Jump to content

User talk:IJBall/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

International goals

I believe the discussion being cited on other articles can be found here. Cheers. – PeeJay 18:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Current one here--Egghead06 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Left a quick comment at WT:FOOTY (on holding a formal WP:RfC). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives and The Young and the Restless

While I do like that you found more milestone episodes, shouldn't we use third-party sourcing over first-party, as that is more reliable as a source than a first-party is? Especially since both milestones previously sourced were covered by third-parties, while the more recent ones were only found on the network websites. I did not want to revert, out of respect for you as an editor, and would rather discuss it amicably. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those issues that divides Wiki editors – I'm in the camp that's much more forgiving of Primary sources on stuff like this; other editors will insist that only Secondary sources can be used for stuff like this. While I wouldn't be particularly put out if my updated numbers for DOOL and Y&R are reverted, what I think maybe can be done first is to see if a secondary source can be found, now that we have the exact dates for the airing of those episodes. I think I'll take a few minutes and see if I can make any progress with that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
As someone who has followed soaps for many years, I cannot remember to my recollection anyone reporting about the mid-milestones past the major 12k and 10k, retrospectively. And I feel as if secondary and third-party would be more qualified; I would normally agree with first-party, but we have non-first as available sources, etc. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm having no luck finding secondary sources for these (I'm somewhat surprised that I can't find one for DOOL's 12,500; I'm much less surprised about the lack for Y&R's 10,500). Anyway, feel free to revert, if you feel it's warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Bigger milestones are more celebrated in the daytime community; such as when The Bold and the Beautiful reached 7k or when General Hospital reached 13k. And I believe it's only because they air, for the most part, on a five days per week schedule. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Can you help with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? putting their names into news.google.com got a lot of results. Paul Austin (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've done some super quick "clean up" on that one. But I'm sorry to say that I'm likely to be busy for the next week, so I can't put a whole lot of time into fleshing that one out. I'll try to remember to take a look at it when I can... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I look forward to your help. The Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance was to thee people of South Australia in the 1970s what the Beaumont children disappearance had been to them in the 1960s. Paul Austin (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Rainwater harvesting page

Hi, I noticed my edits on the Rainwater harvesting page were removed. I had added several links to the page because there was no instruction on how to exactly do rainwater harvesting, so I am not sure what you mean when you say, "you thought it was overkill'. Where else is there rainwater harvesting guidelines? It seems important to include this information on this page, and the previous Wikipedia editor BGwhite, had no problem with me putting it into the External Links area, as that was his suggestion. Do you have any other suggestion on how to include the links on the page? Thank you. --Winona (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Winona. Yeah, I made that reversion as as a Pending changes reviewer (I don't normally frequent that article). In any case, you might want to review Wikipedia:External links and its associated guidelines on External links, if you haven't already. In general, only a few external links are usually listed at an article. When editors start to see half-a-dozen or more, most will think that's too many EL's, and start to think about trimming them... Now, all that said, I would advise starting a discussion at Talk:Rainwater harvesting about this – if the general consensus among editors there is that your EL additions are fine, then that's maybe all that matters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks IJBall, sorry for the delayed reply. That makes more sense. I think it should have it's own section, but the section in Wikiversity is so huge that I can only put links in the Wikipedia article. But maybe the editors have some ideas. I will start a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks again. --Winona (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lily Allen - It's Not Me, It's You

sorry, I should have explained why I took the sales of the United States, for me it was unnecessary certification table being the United States, as the album did not sell enough to have a certification. I will stop taking references and don't explain why --Felipeedit (talk) 2:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Tense for fiction

Hey there, fiction is written about in the present tense per WP:FICTENSE, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Tense explains the practice pretty well.— TAnthonyTalk 14:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Huh. OK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Just realised I came off like a pompous ass with my simple edit history comment of, "Go to this page and post your questions..." For what it's worth, I wrote that to be short and then came here to respond in detail but, saw that TAnthony already had so dropped it as done. In thinking about it now, I should have still said something 'cause I sounded like a dick the way I left it. Sorry about that, that really wasn't my intention.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No prob! And I want thank you guys for your answers – at least I know the guideline reasons for the present tense thing (even if I'm not sure I 100% agree with it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)wish it
        • For what it's worth, I'm not 100% with it (not even 50%, to be honest...) either. I mean, I understand the mentality behind it but, it does still seem odd. Anywho... It is what it is. Cheers. Cebr1979 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Greece national football team - WP:RfC

Hello, IJBall, first of all I'd like to thank you for your input. What should I do to start a WP:RfC, could you help me with the procedure? My ultimate goal is to involve as many people as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority will go for the obvious, for the self-evident. The fact alone that we're losing our time to discuss such an "issue" really sends me over the edge. Anyway, I'd really appreciate your help man. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gtrbolivar: I think I'd hold off on launching an RfC for now – I would see what happens at ANI first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll wait, although I seriously doubt that there's gonna be any serious development in ANI. Anyway, thanks IJBall, I'm looking forward to your suggestions. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: I read your comment about the drachma and I assure you that right now, a possible return to the drachma would send Greece back to the Bronze Age in a blink of an eye. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not for consensus. The logo of the shirt has not official sources. We don't use logos in the infoboxes, who are not published by the responsible national football federations. Poland national football team article has not the kit crest ([1]) in the infobox. That we follow in en:wiki. --IM-yb (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You absolutely don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. At this point, I would gently suggest that you quit while you are ahead, because if you persist down this path, a block for disruptive editing is very possible... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

confusing reference

The citation was to a Woman's Day magazine article on the disappearance of Siriyakorn 'Bung' Siriboon in 2011. It mentioned the Joanne Ratcliffe-Kirste Gordon disappearance in a postscript. Paul Austin (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for the info. I would suggest that this be made clearer in the citation itself (perhaps using a "quote") – it might also be better if it's converted to using the {{cite journal}} template for referencing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with my edits

How can I know an edit is "unnecessary" until someone tells me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JIK1975 (talk • contribs) 00:48, July 20, 2015‎ (UTC)

Haggen Food & Pharmacy

That was an odd case. On its face, it looked like a promotional account trying to replace the original neutral text of the article with promotional text. That is a common problem, and does need to be dealt with. However, in checking the history of the editor, it appears that they were also engaging in unrelated vandalism. That doesn't make sense. A promotional editor is usually just trying to do one thing, insert promotional material, knowing that vandalism will wind up with a block. It was an odd case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea what was going on here. I just know it wasn't good... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template

<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Comment from uninvolved {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#switch:{{{1}}} |admin |sysop = administrator |#default={{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if: {{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|editor}} }}</span>)</small><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

View the code in edit mode to see line breaks. --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

YoSoyUnHamster

ElEsUnTroll, I should think. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Oh, yes, very likely, I agree. But I figured I'd suss them out to see what comes of it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing my question

Hi, I'm ready to remove my question and vote. Do you mind if I remove your response along with it? Manul ~ talk 03:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: sure! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The 142 IP report is already closed so I can't comment on it...

...but thank you for moving it to the RFPP page. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No prob! Luckily, the DOOL cast article is one of the ones I pay particular attention when it pops up in the "articles to review" list, so if anything else weird happens there, I should probably see it. But, if I don't, you can always drop me a line if you need help with it... I think it'll probably be quieter there now over the next month. Let's hope! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Gracie Dzienny

Whether or not he agrees to unsalt, an admin with more time on his hands might even email you copies of the previous deletions. You only have to ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for the note. I'm in the process of trying to track down the previous AfD discussion on this... I will say, I think enough has changed since 2012 that she should at least easily clear WP:A7... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

IJBall/NOTQUITEYET

Did you mean to put it under User:IJBall/NOTQUITEYET? Sorry if I'm wrong.

03:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep! Totally stupid!! I'm attempting to get it {{db-move}}'ed to get it moved to the correct page location!... ARGH!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --NeilN talk to me 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
And moved User:IJBall/NOTQUITEYET --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Danke! Many thanks!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your draft

Hi IJBall! While going through your draft concerning Peyton Mayor I noticed something odd. In the first sentence it states that he is born from Las Vegas, Nevada. Shouldn't it be just "from Las Vegas"? Or you could just say that he is born in Las Vegas, Nevada.-- Chamith (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Good catch! I'll fix that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tianjin explosion

please do fix the dates if they are wrong, but don't revert my wording changes, which were solely to the text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:21, August 13, 2015‎ (UTC)

I really felt I had no choice on that, as you changed the reference date formats in the same edit that you made the copyedits, and there was no simple way to pick out the ref date fixes from the rest. Also, I wanted to get the point across that those dates shouldn't be changed. I'm actually still puzzled why you changed the dates (and changed a 'cite news' to a 'cite web') when you must know that doing either is just not correct. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" revert on Girl Meets World

What was the point of this? As far as I can see, the anon only made some stylistic changes to the wikicode. Reverting it is what was unnecessary. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It was unnecessary removal of spacing – I would reverted any editor for an edit like that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It was for consistency with the rest of the article. Reverting an edit like that is completely pointless and just clutters the history. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. I disagree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

If you want to complain over Landry Bender's article, then should you complain about the entire Wikipedia database as Many, Many, Many, Many, Many, Many articles feature "rowspan". You better get to work and remove them. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @ACase0000: I just want to let you know that the whole 'rowspan' issue use in WP:FILMOGRAPHY tables is a complex affair that has a prior history associated with it – basically, WP:FILMOGRAPHY firmly disallowed 'rowspan' use until just recently. And you are correct that some FILMOGRAPHY tables do use them (though none of them should use 'rowspan' outside of the 'Year' column, for reasons I'll explain below). But the broader issue here, and the original reason that 'rowspan' use wasn't allowed is that visually-impaired readers who use "text-to-speech" to read Wikipedia have a much tougher time reading these tables when 'rowspan' is used. So, the issue here that "it looks better" is not a good enough reason to effectively discriminate against some of our site's readership (i.e. "local consensus cannot overrule "site policy", of which WP:ACCESSIBILITY is one), and it would be better if the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline went back to not allowing the use of 'rowspan' at all on WP:ACCESSIBILITY grounds. Anyway, that's the full explanation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand completely. Sorry for any trouble. :( --ACase0000 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No trouble. It's just a bit of a frustration that the WP:ACCESSIBILITY portion of this 'rowspan' discussion hasn't been widely disseminated... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

What, in your estimation, caused you to close this, especially prior to a 24-hour lapse on the last comment? I furthermore don't appreciate the insinuation that I "ran to ANI" because of a controversial edit. I went to ANI because a combative editor displaying ownership tendencies on an article refactored my signature on a talk page and directly addressed me by the name of the article topic. It's technically impossible to do what was done without deliberate intent, and I really don't appreciate your belittling it in your closure. Controversial editing had nothing to do with it, and the editor freely admitted that he is so obsessed with this article that he's losing sleep over it! In short, if you're not going to read a thread, don't close it, and keep your moralizing to yourself when you do. You're not an admin, so don't cop an attitude like one. MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, people do make mistakes like what apparently happened to you here, so it is not true to imply that it never happens. Second, you made no attempt to contact the editor who made the mistake at their Talk page first – and ask if it was a mistake or deliberate – before coming to ANI. That is generally an approach that's frowned upon. This would not be the first time that someone misinterpreted what happened to them on a Talk page, and I'm not the only who thought the same when they looked at your ANI report. P.S. I did do some investigating before closing. But it was clear to me that an Admin was not going to act on it. And the editor you accused on this apologized. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, IJBall. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 06:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kill List (Scream)

What was your issue with the kill list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.50.225 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I clearly explained what my problem with the list was at Talk:Scream (TV series) – basically, this is Wikipedia, not a Wikia, and the inclusion of something like that is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Bottom line: You need to get consensus for the inclusion of that, so I'd work on trying to convince people at the Talk page. But I think it's going to be an uphill climb. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi. I'm just curious to know how you believe that this discussion represents a consensus for a significant change to a major policy. The discussion was neither registered as a RfC nor, as far as I can see, broadly publicised in any other venues. It looks as if the decision was based on only 8 (eight) participating supporters, did not run for a full 30 days, and appears to have been closed by yourself. Perhaps you could let me know before I consider what to do next. Thanks--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime I have reverted your statement at PERM and asked for a discrete second opinion to avoid any unnecessary drama. If it turns out that you are right and I am wrong then there's no harm done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You have to look at both the discussion at WP:VPP and the one at WT:Autopatrolled and the earlier 2011 discussion at VPP. In all three discussions there was literally no objection to lowering the threshold, and in all three discussions there was fairly clear consensus for a threshold in the range of 20–30 created articles for Autopatrolled rights. Further, I checked with several of the current Admins who are active at WP:PERM at they were in favor of the change as well. Again, there was literally no objection to this change over the course of a month. So I think there is clear consensus for this change, and I feel pretty confident that a second opinion will confirm that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. While it's true it didn't run 30 days at WP:VPP (and maybe that was an error on my part), it did run over 30 days from the initiation of the first discussion at WT:Autopatrolled. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Informal pre-discussions don't count - no more than they do on the major RfCs that I launch from time to time. Plus the fact that this was never properly logged or published. I am a major participating admin to PERM and even I knew nothing about it other than the casual talk page chats. Furthermore, admins don't decide among themselves on new policy - to do so would be to play straight into the hands of the anti-admin brigade who go around the site deliberately sabotaging all attempts for admin reform on the basis that admins already have too much power. I have no vested interest in the outcome of this Autopatrolled level, but there is little point in me pursuing my 10 year campaign to get things done correctly if everyone is going to make new policy in closed corners by little cabals. Let's wait now until I get a second opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that in the original 2011 discussion it was suggested that an RfC was "overkill", and I went off that. Nor did anyone in the recent discussions call for a formal RfC, or I would have initiated one. But in general, I don't think a formal RfC is needed for every decision – just a discussion needs to take place. Again, the salient point to me is that there was no objection offered in either recent discussion to the proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course there weren't any objections - nobody knew the discussion was taking place. Also, 2011, as we are constantly being reminded, was a long time ago, and situations and consensus can change - particularly in the current serious situation with Orangemoody. As I said, I have no personal interest in the outcome so I think perhaps to avoid this escalating, I suggest I launch a perfectly neutral proposal, perfectly formatted, logged, and publicised. It will run for a full 30 days and be closed properly according to our RfC closure format by a univolved editor. I'm happy to do that and I won't even comment or vote on it myself, if you are prepared to wait another 30 days for the verdict. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: At this point, if an RfC is launched on this, I feel rather strongly that the wording should be to "affirm" the previous decision to change the threshhold to 25 valid articles, as the change has already been already made at WP:Autopatrolled with unanimous consent (and should not be reverted at this point), and was the operating procedure at WP:PERM for at least a week. The other question I have is where should the RfC be hosted – WT:Autopatrolled or WP:VPP again? P.S. I find the characterization that "no one knew the discussions were happening" to be quite unfair, as they happened at the two places they should have – WT:Autopatrolled and WP:VPP, the latter I didn't even have to launch (no one in the earlier discussion even asked for that), but I did so voluntarily to be totally "aboveboard" about the whole thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer to have started this by having a list of people who have recently reached the 25 threshold, have a group of admins go through different subsets and see what proportion are indeed ready for this right after 25 articles. My reasoning is that I know from the list I've gone through that there are editors who aren't ready for this right after many many more articles, but of course I'm picking though a list of people that others have decided aren't ready, trying to find those who've been overlooked or are now ready but weren't before; and this has given me a very jaundiced view. If we make the change first the worst that can happen is that the rejection rate rises at Autopatrolled and the workload increases as admins assess far more candidates but don't find many more that are ready for this right. That could still be positive if it encourages some of those editors to raise their game and source articles better, but if it is negative then we could always go back to a higher threshold. I agree that an RFC is not always needed, provided people are prepared to revert, especially if their trial has unexpected or perverse results. PS to Kudpung, this is about accounts that have created over 25 articles, it would be good if we could use this to get admins to look at Orangemoody type accounts, but lowering the threshold to 25 would still leave it way above the Orangemoody ones. ϢereSpielChequers 06:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: As we discussed, the data that you wanted isn't available right now (I even contacted Svick to try and get a new set of data, but I think Svick ‎is long-term away from Wikipedia these days). So I went through what data I could myself (and reported the findings to you), and everything looked fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
My response at User_talk:WereSpielChequers#Data still stands. Establishing that there are lots of people who have done that number of articles, and that some of them have Autopatroller, doesn't tell us the proportion of the others who are ready for Autopatroller. That said if we can't get the data that would answer that question then the next option is to run a trial. But we need to be aware that it is possible that the lower threshold results in a sufficiently high proportion of people who aren't ready that we have to reverse this, both to save admin time and to spare editors the experience of rejection. ϢereSpielChequers 19:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification indicator change

As per your post at WP:VPT, here's a quick note on your talkpage so you can see "your messages" light up. Enjoy! Jared Preston (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! OK, I do like that messages no longer show up in "red" but in "blue". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sssh, don't say that too loud, otherwise the devs might change it back to red. Or even pink! Jared Preston (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Your work on Canada provincial election lists

Hi, IJBall. I noticed that you have begun work on improving the suite of Canadian provincial election lists, and that you recently nominated one at FLC. We currently have List of Alberta general elections as an FL, as you know, and I'm considering picking it to run on the today's featured list spot on the Main Page. However, it is an older list and most of the similar lists have been delisted. I've seen that you plan on making improvements to the British Columbia list at FLC in response to reviewer comments. Would you be willing to edit the Alberta list to make any changes that are needed to bring that article in line with modern FL expectations? If so, I'll put it on the Main Page sometime in the future. Please let me know if you are interested in taking this on if you find some spare time, and thank you for your effort to improve former FLs. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I would be willing to help on that (with the caveat that I'm back to teaching pretty full-time right now, so I don't always have time to do Wiki stuff on certain days of the week – I'm going to try to get back to B.C. this weekend...). But, yeah – I can probably help out if you need it. P.S. My longer-term plan is to try to whip all the Canadian provincial elections lists backin to shape. But I decided to start with B.C. (and then maybe Yukon), and move east from there – we'll see how it goes! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
By all means, work on the B.C. list first. I have a schedule in mind for TFL through the end of October anyway. If you don't think you can have the Alberta list in Main Page shape by early November, we can always run it at a later time after it gets polished up. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Billy Connolly

If the IP reverts again please let me know and I will block. --NeilN talk to me 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I don't know if you remember the details of this, but an IP with the exact same M.O. as the September one is back to disruptively edit Billy Connolly. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, latest IP blocked. --NeilN talk to me 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

TTC subway

I noticed you had an argument to change the name from TTC rapid transit to TTC subway, and happen to agree with you. It's both the official name [2] and the common name used by riders (so in line with Wikipedia:COMMONNAME). Calling it rapid transit seems strange and like original research. Do you think I should open this debate up once again? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Yeah, that was one of those discussions where the consensus was against my side, even though I feel the policy was on it... On bringing it up again, I think I'd wait – there were two or three move discussions on that over a relatively short timespan, and the result always ended with the current name winning. I don't think I'd bring up a move request again without more support on the COMMONNAME solution side of things... P.S. I intend to get back to the Feature list nomination soon – but I've been really snowed under with grading at work this past week, and I likely won't work my way all the way through it until early this week. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

question

you told me to see this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unconfirmed_exoplanets

how is this related? I don't get it. Huritisho 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Because the link was to an article that was deleted at WP:AfD. That's why I removed the link to it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Ooh ok. I thought that you had reverted me. Haha. Cheers, Huritisho 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No plans to comment (I consider myself "uninvolved" in this one), but thanks for letting me know, Liz. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth Blackmore has been accepted

Elizabeth Blackmore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Flat Out (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rowspan

This user is a rowspan vandal, you like to complain about how people adding rowspan are vandalizing a page. 96.49.72.50 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(Replied to on IP's Talk page.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of soap opera villains

Why did you delete my edits in "List of soap opera villains"? דניאל בראון (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@דניאל בראון: I would request that you click on the "Edit source" button at List of soap opera villains – could you please read to me what the first thing it says at the top of the "edit" page?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"Notice to editors. Please do add names to this list without a reliable source. Please do not remove any names that have a reliable source. Such edits will be treated as original research and reverted. Thank you." Do you mean to this? דניאל בראון (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
דניאל בראון, yes – you had added names to the list without sourcing for them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Which source should add? דניאל בראון (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@דניאל בראון: That I can't necessarily help you with. I'd start by looking at other names at the List of soap opera villains and see what kind of reference sources are there for those. And then see if you can find anything similar for the names you want to add. But if you want to add a name, it's going to need a reference to a reliable source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts about the SPI matter

Hi. Thanks for a little support in this, as opposed to mostly snarky comments by administrators (the report calling a "boomerang" and "chilling effect", seriously?). Perhaps I should be glad that it was closed with a reminder for the SPI team to be "civil" (although I recognize your concerns go beyond that), although I don't like how it has been characterized as "a waste of time" (to administrators on that board, anything that isn't meant to result in a block is a waste of time, and since you can virtually never realistically request a block on administrators, denouncing administrators is virtually always a waste of time). I also wonder how exactly I should "mind WP:POINT and WP:TFD#REASONS", given that I didn't nominate the template for deletion in the first place, and didn't even vote for deletion except with a caveat. And then, the discussion was promptly closed as soon as someone (you) sided against the SPI admins. It really does seem like people who express their concerns about "the higher-ups" behaving inappropriately are treated like outright nuisances. LjL (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

Did you get that email? You didn't acknowledge or thank me for it. If you received it, I hope it was of some help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I did receive your E-mail within a couple of hours. And I was able to use it to create my CSD log (note this edit summary!) last night. Thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad it helped. Thank you for the attribution ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Event" series

I apologize if this is not the right place but I was not sure if the talk page of your sandbox is better. I noticed your discussion on new X-Files talk and the link to your sandbox. You might find this article useful for another view, and maybe this as a (bad?) substitute for the TV Line explanation of the new Emmy rules which aren't available online. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: Thanks for those! I'll take a look at those soon, and try to work them in... On my end, I've been planning to work on this "miniseries" vs. "limited series" thing for months, and am just getting to it now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Drake Bell & Grandfathered

On Drake Bell's article, you re-added my removal of Grandfathered. While I initially added it there, I removed it because as far as I can tell, there is no confirmed 2016 date for Drake to appear. So we can either place TBA in the date section, or remove it unless a source is found. Unless assuming 2016 is an okay thing to do. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: "TBA" in place of "2016" is certainly acceptable, if you prefer – practically, it'll have to air in 2016, but if there's no source confirming that, "TBA" should do the trick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if Variety is a reliable source, we have it. It says the episode with Drake will air in Spring 2016. Oh, and by the way. No need to mention me anymore. I added your page to my watchlist. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Heh – you'll be disappointed: I don't get many people stopping by here!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Haha, okay. I added it just so I can prevent my email getting flooded with "IJBall mentioned you on Wikipedia". But back to the topic at hand, is that a reliable enough source, or should I find something else?
Variety?! – No, Variety is perfectly fine: I consider Variety and The Hollywood Reporter to be the "Gold Standard" for sourcing for U.S. TV- and film-related topics. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Now on to another topic I'd like to discuss with you - do you feel Drake's page is ready for a "separate page titled "Drake Bell filmography"? Or not quite? I feel like the page is getting excessively long. I ask you personally because I've had to do a majority of this page updating myself since this page doesn't get much attention from editors. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It is "long-ish", but I personally don't think it merits a separate article – separate "Filmography" or "Discography" articles seem to be reserved for artists with multiple "notable" works, and outside of Drake & Josh I really don't think Bell's done anything particularly "notable" enough to merit a separate Filmography article. About the only thing I can suggest is further "trimming" of the current entries (e.g. the Sam & Cat one looks too thin to keep in the listings, etc...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, he does have a discography article (Drake Bell discography). That's been there for a while. And he's more notable in acting than music (well, US-wise, considering his several Top 5 Mexican chart entries with albums and several high charting singles) It can also be used if an article is getting too long. Superhero Movie (over $70 million at the Box Office) and the Fairly Oddparents live-action films are quite notable as well. The Sam & Cat entry is still relevant - every acting credit is supposed to be shown. Unless it was so un-notable no one knows it existed, like some home film or something. Anything that is shown on TV, in theaters or got a DVD release is relevant. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Joseph, in fact, every acting credit doesn't need to be listed – it's generally agreed around here that that's the IMDb's role. On Wikipedia, you can find a number of actors have so-called "Selected filmography" sections in their Wikipedia article, which only lists their more prominent roles. But, that said, what you could do is start a discussion at Talk:Drake Bell and see if there's any support for a separate Filmography page (or maybe for trimming the current one back...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
True, but that is typically used when a filmography page exists. And even then, only film roles are placed there, and if we only list extremely notable ones, we'd only have the Drake & Josh films, Superhero Movie, and The Fairly Oddparents films. I guess we could add the big films like Jerry Maguire and High Fidelity that he didn't have major roles in, we'd only have ten films there at best. The majority of his acting credits are voice work, and none of them were notable, at least in the way of films, except for The Nutty Professor. Plus, I did raise a discussion - it went answered. It's been more than a week. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the lack of comment at Talk:Drake Bell probably needs to be taken as a lack of support for a "Filmography split". But keep an eye on it, comments on that may pop up weeks or even months later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It could be taken that way, but look at the talk page - it seems bare with replies to anything that's been on there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The alternative approach, then, is to boldly split off the Filmography into its own article, and see if anyone objects. No one objected at the Talk page, so that's in your favor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I will try that. Thank you for all your help! Sorry, just got off a 6 month block two weeks ago, still kind of rusty. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

hey

don't tell me what to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDE:7550:1082:17EE:2122:6CF2 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool – then don't vandalize Wikipedia, sport. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
And, already blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IJBall/Archive_4&oldid=1076239192"