User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 13

Thank you!

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page: I was just being at my most pedantic, really... :) Ondewelle (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Senter et al

Look, I didn't mean to get into a pissing match with you, but I see this so often in Wikipedia where legit stuff gets deleted. This past weekend I re-read Sins of My Father and have gotten through the first 100 pages of Murder Machine. All the deleted stuff is in Murder Machine, so I put it back in. What is happening, is, the people writing the bios of Roy DeMeo, Albert DeMeo, Anthony Senter, Joey Testa, Henry Borelli (and a few others) are simply writing the Wiki bios based on Murder Machine, Sins of My Father, and Jerry Capeci's weekly "Gangland" column (which has now become a pay site) (and Capeci co-wrote Murder Machine). That's where it's all coming from. I mean, to my knowledge, nobody has ever written on the DeMeo crew other than Capeci and DeMeo's son. There are no other sources, to my knowledge (no newspapers wrote on these guys). So, what happens, is, the public reads Murder Machine (actually, mafia buffs read Murder Machine), and Capeci has put in a detailed description of these mobsters (he got it all from Dominick Montiglio who turned state's evidence and cooperated on the book). So, those descriptions of Senter et al all come from Montiglio who told it to Capeci who published it in Murder Machine which was read by the public and they copied it into Wikipedia. DeMeo's son Albert came along about a decade later and wrote Sins of My Father. Oh, there is an Arts & Entertainment documentary that Montiglio coooperated on (he appears in the documentary in shadow/silouette). When the guys who wrote the Wiki bios on Senter et al, at the bottom they put under "References" the reference to Capeci's Murder Machine. Could well be that Wikipedia's syntax rules require the reference to be cited on every sentence - I don't know. But when I saw when you said you were going to delete it, I put up the objection that it would gut the bio. When I re-read the books this past weekend and ran across all the detailed descriptions of these guys, I put it back it. Trust me, it's all there. If Wikipedia has an objection to these DeMeo crew bios, I would think a better objection would be that they more or less plaigerized Capeci's book - some of it is word for word (a LOT of it is word for word - but I don't think Capeci is going to complain - I've corresponded with him in the past - he probably feels flattered that his book is the primary/only reference for these bios/articles). You wrote that some/a lot of Senter's bio is badly written - that's because they have copied sentences out of Murder Machine out of order without tailoring them for this short bio. You can erase this paragraph after you have read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 November 2008

Ground Zero, I ran across an item regarding Senter trying to fraudulently obtain a Teamsters pension while in prison and have added it to the Senter bio (it is not in Murder Machine, because that book was written (in 1992, as I recall) before the fraud was discovered in 1996). I have tried to insert the citation, but I have done something wrong - maybe you would be so kind as to fix it (I thought all I had to do was insert the URL between the brackets and letter "p". Anyway, you can see the correct URL if you go to edit the page. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for that (for correcting the citation so that it properly points the read to the correct URL). I might note, however, that the way you have done it (and I have no idea how to do it correctly in Wikipedia), it gives the date in the footnote as being "15 November 2008". That is the date that you put the corrected URL/footnote in. The actual date of the footnote is 4 June 1994. The author is, of course, Selywn Raab, The New York Times' most noted mob historian. Thanks if you can further correct the footnote/citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.127.155 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination

An article that you have been involved in editing, Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar House (company)

Could you quickly look back at the "clean up" you have just done on this article, because you have left it in a mess.

Two sub-headings under 'Divisions and Companies" are unfinished; and so is the heading 'Shipping'. Also you have chopped a letter off the antepenultimate heading.

I have not yet studied the article in full, following your efforts; or seen fit to correct your indiscretions - I thought I would give you a chance to redeem yourself first. If this is the sort of result we can expect of your clean ups - God help us if you ever want to do a full review.

--JHB (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I made a hash of this. Sorry. This is not up to my usual standard of work. There were a lot of problems with the formatting of this article, but I should have checked my own work instead of adding to them. I have fixed the errors I made, and cleaned more of the formatting per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I have also removed references to your user page. These are not valid references for Wikipedia. PLease see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ground Zero | t 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Thank you for the information. SpeDIt (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking Comment

Thank you for the clarification on overlinking - I did not realize the policy change on dates, and I did go overboard on linking everything in sight.Rogermx (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS edit on Kerry Nettle

Hi Ground Zero, your MOS edit to Kerry Nettle replaced [[senator]] with [[United States Senate|senator]]. Kerry Nettle was an Australian Senator. Please be careful with bot edits as there are Senates in other countries! Cheers --Sumthingweird (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. My apologies. I meant to change that when I went in, but then I got distracted with other clean-up. Sorry. Ground Zero | t 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS removal of section on Liberal Party of Canada

you recently removed a section on the Liberal Party of Canada article regarding the coalition, citing the NOR and MOS. I was in the middle of trying to convert a horrible self-researched selection to a cited work up to code. It would help if you left this work in progress where it is. the selection is the ONLY piece of work I can find detailing a extremely essential recent event in Canadian politics. I have placed it back in there, to work on citing the selection within the next hour. -- Zblewski |talk 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the sandbox to work on text that is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. As you noted, it was "a horrible self-researched selection" not up to code. I think you were being kind in describing it that way. Ground Zero | t 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out abbreviations

There's no real reason to spell out UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY when EPA links to that article... based on its context, it can be its disruptive to spell these things out... and in this case probably is. 842U (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not obstreperous. It is Wikipedia style. See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. Not all readers are Americans, and not even all Americans know what "EPA" stands for. Spelling out an acronym on first use is not just Wikipedia style, it is standard writing style. It makes writing more accessible to a broader range of readers. Should a reader have to cleick on a link to find out what an acronym stands for? Why can't we explain to them what it means? Ground Zero | t 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As excellent an editor as you are, your reasoning may be slightly more than obtuse, in this instance. Of course, not everyone is American. This didn't keep you from using a shortcut above rather than a link to the Wikipedia policy in your reply here... you did not write out Main articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Acronyms and Abbreviations... you used a link. Why, because a certain level of responsibility on the readers' part is implicit... did you assume I was American and would understand your link? No. You assumed I could take some responsibility and click on the link. Those who are not American, yet reading fluent English, can always use the link. Let's not forget that there's a big difference between being right and being clear. 842U (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article should make sense and remain encyclopedic, even when printed on a piece of paper (without hyperlinks). Whereas, the Manual of Style (linked above) is a guideline that is rarely consulted without network access. —Sladen (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Sladen's point, I note that the Manual of Style does not apply to talk pages, but to articles. I do not see how "EPA" is clearer than "United States Environmental Protection Agency". If you think that is too long, then piping the link as "United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency" would be shorter while still letting the reader know what the EPA does. If you disagree with the Manual of Style, you can propose changes to it on its talk page. The point is: there is no point to elongating EPA. It's just the blunt application of a rule. Ground Zero | t 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then every time BMW appears in an article twice, the first instance should read BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE (BMW)... or more correctly, BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG (BMW)..... or rather more correctly BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (BMW)..... because after all, that's what the rule book dictates. Because... not everyone understands English, or German, or that BMW is a company, or that AG means AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT... and even thought this is an online article it, rules should be applied as if its printed ^[who?]. But it is obtuse, using rules as a blunt instrument, applying a rule way past the point where it serves its function — which is to solve problems rather than create them. And the notion of using a Manual of Style for an online article of an online encylopedia so that it would make sense when printed out, that's not only obtuse... that's priceless. 842U (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that more readers would understand BMW than its long form name, in part because of the extensive marketing it does exclusively with its acronym, and in part because the name is in a foreign language and therefore explains nothing of what the company does to an English-speaking person. The company is so associated with its acronym (see BMW) that the Wikipedia community has decided, in its collective wisdom, to use the acronym for the article name, instead of the longform.

EPA, on the other hand, is not widely recognized outside of the US, and spelling out its name does explain to the reader something about what the organization does. If you think that formatting the article so that it makes sense when printed out is obtuse or "priceless", then feel free to propose changes to the Manual of Style on the appropriate talk page. I still do not see how the reader is better off when the article uses "EPA" instead of "Environmental Protection Agency". Where is the advantage to the reader? Ground Zero | t 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then... there are instances where abbreviations are not ipso facto completely destructive to reading comprehension — where it's ok to assume the reader has received the "extensive marketing" directed at them from Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft? Does the rule book speak to these instances? No? Then we should apply the rules to these instances anyway, because even though you and I may have the sensitivity to discern the "extensive marketing" done by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft... the rule book doesn't allow that: the rulebook on Wikipedia apparently ^[who?] requires that we not trust your and my instincts and just apply the rule... after all, even when you board a plane, they still explain to you how to fasten your seatbelt... there's always a tiny percentage of folks out there who might not know what BMW means after all. And why, please explain, is ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ok... what rule allows us to remove the UNITED STATES from the full name of the agency? How is the reader to know that you are talking about the US EPA and not the British EPA? And how do you know "EPA" isn't recognizable outside the US? Is there some special clause in the rule book that's being applied here? And why did you elongate the second instance of EPA in the Honda Pilot article and not the first? The point is: there is no point. Elongating EPA is the blunt application of rule. 842U (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says:

Convention: Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. NATO, NASA, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words.

I think we can agree that this applies to BMW. If you prefer to spell out the name, then go ahead. I suggest that you pipelink from the acronym, e.g., [[BMW|Bayerishe Motoren Werke]].

You asked:

And why, please explain, is ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ok... what rule allows us to remove the UNITED STATES from the full name of the agency? How is the reader to know that you are talking about the US EPA and not the British EPA?

It would depend on the context. If it is already established in the article that the subject is American, then putting "United States" in front of everything may not be necessary. If it is an article about an international subject, then it would be appropriate. I do not believe that there is a British EPA. I think it is their Ministry of the Environment that would be responsible.

You asked:

And how do you know "EPA" isn't recognizable outside the US?

Well, I am Canadian, and I think that a lot of Canadians would not recognize "EPA" just as a lot of Americans would not recognize CSIS, which is why I also regularly check what links to CSIS to spell out that acronym for the readers even though it links through the correct article.

And why did you elongate the second instance of EPA in the Honda Pilot article and not the first?

I guess that was an oversight on my part.

I notice that you have not answered my question about how "EPA" is more helpful to the reader than a spelled-out version. It seems to me that you are more keen on scoring debating points than on providing clarity to the reader. Ground Zero | t 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get it now, you aren't going to get it. There's nothing keen about substituting a well-known, oft-used 3 letter abbreviation linked to a full article with 5 words and 50 letters linked to the exact same place... precisely when the term in question is A) of very low importance to its context, i.e., serving an ancillary function and B) far from obscure. In this case it's like using a flamethrower to light a candle... by removing emphasis, for example, on the Hyundai Sonata mileage itself... and placing emphasis on the painfully correct and resplendently full title of the agency that credentialed... what was it again... oh yes, that car's fuel mileage. The article is about neither fuel mileage nor environmental agencies. But by saying "EPA rated fuel mileage" the reader knows enough... that the EPA rated the mileage and if they want to know more they can click the link. The decoding of the abbreviation is neither difficult for a reader nor necessary to get the full intended emphasis of the sentence. And believe me, I'm more than clear that there is no winning in this discussion — "debating points" or otherwise. But count this: 3 letters vs. 50. Less can be more. 842U (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key point here is whether "EPA" is "well-known and oft-used". It is surely well-known and oft-used in the United States, and it may well be well-known and oft-used amongst car enthusiasts, but Wikipedia is written for a broad audience, not a narrow one. This is why the Wikipedia Manual of Style (and other style manuals) recommend spelling out acronyms on first use. Should the reader have to click through to another article to figure out what EPA stands for? That is going to be more of a distraction for the reader than putting in the longform name of the organization. This discussion would be better for the Style Manual talk page than on my talk page. I don't set these guidelines, the Wikipedia community does, and you seem to disagree with the community on this. Ground Zero | t 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get. I don't disagree with the community or the rules. I disagree with the obtuse application of the rules. The key point is NOT whether "EPA" is well-known. The article isn't about the EPA. The reader may be ignorant, but the reader isn't a dunce. 842U (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't agree with you, don't mean I don't understand what you are saying. I "get" your argument but I think you're wrong. I think the rule is valid, and that this is a valid application of the rule. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the reader knows what the EPA is, and I think that using an acronym without defining it in these circumstances leads to unnecessary confusion. Selling out EPA on first use in these articles provides clarity to the reader. Using five words or three words instead of the acronym does not lengthen the article in an unreasonable way. There is lots of space in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 11:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem of space, it's a problem of emphasis. Either way, it's your perogitive. But because you're holding a hammer doesn't make every problem a nail. 842U (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd pass this on, posted on my talk page:

Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations does not mention links. In the absence of a defining link on an acronym, then clearly the reader needs to see the acronym spelled out. But once we introduce links, the picture changes considerably, and the MOS should take that into account (currently that section does not). "Should a reader have to click on a link to find out what an acronym stands for?" is a somewhat ill-posed question, because it misses the point that the "what" in the question may go far beyond what a mere spelling-out can clarify. For example, someone who has never heard of the EPA may not obtain much more meaning from seeing Environmental Protection Agency spelled out. (Indeed, Environmental Protection Agency is a disambiguation page, because there is more than one agency with that name. Therefore, merely expanding the acronym is not as usefully informative as a link to the article about a specific agency.) There is far more to the concept behind the words "Environmental Protection Agency" than the words alone convey. Thus a reader who knows absolutely nothing about the EPA will almost certainly need to click the link and gain more background. It hardly makes sense to consider clicking links a burden on the user - Wikipedia is all about links. If someone feels bothered by clicking links, they probably won't be reading Wikipedia for long. See WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:BUILD. Links allow Wikipedia to be understandable to the maximum number of people, unlike a printed work which can at best aim for some compromise between smoothly flowing prose vs. constant parenthetical background-filling. On Wikipedia, a user who knows nothing of the background information for an article can still plow through it, by clicking on all the links to articles that further define the essential concepts, while a user who knows the background already can read more efficiently by ignoring the links and by not having to read inline explanations of jargon terms and acronyms he or she already knows. In this way, both the expert and nonexpert in a given subject can enjoy reading the same article, customizing their own experience on the fly through their decisions to follow links or ignore them. Also, there are tools to allow a user to preview links without having to leave the current article; see WP:POPUPS. --Teratornis (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on User talk:842U. Ground Zero | t 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

842U deleted my repsonse from his/her talk page soon after I posted it, so I am archiving it here. Ground Zero | t 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbreviation Thing

At some point, you might consider the feedback you're receiving here regarding spelling out abbreviations, rather than simply arguing that 'rules are rules.' You've received earnest feedback from varied sources — users are trying to tell you something — and you seem to respond defensively rather than actually considering the feedback. We could always appeal this discussion to a higher authority, rather than going in circles. In the meantime, consider taking a breather from this pursuit to give the feedback (not to expand abbreviations aggressively) some genuine consideration? 842U (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the views expressed by the three editors on this. Like User:Sladen, who commented in my support above, I remain on the side of the reader who is unfamiliar with the topic, and in favour of improving the clarity of technical articles. Those opposed to the current WP:MOS and associated guides on this matter seem to be more concerned about inconveniencing readers who already know about the subject. I do not share that view, and as the passages that I have posted on my user page indicate, there is a consistent theme running through Wikipedia style guides on technical language that we should consider first those readers unfamiliar with the topic.

As WP:PCR says:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.

Furthermore, I found the arguments advanced by the three of you to be unconvincing.

I also tend not to heed the views of a user like Sherurcij who resorts to personal attacks and incivility. I took the time to provide a lengthy response to Teratornis, but received no response from him/her. To be fair to Teratornis, you have deleted my response from your talk page, so maybe he/she didn't see it.

I do not believe that I have been "aggressive" in expanding acronyms. CSIS is so very clearly an acronym that will be unfamiliar to the vast majority of readers (and confusing to American readers more familiar with the Center for Strategic International Studies). EPA has many meanings, and is likely to have no meaning for most non-American readers. If I were spelling out "U.S." or "UN" all the time, i.e., acronyms that the large majority of readers know already, you would have a point, but these are not common acronyms, except in circles of people familiar with the subjects covered. Ground Zero | t 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your ardent pursuit of abbreviational cleanup, in Daewoo Kalos you expanded EPA which links to a full explanatory article, yet you left unattended VDA in the same paragraph, which leads to a completely ambiguous disambiguation page -- and no info to answer a reader's need to know. The MoS draws no distinction between the two. Do you? 842U (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be expanded. I'm doing what I can to improve the clarity of articles for readers, but I can't do everything. I'm just one guy. Your assistance in clearing that up would be appreciated. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to wonder then why one guy, who ostensibly "cares" so much about this abbreviation rule, can apply janitorial proficiency to an abbreviation that is arguably well-known (EPA), which carries fully explanatory, linked backup... while overlooking an abbreviation in the previous sentence that borders on meaninglessness (VDA). So I ask, are you reading the articles in which "EPA" occurs? It's fairly simple to skip around Wikipedia and find references to "EPA" and expand them — a bot can do that. A human on the other hand, is going to read the articles and the greater context in which "EPA" occurs. If you aren't sensitive to the greater context in which the "EPA" abbreviation occurs, you may likely not understand your fellow editors and the issues they have with your edits,and also miss the very abbreviations that genuinely lack meaning... and that would not then be showing, in my opinion, and with all due respect, the human "care" you profess. I understand that you are just "one guy," but my argument all along has been that some human sentience (the essential quality that separates men from machines) in these edits would go a lot further than a fairly robotic, unyielding, "stone-tablets" application of a guideline... as if it's an un-bendable rule. 842U (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what VDA means. I would not want to link to the wrong thing. Please assume good faith, and don't question my motives. I'm trying to make Wikipedia a better place.I have been checking the links to EPA to find the articles that I can improve by improving that link. While I am in the articles, I usually find other things to improve -- reducing overlinking, fixing headings, and copyediting where I am comfortable enough with the subject matter to do so. I have found several articles where an editor has carelessly linked to the acronym EPA when the article has has nothing to do with the Environmental Protection Agency. I bet that in a lot of the articles there are other things I could improve on, but like other editors here, I am a volunteer, not paid staff. You can criticize me if my work is not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guides, but so no-one is in a position to criticize me for work that I have failed to do. You and I may disagree on this point, but do not question my motives.

Finally, your description of my work as "fairly robotic, unyielding, "stone-tablets" application of a guideline... as if it's an un-bendable rule" is needlessly insulting. Please be civil. I agree that rules can be bent, but as I have explained, I see no reason to do so in this case. The EPA is not a widely-known acronym outside of the United States, therefore it is entirely consistent with both the rule and the spirit of the rules to apply it in this case. I provided several notes on your talk page from Wikipedia style guides to illustrate the point that articles should be written with the non-technical reader in mind, and that jargon should be explained. You deleted all of these notes. Ground Zero | t 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you re-read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I'm making a fairly broad comparison of robotic editing vs. editing with care, editing with human sentience. It's possible that you fall somewhere on that spectrum, but nothing in my post actually says your work is robotic. You infer incivility where it isn't implicit, and pin your perception on me — which is... uncivil.

EPA isn't jargon, nor do you have a way of knowing whether EPA is or is not "widely-known" (see weasel word) outside of the US... none, zero. And say what you want about kindness and civility, but statements like that give serious pause. As does taking a terse, fifty word introductory sentence to Hyundai Sonata and adding 10% to the word count to prop up a billboard "explanation" of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that has little to do with introducing the Sonata and quite a bit to do with making rote edits. Or so I feel. 842U (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as a result of reading this talk page, I read the Hyundai Sonata article and thoroughly approve of EPA being spelled out longhand. And I find some of the preceding post, where "introductory sentence" turns out to be about paragraph 50 rather than the lede, a little tendentious. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious? See this edit 842U (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reponse

(Which 842U deleted from her/his talk page)

842U, during our discussion on spelling out abbreviations, you have placed some emphasis on the fact that there are other editors who share your view. On my talk page, you wrote, "At some point, you might consider the feedback you're receiving here regarding spelling out abbreviations" and asked that I stop converting the abbreviations.

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (archived here), you wrote, "Several other editors have pointed out that this rings false...." (Actually it was only you and two others.)

Now you've asked the WikiProject Automobiles for their views on the matter. Although you summarized the debate between us in a very one-sided way, and I have not interjected in the discussion there, not one of those who responded agree that EPA should not be spelled out. In total, there are five editors on the Wikiproject Automobiles and three on my talk page who support spelling out EPA and other acronyms, and only three editors (you included) who have indicated their opposition to this style on my talk page.

I will now ask you if you are willing to accept the views of other editors in this matter? As I've pointed out, these are consistent with numerous references in Wikipedia style guides, which have been written by the Wikipedia community at large. Ground Zero | t 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a little help

Hi, I noticed you are very active on wikipedia with a bunch of edits on pages on my watchlist. I have some students working on some contributions rather than a traditional term project. I'm having some trouble figuring out references. This student did a page where there are many referenced used several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhsims2 I'm wondering if there is a way to do this so they display only once.

Thanks, SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hm... I don't actually know how to do that. I will try to find out and get back to you. Ground Zero | t 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, from Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners:

Same ref used twice or more

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:

<ref name=smith>DETAILS OF REF</ref>

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:

You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are three sources and they are each referenced three times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

I learned something new today! Ground Zero | t 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks, I'll fix this. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoilMan2007 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this! I had forgotten how to do this and where to go to refresh my memory. Thanks to your notes here, I was able to fix an article I was working on. Thanks again! SpikeToronto (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the reversion you made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_course_turf

I made a number of changes today with a student and you undid them because there were extra apostrophies. I'm willing to make these changes to to formatting. Please don't delete content because you are unhappy that we didn't understand the formatting rules. Again, we are willing to make those changes. I invited a number of people to review it tomorrow. I don't know how to undo the changes you made. Please change it back. SoilMan2007 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

edits like this are not helpful. Please pay more attention to your MoS mass-editing. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these edits are consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as I have explained on the article's talk page. Please be more careful with your reversions - you restored a grammatical error, a redirect link (which I had replaced with a direct link), and reduce the readability of the article for non-technical readers by replacing the full name of CSIS with its acronym. Ground Zero | t 13:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and we use DNA, FBI and USA as well, assuming that readers unfamiliar with the common terms can click them to read more. I'd hate to see you whine that the MoS supports spelling out AK-47 as Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 every time we use it. Also, you are adding grammatical errors, for example you keep changing "he asked CSIS" to "he asked Canadian Security Intelligence Service", rather than "the Canadian...". Again, I see from your talk page that your removing of links and spelling out acronyms steps on a lot of toes, I'm just suggesting you be more careful. You unlinked Imam claiming that it's a common English word, which I somewhat doubt, and I doubt anybody who lives outside Western English-speaking countries would know what a reference letter is if you remove the hyperlink. Again, be judicious in your use. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, we're not talking about DNA, FBI, AK-47 or USA, but about CSIS, an acronym that would be known by only a very small percentage of the Wikipedia readership. Spelling it out explains what the organization does, and provides clarity for the reader unfamiliar with CSIS. Why are you opposed to this? I do not think that spelling out DNA or AK-47 would provide anymore information for readers. Spelling out AK-47 would violate WP:MOS which recommends using English in most situations. A good guide to when it is appropriate to use only the acronym is to check whether the Wikipedia article uses the acronym or full name. The DNA and AK-47 article do not spell out the names in the article title. The FBI article does, ad the USA article's title is "United States". As almost all if not all, readers will understand "U.S." or "USA', it would not be worth spending time to spell it out.
WP:MOS does not recommend spelling out acronyms "every time we use it". It recommends spelling them out the first time we use them(and placing the acronym in brackets after the spelling-out). The Wikipedia Manual of Style follows other standard style manuals in this regard.
I will watch for changes that require "the" in the future.
Spelling out links have stepped on the toes of two other editors who disagree with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which reflects the will of the Wikipedia community.
I de-linked Imam in one case because it had already been linked in the article. I did not see a need to link a second time. Check out WP:OVERLINK.
With regard to your suggestion that I am "whining", please refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. There is no call for that sort of comment. I see that at least one other editor has warned you about personal attacks, and that you have deleted that warning.

Ground Zero | t 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that we have had this conversation before, and that i pointed out to you then that American readers may be more familiar with the Center for Strategic International Studies when reading the acronym CSIS, but that you just deleted my comments. Ground Zero | t 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this edit entirely helpful & justified. Obviously milages vary, but I have not got a clue what CSIS is and would want it spelled out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ground Zero

I hope I'm doing this 'talk' thing correctly - as you may have guessed, I'm a bit of a newbie. Just wanted to say thanks for adding a few more brushstrokes to the article I started, and also for helping to make it more Wiki-compliant/relevant. Although you did leave an extra 'S' behind for me to clean up. ;)Lotusmaglite (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another thankyou (from a diff ed)

Just a thankyou for the much-needed swat on the head for not checking links re Sierra Forest Reserve article, that was a really bad mess-up on my part. My apologies, and thanks again, Marcia Wright (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing of redirects

In regards to this recent edit, please be aware that bypassing of most redirects is frowned upon and can even detrimental. More information on this is available at WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN and Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use. --Allen3 ^talk 04:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on redirects

Dear Ground Zero: There are more than 5,200 articles listed under R from alternative languages. I don't know if that is considered too much for a single category. Could I create some more specific categories? Do you think R from Spanish and R from French would be useful? How should I procede? Thanks and regards. --Againme (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't know that much about categories myself. I would suggest trying Help:Category and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. You might be able to find your answer there, or try posting your question on their associated talk pages. If I think of anything else, I'll post on your talk page. Regards. Ground Zero | t 02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just found out that R from misspellings has more than 7,000 in it...--Againme (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Dear GroundZero: I'm not a vandal. You take your own time, I can't possibly take your time. Please stop harassing me. --Againme (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You make incorrect page moves to organization names you make up yourself, some to bogus translations, and then just leave the articles there. Other editors and I explained to you clearly how your page moves violated WP:MOS, and you refused to fix your mistakes. That is rude and irresponsible. Ground Zero | t 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to mess with your talk page, just to let you know that I never made up any translations, they where all in the articles' texts before me.--Againme (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the article titles you moved pages to look to be bad translations to me, and I thought that you had come up with them yourself. I checked out several of the pages, and it seems that I am mistaken, and that you did just pick them up from the articles. I think those translations should be revisited, but they are not your doing. Thanks for pointing my mistake out. I'll be more careful in the future. Ground Zero | t 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overlink

thanx for your guidance. i will be more diligent from now on. Furtive admirer (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Kamloops ridings

I just found you as who it was who merged Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys into Kamloops (electoral district). This is wrong, as the old Kamloops riding included a much larger area and, therefore, had an entirely different political context/composition. I've noticed quite a bit of this going on lately, and it's a bad idea. These should no more have been merged than Kamloops should also have been merged with its other "daughter" ridings. "Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys was NOT formerly known as Kamloops". Those are two different ridings, albeit with shared territory, but they're not teh same thing. See Talk:Kamloops (electoral district). This also happened with Mackenzie (provincial electoral district) and Powell River-Sunshine Coast recently, again very much without valid political geographic basis; different boundary, different name, different riding.Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time to spend on WIkipedia in the last few days, and haven't had time to look into this, but at first glance it does seem that you're right that Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys was not formerly known as Kamloops. That doesn't mean that merging the articles is necessarily the wrong thing, but the description does have to be corrected. I try to take care of this soon. Ground Zero | t 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. The only evidence that I can find supports the article. Please provide evidence of your own if you think that the Parliamentary website is incorrect. Ground Zero | t 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an administrator to review, monitor and recommend improvements to the article "Serbs in Montenegro"

Hello, I am asking a random administrator to review, monitor and recommend improvements to the article Serbs in Montenegro. I myself am neither a Serb, nor of any affiliation to people in the Balkans, though I am personally interested in the history of the area, but I have found this particular article to be extremely poor in quality with absolutely no references for any of the material on the page, a list of "see also" sources which redirect to Serb nationalist webpages promoting irredentism and being abused to deliberately project the following points-of-views: (1) victimization of the Serb people of Montenegro by previous governments; (2) Serb nationalism and irredentism - i.e. speaking of the role of a "pro-Serbian" newspaper in Montenegro and having links to nationalist websites as mentioned earlier, including one speaking of the "Serb land of Montenegro"; (3) promoting particular political parties, as political parties that explicitly support Serb interests in Montenegro are part of the "see also" list at the bottom of the article. I would support action by you as an administrator to denounce this kind of material as POV-pushing, I would appreciate it if you could assist in increasing attention to this article so that more effort can be made to improve it, and I would like if you could seek out a reliable and unbiased expert on the topic of Serbs in Montenegro to provide assistance for the article.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

The Paul Robeson article is really getting polished looking. :) Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help. I can see that the article is a bit of a challenge. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for the heads up on the whole title thing Alex250P (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quote welcome. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How nasty of you

The fact that there is so little information about Robeson to begin with and that there is a Labor article at all should be more of a concern to you then someone who is building article and the few hours that the article seems unreadable--give me a few hours to get cites, etc. I can do also without you stalking me every time I do anything about Robeson as well. I obviously don't need your advice or help when it comes to this, my knowledge of Robeson obviously exceeding your's to the umpteenth degree. But yeah, thanks for the comment..."User:Catherine Huebscher | t 13:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the catty comment. It was unnecessary and inappropriate. However, I am not stalking you. I monitor a lot of articles to try to keep them in encyclopedic shape. I did not check the history to see who had made the edits - I did not know it was you. Nonetheless, this is an encyclopedia that gets millions of visitors a day. Articles are not working drafts but final versions presented to all readers. They should be written and formatted correctly to the extent possible. I do not presume to advise you on the content matter of the Robeson articles - it is clear that you do know a lot more about the subject than I do. It is clear, though, from your edits that you can use advice on how to edit Wikipedia articles. I can advise you on that. Switching back and forth between present and past tense and writing in incomplete sentences is not a correct way of editing articles. If you are working on a big edit to an article, you can create a new page as a branch of your user page as a "sandbox", i.e., a page that is not the enccyclopedia article, but your own working draft of the article that you can copy over when you are finished. Here is an example of a page that you could use for your drafts: User:Catherine Huebscher/sandbox. You can click on this link, and add whatever you want. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is a good starting point for learning how to edit articles. Also, user talk pages (e.g., User talk:Ground Zero) are provided for other users to leave comments. The user pages (e.g., User:Ground Zero) are intended for the user her or himself. I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly nudge

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. —Eustress ^talk 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Leavitt

Thank you for the link improvement for this article. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caps in subtitles

Thanks for your comment on capitalizing the text in headings. I appreciate your input Rogermx (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pareto

Thanks for editing this page. I was going to come back and try to clean it up some more myself, but was pleasantly surprised at the way you'd made the corrections. Beautiful.

Chris Holte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.65.150.102 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazia article

Thank you for your corrections in the article. Will follow these guidelines in future edits.Rogermx (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice

I have nominated an article to which you have contributed for deletion, because of its lack of citations, despite a request for sources dating back to June 2007. If this nomination is in error, then please post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Liberty Caucus; you may also wish to add a bibliography or footnotes to the Republican Liberty Caucus article, as well. Thank you. Bjenks (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a scammer

I saw an entry about matrimony at a user page. are you a scammer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.70.70 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly a joke. Ground Zero | t 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Request

Hello, I was coming onto Wikipedia to add some new information on "Jonathan W. Van Barneveld" but had noticed that you deleted it based on the grounds of him 'not being a notable person' or something to that matter. On first glance, that may seem like the case, he is quite young. However in the region where he lives he is bocoming quite the political figure. In addition to the previous information on the article, he has become very involved with the BC-STV movement for the referendum and is the frontrunner for the Skeena-Bulkley Valley Federal NDP Ridding Association's Youth Director. I think it would be good to have an article on him. I am formally requesting that the article be reinstated.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by British Columbian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of SuperNews! episodes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of SuperNews! episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is not an encyclopedia article. It is just a list of data about the episodes of a fairly minor TV series.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Borock (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coheed and Cambria Infobox

Hello, I was told to come to another admin with this issue. It seems that the admin, Deckiller, has found it necessary to resurrect the "emo" debate on the Coheed and Cambria page. Now this issue had been resolved a while ago; it is in the archives for the talk page. There was no reason to resurrect the argument. I was told by a reliable source that he is in the wrong for raising trouble, and that I should inform another admin. I hope that you will be able to help. 68.49.219.34 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)FlameLordPhoenix[reply]

Kolymism

Unfortunately I can't provide any solid references for the page Kolymism, in part because the book I referenced was independently published. Since the political theory is so minor and unsourced, I will just remove the page. Mullins421 (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further information--I don't actually know how to delete it. Could you help? Please see Talk for further information. Thanks! 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-down load | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Date delinking

Per this injunction would you mind not so frequently delinking dates until the associated ArbCom case is completed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I was unaware of the injunction. I will act accordingly, although it really does seem silly to me when the Wikipedia community has spoken loudly and clearly on this issue. I also note that the injunction has been outstanding for four months now, which seems to be an unreasonable length of time.
- I would concur that it has been an awfully long time, though they are actively drafting a decision now, so it might be closed within a week or two. Dragons flight (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Talk Pages

GroundZero, if a talk page for an article has strayed from WP:TALK guidelines — specifically “Keep on topic” — and is not discussing the article but rather Wikipedians’ opinions about the subject of an article, is it acceptable to delete those sections of the article’s talk page with the edit summary, “deleted as not consistent with WP:TALK guidelines?” Examples of what I mean can be found here and here. Thanks for your guidance. SpikeToronto (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:TALK specifically contemplates such action:

"Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

"* Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"

Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! As usual, you provide the best guidance and seem to have both a deep and broad understanding of all the WP:xxx policies. Thanks again. SpikeToronto (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]