User talk:Franamax/Archive 3

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

Roux

I would have to say that I didn't bring up policies until the cussing started to fly. Mocking, taunting, and cussing are signs that a user's conduct is unbecoming. I don't think that I am out of line to point this out when it happens, especially when said user is demanding apologies while cussing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you were the first to use words like "hypocrisy", "rude", "unfair", "uncivil" - the last being an especial red-flag around here. If you'd stated the case that being a candidate makes you no less of a wikipedian, and takes away no enfranchisement, without the vitriol, I'd back you to the hilt.
The thing is, all you had to do was make your views known with one or maybe two posts. Another tactic is to phrase things in terms of yourself, rather than others. So where you say "It is disrespectful to claim that you have the right to oppose", say "If I opposed on that basis, I would feel that I was being disrespectful". There are ways to couch your message beyond just saying "you're wrong, no matter what you say, you're still wrong". Franamax (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That would seem rather silly to go to another's page and do it, especially when we would both know exactly that we were talking about them. The absurdity may be good for a short chuckle, but he would immediately ignore any double standards produced and the potential ridiculous that would result from such double standards. Also, "rude", "hypocrisy", "unfair", and "uncivil", deal with words and with actions. His attacks deal with persons and with physical traits (such as asking if I did crack or was drunk). One is civil, the other is not. Discuss the actions and words, not the person. That is, after all, the basis of NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You're missing my point a bit. The point of casting the issue in terms of yourself is not to disguise any comments, it's to engage your own personal capacity for introspection. When you say "if I did that...", to be honest you have to put yourself in the place of another person who was motivated to do that and work through your own process. It's not enough to just tack "if I did that" at the front, then go on to comment on the other person. You need to undertake the full exercise of putting yourself into the other person's shoes. You might find that your comments are different that way.
And Roux's later responses simply evidence his feelings that you were harassing him. I'll not comment on harassment of itself, but you did choose to pursue a subject on another editor's talk page. The first time that editor says "fuck" anything is a pretty good sign it's time to withdraw. At that point, you're pretty obviously not going to "win the point" - so just walk away. Or even say "sorry if I've offended you", then walk away - cost to you: zero. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But Franamax, you forget that talking about yourself and how you would do things can possibly lead to the other thinking that you are being condescending. :) I know quite a bit about the ins and outs of communication and civility. I lead a wiki group on the matter, or at least parts of it, with people wanting it to go full force. It seems that quite a few people around tonight don't seem to know that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well if you participate in a wiki group on communication, hopefully one of the first things you discuss is how, rather than simply applying objective standards of civility, it is important to literally put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to understand the genesis of their actions. Very rarely is it "because they are just wrong", much more often you will find that it is a result of a chain of misperceptions and misunderstandings. Once you have done that, you can begin to integrate and understand their actions as they conflict with community norms.
In the case at hand, it seems plain to me that you missed some early signals that your direct approach wasn't working and needed some modification. You failed to do that and chose instead to start applying labels to the subsequent outbursts. I fail to see how your approach was productive in this instance. What did you accomplish? Franamax (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, I never said he was just wrong. :) And I know all about the psychological and social dynamics of communication. I even have a guide on how to appropriately act on my talk page here. Regardless, you may be interested in the wikiversity project. And trust me, I didn't miss any signs, and any approach or response I stated wouldn't have worked. If you want to discuss it more, find my email. Its available for anyone to use. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think "It seems we have a difference of opinion. Sorry to have bothered you." would have worked quite effectively. Regardless, I'll study your links and may take you up on the email thing. Hopefully the drama component at least is now settled. Franamax (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, drama is never settled. You'd be surprised that a lot of things that should work really fall flat. LOL. During various dispute resolutions, I've bribed and begged people and still, nothing changes. Its probably part of the anonymity that causes us not to perform in standard psychological ways. Its an odd thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ACE graphs

I noticed a comment from you on AN complaining about the graphs - hopefully this helps you, or at least shows you why I set it up the way I did. That graph is a complete mess. You've got places 6-9 at the top where you can't see who's beating who, it's impossible to tell which color belongs to which candidate, and everyone below that gap at 55% has no chance of winning. By cropping it and zooming, viewers can more easily tell what's going on in the areas where the graph is cramped and the different colors can be easily differentiated. ST47 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't complaining at all, just making a side note about data presntation in general. Your graph is excellent for its purpose, and also excellent for Elonka's purpose, to show Jayvdb's slide. The only danger would be that someone could look at it and say "ZOMG he's gone down by more than HALF!!" if they didn't read the axes properly.
Your version works much better for showing the leaders (in fact I'd just discussed with someone the difficulty of graphing when the data lines are clustered, not long before this all came up :). I like the one you link above for a different reason - it shows a three-mode clustering of the votes, which I hadn't noticed before. Very interesting that...
Anyway, I wasn't trying to complain or question your presentation, and I'm sorry if it came over that way! Franamax (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

problems with the new Comanche Stallion Afd...

Why does this not show up as a 2nd AfD within three weeks for the same article... one that was kept as "Keep" and not simply no consensus? Editors might think it a first AfD and not follow the history. Plus, I am agrieved that a definite keep from 3 weeks earlirer can be ignored. Is this proper procedure? Doesn't such an early return to AfD, without allowing concerns at an earlier AfD kinda fall under WP:NOTAGAIN? If the artilce had mot been improved in 6 months, I might understand... but 3 weeks? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should show as a 2nd Nom. Feel free to fix it yourself, or I'll have a look after my sandwich. You can comment at the current AfD to the effect that it's a repeat nom, maybe someone else will fix it too.
I kinda figured when I removed the prod that they would go to AfD in response, people tend to do that for some reason. I agree that it's pretty dang soon to be nomming a 2nd time. Some editors don't really research topics well before they slap on tags. Franamax (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

fyi

I posted at User talk:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw. I've been at "site B" for a few days and will be back at "site A" where my software is in about 8 hrs. Will do it then. Franamax (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Done! Franamax (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

I understand where you're coming from: I owe you an explanation.

I have been quite seriously ill for the past two weeks. I developed cough/flu symptoms about 28 November. My temperature was running at 38/38.5 9 (101) for most of the first week and my blood sugar was roughly double its normal level (I'm diabetic). By last weekend, my temperature was up to 39.5 (103) and I had developed a secondary lung infection. My doctor put me on antibiotics (which I'm still on) but they are only now starting to kick in. I'm unlikely to be back at work for another week.

In the meantime, I carried on with questions (with varying degrees of coherence) and, stupidly, commented forcefully on opposes. This is absolutely out of character and you won't find anything comparable among my 20,000-ish prior edits. This was not, as Durova suggests, a standard reaction to stress but an exceptional symptom of illness. In addition to losing around five kilos in two weeks, I also lost my normal resilience and good humour.

To be honest, the flurry of pile-on votes following Durova's oppose hurt me considerably at a moment when I was feeling sorry for myself and I over-reacted. There is nothing in my edit history to suggest that I'm ineffectual or a yes man and my many achievements at Milhist confirm my integrity. I have not, incidentally, had a single oppose from anyone who knows me well and who has seen me in action. My integrity defines me as a person and many supports emphasise this.

--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you type way faster than me, so I'll drop my in-progress post to your talk page to explain my change for now :) I'll also annotate my change presently and consider further. I have to say though, while I'm sympathetic to illness and all of RL, I don't really get the "germs-wut-made-me-dunnit" approach. That's used all too often here. There is always the option of not clicking "ON". Pending for now. Franamax (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you've annotated already, so that's covered. I'm unable to locate your apology to Durova, so I'll have to let my comments stand for now. Franamax (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't believe me, I can send you a scan of my prescription (ten items) :)))
I don't ever play the illness card, largely because if I'm ill (which ain't very often), I don't edit. With the election deadlines though that didn't seem to be an option.
Apology to Durova? Next on my list :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Done --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(o/d) Roger, I never doubt people's health issues, whether acute or chronic. My qualms revolve around the on-wiki claims for special consideration, which sometimes extend to the venue you will soon be frequenting. Illness can be a reason, but never an excuse - and I truly hope I will persist in that view when my charmed state of health eventually unwinds. I don't need to see your prescriptions, but I'd like to scrutinize them to check on whether you have been prescribed any course of antibiotics which a) are inappropriate if you have a viral infection; b) you are not likely to complete; c) given a) and b), will give rise to antibiotic resistance and help the end of Western civilization as we know it; d) might get flushed down the toilet, cf. end of civilization, through various means.
In any case, you've apologised and Durova has accepted your apology. That's good enough for me. I don't know you well enough to cast a support, but your forthrightness is enough for me to strike my oppose. Along with good-nature and humility, ability to admit to and apologise for a mistake is an admirable quality. Best of luck! Franamax (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Hi! I noticed your comment about an RFC on Jimbo's talk page. I was thinking just the same thing. It's time once and for all to remove Jimbo's unwarranted powers, and let the community decide how things are run. It's not 2003 anymore, and I think it's important to see who really thinks Jimbo is needed. (I hope this is the gist of the purpose of your RFC, if not, please forgive me!) Cheers, Majorly talk 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my list runs from top to bottom, voting methods, bot counters, eligibility, clerking, vote comments - it's pretty damn long. I appreciate your sentiment about removing Jimbo as a factor, but that's really the last item on the list. Literally. We need to get our shit together first, then Jimbo will just walk away, wearing a smile. Realistically, we will need another year to prove we can be properly organized and have solid conesensus on exactly what an ArbCom election means. Debate during the election won't cut it. We probably are grown-up, but we need to prove it. That may not meet your hopes, but it's my plan. Franamax (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
With the latest set of developments (re. Giano/Moreschi) I'm inclined to bring this forward to RFC now, and suggest abolition of arbcom completely. I've had enough of their bullshit power games. Majorly talk 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Dumb move by Moreschi, but at this point I'm inclined to agree that maybe we need to suspend the current ArbCom before they do any more damage. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

viewing deleted contributions

Allowing a user to view their own deleted contributions seems rather sane, however if they are shown their own revision, the other text in that revision (that they didnt write) is also exposed. A lesser evil is to at least let the user know which pages they did touch, which is bugzilla:5415; that bug discussion suggests there was an enwiki discussion, which may be useful to find. The URL field links to [1], but that is a 404 error. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So why not make a tiny change then to (I think) DiffEngine.php or maybe it's calling proc? If the previous version is also deleted, then just show the right-hand side of the diff, or diff it back to the last unarchived version? All I care about is seeing what I wrote, I can piece together the why's of my writing, or ask an admin.
Chasing right now a Javascript solution to multi-spanned sortable table headings, which I think I've almost got nailed. Thanks for the note, I'll put your links next on my don't-be-a-barking-dog list and see if I can work out a fix on the technical side. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Correction: the diff would need to show only the green bits from my own revision. I'll have to look at DiffEngine.php more closely to understand better. One wouldn't want a few typo corrections to reveal a previously deleted version. Although, now I think about it, why would that be a problem anyway? Oversights are effectively gone from the DB anyway, we're now at the perennial "trusted user" discussion on deleted edits and articles. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
My use of "lesser evil" was a bit tongue in cheek. Before I was an admin, I wailed occasionally that I should be able to see all deleted revisions, 'cause I was sane and wasnt going to do anything silly. Most editors are, and hence it is a perennial discussion.
Showing only the existence of the change will usually jog the memory, and showing the user their own edit summary should help too (bugzilla:5415 has a stale patch). Showing the actual change may also be helpful, but how much context is going to be safe - the community wont approve a feature if they cant be certain it is safe even in the worst possible set of hands.
Oversight is not used uniformly, yet. Often the problems are not reported to oversight-l, and sometimes they are not actioned. Imagine you edited a userpage of someone who later wanted it removed due to a detail that accidentally exposed their identity too much. As they self-disclosed this detail, we usually dont oversight the edits even on request, so we delete it and say "trust the admins to be sane". That usually doesnt comfort the user, and "trust the admins and anyone who edited your userpage" isnt going to help. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There would for sure need to be a skip-over-other-deletes function. To me, the minimal implementation would be that if the DiffEngine returned a single piece of diff-text, i.e. something unequivocally added by yourself, such as a talk-page comment, that change could be stripped of its surrounding context and delivered raw.
The simple existence of a change record, accompanied by its edit summary, wouldn't necessarily help me, due to my unfortunate tendency to use "cmt" "+cmt" "++cmt" "+c" and so forth. :( Luckily I have a localwiki whose engines I can break any time I want (assuming I don't ban myself first :), so I can try these possibilities.
In principle, I first support the ability for any registered user to view their own deleted edits. I'd also support the variously-floated proposals to add an access-tier for the "deletedhistory" and "deletedarticle" rights, but with strict criteria (i.e. the ones that would include me but not les autres :) Those rights could likely be implemented by a simple config change.
I need to look at the code though, there's no use proposing things that no-one is interested in actually doing in software, much less wetware. Franamax (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; I look forward to hearing the dog barking loudly. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your AN/I comment re: Bedford

It makes me sick too. Unfortunately, that's precisely the effect he's going for. He enjoys nothing more than proving his "manliness" by trivializing females as thoroughly as possible. The best thing to do is ignore his existence and wait--eventually, he'll do something so egregious that it gets him banned. He's a little smarter than the average pisser-in-the-snow, but eventually the need to shock will overwhelm the ability to do it WITHOUT crossing the line entirely. I know the type. Hang in there...hopefully you don't edit in any of his favorite areas.GJC 08:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh would that I did edit in the same areas. Then I could crush him intellectually and show how much more snow I can cover. :)
I was chatting with a wikipedialady not long ago, discussing meetups, and she raised the point "what is the gender ratio at such affairs?" I partly then but now completely understand why a woman would eschew such encounters. (In defense of meetups, I pointed out that those kind of people will generally avoid personal encounters where their failings would become evident to all and sundry).
Quite angry right now, you're right, that's the desired effect. Good advice, thanks for the note, I go sleep now. :) Franamax (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Report needed

Could you run one of your Ucontribs reports on SunDragon34 (talk · contribs) please, a possible RFA candidate. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! They're working in good areas, maybe a little light on volume. NB You can have a copy of the tool anytime you want! It incorporates the link-scanning I wrote for you a long time ago. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please! Jehochman Talk 11:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canadian Sovereignty

I'll work on rewording the article then. Just for future reference - do you know where it states that in the WP:GFDL agreement? Thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Bsimmons666 talk for coherence. [2] Franamax (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've responded at my talk page. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just noticed that informative little message at the top of this page. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Knew you'd be checking in....

And yes, I have refs to format... and thanks for pointing out my date typo. Wanted to finally get rid of the redlink at Quantum Quest. Found out that just this month St. Pierre has been nomintaed for music director for a project. Many of many careers. Will reserach it and ad it. In simple terms, what is DYK and how does this article apply or vice-versa~ Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be thinking that Ecoleetage has got the better goods on DYK than I do. I'll check around after dinner though. You need an interesting "hook" from the article, and I think it needs to be a certain length. Pick someone from the active list at WP:DYK who is active right now (check their edit history) and bug the heck out of them. :) Franamax (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

Thanks Cas, it's nice to see someone sending out a secular holiday message of peace and love for all mankind. :) Truly we all stand united on this planet. I'm disappointed you didn't add a few appropriate cartoons though. ;)
To avoid cluttering your own page, I'll say here congratulations on your recent elevation to god-like status. I've found a useful guide to writing ArbCase findings for you. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks Risker (the author of the reciprocally unsigned post above). [3]. I do often try to smear my meanings about, amusing is often (but not always) intended to be thought-provoking - so indeed, I'm left guessing on the exact meaning of my own comments sometimes, laughing and thinking-hard - for me that's often the same thing, absurdity reveals truth. As far as helpful, caveat emptor! LOL
Oh yes, thank you so much for permanently imprinting a visual image of a really good song combined with wigs onto my brain. :) I can just imagine what will be playing through my head as I make my way through snow-bound Vancouver tomorrow, heading for Mom's turkey and pudding. I'll make a note to infect the tow-truck driver too, should the eventuality eventualize. Eat, drink and be merry! ++regards! Franamax (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thx Guettarda, that image is so not where I am right now. LOL. Good thing to think about though, it makes things a little bit better. Merry happy holimas to you also! Franamax (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It's so not where I am right now either - I'm in Michigan, deeply buried by snow...it isn't the thought of warm weather that made me pick that picture, but rather the thoughts of home. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


To Franamax:

Thanks for the kind welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry, but I do find the site rather difficult to negotiate in terms of posting and making changes - I haven't quite got the hang of the technicalities. Not my forté! I've listed my rationale for changes in the "Anne Boleyn" discussion page, but I have no idea if that is the correct thing to do.

Yes, I have posted exclusively on Anne Boleyn, but due to frustration with consistent historical inaccuracies and too many outdated opinions, conclusions unsubstantiated by contemporary documentation, will cease to do so. Accuracy is something of a losing battle, it seems; as well, there is a propensity to cast Anne Boleyn in a both anachronistic and negative light - without any regard to the context of her upbringing as a product of Renaissance thinking. There are so many misconceptions regarding Anne Boleyn, which are unfortunately reflected in the article. She was very much a child of the Renaissance in a still medieval England - an aspect I tried to stress, only to have my contributions removed. As well, I included sections on English civil law and the actual reasons for her fall, which have been removed several times now. Again, the article reverts to the now hopelessly outdated theories of Henry VIII's disaffection, the inability to bear a living son, Jane Seymour, etc. Her fall was actually far more complex, and more due to political forces.

It seems some on Wikipedia (I have absolutely no idea who) adhere to a viewpoint more in keeping with Philippa Gregory's execrable "The Other Boleyn Girl", which drives the historian in me insane! So I will no longer contribute, regardless of how many errors and stereotypes I find - I'll simply warn others off the site. Enough people on the internet know and trust my knowledge of the subject - and frankly, I do not have the time to correct the errors over and over again.

My information Anne Boleyn is based upon forty years of intense research, as well as two Master's degrees in subjects related to her:

MA in Anne Boleyn's years on the continent (the courts of Margaret of Austria and François I), and how they influenced Anne Boleyn's notions of queenship and monarchy in the tradition of Renaissance Humanism.

MA in Anne Boleyn iconography: the image and symbolism of Anne Boleyn in portraiture. Actually, I am thinking of taking my PhD in art history now - again, on Anne Boleyn's portraiture (based on a recent discovery).

I've read probably everything available on Anne Boleyn - from contemporary to modern - and, as a historian, am solely interested in objectivity, balance and facts. Unfortunately, there's too much reliance here on Alison Weir, who has no training in history whatsoever, and is incredibly inaccurate. She draws unsubstantiated conclusions and makes a horrendous number of simple factual errors (although I've heard her fiction is quite good - but the accuracy threshold is much lower).

I also indicated which sources in the reference list are best, and which should be avoided, but that also has been removed several times. Some sources, such as Bruce and Chapman, are extremely outdated (written before Paget's watershed article). But Dr. Eric Ives is undoubtedly outstanding - absolutely essential to understanding Anne Boleyn, and is the best secondary source to date.

Sorry for not asking permission/discussing my contributions.

sincerely,

Irene —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRheinwald (talkcontribs) 00:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope you don't decide to stop contributing, we can use lots of help here! It can certainly be frustrating learning this site, there are a lot of different policies and procedures, and occasionally you will also run into some stubborn users (but most people are kind and helpful).
Yes, discussing your changes on the talk page is the right thing to do. One thing you always have to keep in mind though, is that even though you are expert on the subject matter, unfortunately that is not enough by itself. We rely on being able to point the reader to other, reliable sources which say the same things as what we put into the article. For instance, indicating which sources are best and which should be avoided - that's really just your opinion (which I'm sure is correct) so it can't really show up in the article. What if someone else with the same experience and knowledge as you comes along and decided it should be shown their way?
It sounds like you have access to lots of good sources though. If you make referenced additions, it should be rare that they will be removed. As long as you avoid synthesis, undue weight, etc. I don't know much about Anne Boleyn, but if you're having trouble with specific issues, I can take a look any time you want. Can't promise it will turn out the way you want, but I can take an outside look. Really though, discussion on the talk page is key. I see that Qp10qp is involved there, I think they're a pretty solid editor. Anyway, keep on trying, it can take a long time to get things changed on Wikipedia, so patience is a virtue! Good luck & regards. Franamax (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Franamax,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uno (motorcycle)

Tossed you a whole bunch of sources for expansion. What a terrific gizmo. Definitely suitable for a DY: Did you Know...
"...the world's first mono-motorcycle, the Uno was invented by Canadian teenager Ben Gulak?"
Shall I submit it for you? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm all at sea on the subject, whatever input you have is appreciated. I just thought it was pretty cool - need an image though! Franamax (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hope you like my expansion and sourcings. Watched clips of this kid on several interviews and on that Dragon's Den show. Its ready for DYK. Get a pic from the Uno Website. Fair Use? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Good God man! Who told you that you could add so much text and sourcing to my article? ;) No, I don't see a fair-use rationale for a non-free image, since one of us could fly to wherever and get a free one of our own. Instead I'll try begging the owner for a release. Now, how does that DYK-thingy work? Do the same thing wut ya done be4, 'cept this time I wuz rote the first 3 sentenzz! Thanks MQS. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

The ball is in play. I expect it to be very well receieved. Not only is it an interesting fact... but it is a VERY interesting fact. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts

That was some pretty aggressive vanadalism. Thanks! freshacconci talktalk 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help out. Apparently you're wrong though, it wasn't vandalism, it was freedom of speech. [4] I need to get a new dictionary. :) Franamax (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really

As far as I know the policy is very stingy toward fair use images and I don't think it is a good idea to use copyrighted pictures for the motorcycle, unless it is not available in the market or something like that so it is virtually impossible to obtain any free image. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you wish to, go ahead. It is your job to persuade those image police, not mine. :-) --BorgQueen (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Uno (motorcycle)

Updated DYK query On January 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uno (motorcycle), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

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/Date delinking/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/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

advice please...

We've got a puppet: see Contributions G-man80 and Contributions Slycooper100. Both creating/editing/reverting the exact same articles in the exact same way. User talk:Slycooper100 is a puppet, meat or sock, of User talk:G-man80. I have never filed a puppet case nor asked for a checkuser. What to do? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked into it and I completely agree with you, my impression is a COI socker, but whatever. Since I've never done it before, I filed a SSP report here for experience. And you know what? After that first try my advice would be: don't. :( I'm not exactly wiki-stupid, but that was a very confusing experience, filling in the report took me at least an hour. There's an awful lot of confusing instructions, I ended up (after looking at various template source code and many Previews!) ctrl-X'ing some of them away. In the event my report is dismissed as malformed, here's the diffs: report report filed.
Possibly this is knowledge reserved for the illuminati, I prefer to think that it's just been massively overloaded with arcane advice by well-intentioned editors, or maybe I'm just not as smart as I think I am (noo - that can't be true! :). Anyway, I'll need some more tries at SSP before I can actually help you - but thanks for giving me a reason to help myself! Franamax (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Woah. Sorry for all the bother... but appreciate your efforts. I do not envy the self-taight lesson. But now that you're writing some nice articles and getting DYK's you'll likely run across puppets more frequently. You want a good chuckle... Check the front page of his blog and scrol down under his review of Gran Torino. He writes "Recently, a wikipedia page about 'Fog Warning' has been posted. What's interesting is that the 'Reception' part, they pointed out that My review was the most notable of all the early reviews. That's pretty cool"... of course not mentioning that He himself authored the Fog Warning article and that he himself inserted his review as most notable. He kinda seems desperate to get a bit or recognition. I can sympathyze... and heck, I even liked the article enough to improve it and defend it at AfD... but if he had only asked someone for advice, he would have gotten it. I even made a point to include a properly phrased mention his blogger review in the context of Fog Warning getting a wide reception, and in an attempt to molify... but he went and changed it back to his original, grossly self-serving text, and it was reverted and his blog review removed entirely. Then of course, came his sock adding the exact same information in the exact same phrasing. Representative of his potential, his blog reviews are actually good, and well thought... and if he played by the rules, he'd end up being one hell of a fine editor. Hopes he does not stay mad too long. Now to look at his other edits and see if they are wiki-worthy. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And something that seems missing... and I would not wish the report to be dismissed as malformed... but should you post the notification templates on the pages of the two accounts, as was done in this exapmle: User:Cup17, User talk:Cup17? Or is done by a bot? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ohyeahdangit - I think that was one of the bits I deleted trying to get the SSP page to look right. Just on my last scan before bed too - I might have to email myself for tomorrow morning, and my deepest apologies to the SSP accounts for dropping the immediate notification, I do owe you the courtesy and will remedy soonest! Franamax (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into it. If they're not there in the morning its because either I could not figure it out, or I could and found out you had to be the one to do it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Got the talk pages tagged... User talk:G-man80 and User talk:Slycooper100. Wasn't too hard to do. The SSP instructions indicate it as one of the steps you were to follow, but does not say it cannot be done for you by another. So, I did it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

belated thanks

pleasure working with you on the fluorine deficiency page btw. thanks for your contributions and desire to keep things straightforward. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk answer methods discussion

Fran, while I enjoy discussing whether logic and OR can provide quality answers, I don't think it's appropriate to have such a discussion in the middle of a Ref Desk Q. I answered you there, since you started the discussion there (or continued it there, after an anon I/P started it), but I feel that my talk page is probably a better place to bring this type of thing up in the future. We could also use the Ref Desk Talk Page, but civil discussions there tend to devolve into fights, due to some very unpleasant people who hang out there. Since we can both engage in civil discussion, without resorting to name-calling, it's probably better to keep the discussion between us. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't a good place, I only did it there because it had already started. You're right too that I shouldn't be contributing OR - but I still remember the fight to keep every last damn animal alive (in order to be slaughtered at the "right" time :) so I answered spontaneously with what help I could. It's pretty serious when your animals are eating each other.
As far as your initial response, I just questioned the chain of reasoning that seemed to end up with one pig looking at another one and thinking "hmm, protein..." as a primary cause. It is reasonable that a protein-wasted pig would be a more hungry pig, but it's just as possible that protein deficiency will result in one pig being particularly weak and getting picked on more - which usually doesn't end well.
Probably the best outcome would have been if you'd supplied the authoritative source at the outset and I'd said nothing at all (except "d-uhh, castrate yer boars!" maybe). Sorry to put RefDesk infighting on the public page, it helps no-one. Agree too that RefTalk is not the place, unless I have a fresh load of popcorn to hand... Franamax (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I have nothing against OR, and I feel that your contribution was useful. I also feel my answer was useful. If you had wanted to add the part about the reason why protein deficient pigs might engage in cannibalism being more due to weakness in some pigs than hunger in others, then that seems like a reasonable thing to post at the Ref Desk, as it relates directly to the Q.
Haven't you ever been hungry for a specific food or type of food, like meat ? I certainly have, and pregnant women are renowned for their unusual cravings. I believe all animals have developed this ability, to some extent, to crave foods which contain nutrients which they currently lack. There would be an enormous evolutionary pressure to develop such an ability, after all, so it would be surprising if pigs lacked it. Pigs do resort to cannibalism from time to time, so they clearly are able to think of each other as a source of food. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I know what you're saying. I just think it ranks farther down the list of possible causes. Pigs kill each other for a lot of reasons, I personally suspect that the greater pressure is to get rid of weaklings completely so as not to attract predators. If a sow gets upset while farrowing, she gobbles up all her piglets. If one of them is born wrong and starts squealing, you have to get it away quick 'cause she'll eat it and she might not stop at just the one. If one gets flattened on the wrong side when she goes down to nurse, there's just one fewer piglet when you count the next morning. I don't think that's protein deficiency. Overcrowding, not being castrated, and the fact that they've obviously combined at least two different litters rank up there in my mind.
Having said that, the OP comment that they were feeding corn was a bit of a red flag, because it is indeed relatively low in protein. If that's all they've been fed (with just a mineral supplement), you could well be right that they are in fact starving with food all around them. In fact, now I see the OP has said that they're eating less of the cornmeal, which is at least an orange flag. Franamax (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Plagiarism

Since it seems to have been your baby, would you object to my launching one? It seems that conversation about it amongst current participants may not be productive. I'd be quite thrilled to work with you on wording it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm thinking something along the lines of Header: "RfC: Plagiarism guideline proposal"; Body: RfC to discuss in general the value to Wikipedia of a plagiarism guideline and specifically the particulars of the proposed guideline under development." What do you think? Neutral? Concise? Likely to prompt development? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We-e-ll, since two of the major contributors to the discussion and the text are arbitrators now, and several of the other contributors are very long-term editors, I'd not be making any claim to parenthood. Maybe I've been a foster parent during those rebellious teen years. :)

I also think that the quality of the original contributors could be a useful guide to whether or not the guideline is needed. Apart from one very vocal objector, I don't recall many other people saying "we don't need this", rather the contrary. I agree that it's difficult to work collaboratively when one editor is casting aspersions toward the very idea and at the same time actively editing the proposed text.

I'll admit that I've been a little depressed at some of the recent changes that to me seemed to have lost some of the sense of the consensus version. I'm a big boy though and I've had horses kick me before when I was trying to bring them water (Kittiwake was a big Arabian who didn't listen when she was eating, and she could set you on your butt pretty quick :( ). I'll revisit the proposal presently and possibly change some things back.

I still think the best way forward is 1) do a best-efforts version; 2) invite back the constructive original contributors; 3) advertise the "initial" version at VPP for further development; 4) move to a proposed guideline announcement at WP:CENT, etc. (and all hell can break lose then, as opposed to right now)

That said, if you want to do an RFC on the "should it exist" question, yes I will help to frame it. I don't think that one vocal objector is sufficient to necessitate such, but if you feel that question needs to be answered now, let's do it. We have nothing to lose but our obsessions ;) Franamax (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the changes have disappointed you. (Certainly not my hope.) :/ I'll wait until you've rallied enough to revisit and how things develop. If you don't think RfC is the best starting point, maybe inviting back the originals will get things progressing. My hope is just to get it spit-shined and officially working. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resp

Hey, no worries. I trust you enough to edit my user page. It's not like I own it or anything. Great example of WP:IAR in action! — BQZip01 — talk 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hello Franamax. You have mail about AnonEdits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Regarding [5]

Hi! You could object to that edit, but the main problem with this diff is that you used "Spam" in the wrong text.

On here WP:SPAM specifically refers to attempts to promote a business - it's about the intent. I was trying to list obviously notable companies that have operations in small cities, neighborhoods, and/or notable buildings/skyscrapers. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the first reversion, I used "advertising". Seeing the same pattern in a series of edits, adding a business name and address down to the suite number, then looks like widespread advertising, which becomes "spam" and is quicker to type. However, I looked over your contributions at the time and it was apparent that you're not a spammer, and I found the same sort of listings for other companies at SeaTac, Washington. I can't go back and change the edit summaries though.
Now, on the editorial side of things, adding suite numbers and street addresses just clutters up the article, conveys no encyclopedic information and will become impossible to maintain. Listing every office of a business is unencyclopedic also - is it significant to the reader that an airline has an office in Guam? How many people are at the office? Is it a mail-forwarder used for taxation purposes? Is the operation the small town's major employer? Does it make nuclear weapons or the roundest ball-bearings in the world?
In retrospect, I would use "WP:NOTDIR" or "unencyclopedic" as the edit summary, but I would still remove most of the entries. Especially just at the moment, keeping track of where corporations have their offices is a moving target. :( Franamax (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding mailforwarding, it depends on what the airline states. China Airlines makes it clear that its Guam operation is a manned operation, and since the office is a "branch office" is it more significant than the "mini office"s elsewhere. I have encountered cases where an airline lists an address, but in fact it's a travel agent that represents multiple airlines. Usually you can determine this by seeing if other airlines "share" a suite in a building.
As for how many people are staffed usually airlines don't say. Some operations do have centralized headquarters (i.e. Japan Airlines at El Segundo and All Nippon Airways in Torrance, which was raided by the FBI in 2007) - Apparently China Airlines does not have centralized offices in the US, but some offices are bigger/more important than others.
Regarding "Is the operation the small town's major employer?" not every place has statistics for which employers are the largest - in some cases it may be the only notable company I can think of with any sort of operations whatsoever in a town or community.
I have worked to get neighborhood and city articles passed through GA. While they had company information with information about office addresses and streets, what completed the economy sections was that they also had information about the community's workforce (thanks to the U.S. census). As long as supporting info is there an article can pass GA with simple listings of some major companies. As another example when doing the GA nomination for Bellaire, Texas a user told me that I should delete a list of parks unless I could find a way to make it more detailed. I satisfied this by listing the features of the parks, so the list is not a simple listing. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing link

I'm trying to find the "woke up in the morning to find..." that I thought you wrote. I'd like to add it to the "original" WP:EUI set. Was that you? hydnjo talk 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the picture I keep tucked away? I nabbed that from the_undertow. Thanks for a reason to look at it again. :) It's at the top of your own eui subpage. Franamax (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Arrrghh! I'm losing it - forgot all about your addition there. Thanks again :) hydnjo talk 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Uno (motorcycle)

May be a way to satify all parties. Despite what it "actually" is, Popular Science had it one its cover and called it an "electric unicycle"... and most other sources called it unicytcle of mono-motorcycle. When on the cover of a magazine called Motorcycle Mojo, one can see how a confusion can spread. When creator himself describes it simpky as a "vehicle", despite what it is in fact, honoring the intent of the designer would improve a reader's understanding. How about a slight rewrite of the opening... Something along the lines of.... I'm gonna be bold and make this change:

"The Uno is an electric-powered vehicle that bears an superficial resemblance to a motorized unicycle. Called a motorcycle in news reports it is actually a dicycle, a vehicle created by placing two closely-spaced unaxial drive wheels side-by-side at the centre-point of the vehicle. Stability of the Uno vehicle is controlled in a manner similar to the Segway PT personal vehicle."

It might serve to please all..? The a move from Uno (motorcycle) to Uno (vehicle) would be appropriate. Who could have figured your article would spark such interest? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Made the move to Uno (vehicle). Very nice tweak on my modification. Let's think down the road to a new move to Uno-cycle... since as a unique item, its name may well become synonymous with its function and type. Like Xerox becoming a verb. We may see licensing down the road where Hundai makes a version of a Uno-cycle... or Yamaha... Or Kia... and they'd all call it by some flashy salable name. But a uno-cycle it began and a uno-cycle it will remain. Just like there are thousands of versions of the device called "autonobile" and this other one called "motorcycle". It may end up better to call the wiki article by what the thing's vehicle genre is, rather than what the singular thing's name is. Hey, let's go down to the Ford dealer and look over this year's models of Uno-cycles. I hear the big model is a two-seater. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. If they ever check their inboxes before they have no more room, they might get around to building the bike. :) I've been looking around trying to find what his patent # is, no luck so far, though I did find a Toyota patent that looked remarkably similar. Certainly when the vehicle actually shows up in stores, it will be snapped up en masse - who wouldn't want to cruise down main street on one of those babies? Unocycle will become more well-known than Segway - which I have only seen ridden by Gob and Homer. :) Franamax (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Would updating this: User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b/MBK004 be too much of a hardship? I'm interested in the change from then to now as well as all the statistics normally provided. -MBK004 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh

Hello Franamax, I included an EL to a website that I have found useful in the past (edinburgh247.com). But you removed it. This is a well used website in Edinburgh - it is a useful source of information for residents and visitors to Edinburgh. I think it can be be includedWikilocky (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An opinion, please

I'd like your opinion of User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Margo Sappington. the original was speedied for being an unsourced copyvio of some online bios. I felt like a challenge, and after a bit of a check decided there might be enough to rewrite an article, using the sources. I never saw the original, but it exists in several wiki-mirrors. I think mine is much sweeter, cleaner, to the point, and properly asserted and sourced. If it hits mainspace unprepared, it will be jumped on as a "recreation of deleted material", even though my version is a far cry from what must have existed before. So, before I toss this back into the fire, I'd like your opinion. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't like your footnote formatting, but then you knew I'd say that, right? :)
I'd say several sentences in the Career section still too closely resemble the external work, in that several of the phrasings are identical or only changed in a minor way "have been danced by", "she created a role in the premiere" are at least two examples. If you change entire sentence structure, like going from active to passive voice and rearranging the clauses, you will probably end up also changing many of the words.
It's not bad, but I'd say keep at it. Of course, you can't change dates, but you could organize it better chronologically and/or by dance, then choreography. Put the cnhronological items in a row, then the "works have also been performed by..." later. The lifetime award should appear in the lede (asserts notability) and also near the end of the Career section, or create an Awards & Nominations section. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently found that cite tool thingie. Will put it to work. DO some revisions per your advice, and get back to you. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay Dad... take another look. You'll find the cites meet your impeccable tastes. I also rearranged sentence structure and placement, and added an awards section. I gave long though to breaking things up by performer, creator, choreaographer, etc, but decided that chronicologically makes the best sense and gives a reader greater understanding to just how many hats she wears at the same time. I think this may even be a GA. What sayest thou? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, asserts notability, well-sourced with N, V and RS, meets NOTE criteria - all good. Does not recreate previous content i.e. not a slavish recreation of a previously deleted version. Thus no AfD or CSD criteria are met, so I'd say time to release it to the wild where myself and everyone else in the world can "improve" it. Green light.
Next, specific quibbles (which can be fixed by anyone):
  • Assertions in the lede don't have to be backed by specific refs if they are backed up in the main body. That keeps the lede clean and tight for the new reader, so they understand the subject in the first bit above the TOC. They can always look further for the sourced details and it's up to us grunts to keep it all in synch for our real readership - the people who have no clue what they should "expect" from an article. This article isn't long enough yet, but in general the lede should all be supported from within the article body. I notice that you moved up the lifetime award, but didn't also place it down in Career with a cite there.
  • Performer and Choreography sub-sections - OK, you and I understand the date ranges, as in that's how long the show ran - but what theatre/tour? and how is the average reader supposed to interpret? (Forenote maybe, or perhaps I could introduce you to tables and be able to point out even more technical things you're doing wrong? :)
  • And nice work with the cites - EXCEPT - they all now have "(in English)" in there - see the danger of using tools, rather than memorizing or writing up cheatsheets to stick to the side of the monitor? In en:wiki, including that phrase is unnecessary and cluttery.
But those are quibbles that anyone reasonably skilled can fix up. From my own POV, I'd say push that sucker out and let it swim on its own! Franamax (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay Pop, Margo Sappington is back in the his-house. Removed "English" decriptor from all cites. Moved assertion sourcing from the lede to the body. I did do a bit of a tweak in the Performer and Choreography sub-sections... but I'm thinking... either some other editor will add theatre... or I will... or maybe the reader can just follow the sources and learn something for themselves. It is a quibble... and one I can live with for now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The future course of the article is impossible to predict. That's what's so wonderful about a wiki. Once exposed to the community, a piece of text can evolve quite rapidly.
As expressed by many others elsewhere, stellar efforts MQS. I don't really do awarding of barnstars, but feel free to copy this: for your efforts over many months now, and many miles still to travel, JOB WELL DONE! Franamax (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Those words are a "Barnstar" all in themselves. Thank you for letting me place this in a spot of honor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WHAT??? Only two typos??? My eyes were so blurry after looking at the screen for so many hours, its sheer luck there were not a lot more. Thanks for looking in. Your sharp eyes are always appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi, I have two infobox templates that I would like to add locater maps to, similar to the way the Community maps work but no one in WP:MINING has the technical know-how. I know that you were talking about changing the Ontario Locator map to make it easier to use, and I was wondering if you would be able to help us. The templates we have are Template:Infobox Gold Mine and Template:Infobox Mine. If you can assist or point me in the right direction it would be great.--kelapstick (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty version at User:Franamax/Test13 and you can see (and play with) the results at User:Franamax/Test12. It will need lots more work to use all the proper parameteres, but you get the idea. I can dress it up a little more if you have any initial comments than we can see if WP:MINING wants to integrate it. I don't like the way {{Infobox Mine}} works, it doesn't seem to allow optional parameters. Also, shouldn't {{Infobox Gold Mine}} invoke {{Infobox Mine}} and let Mine handle changing the title and colours? Let me know... Franamax (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right but the template for gold mines was created before the "general" mine was (I had asked the creator of the gold mine box to make the general mine infobox). The only optional parameter we were looking for was the subdivision 2 (state/province/territory) since different countries have different jurisdictional breakdowns. The only thing that I can think to change/add is to move the map below the image rather than at the bottom, but that is generally what I was looking at. Does entering England in the location and putting the lat and long put the dot in the proper place? Because that is awesome if it does. If you have any other thoughts on improvement I am all ears.--kelapstick (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it checks to see if the location parameter is set and if so invokes the location map template and passes it the lat/long parameters. I'm not happy with the way it indents the map. I'll try to play with it a bit more later today. If I can get it looking good I'll integrate it into {{Infobox Mine}} and notify (at WP:Mining?). It could have geo-coords in there too.
Also, if the map is just below the image, that means that when there's no image, the map wll be at the top. Is that OK? Franamax (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, for the most part I think that the maps used will be Canada, US and Australia (since that is where the bulk of the mine articles are located) so if those locater maps are calibrated than everything is good. The map at the top of the box if we are lacking an image is fine. When you finish up and integrate it to {{Infobox Mine}} you can either post something at WP:MINING or let me know and I will, I just put up a quick note to hold off adding infoboxes until we got this cleared up. If you want add a place for coords if it isn't too much effort. Thanks again for all your help.--kelapstick (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mining#Infobox_part_II. Good thinking.--kelapstick (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fulltext

Alas, my access to that paper doesn't allow me to send copies. I'll be happy to answer questions about its content on the talk page, or you could try asking for a copy at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or at WikiProject Medicine's talk page. Eubulides (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

a new article

Would you take a look and tell me if youthink this is ready for mainspace? User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night Coons! Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You put those typos in just to give me something to pick on, right? :) It's a well-written article, so no problems there. As far as defending it under the notability guidelines, yer on yer own... It looks OK to me as a "minor notability" situation, I'll be interested to see if you get a rough ride. Reading WP:NOTFILM, it seems like only Casablanca and Triumph of the Will would qualify, but that's just me. ;) I doubt there's anything more you can do other than move it to the big-leagues. Good luck! Franamax (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It has already been tagged... and only an hour old. Perhaps I should sent the thing directly to AfD and let it be hashed out there... as there are far less "notable" thing that won out in AfD. Makes me wonder why I botherd. Okay. I am now going to give each and every sentence at least 5 cites... maybe more. Then the scream will be that it is oversourced.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Noo, it almost made it to two hours before tagging. I was watching. :) Remember that it's not quantity of sources that will win, it's quality. You may need to look in varsity pub's for secondary sources or contact the creator(s) or contact Troma to see what press clippings they might have. I personally accept the notability of a feature film produced by secondary/uni students but that is just my judgement. It is after all not even a B-movie and I don't close WP:Film AfD's (and even if I did, I would have to judge the arguments of those more familiar). You're in tough with this one, it didn't actually have a theatrical release, and I didn't see a gross revenue figure. Take the time (I'm sure you're tongue-in-cheek on AfD'ing it yourself, especially using the argument of WP:Otherstuffexists) and look for more discussion of the film. Don't just pick every random site and cite you find though - which of those sites and cites best qualify as reliable sources? Franamax (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
2 hours? Wow. A record. Got to leave and do a film shoot. Will pick up this discussion an some 6 or 7 hours. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Franamax, its about Melbourne article, you gotta restore urgently the previous article that contains the Culture section and the appropriate images, the Culture section is no more and longer exists now, even if it is present all time in this article, thanks to revert to the complete version. DutchSupremacy (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I got there too late, no-one can change it now for the next three days. (Unless there is a factual error, we can fix those while it's protected) Everyone is feeling a little worked up right now at the way the article is changing. That's fine but the way out is to discuss it on the talk page - and do it calmly, please. I'll be betting that you all can agree, you just need to start talking. Franamax (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature

I keep getting my ear bent for poor citations. I understand you can help me get access to nature. Is this true? Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can get copies of Nature articles 1997 to yesterday, and a bunch of other journals. Drop me an email. (I can't give you the login itself, you will still have to search the abstracts to decide what papers you want) You can also ask at the WP:LIBRARY where there are several other helpful people.
Also, I don't know where you live but consider getting a library card. I don't actually go there very much but I login to their site a lot. It is a goldmine, I can get to it from home and access hundreds of different resources: journals, magazines, books, newspapers, dictionaries, you name it. Plus some search functions like Academic Premier and All-in-One. And for me at least, it's all free! :) Franamax (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good that card. I have a UK library card. How do you get onto the Nature site using it?Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Each library system is different. You would need to check the website for your particular library or call them to ask. For instance, Hampshire PL has this page - when you pick one of the resources, it will ask for your card number. This doesn't get you onto the journal site itself but you can get full-text of papers. As I said though, every library system is different. I'm in Vancouver, which just happens to have a vastly wide range of resources available (yay, VPL! :) Franamax (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hello, you have email. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi Franamax Thanks for your time on this. I have adjusted my site webpage at the bottom of the page http://www.asisbiz.com/downloads.html and changed the license to CC-BY-SA. I hope this helps so I can now give you more images. Do i have to go through this special upload feature to add images or is there an easy way/ Matthew Acred99 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) PS I don't know all the ins and outs of the chat thing. seems hard to talk with someone. Acred99 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks OK to me, and hopefully others will agree. Yes, you have to go through the upload feature, it tries to make sure you've crossed all the i's and dotted the t's. As you've seen, images get flagged pretty fast if some of the information is missing.
You might also consider uploading your images to Commons instead of just en:wiki. That way they can be used by all the different language wikis. Franamax (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franamax Thanks for all your help. What happens now do I have to do any more or does someone now put them in the rights pages or do I have to do that? Acred99 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have an idea of good spots for the images, you should put them in yourself. If you're uploading them to en:wiki, you definitely should do it yourself because if they're not used in articles they may get tagged as "orphan" images.
If you put the images on Commons (which is the best place for free-use images anyway), you can add them to various categories so that other people will have an easier time finding them. Remember that there's no particular way for people to know your images exist, so it's up to you to be sure they are used. Franamax (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Franamax The edit tools I have can't insert photos to the pages concerned. I think you have had to contributed at least 10 articles or something. I was hoping by adding ten photos they may allow this feature. I often find information I'm looking for but you guys have no image and there is no easy way to add stuff. I'm so busy doing my own website it really is a bit frustrating and i seem to run around in circles. So should i now reupload these images again in the other forum? Matthew Acred99 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Commons is the best place for images that you wish to release for public use. I'm pretty sure they accept CC-BY-SA 1.0, but will confirm that shortly. Commons works (almost) exactly like en:wiki and your login here should already give you access (see single user login).
Next, there is indeed "auto-confirmed" status which requires you to make a small number of edits in order to do some things. You can reach that status easily enough by just reviewing some random articles and correcting typos and grammatical errors, lord knows there are enough of them. I note that you seem to have made no actual mainspace edits, so that's a bit of a concern. We prefer to have editors who are interested in all aspects of the encyclopedia, not just placing their own images.
Further, I see that your original user page was deleted in 2007 as "spam", meaning that it was probably promotional i.e. advertised yourself as a photographer or something. You should be aware that while we will always welcome your freely-released images, we'll look dimly on you attempting to promote yourself, your business, or your website. However, I don't think that's what you're trying to do here, so I'll try to help you put up appropriate images.
Last, give me some ideas - what article, what image, where should it go? I'll be happy to review and place the image if it will improve the article. You can also help yourself by reading through the articles where you think your image would work, if you see small typos or grammatical errors, fix 'em up and you will become auto-confirmed in quite short order. Meanwhile, where do you think is a good place for one of your images?
Last last, keep in mind that we're all busy with our own lives too, so it does come down to learning it all yourself eventually - but we welcome you if you want to pitch in.
Oh yes, last last last, don't re-upload your existing images to Commons, there's a way to get them transferred over, I'll figure that one out too. Franamax (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it looks like Commons accepts the CC-BY-SA 1.0 license, so no problem there. It would be better if you would use the most up-to-date license, CC-BY-SA 3.0. I don't see any great difference but everyone will breathe easier seeing you use it, in fact if you use 3.0 everything is fine. You need to understand that you are releasing your images for free re-use and modification, but I think you've already grasped that fact. :)
If you want to give me a full list of images, I can get them transferred over to Commons and we can work together to get them into categories there. Then everyone in the world can use them. Franamax (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franamax look thanks so much I really was about to give up. i don't mind changing the lisence over to the one you suggest. I shy away from editing because I'm dislexate. I can't bloody spell and make myself look stupid. I did put a link to the web page I thought was appropreate on each image. I also noted that you have very little on the caves in Malaysia. this is what I have written and plan to put up on my site"Along with the Hindu Batu Cave in Kuala Lumpur, San Bao Dong cave and Buddhist temple located in Ipoh is one of the most famous temples in Malaysia especially amongst the Chinese community who refer to the place as ‘Ba Loh’, which is a Cantonese expression. San Bao Dong has been made famous by its cave paintings. In some instances these paintings are at least 2 stores high ‘the monk standing next to the tiger painting’ is very big. The paintings depicted in my photos don't do the originals justice. They really are great works of art. When the original paintings where first painted is hard to say because of dust the paintings are maintained. It would be fascinating to have the paintings scanned to reveal there origins. I was told they where done by monks if that was the case they must have been great artisans in their day. The cave its self was probably established around 1887 as the neighboring Nan Tian Tong temple was established during this time. Matthew" I have taken pictures of most of the cave paintings i was a monk at the time and they allowed me to take photos but there is about ten of them. I'm heading to our beach house this weekend so may have to tackle this next week. If you can help me in any way to get started would appreciate it. Matthew" I have taken pictures of most of the cave paintings i was a monk at the time and they allowed me to take photos but there is about ten of them. Acred99 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

San-Bao-Dong Acred99 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive put one image up in the common area as you said. hope its ok you don't really have a section for this place. i guess you could stick it in the Ipoh section. Acred99 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

list of my images uploaded so far you can change the license, to CC-BY-SA 3.0 ill change my site also to reflect your suggestion. Acred99 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can do that BUT you have to do some work too, and you need to get familiar with this site. I'm always helpful but I'm no donkey! :)
You pasted in your edit history, I already know how to get that, and I already know all the edits you've made. I specifically asked you to list the images you're talking about. You can do this by making a list exactly like this (when you edit here, you'll see the precise format):
File:Thailand-Aerial-view-of-Phuket-International-Airport-Apr-2003-01.jpg
So there I've linked the image, put an initial ":" after the square brackets so that the image doesn't show up on this page and added some hypertext at the end to make a linebreak. Now all you have to do is copy that line and put in the names of each of your images when you post to me next. I don't really feel like trawling through your edits, but I'll help you if you help me. Yes, an encyclopedia is complicated, more so even than your own website.
And you haven't told me what exact image you put onto Commons, so I have no clue what do to next. The more specific you are, the better we can work! Regards. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image list

This is the Commons file:

File:Ipoh-San-Bao-Dong-cave-Buddhist-temple-paintings-Jul-2000-06.JPG

needs a new section added

File:Malaysia-Negeri-Sembilan-Port-Dickson-PD-lighthouse-Jun-2001-00.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Dickson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acred99 (talkcontribs) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done: [6]

These are the other files:

File:Wat-Phra-Baromathat-Nakhon-Srithammarat-Apr-2001-00.JPG
File:Wat-Phra-Baromathat-Nakhon-Srithammarat-Buddhas-Apr-2001-23.JPG
File:Wat-Phra-Baromathat-Nakhon-Srithammarat-Apr-2001-20.JPG
File:Wat-Phra-Baromathat-Nakhon-Srithammarat-Buddhas-Apr-2001-23.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhon_Si_Thammarat
  • Done: [7] Can you expand your descriptions on the image pages? I put the images into the section on the main temple but I don't think that's where they should stay. In particular, what temple was the Buddha statue in?
File:Thailand-Aerial-view-of-Phuket-International-Airport-Apr-2003-01.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phuket_Airport
  • Done: [8]
File:Pagan-Buphaya-pagoda-entrance-Dec-2000-00.JPG
File:Pagan-Buphaya-pagoda-Nov-2004-00.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupaya_Pagoda
  • Done: [9] Here again, can you expand on your description at the image page? The article says that the pagoda is now completely covered in gold leaf, but your image shows it with the white base. I'd like to clarify when exactly that changed.
File:Pagan-Dhamma-ya-zi-ka-Pagoda-Nov-2004-00.JPG
File:Pagan-Dhamma-ya-zi-ka-Pagoda-Nov-2004-01.JPG
File:Pagan-Dhamma-ya-zi-ka-Pagoda-Nov-2004-04.JPG
File:Pagan-Dhamma-ya-zi-ka-Pagoda-Nov-2004-05.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammayangyi_Temple
  • Done: [10] Better descriptions on your image pages would be nice.
File:Pagan-Shwezigon-Pagoda-Dec-2000-00.JPG
File:Pagan-Shwezigon-Pagoda-main-Buddhas-Dec-2000-01.JPG
File:Pagan-Shwezigon-Pagoda-at-dusk-Dec-2000-00.JPG
File:Pagan-Shwezigon-Pagoda-main-Buddhas-Dec-2000-03.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwezigon_Pagoda
  • Done: [11] Better descriptions!
File:PNG-Japanese-Nakajima-Ki-49-Hellen-Oct-2002-00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-49
  • Done: [12] Better... ah, you probly get my drift now :)

hope this is what you want sorry still new at this. Oh by the way glad you bought this up:

Further, I see that your original user page was deleted in 2007 as "spam", meaning that it was probably promotional i.e. advertised yourself as a photographer or something. You should be aware that while we will always welcome your freely-released images, we'll look dimly on you attempting to promote yourself, your business, or your website. However, I don't think that's what you're trying to do here, so I'll try to help you put up appropriate images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_the_Philippines I was just trying to add my website link they have my company mentioned but no link. If that's spam well.... To be honest I think it comes down to the editor at the time and I just gave up. But thanks to you I'm now back and will try to help time permitting. Acred99 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Done: Changed all the above to 3.0 license (using the {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} template or in future you can pick the 3.0 license on the upload form). If bots start dropping messages on your talk page, leave a note here and I'll figure it out. I may have done something wrong, you never know.
  • I tried one of those oh-so-easy transfers over to Commons, it didn't work at all! Like everything to do with images, it's all difficult. Leave it with me, I'll try something else tomorrow.
  • That list of companies - that's a common problem all over the wiki, list articles where all sorts of things get added that shouldn't be there. I don't blame you for trying to add a link. But no, your company (and many other ones) shouldn't even be on there, unless you have enough notability to have your own wiki article or at least a reference from a major newspaper or magazine.
  • Please review all the links above where I placed your images. Are my captions correct, and have I put them in the right places? Also, as I noted a few times :) if you can put more description onto the image pages theselves, all the better. Otherwise, no-one has a clue what the picture is actually of, so why would anyone ever use it?
  • On the topic of cave paintings, yes that's interesting. I spoke briefly with another editor who may be interested in creating an article. What we would need though is some really solid sources to work from, books, magazine articles, newspapers, that kind of thing. Just you saying they're awesome is not enough, Wikipedia is all about reporting on the reliable sources. Do some research, scan some stuff and email it to me, whatever - we can make an article! Regards. Franamax (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks I'm starting to get the Wiki bug now. Unfortunately Most of my Pagoda photos where taken some time ago and I'd have to go back to Burma and get more info than what I have. In regard to the cave paintings Ive never seen any articles on them. I'll ask some friends of mine to see what I can get but other than photos thats all I have. I've even heard they have closed the temple because a rock slide trapped some visitors and killed a security guard. The location and captions all seem ok. Acred99 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Franamax I added these two images to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupaya_Pagoda section i hope I did it right. This is the main pagoda the previous photos are of the entrance pagoda. i put them through commons then followed your code and added them into that section. Can you please check I have done the right thing?

File:Pagan-Bupaya-pagoda-Dec-2000-00.JPG
File:Pagan-Bupaya-pagoda-Dec-2000-01.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupaya_Pagoda
File:PNG-Japanese-Nakajima-Ki-49-Hellen-Oct-2002-11.jpg
File:PNG-Japanese-Nakajima-Ki-49-Hellen-Oct-2002-07.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-49#Operational_History

Acred99 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:C-47-Dakota-USAAF-5AF-42-23659-crash-site-PNG-Oct-2002-15.jpg

I also added this one I'm not sure where to put this one. Acred99 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Im not sure where to put these ones

File:Kuala-Lumpur-Thean-Hou-Temple-Architecture-04.JPG
File:Kuala-Lumpur-Thean-Hou-Temple-Architecture-02.JPG‎
File:Kuala-Lumpur-Thean-Hou-Temple-Architecture-01.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thean_Hou_Temple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_(Chinese) What would you suggest? Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acred99 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Dhammikarama-Burmese-Temple-Standing-Buddha-Mar-2001-00.JPG
File:Penang-Dhammikarama-Burmese-Temple-Burmah-Lane-Mar-2001-00.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammikarama_Burmese_Temple,_Burmah_Lane

I'm having trouble with this one can't seem to link the photos to the new section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples#Penang

Acred99 (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Thni-Kong-Tnua-Jade-Emperors-Pavilion-Taoist-temple-Mar-2001-04.JPG

Description = The Thni Kong Tnua, or Jade Emperor's Pavilion, is a Taoist temple at the foot of Penang Hill in Air Itam, Penang. It is located to the right of the Penang Hill Railway Station.

File:Thni-Kong-Tnua-Jade-Emperors-Pavilion-Taoist-temple-Mar-2001-00.JPG

can you check this for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thni_Kong_Tnua

Acred99 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ship-Star-Cruises-Star-Aquarius-Hong-Kong-Jan-2009-00.JPG
File:Ship-Star-Cruises-Star-Pisces-Hong-Kong-Dec-2008-02.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Cruises

Hi Franamx I don't understand I uploaded two wonderful images and inserted them in the correct section and they where removed by parties unknown. Why do they do this. I just can't believe it. I also don't know how to keep an automatic eye on what I've edited do you put a ticket in a box? You still haven't answered my queries sorry to trouble you but i'm still new at this and I can't figure out why things get deleted when I add them to the right sections. Acred99 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franamx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar_market Someone put a delete notice on this page I created which is a link from the main article can you remove the notice? Acred99 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing the Nuthampstead page. I see what was wrong now (o: C2r (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find out about the unwritten rules?

Actually I totally agree with your smackdown - I just don't like the idea of talking about 'unwritten rules' on Wikipedia. You should've just said it's wrong. From a moral standpoint, not related to some unwritten Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Brief bewilderment, but I assume you refer to the SA affair. Sure, there aren't necessarily unwritten rules per se but there is a certain wiki-culture and there is a concept of fairness and of "don't kick a man when he's down". I live in Canada and perhaps we have more codification from the sport of hockey, which is quite brutal but also carries a code of honour. Anyway, you just don't take advantage of weakness - beat him fair and square or stay at home. I hadn't thought of it any other way, but you're right, the rules should indeed be written for all to see. Hmmphh, I already changed a guideline yesterday. I've seen that kind of commentary come up on quite a few blocked utalk's though... Franamax (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take Care

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where this is coming from, since I didn't engage in anything long or involved there and had no intention of doing so anyway. Utalks are generally not for external discussion, although some particularly indulgent users allow it (Jimbo e.g.:). Visiting again two days later though - yeah, I see what you mean. Quite messy that! Franamax (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Related information.

I still think it is a good idea. I'm salting a few articles here and there. Maybe it will catch on. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for the subversive help. I noted a definite conservatism and a catch-22: MOS only describes what we actually do, so we can't change it until what we actually do has changed; our best articles must always comply with the MOS, so if you want to have a good article, make it look like what we already do; but please provide evidence that people are disobeying the style we mandate for all good articles. Yeah thanks, I already know how to draw circles!
It will definitely have to be grassroots. To me, it just makes sense - just look at the page and think about it. I'm thinking though that maybe the "See also"s should move down too - but one step at a time (and then where does External links go?). Thanks for the encouragement. :) Franamax (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
An update: I've slipped it into a number of articles, including featured articles (one that was the article of the day; four that are permanently referenced at wp:cite). So far it seems to be sticking without any meaningful resistance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Shh! ;) It looks good to me in almost all the places you pur it (I tweaked Zborczyce to get rid of the whitespace between it and the navbox). The lack of complaints ie encouraging. FA's I believe are supposed always to conform to MOS - but the logic is pretty compelling, anyone reverting you will hopefully at least think about the fact that they are putting navboxes back into the External links section.
I'd originally thought about this for articles with complex sets of navboxes and especially when the "bottom stuff" was several scrolls away from the "writing", separated by many notes and references. Looking through the various places you've used it though, I'm thinking more that it is pretty much always appropriate. That's what navboxes and categories are, related information. At some point, maybe the See also sections should be merged down to the bottom content, say, three or four years from now when the idea is not so startlingly new :)
I also note that at List of craters on Venus, the {{compactTOC}} doesn't even show the additional sections. {{compactTOC8}} handles the extra sections, but will need to be updated someday for the new extra section. Thoughts for another day. One step at a time and so far so good! :) Franamax (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resistance from the status quo lobby

F.Y.I.: Talk:The Chaser APEC pranks#Related information. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, changing FAs is not insurgency so much as it is marching into the centre of a big field and waving the rebel flag. :) It's fine if you want, but don't be surprised if a fighter jet comes in and wipes out your whole army. ;) FAs apparently must conform to MOS, so they may not be the best targets to achieve a groundswell. Franamax (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I don't think this change is prohibited by MOS (it just isn't endorsed by it) and, with the exception of the F.Y.I. above (which I think is coming from someone with a WP:OWN problem) there hasn't been any meaningful resistance - even to changes to much watched "article of the day" pages. So, while you will likely have occasion to say "I told you so," for now I am going to continue the flag waving. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, go for it. I'm speaking from my own conservatism just as much as the conservatism I see in other editors. In case you haven't seen it, I proposed this on perhaps the most visible place on the wiki, FA-wise. It was met with resounding silence (not disapproval) and on review I note that Sandy said FAs "should" comply with MOS, "indifferent" to the idea, and not one single other regular editor there chipped in. Possibly the lack of response is due to my not having joined the FA-club, thus anything I say could be dangerous, thus it's best to wait until someone else opines first and agree with them. Possibly it's a good idea and no-one wants to be the first to say so. No problem then, we'll just proceed on our path! Be bold!
I've popped it in a few places, likewise no resistance so far. The one exception is the FA Sandy alluded to, but I restored it there based on my previous talk post - and it's still there as I write.
So yes, long live the revolution! Logic seems so far to be overcoming thats-not-right-ism. Franamax (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes - forgot to add: "Related Information" is currently the best candidate for the section title. "navbox" is rather elitist as a name. When I look here, putting on my casual reader hat, I do see a navbox - the directional thingy that looks a bit like the Google Earth control where I can steer north and south. Then also the things we 'pedians call "navboxes" which me the new reader might call a "window" or a "dropdown" or a "show" (that's what it says, right?). Then the article categories. Oh yes, we all understand how categories work and they're not part of the actual "page". But does the whole reading world understand? Well, if it's in the "Related information" section, then yes, maybe they do. Just one more tiny clue for our readership... Franamax (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

F.Y.I. 2 - It looks like our buddy Dahn has enlisted his buddy to do his dirty work for him. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If I could just defend my good name (and Dahn's) here: no, there was no "enlistment". I noticed the change to the Boganda article; it looked odd, but I said nothing; once I saw Dahn jump in, I did so too. I consider what both of us are doing as laudable, not "dirty", and in any case, that thread you discovered (of which, by the way, you should note the author) has zero relation to the argument at hand, which is that your proposal is a bad idea and should be rejected. Also, referring to content opponents as the "status quo lobby" is unlikely to score you many points. - Biruitorul Talk 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

F.Y.I. 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Related_information.22_sections Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting a FAQ page

Here is my draft: User:Butwhatdoiknow/Related information. Please review and edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A small oops there, I made too many different changes, crossed over you, decided to save my version. At least I think so, maybe now it says "my firend Alison is teh coolest!" :) Check at User talk:Butwhatdoiknow/Related information and check the pagehist. I'll back off for a bit. Franamax (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I definitely screwed it up, the text I wanted in the lead got into Benefits too. I dunno. Sorry 'bout that! :) Franamax (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now. (How the heck did your changes screw up the page history. That is quite a feat.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have specifics on the pagehist going wrong, please list them! I've seen this at least once in recent days elsewhere, reverting vandalism, getting reverted back twice with my 2nd revert not showing up. I suspect a server fault (which has happened, umm, often) but I need more evidence to bring it forth to WP:VPT for examination. I thought the latest was just be screwing up an edit conflict, but I wondered why my text got duplicated. If I'm right, this will be happening to hundreds of people, so anything you got, so much the better! Franamax (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It must have been a hiccup in the Matrix, I can't find it now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Sligo

62.40.54.207 what I was doing was adding constructive information about my own town,if two schools can be mentioned then why not an organisation that promotes peace and harmoney. God knows after thirty years of violence in northern Ireland we need all the peace we can get.

So far the only people that have a problem with this is a German and someone from New York.Since it is clear that neither wants contributions from someone who was born and worked all thier lives in this town (57 years)then I will not bother to ever make any contributions again.So much for the spirit of Wikipedia being for everyone!

PS. all you had to do was give guidence and ask me to move it to a more appropriate place.simply removing edits is not only rude and an abuse of power , but also the fastest way to loose contributors. (sorry about the formating,first time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.205.202 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the guidance was given in the edit summaries by two of us - it's not appropriate content for the lead section. The two schools shouldn't be mentioned there either, I spotted that and plan to move them to the appropriate section - but it means that I will have to research to be sure the information is correct, it's extra work, and with all respect, I'm not going to jump to do it to please you. I have a list of things to do here as long as my arm. You can feel free to move them down to the "Education" section yourself, as well as create a "Sports" section.
FYI, you can read WP:BRD to get familiar with how editing works. You are always invited to add content, but if you find it reverted, you should then move to the article talk page to discuss the issue. You will quickly find that editors are very willing to discuss things reasonably.
As far as abuse of power or rudeness, I disagree. I also disagree that geographical location matters. Although we appreciate having editors who are familiar with the subject, we must all' enforce editorial standards.
Further, if you had registered an account to make your edits, you would find that I am not rude at all, I would have given you a welcome message, explained my concerns and been willing and ready to help. That's just not feasible with anonymous editors, snice many of them are sitting at a library or school computer and will have walked away before any messages get through. And you'll notice that I did drop you a message when I noticed your IP address staying constant. Regards! Franamax (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And actually, your IP address seems to have changed again, so there's no way to communicate with you to let you know I've replied. That's a pity. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to the internet , but all i find is people more concerned with enforcing rules than helping.goodbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.192.156 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as your IP address changes every time you edit, it will be very hard to communicate with you properly and introduce you to the many hundreds of people here who are committed, friendly and willing to help. Sign up for an account, contact me and take a chance. On the other hand, if you come here with preset attitudes that you are right and other people are wrong, you may not fare so well. Hopefully that's not the case. Good luck and best wishes in either event! Franamax (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mining Barnstar

Barnstar mining.png The Mining Barnstar
For all the work that you have done creating (and continuing to tweak) the map options in {{Infobox Mine}}, I award you the Mining Barnstar, keep up the good work, thanks for all your help and don't let The Man get you down.--kelapstick (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hi, I've seen you around on the Wiki as someone who seems interested in the statistical trends. I've started a WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends to help catalog the various types of user research that have been created. If you would like to sign up and help fill in our files, it would be most appreciated. MBisanz talk 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've watchlisted the page. Not sure if I have enough to contribute to sign up as a member (and the thing about "any club that would have me as a member" ;), but I browsed through it last night and found lots of interesting stuff. I've been thinking about getting a toolserver account, I might be able to help more then. Do they host DB dumps on the TS? Franamax (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cernova,

Hello, I noticed you reverting edits on the Cernova Tragedy, I would like to point out that the information I have been trying to save was written by my Grandfather, and I can ask the owner of his intellectual estate (my uncle) at any time I wish for permission to publish, copy, otherwise use it. I have preserved the "hobartimus" version in entirety, and in fact put it first. You commented that you are concerned with POV well I state again, this is a published work, by a renown Historian. Further it serves only to show another side of the issue, one that UofT felt was valid enough to publish. please leave the work in its current form, It is just a wast of our time to continuously revert each others edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

99.249, there are several problems with your approach here. First of all, I have no idea whether you are who you say you are. I'm not saying you're lying, but it's not for me to decide either way. We have procedures for copyright holders to officially identify themselves and release their work under the WP:GFDL, it's done confidentially through something called WP:OTRS. I haven't found anywhere that you've properly cited the work, such as a DOI or journal citation - but I suspect you might find that UofT might actually hold the copyright now.
In any case, there's likely no need to go down that road because we just don't use the technique of slavishly copying other peoples text to use for our articles. We just don't do it that way. Wikipedia articles should reflect multiple sources. It is though often valid to include an external link, so you could perhaps include a link to the text hosted elsewhere, a possible link description would be "Historical analysis of contrasting version of events". The link would be to either the text hosted by UofT, or to any other site where you could honestly say that it was free of competing copyright claims or released for free use. Even if you did release the text under GFDL and get it incorporated into the article, you have to understand that anyone in the world can come along and change it - that's what free licensing is. As far as getting permission to use it but never ever change it, again no, we don't work that way.
There's a further issue of your behaviour. You're continuously edit-warring to keep your preferred version, you're attacking people's motives, you're saying that you can get another IP address if you're blocked (that's called block evasion, don't think we wouldn't spot it, then you might end up permanently banned and people won't bother to try to respond to you at all). And you're not making any compelling points on the article talk page to persuade people to support your notions.
I'm happy to work with you, explain our policies and so on. It would be better if you would register an account, but either way. But you need to accept that the article will not be just the way you think it should be, it will be what community consensus decides, and it won't just be your grandfathers text (which I thought well-written by the way). Franamax (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mietinen Young

I've been following the originators contributions because they are very questionable. I asked for sources in each case, threatening to delete the content. This will likely be the procedure in a week or sooner. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Plan B

I'm wondering whether some of the resistance to the "Related information" heading is the result of the generic title. While I personally prefer the generic approach because it leaves room for unforeseen contents, it is clear that we are dealing with folks who are not comfortable with new ideas, particularly anything that even hints at sweeping change. WP:Layout#Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc. refers to the material we are trying to caption as "navigational aids." What do you think about taking another run at this (perhaps a bit more slowly this time - yes, I know, you told me so) using the title "Navigational aids" rather than "Related information"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than pushing an "idea", I think this comes down to editorial discretion. I'll continue to introduce the section heading in articles where I do some editing, but not as a matter of faith. If I look at the article and feel the heading is appropriate to set off the contents, I'll do it and see what the other editors of that article have to say. In some cases, I'll continue to put a note on the talk page to explain my addition at the time, for a signifcant article or where I see a compelling reason.
As far as the recent experience, there was mostly silence, some tacit acceptance, and some quite vocal opposition:
  • ZOMG it's a new idea and must be WRONG!
  • I note that no-one actually addressed exactly why we include internal links under External links. Is questioning that really a new idea? Might need a long trawl through the MoS archives to figure out how that conundrum came to be.
  • A large part of the resistance was based on (to me) the idea that we should mimic a traditional encyclopedia and its traditional sections. I noted this in the "put it in the article text not as a template" and "there are already too many section headings, they overwhelm the actual content headings" comments. IMO neither of these objections stop the show. The bottom-stuff offers far more than a print-cyclo could ever provide, it's one of our great strengths; and the solution to excess TOC-headings is to expand the article! However, I'm wavering now on "use always" vs. "use-when-appropriate", and there's another of the objections raised. Question there is, when is the heading needed? Well duhh, whenever a template or cat or any bottom-thing appears that doesn't fit under the previous heading (IMO) - if anything, it should be mandatory. But traditional cyclos definitely don't have navlinks at the bottom. They do have See also's for internal reference, they do have reference lists, you could imagine a list of weblinks printed on paper (silly as that seems) - but for a writer, a set of live, expandable, graphic links leading to other content, infinite in its extent - I understand how that could be a frightening idea worth quashing.
  • Another objection I saw was that our readers will know the templates exist at the bottom without prompting or will find them by scrolling to the bottom. I reject that completely, for reasons I've discussed. Anytime we make assumptions of our readership, we fail, always. A related objection was "it screams READ ME" - yes, umm, that is the purpose of a TOC n'est-ce pas? To draw the reader attention to salient points, such as perhaps the next closest hundred articles? The implication seemed to be that somehow the reader wouldn't read the current article 'cause they were distracted - which seems to me a good thing, presumably they would have found something more relevant. I dunno.
  • And of course the delicate matter of behavioural process. It seems evident that you were open to attack, for whatever reason (I don't care:). You moved too fast on this and provoked a response that could be called hysterical ("let's crush this in the bud") and bizarrely included an ANI thread, blocking threats, editors I've never seen before blanket-reverting you, ANI non-admin regulars warring - and yet you were quite careful and reasonable through the whole thing. Not the strangest thing I've seen happen on ANI, but - well, I guess you've pissed people off in the past. (Email me details if you have any. don't put them here)
  • The section name did also come up. It's a problem. Related information is in definite conflict with See also - but that relates to the big issue of hate for "non-print" content. I'm fine with pretty much anything other than External links as the heading for a section with internal links. "Navigational aids" in particular? I dunno, sounds to me like an insider term - the reader has to know what a navbox is to understand "navigation"; or some horrible disease that sailors get. It certainly wouldn't work for any article about a ship, port, GPS device, lighthouse, etc.
Ultimately, this will likely need an RFC advertised at VPR and/or CENT. I saw you tried to start an RFC but I think you didn't format it well, it got botted away. I never thought of VPR at first:, I went to Sandy's page with a vague idea and she suggested WP:LAYOUT, so I went there to ask. I noted a whole lot of silence and some neutral comments, a little opposition - then you carried the torch and well, as you said...
If you want to go to a full community proposal via RFC, I'll help. A more quiet approach for a few months may be a better approach. Editorial discretion, article-by-article, nothing flashy. Try some different namings, discuss the concept and name on the talk page - there's no big hurry. God forbid that someone makes a bot and enforces our idea as the law, that would be worst of all. Franamax (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the exposition. I'll follow your suggestion to hold off on an RFC. Before I sally forth between now and then, I hope with a bit more discretion than in the past, I'd like to settle on a section title. Whatever we pick it will be unfamiliar to readers at first. My thought on "Navigation aids" is that it is a term already appearing at wp:Layout#Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc., which lends it some credibility out of the gate. You have expressed some reservations about that title but have not suggested an alternative. Are you saying that you are going to stick with "Related information"? If not, do you have something else that you believe would be better? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, sorry for the length. :) I'm not totally sure on any of this, when to use it or what name it should have. "Related information" is the best I could come up with, it's what I'll use for now. "Navigational aids" just sounds weird to me, a little too insiderish - but I'm not saying it's horrible, beyond my natural instinct to nip this unfamiliar idea in the bud. ;) What we need to concentrate on is how to best present our content to every reader on the globe and how to introduce the idea article-by-article in a way that the people who actually write and maintain each article understand and agree - or not, maybe everyone thinks it's an awful idea...
Your subpage is likely a good place to discuss this. It needs a good mission statement at the top, not evangelical, just outlining what we're trying to accomplish. Then we need to get a few more eyeballs on it with ideas not just from me and you. Do you know any article writers with sound judgement? Ask them to comment. I'll do the same. First though, we need to shape up your page a bit.
As far as the specific name (your original point) - nothing is cast in stone, we should try different things and see how editors respond. Use whatever you think is good, put a note on article talk at the same time - read and respond to the reaction. It's a wiki after all! Best though to try it on articles you have a connection to, where your name is recognized - as we've seen, if people see a new idea + a new face, they go into hyperbolic orbit. Franamax (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"we should try different things" - O.k., I'll go with Navigation aids and see what happens. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe I'll stick with "Related information" at the first instance and then have "Navigation aids" as a fall back proposal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because, evidently, "Related information" is not only not meaningless, but also self-evident.
Now that makes me smile a bit. :) I'm semi-AFK for a few days, will take a look at your sub-page again when I get back. I seriously didn't see any huge resistance from regular editors of the articles where I added it, and two instances of approval. One place it got removed as part of a semi-auto "per MOS" edit, even then there was no comment on it being some horrible "mother-of-all-bad-ideas" (that one made me smile too :). Franamax (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there any progress on locater maps?

Are the locater maps "working properly", I saw that the BC one has the stretched out northern part (required unless the map skew template is used I suppose). Also we still don't have maps for Quebec/PEI/NWT/Yukon/Nunavut and Labrador. I guess we never came to consensus at WP:CANTALK in the way of using a standard map, the whole thing went off on a tangent regarding RD maps and whatnot. --kelapstick (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is unmeasurable progress, I've worked out the math but haven't yet done template or javascript code. The skew template turns out to not be suitable for "curvy" maps, where longitudes converge and latitudes curve noticeably. It does work for strictly converging maps where the top and bottom borders are straight and they pinch in toward the top - but those aren't maps in any real sense, they are graphic images and/or diagrams. My sense is that orthographic images and skewed orthoimages have been used in pushpin templates due to the ease of calculating a pixel location for the pin and also the ease of specifying the map edges (which are the same thing really when it's a rectilinear map). It's only at the edge of the world and for large areas where those maps really suck - and that's not where most of our editing population resides, so it seems to have been unaddressed so far.
I've been working on a new {{Location map conic}} template to address using proper conic maps. Two problems: it's not possible to know the details of the original projection (i.e. which map did the uploader trace, which parameters for the Lambert conformal conic projection did the original mapper choose, did the uploader crop or rotate the trace?); and how exactly do you specify the "edges" of conic maps? - all edges basically trace great circle routes around an oblate spheroid. This matters because you can't have a template that puts a pushpin on the wrong side of a border!!
So yeah, I may have a solution for both problems: a good locator template; and a javascript that can use known points from the map to give the map parameters. Confused yet? Join the club, all I know is that the end solution has to be simple to actually use. I'm close though... Franamax (talk)
You lost me after "javascript code"...hehe (just kidding)...thanks for the update, glad to hear that you are making progress, I hate to be a bother, was just curious to see how you were making out. Again, thanks for the update. --kelapstick (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)