A lot of necessary things happen through ANI but yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary drama and bickering in the mix that is a hug time drain. Not one of my favorite places to visit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello you have deleted a page for Robert A Foster. Please could you put it back on or can I make a new one? He is in the New BBC 'Just William' and is a up and coming actor.Many Thanks 9:00,29 Nov 2010 (GMT)
Hi. The entire contents of the page you (I assume) created and I deleted was {{hang on}}. The prior contents of the page, deleted by a different administrator, was [[Just William (2010 TV serial)]]. So the page was basically a blank slate with no tailored text at all upon both creations. If this actor is notable (see also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers) then I suggest you create the page as a subpage of your user or user talk page so that you have time to work on it before "going live" by placing it in the main part of the encyclopedia, and so it doesn't get deleted again as having no substantive content. There is an article wizard which can walk you through the steps. You say he is an "up and coming actor". Well I don't know if there are sufficient sources to support an encyclopedia article, but this statement makes me wary. Please see Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. Note that if the page is an appropriate topic for an article, it would take normal English name punctuation, which means the middle initial would take a period, i.e., Robert A. Foster.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You deleted the article for the International Association of Physics Students based on copyright infringement from the webpage iaps.info. It did seem that way, as the article was mostly copied from iaps.info, but it was done by the Executive Committee of IAPS, so we would like to ask you to reinstate the article. If it is needed we can put a statement on the homepage allowing wikipedia to copy written content from our page or something like that. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by P.O.E. (talk • contribs)
Hi P.O.E. I have taken the liberty of adding a section header to your post and adding your signature; on talk pages (but not in articles), you should sign your posts so that people can follow who wrote what.
Regarding the above page, there's a few matters you should understand. We cannot use copyrighted text simply because we have been given permission. Instead all of our text must be freely licensed so that our end users can take the material and use it themselves under our licenses. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The upshot is that for us to use the material—which means allowing our readers to use it and modify it even for commercial purposes—we have to have a verified release of the material. To do that, you can follow either of the methods listed at the page. Specifically, please look at the subsection of the page entitled Granting us permission to copy material already online.
If you do that, it will take care of a first hurdle but I don't think you should bother because the text itself is not appropriate for an article it its current form. This is an encyclopedia. Can you imagine a proper encyclopedia articles saying things like "We support our members..."? What you should do is start from scratch and try to write a proper encyclopedia article that cites to reliable third party sources and contains neutral language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I actually never read the original article, and was just tasked with doing an article for IAPS, and I thought it would be much easier this way. Anyway I'll write a new one then. P.O.E. (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I have a problem... as you can see on my user page, I have lately been quite active creating musician templates. User:Memphisto insists that "red links are discouraged" in templates, citing WP:RED: "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first..." Fine. In fact, duh. It also says, "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." This is exactly my aim. As I said on his talk page, templates are meant for links. Red links are meant to encourage people to build articles. I even went through the process of disambiguating each of my links as needed - so I can simply click on the red link and create a page when I have the time - and yet he continues to revert them to plain text. This is incredibly frustrating and counterproductive. Who do I talk to to stop this nonsense? Thanks for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikkitywack. Mesphisto's right that the first paragraph of WP:RED indicates that red links to appropriate future topics of articles should be included in articles but not in templates, among others. This statement is not referenced again in the body of the policy and no rationale is provided, so its instruction is by assertion only, which good policy statements don't do, but it shows support for the other side of your position, even if it's murky. Statements in policy pages are given a lot of weight while they remain, until directly challenged and changed/removed. The language was added here. Sometimes when you look at the history of a policy to see how some text came to be included you find the edit summary links you to a discussion where the insertion was discussed, but this appears to have been one user's insertion. The way we interpret policy, the fact that it's persisted for a few years without challenge is itself sometimes taken as an indication of consensus. I tried some searches to see the state of past discussion but did not find much on point. I myself have created templates with red links, e.g., {{George Stevens Films}}. I think the way to go forward is to start a policy discussion at WP:VPP. I would not approach the text there as you have here, as: "I'm clearly right; the person reverting me is wrong; this is ridiculous." Instead, you can refer to the genesis of the issue as an example, but couch the discussion as a dispassionate exploration of what is best policy and why (because that's really what's at issue). If you don't want to do it, but want me to start that discussion, I will do so. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Yeah, I added that "in fact, duh" bit in a last-second fit of pique. I would never include such language in an official proposal. Thanks for the digging. I figured as much. The quote does seem rather antithetical to the whole idea of red links (especially, imo, when it comes to templates, which should consist entirely of links...) The roots of my paranoia about this topic started here, when a user erased a whole line of text, arguing "navboxes are for articles not a summary of the band's releases." Having meticulously created so many musician navboxes (including verifying the physical existence of every album, single, etc. the best I could) I came up with what I thought to be the perfect defense against such well-intentioned vandalism: red links! He/she was right, in one respect, after all: templates are meant for links. As you can see here, I respectfully undid the edit and compromised by hiding the as-yet unverified singles. I have since made a habit of linking everything in my templates and making sure everything is disambiguated properly (see this User:Memphisto example). As to a discussion at the village pump, could I take you up on your offer? Just to see how it's done by a pro... sometimes I get overwhelmed, and then not a whole lot happens... On the subject of zeroing in on specific phrases (like "rather than using red links in lists..." above) in the revision history, is this an extremely tedious task - or is there a tool that helps? I'm curious to know when the "Good red links help Wikipedia..." phrase was added. Thanks very much for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I've stirred the hornet's nest (see 19-26). I suppose I shouldn't have said anything about my red links practices here, but I guess there's no use in prolonging the inevitable. In fact, I think the Boney James template conversation is very relevant to my case, so this may be a blessing in disguise. My main point in that conversation was: templates full of red links are, in fact, foundational (i.e. extremely useful) in building underrepresented artist discographies. Not to mention it would be a shame for all my meticulous effort to go to waste (speaking of waste - I simply don't understand why these people want to destroy my work when they admit it will be necessary in the future...very confusing. And slightly depressing.)
On a side note, User:Mhiji - the author of the deletion nominations - went around to each of my newly-minted Boney James album articles and deleted my AllMusic reviews citing, "reviews should no longer be in infobox per Template:Infobox album/doc." Not moved. Deleted. Isn't this borderline vandalism? Shouldn't this be the province of a future bot (moving reviews from the infobox to this new "review box")? This is just exasperating... How do I revert these "good faith" edits with some kind of warning? (Am I right?) Wikkitywack (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cunard,
Thanks for your edits on my article. I see you made some minor edits on it, I appreciate it. I also see that you have left a notice for User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze I hope he will reply your message soon. However, I would like to let you know that I left for him a message when i was recreating the article first on his workspace and than moved it on mine. I am sure he is all right with that. I also see you have put some tag on the article's discussion page. Is that something I should worry about? After various edits by different users Latsabidz'e article got better and I think notability is established now. I think it would be good if User43lover would remove Latsabidze's article from his workplace since I have worked on it fundamentally along with other wikipedia users (including your edits). I hope there is no danger for the article to be nominated for a deletion any more. If you have any suggestions please let me know. Thanks!
You're welcome. That kind of formatting takes a lot of experience. On the subject of formatting, I just changed all the links you've created to Wikipedia articles into wikilinks. We only use the form [http://www.whatever name] to external sites. All internal links can be made directly, by enclosing the name of the article in double brackets. When you want the display to be something other than the name of the article you are linking, you use the pipe trick: [[name of article you are linking|What you want to display]]. If you want to link to an internal section of any article the link is to the name of the article, followed by a number sign and then the name of the section. For example, if you wanted to link directly to this post, and have it display "foo" the link would be [[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Stephen Neal article|foo]]. You might try taking a tour through the Wikipedia tutorial to learn these matters and others. Since you figured out referencing for the most part (what really matters), you'll catch on lightning fast. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Article you G1-d in 2007 has been restarted. Apparently about the same person, but that's my guess. Just a heads-up.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that compromise. I didn't even think of doing a collapsed list, but this way, if people don't want to see it, they don't have to! Awesome!— Preceding unsigned comment added by T24G (talk • contribs)
You're welcome. I have to tell you, without the collapsing, I imagine very few would be on your side in in keeping this. Infoboxes are for summarizing content already appearing in the article and this content is not duplicated there (and it's uncited and accordingly can be removed as a matter of right per WP:BURDEN until that is remedied). Even having a reliably referenced list of all the aliases in the article body is arguably indiscriminate and presents undue weight. But having an infobox stretch the length of an article does not work at all. By the way, you and JDDJS should be aware of WP:3RR. If this compromise does not put an end to your content dispute, please don't edit war. Open a discussion at the talk page and stay calm. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have the link to a site that is a reference for the aliases, but it is blacklisted http://series(and)tv.com/shawn-and-gus-nicknames-and-aliases-on-psych/4324 (no parenthesis in the actual link). How would I go about getting that specific page unblocked? I saw something on the page that popped up and told me it was blacklisted, but when I clicked on the links, the pages it lead me to were quite congested. Any input would be appreciated! Thanks! And sorry about the warring, I'll try to not do that again (although I did have a discussion post)! T24G 05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly what I would have preferred, but a fair enough compromise. At least the infobox isn't super long anymore (unless you show the contents). JDDJS (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree that the original name was more clear, but the article was created as part of a class project, and a naming convention applied across the board to all of the WSPA Statehouse articles written by myself and my classmates. Mkadams888 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fuhghettaboutit (great user name!)
Our project has used the Stephen Neal (Leonard) naming convention based on the WikiProject Visual Arts Manual of Style and suggestions for naming articles. I've worked to develop this project for a year now and have worked hard to compile the best advice for naming conventions. But busts just don't have a specific convention. However we believe that naming them with the artist in the title is in fact the best way for people to search, based on disambiguation issues as well as other artwork naming conventions. Consider something like an Abraham Lincoln bust. There are many, and the artist should be in the title. Please see my notes to the project on this very issue, restated here:
-"If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is better to disambiguate by the artist's name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists."
-"Avoid "Portrait of Fred Foo" titles, if the individual is named – just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary, even if the museum uses "Portrait"."
I would apply their suggestion about portraits to busts. For this reason, I would not include busts in the title, but rather would do something like this Christopher Columbus (Vittori).
We are currently in the midst of creating labels for each of these artworks that will be placed near the actual piece. It's important that the title that we point to on these labels is correct ("Find this artwork on Wikipedia! Just search Stephen Neal (Leonard)"). So, unless you can prove to me otherwise (and very quickly!) that the Visual Arts manual of style is incorrect, please don't move all of our article titles. Thanks again for your time/help. HstryQT (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your help on these articles, Fuhghettaboutit! It's great to have such a positive interaction with you and the students in this project--as you know all of the students on this project are new to Wikipedia, so good first impression is terribly important. I'd be happy to have your thoughts on the naming conventions for artworks. We've thought a lot about it, and discussed it here most recently.
Naming artworks that don't themselves have clear titles is difficult. However, I think the decision we came to was a good one based on the naming conventions. It would be helpful to have your articulate your rational before going and changing all of the work we've done. Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I will move the one I moved back (unless you already have, I haven't checked), and then I will make a move a formal request to take the temperature of the community. My experience with naming conventions is that this is an out of the ordinary disambiguation scheme, not conforming to the disambiguator being "the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)" (see WP:DAB), but we have made exceptions in the past. However please note that the the consideration here is whether the naming scheme best serves our readers. It's better this is done now in a formal request so I and you and your label makers all have some assurance that the name has some stability, whatever it is. Note that formal move requests usually last one week, though the close of the discussion can get backlogged, and I will not have the time to make the request until tonight. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! I probably wouldn't have noticed for a long time. I've been on something of an enforced wiki break (see the message at the top of this page; still not resolved). I'll bring it up at the village pump I think, or possibly at WT:RED. Do you have any thoughts about the content?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a programmer's cop-out: if this kind of link were encoded as {{Redlink with interwiki|the missing article name|the interwiki prefix|the interwiki article name}}, then the template could format the link according to the current consensus but could be changed easily later. I prefer your formatting idea; a reader who tries out the redlink and the blue language-code link will quickly work out what is happening. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! It's a bit of a self-reference that does not translate well to printing or to a legitimate mirror or fork (unless they incorporate the foreign Wikipedia as well, which is very rare). I actually just recently reverted the removal, and then another user blended the prior content and mine together which seems to work well. I think the template you found should be mentioned there. Thanks for following up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As apparent from the "what links here", Wilmer W. Tanner had a bunch of pre-existing redlinks in wiki (from species he discovered and such). Not even really taking any effort to generate any. These naturalists tend to be like that. I would like to get a page started for Carl H. Ernst (he is redlinked in an article of mine, Painted turtle.
1. Can you find any bio scoop on him? He is GMU emeritus and I can't find a profile.
2. How does one "search for the redlinks". If I wanted to see if there were other articles than ours, that call out Ernst already?
P.s. He has a huge number of books, some of which even sell (per Amazon). Commercial books, not just science monographs or the like. Although reasonably technical. He gets cited all the time in turtle work. TCO (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I did find that doing a Google search on Ernst, turtle, and wikipedia came out with a huge amount of pages where he is mentioned. The few I checked did not have redlinks, but did use his name in article text to express a point (not just references iow, but called out by name as significatn somehow to study of the creature). So, it would be pretty easy to non-orphan based on all the turtle articles that refer to him. (plus my pre-existing redlink). TCO (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
more addendum: there is some Muslim scholar with same name, but different MI, but still squatting on the FN-LN combo. So would need a disamb page and all that redirect stuff straightened out.TCO (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with your second question first, to find if there are any redlinks, there are various ways to get there but ultimately you will be doing a what links here search for the title. Probably the easiest ways to get to that is to pretend you are creating the article by typing the name into search and then clicking on "You may create the page "Carl H. Ernst" (of course try other variations of his name) and then clicking the what links here on the left-hand side of the resulting page. Another way to get to the same place is to just type somewhere in edit mode [[Carl H. Ernst]], then hit "show preview", then click on the link you see, and once again do a what links here search. Yet a third way, probably the easiest though some might find it a bit technical (such as that you have to put in underscores for all spaces), is to do a what links here search on any random article and then change the url to search for your subject.
The Google search shows all articles where his name is mentioned, and many articles cite to Ernst, so it will not give you any clear idea of redlinks. In any event, I just looked for what the middle name H. initial stands for (using Google Books) and was not able to find out and, as you noted, Carl Ernst is taken by the muslim scholar, so the only relevant what links here search I can think of is with the initialed name, which shows just one red link in Conservation of painted turtles.
But the number of redlinks is something of a red herring. The real issue is whether he merits an article—whether there's sufficient information to verify content and to show notability, and that appears to be to be a definitive yes. As for a profile at George Mason University, I can omly find him mentioned on their site as a professor emeritus, no profile, but there should be sufficient material to mine from from these book sources, as well as these news result and these scholar results.
OK. Yeah, I'd like to get the page and start linking him from turtle articles. It's not just the refs, but that he is discussed in running text a lot "According to Ernst, Ernst reported, etc." I will hold off on piping stuff in until we get an article up and all the name stuff is nailed down. FYI: I emailed Jeffrey Lovich, who is a coauthor on one big almanac and whose USGS email was public, to request a bio or profile or something (at least birthdate). I could also try his books, but I don't physcially have in hand, for bio on dust cover or such. Any other sources (who's who or such)?TCO (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this page about an artist who lived from 1857 to 1947 moved to a user's sandbox? OTRS has received a request by a user who wants to review the article (Ticket# 2011012010000402). There is no reason to remove ordinary entries from the auspices of WP's users. Please reinstate the page in its ordinary place promptly. Asav (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asav. The user to whose subpage the entry was moved created the article just a short time ago; he wanted to work on it further as a draft until it was in better shape before it went live (and probably would have never created it in the mainspace if he was aware of subpages at the time of creation). It's little different than a user who creates an article as a subpage, as many users, do and then works on it there until they feel it's ready (and the article needed work). The fact that it was initially in the mainspace is ministerial. It's through this user's efforts that it was created and through his efforts that Wikipedia will have an article on the subject—a focused, interested creator is actually how all our substantive content comes about. That should be be given due deference. I'm not sure what you mean by someone wanting to "review" the article, but there's nothing stopping anyone from visiting, commenting on, and adding to an article simply because it is on a subpage. The point is that the person who was interested enough in the subject to create it, and who is actively working on the article (having made edits today), is continuing to build it with reliably sourced content. I assume the article will be ready to go live soon. There's no reason to treat its stay in the mainspace as sacrosanct when the only person who is building the content wishes to make it better before moving it back. I suggest you assure the OTRS person that the article will be live again, provide a link to where it is, and that they are free to be bold in editing it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there had only been one contributor to the article, I could understand that. But that's not the fact. Well, anyway, I have informed the complainant that the page has been moved. I expect it to be back very shortly. Asav (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article, and it's in my sandbox for reworking -- mostly adding more content along with stronger references. One of the key new references will take days or possibly a week to add because it's coming from a turn-of-the-century magazine at the Library of Congress. Can I view the request (Ticket# 2011012010000402) to see if I can help the person who wants to review it? Thanks, Cohee Cohee (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creatorship does not mean ownership, so please make sure the article is back in main space asap. OTRS correspondence is confidential, so I'm afraid I can't give you any more information about the complaint. Asav (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking for any information. I'm well aware of the confidential nature of OTRS. Once again though, I see this as near equivalent to a user creating an article as a subpage from the start. Since I know of no good reasons to light a fire under such a user to finish developing an article there in great haste, I see no need to here—especially since there has been no reason given for the haste and because the subpage can be edited by anyone. Ownership has nothing to do with the matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's fine, as long as the piece doesn't stay in userspace limbo too long. (Hey, Just trying to keep my customers happy :) Asav (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asav: I (user Cohee) am the one who asked for information about the "complaint" (using your descriptor) -- I am surprised that WP would allow hostile people to hide behind the anonymity of OTRS and snipe at those who do WP work. I agree with Fuhghettaboutit -- Wikipedia work should not be driven by demands that discourage thoughtful research (and researchers) and drive the quality of WP work downward. I am stopping where I'm at on the article -- it can be moved back to the mainspace at any time now. I will share the remainder of the research with non-hostile researchers. I recommend you make your excellent point, that "creatorship does not mean ownership", with the complainant of Ticket# 2011012010000402.
Cohee: Asav's first post may have been a little demanding sounding but I certainly haven't seen anything from him/her that approaches hostility, not was anything described about the OTRS ticket that would lead me to believe it was or was not hostile. You mentioned something on your talk page about having received hate mail. It's possible this is related to that but it's also possible it has nothing to do with it. Just separate in your mind whatever interactions you've had that neither I nor Asav are privy to. All you and I know about the OTRS matter is that someone wanted to "review" the article (and Asav is obligated not to reveal the identity of the person or detail on the matter). I will be monitoring the article because some alarm bells have been raised, but I am not jumping to any conclusions, and though you may have more reason tthan I to draw conclusions regarding the ticket, I think you shouldn't so jump either. Meanwhile, since you say you're done improving it (which is a shame; I see no reason for you to stop), I will move it back to the mainspace now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhgettaboutit and Asav: My reference to hostility had nothing to do with either of you -- it referred to someone who had been harassing me about the article through e-mail, off-Wikipedia. Since the request for restoring the article very clearly took the form of a no-options demand, it seemed to follow the harassment. If that was not the case, please accept my apology for drawing the wrong conclusion. The hostile person harassing me by e-mail misunderstands how Wikipedia works, unfortunately, so I'm not going to reward her bad behavior by giving in to the harassment. I will separate the two! Thank you for your guidance, and your assistance.Cohee (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Masako Katsura (1913–1995) was a carom billiards player most active in the 1950s who trailblazed a path for women in the sport by competing and placing among the best in the male-dominated world of professional billiards. First learning the game from her brother-in-law and then under the tutelage of Japanese champion Kinrey Matsuyama, Katsura finished second in Japan's national three-cushion billiards championship three times. In exhibition she was noted for running 10,000 points at the game of straight rail. After marrying a U.S. army officer in 1950, Katsura emigrated with him to the United States in 1951, where she was invited to play in the 1952 U.S.-sponsored World Three-Cushion Championship, ultimately taking seventh place at that competition. Katsura was the first woman ever to be included in any world billiards tournament. Her fame cemented, Katsura went on an exhibition tour of the United States with 8-time world champion Welker Cochran, and later with 51-time world champion, Willie Hoppe. In 1953 and 1954 she again competed for the world three-cushion crown, taking fifth and fourth places respectively. (more...)
You're welcome. Actually the language is not that much different than what it was had when I originally created the template. It was the subsequent edits that introduced most of the problems identified in the discussion. Unfortunately, I never noticed the changes (I have way too many pages on my watchlist). Listen. I have to give you the heads up. I regret it now but it was for your own good. In the heat of the moment, I put in a call to the BPR about you. It really isn't as bad as they say, and it usually only takes a few weeks of ICRI before the "client" is cured and introduced back into society;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilmer Tanner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wilmer Tanner(pictured with a tiger trophy), born 1909, described at least fifteen new species or genera? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks so much for coming by! I just got away from a family dinner--first moment I've had a chance to see it on the front page. It does feel good. So many hours went into it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! No hassles with having discussions on my talk page. :) I'm always happy for assistance, opinions or criticism. In this case, the editor has an open WP:CCI that I was helping out in some time ago, and I think we'd hoped that the discussions we had back then had made a difference (mostly led by Moonriddengirl, as it often is). I took care of this one article last night, and also spent some time looking through the recent DYK and GA submissions - I've got a few things tagged to follow up on, but there was nothing serious in them bar a phrase here or there. However, I'd planned to start catching up on other contributions as a check next. It seems, from what you said, that there is still a problem. Anyway, I'm happy to chase it up, or you can, or we both can, as you see fit. I fear that after the previous CCI things might need to be handled differently this time around. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reuse permission email regarding the Cornell Chronicle was submitted a year ago to OTRS, but was deemed inadequate. The edit to the J Andrew Noel page was made in 2008. I think you have the CCI/Noel sequence reversed. I believe I have done a good job in policing copyright problems. (E.g., [3][4][5][6]) Your discretion in accordance with policy is appreciated. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think you have done a good job in policing copyright problems? This is like the fox dining in the henhouse on a chicken he just killed while explaining he is a good vegetarian. Your massive copyright infringements still persist and others are taking care of them. You edited Boyce McDaniel today, and failed to remove whole paragraphs of text you lifted wholesale. I just looked at random at an article you created last weekLandis Report, and immediately found it was a copyvio from here. I'm beginning to wonder if any of your additions to articles are kosher. I'm off to bed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
I will look at the Landis article. I suggest that you that you re-read the CCI direction page. I do believe that I am staying on a vegetarian diet. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i have modified the Landis article to avoid the similarity. I should note that the sentence correctly summarized the two items referenced in the footnote and that the website you referenced (which I have not read in some time) is a public domain government website. As I said, I will create a Boyce McDaniel subpage for Bilby's review rather than edit the article directly. Racepacket (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article François Mingaud, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that billiards player François Mingaud invented the leather cue tip, perfected backspin, then persuaded an audience that the balls were "tormented by a devil"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have added information and I can provide proof that she has used the name Max-Accastes Quierberon and Max Quieberon. I have pictures of her marriage license to Husband #6, pictures of her in Ireland on her honeymoon with #6, I also have pictures of her facebook page. I can provide if you like. She is now prowling American Military websites and tangowire for her next victim. I have IM from the men on her facebook page for verification of this information. I also have a letter from her father that states her sister is not dead, he father was nothing but a radio operator in the military and a number of other informaiton as proof that she has remarried while on probation and she is still not a nice person ( I can say meaner words but they probably are not appreciated on this page. ) I will check back but I am not sure how to work wikipedia and would appreciate an e-mail address to send proof too and because it has been a long time since I programmed. 98.166.253.47 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha I see my connection to you: I rev-deleted your defamatory edits about a living person at WP:EAR. It was not your headline there that was the problem, it was your nasty gratuitous post below the headline. Don't do it again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I can't close it now either for the very reason that after a cursory review I don't think I would have closed it as no consensus. Consensus is not a head count but based on strength of the arguments made in the context of applicable guideline and policy. Your closing smacks of bias because you were involved. Me reverting you and then closing it a different way could give the impression that I reversed you because I wanted a different outcome, even if that isn't the case (and I try to avoid 'even the appearance of impropriety'). Someone else may very well also close it as no consensus, but an uninvolved third party should make the decision now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reverted your edits to Template:Db-meta/sandbox. The use of a section header is problematic because it does not display correctly in the transclusion. I am also afraid that newbies will take the "..." as a queue to start typing there and end up putting the whole rationale in the title. Lastly, as the talk:foo/hang on page does not exist before the speedy is contested and it should not be used for anything else there is no reason to start a new section. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave off the ellipses; all posts should have section headers, whether the only post on a page or a new post on an existing page; and I'm not sure what you mean about it not displaying correctly—it did for me. Can you tell me what error you observed? The section header acts to focus the person on what the task is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for me the transcluded header displays as though it has nowiki tags around it. Is the sandbox version working fine for you now? I don't understand why all posts should have a section header, can you explain the idea behind this? Sorry about the rollback, I did it because the undo function did not work and I when I tried to remove it manually preview showed me I was breaking the the template. Thought it would be allright if I posted an explanation on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note—I am at work and stealing a moment. I see what you are talking about now. You're transcluding the rationale from the talk page into the db template itself. Why are we doing that--doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it place on the talk page? If we are going to do that we might as well not have any post to the talk page at all, just make a place in the template for writing a protest. But I don't think we should and I foresee many problems doing it this way. Users may include signatures with unclosed span classes or wish to use template themselves which would break the db tag; they may add their own section headers which would break just as you're seeing and more. Regarding reverting, just go to a page's history, click on the date you want to revert to, hit edit, then save page. That is how a manual revert is done (see WP:REVERT. I will probably not be able to respond further for about ten hours. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not placed on the talkpage, but on a separate talksubpage talk:foo/hang on. To the best of my knowledge transclusion has no problems handling other templates, unclosed span tags, hide tags, other transclusions or whatever else you can trow at it. I just tried to break the template and actually discovered. how to get section headers to display correctly (use a double transclusion), but could not get it to malfunction. Perhaps you have better luck. Thanks for the stuff about the manual revert. Yoenit (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stealing another moment. Forget whether it can be transcluded; why should we transclude the talk page protest note inside the db-templates for view by the public? All admins are supposed to check the talk page before deleting. So, even if it can be done without breaking the db-tag, I see no purpose served by transcluding the rationale like this. This is the behind the scenes stuff that doesn't belong in plain view in the tagged article itself. As someone who has reviewed thousands of db-tags, I can tell you that sometimes we get "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!" and worse, such as BLP violations, as the talk page response. Should we transclude that in the article? Having a separate subpage where the hangon rationale goes is also no good for quite a few reasons. We occasionally see the need to keep talk pages of CSD discussions even when the article is deleted, but now we would have a subpage forever. If we wanted it at the talk page we would have to move it there, but what if the talk page already exists? Shall we do history merges every time. Where an article is tagged and then kept which happens many times a day, once again any deletion discussion is part of the proper history and the same problem arises of now having a separate page with its own history. This is unworkable and I'm baffled why we're going down this overcomplicated route. A person wants to dispute a tagging; they click the contest this speedy deletion link; they get taken to the talk page; they place their rationale; the admin reviews it and deletes or not. Simple. Clean.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you raise good arguments. If the material is posted directly on the talk page a header is indeed required. Thinking about it a bit. Yoenit (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pile it on but another problem with this is multiple db tags. It's not uncommon for them to be added at the same time, and it's also not uncommon that a page will be tagged under say A7, declined, and then retagged uner G12 as a copyvio days later. With this subpage setup, the second tag will immediately be transcluding any rationale of the subpage that was created through the other or prior db-tag as the case may be. Finally, note that admins are not going to be very happy about having to delete three pages (the article, its talk if it exists, and the subpage) rather than two if they decide to delete—this raises yet another problem: when admins access the deletion interface they are given a reminder by the software that the article they just deleted has a talk page if it does (see MediaWiki:Deletedtext) which would have to be expanded somehow to recognize these subpages and provide for them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wanted to use a separate subpage is that template coding can check for the existence of such a page and show up as contested if it exists. If we let the contestion rationale be posted directly to the talkpage we have to figure out a new way to let the template detect this, or every page with a talkpage will show up as contested. Yoenit (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to wikipedia and am not sure on how I can keep my new page out of spam, please it would be great if you could advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruka (talk • contribs)
Well it was written in the first person exactly how you would expect a commercial to be written: "forward thinking" (non-neutral positive opinion); "We love..." "Our mission..." (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article—"we"? "our"?); and much more. Material on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, using neutral language and giving proper proper weight to both positive and negative aspects of a topic. Putting aside these problems with what the text said, there are also major problems with what the text didn't say. For inclusion in Wikipedia, articles must show that the topic is notable, generally meaning that the world has taken note of the subject by writing about is substantively in reliable sources that are independent from the subject—newspaper stories, magazine articles, books, etc. I think you will understand best if you read the business FAQ. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. I think the Great Pokémon Merger happened a little while before I started editing, but I remember the Pokémon test was still frequently mentioned. That reminds me that I had an idea to use Special:Random to conduct a somewhat more serious survey... the couple of times I've tried an informal pilot I got the impression several shelves of the bookcase would be filled with very short articles on living organisms, sportspeople, geographical places/features and pop singles. Qwfp (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Random is a ticket to see just how deep the the hole is that lack of a real enforcement mechanism for verifiability has allowed to be dug. Ugg. Yeah, the shelves are threadbare.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)12:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All the characters were there, just not in exact order (that we silly humans made the computer require from us). Done. Zzzz..... Dru of Id (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did the description lack significance/importance? pls edit/suggest/add, dont just hand-of-god delete. ross{{subst:unsignewd|4metaphor}}
Hi Ross. Based on your username, you appear to be editing with a conflict of interest in seeking to write about Motive for Metaphor. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it properly only covers encyclopedic topics—things that the world has taken notice of by writing about them substantively in independent, reliable, third party sources—newspapers magazines, books, etc. While we are not on paper and so have abilities other encyclopedia;s do not, essentially if you wouldn't expect to have an entry in Britannica, you shouldn't expect an entry om Wikipedia; an unsigned band is an not normally notable for purposes of an encyclopedia, which is be definition a tertiary source, synthesizing already published material. The article did not indicate any importance or significance because it said your band was unsigned and did not make any statement indicating the world has taken any notice of it. When and if the band becomes well known, media will write about it; documentaries will be made; its members be interviewed for TV, and so on. When that happens, an article about the band will be warranted, but even then, unless I;'m wrong about your close ties to this band, it shouldn't be you that writes it. Truly notable bands don't write their own articles; other people are interested enough to do so without prompting. Regarding your "hand of god" comment, note that when this article was tagged for speedy deletion (by another user), you received a message on your talk page about this. That was up for about 5 hours before the deletion, though it didn't have to be since the article met a speedy deletion criterion. Wikipedia gets 1,000s of articles every day that are similar to yours and must be removed quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toontown59153 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
99 out of 100 articles tagged within moments of creation would have been speedy delete candidates an hour later. It is that 100th article and its creator that not tagging hastily addresses most importantly. It also has a drama-reducing secondary effect even for some of the 99 because some, who would not have said anything when their non-notable subject is deleted when it can be assessed, will squawk if it's deleted before that assessment could have been made. In either case, we don't know what people will write until they write it. We do get valid COI vanity articles. Yes, they are rare, but the point is that there's no benefit in tagging empty articles moments after creation and many reasons not to do so which has been discussed many times at WT:CSD, memorialized in footnotes at the criteria, and is highlighted in a few ways at the top of newpages.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. But if you have no objection, I would like to ask yet one man hwo is the User User:Akerbeltz. He knows both the English and Scotish Gaelic and have made contribution to the article Bonawe. And by the way, since you is a native English spiker, would you answer how do you pronounciate the name of Bonawe? Of couse, if you do not want to answer this quation you may do not do that. Cheers. My talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs)
Is there a way to "turn off" and "turn on" (disable and enable) the Table Of Contents from appearing on one specific page of mine ... (i.e., not as a default for all pages)? If so, how is it done? Specifically ... my user page ... User:Joseph A. Spadaro. Can I eliminate the TOC on that page only ... without eliminating the TOC's when I read other pages? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sure. Place on the page __ NOTOC __ but remove the spaces before and after the word. The reason I didn't just use nowiki tags is they don't work with these; not sure why. You can also force a page that doesn't have a table of contents because it doesn't have at least three headings to display one using __ TOC __ (same spacing issue). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry for my (very late) reply back to you. I got side-tracked with other things. Thus, the notes on my Talk Page got buried and neglected. Thanks for the help above. I now know how to use those commands and functions. By the way, apparently, the nowiki tags now do indeed work with these TOC commands, as well. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, hope all is well with you. I had a brief question about the Credo accounts. I just noticed this (don't spend much time at the Village pump). and would like access, if possible. Is this signup over? Many thanks and enjoy your weekend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marmaduke! How's everything? I know about as much about the credo accounts as you apparently do (that is to say, very little). I stumbled upon it when I logged in a few days ago and actually for once read the sitewide messages that I usually ignore. I only know what it says at the top of the page: that it is limited to 400 accounts. Having just visited the page, I don't understand why the sign up is hatted and says it's closed when there are only 252 names on the list, but it is. I hereby give you my permission as ruler of the universe to add your name and ignore the closing. Sorry, wish I could actually do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add information to my CSD but you had deleted the article before I had a chance to post it. Otherwise I had intended to rationalize by editing the following: {{db-attack|This tag considers that other articles have been deleted for this attempt. Also you can see the off wiki publications of this user which is negative POV and WP:OR}}My76Strat (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I'm always a fan of people explaining their CSD rationale's when it's not obvious. People often just slap a G3 on what is vandalism, but which is not immediately obvious without some explanatory text. I think this one was pretty blatant though. An article titled "itsacult" with a url to a page where users are bashing a particular religion (to me all religions are cults) doesn't need anything further to show it falls under under G10. I edit conflicted with your second message. The user's talk page has been deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting aside is that another admin removed the CSD tag and restored the attack link. It is the same new admin who effectively ruined my RfA by discrediting my CSD intentions. I have been reluctant to CSD an article since, and I feel certain that they genuinely believe I have some ill intentions. Part of this record is because I believe it would be used against me as an indication that I have no clue. But I agree with you that removal was in the best interest. My76Strat (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the link had to at the very least be removed. Deleting the page was not necessarily required (and of course I could have revdeleted the placement of the url) but leaving links like that lying around is not a good idea and it's all really moot now as I have blocked the user indefinitely for good cause. My rationale can be seen on the talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the admin My76Strat is talking about. As I've stated on my talk page, I wanted to remove the link, but not to delete the page ... I actually made an error and reverted to the wrong revision; thanks for taking care of it... SalvioLet's talk about it!16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yoenit has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Sorry for somehow missing that message on my talkpage and letting you think I did not want to reply. I was distracted by something else after our discussion last month and completely forgot about the issue, untill I stumbled upon the village pump discussion. Mea Culpa Yoenit (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
No problem at all; I've done the same thing in the past. I've pretty much finished tweaking the template. I've folded in the text from hangon, with some tailoring of course. The red text at the bottom informing the creator that they haven't edited the talk page will disappear once the talk page is edited. This will provide an easy way for an admin to see at a glance whether there is talk page content to check or not. I think the button I replaced the link with is a good attention grabber. Any suggestions? Criticisms?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
This new template is coming along nicely. I've thought of a problem, though: It says "This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation", but that's not exactly true. Nothing is written to the article or the talk page when I click the button, so there is nothing to alert the admins at that point. If I then spend 20 minutes on a carefully-worded explanation, by the time I've saved it the article may have gone. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right. And I'm not sure there's any fix for that, but if there is, I know it's way, way beyond my coding skills (such as they are) to make the link provide a message inside the db- template to alert admins that it has been pressed. We may simply not be able to have an equivalent for that. The thing is that in practice, I don't think that alert actually stops any admins from deleting pages or makes them wait. The only thing that does if the page is a proper deletion target, is the rare effective talk page post (which is sort of the whole point). But I can see the loss of this ability as being the biggest sticking point. That language has to come out for the moment.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†
A pie, just because? Love pie. Thanks! By the way, I've been to Hungary. Next time bring some of that ridiculously delicious ice cream you have over there. Never tasted anything like it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you already saw in the change log but I tested a tweak that would allow the user getting the notice on his/her talk page to directly click through to contest the deletion. It used the same code as your "Or you can edit the Talk page" comment in the next sentence. It worked great when the test was against a mainspace page but failed against a Wikipedia-space page and presumably would fail against all the other namespaces as well. I'm sure that I've seen code that solves this problem but it's beyond my skill to implement (and I can't remember which template it was so I can't clone it). Hoping that you can make a better run at the problem. Rossami(talk)11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking an interest! I know why it's breaking for anything outside the mainspace. To isolate the code, in {{fullurl:Talk:{{{1}}}... it's supplying in {{{1}}} the name of the page, prefixed by "talk:", which is the format of mainspace talk pages, but for a page title that includes a namespace, it would be supplying Talk:before the title. So for example, Wikipedia:Verifiability becomes [[Talk:Wikipedia:Verifiability]], instead of [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]]. I think I might be able to figure this out though my coding skills are pure autodidact (I'm getting better though). I fool around with what other people who actually know what they are doing have done like it's a puzzle. I have just enough understanding to make that work by remembering that another template does something I want one I'm working on to do, and then I go study how they got that result. I'm leaving for the day now, though I'll look at this again tonight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking is always welcome:-) Magic words may be part of the solution but the reason they won't work as is is that this is a user talk page notice, and the link we are looking to place is one to the talk page of the article tagged for speedy deletion. In other words, {{TALKPAGENAME}} when placed on a user's talk page will call up the name of the talk page it is placed on. What we need is to call the name of the talk page that the article tagged for speedy deletion is on, which is provided by the parameter in {{nn-warn|talk page name}}, which then defines what {{{1}}} is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how to do it. The only thing I can think of is to use some kind of conditional parser: if mainspace then {{{1}}}. if otherspace then ??, and I can't figure out what to replace those question marks with because it would have to recognize the parameter, and then insert talk: and space in between the two parts of the title. I'm sure Happey-melon or MSJG or a bunch of other users could do this no problem. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the user is referred back to to page they created where they can click the link in the template. In a way this may present an easter egg to some users, because they may not read the text but just click the shiny button and so not get the benefit of the text in the CSD template that they would if they didn't bypass going back to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a few random people to help me out with something...
There's a liaison project between Wikipedia and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.
Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Wikipedia community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!
If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.
I hope you don't mind my asking...(I thought of you, 'coz of our recent talk about template stuff...and mostly 'coz I know you're a very helpful and skilled Wikipedian) Chzz ► 06:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-=="Norm MacDonald" article title debate: Norm Macdonald -vs- Norm MacDonald==
As of April 2011, Norm and Comedy Central have named his new show "Sports Show with Norm Macdonald" --lower case 'd'. Also, on the show's webpage at Comedy Central, you can click on a link that is a bio page for "Norm Macdonald". I don't see how this debate can go any further. Someone needs to change the title of this article to "Norm Macdonald" ASAP! After all, this is a living person who deserves to have his name spelled the way he obviously wants it spelled. If you agree, could you make the needed title changes? Don't forget there is another page (Norm Macdonald) that redirects to "Norm MacDonald" article. RedEyedCajun (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be an admin? Unless actual admin intervention is needed, there's no need for it to be an admin and you widen the pool of candidates vastly. Off the top of my head I don't know of anyone especially involved, but I could probably track down some names pretty easily depending on the purpose. In that regard, you haven't even hinted at your reason for wanting to contact those with special interest, which could influence my answer greatly. For example, if it's prettifying them, or deleting them, or coding them, or changing policy applicable to them, my answer would likely vary and be better. Can you explain a little bit?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. (I apologize if this becomes too rambling - feel free to ask for clarification.) Without getting into too much detail, I have some ideas (for musical artist templates in particular) I'd love to brainstorm about concerning new features (which I guess falls under "coding", "changing policy" and perhaps "prettifying"). I feel it must be with an admin who has a serious interest in future development of template structure and purpose because my (apparently "too bold") experiments have earned me the ire of a particular user who has systematically defaced several of my templates (citing opinion-based Wikipedia essays) and shows no signs of stopping (since I've invested so much time and energy into these templates, it really pains me to see them dealt with so dismissively). I thought this would be a good time to reach out to a sort of knowledgeable mediator before this user continues their relentless quest. In short, me and this user (and the larger community) need to have a discussion. (Sort of a cease & discuss...) Honestly, I'm a bit too upset/depressed about this user's actions to talk to them directly for fear of further damage... Wikkitywack (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I don't know him well, but on the technical end of matters there's User:Happy-melon, who is a template wiz. I think user:MSGJ is also very technically proficient as well as User:Mr.Z-man. For someone who I have the impression is involved in the area, User:Rich Farmbrough comes to mind. See e.g., here. However, I have no idea about these admins' mediation chops or willingness to get involved (or even if you are on the correct end of matters). The fact that they are template gurus tells you little about whether they are the correct people to approach about help in resolving a conflict. Note that if you have a very specific proposal in mind, it might be a good idea to work it up and then post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you are being hounded by a user, I mean really hounded, then you might bring it up at WP:ANI (and be sure to post diffs if you do!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I will take a look later tonight. These types of moves do take some time because each typically has at least two redirects, though luckily, this type of subject matter does not have many fair use images that need fixing, and since the sort keys remain capitalized, they don't need fixing either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that you did most of the coding for the new hangon thing with db-meta, I thought I'd drop a note to you first. There's a problem with the hangon form creating the wrong talk page if the article title has HTML-encoded characters. For example, there was the speedy deleted article Sriram's IAS. Clicking the hangon button results in the talk page being created at Talk:Sriram&. The create isn't properly decoding the encoding. Looking at the HTML source, the hidden form is:
I was wondering why I kept seeing so many orphaned talk pages ending in an ampersand with the boiler plate hangon notice. Since the template is very complex, I didn't want to attempt to fix it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. So it's the ampersand in the html for the apostrophe? Hmm, I'm going to need to enlist the help of someone with more technical ability than I have. I'm at work now but I've dropped notes on three users' talk pages who might have some input.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's something to do with how FULLPAGENAME and co. deal with apostrophes. To illustrate, if you consider the following:
Sriram's IAS
Sriram's IAS
then they look identical. But they are not, because {{#ifeq:Sriram's IAS|{{FULLPAGENAME:Sriram's IAS}}|equal|not equal}} reveals that they are equal. For some reason, this causes the inputbox to not work correctly. For example, compare the following:
I don't really have a solution for you, though. It may be worth bringing this up at WP:VPT in case anyone has any ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without really understanding what is going on, I've found a version that seems to work. If you ask "titleparts" to take the name apart and put it back together again, the unwanted encoding is undone. Thus {{#ifeq:Sriram's IAS|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME:Sriram's IAS}}|255}}|equal|not equal}} reveals that they are equal. And here is a button that jumps to Talk:Sriram's IAS:
That you for userifying the Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity) page. Unfortunately, it doesn't have many more references than the spanish page. Oh well, looks like a sprinkling of secondary among the primary...Naraht (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit! Long time no see, and very glad to see you're still around! As you know, I only come to you on the day of your daughter's wedding... no wait. I only come to you when I need the best advice possible. There's an excellent article that several dedicated editors and I have put up at GAN a month ago, and it's just languishing in the backlog. As an "old-schooler", I'm sure you've heard of Ted Bundy; this thing has what's approaching 300 citations! I figure it's a shoe-in, but no reviewers have bitten yet. What should we do with such a clearly GA-class article? Do you know any good reviewers, or could you make some time to look it over and give some advice on the talk page? We've got a good group watching it and willing to discuss recommended changes to bring it to GA (I want it to be FA, personally). Any advice you could give would be much appreciated as always! Thanks, Fuhg! Doctalk04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Doc. Of course I'm familiar with Ted Bundy and I scanned the article but only passingly because I find the subject matter so repellant. It certainly looks like a good article. You're right that it's been at GAN for quite some time but then again, GANs can be excruciatingly slow. The last two articles I had at GAN were listed there before the review started respectively 50 and 48 days, so I don't think the time lag you are experiencing is unusual. At 22 days, the nomination is not really languishing. So I guess I'm giving you the annoying "just be patient" line. However, what you might try is listing this at WP:PR (the step before FA candidacy) simultaneously. That way it's on two tracks for improvement and promotion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang: I had no idea it could take so long to get it reviewed. You're certainly right that it hasn't been languishing when it can take double the time to get it noticed. The subject matter is indeed repellant - one editor working on it said that it gets 200,000 hits a month. Tells you something about human nature, no? Thanks for getting back to me, and I will definitely consider your advice about WP:PR. Thanks! Doctalk06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After I had to correct yet another person adding content using MacDonald version in the article, I decided to take your suggestion of "(possibly the article itself should mention the naming discrepancy)." I tried my best adding a section about the confusion about his surname. However, it didn't go over very well. If you have time, could you comment on the Norm Macdonald talk page. I feel if this isn't addressed "somehow" directly within the bio article itself, people will continue to add content using the MacDonald version. The result will be a Wiki bio further propagating the name confusion. I really don't have time to continue correcting this name confusion forever, so something needs to be mentioned within the bio. But what and how? Any suggestions? RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I goofed. I accidentally wrote-over my clipboard's contents. I also used a different method to archive than my original archive from three-years ago. So I just duplicated that one as well.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Fantastic Planet 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Template talk:Wikify. Message added 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yes, you have an... ahem impressive block log (temper issues?). Anyway, I'm not on that list and don't remember your name though we certainly could have interacted at some time. Regarding the chemistry portal, I'll take care of it, but not tonight, since it requires me to create a new template and I'm out the door in about five minutes. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes when I get to it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've noticed or not but you put your welcome message on Steve's user page and not his talk page. He won't get the yellow messages bar that way. Dismas|(talk)05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dismas. So annoying that I did that; the message was tailored to the welcome message I had used and since another user had welcomed in the interim (in the correct place of course) my message had to be altered.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Σ. Some definite improvements! Thanks. I like that it now tells the person what time it was added (in retrospect, this was obviously missing). I made one change. I don't think we need "message added". Just like after a person's signature, a time stamp alone after any message is immediately interpreted as providing when the message was left.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you get a lot of comments so I won't bother you too much. I would just like to thank you for answering my question so smoothly and succinctly. Take care and *thumbs up*.--Lead holder (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, forget the discussion. It might actually get some support votes because it's at the help desk but generally, there's no need for a discussion when what's at issue is duplicate articles (unless the issue is that there really is nothing to merge). Merge discussions are really for whether two articles on related but somewhat distinct (or perceived to be distinct by some but not by others) topics should be combined. The issue isn't about what's left in or out normally but whether the merge should take place at all. Normally, if you are the one who is willing to do the merge, you only bother opening a discussion if there's some controversy that's likely. Otherwise you just act boldly. It's sort of like move discussions; you do not need to make any formal request except when there's something controversial. That being said, take a look at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Most merge discussion aren't even listed in that central place, and you can see that there are multiple discussions listed there from October 2010, with no input after seven months!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your prompt and advisory comments on my talk page. I’m also very grateful for your point of view regarding my question about my possible COI in relation to the artist Z'EV, It stimulates me to start cleaning the article. All best regards. Je VH (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Granger. I'm not inclined to get into Wiki-rows, and chase User:MarkDask who is the same age as I and we both should know better, but his contributions trail looks as though it may be all drive by taggings as gibberish, and his description of his WO interest as "a hobby" irritates me. Midgley (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll take a look at his edits, but you should know that anyone can add a speedy deletion template to a page but only an administrator can do the actual deletion. Here, I don't think a single admin on Wikipedia would have acted on the (obviously inapplicable) tag, so there was nothing to worry about:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I must admit I did not study the methodology proposed below the front end in any depth, but while I was taking a fast read, I was thinking that it might be confusing, and might be improved by the instructions providing a example for each section of a past naming dispute/situation that had the guide been used, would have funneled users to the correct starting point for determining a proper title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance on my talk page regarding File:The Creator's Testimony cover page.jpg .
I have used this tag now {Non-free book cover}, with the following rationale,
Rationale- It is the book cover of the book 'The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy'. It is the use at the wikipedia page 'The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy'to illustrate an article discussing the book.It is from the first edition of the book published by AuthorHouse on 03/16/2011.
Thanks for the fixing the rationale of File:The Creator's Testimony cover page.jpg. I am properly guided for my future efforts on wikipedia. great learning experience.
Sorry for my ignorance but I have this question in mind. I have put the source as the book's ISBN number as i have taken it directly from the book. Is it OK? or what is considered as a source. should I put my signature there? Please guide.
Anand Khare 12:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you scanned the cover (which I forgot you had said about when I added the fair use rationale), I think a better explanation of the source would be this. Commonly, the person takes the cover from a website so they add there the URL of the website but since you did the scan yourself, I think saying you scanned is the proper response there. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and Regards.
Anand Khare 05:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at the top of my user page. It is an expression common in Brooklyn where I'm from (see here for a short explanation of usage), and there are more personal reasons I chose it as an online handle. Regarding billiards, first of all, I do play various forms of billiards, especially three cushion, but billiards tables have no pockets so there is no bottom right corner. I also play pocket billiards (often called pool), but it seems like you are referring to a specific pool game where the bottom right corner is singled out? I am not familiar with that game.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Ah, got ya! It matched up in a funny way because it is so common in pool to refer to pockets in this way... "12 ball in the corner pocket..." etc. Nope, that's an actual photograph of a road sign on the Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn... yeah I played with the spelling. Thanks for the baked goods! However, got milk?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
When you restored this, you did not restore the revision with the PROD notice, this makes it hard that the article has been PROD'ed and what the reasons were. Was there a reason for this ? if not would you mind fully restoring the article. Mtking (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mtking. Yes I did. Please take a look at the article's page history. You can access every version of the article by accessing its history (click on a date to see the version as of that date). I restored to the last version which contained the prod, then edited the article thereafter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raised some points I hadn't thought about, particularly regarding CSDs and such, and I'll certainly look through that field guide you linked. I do have two questions after reading your review. First, with regards to the Ell Roberson, III move, I was under the impression that if a person is a "Jr." or a "III", that needed to be in the article name. In other words, the article isn't about his non-notable grandfather ("Ell Roberson"), it's about him. Does that make any sense, or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Lastly, I can think of only two real circumstances in which I felt flustered while editing. The main one (in my view) was the GYFC stuff, including the AFD, my proposed merge, etc. (The other was the Henry Morgan "pirate" issue, but in that one, it was such a relatively clear-cut issue--and so minor--that I didn't really let it get to me too much, except when he templated me and all that.) Did you have particular instances in mind where I could/should have reacted in a better, more focused manner? Anyways, I really appreciate all of your counsel, and I plan to make some changes based upon it. Best regards, LHM23:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong tree man! Think about it: Lots and lots of people bear the same name as their father or other relative but we only call them Jr. or II etc. if that's the name they go by (most of the time you don't even know that their parent bore the same name). That's not even a common naming issue, its a cultural issue. Even if that wasn't the case, we still wouldn't use the Jr. or the III here if that's not the name the world uses for the person. That's the consideration addressed by WP:COMMONNAME; "Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)"; "Snoop Dogg (not Cordozar Calvin Broadus)". There's nothing special about the case of generational suffixes. Tom Cruise's legal name is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. But the world knows him as Tom Cruise so that's what we title the article. Yes, I looked at the GYFC stuff, and I saw that you were baited, but you took the bait a little bit. Like I said, it's something we all have to fight. I'm not sure I did a good job here, for example, quite recently, but I was biting my tongue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the Roberson thing, it might be because I was at KSU for a bit while he was there. His nickname was "ER3", and all the announcers used the entire name ("Ell Roberson III") when announcing him pregame and such. The only time it was really dropped was informally, during game action, when he'd be called "Roberson." I'm sure that qualifies as original research, but I just thought I'd share what went into my thinking while moving the article.
As for GYFC, there have been recent (today) developments, wherein things have returned from the brink, and fences have been (somewhat) mended. But I would never deny that I did get flustered at several points. I tend to look for "bright lines" (see my discussion with Jclemens on that very thing) when dealing with issues where having them would seem to be helpful. In that case, those bright lines were quite blurred, and I wasn't exactly sure how or why it was happening, and I didn't always respond with the equanimity I should have.
You have truly went above and beyond the "call of duty", as far as the editor review goes. I really appreciate it, and let me know if you're ever looking for help with working up an article or something. I owe you one! Best, LHM04:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Even if it's not extremely common, you said you've come upon the same problem before. It seemed like a simple solution to just add it and I have trouble imagining why anyone would object.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the diff of your edit, you left off the closing "]" ([[Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi]). That's what broke the infobox I think. However, When I went to add it in, it's not breaking but it's not displaying. I think that might be a cache issue. I tried a dummy edit without luck. I just must go to bed right now, so I can't fiddle with it any more right now!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for the very friendly helpme person barnstar, but they don't seem to have one. This one comes nearest... Thanks for being willing to see that one all the way through. Much appreciated. Haruth (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have 529th place in most edits (50792). Nice 50K! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.
Hi. You deleted the above mentioned page as a copyright infringement. I have had the release disclaimer added to the source site. Could you please review?
Thanks.Sportingdata (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Very few people actually follow-up in this manner. Good job. However, the article's content is blatantly promotion in tone and needs to be very thoroughly rewritten to read like a neutral encyclopedia article. It also requires sourcing—and the requirement of sourcing for this type of article, on a living person, are more stringent than in other areas (see WP:BLP).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good day,
I understand you recently deleted the abv mentioned page. I have read and editied the section I believe was causing the problem. Could you please advise me if it is possible to add people to Wikipedia who are not famous. As a gift I wanted to create a page on Wikipedia for a present. Can you please advise if this is permitted on the website.
Hi Rich. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so it only properly contains articles on people that have already been published about in reliable sources. It's more complex than "famous" but the answer to the question is best stated as "no it is not possible". Please see the general notability guideline and the sub-topic guideline on notability for individuals. Also note that the article you posted, though it may have been a joke that the person would appreciate, contained negative content that was not cited to sources, which we can't allow. Please see further our policy for articles on living persons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you did for me at the help desk. I know making a redirect to a "lesser" baseball player like Sam Gray who barely has a Wikipedia article isn't the most earth-shaking thing to some, but I feel greatly pleased by it. Much thanks and keep up the good work. And maybe it'll inspire me to research this guy. :) -- Transaspie (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Much of the day-to-day things that keeps this place running are a lot of people doing a lot of small things that add up more than the sum of the parts:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The missing sentence from the source is "Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so." So, indeed governments of more than 20 countries have recognized the massacre in some way officially is verified by the source.
What about this proposal: Among historians the majority view is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, and more than 20 countries have recognized the genocide, however, the minority view among historians and the Turkish government's position is that the killings were not orchestrated. ? Kavas (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am notifying all users in the section that I am deleting this unless you object or dispute it by 06:00 GMT/UTC. I have noticed you “HATE” it when I delete sections, so I am notifying you, if you are still in the discussion. It has been a full week since any comment but mine and it takes up space. Thank you. Aneditor since 10.28.2010.05:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you got rid of it. I ultimately bought a mac because I was so tired of the constant problems I had with PCs. Been running nonstop for a year without a single crash of any kind, no viruses, no malware, no antivirus program constantly causing problems almost like a virus itself, and it's just so smooth and fast at everything. In hindsight, I can't believe I ever tortured myself with a PC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - sorry there was a disconnect in what I read and what you wrote. That's what I get for trying to work from home, read a Wikipedia talk page entry, and communicate with the landscapers doing my weekly yard clean-up. Not a good combo and someone ends up getting the short end of the communication stick when that happens - obviously, you were the short-end recipient. My apologies. Thanks for your reply and setting me straight, but....."vitriolic"? No, not at all. All I saw was "irritated". Vitriolic is way over the top of what I (thought) I saw in your comments. Thanks again for your reply. Take care, Lhb1239 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's both apologize. I could have written the beginning part (the only part that was addressed to you) in a more diplomatic way, even though I think you misread the rest of the post (but we've all done that). I really did mean it earnestly and was not baiting or trying to insult you. Okay, on the count of three we both bury our hatchets: One. Two. Three!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
== Thank you for the help on Doyle Beatenbough piece. I would also like to submit a photo, then consider the article done. What are the next steps to get it into main space? Katemunroedaly (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just created the page Michael Whelan (disambiguation) and was about to create a redirect page Michael Whalen (disambiguation) when I saw that you had previously deleted it, and I wanted to check if you knew the history of why it had been deleted and if I should not be creating the redirect page.
My reason for creating the former and wanting to recreate the latter page is to help people to find the composer Michael Whalen. I've discovered that Whalen composed the score for many audiobooks, but is not credited in print with the score, only on the audio tracks, where his name is not spelled. Due to the lack of spelling of his name in the audiobooks, it is very difficult to track down the composer, since there is a significantly more famous Michael Whelan (the artist/illustrator). In the process of attempting to track down Whalen the composer, I discovered that there are a total of four individuals listed on Wikipedia with similar names, making Whalen the composer the fifth.
Whalen the composer is notable (Google turns up nearly 300,000 hits, including an IMDB record), but creating a page for him is not my goal at this time, just the disambig pages for Michael Whelan vs. Michael Whalen, since the two names are not distinguishable audibly. Creating the disambig pages can only help both people with normal vision and those with visual disabilities. Any reasons why I shouldn't go ahead with creating a Michael Whalen (disambiguation) page that redirects to Michael Whelan (disambiguation)?
Hi Zandperl. The reason for deletion back in 2008 was different (and a bit odd). A user created the page and then prodded it themselves almost immediately (instead of using CSD G6) because I guess he realized we shouldn't create DAB pages for items with only two topics (see WP:TWODABS). Your reason for creation is quite different. However, I don't see what purpose the redirect would serve. Redirects are normally created for things you imagine someone will actually search for but not find. It's quite possible that someone may search for "Michael Whalen" looking for the composer, but it's vanishingly unlikely anyone will ever search for "Michael Whalen (disambiguation)". So what you are really looking to do is address the former search and you have, through the hatnotes you added to the affected pages. To put it another way, what will someone looking for the composer do? They will search for Michael Whalen or Michael Whelan. For the former they will find themselves at the article on the Canadian sports journalist and see the hatnote. For the latter, they will find themselves at the article on American artist and see the hatnote. In either case the person has landed at their target. No one is going to search for the disambiguation page itself. The only reason I can see for creating the redirect is if you want to use it somewhere as a link, but you could just pipe the link to the existing dab page (though that might make formulating a hatnote using it more complex). All that being said, redirects are cheap so feel free. One more thing: are you aware of MOS:DABRL? Are there any pages that have a red-link to the composer?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think of Yank Adams. I don't think I did anything too drastic, I just shuffled stuff around a bit, added sections, rephrased a few things, and ended a clause with a preposition for no good reason. Nothing's been removed, just re-homed. And incidentally, congratulations on doing such a magnificent job finding references for an article about a guy I never heard of whose vocation I didn't know existed. I'm impressed. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I ran two tools on the article. First, go to this page Special:MyPage/skin.js and add the content:
importScript('User:SQL/refcheck.js')
Save the page and then purge your cache. You should now have a link in your toolbox menu for "Check Refs". For the second tool, go to your preferences → Gadget tab → scroll to Editing section, tick the box for "Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations". This will also add a link to your toolbox menu, named "Expand Citations". This second link sends a bot to check an article. The first is a tool that suggests reference fixes with automatically generated edits, that you can preview,m change, and then save save or not save. Now go to an article that needs help with the references (a good place to go to find such articles is Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. And run both tools. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that sounds good. Pardon my intuition, but you must be a female. Thanks for the advice. I know statistically you are probably male, but you are on top of your game so I credited you as a female. Plus I am kidding before anyone gets upset. Arkmanda (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are good. That is a wonderful description of what I truly meant. But nothing in a bad way at all. I was going to ask you about the question I had on the article talk page, The bot did not fix the problem I was talking about. Before I could get the question out, someone erased my whole edit. I can't believe they might be right, but can you check and see what you think. I mean you didn't tell me there was some big problem with it when you fixed the reference. So I am hoping they are wrong and there really isn't a problem. If you can help there a little, that would be great. Arkmanda (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to interject for a moment. As I explained to Arkmanda on his/her talk page, I removed that comment on the shock photo that his/her account added since, per WP:EVENT, "routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Wikipedia is also "not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article." WP:NOTNEWS is likewise clear that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Middayexpress (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa guys, you have the wrong impression. I saw a helpme request about a citation problem so I ran two citation tools: one which sends a bot to make changes and another which automatically runs and fixes numerous things at the same time including fixing naked links used as citations by expanding them with content is generates by looking at the external source. I never even saw the content in the article it was cited fior, so I made no judgement call whatever about it appropriateness or inappropriateness, and I am just leaving for work, so I do not have time to look and comment now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really nothing that requires attention. I was trying to see if you would give a third opinion one way or the other. But the third opinion has been given, so the actual matter is practically resolved. The only thing left to do is for me to learn Wikipedia's policies better than I know them now. Or thought I knew. Don't work too hard, and when you get home, do what you enjoy, but don't feel obligated to anything beyond your own curiosity. And thanks again for showing me that tool. Arkmanda (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to mean is that I'm looking for a mentor who knows these matters, so that she/he doesn't think I err (except when I err!). But is it necessary for a mentor? Good night! --Air Miss 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: May I borrow the model you used here for my own talk page?
I know the essay will come of as simplistic to experienced editors, but the target is the rank newcomer. Time enough later to have them confused (chuckle). Thanks for keeping the terminolgy simple. :) Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.02:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Shepherding newcomers is something I do a lot of and enjoy. I commend you for the effort involved in putting this together. By the way, I think you should seriously consider adding to the "First step: get familiar with Wikipedia" section, maybe even as one of the first links, the WP:TUTORIAL. I think the cheatsheet should probably be mentioned somewhere also. Keep up the good work!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I wish there was more participants to point to it! You're just like me; too many projects started and not finished. I've even left the terrible version of Francois Mingaud just sitting there with my much better content in the history, unmerged. Not sure why I'm so unmotivated. Gotta get back to Yank Adams soon to submit it at GAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page was wrongly deleted - I "violated" my own copyright? Why did Fuhghettaboutit not ask first? Just slammed me. The article he says I plagerized is an article I wrote. I placed the disclaimer on my external page as requested: "I, Arthur Davenport, am the author of this article, (Arthur's Biography), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License."
Please reinstate my page. Thanks!
The page was not wrongly deleted but In fact I acted to protect your copyright. We have no way of knowing that you are the copyright owner until you actually show you are. We get people claiming they own material all the time and it turns out they're lying, and we are liable to the actual owner. Until we have confirmation of release we must act to protect copyright, and we must act immediately. Few people actually follow through and release their material. There was no slam: I deleted it as I had to, and informed you of what you needed to do to allow that material to be posted here legally. You also fail to realize how often people post their own material but think they have the right to give permission to use their copyrighted material and retain it as non-free. That's not the case, because our licenses require that material hosted here be free for our end users to use even commercially. So a person posts their material here, not realizing they are giving third parties the right to use it in violation of the copyright they think they are retaining. I am not going to explain the difference because it's beyond the scope, but copyright and plagiarism are different things. Even if this wasn't a copyright issue that needed to be deleted immediately, note that you appear to be a conflict of interest account promoting himself which is antithetical to Wikipedia mission, and your account is blockable right now, as it violates our username policy. In any event, I will restore the material but there are problems with it. It has promotional language that needs to be rewritten, and in its current condition it does not pass WP:MUSIC. It may be that these things can be fixed, but it needs a lot of work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology for being "a bit nasty", although my intention was to express frustration, feeling intimidated, and it was not my intention to insult you. Thank you for your help, insights, coaching the newbie, and considerable charity you provide through the donation of your time and mind.
Oh, on my talk page you mentioned "my gaul"; please note that should be "gall", as in bold and impudent behavior, or bile, and not "Gaul", as in "an ancient region in Europe that corresponds to modern France, Belgium, the southern Netherlands, southwestern Germany, and northern Italy" (Oxford American Dictionary). (I deleted our comments from that page to clean things up.)
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit!
• What I meant is not about girl talk in a cafe, but someone who knows what those matters so that thay don't think I write something stupid except when it's the case.
Thank you for your clearance to use your layout, as clear as most aircraft checklists. But something's not clear: the codes used. Where are those for:
‘TALK PAGE’.
Shortcuts like ‘ATT HD NC EAR HM AH AIV CSD NEW PER ESP RM VPR TSD AFD’. I need some also.
The floating cube on the right;
How can I create my own. I use a Mac, and the only design device I have is Appleworks. What do I have to do then to find it on one of my pages?
What you need to do is click edit this page (at the top if this page, not on any right hand subsection) and look at the code. What I would do is either grab discrete units that look like they have a start and an end, put them on your talk page, and then click "show preview" to see what it does. Alternatively, you could remove the discrete units of code from here and then click show preview to see what goes away to learn what does what. Those are ways to investigate, but I won't leave you to figure it out because the most difficult part, even when you use the methods above, is knowing where code ends and begins when there's various pieces of coding bunched up together as I have it, and you have little familiarity:
The code for the talk page header is: {{User:Mac_Davis/Talk Intro}}
The code for the the box with the links inside (you will have to tailor the link to those of your choosing of course) is: {| style="background:transparent; width:20%; border:4px ridge #CAE1FF;" |- |<small><small>[[CAT:ATT|ATT]] [[WP:HD|HD]] [[WP:NCHD|NC]] [[WP:EAR|EAR]] [[CAT:HM|HM]] [[CAT:AH|AH]] [[WP:AIV|AIV]] [[CAT:CSD|CSD]] [[Special:Newpages|NEW]] [[CAT:PER|PER]] [[CAT:ESP|ESP]] [[WP:RM|RM]] [[WP:VPR|VPR]] [[WT:CSD|TSD]] [[WP:AFD/TODAY|AFD]]</small></small> |}
The code for the floating image (insert the image of your choice from the Commons; you must not use a fair use image, but all of the images at the commons are good to go) is: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: hidden"> <div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">[[Balkline and straight rail|...]]</div> <div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">[[File:Billiard chalk 20050724.png|100px]]</div> </div> </div> Note that where you see in the code "[[Balkline and straight rail|...]]", that defines what the image will link to. The image code you would replace with an image of your choosing is "[[File:Billiard chalk 20050724.png|100px]]; you may have to play with the number of px to make it look right depending on the image size.
Not sure about the last question. How to create your own image and how to upload it is a huge topic. Forget that. The Commons, where I pointed you to look, has 10,752,514 freely usable media files as of a few moments ago.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much everywhere you write anything at any discussion page, you should sign your posts, including you own talk page. On the flip side, you absolutely never sign any edits that you make in articles. Yes, it's a real sign. If you click on the image you can see its documentation which says "Sign on the Gowanus Expressway (I278)". See also these two articles: 1, 2.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You protected the article "Sam Gray" with the Edit Summary "(Protected Sam Gray: Was previously salted because of multiple creations deleted as A7s ([edit=sysop] (expires 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 01:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC))))".
Currently these redirect Sam Gray → Dolly Gray → Sam Gray (baseball).
If you wouldn't mind, would you please change Sam Gray to redirect directly to:
Unfortunately, I somehow missed this post, having just noticed it now. Looks like it all got sorted out in the interim, with the whole scheme being changed, with an article now being at Sam Gray.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help with my merger attempt. I thought I did the copyright attribution, but I don't see it on any of my summaries, so I guess I did miss it. Well, in any case, lesson learned for the future. Thanks again! Have a nice day. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :)
Also, the allpages thing was awesome - thanks for that :)
I am not going to go through all the 61,806,803 pages. I am just interested in those which have an interwiki link to "Hindi", and Indian language. I am going to browse the Hindi wiki using the page id concept, and come to the English one using the interwiki link (that is the plan as of now).
It would also help me if you can find a way to get a list of pages that are translations between these two languages (en-hi or hi-en) - at least a place where I can find around 10 such articles, without having to go about opening random talk pages to search for the translation template.
I cannot edit the Help desk topic I started, perhaps because I am an IP. Therefore I say here, thank you for the relevant guidelines/consensus about stuffing BLPs with pictures.
If it were changed for images, I believe the first part of WP:ICONDECORATION would be the consensus statement that editors do not have at WP:IINFO, to wit:
Images should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. [emphasis mine]
This statement seems to be lacking in every Wikipedia guideline about images. Consensus is a grand thing, yet being able to point to a formal guideline lends credence to the removal of excess images.
You should be able to edit the help desk section without any problem. The page is not protected and there is no restriction on IPs. There is, however, a well known bug and I am guessing you have run afoul of it. Every once in a while, IPs will see a display of the notice that they can't edit the page as if it the page was protected when it is not. When this happens, if you click "view source" you should be able to edit the page anyway, ignoring the notice (the developers really need to fix that). Anyway, glad the information I provided helped.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Thanks! It was requested at the help desk by a user who didn't know how to code it. It certainly seemed like a good idea to have the edit summaries link to the permanent log page section and not a link that would go stale in a matter of moments!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look but i think the bot revision mislead you as to my query. (see below) thanks.
Bot didn't resolve issue made things worse
The bot did more bad than any good on the West Wing Week article.
Thanks for taking a look, but that reference for "Competing the Old-Fashioned Way" was perfectly fine and working. I do not know why the bot corrected that. but when it diet it broke about 5 other references on the bags by linking to them. You must have looked at the page post the bot revision and assumed (as the bot corrected it) that my issue was with the reference concerning "Competing the Old-Fashioned Way" but is was not. I have absolutely no ideas why the bod would correct section which were working fine.
(when bot made edit it id broke 5 links as it redirected 5 references to reference number (16) See page version below.
Below is the version of the page which i had a problem with. You must have gone to the page post the bot revision which somehow corrected "Competing the Old-Fashioned Way". I had a problem for the reference on the notes section for the episode "It's Alive!" which is much further down the page just after ref (110).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Wing_Week&oldid=448297335 (scroll down to episode 38 "Its Alive!" and you see the reference error message I originally had a problem with. Any Ideas?
I have currently reverted the bots edits because of the links is messed up. Which has brought the page back to the state of the original query. (hopefully the bot does re-editi until you have seen it)
Hi Fug....it
Thanks for pointing me to the Table help. I see now where to put inline styles. Thanks. Want to do a float right or float left. Easy. However, I'm having no luck adding some sort of margin to the float, so text runs right up against the table border. I could embed the table, but it's going to be tough enough for the non=geek editors to make sense of this even without the extra complications. Any ideas? thanks. Stuff like this seems pre-dealt-with in some of the templates -- Is there some sort of simple template for a 2 column table that floats right or left? thanks twice!--Nemonoman (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey F, wanted to talk to you about the changes you made to this article. I think that the note was the appropriate place for the content. As much as I believe in using off-line sources, I'm not so sure about the source you used. My concern is drawn from the fact that you said the two characters in the promotional film were "Kermit the Turtle" and "Ralph the Dog". Although it's true that Kermit looked very different than he does now, he was still identified as a frog, even that early. And Rowlf's name was misspelled! (You notice that I corrected that.) Is that how the article you used refers to them? If so, that concerns me because it means that it calls into question the validity of the article.
Thinking about it, though, we can get that same information about Kermit and Rowlf's explanation of the name from the "Old School" DVD, which has the promotional film in it. I'd rather use it as a source than the one you used. Whatcha think? Christine (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the promotional film, by all means switch to source material. The article does indeed say Kermit the Turtle. This was, after all, 1968, long before "the frog" was a household name, and I had no reason to believe there could not have been a predecessor to Kermit that was a different animal. I doubt though that they're unreliable in their direct quotes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why they don't fit the criteria for deletion? Those players are no longer in the organization so the redirects makes absolutely no sense.--Yankees1000:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are sources of merged content. We must never delete them as they are needed for copyright attribution. Also articles do not speak as of today. They are historical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this odd, since I have done this numerous times and this is the first time I have had the speedy deletions declined based on that reasoning. So how do I get these deleted? Because right now they don't have a purpose at all to exist.--Yankees1000:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, they do have a purpose as I've explained, and every single time any admin acted on one of these where there was merged content they left a copyright mess in their wake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't buy that. The fact that multiple other admins have deleted these articles with no trouble whatsoever, it leaves me to believe you are wrong in this situation.--Yankees1000:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So go ask at WP:AN, or the help desk or more targetted, WT:CP (though it may take longer to get a response). But I am not wrong. If an article was merged into another, and the article it was merged into still exists, the source of the merged content must be retained.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; nothing to be sorry about. Just understand that copyright concerns are very important, and a lot of people, including some admins, do not have a good handle on it (and it can be very slippery stuff indeed in some instances).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just did! I actually may use it again, but I'll just undelete at that time. Thanks for bringing it up. Basically, this has been used for multiple tests of the sandbox of {{db-meta}}, as I have been heavily involved in all of the changes over the past 4 or 5 months, and needed to see how the parameters were passing through to the individual db templates.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, I still need more help! Please give me more advice how to see the page in the web/help me improve it? will i be able to change the name of my contribution (move)to "Vitasna Ketglang" and how? thanks and more thanks.
Thanks for your response. I was attempting to create a page called 'Dublin Gunpowder Disaster', but it was not showing the option to create a new page (by clicking on that red link). However, I seem to be able to do it now... perhaps it was a temporary bug or a bit of stupidity on my part.
Thanks for the help, I actually linked it through the letters RfC, but I see I could have been a lot clearer, thanks for the advice! Stop by the discussion, if you can. Moogwrench (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always interpreted G4 as applying if the most recent deletion discussion was closed as "delete".
I've seen this issue about G4 not applying when a previous AfD was closed as "keep" appear in previous discussions. Would it be beneficial to have an RfC about how G4 should be interpreted?
Something like:
RfC
===RfC: Once a page is kept in a deletion discussion, G4 is never applicable===
Once a page is kept as "keep" or "no consensus" in a deletion discussion, {{db-repost}} (G4) is never applicable, even if the most recent XfD was closed as "delete".
Support
Oppose
This will clarify how the community interprets G4. Once there is a consensus for either position, the wording of the policy can be tweaked as necessary. What are your thoughts about this? I've also asked Jclemens to take a look at this. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read the recent discussion you know where I would come down on that question. But a few things I would note. We don't need any RFC to change one user's position (and often a person's opinion is impossible to change, even if logically indefensible [as I think it is]). Is there an overriding concern here, such as that the position is often being used by others to reject valid G4s and send articles uselessly back to AfD? Or is it just this one user? In other words, what is the harm in just ignoring it, or is there a real need to get "most recent" or something like it into G4? Anyway, the proposed RFC language is in my opinion way off the mark. It shoots the opposing side in the foot from the start by the way the question is couched. RFC language is supposed to be neutral on the issue to be discussed. I think a neutral headline and statement would be something like:
== Is [[WP:CSD#G4|CSD G4]] applicable or inapplicable to pages whose most recent discussion ended in deletion? ==
Once a page is kept at an XfD discussion as "keep" or "no consensus", some users believe {{db-repost}} (CSD G4) is never applicable, even if the most recent XfD was closed as "delete". Others hold that the most recent discussion is what invokes the applicability of CSD G4.... and continue from there. You're also setting it up as a strawpoll, with the question followed by support opposes, which I don't think is the normal form of an RFC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen multiple times the argument that G4 is inapplicable because of a prior discussion that closed as "keep". I don't remember if only Jclemens has that view or if others do too. An RfC would gauge how much support each position has. I don't think Jclemens' position has much support, but I could be wrong. I believe "most recent" should, in some form, be inserted into G4 if consensus is against Jclemens' position. The policy should reflect community consensus, and if it can be read differently (as Jclemens has), it should be revised. A way to do that is through an RfC.
I agree with your changes to the proposed wording of the RfC. If you prefer an RfC in which editors post their views, that is another, probably better, possibility. Cunard (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I m not saying it shouldn't contain some type of strawpoll, it's just that I don't think most RFCs are set up directly like that (maybe they are, I haven't done a survey!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on starting the RfC until Jclemens comments. I'm considering an RfC with both a straw poll and users' "views". The straw poll would be the simplest in determining how the G4 should be interpreted, and the views allow for more nuance in opinions. Cunard (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable way to pose the question--I added and tweaked the verbiage a bit to try and clarify the question. Obviously, G4 always applies to an identical recreation if that article hadn't ever been kept at AfD before, so we don't need people wondering about that... :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC, originally drafted at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, then moved for additional work and comment. I think it demonstrates how separate views/statements are overkill for this topic. Rather than a straw poll with segregated opinions, I suggest a numbered list of options, as used successfully at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect. (The draft contains one at List of possible actions.) Experienced participants readily used AfD-style bullets and bold, so evaluation was manageable.
One wrinkle is whether to focus the RfC statement on G4 only or on the sentence in the lead. If the responses so far are indicative, the G4 issue will be resolved quickly, but what to do with the lead sentence will be another discussion.
A straw poll with a simple, clearly defined question will gauge the community's position: Is CSD G4 applicable or inapplicable to pages that were kept once but whose most recent discussion ended in deletion?
I think it's best to have this straw poll separate from the proposed options so that there is a clear answer about the community's stance. Feel free to add the numbered list of options from User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC as set up at the "Merge, redirect" RfC. And feel free to remove the "View by User:Example" so the discussion is not further complicated. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a notifications list, but nothing else. After further thought, there's a reason why that draft was abandoned. Thanks for asking. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead. The protection relates to an edit war over the placement of a form of "surviving" by one user and a move request for all articles with that in the title. The issue was the that the names in the form "list of surviving name of plane" were being moved to "list of name of plane survivors" which made it sound like the articles were about people who survived crashes in those planes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
I noticed you answered the anonymous user that posted it on my talk page. While you were answering, I was doing the same on his talkpage (apparently has been editing always from the same IP address). Should I remove the "helpme" tag from my page to avoid having lots of editors landing on my page thinking someone needs help, or after you answered to it once, is out? (I never use it myself and I'm not sure how editors get informed). Thanks for answering and fixing the layout! --Dia^ (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
I noticed on your userpage that you have created quite a few templates here and I have some problems using this welcome template {{subst:Welcome-to-Wikipedia}}. The creator is in retirement so I thought that maybe you can explain me what is wrong with it (or what I do wrong with it!). It should somehow "pick up" my username and use it in the text, but it doesn't work and instead I get a lot of {{1}}. Thanks! --Dia^ (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dia^. You need to supply your username as the first parameter (that's why it's called from {{{1}}}) in order for the template to work. Thus use {{subst:Welcome-to-Wikipedia|Dia^}} and it should work fine (by the way, this template will work without substitution, although I think it's a good idea to do so). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, could you immediately "unprotect" Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia so me and Andrew Lancaster can go in and edit it? I've left msgs on the protecting admin's talk page and he hasn't responded back. If you could help me out, that would be great. Thanks.
G'day Fuhghettaboutit
I think you helped me before with this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballarat_Star
Tonight I added two new images, one of them had a larger version, so 3 in all.
Got a message that at least one would be deleted on Thurs 27 Oct because I had not filled out the image submission form copyright details. Went back and uploaded the images again saying I was the author and I chose creative commons copyright 3.0. Think I am all correct now.
But it takes an administrator to remove the message to delete.
Can you please check. If I have to do anything else please let me know.
Wellingtonia (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Wellingtonia[reply]
Hello again, I didn't know if you'd heard that the new The Essential Laurel and Hardy Collection that releases today has Los Politiqueras — and Ali the regurgitator — as one of the featured foreign versions. The transfers were made from masters in the Roach Studio and Library of Congress vaults, so it might be the best print of it you've ever seen. It's ten discs (including every foot of their Roach Studio output), but it's reasonably priced (for its scope) at $64.99. Hope your work on Ali is going well. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the reference to the bottom of the article on the external website. Is this sufficient to get the page up and running and my account ublocked? I have also contacted wikipedia commons to let them know that I produced the pictures on the website and will do the categorisation etc later.
You might want to watchlist User:SMcCandlish/Gallery; any time I add something nontrivial to commons, I add it there, and 9 times out of 10, it's billiards-related. Also, if you're researching professional regurgitators, please keep an eye out for any who specialize[d] in billiard balls; kinds working up a small bit (not a full article) on that, or I was until Firefox crashed and for once it's tab recovery stuff failed. Have to start over.
Watchlisted. I just happen to have written Hadji Ali because something sparked an interest but I'm not a regurgitatorophile but if I come across any more experts at reverse peristalsis with an interest in billiard balls, you will be the first to know (come to think of it, they must use snooker balls or maybe something even smaller; there's no way someone could swallow a full size pool ball [or for that matter a carom billiards size ball] is there?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard. I would never userfy copyright violations. I have in the past emailed copies of deleted articles to users so that they can rewrite them and post scrubbed content but never by the person who posted the content. I worry that you say they were "perceived" copyvios when they appear to be quite blatant copyvios and you being a long time user, inevitably raises a specter in my mind of past copyvios. I don't want to get all up in arms, but can you explain your thinking when you posted these?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(My main problem was that although I knew I had made an error, the edit display wouldn't allow me to see the place where the error was, so that I could try to fix it. I still don't know how you managed to get a full display including the error.) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, let me tell you how. Are you familiar with the find function of your computer? Usually accessed by ctrl+F or you can choose it from a menu if you must. Put that aside for a second. All of your text, once saved, doesn't go away, but it may not display properly in read mode if there is an error in wikimarkup. So no matter what, the error should be fixable in edit mode since that text persists – if you can find it. Experience will also tell you that 9 times out of ten when someone is seeing a large portion of the page swallowed it's a typo in the reference markup, a failure to close a tag, or an unpaired tag (sometimes it's something else, a span class that wasn't closed, a malfunctioning template, etc.) Experience also shows that not always, but often, the error in code is right at the end of where everything gets swallowed (which makes sense; it's at that point that the error is bollixing everything after it). So here, all I did was copy text from the last part of the page that was displaying, then click clicked edit and used the find function to find that text in the middle of everything, and then searched for an error in the markup right there. Of course, it helps if you are quite fluent in the code, so an error stands out for you somewhat like a misspelling does. In this case it really took me about 15 seconds after seeing you post to find the error and fix it (sorry). But if the error had not been right at that point, there are other ways which I won't get into here. And thank for the barnstar:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you deserve another barnstar for that explanation. :-) Good thing it's here on your talkpage where other people in desperate straits might also see it. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting those footnotes. Somehow I reversed the references and footnotes the first time I applied them. . .Kpvandy 12:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, dropping in here for a visit: I did a second glimpse into the catalogue of Friedländer's lithos and I found out: there were a lot of designers and lithographers engaged by Friedländer's, some are known by name, most are not. About 1913 Christian Bettels (1859-1939) was the chief-designer; he used to sign his layouts by "CHB", but he didn't sign in any case, his signature was rare in fact. A second (named) designer employee at that time was Henry Schulz (no dates available), who is known for his portraits after photographs; he never signed his lithos. So what does that mean? 1. It is impossible by now (even it was for Oettermann/Seffringa in 2002/2004 who checked all literature which was internationally published for their catalogue and some archives too) to say who "Aly's" designer was, and it's quite sure that one will never find out either. 2. The structure of Friedländer's business produced "orphans" (except the number of posters which are signed) and his firm closed ("died") with number 9078, printed c.1935. 3. If we agree that the 1913-"Aly"-designer was an experienced employee, he should have been about 30, 35 years old at least, means: born about 1875/80 or earlier. Any argument against having the poster as an "orphan work" by that (and "PD:Old")? Yours, --Felistoria (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the burden is on the person doing an upload to prove something is public domain (or under a free copyright license). Thus, where there's ambiguity or indeterminacy, we assume an image is under copyright. The fact that it might not have been Friedlander's sons but other workers makes it worse. If I'm right that it's life of the author plus 70 years, the fact that we cannot determine the author means we have to wait until no human being could possibly have lived past a certain date and then add seventy years to that. Say we assume assume the author of that poster was at least 30 years old in 1913 (even such assumptions may be challenged in the area of copyright). We can also assume they didn't live past 120. So, 1913, plus 90 possible years left of life, plus 70 years after death—the image can be safely uploaded as in the public domain in 2073. I really thank you for trying. I will keep it as fair use, unless some copyright wiz tells me there's a loophole. By the way, have you had a chance to look at the translation? Any major factual mistakes?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't read your article. (In German WP an article which is a simple translation in most of its parts (without any note of the source: no regular "import") is a copyright viol;-) Good luck, --Felistoria (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed your nomination and it is now on hold pending changes. I saw the peer review, and there are some good suggestions there too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Met his daughter the other night. She says she has all kinds of his stuff - press clippings, his Balabushka, etc. and likes the idea of me coming over and seeing what can be used to improve his article here (I figure a nice closeup of a George B. wouldn't hurt, either). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 14:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. If you had a portable scanner you'd really be set. Hey, if you look at the talk page you'll see my question about other films he consulted on. Of course we couldn't include unless it's verifiable, but sometimes knowing specifics can allow you to back into sources you couldn't find when searching blindly. Ask her if she knows of other films he worked on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that to the list. Scanner: That's what an 8mpx digital camphone is for. Heh. It exceeds the resolution of most flatbeds, as long as I hold it steady. Have tripod. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what I did was to locate the location of the image tiles at maximum zoom and download them, then assemble them in Photoshop. It is a tedious process (there were more than 250 tiles). It can also be more tediously done by snapping screenshots of the image at maximum zoom, scroll to another area, snap, then assemble all in Photoshop. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicken eyeglasses, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that millions of chickens have viewed life through rose-colored glasses? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the note about removing AroundTheGlobe's rollback rights; I do appreciate it, and more so than usual due to the length of time since that admin action. Best. Acalamari23:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You took my issues and reported to ArounTheGlobe as I was the one who reported against him. Now I can freely edit my articles but I promise no vandalism. Once more, thanking you....yours faithful Jagadhatri07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jagadhatri. Thank you for thanking me, but I want to make clear that I was not siding with you in what appears to be a content dispute (nor siding against you). My acts were only tangentially related to your edits in that they do not appear to vandalism, which prompted me to examine use of a tool that is only supposed to be employed to revert vandalism. This is very different than me having looked at the merits of the content dispute and having taken a position on one side or the other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree with you - the user was trying to promote one image on multiple articles and the not adhering to MoS on that particular one (see the note he left me [8] - clearly no regard for policies). The other edits you noted were all vandalism. I am busy in real life and will be dont to take this further - just wanted to have this noted. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते09:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will be very hard pressed to justify that any of the diffs I pointed out were vandalism, as shown from your take on the image, which leads me to believe that you don't know what vandalism is. The most significant defining characteristic of vandalism is that it is accompanied by bad faith; it only applies to edits that are intended by the person to cause harm. It is not poorly written, poorly formatted and poorly punctuated writing. It is not addition of point of view, uncited, trivial, original research or other material that does not conform to policy. If you can't say that what is added was intended to harm, and clearly so, it's not vandalism. When you come across an edit that does not belong but is not clearly vandalism, it is proper to revert it, but not to so do so using the rollback tool.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, it may not be vandalism by definition but the edits pointed out as you said dint confirm to various other things such as POV, OR, Weasel words etc. What is the use of having the tool if its only for vandalism? Why does the mode matter - I could have made the same changes via the revert function (just taking a wee bit more time and a couple of more clicks) and that would have been fine? I dont understand why limit the usage of the tool if the edits are fine. Anyways, my time on wiki is really limited nowadays and I would rather spend it positively editing articles than bicker about this. Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते05:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about appealing your decision? I think you are incorrect given Wikipedia is covered by GFDL; at most, we should have just had to source something coming from another Wikipedia page, not delete the entire thing. That user is not active, hence why I just figured he was working on it, but stopping being active so never finished. Frank0051 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how even such sensitive words as your message can sometimes fall on deaf ears. I mean it; your message stands out as a model. The only things I can think of that might have made it easier to digest for the recipient are maybe avoiding the word "should" (some people react allergic to that; not sure if that's the case with Frank) and inserting a new line after "there is no splitting of the page history" to make it clear that these are two separate issues. Well, after the above I can't do the deletion review because I'll probably be considered biased. But I'm not worried about that, I can't imagine anyone supporting undeletion, even though I've seen weird things happen at DELREV. — Sebastian19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm not senstive about it; I'm glad he even took the time to inform me. I just like typing in a manner that is straight and to the point. In any case, Arjayay has re-posted the page, so I guess that is the end of that, no? Frank0051 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by "you" I meant Fuhghettaboutit; and I probably should have written "sensible". But I'm glad it worked out without further drama. — Sebastian03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sebastian! High praise indeed! (I was not confused by your pronouns by the way:-) I do try to be clear and take special care when talking about copyright because very few users understand it well (many admins too; not that I'm the final authority [and the never ending convolutions of image copyright, ugg] but...)
Frank, I do think there's nothing more that should be done here, but I do hope you understand the issues better because your message makes me think that while you're dropping this, you haven't come away from it with a handle on what the problem was. You should not copy and paste the entire contents of one page into another, pretty much ever; that's what the move function is for. You might note that we even have a standard template to warn users when they do this: {{Uw-c&pmove}}. When you do copy and paste some material from one page into another for whatever reason (a merge, use of a portion of text that would work in another article, etc.) you do indeed need to provide copyright attribution. It's really not hard. The following edit summary would be sufficient "copying/merging useful content from [[name of article]]. Regarding your note above about the GFDL, I'm not sure what you mean. Most of our content is co-licensed under the GFDL and CC-By-SA and for purposes of analysis, it doesn't matter — both require this attribution. Finally, and maybe I'm gilding the lily, but people work up articles in personal sandboxes all the time and unless the user is inactive, moving such pages without even attempt to communicate with the creator first is a recipe for conflict.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy, I've used the move/merge/etc. functions before, but I just didn't think there was the need for a user profile page tab. Frank0051 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That response tell me not to waste my time on deaf ears. By the way, there is no merge function and your logs and deleted edits tell me you have never moved a page, at least under this account name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As your name says. (Aside:) Interestingly, Frank seems to be a well-intended contributor otherwise. The moral is that some people are endowed with very selective perception. I wonder if the most empathetic people would be able to put themselves in such shoes. — Sebastian18:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish#Look at the main page's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-catfd-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A pie, just because? Love pie. Thanks! By the way, I've been to Hungary. Next time bring some of that ridiculously delicious ice cream you have over there. Never tasted anything like it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Forget about it (FuhGhettAboutIt).” Or is that from a movie or TV episode, or what? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Like! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Adolph Friedländer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
