User talk:CTF83!

This is CTF83!'s talk page, where you can send him 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 7 days

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

ANY editor or talk page stalker is welcome to respond to any query from another editor on this page.

McKinley L. Price

Flave64 was the author of the only content in that article, and he has requested that the page be deleted. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages, especially when they are valid. --Slon02 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:G7 that the only substantial content to the page I have made edits to the page. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Swarm^Talk 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added any content to the page. Bolding a title and adding a maintenance tag does not count as adding content to the page, so he remains the sole author of that article. --Slon02 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you have only made minor edits to the page. Nothing substantial was added to the article by anyone except the original author. If you would like to preserve the content, consider moving it to User:Ctjf83/McKinley L. Price. Swarm^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added infobox and sources, good enough for you? CTJF83 chat 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, G7 doesn't apply anymore. --Slon02 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your latest edit to this site is not accurate. The reason both candidates are listed as Independent on that website is because it is a non partisan election. (colts12345 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flave64 (talk • contribs)

Ok, so what is wrong with the "incumbent" mention? Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ CTJF83 chat 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't inaccurate, but it is unnecessary because the fact that he is in office automatically makes him the incumbent colts12345 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flave64 (talk • contribs)

Since old mayors have pages, it is necessary to have incumbent listed...if you are unsatisfied with your signature, you can change it, to "colts12345", but please sign pages, otherwise the bot does it anyway. CTJF83 chat 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: List of Jeopardy! contestants

I saw you nominated the List of Jeopardy! contestants article for deletion. You may want to offer your comments in the following related ongoing discussions for deletion:

Also, the following related discussions were recently closed as keep:

...and the following related discussions were closed as delete or merge:

Sottolacqua (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will participate in those. CTJF83 chat 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Harold W. Speights

I really don't see how a Google search is relevant here, since the activities in which this guy engaged make him rather important. Plenty of nonnotable people don't qualify for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. The lack of significant coverage isn't by itself a reason for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SP season 1

Thanks! If it is not too much of a bother, it would be nice to have all of those ratings in. Nergaal (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse

Actually the edit was rolled back for block evasion, which I would consider vandalisim. Check all the facts before you accuse me of misuse, on an uneraseable edit summary. CTJF83 chat 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According what is Wikipedia:Vandalism "block evasion" is not vandalism. I would consider is original research. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually block evasion isn't even listed on that page...I guess we will have to disagree then. CTJF83 chat 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the page to back this up, but I thought it was understood that content added by a blocked user was to be reverted on sight even if it was a beneficial edit. –Fredddie ™ 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me...if you find it, please post it for me. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(breaking off thread as topic seems to have shifted.) I believe the rule with banned (not blocked) users evading the ban is that their edits may be reverted on sight, regardless of its usefulness (unless the reversion would insert content otherwise not allowed by WP policies, such as defamation or false information - such reversions are not allowed). But editors may reinstate the edit if it's either obviously helpful or if they have an independent reason for wanting the edit. (See WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors.) It would make sense to apply a rule that is no harsher than this one to edits by blocked users, imho, since block evasion is a less serious offense than ban evasion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and the link. Is there a place where I could propose a guideline so that blocked user may be reverted on sight too? Just WP:VP? CTJF83 chat 21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. Or if there's a better place for it, I'm sure they can direct you to it - it's possible we have such a policy for blocked users and I've just forgotten about it... Post a link if you propose such a policy? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Reverting_blocked_users_policy CTJF83 chat 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your hidden note shows you understand WP:BLP so not sure why you are questioning my revert anyway...clearly saying any of those pictured men have sex with men is a violation of BLP. CTJF83 chat 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the caption, nowhere it states that those men are straight men and have sex with other men. It states that men may have sex with other men and never identify themselves as G / B / T, but it states that those man have patrons, as go to gay clubs. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "but it states that those man have patrons, as go to gay clubs"? Your revert caption says: "Men, such as these patrons of a gay club, may never self-identify as men who have sex with men even if they engage in same-sex sexual behaviours, but researchers use the term for a variety of reasons"....it clearly implies that the pictured men have sex with men, even if they don't identify as "men who have sex with men"...clearly some straight guy could take serious offense to that accusation, thus cause BLP damage, and possible libel. CTJF83 chat 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia will be sued, that's why BLP is a serious rule. UUU I'm so afraid. BTW, that image had been for many time and no one take it as offense as now. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of BLP, we should only caption images with facts. For all we know, totally not-gay bro-dances are common in Tel Aviv. We should never assume anything from a picture, ever. –Fredddie ™ 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having 13 barnstars is bad luck, I'm sure...

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping out on the peer review for Bartow, Florida VictorianMutant (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you rock!!! VictorianMutant (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! It is greatly appreciated!!....You could always give me another one to get me up to 14! :) CTJF83 chat 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Deletion

I have one simple question following this statement: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LastFM, Reverbnation and other social networking sites are unreliable and unprofessional. I have always felt that Wikipedia adds a certain level of professionalism to the mix.

Now how is a band/business/anything supposed to have a reliable and solid article about them, if you keep deleting them? ----Ctk986 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctk986 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they were important/notable enough they would be covered in several reliable places. Wikipedia is not a place for every band or everything in existence. That's why there are notability guidelines like WP:BAND that every article must meet, or be subject to deletion. Remember, please sign your post by typing ~~~~ CTJF83 chat 05:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Kraemer‎

I've removed the BLPPROD here, the article predates March 18, 2010, and therefore is ineligible for the process. If there really are no sources out there to verify notability for this guy, I've got absolutely no problem with a regular prod or an AfD, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have no problem with that. CTJF83 chat 16:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US adoption map

Hi, as you no doubt know Florida has decided not to contest the ruling striking down its adoption ban. Would you consider creating or updating the map you made to reflect that? I would do it but I don't know how. Thanks. Sapphire Steel (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes. CTJF83 chat 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELPING RifeIdeas (a newbie)

You caught me! I was just going to look at your editing to learn but you must have some detection device (bot I think) that sees I was here so I decided to leave a note.

As you may know from Philosopher's page I am a real newbie to Wiki editing. thanks for confirming what I thought about the using pictures from the web unfortunately I used the "Free Image Search Tool" which included flickr.com to no avail. I had thought about contacting you for help as a possible mentor and this gives me the opportunity to do so. I have about a 100 questions but I will start with these:

I have been working on my own user and discussion pages to learn how to format and edit (take a look) but I spent way to much time trying to determine how to set the WikiProject Iowa box to the right side of my user page leaving the text to the left side of the page (with no success I ended up defaulting to many line breaks to bring the text to below the box instead of leaving the text on the right side of the box). How is that achieved? Also can I set up some kind of template on the right side of my page for future banner boxes?

Also how do I set what I would call text boxes into the edit (like your red talk page stalker box)? I looked at the editing and have some grasp of how it is accomplished I just am looking for a Wiki info page (other than Wiki markup)to give me more details especially if I want something more than just centered. And since I can see the need in the near future for some kind of archival mechanism like you and Philosopher have I might as well get that established. Again I looked at the editing for your archive and can see a need for me to have more documentation.

I am assuming that these discussion pages are what wiki editors use instead of an email system, am I correct?

My last question (for this post haha) is currently I have to copy and paste in my personalized userID/talk code is there a way to make a "hot key" shortcut?

RifeIdeasTalk 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If you ever have any questions, feel more than free to message me and ask. To put the userbox on the right side, put {{boxtop}} above the userbox and {{boxbottom}} below it. Then any additional userboxes you want, just put them above {{boxbottom}}.

Too get a red box like my stalker just put <center><div style="width:50%">{{divbox|red|..The message...}}</div></center> at the top, or if you want it just to appear when an editor edits the page, like User talk:Ctjf83/Editnotice, put your note in User talk:RifeIdeas/Editnotice, you can just use mine as a guide on how to make one.

Check Help:Wiki markup for markup help.

User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo has instructions on how to set up auto archive, if you need help, let me know and I can do it for you.

Ya, talk pages are the main form of communication on Wikipedia. Everyone will always be able to see anything you add, so for more private matters, you can e-mail a user.

To sign your posts just type ~~~~. If you click on "my preferences" at the top, scroll down to signature and add '''''<font face="Verdana">[[User:RifeIdeas|<font color="DarkGreen">Rife<font color="orange">Ideas</font>]]'''''[[User talk:RifeIdeas|Talk]]</font> Which is your current signature. Then check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box and it should work. Any more questions, feel free to ask. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kraig Paulsen picture I had not done any work on his site yet (learning curve) but I did move your post on my site to the Kraig Paulsen heading I had already made and eliminated the header you had put there (duplication). Did you do a search for Deborah Berry? You may be better at it than me. I do want to learn how this picture finding works (legally)

I want to understand exactly how this posting works. You posted on my site and that is good if I put this edit below your post (on my site) will you know? To be safe I plan to post both on my talk page and yours. (duplication I know) RifeIdeasTalk 21:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is on my watchlist, so I'll see any posts you make. There are no useable images of Deborah on Flickr. CTJF83 chat 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing addition

I was pointing out an error about why the Sistine Chapel exists in the first alternate universe that Brian and Stewie go to in "Road to the Multiverse" Family Guy episode, and was a rhetorical question, not meaning for it to be a "forum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyVulpine (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...well like many animated shows, there is lots of continuity errors, so no real reason why it existed. CTJF83 chat 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Edit request - condense Criticism and Controversy section

Thanks again for your assistance and please have a look at the revised section. Most of the original portion was dedicated to examples that went into too much detail for a summary, so the revision is considerably shorter. If you feel it's too brief I can add some content by expanding upon the references. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A slight expansion would be good...ideally it should summarize every section at Criticism of Family Guy CTJF83 chat 06:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary around the length of the image would probably be good. CTJF83 chat 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done...well, more or less. I got it up to the length of the image, but then I noticed some unsourced info and dead links which I took out. The result is a bit shorter but I think it gives an adequate summary - the only thing left to "pad" it with would be the aforementioned specific details which belong on the dedicated article, not the summary. The image itself could actually be moved to the criticism article as well, but someone else can make that call. It's at least as relevant to the parent article as a portrait of Dwayne Johnson, anyway.

Thanks again for all your help, and I'm getting some sleep so I'll check back here in a day or so. Cheers!96.252.169.163 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]