Jump to content

User talk:Fetchcomms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miami33139 (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 14 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

fetchcomms
home · talk · user · sand · misc · guest
+

THIS IS FETCHCOMMS'S TALK PAGE, WHERE YOU CAN SEND MESSAGES AND COMMENTS TO FETCHCOMMS.

ARCHIVES → 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9


The benefits of using the preview button


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

I fixed your typo on DQ's RfA. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn! And I thought he wanted to sue that blasted program! Now I have to kill the blasted critter before my ship sinks! D: —fetch·comms 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

This might be of interest to you. Bejinhan talks 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Ham

In answer to your question on my talk page; I do not re-create the redirect because in my opinion it is not appropriate to do so. If you wish to do so then feel free, and we will see if it raises objections. But I do not feel that editors would expect this redirect to be meaningful, or useful. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously found it useful in the last AfD, but I can't be bothered to recreate it. —fetch·comms 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC

Works for me. The issue I see is that article is still on the "pending" list. I'm trying to get it to go to the "declined" list. Any other way of doing that? Manually perhaps? N419BH 03:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the tags go backwards? newest at the top and previous declines lower down? Or is someone adding new templates rather than changing the paramaters on the original one? N419BH 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for your help. I see now that that one was recreated. If an article has an on hold tag and blank pending tag, is it permissible to remove the blank pending tag? or is there valuable information there too? N419BH 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for helping me get the hang of this. Now off to sort the backlog! N419BH 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCormack

Please justify your deletion of this page. You said it is not significantly different from what was posted before - this is untrue. It experienced substantial changes and input from user N419BH. He deleted most of the body and helped edit out a lot of the voice issues. He requested 4-5 addition citations which I provided and is still working on additional newscoverage. Any further "substantial" difference in the article now would make it a complete fabrication. You have hamstrung the discussion. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the page, but I can see what was deleted, and it does not pass the threshold of "substantially different". Much of the information is just reworded or moved around. Also, many of the sources are the same, and the article submission is actually smaller than the deleted version. To be considered substantially different, an article's contents must be almost completely different, not just saying the same thing in a different way, and must address all the issues mentioned in the deletion discussion. Please see WP:CSD#G4. —fetch·comms 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the link you asked me to see:
G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).
What was needed to improve this article from the last AFD process? A third party source and additional sourcing of statments - no content issues! No issues with existing sources! And yet, I have been forthcoming in working with all the editor's suggestions, including voice change, additional sourcing, restructuring, deletion, and rewording to make "more encyclopedic". Whatever you say, there have been substantial changes to the article. I have the original stored on my computer and will gladly leave both for you to peruse. I responded to all N419BH's suggestions for improvement - that is what this process is for. Let me say again: at this point, how on earth can the article be re-written now? Its almost at it's bare minimum thanks to N419BH. So in the next round I'll be fighting an uphill battle because of you comment. Explain to me why the article should not be allowed - asside from your only ascertion that "it isn't substantially different" which doesn't fit the facts. Please view the discussion on my talk page before jumping the gun! Thanks for the reply ChildrenOfLight (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you added some sources does not mean the content is completely different. The article may have received substantial changes, but it is not substantially different as a whole. I have compared the two versions side by side and they are quite similar. If you cannot rewrite it any more, you will likely just have to wait until additional sources appear so that you can add more new content. My only assertion, which does indeed fit the facts (remember: you cannot see the deleted version), is based on policy. Your assertions are not. —fetch·comms 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between your words of "a new article must be almost completely different from its old" one what WP says above articles that are "substantiall identical". Substantially identical does not equal completely different - it gives more slack. I am copying this dicussion to N419BH to get his take on it. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The issue is, it is substantially identical to the old version! You cannot simply remove some material, shift the order around, and reword a few sentences, and call it different. it still qualifies to be deleted under G4. Want a side-by-side analysis too? Here: compare. Don't be fooled by the red parts, though; a lot of the wording is almost the same, like "After his experience, McCormack became a missionary and ministered to indigenous tribes in southeast Asia where he met his future wife and fellow missionary, Jane. After they were married, they worked in New Zealand revivals until they felt called to start a church in England." versus "He became a missionary and ministered to indigenous tribes in southeast Asia where he met his future wife and fellow missionary, Jane. After they were married, they worked in New Zealand revivals until they felt called to start a church in England." I would call that substantially identical, no? —fetch·comms 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wielding a technicality subjectively to get rid of an article. There was no concern with the body as it was when it was deleted by the previous AFD process. The editors and I have worked hard to make the article better. There is no point re-writting some sentences if there was nothing wrong with those sentences. If I rewrote them, that would not satisfy you. I am perfectly willing to re-write in different language what I have written - the content, however cannot change - so what is the point? You are simply wielding a technicality which does not hold up. Where does it say every sentence must be re-written? It says the article should not be SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL to the previous article - NOT every single sentence must be written differently. It doesn't say you can't change words and move things around. The concern in the last AFD process was SOURCING and TONE. - not content. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "technicality" is written in policy. It specifically disallows the recreation of a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". Furthermore, you have left out some reasons for deletion in the AfD: no evidence of notability, for example. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means lack of notability, because notability is defined as having received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is not substantially different, as most of the material is almost exactly the same! Here is how much of the page is the same:
Comparison

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
table code?†
 Responsive/
mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

What is new material and different?

While there, Ian states he experienced visions of heaven and hell, and felt Jesus empowering him to live so he might tell his story to others.

According to Ian's testimony, he came back to life on a slab in the morgue a full 15-20 minutes after he had been declared dead by the doctors. He was paralyzed from the neck down, but he prayed to be healed and walked out of the hospital the next day.

After his experience, Ian describes how he thought he was the only one in the world who knew God. He began reading a Bible and says he was amazed to find everything he had experienced detailed within its pages.

It will follow his early surfing days as he traveled the world searching for the meaning of life and catching some of surfing's most sought after waves. Near the end of the film, his supernatural experience will occur and during the credits, video of Ian telling his testimony will be run.

(The last one is unsourced, unfortunately).

Your sources are still lacking, as well, if you insist on arguing about that. This is his own website, not independent, and thus unreliable. This is the movie's website, also not independent and thus unreliable. Both those sites are cited as references twice. —fetch·comms 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should at least go back on hold, where you can voice your "substantially different" position and I can react. The article IS different. I'll ask N419BH to provide you with his changes. Let me remind you that your reason for deleting was "please make sure that the content is completely different from the deleted version". This is not accurate with the policy. I cannot change the content, nor does the article structure need to be "completely different". Your reason is inaccurate with policy.
However, what do you want to see? Every paragraph re-written but the content remains? This I can do - I just don't see how it makes any sense except to someone like you. Is this what you want? Let me know.
The discussion of notability was progressing and is ongoing - this, however, was not the reason for deletion. N419BH has said that Ian does have a claim on notability after doing some research. This requires discussion since it is subjective, not a unilateral deletion.
They are cited twice because the editors requested sourcing for that info which came from that site - explain how that is wrong. You point out the last one is unsourced - that is so I don't duplicate the sources! (its all at that site!). The sites you refer to that are associated with him (and you say are, therefore, unreliable) are to site where he lives, his policy on his copyright, and that a film is in preproduction. You obviously are now just throwing food, because your comment doesn't make any sense.


The article should at least go back on hold, where you can voice your "substantially different" position and I can react. Again, what do you want to see? ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's on hold or declined. We're having a discussion now, right? I repeat, I did not delete anything, so please do not say "your reason for deleting". I have no clue where on Earth you got that notion from. In either case, I never said "completely different", but substantially different. It is perfectly based in policy. The article needs to contain substantially different content, not just being reworded. I gave a few examples of new content above in the collapsed box. Again with the deletion, I never deleted anything, please stop claiming I did, as it is blatantly incorrect. If you can find more independent sources (try Google News archives), then please do. Primary sources (their own websites) are still unreliable. See this page. Also, you can use named references to remove duplicate refs (see WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once), but the point is that you shouldn't attribute so much, or any, really, information to a primary/non-indepedent source as it is unreliable. We need coverage in third-party publications. I am certainly not throwing food, and I would urge you to familiarise yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines before claiming that I am. Just because his own site says where he lives does not mean it is reliable according to Wikipedia standards; it should be mentioned in another source or removed, especially as this is a WP:BLP article. —fetch·comms 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is rediculous! We're having a discussion now? Here are your own words taken from the deletion banner: "please make sure that the content is COMPLETELY different from the DELETED version". Delete/Decline I can see the difference - I'll change my language. What about yours: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McCormack resulted in DELETE; this content is not substantially different" (taken again from your banner). Looks like I got the idea from you :). Primary sources: These are the DO NOTS:
Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.
Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.
This has not been done here. The use of these websites is not a problem. Once again, you have lobbed WP rules at me and they don't say what you say. It's rediculous that you can't use someone's own website to say where they live - that is a reach indeed.
There is no need for me to find additional sources in this discussion. That is not what is at issue here. You are not telling me what you would like to see in reference to the reason for declining the article. Please reinstate the article as on hold and lets have a real discussion not where you have all the power chips on your side of the table. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? A talk page thread is a discussion... Articles for deletion is a deletion matter, but as you can see by reading it, I did not delete the article... I also suggest that you read WP:BLP#Reliable sources, where it says quite clearly "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." While the use of self-published sources is sometimes acceptable, you should have material backed up by secondary sources as well. I have told you quite clearly what I want to see in the new article: new content and information with new sources, particularly secondary sources. Rewording existing parts in addition to those two items may help, but it's not the only thing that needs to be done. You keep asking me to reinstate the article, but apparently you have not read the message saying "When ready, please add the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of the article to request a new review." I see no power chips on my side of the table, as you can resubmit the article at any time. Thanks, —fetch·comms 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each time an article is declined, the chances that it will be accepted later are less. The point of Wikipedia is to make good articles and help people with their articles. NOT unilaterally delete them and force them to jump through all the hoops again - each time they're raised a little higher. This will happen, just as it did this time, by people like you who will say: "hmm, this article has been deleted before" - there is an inherent bias. I have lots of material backed up by secondary sources - I don't know what you are talking about. I want to produce a good article - you want to argue. I'm done arguing with you - I've gone to others for input. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue, nor do I want to delete all your articles. I'm not sure what part of "a decline is no big deal" you don't get; the chances it will be accepted later is the same. Declining, again, is different from deletion; the chances for recreating after deletion are lesser. As I said before, just find a few more sources, add a bit more information, and it will be fine. —fetch·comms 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AntiRoomsWoodlands

May I call your attention to this: [49]. This guy is a prolific sockpuppeteer. Beyond the accounts listed on the AIV report, he's used dozens of IP and several other accounts. No amount of assurance from him that he'll "contribute constructively, heed all warnings, not create any new accounts" is worth a hill of beans - he's already under at least a dozen indefinite blocks. Majorclanger (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. —fetch·comms 21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he apparently has a strong commitment to vandalism! Majorclanger (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fetch. I noticed you blocked AntiRoomsWoodlands (talk · contribs). Can you also block 4.226.60.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as it is clearly the same individual? BOVINEBOY2008 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and thanks for the note. I did 24 hours because he switches IPs all the time; if he keeps using that one, I'll make it longer. —fetch·comms 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments on my RfA

I found your comment on my RfA to be rather insulting. I had reviewed the most recent RfA's prior to filing my own, and I concluded that based on those I had a chance of passing. Of the 2 most recent successful RfA's (in late July), two only had about 5000 edits, maybe a few hundred more, which wasn't that far off from mine. Of the 3 unsuccessful RfA's in August, one admitted that he was not a very active contributor, another only had a few hundred edits, and a third, although being a good contributor to Wikipedia, didn't have experience in areas where admin tools are needed. Of the unsuccessful RfA's in late July, two only had a few hundred edits, one had under 2000 edits and another, though a good candidate, had a few policy knowledge issues. Based on that information, I thought that I was in much better shape than the unsuccessful RfA's, and in just about as good shape as some of the most recent successful RfA's, maybe a little below their level. However, instead of noting that, you jumped to the conclusion that I don't pay attention to the RfA's, when I don't think that it's fair to put me on the same level as a person who only has a few hundred edits or only puts in a few dozen edits a month. --Slon02 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you comparing editcounts and activity? I also never said recent RfAs, but RfA as a general trend. RfA, as I'm sure you know, is a place for you to get insulted, abused, annoyed, angry, talked about, and you either survive or you don't. I am also quite sure you know that generally, only individuals held in extremely high regard by the community pass when they have under about 5000 edits, and that renominating yourself less than three months after a previous RfA is generally not a good idea. I certainly never put you on the same level as someone with only a few hundred edits (if you insist on comparing editcounts), and Jujutacular, who had about 5000 edits, also two FLs, one GA and fifteen DYKs. If you can't even take this measly little comment of mine, don't expect to be an admin any time soon. This isn't even close to insulting. —fetch·comms 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Professional wrestling in New Zealand

Good job with this article. I was surprised to see it expanded to GA. This is a very helpful expansion for the project. It is rare that those types of articles are even updated, let alone raised to GA status.--WillC 09:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A wonderful IP user created via AfC, and I thought it would make a good GA. However, wrestling is not really my thing, and I'd like to see On the Mat as a GA, too, but I'm just not familiar enough with the sport and the various terms/events associated with it. I mentioned that article to GaryColemanFan, who seems to have done a lot of wrestling writing, and if you're interested, perhaps you can team up with him to get it to GA status? —fetch·comms 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after I get done with my current projects, I'll consult him about that if I have time..thanks.--WillC 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made Changes suggested for article on Buzz Foto!

Hello FetchComms,

I made changes as requested. Can you please check and approve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Buzz_Foto . Can you please let me know if further changes are requested? Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take one last look at the article on Buzz Foto. I think that I got it all fixed. Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the rest and I got it to be more prose-like. If you have a chance, can you please take a look at it. I might have it right by now. Thanks for all your help. --Mambopolice (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will let an uninvolved user review it, without bias either way. —fetch·comms 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change of article names

Hi, Can you tell me why you changed the names of these two articles - 'WW1 Egyptian Labour Corps' and 'WW1 Egyptian Camel Transport Corps' because it seems to me that taking out 'WW1' cuts out the strong identity these corps had with that war. Neither of these corps operated outside that context.

)

--RoslynSKP (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Naming conventions. We want the common name, and I don't think they are always referred to as the "WWI Egyptian Labour Corps", but just the Egyptian Labour Corps. Just like we don't need to title an article "President Barack Obama" :) Also, as you said that neither of them operated outside of WWI, there should be no confusing them with any other war--so saying "Egyptian Labour Corps" automatically refers to the WWI group. The identity should be established in the article itself, not the title. If you want, you can create a redirect from the WWI title, but it shouldn't be changed to that. —fetch·comms 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean and agree. :) --RoslynSKP (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Egyptian Labour Corps

Hello Fetchcomms. I have left a note about a small concern at Did You Know regarding your nomination's entry. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astonish Results

OTRS permission has been verified for this copyrighted content. I have unblanked it and added the OTRS tag, but I am unfamiliar with AFC so I am informing you as the editor who denied the submission so that you can follow-up from here. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz re-declined it for other reasons. Thanks for the note, —fetch·comms 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens

CNN now reports him dead. [50] Should it be added? Connormahtalk 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ted Stevens. —fetch·comms 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can handle my WP:RFPP request for PC for Stevens? Connormahtalk 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Excellent User Page Award
Just wanted to say I love the professional and sleek look of your userspage. Tommy! [message] 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 03:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

May you please take a look at this when you have a minute? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe the bottom of this discussion as well? Maybe you could offer a better explanation than I could. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. The second one is complicated... I have no clue on which was taken where and what copyright laws that country had and whatnot. I suspect that he doesn't have a right to publish all of them, but this is beyond me to figure out . A picture taken 50 years ago might be copyrighted (and more likely so if it was in the US). Not all of the images have source links, so I can't tell where it was taken. Also, the web archive links don't actually say anything about the license from what I can tell, so I'm not sure where the images have been released. And even if he just asked a random person to take a photo in the office, there's still a copyright on it, unless they negotiated some quick deal about the photographer granting rights away and whatnot (I think). His cousin would the copyright holder of one, I think also. I still am not sure how he thinks he has the right to control the copyright, as he wasn't the author... :/ Again, most of this depends on exactly when and where it was taken. This, if taken in Chicago in 2003, is copyrighted. (Permission needs to be sent to OTRS if he said it's been granted in the upload summary). Uhhhh... I'd ask Blurpeace what to do for all of them, though; he knows this stuff inside out. —fetch·comms 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fetchcomms :). Airplaneman ✈ 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fetchcomms. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Airplaneman ✈ 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auku

Looks like a valid speedy deletion tag to me. Why wait for the prod to expire for nonsense like this? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's comprehensible English. The tag placed was for something like "peaches submarine Godzilla ham" or "dihgas shgoashg hspkhdwgowh gpwihrgpw". —fetch·comms 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks incoherent to me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad English does not count. "Auku means something or somerandom word" is clearly understood to say "Auku means something or some random word". Just like "Bacon means meat from the back and sides of a pig", etc. —fetch·comms 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that like that at all. I read it like, "Auku is some word, but I don't know what it means", which verges on vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as "Auku" is a synonym for "something" or a "random word". Obviously a neologism, but you never know if the author just wasn't done writing or not prepared to get it all down. It'll be deleted in due time, don't worry. —fetch·comms 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except that it gives seven days for the nonsense to work its way into all of the search engines on the web and start a life of its own, making Wikipedia look ignorant. Oh, well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The search engines index it after 1 minute; it doesn't matter. I would rather give the user a chance. —fetch·comms 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

file:Paulfhenderson.jpg

Hi,

Yesterday I have sent the e-mail of Martha Henderson with the permission to use the file on wiki to the permissions-enwikimedia.org and put the {{OTRS pending}} in the file according to the instructions. Now the file is deleted anyhow. What now? Please advice? ThanksNED33 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the permission is verified, the file can be easily undeleted. However, there is a minor issue with the permissions email, and you (and/or Martha) should be getting a reply asking for clarification on who holds the image's copyright. Once that is sorted out, the image can be restored. —fetch·comms 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will wait a few day'sNED33 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fetchcomms, you removed the wikilink to mudra from the begining of the article but did not substitute another link later in the article. Omission or intention? Trev M  ~  08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laziness. Add it back, if you haven't already. Just don't link words in the bold part of the first sentence, per the MOS. —fetch·comms 15:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

Thank you for making the edit to Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010. But could you make the protection template large, please? The small template is best used for pages with indefinite protection, because it does not display the reason for or duration of the protection. On a page that has been temporarily protected, editors may be less familiar with protection and the information provided by the large template is of greater concern to them. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —fetch·comms 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much! --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question, maybe for you

I see that Chzz is on wikibreak. A few months ago, he did some work at WP:FEED in which I played a small role. He was doing much of the heavy lifting, but he mentioned that some of the technical work was being done by someone else - and I have a vague recollection it was you.

Of course the background is irrelevant if you can answer my question.

I'm working on a possible proposal related to clerkship at RfPP (still very drafty). One of the aspects of the proposal is a desire to create a template with a button that would do nothing is pressed by an non-sysop editor, but would do something (specifically, Page protection or unprotection) if pushed by a sysop. I don't know whether this is technically easy or difficult. Do you have an opinion? It isn't a critical aspect of the proposal, the concept could work without it, but I think it would be a nice touch if it worked.

Of course, any comments you have on the overall proposal would be welcome.--SPhilbrickT 01:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chzz is still "around" thankfully, just not as much for a bit.
The button (it would be a link, as the inputbox extension doesn't support anything except searching and making new sections on a page) would probably go to the {{FULLPAGENAME}}?action=protect, and only an admin could actually protect the page, obviously. There's no way without making a js script for pressing a link and making nothing happen at all or everything happening at once, depending on the userright.


Basically, what you want, has been implemented in similar places like XfD and SPI (in the line of links, there is one near the end that goes to a certain action like delete or checkuser, etc.) It's simple and could easily be implemented in RfPP, but isn't an instant protect (the admin still needs to pick the settings).
Other comments: sounds like a good idea; the only thing I have to say is that, as RfPP has updates much more often than SPI or ArbCom, clerking would probably limited in scope due to the fact that an admin would review the page anyway, and because admins would often (at least half the time) notice a request before a clerk and just protect the page. —fetch·comms 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt answer. I especially appreciate your other comments, as they may make the idea moot. I confess I've not been a regular at page protection, which gave me some pause about making a proposal, but I wanted to explore Dank's clerking idea and this seemed like a possibility. I should do a bit more homework on the timing - I thought I saw examples where there were several hours between request and fulfillment. If the time lag is much shorter, then the value is lower. I wouldn't be especially troubled if clerks only reviewed half the requests, but if they take 10 15 minutes to do an analysis, and they come back to find that a sysop has already made the call (party because the sysop may be familiar with the situation and can make the call in short order, or because they are simultaneously looking into it), then it will be discouraging. --SPhilbrickT 02:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Reconsider: Observium

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Observium If the keep !vote from Klaver is discounted (it has no policy basis) this is clearly delete instead of no consensus. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fetchcomms&oldid=378937456"