User talk:Conti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

You trying to delete the Batman movie template that I worked so hard on[edit]

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.

This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 1:20 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a template for Batman movies per se, the problem is that the template is way too big. Template:Back to the Future for example only contains directly related articles, like characters, lists, or soundtracks. Note that it does not contain links to actors, writers or directors, for example. My problem with the template is that it is used on more than 100 articles. Take Uma Thurman, for example. If there'd be other, similarly detailed templates, Uma Thurman's article would contain a big template about the Batman films, one about Kill Bill, one about Pulp Fiction, one about Les Misérables, and so on. That's just way too much. --Conti| 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Comparing Uma Thurman's other movies to the Batman film series is really apples and oranges. The last time that I checked, Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction isn't a major, multi-billion dollar comic book movie franchise. And what else is there supposed to be in the templates? You don't want to know more info about the directors, writers, composers, producers, effects crew, etc.? There's more to the movies beyond the actors and the movies themselves. Look at the big picture! TMC1982 (talk) 5:25 p.m., 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am looking at the big picture, actually, which is how I came to the conclusion that, if all templates were as detailed as yours, many articles would contain more templates than content. I mean, just look at the templates on Batman. They cover four screens. You cannot possibly say that that's the way it's supposed to be. A list (List of Batman related topics or something) might be much better suited for your goals, I'd say. Or maybe a Portal. Not to mention articles like Will Friedle, which contains a Batman template, even though Will is most definitely not very well known for anything related to Batman. Why is there no Boy Meets World template instead? That's an example of Undue weight, IMHO. --Conti| 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
What difference does it make if Will Friedle is mostly known for Boy Meets World (you're seemingly working on a slippery slope)? That would be like saying that there should also be a Beetlejuice template for Michael Keaton, a Willow or The Saint template for Val Kilmer, or a ER template for George Clooney. Batman is a way, way bigger deal than all of them! TMC1982 (talk) 9:10 p.m., 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If Will Friedle is mostly known for Boy Meets World, but the article focuses on his work related to Batman instead, then that's a clear sign of Undue weight. Diedrich Bader is a good example, too. There's just one sentence in the article mentioning his work related to batman, yet there's a big template at the end of the article called "Batman franchise media". If that's not undue weight, I don't know what is.
There is a template for The Saint: Template:The Saint. It's even linking to Val Kilmer, but it's not linked from his article. Instead, the template focuses on works directly related to the books. It doesn't list publishers, directors, etc., and more importantly, it's not used in such articles, either. I think you're seeing the whole thing from the wrong perspective. It's not about what Wikipedia can do for all the Batman fans out there, it's about what Wikipedia can do for everyone. Not everyone who visits Will Friedle or Diedrich Bader or Val Kilmer wants to learn more about Batman. And if they want, they can find their way around to Batman without the need of any template. --Conti| 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Well lets put it this way, by the rate that you're going, there shouldn't be a template for the actors who portrayed James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is also known for playing Remington Steele, Roger Moore is also known for being on the original Saint TV series, Sean Connery has been in many high profile movies (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Untouchables, The Hunt for Red October, etc.) outside of the Bond role. TMC1982 (talk) 10:42 p.m., 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There can be a template for actors who portrayed James Bond. Let's have a look at it. Tim Bentinck is linked from that template, but the template isn't used on his article, because he is not most well known for portraying James Bond. The same is true for Jason Carter, while Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Daniel Craig all include the template, since they are well known for portraying James Bond. That makes sense to me. I wouldn't terribly mind a template for actors who portrayed Batman, either. I wouldn't be a big fan of it, but it'd be okay by me. What I would mind would be a "James Bond films" template that includes all actors, all crew, all directors, all writers, all locations, all cars used, all songs used, etc. We don't have that. Instead, the template for James Bond films looks like this. And that's how the Batman films template should look like, too. Let me put it this way: I'm not against a template for the four Batman films, but I am against a template for the four Batman films that includes about 130 links and is included in about 130 articles. Just compare Template:1989-1997 Batman film series with Template:James Bond films. That's what I'm talking about. --Conti| 10:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
James Bond movies (about 22 so far) have been around for 40+ years. The modern Batman movies have been around since 1989, on the contrary. Comparing the production crew (where as, the Batman movies have only had Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, and Christopher Nolan to get the ball running so to speak) for the Bond films with that of the Batman films is like comparing apples and oranges. Lets put it this way, it would make a lot more practical sense if say, we broke things down based on the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig eras of Bond movies. TMC1982 (talk) 4:57 p.m., 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it would've been better if I had compared the Batman template with a Craig-Bond template. But there is no such template. And there is a good reason for that. We don't have one Connery-Bond template, one Moore-Bond template, one Dalton-Bond template, one Brosnan-Bond template and one Craig-Bond template. And if we had those templates, they shouldn't list all the directors, actors, locations, songs and bond girls that were used in those films. One template, for all the bond films, is enough. Just like one template, for all the Batman films, is enough. I wouldn't inherently (as I said) oppose a "1989-1997 Batman film series"-template, but only if it'd contain a dozen or so links and is included in a dozen or so articles. --Conti| 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is that if say, a James Bond movie template also listed the cast, crew, locations, songs, etc. it would be a lot more feesable and practical to solely concentrate on each era (i.e. the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig eras). You're seemingly making it sound like that there should be a single template for the Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, and Christopher Nolan set of films, which would make the point of having these sort of templates way too vague and/or barebones. TMC1982 (talk) 10:37 p.m., 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point, actually. One template for the 6 batman films in the last 20 years is enough. And it shouldn't include 130 links. 13 would be a more appropriate number. Or maybe 15, or 20, but not 130. --Conti| 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot more that goes behind the films besides the films themselves. What point would there be to have individual articles for the crew if they don't get their "proper due" so to speak? TMC1982 (talk) 10:00 p.m., 17 January 2009 (UTC)
They get their "proper due" in the articles about the films. I think you misunderstand the purpose of navigational templates. Most of the time, they're simply a fancy "see also", and that's it. And the "See also" section only contains links directly relevant to the article. Having a link to Knebworth House in Peter Guber (and vice versa) just doesn't make any sense, because those two articles are not related in any meaningful way. --Conti| 13:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Batman in popular media" is a way, way more generalized and basic template. And of course stuff like Knebworth House and Peter Guber for instance "make sense" for a Batman movie template because they played essential roles in the production of said Batman movie in the first place! TMC1982 (talk) 5:40 p.m., 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've nominated three more of your templates for deletion, by the way, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Batman film series templates. --Conti| 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ploppy" in the username blacklist[edit]

"Ploppy" is an infantile onomatopoeic term for feces in common use in the UK. For evidence of this, see the first Google hit for "ploppy", which is http://fatsquirrel.org/software/ploppy/ , and the third Google hit, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ploppy+pants ) The Blackadder character Mr. Ploppy is also a reference to this: "My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper". "Dookie" might be a U.S. equivalent in terms of offensiveness; mildly offensive, infantile, but not the sort of thing you want all over edit logs and other users' pages. The other term is a variant of the above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I should've searched for "ploppy", too, which does seem to have just this one meaning. I only searched for "plopper", and the results were mostly Simpsons related. Plopper also seems to be a last name, so I've removed that term (but not "ploppy") again, since it seems to be mainly used in a non-offensive way. --Conti| 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird additions[edit]

I didn't notice that, although it has happened to me once or twice before - every now and then, in a seemingly unrelated bit of text, a css link will be inserted a way away from where I'm actually typing. I think it's a bug in Lupin's popups when using Safari - if you follow the link it takes you to what I think is part of the code for a popup. GbT/c 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A further thread (and my response to both) is back on my talk page. GbT/c 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Offensiveness of the words "bite me"[edit]

You removed "bite me" from the blacklist, as not being offensive. I've restored it: see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite%20me for the generally accepted interpretation of this phrase, which is clearly offensive. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the meaning of the phrase, and, IMHO, it's quite tame. I strongly doubt that having "bite me" in a username is somehow a username violation. Are we going to add "shut up" and "dang" to the blacklist next? --Conti| 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"bite me" is quite clearly aggressive and confrontational, and unsuitable as a sentiment to be expressed every time the user edits a page or signs a comment. -- The Anome (talk)
Doesn't that very much depend on the context? I've removed the term after the bot reported a user named "BiteMeBob". Do you really think that is an inappropriate username? At the very least, the wait_till_edit parameter should be added. --Conti| 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The name implies that they have decided to make a statement of "bite me" towards other people before they have even made their first edit. However, I agree with you that WAIT_TILL_EDIT is probably appropriate here, so I'll add it, if you have not done so already. -- The Anome (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The term does not necessarily have to be directed at other people. For all we know, "Bite Me Bob" could be some kind of nickname (sounds kinda catchy, doesn't it?). I suppose we can agree to disagree about the inappropriateness of some usernames, and leave it at that. And thanks for adding the wait_till_edit parameter to the term. :) --Conti| 11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Living people[edit]

Just letting you know (if you didn't) that you're probably going to be asked by a few people to undo your addition of {{hiddencat}} - just look what happened last time someone tried that. I don't have a view myself, I'm just letting you know. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've looked at the talk page before making the edit, but I must've missed the discussion - despite the obvious title - for some reason. I'm certainly willing to discuss the edit if anyone opposes it. --Conti| 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki-links on talk pages[edit]

I've stopped the bot. Today the interwiki has been updated and I think that the update is not correctly. Until developers don't fix the problem, I won't run the bot again. Thanks. Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the quick response. :) --Conti| 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Orange flower with water.jpg

COMING SOON (2006 film)[edit]

I just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia and certainly more relevant than films like Stealing Harvard and the like. If you're genuinely interested in reating an informative and all-encompassing article about Zoophilia I see no way you can leave out a film that praised in this way by someone of Dr. Singer's stature. Why don't you write him a brief e-mail yourself to confirm it. There aren't that many films that raise deep political questions and I dont think he'll mind some brief e-mails on the subject. Somna

You'd be a lot more credible if you'd actually use one account, instead of creating a new one every time you try to promote the film. --Conti| 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about any individual person but about the only award-winning film about zoophilia and the only one dealing sepcifically with zoophile-rights. Every E.F.A. member who tries to add information gets blocked. The real question should be if the film and organization are credible. Why don't you watch the film, read the reactions and make an informed decision. Your censorship seems to be more a product of Zetawoof's hurt pride and you're actually discrediting Wikipedia more than anything else. Anyone can read these discussions and realize that deleting information about watershed films like COMING SOON and any references to E.F.A. - while leaving in information about crotch-sucking scenes in Stealing Harvard - has nothing to do with academic integrity but rather personal stubborness, or outright censorship of the zoophile-rights cause. But this will all become part of the wider story. The entire struggle on Wikipedia is already part of Zoophile-Rights history :-)
BTW, why was the following article deleted by you? What exactly is false or misleading about it? (Please don't say that I'm the same person as MardiGras2009, this agument is becoming a bit redundant.) CruiserTanker (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and if you will still be convinced that this film should have an article then, please present reliable sources that report about that film. "I think the film should have an article" is not a reason for it to have an article, no matter how many Single-purpose accounts say the same thing. --Conti| 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better version. What do you think?: EasterBunnyWalker (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's a comedy, huh? Nothing has changed, the film is still not notable. --Conti| 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes[edit]

Hello, I was wondering which part of Template:Future television you were citing when you removed the template? (I did use rollback on it, but I accidentally clicked the icon (so I'm not calling you a vandal or anything). However, I probably would have reverted it manually anyway.) -- Scorpion0422 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was citing the instructions right below the actual template (emphasis mine): "This template is not meant to be on all TV show articles that are currently running/about to be running, just on those articles where containing future information is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress or future show, etc)." I don't see any kind of issue at List of The Simpsons episodes that would need the attention of our readers, so I removed the template. We don't have to assume any drastic changes, nor sudden bursts of traffics, nor is the section not cleaned up or needs otherwise attention. --Conti| 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Only 3 of about 12 remaining episodes have officially been announced, so the current information will change drastically. I guess if you want to remove the template you should. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
But that's not what's meant by a "drastic" change. Drastic changes are 20 edits per minute, not one per week (assuming they announce one episode per week). So I do think the template should not be used in this instnace. See Template:Current for the general idea behind these kinds of templates. --Conti| 23:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

G7[edit]

Hiya Conti. Not following you at User:Mjpresson/secretpage, where you undeleted saying it's not G7 ... seems like both G7 and U1 to me: user subpage, not a talk page, no content on the page of any importance in any edit that I can see, and deletion requested by user. Why not get rid of the page? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the history of the page. There was no deletion request by the user when I undeleted it (and when it was first deleted). To the contrary, the user protested its deletion here. Seems that Mjpresson changed his mind in the meantime, tho, so now the page could be deleted after all. --Conti| 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Inherently notable?" Heck, no![edit]

"Aren't movies inherently notable?" Heck, no! Haven't you ever read our standards for notability of films? Like books and records, many of them are nowhere near notability by our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't, actually, although they seem to be quite similar to the general notability guidelines, so I'm familiar with the general idea. My question was sincere, since I've never seen an article about a film (which made it to the big screen) being deleted, so there seems to be a discrepancy between what our guidelines say and what is actually done. An AfD seems to be the right way to go here, IMO. --Conti| 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I'm really not sure what just happened [1]. Obviously, I never intended to add a copy of the copyright notice in the middle of the page. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken edits[edit]

Exactly this. I am going through the 500 or so districts adding referenced population, area and capital details. Works best for me this way, can't see too many others caring about developing these districts. See the diff. You are free to help out adding data into the empty links. I will have all the data added in a day or two. Don't worry about it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ESVs[edit]

It's not a blanket ban -- only applies to a certain type of editor, who should be real unlikely to use those. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, your suggestions are more than welcome. Note in the log for that one that it did serve its purpose, completely preventing attacks from at least 2 accounts. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • See your email -- thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter: False positives[edit]

You noted here that the abuse filter has been disabled. If so, could you please remove the restrictions from my account that resulted from the false positive? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The specific filter that was triggered by your edit has been disabled, not the entire abuse filter. Anyhow, are the restrictions still in place? --Conti| 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine now. Thanks for your prompt attention. — AjaxSmack 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter[edit]

Every filter puts a load on every edit. This load requires the servers do some processing before the edit is accepted. It was reported (by MZMcBride) that the filter load was so high, that on some edits where a lot of content is added would simply time out. Some of the large pages were in fact uneditable! So I tried to reduce this load to a manageable amount by removing filters that had less than 10 or so hits. It appears to have reduced this problem somewhat. Prodego talk 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter disallow turned off[edit]

Hi. You turned off disallow for Special:AbuseFilter/135. I'm interested in getting it turned back on since it catches a large amount of vandalism. A couple questions:

  1. I fixed the false positives with single-quotes (see this comment). I also added curly braces for their legitimate use in nested templates. What else would you suggest to get the false positives to an acceptable level? You mentioned "..." but it shouldn't be catching that. It only catches 7-or-more occurrences of a string (after removing white space).
  2. How do you determine if there are too many false positives? Has there been some discussion? If not, would you be willing to participate in such a discussion?

Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've changed the filter to warn which seems to be in line with similarly wide ranging filters. Re: your note, your examples aren't regex problems. They highlight the following issues:
  1. This is because of the "Noooooooo" that was in the content before the edit. Added_lines gives the entire paragraph rather than just what was changed. Perhaps a less ominous warning should be created/used because of legitimate false positives like "Noooooooo".
  2. This is someone double signing a comment. The 8 combined tildes (after removing white space) triggered the filter. Better white space handling might be possible. I'll look into that. Still, the double signing is not appropriate so a less ominous warning is probably a good thing.
  3. This is similar to above - "WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!" being included in added_lines even though it wasn't actually added. Not much I can do about that apparently, unless Werdna wants to modify the filter. (Might be worth mentioning to him). Your other point that it's a user's own user page is a good one, and I think that's something that can be rectified. I'll check into that.
  4. This was caught because of the "lololololololololol", but again I concede your point that the sandbox should be excluded. That's definitely doable and I can add it later today.
  5. This was caught simply because of the 7 "very"s. Maybe we should exclude talk pages altogether? I'm open to that.
My takeaway is:
  1. Ask Werdna about the possibility of paring down added_lines to only the exact characters that were changed, rather than the current behavior of giving the entire paragraph and surrounding paragraphs.
  2. Add an exception for users editing their own user pages.
  3. Add an exception for sandbox.
  4. Change handling of white space.
  5. Possibly make a change to handle people legitimately repeating themselves (very very very very very very very) in talk pages.
Thanks for your input and examples. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Collective nausea on BC Ledge Raids[edit]

The reason there's no "massive editing going on right now" is because of the HUGE mass of material that needs to be added to bring this article to updated condition; most of us who know of it are sickened by the story and also put off by not so much its complexity as all its permutations and vastness; it really needs a split, too, with the actual raids thesmelves split off as a separate article from the court case, and the mounting scandal connected to but now distinct and much larger than either also needing attention; I've avoided too many direct edits myself because I'm pretty POV on what's going on in the case, and also because of the exhaustive in-line citing that will be needed to expand it properly. But if for now there's no editing going on and that's a need of the tempalte parameters, so be it; one concern is that reporting on court proceedings needs especial care, as speculative material and interpretation of evidence - evidnece now available, but previously sealed - is tricky; although, Wikipedia's servers are (mostly) in the US and not bound by Canadian court restrictions; Canadian editors are, however....Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Conti. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning...[edit]

...is a general warning used on some "warn only" filters. (re [2]) Disallow filters should use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. –xeno talk 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the correction. :) --Conti| 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: current sport[edit]

Well, if this is the case, please inform the football project, and consider using a bot to alter about (roughly) 200 other football season articles also using the template. Either keep it at all seasons or remove it from all. By the way, any further discussion on this topic should be done at the project talk page since this affects quite a number of articles. Have a nice day, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Nevertheless, please drop a line on the football project talk page once the discussion has been opened. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Sport Template[edit]

Conti, I agree that the Segunda División 2008-09 is mostly edited by me in which I concentrate a lot of information into each edit (not like other articles where people take about 8 or more edits to update a simple league table). So it may seem that the article is not edited much, where in fact the whole information of the article changes every weekend. By the way there are other articles which are edited less and still have the template. Take Beta Ethniki 2008–09. It has the current sport template and is edited as much as mine or I would say less as it has less information. In last year's Segunda División 2007-08 the current sport template was lest for the whole season without a problem. I would suggest that you either leave them all with the template or delete them from all the articles which are not considered as "massively" edited. I would even consider that La Liga 2008-09 is not heavily edited. There are always many unconstructive edits from IP addresses which add nothing to the article or simply vandalise it. Does that mean that it is heavily edited? Yours slightly concerned, Qampunen (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

re ongoing weather[edit]

Except theirs been a conesensus to use the template on seasonal articles even when not active for years now, as the season is clearly an ongoing meteorological event which is what the template warns about. Also these guidelines were put into place by you without any obvious consensus.17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the timing you will see i commented to you before i reverted you. Also please have a bit of paitence when awaiting a response as im currently trying to sort out the 2009 PTS which has had 4 depressions in the last week. Also i think that all of the Current seasonal articles should have the Template as they are current meterological events regardless of what the rules for category Current events says because they are current events. i also do not have the time to go through evrey archive of the WPTC to look for the consensus because their are over 200. Any further disscussion would be best put on the WPTC talkpage. Also note i have not reverted your removall of the template on the 2008/09 SHEM articles as their season was virtually over at the timeJason Rees (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned i have made my postion known and am waiting for other project members to comment on itJason Rees (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

T:public transport[edit]

did you mean to say that? Simply south (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, see my reply there. --Conti| 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. thanks. Simply south (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2009 UEFA Regions' Cup[edit]

Okay. That's fair enough. I'll probably put it back up on that article in a couple of weeks' time however when the final tournament gets underway. There'll be games every day (I think), so would be being updated enough to merit it, I feel. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ17 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What?[edit]

What do u mean there is no editing the ladders get updated every week as do the results which has a link just leave it it doesn't affect anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1991 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that[edit]

I must have brushed the keyboard. Hadn't realized I reverted you. Ameriquedialectics 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Hello. You said that the template should only be on articles which receive a high number of edits. However, what I mean is that there are some articles which receive a lot of edits but these edits are most of the time minor edits and most of the time these edits can be concentrated into 1 or 2 edits. When I edit Segunda División I make a few edits, but these edits are concentrated with lots of information which almost entirely changes the information of the article. In other articles, the same information would be entered with a higher number of edits. Does this mean that the template is only for articles which receive a high number of edits?

In my opinion, I think the content of the edits is far more important than the number of edits. I'm not sure if I am explaining myself clearly. Do you understand me? Qampunen (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that current articles on natural disasters, wars or terrorist attacks are heavily edited by countless editors every minute. What I really meant was on sport current events. I think that most of them are not heavily edited, but as most of them are mostly edited during the weekends (like the Segunda División article), wouldn't it be better if I left the template during the weekends and once the article for each weekend is updated, remove the template?Qampunen (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Competition ongoing, you have any problem?[edit]

LNFA 2009 is a competition ongoing. Moreover, I never talk to robots. The robots are useless. Bye. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC for Corp Usernames[edit]

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

No, Conti. I promised that I would not introduce the template until editing was going on. This IP address is from a Spanish person who updates Spanish teams, mainly. No problem, Conti. I will introduce the template when updating is going on and remove it afterwards. Good evening. Qampunen (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Competition[edit]

Competition is current. Template will be taken away on 21 June. Do not take away template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. You win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

re Template:Current at 2009 County Championship[edit]

Thanks for letting me know and I agree with you. You learn something every day ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Curious revert at Kill Bill[edit]

My mistake, at least part of it. I shouldn't have removed the {{update}} template. My apologies. I restored it. The link to the article on Robot Chicken is legitimate, as its releavance is sourced in the sentence that follows. Ward3001 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I removed the main article link to Robot Chicken. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy[edit]

Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd, the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

The template says that the article is a current event and that information may change as the event progresses. It does not warn us that heavy editing is going on. If that is so, why doesn't the template say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I've read the guidelines and I'm now a bit clearer. Thanks for the info. As someone previously said, you learn something new every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talkcontribs)
Not at all, I see your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talkcontribs)
My question to you, is what harm is it doing to the article? Why do you so badly want it gone?
(just curious) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talkcontribs)
Ok. I see your point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talkcontribs)

Re: Template:Future television series at Stargate Universe[edit]

I added Template:Future television series to the Stargate Universe article because WP:WikiProject Television#Upcoming TV says "{{Future television series}} For programs/series that have been announced, but are not yet airing." Now that i read the guidelines for Template:Future television series, i have reverted my edit. Thanks for the info! Powergate92Talk 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Khatami[edit]

Why did you remove the current related tag on Ahmad Khatami? Warrior4321talkContribs 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank-You for the guidelines. Warrior4321talkContribs 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New York State legislature crisis current template[edit]

No, I had not seen your removal of the template previously, and there was no discussion on that in the talk page. Nor would I agree with it, as this is clearly a current event in which news is being generated constantly, and therefore would be the kind of article in which a current template is warranted. I suggest that we discuss this on the talk page. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I think your point has finally penetrated my thick skull, and I have removed the template. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Current at TeleSUR[edit]

As far as I understand, as the crisis that is taking place after coup in Honduras has not come to an end, the information in that section could undergo changes as international media and social organizations overcome the limitations in communication in the country. I think that this situation warrants placing the template. If my perception is not correct, I have no problem with removing the template. Greetings! -- Enigmaticland (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems I didn't understood the proper using of the template. I will immediately remove it from the article, thanks for the clarification. -- Enigmaticland (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GOES-O[edit]

The GOES-O spaceflight is current until 7 July 2009, as stated in the article text.
Ω (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but besides the point. Please read the guidelines at Template:Current spaceflight: "This template should only be used on highly notable missions which are expected to generate news." I would argue that GOES-O isn't a "highly notable mission". --Conti| 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, it seems obvious that the regular article maintainers disagree with your assessment. Regardless, you should seek some sort of consensus before unilaterally taking action. I recommend that you take a look at Template talk:Current spaceflight#Clarification of "routine", which directly addresses your concerns.
Ω (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that discussion, I missed it somehow. I'll comment there. --Conti| 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deprodded[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Icon (airline), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I'll actually be listing it at AfD, silly template! GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And listed here for AfD. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Future templates[edit]

Hi, Conti. Thank you for implementing Future template guidelines. However, it would be appreciated if before removing templates you would check the impacts of your actions and take measures to fix any of this. As the Template:Future pipeline also includes the autocategorisation function, removing this template removed all these articles from the Category:Future pipelines. Hope you will take a care to avoid this happen again. Beagel (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've (re)added the category to the corresponding articles, and will keep that in mind in the future. --Conti| 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The status of the "Restrictions on linking" subsection as policy[edit]

Hi, I just want to explain my edit to you personally before taking it to the WP:EL talk page. I tagged the WP:ELNEVER section as policy because, unlike the rest of this external links guidelines page, it documents policy as defined at WP:LINKVIO; this subsection is not a guideline, it's a summation of the relevant parts of the WP:C policy. When a subsection of a guideline page states a WP policy, in my opinion it's worthwhile from a formatting and usability standpoint to make the distinction that the subsection is a standard (not advisory like the rest of the page), and edits need to be kept in line with the associated LINKVIO policy. Do you feel that this is a distinction worth making, and if so do you have a suggestion about how to make that distinction? If a policy tag isn't appropriate, how about a box around the relevant paragraph with a disclaimer along the lines of, "The following section of this page is official WP:C policy..." (along the lines of WP:NFC#Policy). --Muchness (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer: A summary of a policy is itself not a policy, IMHO. I do think we have a template just for such situations (saying something along the lines of "This is a summary of Policy XY"), but I'm not sure what the template's name is, of if it's still in use. Anyhow, I was about to start a discussion at WT:EL, so it's probably best if we'll continue there. --Conti| 13:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No prob, ty. --Muchness (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

werewolves[edit]

I knew that line would only last a few minutes. My autistic germaphobic child, who is a firm believer in all cryptozoological creatures, just read in a new book (new to her, anyway), that you can become a werewolf by contracting an HIV-like virus, and she was having a complete nervous breakdown. I put that line in as "proof". See, to her, mythological doesn't meant it isn't real. And nowhere in the article did it actually point that out, assuming--of course--that it was obvious. Well, not to her.

No matter. If you hadn't taken it out, I would have. No harm done, I think. It wasn't actually inaccurate.

I have, however, kept my edited version up on my computer!!Samantha1961 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Future templates[edit]

It was not a revert on the airport, I never looked at the history of the article. However, I would caution implementing guidelines for usage of all these templates based on an RFC with a total of five whole editors. And the discussion above the RFC could hardly be considered consensus. I mean the whole "Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate" is nice and all, but we still have a ton of clean up templates that we use (for instance NPOV/OR/RS/V types) to warn readers about content. After all, at least on my screen, there is no disclaimer on the articles themselves, and even if there were, most people would not read them. Just like the future templates should be unnecessary because it is obvious, so would the "this article is unreferenced" be obvious when not seeing any references. But we still do it to make sure the reader understands to take the article with an extra grain of salt. I think this really helps with foreign language readers, where proposed and similar words might not be quite as well understood, but a big banner at the top saying "caution" or such might be more effective. In the end, I don't care either way as I rarely edit future things, let alone use the template. Just some food for thought before going on campaigns to remove what I think had been a fairly commonly used template category. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, for getting more input, re-start the RFC and get it posted where it pops up at the top (like when its time to vote for bureaucrats). I can't remember off the top of my head where that is, but I believe the RFC pages says where. Then post on the Village Pump, at the WikiProjects that regularly use the templates (before guessing at the airport one, the only ones I knew of were for train related items and buildings). The people who created these things might give you a better idea of why we have used them, since when created the argument about them just always being used would not exist. I am assuming they were created for a purpose, as I know I don't randomly make templates just for fun.
As to your arguments: "My point is that a warning about possible (not actual) speculative information is entirely independent of the status of something." Actually, there has to be something in a future article that would be speculative, otherwise it would not be a future article. Anything that is supposed to or may happen in the future is speculative. A building that is set to open tomorrow morning could be destroyed in an earthquake tonight. If you were to read through all the real estate development announcements from say late 2007, you would likely see that today many of those never came to fruition. In my neck of the woods the main airport has been planning to add a third runway for more than a decade, but now they are not so sure. So something speculative is present in future articles, otherwise it is no longer future, but present/past. True, many other article do contain this speculative info that is subject change, but that is a possibility, not a certainty, and with future articles we do have certainty in the respect of speculative information (oddly, uncertain things such as future structures are certain to have speculative information-sounds like something Yogi Berra would say).
Similarly, with the actual/potential problem (though what I wrote above also addresses that issue), I'll quote you: "...missing "references" section doesn't necessarily mean that there are no references." So, if someone then tags an article with a "References needed" tag, then it means that there is no "actual problem". All of the tags get used when there is only a maybe problem. One person thinking an article needs cleaning up doesn't mean it actually does, as they may not be familiar with what cleaning up is on Wikipedia. I know I come across a lot of people use to there real world and their Manuals of Style and don't quite get that we have our own rules and regulations, which often will be counter to their experiences. They may think an article needs to be cleaned up, but in reality it is how it is supposed to be (for instance if a American English person thought the article about London needed to be cleaned up due to all the misspellings such as colour).
But ultimately, I look at it from a readers perspective since I think that is the most important perspective. Then I apply something akin to the Rational basis test: is there any useful purpose for this thing (here the future templates) as it relates to readers. Here, I think yes. It's not the most important thing in the world, but it gives the casual reader, quick, prominent disclosure that this thing discussed in the article is speculative in nature since it is only planned/proposed/under construction. This way there is not any doubt in their mind that this thing does not yet exist in its final state. For instance, if a reader comes to the page after a search for something and then does CTL-F to find that on the page, they may skip the lede and miss the explanation there, but they are still likely to notice the big and bold disclaimer at the top. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll just address your common knowledge point. The problem with common knowledge is that, who is it common to? You know and I know what the implications are of a future this that or the other thing. But many don't. That's why we have all the stupid warnings on everything. Some dumb ass hurt themselves and then sued. I think most would agree that it is common knowledge that coffee is hot, yet your cup from Starbucks warns that the contents might be hot. Thus, I think we have a lot of people who are not aware of what common knowledge is, or again, it varies by person. With an encyclopedia, we have to in some ways cater to the lowest common denominator, or more specifically, encyclopedias are supposed to be written so they can be understood at the eight grade level or so (I think that is the age, but at least around that age). Or to borrow from law, children are judged for torts on the "of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience" standard, thus their common knowledge is explicitly recognized as being different than adults. I know as a kid, if someone with authority told me they were building a rail line, I figured that meant it was going to happen. Now twenty years later worth of experience and I know that not everything planned happens, especially if the government is doing the planning (see Seattle Monorail Project for instance). Or another legal concept, judicial notice, is where a judge can accept certain common knowledge things bascially as fact, but these things are very limited in nature. Or take evolution, common knowledge or blasphemy? These templates help explain this uncertainty, which is common knowledge to you and me, in a way that an article's text likely should not explain. An article about a future topic should state it is only planned/proposed/under construction, but it would be rather odd for it to include a disclaimer in the text saying, "hey this means this might not happen or might not happen when it is supposed to or it might not happen in the way described". Again, not the most important thing in the world, but useful for some readers. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Future television removal at Kamen Rider Double[edit]

I'm just wondering why the template should not be used on the page. It is certainly about a television show that has not aired yet and it certainly contains information that only appears in advertisements or previews.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The template was removed because Template:Future television#Guidelines says "This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way, such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly; an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic; articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is a future event/product; etc." and "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely is about a future event/product; if it were, tens of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. In most cases, the status of an event/product should be obvious from the article itself." Powergate92Talk 00:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Fair enough, I won't use it. But may I ask you - How many sport articles are edited hundreds of times a day? One? Two? Not many? Shall I say none? I really believe that if that is the purpose of the template (to warn us that the article will be edited hundreds of times a day) then the template should say so. The template just says "This is a current sport-related event. Information may change as the event progresses." It does not say "This a heavily edited current sport-related event. The information will change very rapidly as hundreds of edits occur every day" (for example). I think it should, because there are countless of editors, including me, who are confused and that disagree with it, as the template does not specify that the article will be heavily edited that day with hundreds of edits. Yours concerned. Qampunen (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not remove it until the template says clearly that it is for heavy editing (according to you). Yours concerned. Qampunen (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How about Current?. Not only does it inform that something is current but also that the information is going to change rapidly. In my opinion, (just an idea) I would change the guidelines from an article being edited by many users rapidly for just a few days, to an article which is frequently edited (every week let's say). What do you think? Qampunen (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if that's what the template is for then the template should say something like "Possible vandalism may occur due to frequent massive editing of the article's information" (for example). The sentence "may change rapidly" does not make it clear that possible vandalism or out-dated information may appear. Qampunen (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. Just a last question (suggestion) - wouldn't the template be more useful (and the readers would be more aware of the consequences of massive editing) if the template is added the days when during a sport event the information is likely to change rapidly and massively (Saturdays and Sundays mainly) and then to remove the template the rest of the days when the information is going to stay the same? Take the UEFA Champions League 2009-10 for example. The article is rapidly and massively changed let's say two times a week (right now) and in the future it would only be rapidly edited two times every two or three weeks. The rest of the days the competition is inactive. Why should it contain the template those days? Take the Copa Federación de España 2009-10. Ok, it's not as known and is less important than the Champions League. But it would be useful if the template was added the days the information was going to change, in order to warn the readers that the information if going to change rapidly that day. The Premier League 2009-10 or La Liga 2009-10 is only going to be rapidly and massively edited during the weekends. The rest of the week is not going to change so the readers should not be aware of massive editing during those days. Do you get what I mean? Qampunen (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see. If there are, let's say, a dozen editors editing an article on the same day, it means that there is a higher probability of vandalism or edit conflicts, but it does not necessarily mean that the information is being changed faster than if one or two people were editing it. Before I joined Wikipedia as a user (about two years ago) in La Liga seasons, for example, there were 15 or more editors who were editing the article on the same day, as nobody was constant on editing the article week after week. When I started to edit the article week after week I found myself editing the article by myself as the rest of the users or IP addresses. That didn't mean that the information was changing at a slower rate. If I didn't edit the Segunda División 2008-09 (season which was 99% entirely updated by me) then there would of certainly be a group of users who would of edited it, instead of me. Does that give the article the right to have the template? I don't think it makes a difference. I even think that when an article is edited by a single person, or a small group, that the information is processed faster and with less risk of vandalism. If there are a dozen or more users editing the Champions League, let's say, is because there are no or not enough commited users who will edit the article week after week. Does that give the article the right to have the template? If I did not update Copa Federación de España 2009-10 then other users would do so. Does that give it the right to have the template? I think it is a bit unfair, but I'm not sure of whether you see my point. Qampunen (talk)
Ok. Thanks, Conti. I've removed the template. But the template does not look like a warning. It just simply informs us that it is a current event and that the information will (obviuosly) change as it progresses. If I were the creator (if the purpose is to warn about possible vandalism or edit conflicts) I'd change the wording and maybe add a warning signal. But it's just my opinion. Thanks again and I apologise for my insistence in wanting to leave the template on the article. I did so before, because it did not look a warning. Qampunen (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Future template process question[edit]

If the proposal is accepted, as it seems likely, is it your intnetion to accept the offer of the bot to remove them automatically? If so, you'll want to amke sure that the bot doesn't remove the template from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, to preserve the history. Is it your intention to wipe clean Category:Temporal templates and the associated template, or merely add wording to note that their use is deprecated? If the former, you'll ahve to take steps to preserve the template on the discussion page. My apologies if this is all obvious to you, I just imagined the bot wiping out all the templates, and some future editor wondering what the template looked like.--SPhilbrickT 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There won't be any problem with the template on the centralized discussion page, as that has been substituted. I haven't really thought of what to do when the proposal succeeds, to be honest, and I think I'm not the only one who should decide on that. But I think redirecting the templates somewhere (maybe the centralized discussion) might work. That way, the templates themselves won't be deleted and everyone can look them up in the page history. --Conti| 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport[edit]

Well, actually, I don't think I represent hundreds of users, I don't have a split personality or anything like that, but this article does contain certain facts which are changing rapidly. The way I understand this guideline, this template should not be used if, for example, there is a new host announced for a certain competition, or if there are new qualified teams, or if there was a draw for the event, or if a venue of a certain event has changed, or if there are some retroactively found facts about the event after it has finished, since all of these information are significant, but don't make the event described in the article "current" and there really would be thousands of articles marked with this template in that case. But if an event is in progress, then it can be described as current, since the results, tables and the other data making the core of the article are, well... "changing rapidly" and there is not that many competitions going on at a certain moment to make an inflation of the usage of this template. So, the template should stay and I really don't get your point, neither can I see anything in the guidelines saying it should be removed.--Vitriden (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if that's "common sense", that's just fine by me, but at first you've directed me to the guidelines, and I haven't found anything about that in the guidelines. The part about "hundreds of edits" is mentioned in a sentence beginning with a word "also". Therefore, I have assumed that if something is a current event or has hundreds of recent edits, the template should be applied. If that is not the case and both factors are necessary to put the template in the article, the guidelines should be rewritten. Thanks for your effort, anyway.--Vitriden (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal names and foxes[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. I would have no problem if the MoS had gone the other way, but it did not. If I have inadvertantly broken some links (I am trying to avoid this and correct it where I have done it) please help fix these without again violating the MoS. —SlamDiego←T 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at the articles that you give as examples, it seems that only their titles are in violation of the MoS; in their bodies, they follow the MoS. —SlamDiego←T 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Launching[edit]

I noticed that you tagged Template:Launching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as one of the future templates that you are proposing to do away with. Launching is a template used during "current" launch campaigns, at around the time of launch, so should be considered a "current" template, not a "future" template. --GW 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Box Office succession boxes[edit]

I see that you've been going through removing the various box-office leaders boxes from articles. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured I was probably too late. My main concern was the speed with which the boxes were being removed, especially since this whole thing was only first proposed a little more than a week ago. I think it would have been good to allow some extra time for interested editors to convert the information, since it's very easy to remove formatted information like this, but much more work to add it from scratch. For instance, when it was decided to remove external links from the film infobox, there was ample time given for the conversion, and I think a bot was even created to help ensure nothing was lost. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Here [3] is a link that shows all of these edits that can be used for reference. –xenotalk 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, that a film achieved the #1 spot at the box office is relevant enough to mention within the article, but what preceded or succeeded it is not. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably why consensus to delete the template was found. –xenotalk 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that's why consensus to delete the template was found, and I supported its removal. I even have removed many myself. The above comment was made in response to Fierce Beaver's contention that, since the tables are being deleted, the box office succession information should be included in the article. As I stated, I think that a film achieved the #1 spot at the box office is relevant enough to mention within the article, but what preceded or succeeded it is not. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...are you sure that's what he meant? In any case, your indent made it look like you were replying to me. –xenotalk 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

USMA CSA list[edit]

Re this. I am still working on this. It is still underconstruction, so I put the tag back in. RlevseTalk 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Newman[edit]

Hi Conti,
I saw your recent edit on the Bobby Newman article I created; at the moment it is a stub article.
I was wondering if you could help me work and expand on it.
Thanx!
ATC . Talk 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprecating future tags[edit]

Per my suggestion which you can now see here, I've moved the bulk of the long dispute with Ohms Law and MusicFan at Deprecating future templates to the talk page. Since this involved moving your comments I thought you should be notified. I did this because I felt others not involved in the dispute were being put off from sharing their opinions on the issue because of out dispute. I did leave the first few comments on the main page, and posted a link to the continuation on the talk page. If you object in some way let me know. Equazcion (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If the others don't mind that (and it seems that they don't), then I don't, either. --Conti| 09:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
At the bot approval request I noticed your list of future templates (User:Conti/"Future" templates/List). I included Template:Beta software when I was adding deprecation notices, which I see isn't on that list. You may want to check that one out and consider adding it, as it seems to fall under the criteria of our discussion. Equazcion (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. I didn't consider it when making the proposal, but it arguably might fall under the definition of a "Future" template. Probably best to ask at the centralized discussion page for more opinions on this. --Conti| 08:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, Conti, can't believe you were successful with this whole effort. Re: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates Congratulations. I've been trimming use of {{current}} for years now, and had no enthusiasm for dealing with the future tags. It will be most interesting to see how many exceptions and pleadings there are for survivors, especially in the sport world. And how about the same for {tl|current sport}}? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The main problem I faced was to get people to comment in the first place. Starting the centralized discussion and advertising it at dozens of places did help, and I was surprised myself at the result. I dunno about Template:Current sport. I think it has its uses (like Template:Current), but it's simply used way too often. I suggested a bot that would remove the various Current templates from articles when those articles aren't being edited heavily, but so far no one has taken any interest in creating such a bot, and I'm sadly not good enough to write one myself. --Conti| 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that the templates that have had contents cleared out should simply go before Wikipedia:TfD in groups of five or ten, and that is the simple and athoritative next step, until they come up for review a week or two later. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In light of the closure of the centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, I regret to say, if any TfD arguments arise for a particular "future" template, I will argue that it is desirable to insist that the deleted generic {{future}} template to be used, and not a dedicated template, as the generic and flexible template is malleable for all purposes. Otherwise, we're on the path to template proliferation again.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current related[edit]

I undid your redirect. If you'd like to discuss this let me know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using it again on a bunch of articles related to the Kokang incident, in a similar way as I did with Uyghur people. Granted, this is only my second time working on a current article, but at least in my writing style I imagine I'd end up using this template every time. I think for any article that people are likely to be directed to through reading the current-event article, and which will significantly affect their understanding of the events, should be tagged. For example, with Uyghur people, the article was very undeveloped and the people and language were relatively unknown except to a small group of people like me, so I felt it would be good to warn readers that 1) these articles are developing and changing very rapidly as a result of attention from the current event, and 2) there's a high likelihood of temporary vandalism or POV-pushing. Now, I tagged articles such as Kokang people and Kokang Special Region for much the same reason... these articles are not getting the same flurry of editing, probably because this is not as divisive an event as the Urumqi riots were and don't attract as much editing, but I think it's still appropriate to warn readers for a few days. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on Future Sport template[edit]

As is being utilised here. While there have been some periods of rapid editting that has mostly passed apart from the addition and removal of speculations from non-registerred edittors. --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is being edited more often than others that use a "Future" template, but in the end I personally don't consider the editing level to be high enough to warrant any kind of warning to our readers. If there are problems with the edits themselves (vandalism, etc.) an editnotice might be a good idea. --Conti| 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are your "Future categories"? WHERE?[edit]

I'll put this up here, because the WP:DFUTURE is now meant as an archive and not meant to be edited any longer. (DANG!) Frankly, I've just missed the whole caboodle until now and just stumbled on a "deprecated" message with a future software article; that's why I started to look for information. Uh-huh, again some dude which wants to make himself immortal by his great proposal; 100 different users commenting to it meaning "All of Wikipedians" (like the jury in the U.S. court!). So if 80% say "deprecated", this is projected onto the point of view of the rest. Uh-huh. OK, let's give an example. Software not released yet: Azure Services Platform. Categories I can find there are: Microsoft and Cloud Platforms. Fantastic. So all you bigmouths that promised us future categories as replacement of our beloved future... templates (as readable on the captions of the templates now deprecated) , where did you hide them? Currently, things look like this: a bot is going to auto-delete the "deprecated" templates in a few days, and then there will be no new "future category"! I'm not as stupid to believe the bot will auto-INSERT a new category after it has deleted the future template. Not a cat in hell's chance I'm gonna buy that story. -andy 92.229.113.76 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For starting this RFC with a great result. The last one has been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Conti| 14:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AWB and Words to avoid[edit]

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent revert at xkcd[edit]

You may wish to comment at User talk:Starblueheather#Washington Post polls. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Starblueheather now appears to be on some sort of crusade, she removed the entire discussion without comment and has now started removing everything from the xkcd article that she doesn't think is notable, apparently as some way of making a point. In particular, she's started edit-warring over the inclusion of an image ([4][5]), so I was wondering if you might be interested in offering an opinion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Starblueheather seems to be okay with this version of the image, so hopefully that's settled. --Conti| 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Happy Conti's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Conti has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Conti's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Conti!

Peace,
Rlevse
01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I earned this honor, but thank you nonetheless. :) --Conti| 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Evers[edit]

What was the implausible redirect? - 142.167.81.93 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A non-notable, likely fictional person with no reliable sources about him doesn't need a redirect. --Conti| 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That answer does not appear to be for the question I asked. Fictional or not, he just made international news, and I was curious as to whether the previous redirect was better than one I might create. - BalthCat (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
At the time of the deletion, he did not make any news at all. I would not delete the redirect again. --Conti| 07:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
As you wish. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You appear, yet again, to have refused to answer my question. I am not some website drone in to harass Wikipedia. Feel free to check my contribs. From your demeanour on the ED talk page, and your approach to dealing with me, it may be a good idea for you to find someone to fill in for you when dealing with ED related topics. I suggest your emotional investment is unproductive. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what part of your question did I not answer? If you mean where the redirect pointed to, it was ED's article of course. I thought that one was obvious. I think I already answered why I think the redirect was implausible at the time. --Conti| 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked "what" was the implausible redirect, not "why" it was an implausible redirect. It was in no way obvious to me that it lead to ED. That is exactly why I asked. As you can see in my second post, I wanted to know if the deleted redirect was better, or would hint at better, than the one I would create (to ED). I asked precisely because I can't tell what it used to be; I have no power to find that out. From this perspective it looks like you jumped on a simple, completely uncritical question and reacted defensively as if I was questioning your judgement. This is why I suggested ED-related topics are perhaps not advisable for you. - BalthCat (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I figured the "what" could have only one blatantly obvious answer, so that couldn't have been the question. :) Seems I was wrong, my apologies for that. --Conti| 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. - BalthCat (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

per Afd?[edit]

In re: [6] How can you say "per Afd" when that was clearly not the result? -- œ 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avisodomy clearly says "The result was redirect to Zoophilia". Either way, ther was nothing to merge in the first place, the quote and the definition itself don't seem to be noteworthy. --Conti| 15:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Nowhere does anyone suggest a redirect. It was either merge or delete. Seems the closing admin decided to effect his own judgment onto the article and lazily close it as a redirect without taking into consideration that there were calls for a merge from several commentators. As for the subject matter, it's noteworthy enough for at least a simple mention of the term in Zoophilia which I would've been fine with. But that doesn't matter anyways, the point is that process was not followed and I'm irked about it. -- œ 16:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you feel strongly about this, you can just add the definition of the term into the article. I don't think it's noteworthy, but I don't care too much either way. And if you want to follow process, you could either talk to the closing admin or start a WP:DRV. Personally, I'd just let it go, since the end result won't be different either way. --Conti| 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If the end result will be that admins follow proper process in the future when closing AFDs then a DRV would be worth it. But.. meh. -- œ 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Progress M-05M[edit]

I noticed that you removed the {{current spaceflight}} template from Progress M-05M. Since it is due to dock tomorrow, I feel that it is still appropriate for it to be tagged as current until that time, and that is certainly within the spirit in which the guidelines for the current spaceflight tag were written. Do you have any objections to it being restored until docking is complete. --GW 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed that somehow. I don't object at all to that. --Conti| 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've restored it. --GW 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

When you revert per BRD, please explain your objection to the B when you initiate the D. If you don't explain your objection (and "find consensus first" is not an explanation of your objection), then it's not a revert per BRD, and the B should stand. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted per this statement at WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Over five hours went by after you made the Revert, and never provided a reason beyond invoking BRD, which is not in accordance with BRD. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that definition of BRD. It's on you to tell us why the change is needed, not on me to tell you why the change should not be done. I think both of us have already made our points clear anyhow, but I explained my revert on the talk page nonetheless. In addition, I think that stating that "There is no consensus for the edit" is a reason based both on policy and common sense. --Conti| 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File:DrSteelMadScientist.jpg[edit]

Yea, when it was uploaded here originally, it was uploaded wrong (noob mistake... it's confusing even to long-timers). Dr. Steel gave written permission for all the images on this article to be used. However he didn't use the magic words "CC-BY-SA 3.0" except for the first image; he said he would be resending written permission shortly to rectify the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template current sport, etc.[edit]

Do you know who has valiantly trimmed the population of articles with {{current sport}}?
Is the {{Current MLB season}} recent, and what do you suggest on removing it?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who's doing it, but as far as I know it started after the last time I trimmed the use of the template a while ago. Maybe it's just not used as much anymore.
I don't have a strong opinion on Template:Current MLB season. I don't consider it too much of a problem, since it's basically a fancy "See Also"-box. Not really necessary, but not really in the way, either. Template:Current sport-related is used in that way, too. --Conti| 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I find it a problem, as it is a model for dozens of professional sports templates of dozens of world regions to be created, and they will be. "I'll just copy this one, for my Rugby/Football/Hockey/Motor sports/Golf/Basketball/Cricket/Wrestling/Track/Marathon/Tennis league.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Template:Current MLB season is identical to Template:Current sport-related (or {{current sport-related|sport=baseball|mini=1}}, rather), so it could just as well be redirected back to it. --Conti| 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift article[edit]

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

updated editsummary for TedderBot5[edit]

Did you see the updated editsummary at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5? tedder (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Volley[edit]

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note[edit]

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xenotalk 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

nice wiki strategy[edit]

"If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus."

Maybe you hate ED so much because you can't block anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.181.119 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can, actually. --Conti| 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not on ED, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.36.83 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop mass removing the Find a Grave template[edit]

I noticed that you did a group removal of the find a grave template from several pages. I also noticed that most have been reverted by other editors. I understand that you don't like and I can understand removing it from some articles as you are "Verifying" that the information is already referenced in the article. But judging by the short time in between edits it does not appear to be the case. I would ask you to not do a mass removal strategy like that anymore. The conversation on the External links did not garner the concensus to do this and the EL instructions do not state it either as you would indicate in your edit comments. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, only one two (out of 22) of the removals have been reverted. How did you get to the conclusion that "most" of the edits have been reverted?
Second, I am verifying each link before removing it. It's quite easy to see when the findagrave.com link does not provide any additional, useful information not already present in the article (WP:ELNO #1). Practically all links that I checked contain the birth and death date and a short biography, both of which we are already providing, of course. In addition to that, there are usually pictures (more often than not blatantly copied from other websites, regardless of copyright permissions), some random comments from users, and sponsored links to amazon. All in all, this clearly qualifies for a whole bunch of WP:ELNO criteria, and as such, I have removed the links, and will continue to do so unless there is a very clear consensus not to do so.
Also note that I did not remove all the links I found. Some of them were used as a reference for birth/death dates, grave locations, etc., which is quite fine by me. --Conti| 18:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So using the 2 examples above, what your telling me is that in a matter of seconds you determined that the inline citations contained the birth AND death AND burial information as cited in the article and that the information contained in the Find a Grave site was of no value? Yes the article has references your right but do those references contain the information contained in teh find a grave link relateing to birth, death, burial information. And, would it be reasonable to assume that it would be easier to jump in the car, drive to the local library and browse for a copy of Eichers book (thats used as the reference) to look up the birth, death, burial information or to click on a link? Is the book a better reference, absolutely. Should it be used instead of the Find a Grave link if it contains the info? Absolutely, should we make it difficult for our readers to get to the information or assume that they have, or have access to the references? No. Leaving the Find a Grave link in the External links is not hurting the article so it should be left unless, the information can be retrieved from one of the references with a link. No, not all the information in the article needs to have a web link, but if a weblink has the information that is contained in one of the nonlinkable references (like the books are in the examples above) then it has value to the article and should be left in external links. If you can find a link that contains the same info then by all means use it and I would support eliminating the Find a Grave link, otherwise, leave it. I hope this helps to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the third time I'm telling you that there is a big difference between Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:References. Until you understand the difference, I do not see a point in continuing the discussion. Basically, you are arguing that findagrave.com makes for an acceptable reference, and I agree with you. As I said, I did not remove the link when used as a reference. I removed the link when used as an external link. --Conti| 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I know exactlty what the difference is to WP and to YOU. But the unclear and confusing way that WP treats external links IS NOT how the casual reader and novice editor treat them. And, even then, the external link rules really only apply if the article is GA or better and has been developed structure, references and the like. Anything from B class and lower the external links section basically acts as a holding pen for undeveloped and unused references in waiting. And there is nothing wrong with it being an external link. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what's supposed to be unclear and confusing about WP:EL (feel free to elaborate on that), nor am I aware of our guidelines and policies not applying to B-class articles. They do, believe me. --Conti| 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Im not trying to say that the rules dont apply to a B clas article. Far from it but jsut to help explain my point take a look at the Virginia Field article. This article doesn't have "references" it has an External links section with three links that could potentially be used as references. One of them is the Find a Grave link. If you were to remove this link from this article because its "Only an external link and not really a reference" you are going to delete a source that could potentially be used as a reference. Additionally, the vaste majority of articles that the Find a Grave link is on are in this sort of shape. Here is another example Virginia Gilmore. In this case the article has a References section with pretty much useless references. Therefore, removing the link on a grand scale woudl be a bad thing. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (interjection) At the moment, I'm ambivalent and watching the debate at the PUMP and here but I would like to request ceasing the removal until some form of community decision may be made for harmony's sake. At the present, it can be confusing for editors. Somewhere a consensus should be reached so that everyone can get on the same page and we're not all reverting one another owing to the confusion. Let's get it clarified first....I've seen this come up several times but have never seen a clear consensus. Either way, thank you for considering my request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed any links since this thread started. I'm all for a discussion that hopefully will reach a consensus one way or another eventually. The thing is that the current discussion seems to be dying already, and I can't force people to make further comments. --Conti| 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried WP:RFC so more eyes will see it? Posting at WP:MILHIST would also help since it is probably the single largest project....also WP:NRHP.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI Myself or Xeno posted it at Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject Find a Grave, WP:EL and its at the Pump. I agree that we should submit it for RFC. It comes up about every six months or so though and after long conversations like these it always comes back as keep or no consensus. I have seen it at least 4 times over the last couple years. --Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I would support an RFC, as long as a neutral third party would close it after a certain period and decide on the consensus. --Conti| 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to write it...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Fwiw, posted on talk pages of WP:MILHIST and WP:NRHP to help.:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm somewhat busy currently, and simply don't have the time to start a full RFC. Might get to it next week. But as long as the discussion is kept alive, everything's good. --Conti| 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cor, they got me in the lung.[edit]

Good thing I have two. *BANG!* Oh that's just unfair... *thump* HalfShadow 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag-teaming[edit]

As I remarked on ANI, your definition of tag-teaming seems rather more commensurate with the standard one... Hans Adler over there was honest enough to admit that he was using a lower threshold, whereas Giano naturally takes the, "Well unless they all publish their emails and chats I don't suppose we shall ever know the depth of it," approach :P
But I agree, I don't think it's tag-teaming at all. Several people independently agreeing with each other has a different name here. (I can't post this on Giano's talkpage because he'll immediately delete it because I'm allegedly a troll. At least some things change!) Best, ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Conti. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:(2) cover.jpg[edit]

Whenever you move an image like this one:

  • 16:50, 17 March 2009 Conti (talk | contribs) (59 bytes) (moved File:(2) cover.jpg to File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg)

can you check the article it was on and change the file name on it? File:(2) cover.jpg was being redirected to File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg and was transcluded on the article, but did not show up as it being on the article, and was subsequently marked for deletion. — Moe ε 03:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh, alright. I vaguely remember checking if the images are still working after I moved them, but that was more than a year ago, so I have no idea if I actually did that. :) Thanks for fixing it, though! --Conti| 10:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for uncovering my sockfulness[edit]

Thank you for uncovering my nefarious plan to... uh.. my obvious sock puppetry intended to.. uh... what was it I was doing wrong, again? Thanks anyhow. Locke'sGhost 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Potentially nothing. Either you did not want your opinion to be associated with your main account (which would be somewhat odd), or you were hoping to start a flamewar (which would be trolling). Which is it? --Conti| 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither, of course, my little friend. Accusing people of violating WP:SOCK invites a response citing WP:DICK. Ta! Locke'sGhost 00:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
So why did you not use your main account for that comment? Enlighten me. :) --Conti| 01:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth are you mass removing all the Find a grave links without consensus[edit]

I noticed you are mass removing the find a grave links without consensus using an automated tool. Since we are still duscussing it I don't think you should be doing that. --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not "mass removing" them (100 out of 13000), and I am checking every page before removing the link. I'm careful not to remove it from stubs or short articles that don't have any other links, just in case, but so far I've found a lot more featured and good articles with a link to findagrave.com than stubs. --Conti| 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not just the articles length its also depending on wether the Find a grave article has infrormation that could be useful or interesting to our readers that may be inappropriate or non notable for entry into Wikipedia. A good example is the link to Joseph Smith. I agree that the article itself doesn't need and from a personal perspective I could care less about the guy (not trying to seem rude) it but it contains a lot of links to the graves and info of other family members (parents, spuse, kids, etc) that some readers may find useful and isn't necessarily appropriate for inclusion into the article about Smith himself. A good example of one where I agree it wasn't needed though was John Paul Jones. There was nothing in the Find a grave link that wasn't referenced better somewhere else and the Find a grave link didn't provide anything more to the article so IMO that was a good call. --Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I missed that somehow, that's actually a half-way decent reason to use that site. I'm quite sure that most (or nearly all) of the instances where I removed the site did not have such useful or interesting information. --Conti| 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with stopping the removal of links without additional discussion. The ones that I have checked have images of the gravestones. In some cases it is the only indication of where a person is buried, since most newspaper biographies are written before a burial takes place. I think the ones removed should be reversed. It provides a unique resource for images of graves and location of graves that aren't available from Wiki Commoms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
By all means, feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Often the articles did include information on where the person is buried, pictures of the gravestones, etc. Regardless, one picture of a grave stone is not usually a good enough reason for an external link. --Conti| 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I glanced at a few of the links you deleted and for the most part I agree but I reverted one already and though about reverting a couple more but thought I would wait first. In the case of Albert Fish were you removed the link to the site. There are a couple images on the site that we do not have in commons or in WP so I think that the link adds value as an External link. Just wondering but what in your opinion is cause for keeping the link? Another example is Sitting Bull. The Find a grave entry contains additional pictures (such as pictures of the monument and gravestone) which we do not have. Additionally, reading the text there are some interesting details that are not in the article (not sure if they should be or if they are factual yet but they were additional). --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem I see with having the link because of "additional pictures" is that it would make more sense to link to a google image search then. Not to mention that we don't know whether findagrave.com is allowed to publish the images in the first place (in case of Albert Fish, they probably are, but it's usually pretty hard to find out). A picture of a gravestone is generally not that noteworthy, in my opinion. Heck, we often don't have pictures of people for their biographies, yet we never link to an image of them. But we should have a link just for the gravestone? Nope, don't think so. As for George B. McClellan, what additional information do you mean? I'm not seeing it, unless you mean the gravestone again and the links to his family member's graves. Again, that's vaguely relevant. --Conti| 22:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
But again you are basing your assumptions on your personal taste not on what the reader may want. Whether you think its noteworthy isn't the issue its that the link does provide something in addition to whats in the article. And even if they had a picture with questionable copyright status WP:EL specifically states thats ok as long as we don't pull the image into WP and use the site as an External link only. If we can prove without question (which we can in some cases) that the image or info falls under copyright then I agree don't use it. In this case however it is doubtful it is under copyright and even if it were we don't need to worry about that because we are not using it as a reference. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I am basing my assumptions on what makes a good Wikipedia article. It's really simple. If our bar for external links is this low, most articles could easily have literally hundreds of external links. If we can link to a picture of the grave, we can link to other pictures of him, and his house, and to one of his birth certificate and to every interview a person ever gave and to.. well, you get my idea. The point is to keep the external links section to what is most useful for the reader, and not to link to bloody everything that someone might possibly find useful. That's why we have WP:EL. --Conti| 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok its clear we have a disagreement here so I will just go back and review the changes you made. For the most part I agreed with most of them so far but since we can't agree we need to leave the article as it was. I went through about 20 before and only found 3 that I chaneged so for the most part this is just wasting time for the both of us. --Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the links at Albert Fish and Sitting Bull were the only ones where I hesitated before removing them. :) I see where you're coming from, I just simply disagree. --Conti| 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Joys of temporal templates[edit]

For your information:
Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Request_to_remove_various_temporal_templates_from_Twinkle
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the request was considered reasonable, and now the several "current" templates have been removed from the standard Twinkle menu.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for letting me know. --Conti| 09:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

TB:Current spaceflight template[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Conti. You have new messages at Xession's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

External links essay nominated for deletion[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, which you contributed to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Android "vote"[edit]

Hi

Just wanted to point out, in case you did not notice, that you didn't actually vote (oppose, keep, Merge etc.) on the page Talk:Android (operating system)#Requested move Chaosdruid (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it's not a vote, but a discussion. I think I made my position quite clear. --Conti| 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sherman Minton and edit warring[edit]

Dear Conti, WP:3RR 7&6=thirteen () 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You were right. I self reverted that edit. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Find a Grave|5715}} The reason I want this in (and I thought it was in when I self reverted) was that it has the close up of the headstone. I would be the first to agree that other than that, there is no content in Find a Grave (except for the article on the cemetery) that has any import concerning Sherman Minton. There is no rule that bars external links to Find a Grave, especially if they have unique content. 7&6=thirteen () 19:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
One single picture of a grave really isn't a good enough reason to include an external link, especially when you already link to another picture of the same grave. External links are used when there is significant or important further information, and I would argue that a picture of a grave is neither. It's a nice-to-have, but that's it. Think of it this way: If we have an article about a living person, but don't have a free image of said living person, we don't add an external link of a picture of that person, either. It's just not important enough. --Conti| 19:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deja here...and here. The issue still causes confusion and clashes with editors...will it ever be sorted? The lengthy discussions wear people out (TLDR) and frustrates them. The clashes and needless frustration are my main concern.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to all kinds of suggestions to get this resolved. --Conti| 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Conti, the beauty of using the find a grave template is that it links to the Wikipedia article on Find a grave. In that sense, readers are free to make an informed judgment on its worth. Frankly, there is no harm in having a link to a different picture that specifically shows the headstone up close. You are really saying there is 'no reason, but its policy.' Linking to find a grave gives readers a chance to look at their articles and make their own judgment. As to gravesites, cemeteries and pictures of them, find a grave is in that business, and does a credible job. the cemetery articles are particularly good, as they oftimes pull together disparate famous personages who share the same cemetery -- there are historic and cultural implications in that. If they don't have an article with useful information (e.g., Atilla the Hun then removing it might make sense. But that is a judgment that should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not even going into the removal from the Minton article of the reference to Find a grave. In this particular case it was corroborative of facts verified in professional journals. There was no reason to remove it, other than 'adherence to policy.' I did not revert it then because it was a war that I did not feel like fighting. I don't participate in these ongoing and incessant policy discussions mainly because I am just a first line editor -- more than 85% of my edits are contributions to articles. I have better things to do than get into discussions that go nowhere. I would suggest that inferring merit (or lack thereof) from the number of participants in these discussions, or their position, is an unwarranted inference. It merely means that lots of editors are turned off by the exercise in mental and verbal masturbation. It may seem like fun at the time, but nobody is going to get pregnant, and nothing is being accomplished. At bottom, the amorphous policies are to blame here. You and I are wasting time arguing over a marginal link. Its presence does no harm, although it creates a reason to debate far in excess of its effect on the article. 7&6=thirteen () 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Yes, it is just one link that some of us probably care way too much about, and I certainly understand why it might seem like a non-issue. The thing is, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture here. Taken out of any context, I wouldn't have any problem at all with this link. But I know that there are more than ten thousand links to the find a grave site, and that they are often times being added systematically by new users who do nothing but this: Going through all kinds of articles and adding the find-a-grave link. Taken into account that the find-a-grave site often shows blatantly obvious copyright violations (again, not in this case), and that the site is, usually, not in adherence with our external links guideline, I am arguing that tolerating the site here on Wikipedia is doing more harm than good. Not in this one specific case, but overall. --Conti| 12:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Conti, If there are only 10,000 links to find a grave out of 3 million articles (yes, I know that all the articles don't pertain to dead people), that actually is a small number in the grand scheme of things.  ::For example, try an unrepresentative but essentially random sample.  ::If you look at the individual Supreme Court justices you will note that I added scholarly articles concerning grave sites and burials to a bunch, but there are over 200 articles, and I haven't taken the time to do all of them. Many of those articles have Find a Grave, and it is at least a useful link. 7&6=thirteen () 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That's not a very useful comparison. I regularly deal with various problematic external links, and 10000 links are a lot. Regardless, I stand by my point that a single image of a grave is not that useful to have. Or rather, that there are countless other links we could just as well add in that case that all are just as useful. --Conti| 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdel for sockpuppets[edit]

There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I use rev delete on. Generally, those that have been disrupting the same articles for years, generating autoconfirmed socks to defeat the semi-protection. I'm basically trying to make things as difficult for them as possible. Wiki-11233 falls into that category.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. --Conti| 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

LMAO[edit]

[7] Priceless! — Ched :  ?  08:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

:-) --Conti| 12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Oh hai[edit]

No, it's an old joke. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And they say confession is good for the soul:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Robopocalypse[edit]

Please don't edit articles like Robopocalypse to leave lines like "Sources like Robert Crais and Booklist have compared the book to Michael Crichton's novels." unreferenced. It's like littering. Dimension31 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add references that are not affiliate links to amazon or similar sites. --Conti| 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The burden is on you, not the rest of Wikipedia. Please try to be a better Wiki-citizen. Dimension31 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians[edit]

I see no need to use a euphemism ever. Why can't we just come out and say "died"? We know what you're saying; don't dodge it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt (slowly) in here - I saw these things backwards, basically! - but if still interested please see Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Euphemisms for death. If not interested, please have a cup of tea instead. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Cirt RfC/U[edit]

Conti, this is just to let you know that I have mentioned and diffed a dispute you had with Cirt (talk · contribs) a few months ago, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) --Conti| 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Professional StarCraft 2 competition article[edit]

Hello, I've noticed you suggested article on this subject. If you are going to write it, we could join forces: I am going to write the same article in Lithuanian Wikipedia. We could share sources, ideas on structure, pictures and so on. What do you think --Windom (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm currently too busy to properly help with that. You might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games for help, though. Maybe you find some editors who are interested over there. --Conti| 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at you, TonyTheTiger[edit]

I hope you are good looking and not gay.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, only one of the two. :-) --Conti| 09:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Furies vs furries[edit]

ONE. LETTER. DIFFERENCE. I don't know how to dumb it down any more than that. --TheTruthiness (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Network Template TFD 2[edit]

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV[edit]

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

hello friend[edit]

the user who started the sockpuppetry case on me is clearly against My Little Pony. when i saw the message that User:Michaeldsuarez left on my page, because User:Night Ranger failed to do so, i read the part about defending yourself against sock claims. stupidly, i added Template:User alternative account name to Badmachine, which linked Daniel Brandt to my doppleganger account, and therefore, my dox. sadly i had to db-author both pages, and recreate so that my dox are not as easily accessible to the Brandt team. while reading the BORING wp policy pages, i saw this.

Those created by known and respected long-standing contributors, whose aim is clearly more to showcase our work and WP:NOT#CENSORED and that are not designed for self-amusement or for sexual provocation may be kept but even so have at times been MFD'ed multiple times or closed as "no consensus".

i am sure you can see the deleted revisions of my userpage. that penis image was my favorite image on the entire project, and as such, i wanted to showcase it. it was the only image on my page, so its not like i was making a pr0n gallery or something. do you think this has a chance at deletion review? if so, would the revision that exposes my dox to the Brandt team be exposed again? thanks conti. and sry if i seem like i am a troll. i just like the internet and internet related articles. i dont know why everyone thinks i am a troll just because i have learned how to deal with them. -badmachine 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Conti,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Nice user page! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

wtf?[edit]

You deleted my references and WIPED STUFF! How is it original research if it is referenced???? Why make it impossible to re-add stuff????????????

Wikipedia is weird! You seem to delight in just being jerks to everyone who comes on and tries to improve it. Why don't you want truthful articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research, especially the section titled "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". It explains why your material was not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, there is a concept called bold, revert & discuss: Multiple users have disagreed with your edits, so you should stop editing the article and instead make your point on the talk page of the article (which you are still free to do so). --Conti| 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was nothing original about it. These people are quite simply wrong. I was quoting plot synopsis! These people were quoting nothing! There is nothing to disagree about. 100 people can lie to you and 1 tell the truth. Truth isn't a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If 1 person tells the truth and 100 people lie, that doesn't make that 1 person wrong. Truth has nothing to do with popularity. My links prove that I was telling the truth. End of story. Anyone who encourages the liars is doing the wrong thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, please read the pages I linked above. In addition, please make your case at the talk page to gather consensus for your edits. --Conti| 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete others' discussion comments[edit]

Please don't delete other users' comments on talk pages or discussion pages, as you did here unless there is an extremely good reason to do so, such as removing a clear copyright violation. If this becomes a regular problem it could lead to blocks or other sanctions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I found that comment entirely unhelpful and bordering on trolling, which can be removed. Are replies like that really acceptable on WP:ANI these days? --Conti| 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I won't comment on the merit of the comment itself other than to say that while it's not one I personally would have made it's also clearly and obviously not among the very narrow category of things that can be removed without consent (clear copyvios, random character strings, etc). Unless I somehow missed a vote in which you were elected Official AN/I Censor, then your removing comments by others without their consent is unacceptable. If you think a user has been contributing unhelpfully, the way to handle that is by discussing the matter on their talk page. By accusing a longstanding contributor such as Tarc of being a troll (or, specifically. a "borderline troll") without evidence I think you're rather digging a deeper hole for yourself through such accusations. Please do not do it again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a pity, I would be very curious to hear your opinion on the merit of the comment itself, because I honestly cannot come up with a good faith interpretation of it. Maybe I'm just missing something. You are right, though, I probably should have just brought the issue up on the editor's talk page (which I did, in fact, though all I got was a "mind your own business") instead of removing it outright. --Conti| 12:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"convenience link"[edit]

hello. i dont see why "convenience link"s are necessary.. if people followed that notion, the Viagra article would be filled with "convenience link"s. -badmachine 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did mean convenient for the reader, not for those that add the links. :) Seriously though, the WikiFur links (for the most part) seem pretty useful to me, explaining certain subjects in much greater detail than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't have a very strong opinion on this either way, though. I do find your focus on getting rid of anything related to the site rather peculiar, though, especially in combination with certain affiliations. So forgive me if I'm not going to take you very seriously. :) --Conti| 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
im not targeting wikifur specifically, there just seems to be a lot of furrycruft on Wikipedia. also, im not worried about being taken seriously. :3 -badmachine 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
So why attempt a speedy deletion of a misspelling that you just used now? GreenReaper (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool[edit]

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) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Just FYI, that quote "Blocking should be a last resort, not a first step" was added for emphasis to the policy by an editor in light of the recent strident enforcement. However the earlier emphasis on not blocking has been there for a very long time. -- Avanu (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know! --Conti| 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You're Getting Old[edit]

Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, who precisely was edit warring over a "typo"? What does removing sourced information have to do with a "typo"? Nightscream (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just my attempt at a bit of humor. :) Your edit reintroduced a typo while you reverted another user's edit. I'm pretty sure that wasn't intentional. --Conti| 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

Just thought I'd point out that this source explicitly says the following in the "South and East Asia and Oceania" section:

"According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, a human copulating with an animal is actually a human having intercourse with a God incarnated in the form of an animal. Copulation with a sacred cow or monkey is believed to bring good fortune."


I decided to see if it was real or not, and indeed, it is real. Since I realise that people might question it, it might be worth putting in the quote above rather then a sentence.

(I have copied this to the zoophilia talk page). MarkB40n (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My revert was mainly to inform you that there actually was a discussion on the talk page, so if you want to reintroduce those sentences, it'd be best to discuss the issues first and come to a consensus on the talk page before doing so. --Conti| 18:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous person continues to blank out parts of the zoophilia article without explanation, even after the information (at least some of it) was proven to be true. Not sure what to do; don't want to keep endlessly reverting. Maybe the article should be protected.
I also want to point out that the anonymous user has taken it a step further, blanking out an additional paragraph and an image associated with the section. I've reverted the blanking, but he/she could un-revert it at any time. MarkB40n (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. You might also want to leave a message at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to get some more comments from experienced editors about this issue. --Conti| 23:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins[edit]

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Geek humor" on xkcd[edit]

You reverted my addition of a {{disambiguation needed}} template to the infobox of the xkcd article, apparently on the grounds that no further disambiguation was possible and/or necessary. Perhaps I failed to make clear in my edit summary that "I've looked at this" meant "I looked at the disambiguation page."

As far as I understand relevant guidelines, it is impermissible (within article namespace) to link to a disambiguation page with the intent to mean "everything on the disambiguation page applies here." I was indeed unsuccessful at repairing the disambiguation link in the sense of choosing only one meaning. Any suggestions on what I should have done here? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I misread your edit and thought you added a citation needed tag. My apologies for that. I'm not sure I agree with you general point here, as linking to disambiguation pages is not always bad, and in this case I consider it useful. The disambiguation page does explain the term, albeit in very brief terms. Still, the tag you added is appropriate. I would suggest to simply remove the link to fix this, however, which you just did. :) My apologies again for misinterpreting your edit. --Conti| 09:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about pictures on Wikimedia commons[edit]

First of all, my apologies for speaking in English. I doubt you would figure out what I want from you if I'd try to use all the French that I know. :) Anyhow: I'm currently checking various categories for copyright violations over at Commons, and I found your images that way. You upload a great deal of medical images on Commons. Could you tell me where you got all those images from? I'm guessing that's part of your job or something, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks in advance! --Conti (d) 1 décembre 2012 à 19:44 (CET)

Thanx you to help me to improve my english :) That's it, i got all these pictures at my job .. See you --Grook Da Oger (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright! Thank you for your quick answer. :) --Conti| 10:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Comment on Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto[edit]

HI J.F.Y.I I just read your comment on Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto#A_School_Named_after_Victoria_Soto and added my two cents have a read if you like =)

have a nice day --Fox2k11 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of section anchors[edit]

In general, it's usually better to replace a section header with an {{anchor|title of section}} than to delete the section header entirely, as you did here. Deleting a section header without replacing it with an anchor will cause all incoming links to that section to become broken, so I created an anchor for the section header that you deleted. Jarble (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you. --Conti| 17:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom[edit]

User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom is a page you may be interested in keeping an eye on.

It occurred to me after our conversation that the DB lists are really based on number of pages or revisions on the wiki (I can't remember which off-hand), but we'd be much more interested in number of active users (or rather, number of active disputes, which is really difficult to quantify). We could pull the active user stats easily enough, I suppose (it's a stored value). But I think AGK is headed in the right direction by better defining and clarifying ArbCom's role here. It's a more realistic goal (for now) than trying to disband ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put the page on my watch list. And I agree, active users are a more important factor than number of articles, but my guess is that those numbers correlate quite a bit anyhow. As for arbcom, I'd be happy either way: They should either follow the suggestion and only deal with disputes again, or be honest and become the de facto governing body of the entire wiki. We're at a point where anything but not changing anything is a step forward. --Conti| 21:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarble again[edit]

Hello, Conti. Will you weigh in on this matter? I'm at the end of my rope with this editor, given the overlinking and the other stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my last message to him, I think getting wider community input would be the next logical step here. I don't think there's any bad faith to assume with Jarble, but he seems overeager in some areas, causing extra work for others, and asking him nicely to change that so far did not yield any results. I'm not quite sure what the best place to ask for some more input would be. WP:3O might be a good start. --Conti| 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
From now on, I will try not to add "see also" hatnotes to sections of articles unless the two corresponding articles are closely related. (And I'll try to read the documentation for each of the templates before using them.) Jarble (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Conti| 21:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Conti. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey, again. If you do decide to weigh in on the above message I left you, which no longer seems necessary to me, I ask that you read the email I just sent you first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see that you just replied at the same time I left the initial message in this section above. Thanks for the reply. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

references
Thank you for quality contributions on referencing, with precise edit summaries, for a great user page and other ways to make people smile, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (20 February 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Conti| 13:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 479th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 479 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Address[edit]

Hi Conti. I see you removed the address of the home at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. I actually don't care one way or the other if it's included, but I just wanted to point out two things. First, the full address is still in the article twice; once each in the infobox and body. Second, I noticed that a similar article, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, does in fact include the full address of confinement in the infobox; it also has the street name in the body. Again, I'll defer to your judgment on this, but shouldn't at least the street name be included from where you have removed the full address? After all, the name "Seymour Avenue" is now very closely associated with the crime. I will support whatever you decide, but of course there's no guarantee that others won't object. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Since Epeefleche has started a new thread below regarding this matter, there's no need to continue the discussion here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your view[edit]

Your view as expressed in an edit summary is as follows: "Please do not include private details like personal addresses unless there is a very good reason to do so. "It has been reported" is not a very good reason, and in this case the information is entirely irrelevant."

You do recognize, I hope, that you are simply expressing (while reverting a second time, in short order) a personal view or two of yours. First -- this "private detail" has no blp concern vis-a-vis the person to whom it relates. That person does not live there at this time.

Second, reflecting the address is relevant. We know that because RSs in such large numbers reflect it. At wp, as at article deletion discussions and naming discussions and the like, we look to what RSs do to ascertain relevance as a matter of course. It is in the wp DNA. It lets us avoid POV deletions -- of articles, of names of articles, etc. It keeps individual editors from baldly (with zero objective basis) saying that an article or name, etc., is "entirely irrelevant." Some editors have been known to make such declarations, based on their personal views, as emphatically as they can, to try to intimidate others. That's not good practice. Better practice is to look at objective treatment in RSs. Did RSs think it relevant enough to reflect? In large number? Then that is a good clue that, if we are to look at this from a non-personal-point-of-view perspective, that it may well be relevant to the same audience -- those who read RSs and who read wp articles.

Is it relevant to report that it happened in the U.S.? Why? In Cleveland? Why? At the address in question? Why? The RSs report all three -- for obvious reasons -- and it is relevant IMHO for us to include as well. For the same obvious reasons. It's perhaps somewhat heavy-handed for any one editor, in the face of that, to make loud yet-unsupported personal-point-of-view assertions of the type that you made. And just engage in multiple reverts, with edit summaries.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I'm not sure if you saw the thread just above, but as you can see I also wrote Conti to ask about the removal of the address. I appreciated your comments because they have given me a different perspective on the matter. At the time I posted those comments, I did not realize that Conti had already removed that content once before and then was reverted. I also was unaware, until I just checked the editing history of the article, that Conti is the only editor that I can see who has ever challenged the inclusion of the address, which has been in the article since the day it was created. I hope that Conti does not intend to edit-war on this issue. As you can see in the thread above, I checked Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard to see how the address issue was handled there because I thought it was very odd to remove the address from the Cleveland article since it's a fact that's been used by the media many, many times. In fact, as I said earlier, that address has become somewhat associated with the crime. My intent above was to not makes waves, which is why I said that I would defer to the judgment of an admin who I assumed had a very good reason (per policy) to remove the address. I'm assuming by what you're saying, though, that there is no such policy. I've also seen other kidnapping articles, besides the Dugard one, in which the confinement address has indeed been displayed not only in the infobox, but in the body of the article as well. Based on all this, I would not object to you reverting Conti's removal of the address unless and until Conti provides a clear guideline or policy that indicates it's inappropriate to to so. Conti, is there a rule or isn't there that disallows putting the confinement address into a kidnapping article? Or is it simply your personal judgment? If there is some type of rule against it, please provide the applicable link(s). Again, thanks for posting your comment Eppefleche. I look forward to hearing Conti's response. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi 76. Thanks -- I had not seen your post. As you can tell by looking through the thousands of gnews hits (let alone ghits), this address is as you say widely used by the RS media, many many times. As to restoring the article to the state it has been in on this issue, I'll let you or another editor who is in agreement with my thinking here, and the state the article has been in since the beginning, do the honors.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ep. No problem, I figured you didn't see the thread above. :) In any case, at this point I do support you on the matter. However, I have not heard anything from Conti yet and therefore think it would be inappropriate for me to revert his edit at this time. But if you feel confident that the address is indeed appropriate to include in the article, then go ahead and restore it. But I will remain open-minded to changing my position if Conti provides any policies or guidelines that clearly supports his view. I've looked for anything that would prohibit including the address but have come up empty. I think it's important to consider that the Dugard article was extremely high-profile and the full address is included there. In fact, I just checked the edit history and the address was added just two weeks after the article was created, and it's still there today. So one must obviously ask: Why shouldn't it be included in the Cleveland article? I fully understand WP:OCE, but we're talking about an article that was very prominent and of course heavily edited, which means that the eyes of many very experienced editors were on it at all times during its development. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that the new notification system really is not nearly as obvious as the good old orange bar. Sorry for only responding now, and thank you both for your comments.
First of all, a few words about policies and guidelines: "Show me which policy prohibits XYZ" is, in my opinion, an inherently wrong approach to collaborative editing. That XYZ is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by policy does not mean that it is therefore explicitly allowed (or even demanded) to do XYZ. Otherwise, I might as well ask you to show me the policy that dictates the mentioning of addresses, and argue that you cannot include the address unless a policy says so. I'm sure you see why this kind of argument would not lead us anywhere.
Similarly, the existence of reliable source mentioning the address only means that we can use that information, not that we are required to use it. We are an encyclopedia, and we do not just blindly repeat everything reliable sources say. We can decide not to include information. We do have editorial control over what will and what will not be mentioned in articles, and we make subjective decisions based on that every day.
So my edits were not strictly based on policy (Though WP:BLP did play a role), they were editorial in nature. I think that including the address gives us no benefit at all, while at the same time yielding potential negative effects. What benefit do we get from mentioning the address? Or, more importantly, what benefit do our readers get from this information? The country, the state, the city, all that is obviously worthy of mentioning. But the exact address? How is it relevant?I fail to see who would gain anything from this information, and I fail to see who of our readers would declare the article incomplete without it. If that were the only consideration, though, I simply would not care much for the issue one way or another. However, there is also the element of causing potential harm by including the address. Someone will live at that address, most likely, and there surely are many reasons why that someone would not want to have this article as the first Google hit on his address. It is a very hypothetical risk, of course, but given that there are, in my opinion, absolutely no benefits in including the address in the first place, I strongly prefer to keep the address out of the article.
As for the argument that other articles mention addresses, too, I could counter with Fritzl case, a similar case which explicitly does not mention the address. I happen to know that because the exact same discussion happened back then, see Talk:Fritzl_case/Archive_2. I'm sure there are many more articles that do mention addresses, and many more that do not.
I did oversee that the address was mentioned elsewhere in the article, and obviously my removal of the address is rather pointless as long as the address is still mentioned elsewhere. And I should not have reverted twice (per the WP:BRD principle), my apologies for that. As I said, this was an editorial decision on my part, as such, it is up to the community to agree or disagree with the edits. So I propose to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article to get some more opinions on the issue. --Conti| 09:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you have acknowledged that you "should not have reverted twice (per the WP:BRD principle)", I would ask that you please revert yourself and then, if you'd like, continue discussing the matter on the article's page. Thanks. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I made a post on the article's talk page, and I invite you to respond to my comment. Feel free to revert my edit to the article for the time being. --Conti| 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Some responses to Conti, whom I thank for his response.
First, as to policies and guidelines. Of course Conti is correct that policies and guidelines are not the last and only touchstone. However -- they should without question typically be the first area of inquiry in a case such as this. When a deleter deletes, and proffers a reason such as the above, it is the natural and correct first question. Also, when a deleter uses such strongly worded language, in such an officious tone, it is generally helpful to clarify that it is a purely subjective opinion, IMHO.
Second, the existence of RSs mentioning the address means that RSs found it relevant enough to include the information. We look to RSs to determine what is relevant at wp in any number of similar instances. AfDs are a perfect example -- GNG is based solely on the belief that if RSs think a subject notable, so do we. It is in wikipedia DNA. It helps us avoid the silly -- and in other cases POV -- back and forth of "well I think x, or I state x as a truism and delete, with nothing objective to support me, just my personal point of view.
Third -- the argument that that we are not "required" to use it is a red herring. We are not required to do anything whatsoever. We are not required to have an article on the subject. Or on any other subject.
Our editorial control over what will and what will not be mentioned in articles, just as our "editorial control" over what articles meet GNG, is best exercised when we temper our personal views with the guidance given by RSs' approach. Which we do every day.
As to whether the address is relevant, my view that it is relevant and worth reflecting matches both that of IP76 and that of the many thousands of RSs that reflect it. Weighed against Conti's personal opinion, subjective as those of other editors but not supported by the approach taken by RSs, I would view his as being purely subjective in contrast to that of others. As at AfDs, we almost always have editors who thing that articles that meet GNG -- are covered by RSs -- are not notable in the subjective mind of the individuals editors. We in those cases hue to the RSs. I see a benefit -- it is interesting to me and encyclopedic ... much more so than, for example, the day of the month that person x is born, which is something else that we reflect all the time. Would Conti, not find that information of interest, and see a potential harm in blps of reflecting it in possible identity theft, and seek to therefore delete that information from all bios? As silly as that seems, the harm there is more apparent than the harm here, and the benefit great -- I can for example calculate how far the home is from where I live if I live in Cleveland, or from other locations in the story, and from the relatives' homes, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind if I move your response to the article's talk page and respond to it there? --Conti| 17:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem -- but please then also move my original comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
For fairness and the benefit of other editors, I suggest we keep the discussion at the article's talk page from this point on. I have added my views there. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

images[edit]

"any depiction or simulation of sexual activity or lasciviousness involving one or more persons"

The context of the image and documentation of surrounding events make it pretty clear that the image is a depiction of sexual activity. How to handle the dark side of history is a known problem.Geni (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that a common sense interpretation of the policy would suffice to allow (or at least not explicitly disallow) such images. We can always add an exception for "historical pictures" or somesuch, if we really have to. It's a minor point that can be easily dealt with, and does not justify removal of the whole section. --Conti| 21:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
wikipedia:There is no common sense. The image in question is in a high conflict area (apparently the Japanese/Chinese relations are a bit messy at the moment) so we must consider how any new policy could be used not how we would prefer it be used. That being the case it is right to remove the proposed section until that and other issues can be ironed out.Geni (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The section on the allegations about vandalism seem useful for balance and NPOV, otherwise Wikipediocracy only has correct allegations noted. This allegation pointed out a software error, which has apparently been fixed.

Wikipedia does a lot of things right, and these things have been reported in the reliable sources. I've tried to note corrections by Wikipedia, that have been documented in reliable sources, for NPOV and Due Weight concerns. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

But this was not an instance of Wikipedia doing something right. This was a simple mistake, and I'm not quite sure how that can be noteworthy in any way. Other than to "prove" Wikipediocracy's notability, of course. --Conti| 11:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The bong picture was censored from Russia-language WP, and so it illustrates the article nicely. One could have a more descriptive caption, such as "This picture was censored from Russian language WP, as documented by Wikipediocracy" with a little work. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was that specific image, then I don't mind having the image there. Though "censored" is clearly a very POV word to use in this instance. --Conti| 11:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, can you point to me where the picture was removed from the article? I can't verify this at the moment. --Conti| 11:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
In case you missed my reply to your concern about "censor".
"Suppress" may be better than the RS's "censorship"..., and more NPOV. (Suppressing trial information is normal operating procedures in democracies.) What do you think? (BTW, our image is better than the RS's, which seems to just be a CC BY 2.0 image with a marijuana pipe from Flikr.)
I prefer not to invest more time in this article today. I've had enough accusations by other editors today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

Conti[who?][pronunciation?][buzzword][disambiguation needed] is[how?][why?][timeframe?][non-primary source needed] a[vague][awkward][clarification needed][expand acronym] person.[when defined as?][ambiguous][jargon][unbalanced opinion][dubious ][specify][neutrality is disputed]

Not on my watch!   — C M B J   01:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ED[edit]

OK, we can take it to talk -- Kendrick7talk 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Hello, it seems your custom sig has a small issue. Since DYK discussions take place within a template the divider between your user page link and user talk link functions as wiki-markup. This kept the second half of your sig and subsequent comments from appearing. You may want to tweak that a bit to avoid such issues in the future.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. It seems to be because of the "|". I'll change it to Template:! and see if that fixes it. --Conti| 09:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy of current template[edit]

For your information.
Template talk:Current#Reworking this template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Revalidation article "Fursuit"[edit]

I'm questioning the mark "Good Article" of the Fursuit. Since you were one of those who contributed to it, I ask your opinion. Keplerbr (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review of Fursuit[edit]

Fursuit, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sourcewatch logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sourcewatch logo.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity[edit]

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trackr[edit]

Hello, Conti. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Trackr, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Trackr for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trackr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trackr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)