User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47

September 2010

Image categorization?

Resolved: Declining involvement, due to lack of experience with the issue, and no firm opinion on it.

Hi SMcCandlish! I was wondering whether you might be willing to provide some guidance for me on a question of the categorization of images? I came across another editor who, in all good faith, makes it a practice to delete category information from image files when he encounters them on Wikipedia. We've politely exchanged some ideas and opinions about that, as you can see from the first thread for August 2010 at Category_talk:Slavery in the United States, but I'm not really familiar with categorization, and am somewhat out of my depth. On the face of it, I find it hard to understand how removing category information from images benefits the encyclopedia, since it means (?) that images are unlikely to be reused, but I admit the other editor has more experience by far in dealing with categorization than I do. Do you mind giving your opinion, here, on this? (Or on the thread, if you'd prefer?) I won't quote you on/in that thread unless you say it's alright. Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have not at all followed this issue. I have no idea what the current consensus is or might be leaning toward with regard to categorization of images. With images, I work almost exclusively with Commons (where things are certainly categorized). I don't usually categorize my few fair use uploads to Wikipedia itself. So, I think I'll have to sit this one out. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the talkback, and thanks anyway for considering. If the user deletes enough categories from images someone else will take up the problem before long, I'm sure. Since I don't know enough about the issue myself, I'll let others who do move forward with this if that seems necessary. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Invitation

Resolved: Just projectspam.

Talk:Pit Bull

Resolved: Commented at article talk.

Hate to bother you, but it looks as if we may get an opportunity to break the stalemate on breed name capitalization. Seems there's a bit of discussion at the aforementioned page, and your input would probably be helpful. Hopefully it can get somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did comment there, but unfortunately the rename request there isn't because dog breeds shouldn't be capitalized, it's because pit bulls are not actually a breed but a group of breeds, so this doesn't advance the issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Darts project conversion to taskforce/workgroup

Resolved: Ain't broke, don't fix, right?

I saw what you said on the proposal for the wikiproject darts and you suggested making it a task on WikiProject Sports, well I completely agree and was wondering if you would show me how to do this please. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly complicated, and I haven't been through the entire process myself yet. One of the complications is modifying the project tag for article talk pages so that it has taskforce/workgroup features. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So are you going to try to do it yourself, it would be great if you would. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I really haven't had the time. As long as no one's complaining or taking it to WP:MFD or slapping merge tags on it, it's probably okay as a project instead of a taskforce. If it gets hit with an "inactive project" tag, then maybe we should revisit the merge idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's alright, it's doing really well as a project anyway. Thanks for the reply though. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject merge

Resolved: Others have already taken care of this and various related merges.

I closed your proposal as a merge, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Rename or merge. I've not done the merge as I would imagine that merging a WikiProject is pretty complex and someone familiar with the projects should probably take the lead on doing it. Fences&Windows 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do it. Thanks for the update. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 02:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know where to go with this, because I'm not part of either project. I am interested in photography though. Anyway, this supposed project on Valued picture candidates appears on the verge of collapse due to the same reasons causing your problems at Photography. They call themselves a "project" though it appears unofficial. I suggested that a lack of visibility might be part of their problem. Thoughts? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose I could get an answer here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude, can I get a response?

Well can I? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I didn't notice your msgs. of 31 Aug & 7 Sep (hadn't archived this page in ages and it was full of thread after thread). Anyway: The Valued pics thing is a redlink, so that's moot. I have been hard-pressed for time, so I haven't gotten around to the merge yet. The sky won't fall down or anything. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What's a redlink? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
A wikilink that's red instead of blue; i.e., a page that does not exist (in this case because it's been deleted, apparently, probably after WP:MFD process). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 12:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Walter Lindrum

Resolved: Just a chat.

Hi Stanton,

I've just made some improvements to the Walter Lindrum article. I notice that you have previously made substantial contributions there, and have commented on the talkpage on the likelihood of raising this to Good Article status. Just wondering how you think it stands at the moment with the latest contributions?

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Major improvement! I think the sticking point is going to be page numbers in the citations. I've been trying to get that book that sources most of this article, but I can't find it except for ridiculously high prices (and ridiculously high-priced shipping from .au to .us). Can't hurt to run it through WP:GAN; we'll get good comments on how to improve the article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, had a bit of a look on the net for that book, and agree the prices are ridiculous. It looks like it is available in a number of libraries though, but finding the page numbers would be arduous you would think. I will also keep an eye out in secondhand bookshops - if I see a reasonably priced copy I could grab it and send it across to you if you want it. May also go and get a better photo of the headstone and perhaps one of the Hotel Lindrum next time I'm out and about in Melbourne. I'm not all that fussed about the good article stuff, just wondering cos you'd mentioned it, but if you thinking it's worth running thru a nom for some feedback then fine by me. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
And who knows, it might even pass this time! PS: Yeah, I'd love a copy of that book. Given some time, I could budget maybe US$50 for it (not sure what that is in AU$), especially around the beginning of a month. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 05:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Give it a couple of weeks and I might give the article another once over, if possible get those photos, then we could go ahead. I don't really know the GA process, but having a look on the page there seems to be quite a wait anyway. US$50 would be about AU$55 atm, typically over the last few years probably nearer to AU$60. You must be very keen on your cue sports. Actually doesn't look like it's a particularly common book, so could be hard to come across. Just to be clear, it's the Ricketts one you're interested in, yes? --jjron (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, the Ricketts book. I've found a copy for US$30, but the .au -> .us shipping may double the cost (waiting to hear back from seller). If that's the case, I can pick it up from either of two US sellers for under US$60, so I'd probably go that way instead of the trans-Pacific route. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Stale: Been too busy to honor this request, and the GA process has surely moved ahead by now, one way or the other.

Hey SMcCandlish, I have had really good copy editing experience with you before, and I was wondering if you would be interested in doing another editors article before/while it gets up to GA/A class reviews? It's John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; as the header box at top of page says, I've been busy. I imagine that your GA process is well underway by now, if not concluded already. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Just a chat.

Hi, we made alot of progress at WP:DARTS from when you left. You should check it out. Here's what we got done.

  1. Added assessment to the banner (and documentation) and made an assessment page.
  2. EWikist kindly made a barnstar and advert. Check them out. Barnstar. WikiProject Darts Banner.gif.
  3. Added a whole load of new stuff to the project page.
  4. Made doc for most of the darts templates.
  5. Made a navigation bar for the project

And a whole lot more. What do you think? Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 12:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Sorry I didn't get more done myself, but I ran out of time for WP stuff for a while. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That's OK, are you back editing reguraly now? Oh, and sign my guestbook. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Not really, yet. My laptop is utterly buried (virtually speaking) in mass quantities of unprocessed downloads, and it'll take me some time to wade through it all. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 06:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Moved to WT:CUEGLOSS.

I think we can solve this by converting the first parameter into a switch-parameter and define what the template should do by each parameter. Just like {{WWEPPV}} looks different as {{WWEPPV|Royal Rumble}} (at Royal Rumble) and as {{WWEPPV|WrestleMania}} (at WrestleMania). And this way we can split the article several times if needed. What do you think? Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying at the glossary's talk page; others may want input on this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why were there huge spikes in my talk page's number of visitors?

Unresolved: It's still a mystery, as of August 2011.
Obscured jaguar.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

This is really weird.

For August 2009, my talk page showed up in the Falsikon page stats tool as the 136th most popular page on English Wikipedia, with 14,836 visitors and 39,827 pagevuews], ahead of Brad Pitt, Rhianna, Johnny Depp, New York City, the Philippines, Shakira, etc., etc. This just can't be right. I mean, sure I'm pretty cool I like to think, and I'm even famous among the "digerati" (I was arguably the world's first professional online activist, and anyone following the Internet censorship and privacy issues of the 1990s to early 2000s knows my name from my work at EFF). But really, people not involved in those socio-political issues would not know me from Adam (my book is long out-of-print too, and never was a big seller).

My current guess is that some runaway bot or other tool must've done this. In August of 2009, the page views were even more excessive at 39,827, compared to a much more normal 314 a month earlier, 206 in September 2009, and 195 as of last month (August 2010). My user (non-talk) page didn't see changes of this sort, and has remained in the 100–300 range throughout 2009 and 2010, which strongly suggests automated behavior (if nearly 40K actual humans were reading my talk page in one month, readership of my user page would also have significantly increased, since humans are curious and scripts are not). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The original threads that alerted me to this weirdness:


Why your talk page got so many hits in 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Hell if I know! Weird. Someone below comments that it still seems to be happening. Any theories? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


I can see you are a major contributor to WP, but why are you the 136th most accessed page here in august? Just curious, but I will watch you to see what i can learn here, im not just a grazer, im trying to improve my editing skills.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where'd you see those statistics? I can't imagine that my user and/or talk pages could be that interesting to anyone. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The stats page is here, and another place where you register is for your user page here and your talk page here. fascinating, what? I have absolutely no idea how this is possible, i dont know how these pages function, im not a programmer, so good luck. id love to learn anything you learn about this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, i just noticed, these are for august 2009. my error, but still just as strange. were you appointed supreme ruler of WP in august of last year? PS i found all this starting at [1]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, quite the opposite, really. I think I'm fairly well-respected as an editor, but I've been rejected for adminship twice. (I've apparently grated on number of people's nerves, because I get frustrated and testy, and allegedly my civility decreases when this happens). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I was curious and have seen how many users watch you userpage. And currently 99 user watchlist this page. Face-smile.svg Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Stale: I've been spread too thinly to get involved in this.

Hi SmCandlish, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it (and I have almost 20 years of professional experience in public policy, but maybe that's why you picked me). However, I fear that I may be involved in too many WikiProjects already and spread too thinly to be an active participant. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Taken up at WT:MOSLINK.

Hi there, MOSLINK has been the site of warring and bad blood, and we have arrived at a delicatedly balanced result. Can you first propose any changes you think would improve it? (There were a few improvements in the language, but I've reverted them for the moment while we take a look at the whole picture.) Tony (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, and for the first time in a long time, I have to strongly disagree with you. That section is not a "delicate balance" of any kind, it's a blatant contravention of WP:POLICY, by being prescriptive of practices that do not represent consensus and proscriptive of practices that do. It's also grossly over-reaching and redundant, trying to "take over" specification of various factors long, and better, covered at MOSNUM. AND it does things that trigger WP:BIAS, AND it gave examples/advice that directly contradicted WP:SELFREF, AND... I'll go into detail over there.
WP:BRD exists for a reason. If people want to engage in the R of that against me, they'd better also engage in the D.  :-)
For the first time in years, I'm invoking WP:IAR, and am going to ignore at least the problematic parts of that section of that guideline and link as I and most non-noob editors always have, because the guideline's current frakked-up wording gets in the way of producing a better encyclopedia, the exact circumstance IAR policy was created for.
SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Resolved: Marked myself "unavailable" for the time being at the project.

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Unfinished discussion at WikiProject Darts

Resolved: Replied at the page in question.

Hi, I invite you to finish the dispute for the importance ratings on darts articles.

Click here to see discussion.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Darts at 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Not sure I can "finish" it, esp. since I've not been a part of it at all, but I have chimed in. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts's talk page. --Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 11:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mr.Kennedy1/Sandbox/Phil Taylor new lead

Resolved: Development efforts merged; I gave my input; whole project working on it now.

Hi, i'm trying to create a new lead for the Phil Taylor article because the current lead is just plain terrible. It would be great if you could help out. I created it in my sandbox as it needs alot of work. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 11:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe you misunderstood what I said. I thinking of developing it in my sandbox first. Thanks helping with the article itself though. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your request for GAN-related article improvement, at the article's talk page. I don't think it's going to be very helpful at all to simultaneously ask all interested users to work on the article and then privately work on a replacement article. That's simply going to lead to a mess. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Darts

Resolved: Kennedy1 figured it out for himself. No action needed on my part.

Hi, how do get the template class articles etc. for WP:CUE as I want to do the same with WP:DARTS. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the template code. I can see about porting all of those features over to the darts banner. I also want to start consolidating the sports banners' documentation, so each sport/game-related project stops having banners with and without various features that don't match what the others are doing, and having inconsistent documentation. It's confusing and unhelpful. I've already extracted the importance-related code into a transclusion with some project name variables. I think this can also be done with the intro material in the /doc file and the class-related section. PS: I also changed the importance-related wording, since that parameter isn't about relevance/relatedness to the project and its topic, but about priority to the project and to WP as a whole. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 07:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, Thanks for improving the doc for the banner, you are a true wikipedian. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

Resolved: Provided feedback as requested; leaving integration of it, in whole or part, to Price, et al.

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price talk 10:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll have a look at it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've commented on its talk page, with specific wording changes recommended (and a redundancy issue identified without specific wording to resolve it yet), but haven't changed the wording since it's in your userspace. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated, feel free to update it. --Michael C. Price talk 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)