH issues. One user feels that since al-Awlaki is linked to al Qaeda, and Nidal Hasan is linked to Awlaki, then Hasan must be working for al Qaeda. I feel this constitutes a serious WP:BLP issue. Thanks for the help. Grsz¹¹ 01:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "References", OK

I was wrong. I just looked up a bunch of popular articles, and "References" is the right way. Now that Wikipedia is mature, there should be some uniformity. It is worrying that all (non-stub) articles are not formatted in the same way. The way I'm understanding it is that there can be "References" or "References" and "Notes" (sections), but that there can never be just "Notes", whether including expository writing or just citations. If there ranking articles by length, the longest articles would be a starting point to setting all articles to conformity. Anthony717 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony. A good place to start re uniformity would be in featured articles, which should all be very high-quality articles. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman

I propose that Chapman's name should not appear on John Lennon's wiki page. Continuing to propagate Chapman's fame has no purpose other than to make it apparent to other talent-less American loonies that they can likewise gain great fame by killing a defenceless celebrity.
Certainly some basic details of the killing should appear on the page, but advertising the killer's name is simply playing into his hands. B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Evb-wiki! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 871 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Vanessa Torres - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter North (pornographer)

You deleted my entry. Let's talk before you do it again.Nick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please source your contributions. Please also see WP:BLP. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supervolcano

21:42, 6 February 2010 Evb-wiki (talk | contribs) m (18,920 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chris.urs-o (talk) to last version by CatUnderwriter) (undo) Why? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted repetative wikilinks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But many eruptions were Yellowstone hotspot, the tectonic plate just moved over the hotspot !!! --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it and link it only the first time it appears. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding instead of speedying

There was a reason I tagged Gabriella Hall with a prod tag instead of a simply speedily deleting it myself per WP:CSD#G10. I could have done the latter too, but I wanted to give people a chance to save the article. Simply removing the prod tag does not address the issues I brought up in the prod tag, and also ignores completely the request I added. Please source the articles when removing prod tags such as those in the future. Thank you, NW (Talk) 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the IMDb. Btw, the prod template should not be replaced when removed. Per the template itself: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." I suggest you try an Afd to get consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) You didn't actually link to the actress. 2) IMDB is not a reliable source.

I'm going to give you fair notice now that unless you source the article or readd the prod tag quite soon, I will speedily delete it per WP:CSD#G10. NW (Talk) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{IMDb}} template does link to the subject itself. Try it. Again, please use the AfD process. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal might to a degree ... still needs to be NPOV

today's Napolitano statement calling Fort Hood Terrorism seems to be sufficent to me to add the terror cat Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cease vandalising the tea party protest wiki

Pretty simple request. Do not remove valid cites and information for no reason.66.190.31.229 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion on the talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit (disambiguation) nominated for speedy deletion

You created this one a long time ago & probably aren't even watching it, so I wanted to let you know I tagged it for speedy deletion. This is a simple two-article dab (no other uses have emerged) that can be handled more effectively with hatnotes on the relevant articles, White spirit and White Spirit--i.e. users who find themselves in the wrong place can go directly to the correct article without having to go through a dab page. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I have no objection. It's already done. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]