Hi,

I've suggested your article Hadji Ali for a nonspecific date on the main page. If you object, please feel free to remove it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Great article! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for answering all the questions at help desk Pass a Method talk 08:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar Pass, and you're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you redirect Slender Man back to its original target because the current target is not as appropriate nor specific as the previous one was. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Mercury%20News.pdf

Please let me know when you are done.

Were those exploding-cigar sources I sent of any use? I suspect you missed that message? Churn and change (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_can_we_bring_this_to_closure

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You made a serious proposal in July, and I like your proposal. But it wasn't driven to closure. If you want to substitute your proposal for mine, that's fine with me.

I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposal that is pending on the links/talk page. If it comes to something you'd support, I'd appreciate your stating the support on the talk page. There seem to be four zealots -- they need to be outvoted. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	unusual performers
	Thank you for quality articles on film directores and artists in unusual areas such as Hadji Ali, and for ((TotallyDisputed)), - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 April 2009 and 23 January 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! I appreciate it (I wish I knew what you meant about TotallyDisputed though:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it, matched my thinking nicely, I totally dispute (with myself) my role in this so-called community, just created Category:Wikipedians who are not part of The Community ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left me a note on my User talk page that you were deleting an article that I had been working on for business founder/CEO Burck Smith citing copyright concerns. Recent feedback had already told me I needed to needed to provide more citations, which I had been working on before it was deleted. I would like to resubmit this article with these improved citations, but wanted your help so that I best met Wikipedia guidelines. So that my work wouldn't get completely removed again. Thank you. I was told to include this information and ask you before resubmitting: 23:34, 10 October 2012 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Straighterline (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of the sources cited in the proposed article, e.g http://www.acics.org/events/content.aspx?id=4922) Glowah (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article John R. Tunis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:John R. Tunis for things which need to be addressed. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article John R. Tunis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John R. Tunis for comments about the article. Well done! Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I made some revisions and resubmitted - I think I was confused because I was using content from another Wiki page and I thought linking to that page was enough, but I rewrote that section. The new article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burck_Smith Hopefully this passes your inspection and as always, your feed back is appreciated. Glowah (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are having a miscommunication since I'm not sure how anything could have been copied and pasted since I didn't copy and paste anything from any other site -- it was not my intention to infringe on any copyrights. Could you actually provide me an example of where you're finding duplicate content? Glowah (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for example, "As a writer about education and technology issues, Burck has been published by Wired Magazine, Wired News, Converge Magazine, University Business and the National School Boards..." is copied and pasted from http://www.straighterline.com/about-us/our-team.cfm and I can tell it preexists the submission (i.e., it wasn't posted on the external site after the Wikipedia submission copying it) because I can see it in the wayback machine, here. In the next paragraph, "Smith published articles on local efforts to create community networks, electronic access to political information... appears to be taken from here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a more detailed rationale for my changes at the talk page. Please consider responding. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment. Could you please see if the proposed tweaks are acceptable? If you're okay with it I'll probably update the template in a couple of days. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I left a note at Template talk:Z number doc. I'm letting you know in case you're still interested in that project. It wasn't totally clear to me where the discussion about the Z templates was supposed to go, so I just picked a talk page. Let me know if there's a better venue. I'd like to kill all those templates if possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Fuhghettaboutit.

Would you please help me with something? I have read the info on Wikipedia about syntax and external sources but I am afraid that I am stuck!

1) I tried to add an article as an external link: http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/pointed-view-a-public-space-for-independent-voices

I got this message: Buttignol, Rudy. View: A Public Space for Independent Voices "Error: no |title= specified when using "Error: no |title= specified when using ((Cite web))".". povmagazine.com. http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/pointed-view-a-public-space-for-independent-voices%7Ctitle=Pointed View: A Public Space for Independent Voices.

Something about"Error:" in large red letters! Will you please help me to fix this?

2) Also, I'd like to add this videotaped speech as an external link too: http://globalcivic.org/2012/10/24/public-salon-13-september-20-2012/ Would you help me with that too?

Thank you very much for any help.

Sofiabrampton (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit, benzband has helped me and the External Links are up on Rudy Buttignol. I am frustrated that I am having such difficulty with learning the syntax for things like this. Sofiabrampton (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked your User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox to my user page, if you don't mind.

Bearian (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, mais oui. Glad you find it useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that the Style Network page was previously moved to Style (TV channel), now currently Style (TV network), with the explanation that the network doesn't brand itself with "Network", and with no discussion on the talk page. My understanding was that if a page's name is established with no need for parentheses, it is not necessary to move it to a term that requires parenthetical clarification. I was wondering if this particular case falls under an exception, and if not, perhaps receive assistance in reverting it to its original title. Thank you, 68DANNY2 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I tried to continue our conversation re sourcing help and was unable--perhaps it timed out? I hope it is OK to move the conversation here. I'll copy my post as I tried to enter it at the Tea Room:

OK, I am looking at everything. I would never be able to master all of the DOI information--it could as well be written in Greek--so that is out. The NYTimes helper looks like a good one for me and I'm going to try the Google books helper tool as well. I am trying this one:

<ref>((Citation
 | url = http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html
 | accessdate = 2012-12-12
))</ref>

Is this all I'd have to do? The best way for me to learn this is to try it a few times. I (mostly) wrote the Jay Cooke State Park article and tried to enter my MN geology book as a source but was unable to figure it out, so I'd like to try that. Would it be OK if I'd go to your talk page for help in the future?

Thanks for your patient help so far. Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anytime. I can't guarantee I will get to your question immediately of course--especially lately I have been somewhat inactive, but we can have a slow motion conversation. Did you read over my explanation at the Teahouse and could you make sense of it? It's fine if it was too much. The above reference format you ask about (which I've placed in a certain type of tag so it can be seen in saved mode) is not a good citation because it does not provide most of the basic identifying material one would expect, that leads to easy verification. A web citation should ideally provide the name of the publisher, the title of whatever it is, the author and the date of the source. Sometimes not all of these are available, but a naked link with an access date is not enough information; a person cannot look at that citation and immediately know what it is and, in fact, the citation template you used will break because the field for "title=" must be supplied, but is missing. You could use ((citation)) or ((cite web)) here. This would be the format I would use, which you can copy and paste:

<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html|title=BP Exploration and Production Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress Surrounding Deepwater Horizon Incident|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs|date=November 15, 2012|accessdate=December 12, 2012))</ref>

The above is the compacted citation format (no spacing), but it is exactly the same as:

<ref>((cite web
 |url=http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html
 |title=BP Exploration and Production Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress Surrounding Deepwater Horizon Incident
 |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs
 |date=November 15, 2012
 |accessdate=December 12, 2012
))</ref>

which you can also copy and paste.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood the first part of your explanation but when I came to the way to correctly do it, I was lost and realized that I will need to actually do some correctly to get it. What with Christmas so close, my editing time is quite short and I have been involved in edit warring that takes my time right now as well. Would it be OK if I move this to my talk page where I can use it for reference as I eventually try to learn how to do this? BTW, the way you explained it here seems the way to go and when I have time I will study it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly you can move it to your talk page--you will need to copy and paste the raw code in edit mode; if you try to paste the text you see when just reading this page, it will not format at all in the way I have set it up:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just so that you know, this is so embarrassing. I feel I need to defend myself: IQ-wise I am in the top 5%. But I am a granny that jumped from thinking that having my own electric typewriter was the cat's pajamas to computers...so... As soon as I have time I will try to move the discussion to my talk page. For now I need to get back to Christmas projects and righting great wrongs on the internet such as the Wikipedia BP article. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't feel embarrassed at all because I, and I don't think most people, would interpret it that way (that someone is unintelligent in any way because they don't know this stuff or that reading help pages is not enough). It's basically like learning an entirely new language. You are a like a native English speaker just dipping your toes into Spanish and I am someone who is fairly fluent in conversational Spanish helping you along (I am not the equivalent of a native speaker because I am no programmer, and know just a tiny bit compared to many of the computer gurus who inhabit this site).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved everything to my talk page. I won't have time to work on this for awhile but when I do I will come to your page with questions. Thanks again. Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you have time would you take a look at my attempt to do one? Gandydancer (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your editing help. Not everyone is so able to understand and be able to respond so well to the needs and questions of others. Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Seasonal Barnstar
		In recognition of all the helpful advice you have given at the help desks throughout the year, I award you this Seasonal Barnstar. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DATEUNIFY where YYYY-MM-DD is specifically accepted for accessdates & archivedates, regardless of format for other dates, and WP:DATERET regarding how date formats get established & disputes settled. --JimWae (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, remove the part of which he confessed the crimes to her that I read in other sources, but please don't remove the entire sentence. At least leave the part that he talked with his mother on the eve of execution. Keeeith (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in source? For God's Sake man, you have to read the entire source:

Asked for last words, Bundy said, "Give my love to my family and friends." His mother had already uttered her farewell in a final phone conversation: "You'll always be a precious son to me." Keeeith (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what the source says. And what you said in your edit to the article was that he confessed to his mother (which this does not say) and that she replied to that (which this does not say). It only says that he had a conversation with his mother and what she said. What you used this to verify isn't even implied. For all you know, he confessed to his mother years before. Likewise, for all you know, when she said these words she was replying to his comments on the weather on that day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it was copyrighted material, are you referring to the fact that it is the same thing I wrote on the Microsoft TechNet Wiki page? MiSwit (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was written—as you say, by you—in 2010 and is marked "© 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." So a few things on this. People are often gobsmacked when they learn that the simple expedient of giving us permission to use their own writing isn't sufficient (but it isn't). Our licenses (the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)) require that our content be free to use by our end users: the public. This means that, whereas an author of copyrighted content is free to license another to use their copyrighted content, doing so on Wikipedia is useless because our licenses require our readers to be able to take the content in turn and use it under our licenses, but giving us permission is not giving the world permission. Instead, you are retaining your full copyright as to everyone else. What we require is that the content be released completely under one of our free copyright licenses (or under a compatible one). This can be done (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) but there are hoops to jump through, including verification of release by a method that strongly indicates you are indeed the owner and thus have the authority to do so, such as an email from a domain associated with the owner or a letter on letterhead of the organization explicitly stating the release, or removal of the copyright notice from the external site hosting the content and a public notice posted there stating its release under specific license(s). And here, it does not appear you are the owner but Microsoft is, so such methods would have to come from Microsoft.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Microsoft's Terms of Use regarding user created content on their site (I bolded the relevant material):

"SUBMISSIONS PROVIDED TO THIS WEB SITE Microsoft does not claim ownership of code, content, comments, feedback, suggestions, information or materials that you provide via this web site or any Services ("Submission"). However, by providing a Submission, you are irrevocably granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies the right to make, use, modify, distribute and otherwise commercialize the Submission in any way and for any purpose (including by granting the general public the right to use your Submissions in accordance with this web site’s Terms of Use, which may change over time), and the right to publish your name, city of residence, and e-mail address in connection with your Submission. These rights are granted under all applicable intellectual property rights you own or control.

What is copyright protected is all the content and code surrounding the user created text. Essentially this is no different than if I had created this content on my personal blog before posting it here. In addition, being a Wiki, it could be edited by anyone else so that the content is not the same anymore, like I did earlier this year. If you look at earlier revisions (pre-2012) you will see that the content on the page was completely different.

What is happening is that the "rights" Microsoft is reserving is the same that Wikipedia reserves, which is the right to use and redistribute for their own purposes. I would like the page to be reinstated since I am not violating any copyright laws. MiSwit (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license a poster gives to Microsoft under the Terms of Use you linked is nothing like the licensing scheme used here. This is important to understand. The license under those terms of use is one given by the poster to Microsoft, governing Microsoft's free use of the posted material, and leaves the poster's copyright intact. By contrast, we require a global release to the world under the CC-By-SA and GFDL or equivalent, so that anyone can use the content; "Wikipedia reserves" no rights specific to itself at all. So, it appears you're correct that the material is owned by the posters not by Microsoft. Great. But when material bears no posted license, it is assumed fully copyrighted by its owners, and so it needs to be released under a free license by one of the methods I indicated in my prior post by reference to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Your assertion to me that you wrote the content and you wish to release it is insufficient, because the method of release has to be by a verifiable method. That remains to be done. Additionally, though you wouldn't be dealing with me on that release but with a member of the Volunteer Response Team, I'm not sure how that can be done with this material. The page has multiple revisions. It's not clear from the page who the authors are, as it lists the name of the first poster (I assume that's you) and the last, but doesn't make it clear whether there were contributors to other revisions in between. Every author owns the material they contributed, so this might require multiple releases. Also, I can't help but wonder, given that you work for Microsoft and posted this to a Microsoft site, whether you did this in your professional capacity and thus whether regardless of the terms of use, Microsoft is the owner, because you were writing as a poster on behalf of Microsoft. Anyway, I will not be undeleting until the copyright issue is worked out. Again, you must work out a verifiable release, which is not done by your assertion of ownership to me. Given the difficulty I see in a verifiable release of the material under the circumstances, I think you'd be better off simply writing a new submission, not copying previously drafted material. In that regard, the submission needed lots of work anyway. It cited no reliable sources to verify the information, did not go into depth, was written in tech language, had no wikilinks, and did not indicate the importance of the product (it was actually tagged for speedy deletion for lack of indication of importance, though I didn't delete it on that basis).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. It was a perfectly fine stub. Why did you delete it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmaassen (talk • contribs)

I see you recreated it, Bjelleklang deleted it, and then userified it to User:Karimmaassen/Laravel, along with an explanation. I'd like to expand a bit on what he or she said to you. It was also deleted because there was a prior deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laravel, and the article you posted did not address the issues identified there. In that deletion debate, the same sources you cited were found wanting. What a topic needs to establish notability is substantive treatment in independent, third-party, reliable sources. To parse that, substantive treatment means not just a mere mention but real content about the subject. Independent, third party sources means that the sources cited should be completely unconnected to the subject (so, for example, Shawm McCool's Laravel Starter is not a good source to establish notability because he was noted at the deletion discussion as being a member of the Laravel team on the publisher's web site). Reliable sources are those with a reputation for checking the facts, editorial oversight and accuracy--so not some unknown person on a blog, but published books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Notability, which is about sources showing that the world has taken note of the topic, goes hand in hand with verifiability, which is about sources existing from which the information in an article can be verified—since Wikipedia's content should not be about new things, but based on already published material. So, what you need to do is find these sources (those beyond what were noted in the deletion discussion), and cite them in order that the topic is shown to be notable, and the information contained in it, verifiable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your very informative and well written explanation. I'll try and create a new article on my own page (sandbox) together with others. Karimmaassen (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the information that was on the page but do not own the actual page, as it is owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsyvlania. Can you please restore my page and I'll make additional edits to make it different that the state site? I am the Representative's Chief of Staff and a state employee.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavanga (talk • contribs)

I will provide the skeleton of the page. I cannot restore any of the copyrighted material. I'll post it in a few minutes at User:Lavanga/Mark Painter. When you are ready to go live, use the move function to place it in the mainspace. However, please review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. In short, surface changes to copyrighted content is insufficient to avoid infringement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have enclosed the categories in nowiki tags, because userspace drafts should not populate into categories. When you are ready to go live, remove the <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's stance on conflict of interest editing?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi this is my first post so please lets me know if i made any mistakes. I saw that You have deleted my sandbox and an article for Queen Mother. I worked for her and she gave me rights to use her pages / images and information directly. You can call or email her at queenmothernews@gmail.com /(212) 368-3739

 This is her facebook page
 http://www.facebook.com/QueenMotherDrDeloisBlakely/info
 and these are her own websites 
 http://newfuturefoundation.com/about/board-and-executives/
 http://queenmamaafrica.com/History/history.html

I spent 7 days working on her wiki-biography and she also saw and approved the information on it. Please lets me know if you can reverted her page back. Thank you for your time.

I'm sorry you spent a lot of time on the submission (though obviously in organization, coding, photographs etc, and not on the text, since it is all copied and pasted material) but it will not be undeleted unless you get a verifiable release from the author(s). That is not done by assertion of ownership, and it's not done by the expedient of a statement to me, it's done through methods indicating proof of authorship, and then having the copyright owner(s) release the copyrighted material under a free copyright license, by a method that provides proof of ownership, and thus of authority to enter into that release. You need to visit Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to learn how such release is obtained. Who is the author of the material? The page was marked as a copyright violation of http://newfuturefoundation.com/about/board-and-executives/ but only half the material was from that page. However, all of the text, including the material from the former page, is found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trueblackness/message/48591 So, since newfuturefoundation does not contain all of the material, I can only think of three possibilities: 1) newfuturefoundation is the source, and there was more there at one time, which is why the yahoo group has the same material and more, or 2) the original source of all of the material is from somewhere else I have not located; or 3) Some of the material on the yahoo group page was copied and pasted from newfuturefoundation, and the balance of the material is from another source that I have not located. In any of these cases, the authors of all the material need to be identified, and the release provided for its use by each such copyright owners. Moreover, while Ms. Blakely does appear to be notable, please understand that even if you obtain a proper release, the article could never remain with this text unchanged as it is highly promotional material, written as a panegyric rather than a neutrally written, balanced, encyclopedia entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew it was supposed to be at the top, but didn't notice it was in the wrong place.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really bothers me that they have this one page backwards from all others. You probably clicked the "new section" button, which of course placed your post automatically at the bottom, which is a strong argument for the page being reformed. Anyway, glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting that (whatever it was) on the Help page. ~ If I did it, I would have been tagged and logged for "blanking". ;) E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually probably not, though it is more possible that would happen than if you were a registered editor--have you thought about registering? It's actually more anonymous than editing by your IP address?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed two revisions. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching those, done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my deepest and sincere apologies for offending. Thank you for your continued patience and compassion. Humbly yours, 24.144.38.101 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; just saw your edit summary :). So, I'd argue the link is purposeless in that template.

The underlying question: why does that template exist? And the answer is twofold - first, to indicate to readers "you may want to be cautious about trusting this content". The second is to indicate to editors (and potential editors) "if you can help fix this problem, you should, and here's how". When it comes to fixing this content, there are a couple of ways of doing it:

1. First, you can add citations. In this case the introduction to referencing link is far more helpful than linking to the policy on verifiability and (discretely) the policy on citations. People need to know how to do both, sure, but we're providing them with a long list of bluelinks they could click on. When people joke about "six degrees of Wikipedia", they're touching on the uncomfortable truth that everything links to everything else, and people follow those links: we could have people coming around to fix the problem and ending up trapped in a web of "one more thing I have to read". The introduction to referencing page has the advantage of encapsulating both "why we need it and how we do it". Reducing linkage and the list of things people are asked to make decisions between helps act as a driver for good-faith volunteers on this front.
2. Second, you can remove unsourced content: this is where the burden link comes in. Now, I'm not sure if it provides anything useful for the target audience - generally speaking the burden principle says "if you have unsourced content, the onus is on removal if it can't be sourced". This is helpful if the newcomer is in a dispute in which they wish to keep the content, but isn't useful for people who see the tag: if they pursue the "removal" rather than "add citations" process, they're not going to care so much that they're justified by policy. The template already said they could do it.

Does this make any sense? Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who come across bad/wrong/misplaced/overbroad etc. content don't understand that they have a right to remove it and the burden is on those wishing to keep it. I've seen great hesitancy in removal many, many times, "it's wrong/untrue etc. but can I really click edit and remove it? I'm just a new user, I don't have any authority" and then it remains (or we get the post at the help desk or wherever). At the same time, many people who add [bad] content believe that once anything is added, it's sacrosanct, and they need to be convinced and ten users must be involved for their golden words to be changed or removed. Okay, so let's look at it from a pragmatic point, as per your post. True, the link to somewhere that explains citation makes more direct sense, we told them they need to cite, now they need to be informed how to do so. But the idea that the words telling a person they have a right to remove is greatly enhanced by the link to WP:BURDEN for a few reasons.

First, the text says unsourced content "may be challenged and removed" but it doesn't say or imply anything about the burden to do so. A person wishing to remove content could easily say to themselves, after reading those words: "does this have to be discussed first?"; "do I have to be an administrator to do so"; "do I have to ask permission before I do so and to whom?"; "if I do so, can it just be added back by the other person?"; etc. A person wishing to keep content who see the removal could, by the same token, easily say to themselves, after reading those words: "didn't this have to be discussed first?"; "wasn't an administrator required to be asked first?"; "didn't the person have to ask permission before he/she did so?"; "can't I just add it back (and be on the right end of 3RR if they persist)?"; etc. The point is that seeing those words does not give any real clarity on what's involved in removal and the burden to add back.

As for the linking of "challenge", that's just like the need for a link for citing. Just as we need to point people to how to cite, we also need to point people to how to challenge (or one of the main ways, since there are others). It's certainly not self-evident to inexperienced users how a challenge can be made before removal. So I think the link for challenge should remain as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fairly rational. Is there no way we could modify the template text to include "no, seriously, you can actually remove it"? My worry is we're taking them away from the page to a rather long policy. Do you have any objections to the amalgamation of the purposes of the other links under introduction to referencing? Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think pointing people to the direct place where the issue is dealt with is best. By linking removal to WP:BURDEN, we're saying, "this is where the issues that are relevant to removal are directly dealt with". If we make one summarized link, say to Help:Introduction to referencing/1 which was expanded to deal with WP:BURDEN (as it does not currently), then we would still need to pipe the link a second time for the word "removal". The link is refined; yes it links to the verifiability policy, which is larger when read in full, but it does link to a specific section thereof and we are talking about a core policy we want people to read anyway. I'm really quite wary of everything being summarized to the point where it loses the complexity it needs to be properly informative. Anyway, I've always believed that to a great extent, the people who actually click on links we provide, read and are informed, are people who can handle a slightly larger page, and conversely, those who don't, mostly wouldn't be informed no matter where the link pointed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my experience Wikipedia doesn't offer "slightly" larger pages on stuff ;p. But thank you for the perspective and the considerate discussion: it seems we're both comfortable with where the template sits at the moment, so lets leave it like that! A productive way to start the new year :). Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to interpret this, in ref. to balkline games in the 1890s? "Demarest won by 250 to 80, with a high run of 65 and an average of 20 10-12, to Gallagher's high run of 30 and an average of 7 6-11"? It's the "20 10-12" and "7 6-11" part I don't grok with fullness. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite baffling. I've worried at it from various directions and cannot make sense of it. All I can surmise right now is that the first number is the actual average and the second two numbers separated by a hyphen are a convention giving other pertinent information about the match unrelated to the average – say, number of points made on first and last visits to the table. I'm going to keep my eyes open on this question and will get back to you if I learn the answer (and please do likewise).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the format is broadly consistent throughout the era; I saw it in source after source when researching Spinks (still at that, too; found some more stuff on his avocado cultivar). I too am certain, from various reading over these last few years, that the first number is indeed the average number of points per inning. Neither of the other numbers can be number of innings, or they would always either be the same or off-by-one between the two players (they are in this example by coincidence). This case, which gives the score in each inning, also (alas) disproves it's first & last inning scores: Spinks Beats Schaeffer [sic] It also can't been games won and lost (e.g. if playing multiple games to whatever number of point, with breaks beten them and eventually adding up to whatever the cut-off was, a common practice in the era), or one player's numbers would be the inverse of the other's. Maybe your math skills are better than mine. Ooh! I just realized I know a lot of math geeks. I'm going to post this on FaceassBook as a challenge. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got part of it. I looked at a bunch of articles and it's become clear the second number in the hyphenated combination is the total innings. See for example, [1] where you can basically follow the inning count. Divide the total points by that second number and you get the average. So, for example, in your first quote in the OP, divide Demarest's total points of 250 by 12 and you get an average of 20(.833). Voilà. You can then deduce that even though this quote doesn't provide Gallagher's final score, with "7 6-11", his final score had to be somewhere between 77 and 87 (if that's not clear: because they round down, it has to be a score between 77 (which in 11 innings is an average of exactly 7; anything lower would round down to 6), and 87 (which in 11 innings is an average of 7.9; anything higher would be an average of 8 or more). I am still clueless on the first number – possibly it's the number of goose egg innings. (Another clue, obvious in retrospect, is that the two player's second hyphenated number is either always the same between them, or different by one – since they alternate turns, the innings must perforce be identical or the winner will have one more.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's test that with more data. Here's what I posted to Fartbook (see the pile of data in the link at the end):

MATH GEEK CHALLENGE!

The year is 1898. The 'New York Times' reports:

"CHICAGO, Jan. 18—William A. Spinks defeated Jake Schaefer Sr. to-night in the second game of the eighteen-inch balkline [billiards] tournament. The score was 260 to 139. Score [by inning]:

Spinks—4, 31, 0, 19, 4, 2, 3, 34, 8, 22, 2, 0, 0, 11, 1, 2, 16, 15, 0, 23, 8, 1, 48, 6. Average, 10 5–6; highest run, 28.

Schaefer—2, 0, 2, 18, 0, 0, 4, 10, 4, 4, 11, 0, 0, 9, 4, 1, 2, 38, 12, 6, 3, 0, 0, 9. Average, 5 19–24; higest run, 28."

Obviously the first number after "Average" (10 for Spinks, 5 for Schaefer) is the average number of points per inning. But WHAT ARE THE OTHER TWO AVERAGE NUMBERS THAT COME AFTERWARD (5–6 for Spinks, 19–24 for Schaefer)? I have more billiards-related books than I can count, but none of them explain this scoring model. It was consistently used around the turn of the last century, and can't be all that complicated, because everyone understood it - you basically can't find it explained anywhere. :-)

There's a lot more data like this in http://www.chicagobilliardmuseum.org/files/TomFoleyBilliardRecordsR.pdf

A friend, Lennart, responded with the following, which I have not had time to analyze: "Those are fractions. The averages were 10 and 5/6, and 5 and 19/24. If you take 260/24 you get 10 and 5/6, and 139/24 is 5 and 19/24.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shows you what happens when you look at only one example instead of seeing whether your supposition holds true over a cross section. It just happened that in the example I looked at, the first number divided by the innings happened to reach the gross average—a false lead—and the two second number was the same for both—another false lead. Yes, they are fractions--139 points ÷ 24 innings = an average of 5.79166, and 19/24 = 0.79166:-) Mystery solved!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want this, I'm sure. I wish it were a couple of years older, for copyright purposes (has some nice pics in it). Has not just stats and rules but also articles, e.g. on both of the Shaefers.

• Foley, Tom (1925). The Billiard Records from 1859 to 1925: List of Champions at All Styles of Play, Noteworthy Performances, Rules Covering Present Day Games (PDF). New York State Billiard Association.

Here's the big B.B.C. Co. book (1910), much more comprehensive than the little Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards (1914 and I think 1921).

• Handbook of Rules of Billiards (PDF). Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. 1910. Long title: The Complete Hand-book of Standard Rules of All the Prominent Games of Billiards and Pool

I'm hoping there's an even older version of this going into the late 1800s.

Loads more PDFs (I'm downloading all of them, for safekeeping):

• Chicago Billiard Museum Reference Library

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Just awesome. I haven't even begun to explore the museum site's resources. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. It's a bit overwhelming! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The B.B.C. Co. Handbook of Rules of Billiards/Complete Hand-book of Standard Rules appears to have at least had an earlier 1908 edition (I found an expensive reprint being offered that claimed to be a copy of that edition; I can probably find the real thing eventually in the same price range as the ripoff I mean reprint). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, drumroll, here it is. Also: every edition of Accu-Stats.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent improvements to my article on Mary Sands. I was wondering about one change you made, which originally was: "Sands was born Mary Bullman on April 8, 1871 in..." changed to "Mary Bullman Sands was born on April 8, 1871 in..."

Even though I have seen the phrase "born [birth name]" following a married or other name used in adult life, I realize my placement of the term appeared somewhat awkward. What I wanted to make clear was that "Bullman" was her original last name.

I was wondering if replacing the current wording with something like: "Sands (born Mary Bullman) was born on April 8, 1871 in..." or "Mary Sands (born Mary Bullman) was born on April 8, 1871 in..." would be more acceptable as an alternative.

Thanks, K828 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I think I was just being dense. You could always revert me. However, what I just did was add née to the entry. Nice article!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I like that wording. And thanks for the compliment! K828 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for those edits. Do you think it is now submittable? I added a slight amount to the lead secton as well. Middle More (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some fleshing out I think, and the citation formatting need a lot of work but I am not an AfC reviewer. It certainly is closer now:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it will be very useful. Yes, sometimes this stuff just seems like a gigantic mass of letters and symbols to me. Middle More (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Homework help from JHUbal27.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Please answer by 13:00 UTC. Thank you. JHUbal27 11:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fine work on the Vigoda bio. Can you stop by Talk:Abe Vigoda and offer your thoughts regarding the RfC? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You stonewall me at the article talk back in 2011[2] after unilaterally forcing your change in[3] and then declaring LEAD violations if removed - and now you're soliciting opinions? That's what the RfC template is for. How could Fuhg not have seen the discussion? Doc talk 07:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Fuhghettaboutit

you have deleted a new page created by me today "The Forum of Culture and Arts of Uzbekistan Foundation (The Fund Forum)" due to copyright issue. I just emailed to wiki foundation that i have rights to use the website info. Do you think it will be fine and it is possible to put the article back online? regards((subst:unsignd|Patisserie))

Hey Patisserie. If you did this in the proper form, i.e. an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an email address associated with the domain name of the site and properly stating the release, it may be restored, but I would not be the one to handle that or involved at all. That will be done by a member of the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Have you recreated the talk page and placed on it "((OTRS pending))"? If not, you should do so. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((helpme))

Regarding this article: Food Rules! The Stuff You Munch, Its Crunch, Its Punch, and Why You Sometimes Lose Your Lunch. Can someone please italicize the name/title of the article? I have tried a million things, and nothing seems to work. You can check the edit history of that article, to see what I have tried. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Also, in this article: Food Rules: An Eater's Manual ... what makes the title become italics? I did not see anything in the edit box that would render an italics title? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Italic_title Add ((Italic title)) to the top of the page. Cheers, User:Ocaasi ^c 00:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was one of the many things that I tried. It did not work. Other suggestions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Done. The documentation on ((italic title)) has a number of suggestions for when it does not work directly—the third one was successful. Note that the DISPLAYTITLE code I used does not work if it's relocated above the infobox, and I think many editors' natural instinct will be to move it there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the (very) late reply. Thanks for your help, above! Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From advice on translation to explanations about signatures, your Teahouse answers are detailed and accessible. Thanks for helping guide our guests!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading an old conversation you participated in, and I thought I'd mention how much progress has gone on over at Today's articles for improvement. If you missed it, an RFC was held and concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. We will be launching the feature on the Main Page shortly, and the Main Page sandbox shows it will look. Participation on the talk page is always welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of us just removed a duplicate post from the help desk. I have put one of them back. Sort of thing that happens. Britmax (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Per the page history I beat you by a few seconds, which means you owe me a cup of coffee by long standing Wikipedia tradition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop it in the post. Britmax (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post this at WP:RFD but I can't, because I can't edit the redirect page. Currently Slenderman and Slender Man both redirect to Fakelore. But the Slenderman redirect is locked. Please can you remove the lock on the redirect? The people at Fakelore are getting frustrated. Serendi^podous 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F, it looks like there's chaos at William C. Rader, which we discussed at the help desk last night. You appropriately added back about 7000 bytes of content that User:Medstudent213 had removed in January. Well, Medstudent again removed all the content today to sanitize the article, yet wrote the misleading edit summary, "Revert to unsanitized revision". Since then, a few other editors - primarly User:TheRedPenOfDoom - have made many edits to the article, taking it from about 13,000 bytes to its current 2600. I'm not sure RedPen even noticed Medstudent's removal of the 7000 bytes. Also, RedPen left this comment on Medstudent's talk page. So I'm very confused as to what's going on with the article, but what I do know is that there is major editing going on there and lots of sourced content has been removed, leaving the article in what appears to be a completely sanitized state with lots of sourced content gone. I was hoping you could look into the matter. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RedPen has taken this in hand and has cut out a lot of trivial content, removed statements sourced by primary and self-serving sources. Maybe too much has been removed but articles sometimes are in such a state that cutting them way back is the only way to see the forest for the trees. As it was, the article read like a mishmash of battle scars between POV warriors and I'm glad he's doing something because I certainly have no interest in this article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you continue to think that protection of Slenderman is still warranted? Ruslik_Zero 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been long enough and now that it has a seemingly pretty stable home, it should be less subject to continuous recreation with problematic content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. No I need both Slender Man and Slenderman unlocked (when was Slender Man locked?). I want to move it to its own page; the Fakelore guys don't want it there. Serendi^podous 14:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that was locked too. It's unprotected now:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Great... *breathes deeply*... yes, thank you. Right. Now I'll get started. Serendi^podous 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAFI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on General of Artillery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 20:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been one of major contributors of Halloween II (1981 film), haven't you? This article is nominated for FA delisting, so improvement is needed to help it retain its FA status. Also, you may join in discussion by clicking the hyperlinked heading. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer on disputing the facuality of an entry was spot on, and covered all the bases without over complicating the subject for the new user. Thanks

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for tagging it G11 was the "informative video link" is actually a YouTube advertisement to sell enzymes that directly links to "BestDigestiveEnzymes.com", which redirects to "BioTrust.com", a site selling questionable dietary supplements. I do understand that it may not be currently blatant enough at the moment, but I'll certainly be keeping an eye on it. Thanks for looking at it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, please do keep an eye on it and take action later where warranted. If it was in the mainspace or was sitting for a long time in the userspace things would be different. When I wrote that decline I crafted it to convey that this was no bad tagging, that the material was decidedly on the bubble, and that if secondary action was taken after a bit of 'wait and see', that would not be taken by me, and should not be taken by others as "admin shopping".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. In the mean time I've noindexed it to reduce any possible promotional powers. Thanks again. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 03:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was better before the oversourcing clutter, you are correct. I detest stubs that link to 6 sources to say one thing. However, I am using all those sources for more information for the article, and someone formatted them all correctly, and I usually write articles on my cell phone, so it will prove useful.

Thanks for the move. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about paring them back but I had already figured "what the hell, they'll prove useful." Anytime on the move. Going to go see if I can find a film poster.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, the poster for the info box. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ms:Perbincangan_pengguna:Irfanshaharuddin#Improper_block_.2F_blok_tidak_wajar. :) -- Cheers, Riley 06:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterical! Thanks Riley. Blocked and unblocked and I'll never probably know why my name was considered obscene in Malaysian (or obscene in English, as interpreted by a non-speaker).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request rollback on the English Wikipedia. I have been looking for vandalized articles for a short while now, but I would like to use more lucrative tools to help on finding edits that I'm not Shure is vandalism, Thanks. Seqqis (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've replied at Request for Permission. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the links - I had found some of them but not all. There's some useful stuff there. Spencer's airship was the first British powered flight, however, all attempts to find a "first flight" date have defeated me. Several sources quote 19 September 1902 or thereabouts, but that seems to be the first journey - Crystal Palace to Eastcote. I then discovered that his wife had flown it solo on 14 July 1902, making her the first woman anywhere to fly a powered aircraft solo. The rest of the story is at Wikipedia Reference desk Archives: First_British_powered_flight. Anyway, thanks again. I'm in the midst of assembling all the snippets into a coherent narrative. I still haven't got a damned first flight date, as I can't believe he let his wife fly his new airship for the first time. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Continuing at your talk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the latest ref - another piece of the jigsaw. The airship was built with the proceeds of a sponsorship deal to advertise "Mellin's Food for Infants & Invalids" by a round trip over London. Mellin's didn't pay the full amount because Spencer's flight was only one way. There was a court case in which Spencer tried to recover the full amount but lost. Most contemporary sources call it the "Mellin's Airship, but some later ones go with "Spencer's Airship Number 1", the larger Number 2 being completed in the following year. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know I refactored your comment at the teahouse solely for the purpose of removing "this user is blocked" or something like that. Nothing against their block, just there's a sort of (mini-ish) consensus on the host lounge talkpage that we don't want that kind of "this user is blocked, and omg it happened after they posted here" message on the question page, as it may deter/scare new users :) Any questions feel free to ask. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gwick. I would have a thousand times over preferred you remove my post than alter it in any way. What you left was essentially a non sequitur. It needed the statement I had there to make sense. To put it another way, I would never have written what was left, ever. The whole tenor of the post, its tense, the way it was written more addressed to readers than the user, was in light of the fact he or she was blocked. As for the idea of not permitting such notes, I disagree with the practice (and could elaborate) but respect the consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, I'll go readd it in my own words then. Sorry again. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. I'll just leave it. I'm not too good at writing messages that don't scare off newbies but still provide a good answer, when I know the person's blocked. If you'd like, WT:Teahouse/Host lounge has a discussion I opened (there was a bigger one but it got archived I think) about it, feel free to comment again. Sorry again :) gwickwire^talk_editing 04:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When deleting pages under G13, can I urge you to use a summary such as the one I have suggested at MediaWiki_talk:Deletereason-dropdown#G13? It is probably in your best interest to do this, so you aren't deluged with undeletion requests or angry statements from newbies on your talk page! — This, that and the other (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the Mediwaki request which bizarrely was transcluded here, so that when I first responded here, or thought I was, I was actually editing there. Can't figure that one out, but no matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at my sandbox...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for taking some of your time to help me  Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

any first yr law student could tell you that both bind a party from future actions. If you are in the class you will be bound by the outcome of the case & can't sue yourself after the lawsuit by the class rep. 108.44.61.209 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's (sort of) a true statement but in no way explains why class action's addition to the see also section is warranted. Saying they "both bind a party from future actions" doesn't work because it treats "class action" as if it is another, related legal doctrine. Rather, a class action lawsuit has preclusive effect on members of the class because of the application of res judicata, and not because class action has its own preclusive effect. To put it another way, all you've done is identify a sphere in which res judicata operates. So what? By that logic, we might as well add to the see also section "lawsuit", since the result of any final adjudication in one operates as res judicata. We don't because see also sections are for related concepts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.:: Thanks For Yor Great Answer::.

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

 Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you so much for your help with my request in the Teahouse! MegaZega93 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the tables on alcohol laws of New Jersey. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to implement the great advice you gave me for the draft of my first entry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dnikkir/Nicholas_A._Basbanes. Would you please take a look at it to see if it is better?

Many thanks. Dnikkir (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 11:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo 11:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, You have deleted my article about 12Volt-Travel earlier today. Please replace the article into my drafts area so that I may continue to improve on it.

Thank You,Stomp Enterprises (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with Interac (Japan) and could use some help, could you take a look at it? I'm trying to make the correct revisions as we have discussed it on the Talk page for a year. Taurus669 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taurus! I'm sorry I am nearly inactive right now and will be for a short while. I don't have the time to delve into the history, revisions, discussions and the like, and I try not to act until I've surrounded an issue, looking at all sides, so I need real time to look. Please ask someone else on the list. Sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 03:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo 03:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you deleted the article "The Bone Dance". It is an album by E-Zee Possee; please restore content to User:Launchballer/The Bone Dance so I have something to work from.--Launchballer 07:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Launchballer. In light of what you've said, I now see this was a posting of lyrics, though it just looked like nonsense. There was nothing on the page but the lyrics—no infobox, description, categories, prose—nothing, so there's nothing for you to work from. It was also a copyright violation, which cannot be undeleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding the cast at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film), I invite you to the discussion here. You mentioned in your edit summary that WP:FILMCAST allows grouping of the cast, but the guidelines are referring to films where there are many names worth noting. One example is The Dark Knight (film) where the main cast is listed in bullet form, and numerous secondary cast members are grouped together. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit (love the name btw). I've fixed the one offending issue at the Blockbuster Entertainment Award nomination at DYK. Thanks for the review. Freikorp (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meanderings of Memory, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1852 manuscript Meanderings of Memory is used as an early or first source for 51 entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, but when looked for in 2013, could not be located? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meanderings of Memory. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For the article listed above. I get anti-vandalism Barnstars sometimes when I beat people to reverts; well, you just beat me to that DYK! That topic was totally on my list of things to write about, but I'm pretty sure you wrote a far better article than I would have. :) Nicely done. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much IronGargoyle. It's great (and rare) to get feedback like this. I have been scooped a few times myself. I was really fascinated by this story so wrote it up almost immediately after hearing about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me posted. I will take that into consideration next time. --JustBerry (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Letting users know where templates belong. That deserves a barn-star. Good work! JustBerry (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm a new would-be copy-editor, and still a little confused over the function of edit summaries. If I comb an article for small changes that I think will improve overall clarity and grammar, is it sufficient to put "copy-editing" in the summary? Or is that too vague? Sorry for bothering you; I just didn't really find the Edit Summary page helpful, as it didn't contain any examples of what an edit summary would actually look like. Thanks! Sallyrooney (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sally. It's no bother at all (feel free to "bother" me anytime, for any reason; I'll try to help or point you to somewhere else if I can't). It is quite sufficient to give a brief indication of what you are doing, such as "copyedit". I have used that, alone, but I have also been much more expansive, such as here (probably overkill). Especially when I am trying to communicate indirectly at a new user I will be much more thoughtful about the edit summary. I sometimes even pipe a link or two point at policy/guideline that undergirds the reason I am making certain changes, e.g. here and here. Also, there are certain types of edits where a detailed and carefully written edit summary comes in handy, such as when you are doing something potentially controversial, reverting the edits of another editor, or invoking a policy for some very specific effect. Edit summaries can even be used to fix real problems, such as here. All this is to say, just providing a short indication as to what you are doing is fine, but edit summaries can also be used for real strategic effect. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very helpful indeed. Sallyrooney (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Civility Barnstar

I was visiting my oldest contribution and found this discussion. It was very funny. And your comment By the way, there's nothing wrong with the way you've been replying was too good! You could clearly tell that my replying style was incorrect, but, you did not. Thanks for you civil and polite behaviours. Now, in these two years I have made 50,000+ edits. Does not it show how few kind words or some help (as you did that day) encourages an editor? Thank you once again. Tito Dutta (contact) 02:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I disliked the institution of WikiLove into the interface back in 2011 is that I think barnstars and the like should not be given out like tic tacs, for adding commas (and that has resulted) but yours is special.
— Your this comment directly related to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards! So far, I have felt those comments "one does great sacrifice" etc are weird! I have seen no one doing "great sacrifices" to get barnstar! But, your point that one should not award a barnstar for correcting a typo or adding/removing a comma is much better! Though it'll be against my MFD, you can add "your own" opinion there! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think that being featured on the "did you know" section of the main page would be really cool. So, yes! I would love some help/advice on that. My hook would be something along the lines of: ...that many species of fungi involved in ectomycorrhizas are capable of degrading and mineralizing a variety of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found in the environment? Does that seem simultaneously thorough, succinct and interesting enough? There is a nice, well-written review source for this statement referenced in the "pollution and phytoremediation" section of the main article (reference 95). However, I can't find a good photograph to go along with it, so it might have to be nominated picture-less. Let me know what you think. Ebertar (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, so don't get more specific with the hook than the scope of the article allows; duly noted. Well, seeing as I like the way the hook is written, what if I slightly amend the article? Honestly, that section concerning the POPs could probably use a bit more clarification anyways. Now, the article specifically mentions POPs and mineralization (the things I was specifically getting at in the original hook). I think this also works better since the hook mentions a variety of POPs, and the main article now lists at least 3 examples from different studies. Would that make the hook more logical and descriptive of what is actually written in the article at hand? Thanks again for all the help! Behind-the-scenes at wikipedia is much more involved than I would have anticipated, haha. Ebertar (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! In that case, the article and hook now match up. Should my next move be to go to the T:TDYK page, and follow the instructions for nomination? I can nominate myself, correct? Ebertar (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the official Seoul city website at http://english.seoul.go.kr/gtk/cg/cityhall.php?pidx=4&sub=3 (may take a while to load, half way around the world from me).Naraht (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Naraht, I'll add that to the image page, with something like "The image can be viewed here".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit to Template:Db-g13 left some formatting issues with the template at the bottom. I'm not sure what your intentions were regarding the edit, so I'll leave it up to you to fix it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Gogo. I was just grabbing the text from CSD G13 to work from and then never erased it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to remove the speedy tags when you REFUND G13 submissions. :) Cheers, and have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Yes indeed, thanks for the heads up (you could have done it for me since I obviously missed it:-). I've restored them (again).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help from about a month ago in my sandbox about a request to add sister links to my left-side navigation. Someone came up with a cleaner approach, which I invite you to look at here: User:StevenJ81/common.js. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
For your gret answer and your help. Miss Bono  (zootalk) 12:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks for solving the formatting problem. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you read the paper I cited before your latest edit. The TGA curve and Results and Discussion section showed 400°C, and the XRD data supported this. I also have several other published papers that give this figure. Please could you provide a TGA curve, or some other actual data (ie not just a number), that proves that calcium acetate melts at 160°C - I have not been able to find this data on the net. I was curious, so actually heated calcium acetate in the lab, but all that happened at 160°C was that it lost the water of hydration and became calcium acetate anhydrous. TIA Taikobeat (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying at the help desk, where you duplicated this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Optional message That was a very helpful answer, I will do a peer review soon, and I will keep note the backlog issue. Cheers! --PrabashWhat? 14:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

I'm a newbie, and I'm wise enough to say so, so pardon me if I'm doing things the "wrong" way or seem to be out of place. I'm trying to learn all I can and practice techniques in my own userspace before attempting to do things in the "real world" and inadvertently causing a big stir, as newbies are wont to do.  :-)

It seems like you were a contributor to Template:Split to a couple years ago. So it seems to me like you may be an excellent person to have in the discussion we're having on how to properly split an article, and then properly updating WP:SPLIT to reflect what we've learned. I think I'm not the only one who's a bit confused about how this template is to be used and what the final result should look like.

I'm actually an old computer geek, myself, and pretty good at writing documentation, so I can certainly help there ... but where we're weak is understanding specifically what the template is calling for.

I'll also be inviting contributors of Template:Split from to our discussion, so we can have a full understanding and agreement on this.

Thanks in advance for your help and comments!

Djdubay (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Miss Bono  (zootalk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting experiment, but no, it didn't work. I picked it up from my watch-list, but I didn't get a notification. I like the notification system, though: here it alerted Lankiveil without the bother of a special message. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for telling me. So if I had started my talk page message with your username, even unlinked and without "user:", (let's see: JohnCD) you would have gotten the notification" (will it work with the ending parenthese I just wrote? or will it not because it will understand that only as "JohnCD)"?) This may result in a new talkpage standard of pre- or post-fixing a user's name to comments so they get the alert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unlinked doesn't work either. There is discussion at WT:Notifications/FAQ#Mentions. If I understand it right, it has to be (a) linked and (b) in a message signed with ~~~~. They have invented ((ping)) as a way to provide a link without going into the full ((user)), and ((noping)) as a way of mentioning someone without notifying them. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few comments, but I've placed the review on hold, as my overwhelming impression is that only half the story is being told. What's the background to attempts to communicate with extraterrestrials? How big was this design intended to be? Has anyone subsequently attempted to implement anything like it? Might it have worked, in the sense of being visible from Mars? Eric Corbett 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_26#Template:Cuegloss.
Message added 06:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions at the Teahouse, I appreciate your efforts. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear F, I really appreciate your reply to my initial Help desk query to which I've just added an extension. You get high marks for content and style! I'm more of a RD denizen myself, but now I see the HD makes for good reading too. Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have been too hasty in agreeing with the Help Desk poster and removing the photo from North Branch Correctional Institution. Compare the photo with this Google street view from a spot approximating the location from which the photo appears to have been taken, noting in particular the conformation of the mountains in the background. It appears to me that the photograph is indeed of North Branch. Deor (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: Agreed, that would be dispositive, except I don't think you compared the locations; both prisons are on the same road in the same town about a fifth of a mile apart: it's the same mountain! With that in mind, check out the external links I posted to photos at the help desk and look at the fence Western has, which is identical to the one in the Commons photograph, and then Northern, which has no fence like it. Or check out Northern's address on Google street view [4] and then look at Western's [5] (both addresses taken from Maryland's Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services website). The street view of Western is actually from the same location as the Commons photo and you can even compare the buildings in the two photos and see they match.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I didn't realize that the two facilities were adjacent to each other. I thought that the whole complex at that location was North Branch. Never mind. Deor (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks for your help with the Stewart Hase article!Stmullin (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fuhgettaboutit. Recently I noticed that the shortcut WP:RM/TR wasn't taking me to the usual place where I try to close technical moves. Then I saw some back-and-forth in the history of that shortcut. Due to a recent improvement in Template:RMassist it makes a difference where the shortcut goes. If you have not seen User:Wbm1058's recent improvement of ((RMassist)) could you read the discussion at the bottom of Template talk:RMassist? I'm hoping to persuade you that having RM/TR go directly to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests is the best option. If not, what would you think of me creating a new shortcut that does go there? This will save me a click for every technical move that I handle. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ed. I do think the link pointing there is better for a few reasons. Most importantly, when people are referred to technical moves (and because of the length of the name) the shortcut is used a lot, and I think people get much better context when they see it as part of the RM process, rather than as an isolated page – especially because other parts of the larger page refer to it. It is also the way we normally provide a shortcut to a transcluded section of a larger overarching page, e.g., from the same page, WP:RM/CM. Note that the technical moves section only became a transcluded page around June 30, 2012 (see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 23#The new technical request archiving process). But yes, I do see the issue. Because you can't click RMassist's link from the main page any longer you have to navigate to WP:TM/TR and then click edit. There's already a shortcut that can be uses: WP:RMTR. I've re-purposed it so it points at the transcluded page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F, the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RFC:_punctuation_when_quoting has run more than 30 days and has just had its RFC tag removed, but it hasn't been closed. From what I've seen, you are an admin without a position in MOS-related disputes, so perhaps you can take on the task of closing it. I believe that MOS-related issues with such wide and multi-faceted participation may be too complex for a less experienced admin. While the RFC shows broad support for the current guideline relative to quotation marks, its validity has been challenged by those who are not comfortable with those guidelines. Their concerns should be evaluated and addressed. The outcome could affect a large percentage of all articles, so it's potentially a very big deal – you are probably aware that MOS-related discussions can be troubled, and are still subject to discretionary sanctions.

Discussion has completely stopped; new !votes have been appearing at the rate of about one every two days, but now that the RFC is delisted that will probably stop. Note that the instructions were designed to make it easy to count, but some people !voted for more than one option, so if you want to look at stats, keep that in mind. Also note that the RFC as originally started by Tony1 was modified by someone who didn't like the way he did it, and they removed his signature; he never objected; see the history.

Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dick. Sorry I've let this sit here for a while without comment, and thanks for thinking of me. I took a look at the discussion but I don't think this close is for me. Most importantly, I have a very strong bias for LQ and teach it in real life as the preferred and better style for all legal writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to personally thank you for taking the time you did to review the article I've been working on. Your review is highly professional and very informative. Being pretty new to WP, I have to say that just reading through your changes is like reading an essay on how to effectively edit. Also, after getting nothing but abusive feedback from one editor, it's beyond refreshing to find someone who takes real pride in their work and who exemplifies how great WP can be when people act courteously and professionally. Thank you and have a great evening. Frank --FGuerino (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated – you're welcome. Unfortunately, yours is one of the first drafts I've seen in a while from someone asking for assistance at the Teahouse that's not some business proprietor hawking their company; it was a pleasure seeing a draft from someone who's here because they have an encyclopedic intent and a passion for a topic rather than some promotional issue. Note that I was not reviewing it with an eye toward correct focus, weight or organization, nor assessing the quality and depth of sourcing and what information belonged. In that regard, I am no expert in any way on the topic of the article. I was simply doing a line edit of the language. Once the draft is in your view ready to "go live", you can simply move it to the mainspace, but you can also add to it (at the top) ((submit)) and await review through the articles for creation process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When someone asks at the teahouse about how to "nominate for deletion" an article, I would like you not to use replies like "What made you think it qualified for speedy deletion in the first place?"

Do you understand why?

Are you aware of the existence of WP:BITE? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a routine question from a complete newbie. The other editor, Tattoodwaitress, who later posted below, is going through a training exercise. She came to the Teahouse asking for tips and hints for solving a test question, but didn't want (at least at first) the answer handed to her on a platter. In that context, I don't think Fuhghettaboutit's question was bitey, but was instead intended as a learning interchange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, thank you very much for posting above. Exactly. I have responded to you at the Teahouse Demiurge. In short, you read something into my question that wasn't present in intent and apparently neither Cullen nor Tattoo "heard" what you did. It was a real question and if you were in the same room with me and I said it aloud you would never have gotten the impression you did. I do think, by the context of what I was responding to, that what you read into it was not invited, but one of the problems when we only have each other's words on a screen to go on, is that we lose all body language, gesture, tone, inflection, emphasis; it makes it much easier to misunderstand one another.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. The points you make about the potential for misunderstanding online are important ones. That is why I try to interact with editors I don't know well in a neutral, literal, disspassionate style. I find that style of communication minimizes misunderstandings. When I get to know someone pretty well, then a joke or two might be appropriate. But we are here to write an encyclopedia, aren't we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've seen plenty of bitey users, even some admins. Fuhg is definitely not one known to be bitey: the exact opposite is usually the case in my experience. Doc talk 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]