Jump to content

User talk:Sadads

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JesseMSmith (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 31 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hai there

Ernest T Cragg Article Suggestion

Thank you very much for the suggestions and pointer to WP:Lead - I had not been familiar with that.

I actually have a lot of things I want to do both to that article, and Edward "Porky" Cragg I spent several days at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell AFB and have copies of the unit histories for their units. Since Wikipedia does not allow original research, I am planning to "do the research" in my family web sites, then reference it in the Wikipedia articles. Do you think that would be acceptable?

The big problem T I M E

thanks again

ed Ecragg (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes personal websites are fine, but it depends on what level of reliability is evoked by your credentials (See WP:IRS). It may be a fine external link, but I am not sure if your website will be an appropriate reference. However, if you host copies of original documents, those may be adequate for improving factual statements within the articles, Sadads (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (novel)

Hi, you are doing some great work here. I'll assist where I can. --Martin (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthologies

Hi Sadads, User talk:42and5 has made mass adds to many poets pages of anthologies that they have been included in. I wondered if you have roll back rights. Thanks Span (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I will take a look, Sadads (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Span (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. Thank you. Span (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver

Hey Sadads - I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'll be doing some rewriting of Quicksilver. Don't have a lot of energy or time for it at the moment, but the paraphrasing should be scrubbed out, so I'll be hacking at it slowly - in case you were wondering. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will keep an eye on it, and help you where I can. In two weeks, I can do a serious amount of work on it, but until then I am kindof swamped, Sadads (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
The Lost Books (novel series)
Treasure (Clive Cussler novel)
Linwood H. Rose
Dragon (novel)
Christopher Boykin
Theria
Arctic Drift
Dirk Cussler
Midget
Flood Tide
Agasha Temple of Wisdom
Eric Eason
Obsessed (novel)
Chicken nugget
Ross E. Dunn
Kindness
Apple sauce
Serpent (novel)
Beormingas
Cleanup
World War I
Inca Gold
Dirk Pitt
Merge
Wilson Hall (James Madison University)
Super Cars
Real estate
Add Sources
Lester Goran
Craig Dirgo
Sacred Stone
Wikify
Bogotá
Babar Awan
Portfolio investment
Expand
Le Monestier-du-Percy
2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising
Metro-Cross

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jab se you have loved me

This page meets all criterion to be in Wikipedia.

It is a wonderful book, published by one of India's largest publishers. It is not self-published and is becoming a popular book with young people.

Check it out at India's largest online bookstore www.flipkart.com. Type Jab se in the SEARCH field. Note the ISBN too.

Regards, Deep Kishore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepkishorewiki (talk • contribs) 07:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't, as the nominator at the deletion review points out, that book does not meet the WP:Notability (books) criterion, please provide sources to help prove notability if you believe it is in fact notable, Sadads (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Life at the Bottom

Hey, I just started a peer review for the article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, which you can find here. As you are listed under the volunteers section as a generalist for Language and Literature, if you have the time, could you take a look at the article? Thanks. SilverserenC 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador

Hey all: If you are interested in being a campus ambassador in one of the following areas please leave a message under your appropriate region. For information about your duties as a campus ambassador please see WP:Campus Ambassadors. Of course, feel free to contact me for clarification or with any questions you my have. Thanks!

Cullowhee. NC
Harrisonburg, VA
Alexandria, VA


Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at Elhugheszete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peer review of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles

Would appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on how Benty Grange helmet and Pioneer helmet could be improved as you obviously have greater expectations on content than I would have thought appropriate for encyclopaedic content and would appreciate some guidance there. Thanks for your help so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathandbeal (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I would make sure you read WP:Verifiability. Sometimes, content doesn't have enough scholarship to adequately go beyond very basic information. I am mostly looking for a little broader sense of the artefacts and their importance, for examples see Meyrick Helmet and Mahiole for examples, but note neither of them are more than C or start class. You might also want to talk to WP:GLAM/BM about getting a curators support in further researching the items at the British museum. They have a very close connection to Wikipedia, and would likely be more than supportive of getting you more information about the artefacts. Sadads (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Purge (novel)

Hello! Your submission of Purge (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 18:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for snapping. I edit conflicted you and am annoyed at spending so much time cleaning up a mess that someone else made. Anyway - it would be very helpful if you could chose any article listed on this page, start pulling up the sources in gbooks and checking for copyvio. If you find it, then remove, reword, or add quotation marks and in-text attribution, and document what you've done on the talkpage. I haven't had time to set up my own subpage, and am logging off for a time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't feel like I was snapped at, but definitely appreciate the time you are putting in. Will take a look at the collaboration user page that you point, and do a little bit of work on it. Sadads (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Purge (novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphan Tags

Thanks for your work on removing them. I've done it to those I run across on the NRHP, but a general pass is a good thing. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have started working on it as part of the backlog reduction drive at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs, and I am automatically clearing the articles that have more than 3 links that way the backlog team has a more accurate sense of how many we have to unorphan. We can always use more help, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress, Sadads (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask -- why stop at 3? Many of the NRHP articles have only the one certain incoming link from the state, city, or county list. Policy says they are not orphans and I've long wondered why they should have the nasty message at the top, as if they were somehow not worthy. Yet buildings that are notable for their architecture are unlikely to have any other logical links in.
I spend almost all of my time now as an Admin on Commons. We are woefully behind there, so it's unlikely I'll do a lot on WP:EN for a while. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWB removes the orphan tag by default at 3 links. However I feel that that the more incoming links the more likely someone who is reading a Wikipedia article will click into it and read it and decide they can expand it. Unorphaning articles increases the likelihood of exposure of the article and in turn the likelihood that someone will edit it. The more links the more traffic. Three is a good minimum because it ensures that the network of links is not linear but through a network to multiple more-linked pages (again increasing likelihood of exposure). One link is a little weak, tending to lead to linear paths to articles. Ideally I would write a navbox for each article which would create a network of 20+ articles that interlink and share traffic. I can't do that with topics I don't know very well, but for WP:Novels articles I write them all the time, and its really effective in increasing traffic.Sadads (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine theory, but it doesn't work well for NRHP sites. Take, for example, A. C. Smith & Co. Gas Station. It is on the National Register because it is a typical gas station of the period. There is nothing else notable about it and it is unlikely that any article (other than National Register of Historic Places listings in Quincy, Massachusetts) could be appropriately linked to it. In a smaller city, one could imagine a list of NRHP sites in the city article, but that would just duplicate the existing list here.
There are roughly 80,000 NRHP sites. There are about 500,000 Listed Buildings in the UK. Policy says that all of them deserve articles, and about half the NRHP sites actually have them. 24,000 of them are stubs and are unlikely to get much beyond stub status because there simply isn't much more known about the building. Many of these will, like the gas station, have no logical inbound links beyond the regional list. Is it really appropriate to put a "second class citizen" tag on thousands of articles when there is no logical way out of the paucity of links and it is unlikely that anyone is going to put in the time anyway?
And, by the way, I, for one, would rather see editor time going into stubbing out the remaining 44,000 NRHP sites that don't have articles, so that when a user goes into a list of sites in an area, he or she can get a little information on all of them. Why discourage that by putting an orphan tag on someone's work? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Yi

Please be careful; you were linking bunches of "Guo Yi" that were not the same Guo Yi that you were trying to link to. --Nlu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thank you for fixing them, Sadads (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E De people

No problem - I just felt a little quippy. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks to you too for finishing off the review so quickly! I didn't even know it started! Derild4921Review Me! 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem. I hadn't realized that that had drug on so long! I would have come in to help push it through. Sadads (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GameLab

Could you please create the article before making redirects to them? Broken redirects qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G8 (apologies if you already knew that). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 14:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Haloga

Hello Sadads, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Haloga, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ǝɥʇM0N0farewell 03:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool

Hi! I noticed that you've been adding several articles to the Article Feedback Tool pilot list. I think it's great that you are interested in being involved with the pilot but I'm going to have to ask you to stop. The articles you added the tool to are not good candidates for the "Additional Articles" list, so I'm going to remove them from the category. If you like, you can join in our discussion about it at mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Additional Pages.

Thanks!--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was just messing around with the tool, tell me if you need help for a broader deployment, Sadads (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! We'd be happy to have you help out, if you like. We have a workgroup page on MediaWiki.org where we are doing our planning and discussion. I believe Howie is planning to start a drive for finding more of our "additional pages" - and I know several of the ones we've identified haven't been added to the category.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I fixed the link.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sadads. It would be great if you could be involved. As Jorm said, right now we're selecting more article to deploy the tool to. There are two other folks helping out: User: Pjoef and User: Fetchcomms. Check out this section of the workgroup page -- hopefully the three of you can work together! Howief (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am a little busy, but maybe towards the end of the month I can take on a responsibility, Sadads (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novels!?

Careful with AWB there, sonny -- you just tagged Embracing Defeat, a Pulitzer-winning nonfiction work, as a novel! Jpatokal (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as an article within the scope of WP:Novels (I removed it, see this diff). Sorry about that, but people need to be a little more careful about what project they put articles in! Sadads (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planet killer deletion

You put the following notice on my Talk page: "A discussion has begun about whether the article Planet killer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted". I'm curious as to what metric you used to obtain my name, since I don't think I've ever seen, much less contributed, to that article before, and my username appears nowhere in the article history. I think you'd better double-check. If you've sent out such notices to people who are not involved with the article, it may be that you've also failed to notify people who are involved.RandomCritic (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invited everyone who participated in the original deletion discussion in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planet_killer) because all of the major early contributers were either IPs or their accounts are gone, Sadads (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VWBot

I appreciate your constructive criticism of comparing my bot to a vandal. Perhaps you would like to pitch in at WP:CCI so that there's no need for automation? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be need for animation, but the current animation is very clunky and is causing an overt amount of work for other users. Perhaps some sort of tag and backlog that isn't as intrusive as the current Copyvio tag. Something to the effect of "This page was edit by User:Example, who had a considerable history of copyright violation. Please examine this article for any possible .." This would do the same thing, without the blatant destruction of content your bot is doing now. Sadads (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel obligated to point out that the work has been caused by Pohick2/Accotink2 - they are a known repeat infringer and all of their edits have to be checked for copyright violations, the question is who checks them and when. What's your opinion of a tag like this one used previously? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one takes over the page when we are not at all sure whether the user did in fact violate copyright. I would prefer that above the text of the article, not hiding it.Even if that means we have a backlog that doesn't always get rapid attention, at least we are making very clear that we don't mean to have copyrighted material displayed and that if anyone finds objections, they should in fact remove it. I know it is not the ideal solution, but at least we aren't destroying content that we don't have a clear verdict on. I think it was very different in the case of User:Susanne2009NYC, who was very clearly using paraphrase materials, and even she did constructive edits along side. Accotink2 did a lot of very good and constructive work, and a finer toothed comb for articles that he created should be our major concern, not reverting everything that he worked on, Sadads (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to address your points in reverse order here and more generally than just the Accotink2 situation, if I may. I agree that a fine-tooth comb for those editors who have contributed good edits as well as copyvios is certainly preferrable because we would like to keep any clean edits, but the issue is that the backlog is rapidly growing and not enough editors are willing to actually spend the time and effort required to clean up copyvios, even when they are tagged. Do you honestly feel that tagging a page for a likely copyright problem will result in serious action being taken to uncover copyright problems beyond what already occurs by listing an article at WP:CCI? Even active articles with tens of thousands of viewers have copyright problems tagged for months with no action taken: see here for example. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your backlog is not the only backlog that has difficulties, BLPs and Orphaned articles are very good examples. Backlog is good though, that means we are admitting to our problems, even though we will never have the manpower to make everything perfect. For CCI in particular, as long as OTRS is responsive to issues about copyrighted/problematic content from outside communities, I don't think a large backlog is exactly a problem. I think right now its more a matter of admitting our faults and reaching out to larger communities, and getting more people interested in Wikipedia in general and not worrying about fixing every mistake immediately.
Have you considered a semi-automated screening tools, instead of a pure bot. Perhaps something like Wiki Cleaner for dabs or AWB. I have a lot of success screening articles manually with AWB for orphaned stuff. It's a matter of bringing attention to your backlog, not hoping that people will show up and then doing massive and destructive automated edits. I am sure if you ran some large scale drives like BLP you could rally more interest. GOCE has also had a lot of success with that. I mean, I haven't seen anything in Signpost about CCI's activities ever. Perhaps get your CCI cases on the Arbitration report? That might get more people interested in your process, especially people that have had problems/interest in particular editors or their activities. Right now it feels like a backcorner operation that you only hear about when some user undergoes an investigation and gets banned and you happen happening to be watching a related page. I think more visibility is really important for you guys to get any success without being destructive with bots.Sadads (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand how semi-automated tools would help. Any chance you could be more specific about that? As far as a drive goes, organizing a group of people is not really my forte, but that's something I'll bring up for the project, thanks. While the wikiproject has been mentioned before, when I looked I couldn't find any mention of CCI until this week's Signpost. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest some type of tool that moves through the tagged backlog and identifies the tagged contributions of the said editor and gives the screening volunteer a chance to make a decision based on the changes whether to revert or not, or tag for some other form of manual clean up. This could function kindof like AWB which allows you to do automatic changes however the user has to review each change before clicking save. Also WikiCleaner has a similar interface, but is focused on a particular backlog disambiguating links, I think could be a model for some type of Copyright screener that actually goes back and distinguishes which content comes from the CopyVio editor's contributions, Sadads (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea has possibilities, it will take some planning to figure out how best to set it up that would really help beyond going through CCI listings with Twinkle or the like, but I'll definitely look into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really could just be a variation on your current bots functions with a very human orientated GUI which you could refine to make a little more effective at actually finding copyvio, Sadads (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense, I'm not sure why I wasn't getting that before so thanks for explaining it in detail. Redesigning the code to actually find copyvio (at least by ruling out more non-copyvio elements) is what I'll be working on next for the fully automated task. Getting a robust and user-friendly GUI which displays those results would be the real trick then to a semi-automated tool after those refinements are made as it's been a few years since I wrote code for anything besides command-line interaction for personal use. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Thanks for your comments, Sadads. I am not letting AWB automatically assess the articles I check. I do read the articles and make a judgment on classification. Rpyle731talk 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at PrincessofLlyr's talk page.
Message added 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Máchovo jezero
Snåsavatnet
Apple sauce
2152 Hannibal
Todd McShay
Hannibal Islands
Ronald E. Carrier
Hannibal (high-rise building)
Hampton-Kings
Your Face
Ballistic knife
Hannibal Brooks
Hampton-in-Arden railway station
Hannibal Monomachus
Midget
In-camera effect
Beechwood Sacred Heart School
Chicken nugget
Ian Fleming (actor)
Cleanup
High-key lighting
Conquests of Hannibal
David Holden
Merge
Wilson Hall (James Madison University)
Ricky Gervais
List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season Three
Add Sources
Petro Vlahos
Hassan Jones
Einavatnet
Wikify
Hannibal Square Library
How to Train Your Dragon
Rostojávri
Expand
List of television stations in Virginia (by channel number)
Hasan Izzet
Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your post at Ohconfucius's page. WP:MOSLINK generally discourages such commonly known links as the anglophone country names, common European countries, Russia, China, India, Japan and the like; and also to continents and other huge geographical features. That is, unless there is a particular point to linking a whole article. Generally, a more specific link, if it is required in the context, can be found by section-linking or linking to a daughter article. What particular example did you have in mind? (I've watchlisted this page for your convenience, or respond on OC's?). Tony (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there could be something to disambiguated those links to be more specific to the context of the article. For example if it were "American writer" which happen to be the one that came across my watchlist [1], he should be linking to List of American writers not removing the link. Also, in the case of novels, I don't think it really hurts because nationality is very descriptive of them, and it is alright to duplicate links that are in the Infobox in the prose. Last night I didn't realize that there was a link in the infobox, but again the prose and infobox can have the same link in them (See Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Repeated links). Maybe we should get the AWB people to have the duplicate link finder ignore infoboxes.... Anyway those are my thoughts at least, Sadads (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think there's consensus that a link in an infobox can be repeated in the lead or elsewhere without the normal concern for avoiding (or at least rationing) repeated links in an article. Same can be true of tables. But the "List of ..." example is a bit of a problem (I just saw one to List of Russian novelists, piped to "Russian"). Readers are just so unlikely to click on a nationality that the more specific (and useful) link is largely wasted. This is why many editors prefer to place such a link either in full, unpiped in situ (although it's often awkward to work it in this way), or in the "See also" section (my usual preference if (i) fails). People are much more likely to click on the unpiped version rather than on a pipe that discards specific information. I do believe that linking and piping is an unrecognised art, and can be as interesting as making prose good. Tony (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's a question of approach, whether to leave links such as [[United States|America]]n [[authors]] in place or remove them in the hope that someone will replace them with more a suitable/specific one such as [[List of American writers|American author]]. I feel that such generic links are next to useless simply because they add little or no value for the reader, and are better done away with; some argue that it helps 'build the web', but the truth is that nobody is likely to click on these anyway. However, I would concede it may indeed be better to remove these manually or at a lower speed, but replacing them in the fashion you suggest is quite laborious with AWB, negating most of the reason for using the tool. That was why I chose to remove it cleanly in that case, although I have in the past and continue to 'improve' links in the manner described. If we are to succeed in building a culture of 'smart linking', I suggest let another person put a better link on it, in the manner of the 'teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life' philosophy. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the traffic to United States would deny that point [2], that hardly anyone uses those links. I would think the overlinking of United States, makes it that much more valuable of a hub for United States topics, because people can go there and find links to more general subarticles on the topic. For example, I would hardly think Federalism would [http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Federalism get nearly as much traffic it wasn't on the tail end of the overlinking to the US article, Sadads (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be correct. However, with the current state of technology, your assertion cannot be proven. Knowing as we do that search engines are very strong drivers of net trafic, one may be able to assert strongly that it may be as much, if not preponderantly, due to the top billing at search engines such as google and Yahoo!. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for Federalism at Google and Yahoo!. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! Thanks for your support! I created the 1st draft of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia. I used Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as an example since it is similar in purpose and scope, with a nice layout. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Looking forward to collaborate! And Happy Holidays!--Codrinb (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Help!

So per the usual I spent the entire week on my paper, and have devoted little to no time to my wikipedia project. I'm working on it now, and even the intro para is giving me trouble. For some reason not all of the text I typed is showing up. Any ideas? IR393.awc211 (talk) 1.37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A problem I ran into at JMU was students were just using the edit section buttons and not using the main edit button near the search bar, thus not actually writing stuff in the lead section but actually in the first section with a section header. Also, make sure that you aren't refreshing the page any time you do an edit (that can clear the text you have entered). Otherwise, I can't see any reason why your edits would have that problem. The history shows all of your edits staying.
Another thought though, while you were editing this article you removed a lot of the ref tags from previous authors. Generally we try to preserve as many references as we can when we are editing wikipedia articles unless of course the source isn't reliable or we find that the source does not support the information we are finding in the article or the information doesn't belong in the article. Also, I noticed you are using parenthetical citations, that is fine, however, the books shoudl be up in the Bibliography section and we really do prefer using the <ref> Reference text </ref> syntax for creating the references. If you don't make that change I am almost 95% sure that someone else will, so it's better not to create the work for other people, Sadads (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand not erasing the references already in place, but I tried by best to edit some of the sentences so that they were together. The references were repeated so many times in a row that I deleted some of them. And I know my parenthetical citations aren't okay- it was just so early in the morning that I needed to go to sleep. I'll be working on fixing them and try to integrate the citations that I deleted back over the next few days; I know it's my responsibility, I'm not planning on having someone else clean up my mess. I also wrote on the talk page of the article so people would understand I'm not just abandoning it how it is. However, is there a ref page on wikipedia that you can recommend? I found a variety of slightly different articles telling me how to cite things, but correct templates would be a huge help. Thank you! IR393.awc211 (talk) 13.18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The full citation style is really flexable, and if you want to see some of our "correct" use of templates see the documentation at Template:Citation or the various specific ones (Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book and Template:Cite journal). The footnote style for what you are doing is fine the "Author, Page#" format that you use in the parenthetical citations, so you may just have to replace the parenthesis with the ref tags. (And just to clarify, I was guessing you hadn't abandoned the article, but I wanted to make sure that you knew what the convention was even though we technically accept parenthetical citations), Sadads (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dacia.
Message added 00:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Codrinb (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 03:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

request for assistance

One of my adoptees is looking for help uploading a photo to commons. I've done absolutely nothing with that before and therefore don't feel comfortable trying to walk him through it. Is that something you would be able to do? PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, but you may want to direct him to File:Licensing_tutorial_en.svg and #5 on File:EarlyWiki2.pdf, which give advice and process information, and if there are still any questions, you can direct him to me. Also, FYI, we have a set of resources for Campus Ambassador and Mentoring use at WP:Ambassadors/Resources which may be useful for you in the future. Sadads (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of talk page stalkers has some experience with it and has replied to his questions. Thanks for the links! PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the status is of the Jan 2 meetup?

I haven't heard anything solid about a time and location and its only a couple days away. --Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, I am going to put out an e-mail today methinks, Sadads (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way I don't think I mention that I created a project page for the Library of Congress. Not sure if you were one of the folks working on that but I thought I would let you know anyway. There is a link on the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okaydokey, unfortunately my time is being sapped by the Ambassador program and getting ready to study abroad in England, maybe I will take a look at it later, Sadads (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem just thought I would let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been adding links to Portal:Poetry to the See also section of many pages. Can you explain how such a link is supposed to help readers on that topic? They seem like spam links , meant to promote Portal:Poetry and hardly seem an improvement to the article. Has there been policy discussion somewhere advocating the thrusting of this link on every page loosely having to do with poetry? Shreevatsa (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Featured Portal with relatively little traffic which, according to policy, is appropriate to add to see also sections of poetry related topics. Because I believe the portal is beneficial and helps individuals learn more about our good Poetry content, I have been adding it to pages, with the thought that it does not hurt the page and only helps expand the interconnectedness of Poetry related articles (note I only add it to articles with see also sections that did not have the poetry portal). I don't see how the portal could harm a page, and it certainly isn't WP:SPAM, because it is an approved navigational tool of the community. It is also recommended for those very same reasons at Wikipedia:POETRY#Templates_2. I did not bring it up as a discussion, because I felt it would be an uncontroversial edit, especially considering that all the articles are in Category:Poetry, which means they are inherently relevant to the topic or are miscategorized, Sadads (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The purpose of the "See also" section is not to promote all and sundry "beneficial" links, only those closely related to the subject. If your reasoning were followed, a page on (say) an Indian poet and author in the Bengali language ought to have links to Portal:Poetry, Portal:Literature, Portal:India, Portal:Bengali, and probably dozens others. This would clearly be ridiculous. The link to Portal:Poetry is fine on articles like Poetry and maybe a handful of others, but not on the large scale in which you're carrying out this exercise. I wish you'd stop. (Also, random sections on provincial pages like "Wikiproject Poetry" don't really demonstrate Wikipedia-wide consensus, they at most show the opinion among those few editors who choose to spend time on things like Wikiprojects and not necessarily on the article in question. In any case, that page doesn't recommend sticking this link in every See Also section; it only says it should be put nowhere else.) In any case, I request you to use editorial judgment and add it only when the entire broad topic of subject is closely related to the topic of an article, instead of mass edits using automated tools. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An odd question

Hi Sadads, for some reason I thought of you re this question: I want to upload the picture of these ski soldiers in from this article [3] for Camp Hale. I'm certain the photo is a military photo, but do you know how to get into the actual military databases of photos, or if not, which license to use. As anyone who watches my page knows, I have problems with images. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (novel)

I saw your request regarding the occupation of Estonia. Please let me know if you are still looking for additional information. Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly love to have a Historical background section on Purge (novel). I had one in their that was empty, but they asked me to remove it for the DYK process. If you would be so good to write a historical background summary that would be great!Sadads (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Literature Awards

I know you tend to edit more of the adult levels but thought your opinion may be valuable. I've been working on different novels but thought I'd dip my foot a little into creation when I realizes that there was not a page on Monarch Awards (an Illinois award for children's books). I know that there are articles on nation wide awards but wondered if state level ones were encyclopedic enough. Anyhow, you can check out the draft in my sandbox. JesseMSmith (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadads&oldid=405243247"