User talk:Yellowdesk/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for taking up my slack[edit]

ah... yes, I see that when I fixed the business of the "manner of dress" I completely forgot to fix it! Eitch 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your hard work on Ted Sannella! Ben Tibbetts 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shire town[edit]

Yellowdesk wrote: "No state in the U.S. presently refers to its center of county government as a shire town. All of your changes have been removed."
- - - - - -

I do not know about 49 states, but Massachusetts certainly does. Please see, e.g., the following statutes:
M.G.L.A. c. 211 § 18
M.G.L.A. c. 212 § 14
M.G.L.A. c. 36 § 1
M.G.L.A. c. 213 § 7
M.G.L.A. c. 57 § 4
M.G.L.A. c. 261 § 24
. . . and others. I could find no statutuory reference to the term "county seat." JPSheridan 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My intended but forgotten operative words are residents of any state in the US. Yes, that it's true that that's the legal terminology, and I would guess the laws of nearly all of that states east of the Missisppi, and many west would have that terminology, since most of the states copied the structure of eastern codes when setting up their style of government. In common terminology, I have met no one except historians and lawyers that know of the term shire town. I believe you'll find no U.S. gazetteer or atlas printed in the last 15 years that uses that term for US county administrative centers. I would not desire to defend the "shire town" on Wikipedia from other editors. You'll notice that at least two other people changed "shire town" back to "county seat" in Massachusetts counties. I'm not sure if I changed more than one or two, based on my own edit summaries. I think If you were to hope for your view and edits to survive, I would recommend "county seat (shire town)" as the term, and expand on the article about counties, tracing the evolution and use of shire town as the legal title of a locus of the county court sessions for many states in the U.S. Yellowdesk 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The correct term in Massachusetts is "shire town", not county seat. The term county seat does not appear anywhere in the Masachusetts General Laws, whereas "shire town" does. JPSheridan / 141.154.239.82


As I indicated above, you'll find that "shire town" is the statutory term in many states, but it is not the customary term by nearly anyone in conversation or writing, nor in currently published general materials referring to the administrative centers of county governments, such as maps, gazeteers, newspapers and the like. Yellowdesk 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category link syntax[edit]

hope this doesn't sound critical - I just recently learned the thing about categories, and am excited to share. instead of writing out the whole url as a hyperlink you can stick a colon in front of the wp link - "[[:category:categoryname]]" (also, "[[Blabla bla]]" will look like "Blabla bla" and will link to Blabla_bla) - Eitch 16:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hide/Show[edit]

I'm not much of an expert on such things, I just copied the format from another article. Can you see both at 109th United States Congress? If the section is high enough on the article to conflict with the TOC, that could be causing the problem. Sorry I can't help much. NoSeptember 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Romney Governorship POV tag[edit]

Hi Yellowdesk! I received your comment on my talk page. I, myself, am not disputing the neutrality. I was acting in a more administrative role. I should have commented better, but I was actually just adding the tag based upon on your recommendation - Talk:Mitt Romney#POV Tag. These were comments made by User:ZimZalaBim quoted by User:Wizardry Dragon. All I was trying to do was move the tag from the Mitt Romney article to the Governorship of Mitt Romney. I apologize if I did this in error. Chupper 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points (state legislatures)[edit]

Hello. First, I'd like your opinion on one idea of mine. That is, I personally find the long list of legislators at the bottom of Massachusetts House of Representatives and Massachusetts Senate to be both distracting and short-sighted - after all, the list is changed after every election and the previous members get lost (given that most will never have articles of their own). (I also think we should only link those with articles because, if you think about it, do we implicitly want to commit ourselves to creating articles on every person who has sat in the Legislature since the 1630s?) I've been looking for models we could follow to address this problem, and I rather like the Georgia example. There's an article on each chamber of the Georgia Legislature, and then we find 148th General Assembly of the State of Georgia, 147th General Assembly of the State of Georgia, etc (well, not that much else - there are just three such articles at present). These articles list both the members and what happened during each session. Anyway, do you think that would be a good example to follow? The current General Court is the 185th, by the way, in case you start making articles right away.

Second, we definitely should have a list of Speakers of the House. I could try and dig out some older ones, but so far I haven't managed to find a complete list (apparently DiMasi is 84th, though I don't know if that's counting from the 1780s or the 1630s). Do you have anything more, by any chance? Here's what I've come up with so far:

Biruitorul 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes a list of senate presidents (and speakers if there is none now) for Massachusetts is desirable.
I think ultimately, in parallel to the various ordinal U.S. Congress pages, it is worthwhile to have similar ordinal state legislature pages. A corollary to your argument about lists, is that the list of legislators on 110th_United_States_Congress should be dropped because it is distracting there, which I think you'd probably agree is not desirable. Consider the state legislature pages transitional to future improvement. Because of article histories, the recent listings for the Massachusetts General Court won't be lost, if the history does not end up in a strange place because of page name changes and splits, so it is recoverable. I am agnostic about whether there should be RED names for all of the legislators without biographies, or simply black-type listings, and I don't think a RED listing needs to imply that an article will ever be written, but rather an invitation to the interested editor to write one. I think it is worth having the detailed listing, and it's a challenging set of information to track down, and hence worth making accessible--over time--in wikipedia. Remember that nearly every famous politician was once a humble town officer, or state legislator, and it is usefull to understand who his/her peers were in legislative chambers. -- Yellowdesk 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check over Massachusetts_Senate_Delegations -- Yellowdesk 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an incomplete President of the Massachusetts Senate list; I'll try to get the Speaker one going at some point.
Let me clarify my point - I think the lists of legislators should go on each ordinal General Court page, but not on the main pages about the House and the Senate. In other words, for the US Congress, you don't find lists of members at United States Senate and House, but rather at 110th Unites States Congress, 109th, etc. Similarly, for MA, the lists should be on 185th General Court, 184th, etc. I know the pre-2007 (and maybe pre-2005) legislators are in the histories - hopefully they'll be moved out of there and into proper articles. I suppose I'm not vigorously opposed to the red links, except for this reason: black writing looks better. And when we're writing the list of legislators from, say, 1832, it will probably look better to have them all in black and add links if an article emerges, which I'd wager is unlikely for the bulk of them - I think the House, at least, was a citizen legislature at the time, so potential articles might, at best, read like this: "John Smith, a Whig, was a farmer from Watertown who served one term (1832) in the Massachusetts House." Anyway, that's not an immediate worry, because data like that is hard to find.
Interesting Senate delegations page. Of course, the House will be more challenging - 160 members, and 240 until 1978. It is nice to see how seats changed over time, but I do anticipate that eventually, we'll be duplicating that content on the pages of individual sessions of the Legislature. Biruitorul 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Yes, "Ordinal General Court" pages are desirable. And have "Current General Court" redirect to the presently-in-office-Ordinal General Court page. I would be inclined not to split off the list of legislators, for the near term, until several Ordinal General Court pages/lists exist--how about 10 years of lists? In general, I think it's a good Idea. Let me check the Georgia example again, and possibly give more comments. -- Yellowdesk 13:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:{{Infobox Mayor}}[edit]

After taking a look at the template, it seems to have relatively low usage (only 54 transclusions), and therefore it may be better to deprecate its use. It would require changing the individual pages to use an alternative (mostly likely {{Infobox Officeholder}} because Infobox Mayor uses non-standard parameters (e.g. date1= instead of term_start=). Any thoughts about phasing out its usage and then making it a redirect to Template:Infobox Officeholder? --MZMcBride 03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding, I have no objection to the idea of moving toward {{Infobox Officeholder}}, but you may consider me a neophyte on templates, and the issues that go with them--and edited my first page with a mayor on it yesterday--which led to my inquiry. I don't at this moment have the time to carry forward a small project like that, but I would be an interested observer. Perhaps a query on that template's talk page, or a couple of sample pages that use the box might generate more knowledgeable response. -- Yellowdesk 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family[edit]

I have limited energies to devote to Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family, but it would be nice to figure out how to make it more accessible. For example, I cannot figure out if all of Roger Shermans children are even shown on that page. This, over at Roosevelt_family has some appeal. or Template_talk:Blackfamilytree#Dimensions Even simply numbering the generations, perhaps in addition to 

   * the non-character box would be an improvement.

What's your interest lately in the topic? -- Yellowdesk 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to do what ever is necessary, but I am not real familiar with how the Wiki formatting works. Additionally, I am a descendant of the Simeon Baldwin side of this family. aaron@aaronbaldwin.us AaronB0413 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Massachusetts[edit]

Yellowdesk, I've made a first attempt at narrowing the focus of the Massachusetts article. I've also noticed there are now two articles of famous people from Massachusetts. One is the List I've created moving all the names off the Massachusetts article, the other is a previously named article . They should probably be merged. You can find them at the see also area for [[Category:People from Massachusetts]]. Let me know what you think of my consolidation.Pmeleski 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start.

-- Yellowdesk 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fed supervised areas[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for making changes to my edits for Massachusetts. Feel free to change any way you think would make for a better article. Sorry about not describing my edits better. I'll try to be more conscious of doing that. I'm going to try to make some effort in cleaning it up a bit, and adding some here and there using Minnesota and Boston, Massachusetts as a guide. Hope you don't mind. Pmeleski 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Let me know what you think about the redo of the Massachusetts history section. I hope it works for you! Pmeleski 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney's early life and education[edit]

Why the need to remove Mitt's struggle with poverty? Ann spoke about it during a 1994 interview with the Boston Globe. I feel it is an integral part of Mitt's upbringing, and that the American people should know that Mitt has struggled to make ends meet just like the rest of us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MB24 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For your edit, for which the source is an opinion piece. (Reilly, Adam. Romney’s greatest gaffes — so far: He may be the GOP’s new golden boy, but the country doesn’t know Mitt like we do Boston Pheonix. April 21, 2006). It's humorous, though incorrect and disingenuous, to claim Romney had a "brush with poverty," since he held investments that could be sold and was a member of a family of a former president of an auto company. You can state the facts without the point of view attached. Even better, find the original interview to summarize-- Yellowdesk 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groton Long Point[edit]

You may be interested in the discussion about the legal status of Groton Long Point at Talk:Groton Long Point, Connecticut. Any additional information you may have would be very helpful. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Barnstar[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless editing & addition of content to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 as well as Governorship of Mitt Romney articles. Thanks for your hard work! Chupper 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving clean up[edit]

Sorry for that; it was the first time I'd worked off that page. I'll be more careful. - Denny 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent sentence[edit]

About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation itself (on Registerfly is incoherent, and lacks a subject to relate to the verb "completely. If maintained it needs a [sic], ; even better is a quotation that makes sense in English, or paraphrasing in a non-quotation context. -- Yellowdesk 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief footnotes on current events articles[edit]

I see what you mean but honestly, I don't see it as a terrible disaster. For the most part, the cites are repeated within the same paragraph or so. Also, if the first one is in fact deleted, one can always compare the last good version with the current one to see the deleted items. It shows up fairly clearly because you an "a b" without any text with it in the reference section. However, I will follow your advice and add in the full information at every place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Sannella Barnstar[edit]

You're welcome. Seeing that article reach that degree of completion was very nice for me and my mother; Ted Sannella was my grandfather. Ben Tibbetts 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of US Attorneys Controversy[edit]

I see that you changed the Template to "resigned because of the contoversy". I see pros and cons to this. On the one hand, this makes sense, because it's irrelevant when someone resigns for wholly unrelated reasons (especially as time passes, and someone may resign months, or years, after the fact). But, on the other hand, many resignations may be related, but there's no clear evidence that it is so. For example (on a different subject), Kevin A. Ring (former staffer to John Doolittle, and underling to Jack Abramoff resigned his job the same day that Doolittle's house was raided by the FBI. Was it related? No one can say, because Ring wasn't talking. In this vein, I don't think one can say that Michael A. Battle resigned over the controversy. Not that he didn't, but, other than timing, there isn't much circumstantial evidence for claiming so. (Is this making any sense?)

When I first started that section of the template, I wanted to keep track of who was resigning right away. This makes sense close to the event. But, as time passes, you may be right, that we need to add the qualifier "because of the controversy". So, I think, on the whole, I agree with your re-wording. But, along with your re-wording, I'm not convinced Battle belongs there anymore. -- Sholom 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.
I noticed this when updating Miers, who resigned, but "apparently" did not resign because of this controversy.
I invite you to improve, revert or fix to some better listing. -- Yellowdesk 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to "during the controversy." Feel free to revise. -- Yellowdesk 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdesk, I continue to be amazed by your tremendous work on the subject. As for me, I've been feeling overwhelmed by events -- so much changes every single day. E.g., two days ago we learned that perhaps 26 USA's were on "the list." Just this morning, McClatchy writes: "... the top prosecutors in Macon, Ga., and Roanoke, Va., landed on a proposed firing list weeks after the White House and Justice Department traded notes about the potential for voter-fraud cases in central Georgia and Appalachia. They were added to a list just days before last November's midterm election, but ultimately not fired."[1]. In any event, again, kudos to your efforts. -- Sholom 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Events Barnstar
Hereby awarded to Yellowdesk for his outstanding work on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, which includes, but not limited to, adding a huge amount of well written, sourced, relevant, informative material, as well as a tremendous effort towards reorginizing it all, breaking off sub-articles, (e.g., Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents), all while the current event is changing daily. Well done! Sholom 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gwb43.com[edit]

Thanks for writing me. I'm going away for the weekend, so I can't help right now, but you might want to try http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=gwb43&SearchCutoff=90 as a start (and, in turn TPM has links to other places). Good luck! -- Sholom 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed AIV report[edit]

Thank you for your recent report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it was malformed. Please follow the instructions in the edit window comment block. —dgiestc 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

Thanks a lot for your kind words. However, what are the edit boxes?

UnitedStatesIndia

Your recent edit to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job[edit]

You did a great job on the draft request for peer review. I thought it looked great so feel free to submit it and I will monitor what happens. Remember 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the message - i always such at random stuff like that, apologies. some nice little person fixed it for me :) arent i lucky. Thanks so much for the msg :) best wishes. Twenty Years 15:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock removal on shared IP address please 5/17/07[edit]

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 66.230.200.144 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Veinor (talk to me) 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another autoblock, 5/17/07. Shared IP address[edit]

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 66.230.200.146 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Veinor (talk to me) 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Election section for Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

I'd be happy to contribute to this. I'll wait for Bdushaw to get things rolling though, since he seems to have been reseaching it already. Sorry again about charging into the page and making changes & criticisms without taking more time to look through previous discussions - you really have done awesome work on this challenging topic. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject[edit]

Yellowdesk, I proposed this wikiproject awhile ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Political Scandals and Controversies) and I thought you might be interested in it. Remember 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdamJWC[edit]

Sorry, I just saw that an IP address removed almost an entire page of work and assumed that the rest of that persons edits were vandalism as well. I will have a look at what I have done. AdamJWC 04:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though several edits were made since I reverted that page, so I will leave it alone. Thanks. AdamJWC 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by thankless task, what I saw looked like page blanking. AdamJWC 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you see an edit summary like this (Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy‎; 13:43 . . (-6,703) . . 24.41.62.243 ) from an unregistered user, you would automatically assume that it was vandalism. AdamJWC 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAs[edit]

I am signing off for the day to let things settle down after my violent maneuver (I am all done and we are edited on top of each other at the moment!) - I hope the change is an improvement; the change seemed to me to give a more logical organization. We can put it back as before if you like. I was stunned by the implications of the Taylor appointment...the thought of civil war ran through my mind. At this rate people will be abandoning Washington, D.C. much like they are abandoning Bagdad... Bdushaw

Regarding the coverage of the elections angle in the US attorneys controversy pages, I think it might be a good idea to wait a week or so before making any huge revisons. Todd Graves and Bradley Schlozman are scheduled to testify in front of the Senate judiciary committee on June 5th, which should focus the major media on that exact issue. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Seperate Twins[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Seperate Twins, by Mschel, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Seperate Twins is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Seperate Twins, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Seperate Twins itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Categories on user pages[edit]

You wrote...

You may desire to surround the category over on User:Kgrr/Sandbox/Election_Fraud_Controversy with the <nowiki> </nowiki> tags so as to not have your work in progress appear in the public listing of articles. (I think it's probably a policy to keep categories out of user space.) Another method is to do this: [[:Category:Category name]] which gives you the link without putting the page onto the list of all pages having the category. Naturally when a page like that goes live, you need to check your categories to put them in proper public format. -- Cheers. -- Yellowdesk 15:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the category inbetween noinclude brackets. I suppose that did not do the trick. I will use nowiki next time. Thanks.Kgrr 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark F. "Thor" Hearne page disappeared[edit]

   * (cur) (last)  09:34, 14 June 2007 Tizio (Talk | contribs) m (80 bytes) (cat)
   * (cur) (last) 03:25, 14 June 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Mark F. "Thor" Hearne: OTRS Ticket#: 2007061310013198 [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
   * (cur) (last) 03:25, 14 June 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) m (47 bytes) (Reverted edits by 146.115.58.152 (talk) to last version by Zscout370)
   * (cur) (last) 03:20, 14 June 2007 146.115.58.152 (Talk) (16,259 bytes) (→Background - temporal)
   * (cur) (last) 03:13, 14 June 2007 146.115.58.152 (Talk) (16,254 bytes) (rv)
   * (cur) (last) 01:26, 14 June 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) (47 bytes) (removing content except redirect)
   * (cur) (last) 01:10, 14 June 2007 69.76.31.164 (Talk) (392 bytes) (←Redirected page to American Center for Voting Rights)
   * (cur) (last) 22:32, 13 June 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) (47 bytes) (#REDIRECT American Center for Voting Rights, as per OTRS Ticket#: 2007061310013198)

Kgrr 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)kgrr[reply]

At www.Slate.com [2]there was a recent discussion of the editing of Wikipedia to remove reference to this organization, "American Center for Voting Rights," in the article about the lawyer Mark "Thor" Hearne, who worked for various Republican candidates, including the Bush-Cheney campaign. See "Implausible Deniability. The Internet foils fudging by three "voter fraud" warriors." by Richard L. Hasen Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 5:31 PM ET article. According to [3], persons from his law firm have been editing Wikipedia to remove information about American Center for Voting Rights from his web page. Then it was restored [4] then it was removed again [5] by someone at an IP address that was said to be from his law firm per [6]. The preceding information is non-libellous , fully sourced, and in full accord with WP:BLP. Edison 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Potential candidates"[edit]

You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:

Proposed deletion of "potential" categories from template.

Cheers, Italiavivi 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Hereby awarded to Yellowdesk for removing all those superfluous "current" tags. Thanks for your hard work! Sideshow Bob Roberts 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contra dance[edit]

Your edits are certainly "good faith" however, while it is bad form to wikilink bold article titles in the lead paragraph, you will find that most of the navblocks follow the format of a link at the top to the main subject, and inside the block a list of relevant articles, so in the case of {{contra dance}}, the top link would be to contra dance and then inside the block the list of types of dances, such as becket, traditional etc. or in your case choreography and form. Actually with such a short list in the navblock I fail to see your reason for even wanting one. I took it off of the main article because for some reason it won't behave and it covers up the table of contents. I have half a mind to recommend the whole template to Templates for Deletion, because what is the point of a template with only two items in the list? 199.125.109.33 06:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you'll find the Table of contents issue with the {{contra dance}} navigation template to be a browser issue, and I'm curious to know what browser you use to know how widespread the difficulty is. The template can be moved away from the TOC. Otherwise, the rationale for the template is that it is non-obvious that there are related articles. An effective example that specifies all of the related articles, and none in the header: {{Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy small}} and {{Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy}}. I don't feel strongly about the header link issue on the contra dance template. -- Yellowdesk 13:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on which computer I am using as to which browser I use. The main ones I use are Netscape, Opera, Firefox, IE, and Safari, in that order. 199.125.109.119 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use Safari nearly exclusively, and the issue you remark about, templates interfering with Table of Contents, does not happen with that browser. -- Yellowdesk 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a good example, because it is a template you contributed to, and judging from the colors of the contra dance template also copied. I really see no need for the navblock at all. These are not related articles, they are sub-pages, and clearly identified at the top of their relevent sections. Submitted to wp:TFD. 199.125.109.119 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdesk, I think you can get the benefits of both options now by restoring the template in place of the new local nav tables on the sub-articles. You will still have the table's code saved in the page histories, if you need it again. More importantly, the template carries with it the announcement of the TFD process to encourage participation of interested parties (although I'm not expecting a rush of action). The only downside is the extra work, but at least it's only copy & paste. --rich<Rich Janis 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

'current' on Weekly World News[edit]

The Weekly World News article was marked as 'current' because, over the last week, they have been changing their story - one day it's all closing, then it's half closing, then maybe being sold, then half closing again. The result of this is we've had editors adding new, cited information, sometimes that has been supplanted even though the article is only a day old, and we've had editors who have made changes but not fully checked it to see that the entire page is consistant. I was of the impression that this (warning people the information might change shortly, and making sure editors were aware of the issues when changing the page) was exactly what the {{current}} tag was for. It's not a high traffic page, but the closing of the paper is indeed a current event that is changing the information available to us. I will not be readding the tag, since nothing happened over the weekend, but if we do have more edit conflicts again this week as they change their story three times, use of the tag is exactly what the tag was supposed to do. --Thespian 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. If there's activity that merits the templete, the template should be used.
(On a remarkable number of articles, the tag has been used in a most haphazard manner.)
-- Yellowdesk 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{current}}[edit]

Perhaps the guideline could be moved to the template page, rather than existing only on the talk page? At the very least, the section you reference should be properly labeled a guideline rather than a policy. 24.6.65.83 04:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a reasonable suggestion.
There are several conflicting sets of advice on the use of the {{current}} template in several different places, most publically in Category:Current_events and the Current Events Portal. It is most interesting that the news items at {{In_the_news}} has articles nominated and promoted that had never received the {{current}} tag. Further, as additional templates get created with current in their name, the use has proliferated in un-managed ways. I hope to formulate several proposals toward clarifying the use of the tags, which I have no idea if they will be accepted, starting with your suggestion as the least controversial.
I suspect a likely and logical consequence of my views, and on the difficulty of maintaining both the template and the category, would be generating a consensus on a policy that "wikipedia is not a newspaper," something not likey to be agreed upon soon, nor without a lot of debate.
-- Yellowdesk 04:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got all my support Yellowdesk. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{current only}}[edit]

A few points in no specific order:

  • The purpose of the distinction is that articles which are about current events in general need to belong to a different category than articles which are about an event that happens to be current.
  • There is already a WP:NOT policy covering news. Having said that I am not a great fan of WP:NOT, which could do with a total re-think and re-write IMHO.
  • In particular a significant amount of work is done to take articles out of the dated sub categories of Cat:Current_events when they are no longer current, removing the warning template (and, one hopes, to ensure they are brought to a reasonable standard, or at least tagged appropriately).
  • The template {{current only}} has limited application, and I have just modified {{current events}} to cover much of it. Once I have completed clean-up of the parent category, I will delete it if it is no longer needed.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 07:48 16 August 2007 (GMT).

  • Further to your notes on {{current}} you may wish to go through some of the dated categories and see which articles can have the tag removed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:31 16 August 2007 (GMT).
Just another note, {{Current}} could take a {{{1}}} parameter which could be a word like "election" rendering nost of the variants obsolete as well. Rich Farmbrough, 09:26 17 August 2007 (GMT).
I have added the parameter already. The guidelines should indicate when the template is to be used, reflecting the wording in the template, or the wording should be changed to reflect the guidelines. For maintenance purposes, there is no need to have anything visible at all. Incidently I have deleted the April 2007 cat. Rich Farmbrough, 15:10 18 August 2007 (GMT).
And May and June. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32 18 August 2007 (GMT).

Re: Current[edit]

RFD is the appropriate place for template redirects. In fact, it's the only place they can be listed. From this list, I see about nine redirects to {{current}}. Some of them could obviously be deleted. However, be forewarned, RFD does not usually like to delete redirects. You'll have to make a strong, convincing case why they should be deleted. You'll run into arguments like "redirects are cheap" which you'll need to be able to counter. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GA[edit]

Hey, I'd like to thank you for your comments on my talk page, I'm sorry I didn't respond yet. As you pointed out, I have nominated articles for GA status that I feel are at GA status but also those that are almost there and need review by another editor. And I have changed my settings for edit summaries. Thanks for that suggestion. -- Wikipedical 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" template[edit]

I saw your note about the template usage on Jin Renqing. Thanks for clarifying that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Fire as a Current Event[edit]

Not sure why this wouldn't qualify as a current event - it's ongoing, it's receiving widespread media coverage, and the situation changes from day to day. Is there some way to narrow it down to "California Current Events," perhaps? If not, maybe there should be ... Kmmontandon 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Current#Guidelines. If you desire the article about the occasion to receive wider visibility, perhaps you could nominate it for inclusion at the various Portal:Current events listings. Take a look at Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works. Basically, when many editors are editing some wildly popular article, the tag serves as a warning to editors. It was not intended to say "look--this is news." Otherwise several hundred thousand articles would qualify for the template. If the Moonlight Fire article comes to the point of having say 25+ editors on it in a day, by all means, add the template back. -- Yellowdesk 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the Mitt Romney press release page[edit]

I don't know if you tried it, but when I clicked on the links, they didn't work...myclob 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think had tested the links when I found this, and knowing they were not active...I thought it would interest that the original citation could be found, which is something. -- Yellowdesk 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks re warner article[edit]

no response needed. thanks for educating me/others about the "current" template re the mark warner article. Journalist1983 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contra dance citations[edit]

The template you've put up says the contra page is missing in-line citations… but they're there. What information do you feel needs a source cited? (I can try to help in tracking sources down, though I don't see anything lacking myself) --Eitch 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of {{Current}}[edit]

Do you remove these templates manually, or with some automated program? I'd say that a {{current}} tag is justified on an article that is barely edited for a few months and is then suddenly edited 28 times on one day (it satisfies the requirement that it must be "edited by many on the day"). Melsaran (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manually.
There are only five editors on the page today. The standard is "are there many editors editing the page today." As in dozens, perhaps a hundred. It's a warning to editors, not a marker of newsworthyness. See Template:Current#Guidelines. -- Yellowdesk 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you could basically remove it from every page. The fact that there are not many editors with knowledge about the subject doesn't mean that the subject is in the news and that the information changes rapidly. It is not just a warning to editors, by the way, or it would look more like {{underconstruction}}. It's a notice that the information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Melsaran 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is there to inform the reader that the information may change rapidly and be outdated. It's not just there to inform editors of the fact that they might get edit conflicts; Wikipedia is written for the readers, and we have {{underconstruction}} and {{majoredit}} for that purpose anyway. I don't think the inclusion of the template should be dependent on how many editors are editing the article at the same time, but that we should see how rapidly the information changes. Melsaran (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information does change rapidly (it's possible that it is outdated already), and that's why I argue in favour of keeping the template there. I didn't say that we should have an arbitrary amount of edits within a certain time period to add the template. Melsaran (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actally, the template was not created to inform readers of news, as an inspection of the template's talk page will indicate. All of Wikipedia is out of date and subject to change, and it is not a newspaper. This is the standard state of affairs for the encyclopedia. Actually, less than ten aarticles in main space are presently using that particular template. To make an article visible in a more general way to all readers, the best method is to visit Wikipedia:How the Current events page works -- Yellowdesk 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um.......[edit]

I find it quite fascinating, intriguing, bizarre and ironic all at the same time, that an event that is actually currently developing and happening in say, country A, can wear this so called "current" tag due to its numerous (guidelines say HUNDREDS)number of edits per day in language A, is deemed unsuitable of wearing an equivalent tag in language B because of its lack of edits (or interest). Leaving aside the mechanism by which it is judged "current", that is the number of edits per day, the question bursting to come out is: Regardless of wherever this reader is, whether in Antartic or in country A, is it a current event or not? The answer of course is: Yes, it IS a currently happening event wherever you happen to be. Even if you are travelling on the Red Dwarf with Rimmer, Lister and The Cat, it is still a happening event on planet Earth.

So, the next logical question would be: Is it fair to carry on using "number of edits per day" as an arbiter of this tag?

Using "number of edits per day" as a yardstick for a "current event" is a flawed concept at best. Think about it, it doesn't make any sense, is illogical and absurd.

Everybody, I think any reasonable and impartial person would give you an answer almost right away. Sorry mates, no prizes. Fair Dinkum. BringItOn TheAteam 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing from the conclusion above, and regardless of the ridiculous measures the "current" tag currently uses, I'm sorry guys, King Yin Lane IS a current event in anyone's language.BringItOn TheAteam 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep riding shotgun to a flawed concept, Yellowdesk. You're the MAIN man!! ha ha!! BringItOn TheAteam 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An inspection of the talk page of the template shows it was intended not to call attention to items that have become newsworthy, but primarily to aid editors to refrain from stepping on each other, and incidentally advise readers that because hundreds of edits a day were occurring, the article from minute-to-minute would change. According to those talk page comments, it was used and created for this occasion, in 2004. There is a standard method to call attention to an article, at the Portal:current events. See also Wikipedia:How the Current events page works. If the template were put on every article that has had recent news about it, would be on hundreds of thousands of articles, with no informational consequence. All articles are subject to improvement, change and news. It is probably mis-named, and would better be somthing like "massive changes today" or "many editors active today" template, and would then not mislead people as to its intended use.
-- Yellowdesk 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention the flaw[edit]

According to you, the template aims to achieve 2 things: 1) to aid editors to refrain from stepping on each other; 2) advise readers that because hundreds of edits a day were occurring, the article from minute-to-minute would change.

Aim no. 2 is achieved through reading the template. That's fine. How is aim no. 1 achieved through reading the template alone? Precisely where in the template does it say, "Editor X, stop stepping on editor Y."? In the real world, and rapidly changing events such as this this occasion, in 2004, where hundreds of excited, hyped-up people jockey to put new information in, I tell ya, NO ONE is going to pay any attention to aim no. 1 (or RELIGIOUSLY check the template page) when its central message is not even conveyed through the template.

I believe the wording of this template is misleading. It acts like a booby-trap inside a hole, waiting on the next unsuspecting intruder to fall like prey into the hole and snap 'em. It requires urgent modification (or even a separate template). 1 aim out of 2 is not achieved. That's pretty bad stats. It wrongly misleads editors into thinking: "If such and such is a "current event", then a template is warranted." never realising the intention behind it all until it is explained to them by editors who have devoted all of their time to maintaining orders. BringItOn TheAteam 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can suggest is to bring it up on the talk page for the template. I agree that its use, title and text don't align. This is the case for most all of the related "current" templates. I'll note that it is reasonable to review a template page when making use of it. I desire to bring this up when I'm able to have well-formed explanation and proposal for what to change it to (which I don't have), and how to elegantly handle the demand for something that says "this is news" that so many editors desire, but which is contrary to the sense and guidelines that this encyclopedia is not a news source nor a news report.
-- Yellowdesk 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your attitude, Yellowdesk. I appreciate it. Now, at least I know I am not talking to a brick wall. Now while you take pleasure from keeping things in order, I don't. I find it tedious. So, I'll leave this all important task to you my man. You are a better bloke than I in that respect. And if you need any help from me, I'll be glad to help. (But the main crux of my arguments are up there already on record, so you are free to quote any of it. You have my total permission.) As Jim in Acropolis Now would say: "Stay beautiful".BringItOn TheAteam 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that the future conversation at the talk page for {{current}} will not be unified on any proposal that comes forward, which is why I have not dealt with the contradictions between the name, the text that {{current}} displays when used, and the fact that it was intended for a narrow use. Despite a lot of editing of it over the last couple of years, it has not changed much since its first use. It is going to take me more than a little while to figure out what proposal will fly among those folks who care about this, and that is why I haven't done anything about this conundrum; I admit I don't expect to do anything about it soon. I'l tell you when something happens on this topic, and you can put your views forward then.
cheers, Yellowdesk 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for tools[edit]

Sure, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan and its rather complicated history. At an early stage it looked like this. You can also look at this thread which more or less followed from that RfA's turnaround. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mukasey and categories[edit]

Doesn't this quote already make Mukasey a part of the constellation of articles about the topic covered by Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy?

Schumer said Mukasey told him that he would ensure that only the attorney general or "one or two" top deputies -- not U.S. attorneys -- could field inquiries from politicians on the department's work. The new rule would make it a firing offense for a U.S. attorney to fail to refer such calls to Washington. Schumer believes that element is key to avoiding further scandals.

Source: Eggen, Dan (September 19, 2007). "Democrats May Tie Confirmation to Gonzales Papers". Washington Post. pp. A10. Retrieved 2007-09-19. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Yellowdesk 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that just because Democrats are going to try to tie Mukasey confirmation hearing to the 'USA controversy' doesn't mean it is tied. Mukasey is from outside the DOJ and has no relation to any of the people involved in the controversy. If the confirmation hearing generates something, such as Mukasey appointing an independence counsel if he is confirmed as AG (as Democrats hope), then I would say that Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy should be added. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hat tipping?[edit]

Why the hat tip to moi? Not much on the page that I can honestly claim credit for. You did some nice work though.Notmyrealname 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Didn't realize that site was cap sensitive. I've really got to find something better to do with my time.Notmyrealname 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mukasey and Leahy/Schumer[edit]

Hey, I undid your reversion back to Schumer for the reference to Mukasey agreeing to rules regarding the USAs. The more recent article I found went into greater detail on what Mukasey said and cites Leahy instead of Schumer. It may well be that Mukasey said something similar to both Schumer and Leahy, but I think the newer reference is better. --Capnpitz 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mukasey and Schumer/Leahy[edit]

Sounds like a great idea. Just spell it Schumer, please. --Capnpitz 01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of {{current}}[edit]

(diff) Just so you know, I did use the template the way it was supposed to be used. Look at the amount of edits since your removal. — Alex Khristov 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, put {{current}} back on if you see that the activity is enough to warrant the warning to editors. -- Yellowdesk 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Propst[edit]

I'm restoring the {{current-section}} tag you deleted in the Rush Propst article. This is very much a continuing news story with new developments every day, sometimes seemingly every hour. I should know, as I work for the main newspaper covering this story. Our "Sound Off" (letters ot the sports editor) section of today's paper was filled with nothing but letters about Propst. It is still very much current, and should remain tagged. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Hoover High School (Alabama). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Rush_Propst Fair enough. But there have not been any edits in three days. Not a demonstration of breaking news, even if it is controversial. -- Yellowdesk 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will likely change on Monday or Tuesday, as there is a called meeting of the Board of Education meant to deal with the situation. When a story about a high school football coach is the lead above-the-fold story on the front page of the state's biggest newspaper, it's a big story. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, Propst resigned on Tuesday night. This will probably be current for about another week. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject[edit]

Just thought you would want to know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies has been created. It will take it awhile to get it running. Feel free to jump in and help out. Remember 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Barrington-Coupee[edit]

Hi Mr "Yellowdesk", I had contributed the few corrections to the Barrington-Coupe article yesterday, not being aware that these would be erased immediately even though they corrected blatant errors and obvious missinformation. Nobody would really try to defend what B-C did with re to the Hatto Hoax,but there is no reason either to draw a wrong picture of this somewhat shady perosn who nonetheless had also quite some merits. To tell the simple truth seems to be the best and surely would fit into Wikipedia's rules. I would finally stress again that some of the info which is based on what is reported in those links is absolutely wrong and missleading. Reading Charles Haynes' little book attentively would have given enough reason to doubt some of the things which appear as kind of "facts" in this article here. yours, E. Lumpe - Soest/Germany (elumpe@freenet.de ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.197.198 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short: apparently someone can't read here. Why is my contribution qualified as 'unsigned' when my name and email appear at the end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.245.105 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Lumpe:
Your comments are misplaced. The person who made the edits you complain about was not me, as this history of the article shows.
Your concerns about William Barrington-Coupe should be placed at Talk:William Barrington-Coupe.
As for signing, if you put four tildes after your comments, the wiki system shows the time and account name of the person making the edits.
-- Yellowdesk 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yellowdesk, thanks for the kind advice, I only rarely deal with Wikipedia, so initial errors and mistakes come as a result, sorry! I also apologize for mistakenly addressing my complaints to you and in the wrong place. 91.1.249.63 07:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)E. Lumpe[reply]

Current Event Tag Guidelines[edit]

Thank you for explaining the guidelines for using "current event" tags in your recent edit summaries when you corrected my recent edits to the Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association pages. --TommyBoy 07:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDPs for town centers of New england towns[edit]

Hi. You've been involved with municipal matters related to New England in the past so I'm requesting some comments from you. I have suggested merging town center CDPs articles into the town article. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont#Merging town center CDP articles into town articles and Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont#CDP change for details. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical inclusion[edit]

Please see discussion at Category talk:United States presidential candidates, 2008.—Markles 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail[edit]

Thank you for your e-mail message. I am pretty sure you are the first Wikipedia user to suggest that I seek adminship. I hadn't gotten the idea that Wikipedia has a huge need to expand its pool of admins, but then again, I haven't looked into it enough to know yet. I'm already an administrator on five other wikis, which doesn't really argue for or against seeking adminship here. Wikipedia tends to have the most advanced tools, so I would undoubtedly learn useful things as a Wikipedia admin. One potential weakness of my record here is that I don't have very many mainspace edits. I have a lot more edits just on the Help desk than to actual articles. So I am much more of a metapedian. Having administrator privileges would give me more abilities to answer some Help desk questions, particularly questions about deleted articles that I cannot see now. From what I understand, when seeking adminship, a candidate must present clear reasons for doing so. --Teratornis (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

I have seen in an article about Bio where you added To Do list. Where in Wiki can we ask for that? --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place the the text {{todo}} on the talk page of the article you wish to collaborate on to add the todo box. Info at Template:Todo.
There is a handy second template that you can put inside of the "todo" box that gives a list of typical items. That would be {{tasks}}, and you can take a look at Template:Tasks to see how you might use it. Hope that helps.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, ask to someone to pin point task to do for a particular article. Like Marcela Agoncillo, I tried to nominate it to GA but failed so I am looking forward to others who could help me some improvements of the article by adding to do list in its corresponding talk page. Thank you.

--βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're thinking about Wikipedia:Peer_review. Take a look there, and see if that may be an avenue. You may only get an automated (non-human) review of the article text, as that review page has a very large backlog.
Also, on the NPOV tag for the article, ask another editor who has worked on the article to review the complaint, and decide for you if the tag can be taken off.
-- I hope that helps. Yellowdesk (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I thought we can request for to do list. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What item? --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This item

I have seen in an article about Bio where you added To Do list. Where in Wiki can we ask for that? --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I forgot. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy[edit]

Sounds like you've got it under control. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hockey[edit]

Joe Hockey was a sitting Member of Parliament who went through the Australian federal election, 2007. His party, the Liberal Party of Australia, became the opposition. Joe Hockey's current status is uncertain. Is there a {{currentevent-election}} template or the like? Auroranorth (!) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is a news item, and can be incorported into the article. I suggest simply stating in the lead paragraph, in text of the article, that his status is uncertain, suitably citing a published source.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections[edit]

File:Color.JPG

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--STX 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about forgetting to tell you about the move. -- Mentifisto 07:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pechenga Monastery[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up on the current template. The likelihood of anyone else editing that article on the same day is pretty nil :D -Yupik (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal[edit]

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[7]] Jmegill (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Joe Klein" article edits[edit]

When you removed the "current event" tag you undid a compromise that had been worked out between myself and another (anonymous) editor. Please clearly describe your reasons for that removal because said editor might (or then again, might not) become irritated over that tag's removal.

On another point I would like to know your reasons for removing the links in the aforementioned article to the "Richard Stengel" and "Priscilla Painton" articles. Those links were quite relevant.

--Nbahn (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough that something is in the news to be using the several templates related to {{current}} which include the "-section" and "-related" templates. They are PRIMARILY a notice to editors that many (as in a hundred or more) are editing the page, and if only a few edits a day are occring on the article or page, the template/tags are subject to removal.
If the aim is to get on the "current events" page of wikipedia, then take a look at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works.
The edit history on the removal of the tag states that the policy on use of the several tags is located at: Template:Current#Guidelines.
The alternative, that many hundreds of thousands of articles have this non-informative template appearing on them is not acceptable, and pointless. Every article relies on some other source, often recent, and often not-so-recent. For example, one article constantly in the news George W. Bush never has this tag on it.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I understand your reasons for the tag removal. Hopefully the other editor will also agree; as I mentioned before, that tag was a compromise between the two of us and I do not quite know exactly how s/he will react to this. Maybe nothing -- I do not know and thus cannot predict what will happen.
--Nbahn (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is over?[edit]

When was the election over? I don't recall the AEC saying this... Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian federal election, 2007 says in its first sentence the election was conducted on November 24, 2007.
Perhaps the article is incorrect, and the new PM should not have been sworn in?

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election was conducted 24/11/2007. For the past 2+ weeks, the votes collected from that election have continued to be counted and still are, thus it is ongoing. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And all of the seats have been declared according to current news. What is your point exactly? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counting of votes continues for a few more days. Seats being declared do not make them certain. But hold on, what is it you advocate with your sudden turn of face? Removal on 25/11 per above, or removal at the end of seats per above? Wow, two responses in and you're already tripping over yourself. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The elction is over. It's now just news. Yellowdesk (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking at [8], no Senate results have yet been declared and around 25 Reps are yet to be declared, including one that's still being counted (McEwen). Orderinchaos 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enougth, and I see that reliable sources, such as ABC have regularly updated tables of likely outcomes, and these need only be quaified as not-official results and subject to below the line vote results.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Oh, well. You would think people would show up for a current event once in a while. Of course, without the tag, no one finds it. It's like roulette. I'll hit one of these days, you'll see! -- Kendrick7talk 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act history[edit]

Could you move this to History of the USA PATRIOT Act? - 121.216.107.72 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Can you cite a number of other articles that have similar titling?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
211.30.82.214 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to say "of some short-term event or legislation, besides events longer than a decade." I see one of that character here, History of podcasting.
The Special:All pages with prefix is the source for such. I'll move the page.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential opinion polling deletions[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008
The other pages you have suggested for deletion deserve separate sections on the deletion discussion.
Or at minimum, group the graphics into one section/discussion, and consider other groupings for allof the other items listed.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grouped the articles together as I feel the same arguements for deletion apply to all of them, this is not that uncommon and the process for doing this is outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. Anyone who disagrees with this approach and feels that the articles should be considered seperately can bring that up in the AfD discussion but I stand by my decision. The one page with graphs is essentially a derivation of the other statistic pages. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Mark Speight and current template[edit]

The article has had 122 edits ([9]) in just over a day. That's exactly what the guidelines say the template is for. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 34 edits in the last 24 hours, 17 of which were one person's, and a mere 13 editors, including myself and bots. At an average of 3/4 of an edit an hour, editors are not stepping on each other, which is what the template was designed for and to warn against.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the tag was no longer relevant. I do, however, contend that your edit summary (which came across as somewhat bad tempered) implied that the tag had never been appropriate and I 100% disagree with that. --Dweller (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I invite your suggestions for improving the edit summary explanation and message. I encounter all manner of uses of the template, and even for articles that did have a lot of activity, I find it desirable to clearly state why the time is up for its use for those editors who may wish to revive it.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Belated thanks for the e-mail praise. 'Sanity' is indeed the key necessary quality around here! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

My first Barnstar! Woo hoo! Funny thing is that a Washington Post reporter had queried me about a story, but the email got sent to an account that I seldom check, so I missed my chance at fame. Probably for the best. Notmyrealname (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kudos, HRC FAQ[edit]

Thanks. I saw it done once before some talk page, couldn't remember where, but found the template. Now if only people will read it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Democratic primary, 2008[edit]

How is {{current}} not appropriate for this article (diff)? The election results are likely to be updated as results come in.

Request for decission on the 50k/5k limit rule[edit]

Its been a while since this started and now we have conflicts on what candidates (both republican and democrats) should be allowed on other pages. I'm requesting quick resolution because others are interested in this standard. --mitrebox (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion about COI of candidate inclusion \ exclusion[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current template removal[edit]

Thanks for removing the {{current}} template from Melodifestivalen 2008; if I'm honest, I'd never looked at the guidelines and added it automatically. It's nice to see the rules being enforced. Keep it up. Chwech 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of template:current sport[edit]

I have reverted your edits to 2007-08 Ball State Cardinals men's basketball and 2007-08 Bowling Green Falcons men's basketball. The current sport template should remain on these articles, because they are current sports. Fbdave (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present)[edit]

Isn't the article semi-protected from anons enough reason to conclude that it means the guidelines for current events template? It's even on WP:ITN. --Howard the Duck 08:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 14 editors on Feb 10th, not exactly a mind-numbing number, and certainly not so numerous that people are stepping on each other's edits. Semi-protection has a different use: keeping vandals from interfering, a rather different goal. If your desire is to make the topic more visible at large on wikipedia, the best avenue is to take a look at Wikipedia:How the Current events page works. Aside from that, the template adds no information that is not already in the lede. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14 editors = means a lot considering the article is semi-protected. Also, I don't get it... since it's on the lead, so the template can not be added? How about the basic stuff on the lead for articles about persons? Remove them from infoboxes too? The fact that the articles are edited 14 times when it's semi-protected is a lot, some articles are not edited for days when not protected. --Howard the Duck 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like you to consult the history page first before removing the {{current}} family of templates; in UAAP Season 70 you removed the tag when in fact it was edited 30+ times the day prior you removed the tag, and an additional 20+ times after I reverted your edit. --Howard the Duck 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumption that I do not is incorrect. There are a grand total of six or seven editors on that prior 24 hour period, and around 25 of those edits are by one editor. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six or seven editors is a lot, especially for an obscure article (do you even know what the article is talking about?) such as that. Removing and undoing the removals of these {{current}} templates doesn't really improve Wikipedia. You just fly-by remove then nothing happens. I'd suggest you do other more productive use of your time rather than removing these {{current}} templates. --Howard the Duck 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the occasion that the template was designed and intended for: more than 600 edits in two and a half days, with more than fifty editors stepping on each others work. This is what "many" means.. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:USA PATRIOT Act small[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:USA PATRIOT Act small requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current sport[edit]

I will look at this. I thought I already did it... Rich Farmbrough, 22:53 20 February 2008 (GMT).

OK I've canonicalised the templates and dated them as of this month. SB will date any it comes across and I could do a monthly run to pick up any others. At the moment the regular run works of undated categories and the act of dating moves the articles to a dated category so they don't get revisited. This doesn't apply to {{Current sport}}. Rich Farmbrough, 12:26 27 March 2008 (GMT).
Well look at this page. Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories - you'll se how the categories are split out. Category:Current sports events is not split like this. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36 27 March 2008 (GMT).

Cuban presidential election[edit]

Your removal of the current events template on Cuban presidential election, 2008 is particularly odd in light of your explanation of your edit: " It is intended for articles edited by many on the same day. See Template:Current#Guidelines. What's odd about this is that this article, along with other related articles (Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, etc.), were edited rather heavily today, owing to today's election of Raúl Castro and the first official transition of power in Cuba in 50 years. While it may be true that the template may have served its purpose, I'm not too pleased with your second-guessing of the decision to place the template on the article. In fact, I'm rather offended: You did not assume good faith; indeed, you didn't even do me the courtesy of assuming that I have a brain. Please use some courtesy and restraint in the future, before trying to impress us all with your rules-lawyering. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created for occasions in which there are so many editors and edits that everyone is stepping on each other's edits, assuredly not occuring on the article in question.
Ten edits by seven editors in 24 hours is really not that many.
Here is the occasion that the template was designed and intended for: more than 600 edits in two and a half days, with more than fifty editors interfering with each other's work.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not counting related articles, such as those edits at Fidel Castro. Plus, the template was originally misapplied to another article before it was placed on Cuban presidential election, 2008. How many is many? Does it matter? If we had to count the edits before placing the template on the article, rather than placing the template on what could conceivably be a current event article, that would rather defeat the purpose of having a current event template, now wouldn't it? By the way, we WERE tripping on one another's edits at Fidel Castro today. Again, I don't appreciate your rules-lawyering to try to second-guess the actions of editors after the fact, you damned REMF. -- JeffBillman (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You point out that the template was superfluous for its designed intent, namely edit interference, on Cuban presidential election, 2008, and was well used on the article it remained untouched on. I think we're in agreement now. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008#Merger proposal—Markles 00:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Microsoft[edit]

Sorry about that, I didn't read the template in the rush, thanks for correcting me. ;) FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Massachusetts 1871 Atlas of Massachusetts Links[edit]

I believe the additonal links are necessary. The user interface at the Registry of Deeds website is difficult to navigate. You can only see the plate or page numbers not the names of the Counties or Cities. I request that it be reverted back. Thank You. DavidBlackwell (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking a second time at the book, I see that the source fails to display scans of the entire table of contents, which seems to be the difficulty you're aiming to ameliorate. The intent of the section "References" is not to provide an index of the contents of the referred to work, but to let it be known the reference exists, and was relied upon or useful for further reading. That there exists an online version is wonderful, but non-essential as an item in the article. You'll note your addition was unique in listing pages within the book. Perhaps Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further reading/External links will interest you.

As to the book itself, the table of contents lists the counties, but stops very short on the cities; it is not the task of wikipedia to create finding aids for other's web sites, especially for material not cited in footnote fashion. It would make sense in a citation, say for an article on Lowell, to cite particular city page, for example. Now, looking over your own page, I see that perhaps you were involved in the scanning, and perhaps no longer connected with the web-master at the deeds office, which is where the fix to the table of contents would be best implemented. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, External Links section is the place for the extended list of links. Thanks. DavidBlackwell (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romney stuff[edit]

I looked over the FAQ, but I'm not sure I understand what you were suggesting. Could you spell it out a little more for my wee little mind?Notmyrealname (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, perhaps a FAQ on the Romney page? Sounds like another endless battle. May be a good idea, but I'm not sure it would help if I started it.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNI[edit]

Thanks for the clarification of the use of Current tags on the Tahitian Noni page. Keep up the good work! --Eustress (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Waterboarding[edit]

Thanks for giving me the link so I can properly use the current template! I have more details at Talk:Waterboarding#United_States_bill_is_current_event_as_of_March_2008--please_update Wakedream (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Electoral history of David Paterson[edit]

Thanks, I spent some time today trying to find all the results. Unfortunately there are just some years that are only available on pay-for archives of the NY Times or the New York Red Book. I'm hoping someone else has that info. MrPrada (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nominated, I will run[edit]

See my latest comments to your message at User talk:Teratornis#Administratorship. I mention this here in case you aren't watching my talk page. I'd like to keep any further discussion over there, if possible. Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

Yeah, oops about {{Current}} on Aviation history#The challenge of peak oil. Thanks for correcting my carelessness. I suppose I should try actually reading the documentation of the templates I use. That was my misguided attempt to flag the section I added as one that will need revisiting in the near future, since the price of petroleum is not predictable with certainty. Also, the section I added contains no references, but it is basically a survey of several other articles that themselves have references. If the section needs reference, I can add some. I'm aware of the controversial nature of Peak oil so I tried to tread lightly. There is less controversy about Oil price increases since 2003, and if the ongoing run-up is part of a longer term trend as peakniks claim, the impact on aviation could be severe. I thought it was appropriate to mention in connection with the future of aviation, since the rest of the article focuses on aviation itself rather than on the foundational technologies of fuel supply, and particularly as the parent section predicts a bright future for aviation. I agree as far as the design of cooler airplanes goes, but as the Luftwaffe discovered in 1945, it doesn't matter how good the airplanes are if the fuel runs low. --Teratornis (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aníbal Acevedo Vilá[edit]

The template was necessary the day we put it up there. You didnt need to cite policy when we had used it correctly. All you needed to say was that it is no longer valid, and that would have been fine. Next try to assume good faith. Thanks. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since any article has a diverse set of editors interested in it, stating the facts, with a link, seems to be the best method to inform any editors who may be wondering why it was removed, especially at the end of a period of correct use of the template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Matthew Maupin[edit]

Thanks for your comments regarding the {{Current}} template. You may be surprised to know that the template itself reads: 

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Is Maupin's death a current event? Yes. May information change rapidly as the event progresses? Yes. The template was literally, factually true. I placed it there because it was literally, factually true. A guideline is not meant to override common sense. A guideline is just what it sounds like. There was no need for its removal or for the tenor of your edit summary. Please assume good faith on my part in future. --SSBohio 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised in the slightest about the text of the template. Reading the link in the my edit summary on Keith Matthew Maupin would have led you to the description of the intended use of the template, Template:Current#Guidelines. The intended use is not particularly related to items in the news (since by definition, all news is current). The template was intended for those occasions of many attempting to edit at once, which is not the case for the article in question. Hence my removal or your good faith, but erroneous conception for the use of template. If you're concerned that an article about an event be generally noticed, the best method is to explore Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yellowdesk/archive1&oldid=1094790963"