Jump to content

User:Zzyzx11/Archive28

This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The archives Archives
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 		This user is an administrator

Current time: Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 21:59 (UTC)
Last edit: February 28, 2023, 19:42 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)


Articles for creation/Detroit Rugby Football Club / Need Clarification

Hello, I apologize in advance as i am new to this Wikipedia article creation. I recently submitted an article that was deleted due to a copyright Infringement. I am unclear what part of the article was a copyright infringement. As as a FYI, i am on the Board of the Detroit Rugby Football Club and coordinator of the DOGS old boy rugby group and i was asked at the last board meeting to put an article about our club into Wikipedia. We are a non-profit group (501c) and want to continue to educate and promote the sport of rugby and especially in the detroit/Michigan/Mid-west area. A couple of questions - #1 - can you specifically identify was considered a copyright infringement ? Question #2 - How do i get the arcticle back so that I may make the necessary changes ? Lastly, how can i save an article so i dont have to recreate from scratch the entire page again (It took me 2 weeks to put it together) ? thanks in advance Mjgangler (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Television episode and season articles badly needed

FYI, there is now an effort to get some of the important episode and season articles in the reformatted templates created. You may want to get involved at Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Important_articles_to_be_created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that discussion a couple of days ago. User:Barsoomian basically sums up why this has been a systemic bias issue for years. I hope your canvassing to get these season and episode articles created is not solely to completely fill out your TV award navboxes. Not every show generates enough interest for enough active Wikipedians to work on, nor does every show have enough easily accessible reliable sources to warrant separate season and episode articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry sir (and I mean it). I will continue making good edits to the encyclopedia like I have been. I DO MEAN THIS. Jumpstartsie (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what time zone you are in, but Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time for the current date and time. It is still 31 March, which is why I reverted you. And even if it were 1 April, there is a number of regular users here who no longer tolerate "April Fools Joke" edits like 7 years ago when I started editing here. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know. Jumpstartsie (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 2010 NFL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superdome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it may not be something you're interested in; thought I'd ask anyway :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Wheeler Ridge Interchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chew and The Revolution

Hi. I'm coming for a feedback since you have strong knowledge of television and are also an administrator.

An user has added yesterday weekly ratings for these shows in their articles. I remember seeing on Wikipedia articles ratings by seasons, and at worst, by months. But I don't ever recall seeing weekly ratings. But then again, I'm no expert on this field.

Is it okay for weekly ratings to be on articles? And if not, is there a way this info can survive on newly created articles (for example, Weekly ratings for The Chew or Weekly ratings for The Revolution).

This user has put a lot of effort in listing these ratings and I don't want to turn his work down. But on the other hand, if we go by weekly ratings, the articles can quickly become too lengthy (unless the weekly ratings are spinoff on separates articles, as proposed before). What do you think? Are weekly ratings appropriate on Wikipedia? Farine (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing weekly ratings, or number of viewers, for Daytime shows either. I have seen "weekly" viewership on Primetime show lists like Desperate Housewives (season 8)#Episodes. But of course these primetime shows only air one episode a week instead of Monday to Friday. My advice is to wait and see what other users feel about those articles so there is a more of a definite consensus (although I don't think there will be that much fuss on The Revolution (TV series) since ABC recently announced that it will cancel it and the last episode will air this July). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

10 team SEC bracket

Hello Zzyzx11. I noticed that you have worked on some other bracket templates and I was hoping you could take a look at this one. The 2012 SEC Baseball Tournament has been expanded to 10 teams from 8, so the current {{SECBracket}} won't work. I can't find a 10 team double elimination bracket and I can't figure out how to edit the code to add another round. It will need to follow this format. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 13:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that was mainly 5-6 years ago when I had more free time to edit on Wikipedia – and primarily only on the base 16-, 8-, and 4-team tournament brackets. I had no part in the hundreds of other tournament bracket templates that have sprung up. Apparently others took those base templates and, using the wiki table coding, added or hid various table cells to display brackets with byes, double-elimination, legged-ties, and so forth.
I assume someone took the base table code used on {{32TeamBracket}} to help create {{20TeamBracket}} and {{24TeamBracket-Byes2}} since they all have five rounds. If you are comfortable with the wiki table code, you could use those three as models instead of trying to start from {{SECBracket}} directly. It may take a while if I actually do it, however. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone has recently created {{SECBracket2012}} within the last few hours in attempt to address the issue at 2012 SEC Baseball Tournament. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 12:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Say, I noticed your BOLD mass edits and I understand the SELFREF text change. However, I'm curious about your unilateral decision to remove the graphic altogether (as opposed to, perhaps, making it smaller or using a different picture). A graphic draws the reader's eye and, particularly since the link may end up with navboxes in the middle of the page (Mingulay, for example), having a visual cue at the link start point that is repeated at the link end point would be helpful to readers - and particularly so if we remove the text cue from those two points. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion other than the Wikipedia logo? I could not think of one, hence the removal. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
How about one of these? (I like Nuvola apps kpdf2 and Question book.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I have created and now testing {{Navbox link}} with the first image. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Neat. If and when you give me the "go ahead" I can follow behind and add the graphic to the navbox sections. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. I basically just created this template so there is a central place where we can modify the "See more articles related to X" message. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you have made Template:Navbox link, can I ask why we need a link to the cats at the bottom of pages? We have this being spammed all over.Moxy (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, I've provided an answer here: Template talk:Navbox link. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Proposal for navbox link in See also section.01:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

fyi, I've just encounter this template and find it quite inappropriate. I'm thinking a TfD is in order. I see no consensus for this muddying up of articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, originally my only concern was the violation of WP:SELF in the original version, and the creation of the template was to keep the maintenance of this feature in a central place. As to the issue as to whether to keep this feature, I am neutral, and thus discussions should be made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Proposal for navbox link in See also section and any relevant deletion discussion, not on my talk page. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw the prior discussion. The current discussion has gotten some traction at WT:FAC#views on boxes in "See also" that link to navboxes?. Not gonna try and start this up here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well good luck. I'm not surprised it ended up on WT:FAC. The featured article criteria generally has additional requirements than just the WP:MOS and the content policies. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

MBTA infobox headers

The infobox headers are, in fact, specifically designed to replicate the station signs. That's been consensus for years now. Please do not remove them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me the discussion please. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you one: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 6#Various MBTA infobox header templates. That is not a recent one, however, and my original objection still has not been addressed. The discussion only resulted in the deleting the meta-template system – there was no consensus really on the listing of multi-lines. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The original discussion (referred to in that deletion discussion) is here.
A large number of train systems have specialized infobox headers. Metro-North Railroad, Shore Line East, New York City Subway, Los Angeles Metro, LIRR, Chicago (El and Metra) and a number of the related British services (Underground, Overground, DLR, and National Rail) all have sign-replication headers. In all of those systems, editors have determined that it's worthwhile to have a distinctive style.
I disagree that it looks unprofessional, but that is inherently a subjective opinion. It's not an objective unprofessionalism like, say, using paragraphs of colored text or a full-page image would be.
Redundancy is a problem only for the MBTA, which uses different signs for each line. (The CTA (Chicago El), for example, uses multiple stripes at transfer stations on their official signs; that is easily replicated on Wikipedia without redundancy. For transfer stations (of which there's perhaps 20 on the MBTA system), perhaps one sign should be chosen. Or, maybe, someone can drag up what an MBTA sign with multiple lines looks like. That's something that deserves a discussion, though - not arbitrary judgement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep looking for what other systems use for transfer stations, to see if there's any good ideas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, it was not necessarily "arbitrary judgement". I was merely using what is mentioned on Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – no further discussion had been made after that TFD discussion and on Gfoley4's talk page for more than a year, so I made these bold edits until someone complained or reverted, which happened to be you, and I immediately stopped. I apologize for any misunderstanding on that regard.
Yes, I am also aware of the challenges on MTBA transfer station articles, whereas others have symbols or icons that can be used. And there are other systems like the Bay Area Rapid Transit that do not use any of these thinks at all in the header (like MacArthur (BART station)). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I apologize if I overreacted. In any case, the MBTA is almost unique in the problem. There are only two other systems I can find with similar linear headers (rather than dots or icons). Tyne-Wear - see Jesmond Metro station - uses a more stylized pair of lines; Toronto TTC - see Spadina (TTC) - arbitrarily chooses one of the lines. Good night, and happy editing to you! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been in Boston since 1969, and have seen many changes in the MBTA system since then. While the repeated station names in different colors always looked a bit clunky to me, that is the way the MBTA does things here. I've been on rapid transit in many other North American cities (including most of those mentioned above) and seen better (and worse) ways of doing things. I think it is appropriate to reflect the actual local style, unless it markedly interferes with understanding of the information presented. The MBTA transfer stations are important, and the signage at them is clear enough, if somewhat inelegant. Reflecting the local style makes it easier for the reader to connect the abstract images on the webpage to the real-world signage seen at the stations.
Wikipedia is not supposed to be somehow advocating that the MBTA change its signage, it's supposed to present things to the reader the way they are. If/when the MBTA changes its signage (e.g. color, font, symbols, etc.), the corresponding Wikipedia article should do likewise. For example, I never liked the ALL CAPS style of the MBTA signage, preferring the Mixed Case style of the NYCTA. But presenting New York subway signs in ALL CAPS because it supposedly is "EASIER TO READ" would be a disservice to the reader, regardless of an editor's opinion about its actual readability.
If a verifiable source proposes a better signage system, Wikipedia could certainly show example comparisons between existing and proposed. But force-fitting a NYCTA/CTA/BART style sign system to an MBTA article is just confusing to the reader, whether a Boston local or an out-of-town visitor, because it doesn't match the reality seen at the station. --Reify-tech (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion continues, perhaps it ought to be relocated to a place more visible to other editors who might be interested, or they should be alerted some other way. I'm aware of at least one other editor who protested, and who may or may not be monitoring here. --Reify-tech (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand how presenting the station names in a different style makes it so that Wikipedia is "advocating that the MBTA change its signage". Furthermore, reflecting the local style is one thing. Trying to do it within the guidelines of WP:ACCESS, so it is not confusing to color blind users or those trying to understand the information off of text browsers and screen readers, is quite another. At least ALL CAPS, symbols and icons can be somewhat interpreted. Having multiple, duplicated text lines instead of an image with an ATL tag may not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Can a template be given an alt tag? That'd solve the access issue without requiring separate issues for each transfer station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) may know a lot more than me, but in my limited understanding of templates, wiki markup and HTML, an Alt tag can only be used on images; there is generally not a very good equivalent for an HTML generated table (which the template is currently doing) to generate that type of layout, using only text and colored rows, to look like those station signs. Adding the title attribute like this is somewhat of a fix, but some screen readers may not support it within those <div> tags. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Snow plow game.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Snow plow game.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Navbox link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:YoungandtheRestless1984.png)

Thanks for uploading File:YoungandtheRestless1984.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps in Geolocation templates

Hello: I agree with taking out the Google Maps coordinates out of the geolocation template as you did at Redlands, California (even though I love GoogleMaps). Well, the template parameters don't have any guidance in that regard: Template:Geographic location -- e.g., don't put in/may put in. What are your thoughts about specifically setting up parameter guidance to keep such coordinates out?--S. Rich (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been a larger issue than just Template:Geographic location, so I'm not sure if putting it solely in that template's documentation is the proper course of action – but feel free if you think it might be helpful. I have seen others also put a direct external link to Google Maps inside another template, an infobox, or list them in the external links section. Template:Coord was designed to provide a standard notation for encoding locations by their latitude and longitude coordinates, as well as providing a link to various map sources to other online sources like Google Maps. Then Google Maps and others, in turn, read Wikipedia's database dumps, to help those map tools link to Wikipedia's articles. In many of the ones that I have removed, the link to Google Maps does not correspond exactly to the coordinates that were put in {{Coord}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll think about it while I fry my other fish.--S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

DPAS Page Removed?

I created a page for a company that I represent (I may not have been signed in at the time) called DPAS, which was removed on grounds of copyright.

I've included below the three links that I used to cite the company's notability - could you give me some feedback as to which of these links violates copyright policy, so that I can resubmit the page?

- http://www.dentalguide.co.uk/supplies/dpas.html - http://www.dpas.co.uk - http://www.bdta.org.uk/users/44/75/enquiries-dpas-co-uk.html

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DentalObservers (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted on grounds of copyright because major portions were copied and pasted from those sites. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously (the primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights), and in general we do not permit people copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing significant portions of text from other sources. This includes websites of the charity or non-profit organizations, educational sources and all sources without a copyright notice. Even if a work does not have a copyright notice, we assume it to be under copyright-protection based on the terms of the international Berne Convention. Because you never stated who you were or what you represent, we assumed it was a copyright violation, and thus deleted it. Please also see our frequently asked questions for copyrights.
However, by admitting you represent this company, you have a conflict of interest to the subject of your article. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. Too many times, people who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which causes them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. You are not absolutely prohibited from editing about this company, but you need to be especially careful about ensuring that your edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. This includes writing in a way so that it does not read like an advertisement, a press release, or any other marketing material. Please familiarize yourself with content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and most importantly determining notability for companies. As of now, just providing links to the said company's web site and two business directories would not be sufficient to warrant an article about this company. Please also see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

About london2102.com

Hi Zzyzx11.
"With only one sentence, this article currently fails the Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria to warrant a separate page". Er, it's the official website of a billion dollar undertaking, the 2012 Summer Olympics. I strongly disagree.
We could arguefy this for hours and hours, with all kinds of unnecessary drama, and it would probably still end up as a consensus to WP:Redirect.
Perhaps a section in the main article, citing the third-party reliable refs?
Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By not initially redirecting it when I originally tagged it with {{notable}}, I was open for an expansion, but Lugnuts thought otherwise.[1] If you want to expand the main 2012 Olympics article, please remember WP:NOTGUIDE. Content about london2102.com should "also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." In other words, the cited content should portray the web site as more significant than just merely aggregating Olympic scores, news and video highlights, like most of the official websites for previous Olympics basically did. Otherwise, it might get eventually removed as not notable.
In addition, your comment that "it's the official website of a billion dollar undertaking, the 2012 Summer Olympics" is irrelevant. Per WP:WEB#No inherited notability, "web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it".
And speaking of those official websites, http://www.athens2004.com now redirects back to Olympic.org; http://www.torino2006.it/ appears to be dead; http://www.beijing2008.cn/ was completely redesigned, removing most of the 2008 Olympic content itself to focus more on activities and development since then, and http://www.vancouver2010.com/ now also redirects back to to Olympic.org. Therefore, it is very likely london2102.com will also eventually be shut down as well by the time the 2016 Games are underway, and it will all just be recentism in the long run. The web site is only meant for offering news and highlights in real time during the Games. But once the Games are over, it may suffer like the previous web sites. Traffic will decrease to the point where it will no longer be feasible to keep most of the content online. The IOC and the National Olympic Committees are non-profit entities after all, and advertisers will no longer be interested to help pay to keep the sites. So again, please provide something that makes this website out of the ordinary and notable to warrant additional content that is going to be significant in 10 years when the 2022 Winter Olympics are underway. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to write about this. I really do appreciate it.
Hey, in a notional WP:AfD for london2012.com my !vote would be: redirect per noms Lugnuts and Zzyzx11... despite WP:PERNOM being a completely bollocks reason. Or something like that. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

California reformat

Thank you!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

:P

Hi there! I saw your edit summary about the images I chose for List of California Historical Landmarks. It took me two months to build those lists, by hand, since no bot was able to be used due to the data. By the time I finished all of the lists, I was so burnt out, I just randomly chose so pleasant photos based on the layout of the page. And this was at 7 PM on August 29! (Just a few days to spare for WLM) So don't take it personal :) Besides, all of the places listed - with or without photos - are important for so many reasons, I felt unfair just choosing any photo at all! Thanks for contributing to the project page. SarahStierch (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did initially thought the images were chosen at random, so that is why I made that edit. But you are forgiven for all the hard work for splitting the list and converting them to tables. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
...and you're welcome for the Barnstar I gave you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lions100.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lions100.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Regards, — Moe ε 16:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New Wiki-Project subproject

Hello Zzyzx, Automatic Strikeout and I have started a new sub-project off of the NFL Wiki-Project dedicated to referees. It can be found here. Looking through the page histories of some NFL officials, I noticed that a year or two ago you made some edits to these articles, and I wanted to know if you'd be interested in joining. It's in the frantic organizational stage at the moment, but feel free to jump in. Thanks! Go Phightins! (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lyons Station Stagecoach Stop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newhall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 85th Academy Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Old RM multi

Template:Old RM multi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


Union City California

There was some things i would like to discuss with you and possibly you can add to the page i would appreciate it. Balmoralgirl2 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Union City, California article is currently "semi-protected", which means that new accounts like yours that are not at least four days old nor have at least ten edits to Wikipedia cannot edit them. Looks like you created your account on October 26, but you still need to make a few more edits to qualify to edit semi-protected pages. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nanuque, Minas Gerais

It looks like some changes were made after the article was moved (possibly only the addition of an infobox), and the most recent version of Nanuque was copied without attribution - is a history merge necessary? There was also a message I left on the talk page for the user who made the original cut-and-paste move, which I didn't save - could you please copy it to the talk page of the original article? Peter James (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion and did a history merge. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Undeletion or copying of the talk page is unnecessary now as I've left a message on user talk for the user. Peter James (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Walt Coleman and Thanksgiving day game

I recently edited a paragraph on Walt Colemans Wikipedia regarding the Thanksgiving game, I did so to give a more accurate and clear picture of the events that unfolded on that day. and his career, I did do the edit because it is currently bias towards a Houston Texans, perspective. I did not add any additional references as there were plenty cited in the article. I do not understand why most of my edits were wiped clean as I thought this site was for the people written by the people, and that helped ensure accuracy. I guess this may have been a wrong assumption on my part. Again i was simply trying to remove the bias from the article, and give the readers an accurate view of how the play happened. But it appears I and people such as myself are not welcome here. Thank you for letting me know this rather quickly. I hope you have a great week. I wasn't quite sure how to add the references as Wikipedia has changed quite a bit since i last used it over 5 years ago but this is the link i was citing. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/11/22/3680302/texans-lions-refs-blow-call-justin-forsett-down. and as you see, the first paragraph of the article is what I wrote in the article, about the runner clearly being tackled by two lions defenders. it also would give the readers a good view of clips of the play. But i understand if you want the article to lean towards one side of the arguement. (BrutoriousBobIII (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, the strict policies on biographies of living persons was the result of both legal issues and public embarrassment that Wikipedia suffered during those last 5 years since you edited, due to the fact that anyone could add anything at anytime. And therefore, numerous biographical articles (especially the pages on celebrities and politicians) were unchecked and were full of libel, slander, and inaccuracies. So the consensus of the powers that be on Wikipedia decided that "material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." So in essence, these articles need to basically repeat what has already been said in already published sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed without discussion -- ZERO information is preferred over misleading or inaccurate information.
This is particular true with articles on sports referees and umpires, because once one of them makes a controversial call, their Wikipedia article usually gets bombarded with libel, slander, and other vandalism -- such as when Jorge Larrionda made a controversial call during the 2010 FIFA World Cup. If you think NFL referees get criticism for bad calls, that is nothing compared to international tournaments like soccer's FIFA World Cup.
That said, the topic about the controversial call will definitely stay on the Walt Coleman article now that the league is contemplating a rule change. I have already made some alterations since you first edited the page yesterday. Since Wikipedia is always a work in progress, the section will most likely be revised again when the rule change is passed. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and explanation, My intentions were just to make the wording less bias. I will not edit anything further as the rules here are seemingly quite complex compared to the last time I used this site. hope you have a great afternoon sir (or ma'am) (BrutoriousBobIII (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Miracle at the meadowlands.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Miracle at the meadowlands.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Image was uploaded in August 2005[2] when fair use rules on WP:NFCC were less strict and not an official Wikipedia policy yet.[3]. I have not edited the image description page since, nor I'm responsible for its current version -- I have actually totally forgottn about that image anyway, and currently do not care either way if its deleted or not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Good to see you're still around! I still see some of your edits come up on my watchlist every now and then. --Rschen7754 08:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just that I'm not as active at editing U.S road articles as I use to, if that is what's on your mind lately. Best regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still doing a lot of editing U.S. road articles (surprisingly), but I'm finding that admin tasks are taking more and more of my time nowadays. --Rschen7754 20:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Oops! Thanks for spotting that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 NFL season

Hello. I was wondering if now (December 10, 2012) is still too early to start up the 2013 NFL season article, though I kind of "got a headstart" (preceded by a hidden text command and below the Super Bowl XLVIII re-direct)? I have also already created a 2013 NFL season navigational box, 2013 divisional standings templates and 2013 season articles for all 32 teams (with infoboxes, draft tables and 2013 opponent tables), all of which I have saved on a flash drive. I noticed that the 2012 NFL season article was started up on December 14 of last year (2011). Just wondering. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

I assume you are referring to this version of the 2012 article, right? And I believe you started the 2012 team articles roughly December 2011. Well, as long as you are confident that somebody is not going to immediately re-direct it, or put it up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, per the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule. If you noticed on that December 2011 version of the 2012 NFL season article, I already had at least five citations to comply with the rule. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just "removed the tarp" from the 2013 NFL season article, with five sources. (You may want to put it on your watchlist if you haven't already done so.) I think I'll wait at least one more week before creating a 2013 NFL season navigational box (which I have saved in my sandbox), 2013 divisional standings templates and 2013 season articles for all 32 teams. Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)DPH1110

Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 NFL season

Hey, real quick, I was hoping you could make a change to this edit notice. It uses "i.e" where it should be using "e.g." instead. I would make the change myself, but it's protected. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice has been modified. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yield sign Straw Poll

Since you were involved in the move discussion for Yield sign, please checkout the straw poll over at Talk:Yield sign#Proposal to close discussion and share your thoughts. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you need a straw poll to close the discussion. It is already posted on WP:RM. And as per the instructions on WP:RM, requests are generally processed after seven days, usually by an uninvolved admin, who determines whether there is consensus or not to perform the move. This is basically the same rule as if it was posted on WP:AFD, where an uninvolved admin closes and processes the discussion after a week. Or are you saying you want the discussion closed before then? You might as well find someone uninvolved who may be willing to close it prematurely per the snowball clause because of the current overwhelming opposition. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of Template:Infobox LACMTA station

The parameter {{{iconstrip}}} should have been converted to {{{type}}} in Template:Infobox station, rather than including it as part of the {{{name}}}. It's no big deal - but it would have been the proper place to put the icon. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As you may know, Infobox LACMTA station has been on the TFD holding cell for more than a month. I attempted to make a quick conversion on all the articles, but there are still parameters that need to be synced up. As for that specific issue, this was mainly because I did not recall ever seeing icons being put in the type parameter before -- only icons put in the name parameter like on Termini (Rome Metro) and Jungfernstieg station. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It would have allowed a direct conversion of parameter without the line break, when you are placing the icon under the name, and kept the {{{name}}} field clean. But it is not a big deal. I've done a few of them and the cleanup is more tedious than the conversion. Thanks for doing all that work. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Amazing work on the LA Metro templates and nice use of template tools. You are the template master! 白痴美國 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Recent edits to the ABC World News page

That was totally an accident. I'm sorry. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, as long as you were making a good faith attempt to revert what you thought was vandalism/content blanking, and it was done by accident, all is good. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 Giant

I guess you'd be right as the NFL site did confirm it. I only changed it because I found it odd for them to host Oakland again after they already played them at home in 2009. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zzyzx11/Archive28&oldid=1142147939"