Thanks a lot, Uncle G. Your edits at the Reproductive Health were all very helpful. Please continue helping as we improve that article. :) 03:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Most of what I did was citation cleanup. I hope that future editors can follow the pattern, now that it's laid out. If you've seen your watchlist notice, you'll have seen that I'm a bit busy at the moment, busy enough that it has severely impacted my content editing. So I cannot help much with that. Even the Baptists are on hold. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you see that...I've got an unwritten parody running around through my head and its not going to leave me alone until I try tot write and I can't write until I find the 19 ways to call it copyvio.... :-P--*Kat* (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost
Three important factual corrections:
Not all of the articles are copyright violations. Three people have independently reviewed samples of the articles to estimate the percentage that are expected to be copyright violations: me, Carrite, and llywrch. We all broadly agree on a very rough estimate of 10% of the total.
Your quote of me is a misquote that is going to read as false to any readers who know me. I don't write "s/he", and I didn't write it there. The wikitext that I wrote was "((gender:Darius Dhlomo|he|she|xe))".
Can you fix this one yourself? I kind of have no clue what you mean. I input gender command and I get...xe. And I doubt people would know enough to litteraly detect that kind of to-the-letter inconsistency (and if they did, it would be downright creepy). ResMar02:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, I've been a Wikinews editor for a long time. Even on wikis, it's not a good idea to let the subject write the piece. ☺ I know that I wouldn't want subjects writing the piece if I were the reporter. So I've gone with the usual route of supplying the fact corrections for the reporter to review, research, and update the piece accordingly. I even tried to do so well before your deadline. ☺As to recognizing what isn't my writing: It wouldn't be creepy. You'll be surprised how many people know this. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand from looking over the template:gender, you don't list the various forms expected to be displayed (((gender:User|he|she|xe))); you just list the TYPE you want (nominative, accusative, genitive, reflexive, etc), and it checks on the User to get the right one. Am I understanding the template correctly?? WesT (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is active (or has been). It would be nice if you updated the CCI or BRFA discussion saying how big a chunk it is doing. I see some of its edits have already been reverted, restoring apparent copyvios ([1] seems to copy text from [2]). I think the bot should do just a fairly short blanking run (few hundred articles) and then give us a few days to see what happens before continuing. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you and others go and have a long talk with Trackinfo (talk·contribs). See Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/How to help for why. Trackinfo seems to be of the opinion that things that are largely sentence-for-sentence identical and turned into a derived work by Trackinfo are "I reworded all of those sentences." There are also statements by Trackinfo that the "legwork" in creating "these highly accurate wikifications of public record documents" is "so valuable" that "I would be willing to overlook the occasional tendency toward copyright violations in prose". You and others are best placed to disabuse xem of these notions, right now, before things get out of hand.As for the rest: That was the short run, that I said I'd be doing a while back, to test the 'bot script and demonstrate it in action so that people can look at the edit rate and so forth. (I even found and fixed a problem with the category handling, you'll notice.) Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was 22 articles (one of which is now redlinked on the list) twice. I ran the process twice, expecting the second run to be a batch of null edits that wouldn't show up. They did, revealing a problem, that I then found the cause for and fixed (by explicitly filtering out that particular category). Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you don't know me but I know you. You were an admin on Wikinews, and seeing as you're active here on Wikipedia, may I ask you if you could comeback to Wikinews? We are in desperate need of contributors, and from what I've seen you were great on your job. Cheers, --Diego Grez (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The bot will roll back every article to the version immediately prior to Darius Dhlomo's first edit, based on a master list generated by VernoWhitney. The articles he created will not be deleted, but the bot will blank the page completely."
Also: will articles which have already been reviewed be excluded from the main bot list? There are at least a few hundred between the first and second pages of the CCI. SFB07:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a short test list of articles that I've run through the 'bot; so you can see from the 'bot's own contributions history what the 'bot does. Notice that I've addressed one discovered problem and one further request. This is just the created articles pass, at this stage. I'm not even set up to roll back articles, yet. I'm looking into how that can be done; and the 'bot would need a new tool written to be able to do it. Plus, of course, that second pass as a whole is still up for discussion.
Moonriddengirl has already said that xe is working up a list of pages to be immediately rolled back. If xe gives me a list of pages like Margaret de Jesús ahead of time I can remove them from the list given to the 'bot in the first place. For reasons noted above on this very page and on Moonriddengirl's talk page, Moonriddengirl is a good clearinghouse for such a list. I suggest that you two help Moonriddengirl concoct that list. Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to do the rest of the articles at any given time? Or are you going to do them one page a day or something of that sort? I can't really generate a list for you at this point because the list is in flux. People are still evaluating this content. :/
What we could do is add an "edit notice" to each of the CCI subpages asking people after a certain timestamp to watch the articles they've cleared so that they can remove the bot notices themselves. That way, I could generate a list of exclusions for you from before the timestamp and people who are still working after will know to keep an eye. That would work best, I think, if you plan to do the rest of the list all at once. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what we're going to have to ask them to do at the CCI is to remove the blanking template from the pages anyway when they evaluate. Otherwise, there will be redundancy of labor. And we may need to change the template to ask them to mark the clearance at the CCI for the same reason. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether VernoWhitney can come up with a way of refactoring the CCI list to take out the blanked articles after they are blanked, so that people didn't have the extra task of ticking articles off, there, and we could just rely upon the category to depopulate. Xe did say that the current list on the CCI pages was in two parts, with separately numbered sequences. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we might want to delay action on this until if we know whether Verno can have his bot do this. I'm not sure. The actual CCI list is generated by a Tool, not a bot. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so while I could come up with a way of removing blanked articles from the CCI list when they are blanked (it would take me a few days and probably another BRFA, but it's possible) I don't think that just using the category is a good way of doing things. If we did that it would remove transparency so that nobody could follow up on which articles have been marked copyvio and which have been cleared, and ofttimes more importantly: by whom. I note that there's already at least one editor who has been working fairly extensively on this CCI who really shouldn't be (have been? not sure if they're still at it) due to past copyright problems. If it was all just in categories they could clear them and noone would know without specifically checking up on their contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I've been working on other CCIs and forgot about that recent changes list. That would help, but it wouldn't leave an easily accessible permanent record though, so I'm still not sold on the idea, but if others want to go ahead with it let me know and I'll put code to edit the CCI pages on the top of my programming to-do list. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to go with either direction, once I know which we're taking. :) Uncle G, do you want to make the call or should we raise it at the ANI discussion? Do we rely on impermanent records or alter the instructions to ask people to coordinate the lists? There are disadvantages to each approach, obviously. But, either way, we should move forward soon. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to. I'm waiting on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Uncle G's major work 'bot, where there has been dead silence for several days.We really have two separate things here.I'm willing to take a list of articles already reviewed and exclude those articles from the 'bot run. But Jc37 makes a fairly persuasive case against that, below, and you don't like the idea either. I have no complaints. Performing the exclusion would be more work for me to do, after all. ☺Then we have the issue of what to do about the redundancy between the CCI list and the category, when it comes to the rôle of worklist to be ticked off. That's probably something to ask other people about. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right; I'll bring up the question of redundancy at the ANI discussion. I do actually like the idea of not blanking the ones that have been checked already. :) If we just want a note in history, perhaps we could run a separate task for the list of "already checked" articles, making a null edit with an appropriate edit summary or putting a template on the talk page? At this point, hundreds of articles have been evaluated, and I doubt very much that most of these are being watched. I don't watchlist articles that I have cleared through CCI, as I'd never be able to keep up with them. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to do the list in batches, but only so that I can recover from errors and restart the process partway through more easily, if such becomes necessary. I might not even need to do that. It's best for you and others to approach this as if all of the articles are going be done in one long run. As I said on your talk page, I'm ready, with list and scripts. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked, I was hoping it would be true : ) Just a suggestion, but perhaps it would be better at this stage to do the blanking/reversion "cold".In other words, do it regardless of whether others have "fixed" the page.For one thing, it would add the template in the edit history, which would give a nice head's up to anyone who might go through the edit history in the future thinking to restore something, not knowing to look out for a CV.And those that are already "done" will presumably be on the watchlists of those who worked on them, so they should have little problem identifying already completed work, and going through and undoing the reversion/blanking as appropriate. Which also places that as an edit in the edit history as well. - jc3720:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Darius Dhlomo's user talk page is not for disabusing other people of their misconceptions of copyright policy. "
Fair enough. And if that's what I was asked not to do, that would have been fine. But this admin went way beyond that, and accused me of not only engaging in harassment, but declaring I went "too far" with harassment, when I did not harass anyone by one iota! I just think admins should not be allowed to throw their weight around like that on editors' talk pages, putting up intimidating images of stop signs, etc. But I suppose there is something of Blue Code of Silence with respect to admin reluctance to sanction other admins, sadly. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly that sort of hyperbole that was unwarranted on Darius Dhlomo's user talk page. The rest of us can see that right now you are talking directly to Bwilkins, in two different forīs no less, and discussing your differences. You've even had suggestions on how to address that from third parties. Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I find your comments very patronising. I certainly did not visit his talk page to muck around like a child and I find your claims that everybody apart from yourself is lazy misguided. I'd be more than happy to help you clean up his violations if I had a list but my point is I do not think this prolonged block is helping the situation. Its Darius's mess and I believe it is his responsibility to clean it up not yours or mine. It is not my fault that he has attracted some people who think he is nothing but a vandal and have resorted to attacking him on his talk page. Its a mess alright and inexcusable to plagiarize alright but I do think Darius has done an awful lot of good for wikipedia and should be permitted to sort out the mess he created which I believe was done in good faith. If my viewpoint that the more constructive thing would be to unblock him and allow him to cleanup it up himself is to be termed "mucking around" or "childish" I'm very disappointed that you would think that, if your comments were directed at me. Dr.Blofeld11:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You, of all people, should know who was mucking about like children there. Please put the old thinking engine into gear. I shall say no more. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for as I can see there is only one particular editor who is particularly angry with him. You said "Editors should not be here" as if you were referring to everybody who commented on his talk page.... If you weren't then I apologise. But my viewpoint on this stands and I think we should be letting Darius clean up his own mess, you or anybody else shouldn't have to do it. Dr.Blofeld12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually said, "Editors should not be here to take actions X, Y, or Z.", which quite clearly refers in the main to the editors taking actions X, Y, or Z; although I'm sure that Darius Dhlomo appreciates the fact that xyr user talk page is now quiet and not the complete disaster area that it was rapidly shaping up to be. If you want an object lesson on how these things get out of hand, see how CheckUsers/Administrators/Bureaucrats handle blocks at Wikinews. (There's a lot more to that sorry story. I won't relate it here. But almost none of it has been good. It's a good lesson for other wikis to learn from.)There are in fact quite a lot of people who are angry. The irony here is that I'm one of the people with the most real cause to be angry, and indeed I was quite annoyed when I went through those several hundred articles and found the copyright violations, as well as being annoyed that I knew well ahead of time that this sort of grief was coming to my talk page as a consequence of this; yet, of all people, I'm the one stopping people going to Darius Dhlomo's user talk page and demonizing xem.You have an idealized world view that, unfortunately, doesn't match stark reality. We all started there. Even I didn't know that this was on the scale that it was, at first, until I went looking myself and ended up doubling the theretofore claimed size of the problem from a rapid scan of a few hundred articles that skipped a lot of them. So here's some catching up.If you look at #Signpost above, and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, you'll see where three separate people have rolled up their sleeves and ploughed through a small sample of the pages. We've all come to the very same rough figure of a copyright violation rate of 10%. Out of 10,000 article creations that's a lot. And as you yourself observed, the additional more than 13,000 other articles are also problematic. We have over 23,000 articles with non-trivial contributions here. Even five percent of that is a lot.Now contrast that with Darius Dhlomo's "no more than fifteen" (which, as I said, I rapidly doubled). Go back through the history of the talk page. See Sillyfolkboy's attempts to engage in order to obtain information about where prose was taken from and Darius Dhlomo's responses.As I said, you have an ideal view that does not, unfortunately, match reality. If as an onlooker new to the situation you want to attempt to persuade Darius Dhlomo to engage and to help clean up xyr own mess, then that's well and good. I've already said that other people are better placed than I to do this. Good luck to you in doing so. When the current outrage dies down, after the news has become less news, you'll even have Darius Dhlomo's user talk page, without the in-rush of the angry, the provocative, and the childish to cope with, available to make that attempt on. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd have to agree with you that perhaps it is best to let the situation die down and you did the right thing by blocking his talk page. 10% of his edits means 1000 odd articles with vios which is very serious. It has to be said that it is extremely disappointing from an editor viewpoint, he was one of our most trusted and prolific editors who should know that it is not acceptable to copy chunks of text. If there literally is 1000 of his articles with pasted text then this block is fully justified, sorry from what I gathered it only seemed a small number. As if there wasn't enough cleanup/development work needed from articles by lesser contributors. A bot would indeed be best to do it, best of luck. If you need a hand in anything which isn't too mind boggling and time consuming I'll see what I can do. Dr.Blofeld13:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there! I think that there's a lack of good faith somewhere in your reasoning. Where exactly did I warn the user and bite the novice? Please explain. :| TelCoNaSpVe :|23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr G, I see that in the CCI task infobox, there is a related changes link to the article list page I created in my user space. Given the high profile nature of this task, and the haste in which I created that list, I think it would be better to have an "official" (fully protected?) list somewhere in the WP namespace, ideally with links to other more dynamic/editable working lists (ie those done, to be checked etc). Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more that I just did a 2 minute cut and paste from the two old revs that I found linked to in some other post to make that list. Is this really what your bot is going to use? I'm not so concerned about accessing userspace, more that when you are ready to load the bot up, whatever list you use should be the one that gets duplicated into "official" WP space and used to track what's happening. As we've seen with the "second wave" (or is it the 3rd or 4th wave) of users commenting on the proposed actions in the last day, this will stir up a lot of people, and any signs of "amateurism" will only fuel the fire.The-Pope (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did no different to what you did. I took a simple copy of what was in the revisions hyperlinked to. (I was probably the one who hyperlinked to them.) As you note, it's not a particularly long procedure. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a list of DD-created articles, right? Soxred's toolserver script takes about 15 minutes to make such a list; that's a pretty simple approach. I made one that way and can upload it. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Uncle! I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your kind remarks here, at BLPNB where you said, among other pleasant things, "You absolutely should not feel that you are prevented from helping just because you don't have page deletion and protection abilities." Thanks for that: I'm sometimes unsure of the extent to which non-admins are routinely welcome to help with the needed work on various boards. I suppose it's best to just ask directly when in doubt. I did once see a two-weeks-new user close an AfD at five days, which I thought was kinda over the top. He screwed up the process though, perhaps not surprisingly, and an admin had to come by anyway and straighten things out. :-P
Say, if it's not improper to ask you ( and I don't think it is, since there's no dispute under discussion ), would you be able to take a look at a policy question I posted at AN? I had trouble getting to the question I was trying to ask, trouble formulating it exactly and concisely, but it pretty much comes down to this example:
Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?
The thread, entitled, "What's a revert?" is here, at AN. I wouldn't ask, except that I think people might have become frustrated with the discussion becasue my initial phrasing of the question was a little vague, and I'm a bit concerned with the possibility that no one will reply to the reformulated question, the one I should have asked in the first place, before it rolls of to archives. Thanks again, – OhioStandard (talk)09:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it if I can. But I make no promises. As you may have noticed, I have a rather large task looming. I've already had to drop several other things that I would normally be doing because of it. Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh, I'm sorry. I'm afraid I hadn't noticed, or I wouldn't have asked. Nevermind my request; it's small potatoes in comparison. Thanks for your work, very much. Best, – OhioStandard (talk)20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that this is a horrible subject that we're dealing with (and I'm a few days behind as usual), but your vocabulary in describing DD's copyright theft did make me smile and I learnt a new word: 'ganked'! Keep calm and carry on. GedUK14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Uncle G. I just wanted to thank you very kindly for your work — and the bot's work — on the recent CCI. I was hoping to see 1,000 "thank you"s on your talk page, but maybe that will come later. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you very much and I'm sure that there are many others that appreciate your efforts. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love your sense of humor. :D And I also appreciate your work here. It is in large part due to your efforts that we have the workforce lined up that we do, so massive kudos to you! While I'm here, do you agree with this? If so, can we tweak the instructions accordingly? They can easily find the subpage it links to by following "what links here" (which is what I've done when coordinating). If so, I'll go ahead and generate a list of articles to exclude from blanking based on what's already been addressed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is off-topic, so I'm posting it here rather than there; but for the record, Ron Ritzman is almost certainly male (judging from his name, and the fact that he hasn't objected when others refer to him as such). There's no need to use this confusing 'xe/xem/xyrself' business, which makes your posts quite difficult to read. Robofish (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can put Pearl Rivers in my to-do list, but right now am on a roll doing a series of kingdoms and kings, like Nembe Kingdom and Okunade Sijuwade, and then trying to clean up the redlinks, an almost hopeless task. Sometimes I am a bit uncertain about the value of scrabbling together bios from online sources. It gives a rather fragmented view. Some value, maybe, and with luck someone else who actually knows something about the subject will improve them. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simultaneous reply to you and Chzz, but written in pirates' cant for (what I hope are) obvious reasons. You may want to remove my reply... TFOWR10:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential musing about security hole in blanking process[edit]
Hello, you don't have to reply if you're too busy, but I was curious about the fact that although I'm not an Admin I can easily bypass your blanking to read the talk:Darius Dhlomo talk page you recently blanked. It would seem that there must be some way of blanking a page so that it's history would be blocked from the sight of the plebss. This is merely an exercise in rhetoric for such a page but it occurs to me that such a security hole could be really damning for a page which had more dangerous content. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know a couple things... (1) I've seen the work you (and numerous others) are putting into resolving this copyvio issue, and I for one greatly appreciate the effort. I've had to deal with similar things elsewhere on a much smaller scale, so I've got some understanding of all the hard work you're putting into this; and (from having to know the affects such issues can have on sites) have a good understanding of how poorly this can impact WMF. So again, to you and the other diligent editors plodding through this situation, my sincere thanks. And (2) though I'm not yet very up to speed on dealing with such copyvio issues here, or the tools in place to do so, if there's some way I can help out, please let me know. This seems (err... is) a lot more important than what work I manage in RecentChanges during my spare time. So please, if there's a way I can help out, and someplace I can go to get up to speed on what I need to know procedurally and in relation to any tools being used, do not hesitate to let me know, and I'll lend whatever help I can. Best, ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One pretty easy (but tedious) thing you could do is look over wp:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/CCI and archive older discussion, since that page has gotten so big. I started doing this but I put it aside for a while when it got tiring. I've been meaning to finish it off but if you'd like to do some that would be great. I think it's not necessary to parse out stuff as carefully as I was doing it at first. Just archive anything older than 5 days or so and leave mentions of anything that looks important. 75.62.108.42 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you want to pitch in on copyright work beyond this specific cleanup, please feel free to drop by my talk page anytime. :) This CCI is larger than most, but we have dozens of them open and waiting reviewers. We can use all the volunteers we can get! --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been stripping it down to just the name of the article, but would it function for you okay if I left the diffs and usernames attached? I could probably generate my list much more swiftly if so. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just the names is very convenient for me. I'm blanking all of the articles on your current list (as it stood a little while ago) in one batch, right now, so it should be fairly easy to quickly stalk the 'bot's contributions. This batch should be processed in under 2.6166666666667 hours. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right. It'll take a while, though. It took me an over hour to complete the first 1,000. At that rate, it'll be a few days before I can get the next 8,000 finished. :/ I'm making a separate page for the next batch, so the lists don't get confused. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet how much it slows me down to strip away the diffs and usernames. Usually, diffs are replaced with usernames in CCIs, but in this one for some reason contributors have been adding the sigs and comments to the diffs. I have to visually scan each line to the end anyway. It may not be much of a time saver. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it probably isn't worth doing unless you want a list that you can scan to quickly unblank, which (if you are scanning the CCI list for "n"s) you already have anyway.On the point of quickly unblanking, this will give you something to chuckle over. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. :) I'm beginning to think it would be quicker for me to just follow the links of the articles that have been checked and revert the blanking. Then we'd have the record in the history anyway. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She seems to have found the proper place. :) I've put up another edit notice and removed her annotations from that page. We may want to include a notice that these articles may have been evaluated? Unfortunately, both of the ones she marked had already been checked. :/ I'll go ahead and finish the second thousand, since I'm almost halfway through, and tell people that instead of continuing the list I'll just be manually clearing the remaining "checked" articles after the bot does its thing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the overlap and see whether it's worthwhile doing anything. If I leave the 'bot running continuously, it could do the remainder of the task in some 32 hours at this point, by my calculations. In the meantime, you could always enlist the help of Bigger digger (talk·contribs) in the unblanking of reviewed articles from your earlier list. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather persuaded by jc37's points, earlier on this page. So I'm running everything that Moonriddengirl has already found immediately, ahead of the rest, in one single batch, so (a) it will be easy to stalk the 'bot's contributions for these pages, and (b) it will get these pages out of the way right now. For numbers, see what I added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI a little while ago.One benefit of this, that I didn't even think of, is that the people who do what Pelmeen10 (talk·contribs) just did will be unwittingly helping the effort. Best that that sort of thing happens now, before we get to the articles where reflexive unblanking is a bad thing. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm working with the right lists now.
Figuring out what is a vio and what's a reverse vio is pain in the arse. Most sites are good about crediting WP when the publish the site's content but some aren't.
Happy to help out with this and will continue to do so...at least until the headache gets to be too much. Then I'll need to take ten. ;-) --*Kat* (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1000's of those Books LLC books and they are basically spam. People pay $20 and get a handful of wikipedia articles printed out and sent to them. That is permitted under the CC license but obviously it's not a good deal. By "publishing" thousands of them, the operators get a lot of hits in the Amazon and BN search engines and manage to find some undiscriminating customers now and then. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#That CCI's talk page.
All the redirects are now back to redirects. I did most but others had looked at some. All of the targets were blanked, since have some been reviewed. Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm hoping that that will be the last of those. It might be worth checking that contributions history again after the 'bot has processed everything, though. If you have the opportunity, a week from now, please have another quick look at it. Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments at AN/I regarding the old Arbcom case, my editing, and the disruptive IP strain credulity. Have you taken any time to understand what is going on? You call me the other party to an edit war, which is misleading. If you think you're going to get me to listen to your advice with that kind of pompous scolding, please get real and think again. Your accusations are not helpful, and not welcome. The issue is exactly as I framed it, a difficult IP editor who we need to deal with. Please, either deal or don't, but don't interfere with the process. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This[3] is your reaction? Even if you were right about any of this, there's no way you're going to get through to a person by scoring cheap rhetorical points (this is not a sock swarm...) to try to belittle them. Again, please back off and deal with a problematic IP who clearly has a problem abiding by the rules. If you want to give the legitimate established editors some advice on dealing with an area of considerable mischief and contention, first you need a realistic understanding of the situation, which you clearly do not have, and then you are welcome to offer some polite, constructive advice. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should __NOINDEX__ his user & talk pages and the CCI case pages until this rolls over to prevent as much of this from circulating on search engines as possible. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:18pm •09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The various CCI pages already have been, as far as I am aware. I didn't do it, but I saw some edits by others doing it. The CCI main case page was marked as such right from the start. I suspect that that's CCI standard operating procedure. I'll double-check the other CCI pages. Uncle G (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've double-checked and added some missing ones. One thing that we could do to divert Wikipedia's significant search engine presence in this area is write an article on Darius Dhlomo (q.v.). I've been thinking about doing that. I'll see whether I can rustle up a very measely stub. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would it be possible to get a list of articles that your bot blanked sorted by WikiProject (based on banners on talk)? I would think that would help with the eventual clean up -- I, for example, would be motivated to help out on Lithuanian athletes. I am sure other countries would also step in. Just a thought. Renata (talk)
Right, that would work for these few days while the bot is active. But, say, a month from now it would be useless. I do not expect that the clean up will be complete in a month... Renata (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You bar steward! Beat me to it. I've been incubating something a little larger for two weeks now but didn't have the time to wrap it up. I now give you the fuller story...apologies for essentially obliterating your first effort! SFB22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start - probably a lot more could be added. It should say somewhere she was a tiny woman, but I can't see where to put it. Nice photo. Back to Nigerian Emirates. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank you: she was an interesting woman. The article does not do the subject justice. The problem as always is lack of online sources. Any thoughts on the name? I used "Eliza" throughout, because she had three surnames in her life plus a pseudonym but always retained the same given name. Not sure if that is quite according to guidelines... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that your bot's changes appear on the recent changes section even when the hide bots option is enabled. If you could put it on whatever list the rest of the bots are on, its changes won't be accidentally reverted by people that don't realize it is legitimate. Sven Manguard (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Doesn't his user name violate the BLP thing then if Darius Dhlomo is a real celebrity? Surely its too unusual a name for him to have made it up. Of course it could actually be this person himself. Any thoughts?Dr. Blofeld18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah what Blofeld said. With all the commotion maybe give him a new name and put him in the wikipediaist protection program.Wlmg (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure. At the start I wasn't aware that there was a real person by this name, but I was still concerned about the Wikipedia editor having xyr (account) name all over the World Wide Web. That's why xyr name isn't in the blanking notice, for example, and all of the pages are ((NOINDEX))ed.Then I found nl:Darius Dhlomo. At that point, I was even more determined that this name should not be splashed about via Wikipedia articles. #In regards to CCI above spurred me into the obvious action, which should redirect (and indeed, from my recent checks with search engines, has redirected) Wikipedia's considerable search engine weight somewhere more constructive. For preference, I'd like another, independent, administrator to decide on whether Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names applies. I suggest that the two of you quietly drop by Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.I do wonder why, after several discussions on several sports WikiProjects and one football-related AFD discussion involved this editor over the years, none of the sporting articles editors spotted this in all this time. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G recuses himself cool. D.D. is too much of a hot potato, and I'm not going anywhere near him again. I googled D.D. at the height of the plagiarism controversy to see if the MSM had picked up on it, but got only the sports guy. Perhaps I'm exaggerating wikipedia's importance, or maybe we caught a lucky. Wlmg (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a ip check on Darius would reveal a South African ip address. Curiously it might be this sports personality himself. Long retired from sports but still having a major passion in it like Darius the wiki editor has. The reason why it is a possibility it is Darius is because if it wasn't then surely he would have started an article on him. I just think the name is too rare for it to be a coincidence. Might just of course be a fan boy but something doesn't add up. To my knowledge Darius is highly interested in football and athletics more than boxing though.. I suspect it is probably a fan from the Netherlands though who saw him on TV.. Darius is a Persian name and Dhlomo is a southern African surname. Its a peculiar combination which I don't think he could have made up. Dr. Blofeld21:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real Darius Dhlomo is a bit of a cult hero, as you can see from the article I recently wrote. Call me ageist, but I highly doubt that a guy who is almost 80 years and plays in a jazz band will have either the time or the computer proficiency to behave in the way that Wiki Darius does. My money is on him being a late-twenties Dutch guy who lives/grew up near to one of Darius Dhlomo's former clubs. SFB21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think you're right. Also he would show an interest in jazz which Darius never has to my knowledge although I'm a muso and barely ever edit music articles myself. I think it more likely that it is a fan boy living in the Netherlands who has heard of him. But if it is not this gentleman then Darius as violated something else... User:Darius Dhlomo should have known that it is againast our policies to assume the identity of celebrities. I can't believe he edited under that account for so long before anybody realised who the person is if he is really a cult figure.Dr. Blofeld21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote "The first black footballers to leave South Africa were Darius Dhlomo and Steve Mokone, who made a major impression at Heracles Almelo in the Netherlands". Yep you're right Sillyfolkboy. It would make sense that the wiki editor is a Dutchman with an interest in African football and athletics and football in general and is a fan.Dr. Blofeld21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did review the few statements in the article. I could not find any instance which would not withstand any challenge in the highly unlikely event that anyone would feel aggrieved. Silent Billy (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a nice bio of this bloke and will paraphrase it with details of his full career properly referenced over the weekend. This global tagging of quite innocent articles seems.... perhaps... all a bit... erm... obsessive? Silent Billy (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to find some more biographies for you to keep you occupied and out of such mischief, I see. ☺ Of course, if I wanted to soak up all of your spare time like a sponge, I'd throw Betrayal (AfD discussion) at you. … Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the fun parts is when it turns out that all of the delete opinions are before the rule and all of the keep opinions are after it. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some barrel-scraping I think the article now technically qualifies for DYK. 5 times larger than any previous version with the expansion started on 25 September, all new verifiable material. I don't know whether it is a suitable topic, although the history seems interesting to me. But I am very uncomfortable about nominating an article that is in AfD, however likely it is to survive the process. Not sure what to do. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both those opinions. I have canvassed both Evil saltine (talk·contribs) and Xanderliptak (talk·contribs) and will wait a bit. But the more I tinker with the article (don't know why, maybe because it is such a challenge to find usable content in the mass of search results) the more I think it is an interesting subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd had the time, I'd have pointed you at Emily Perkins Bissell, anti-suffragette who added "sentry box", or James G. Watt who suggested that perhaps the cartridge box should be used against "environmentalists", or William F. Butler who mentioned three boxes (in the reverse order to Watt) in his inaugural address to the Kentucky Negro Republican Party in 1867. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will put those in, but not right away. I will wait until this discussion has died down. I have also come across mailbox and moving box, but not with what I would call reliable sources. This has been an entertaining article. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a biographical challenge in the meantime, see whether you can dig up something on Priscilla Leonard's lecture "The Mistaken Vocation of Shakespeare's Heroines", which we don't seem to have anything about. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about either of those, which is why I didn't redlink them. I didn't come across any sources documenting Butler directly. I could have a look, but I currently have 10 sources to deal with for society reporting, and I already have a fair idea of what I'm going to do after that, given that the DYK hook for the Cardiff Kook was watered down unilaterally at the last minute. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep drawn back to those Baptists. There are ancient emirates with no article, and I start another backwoods preacher! See George Washington Dupee. Forget the text. I think the reason is that I like the visual layout with the old photograph. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Society reporting, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
On 29 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pearl Rivers, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
You're "advanced certificate" test, what' was the "score"?[edit]
Ok, so I passed the RFA but failed the test due to not answering the AFC questions. On that. I first indented to do those last but your "dazzling headlights" warning got me picking over the ones I had already answered (and answering the new ones) and while I was doing that, some were already closed so I never got to them. I now suspect that the real reason you gave me the warning was because you wanted to flush that BLP nightmare as quickly as possible. On the ones I did answer, how did I do IYHO?
The DRV one may prompt me to start a WP:BPP discussion on this whole issue of whether or not something marked as "policy" should always trump something marked as a "guideline" in AFDs. I think it should for certain "prescriptive" policies like WP:BLP and WP:NFCC but not for anything in WP:NOT. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darius Dhlomo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
Hello, Article Rescue Squadron invite.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue revised hindu jihad articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, hindu jihad and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue.total irrelevant data's in this article is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.58.82.131 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cardiff Kook, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
I see that the MfD I started on Dream Focus prompted you to start a bunch of discussions on user talk pages about me [4][5][6].Your apparent attempts to quietly promulgate an artificial reputation of me being a "battlegrounder" are not appreciated, and neither are your attempts to portray me as someone who is equally as extreme as someone like Dream Focus but just on the opposite side of the spectrum. If you have a problem with my behavior, or if you think the MfD on User:Dream Focus was inappropriate, then I'd appreciate it if you discussed it with me directly rather than mass-posting on the talk pages of unrelated users. SnottyWongexpress22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only found out about the conversation at VernoWhitney's page by pure luck, and didn't realize you had started two other similar threads on other users' talk pages until today. I don't know where your animosity towards me originates, but I am just registering my wish that if you have a problem with something I've done or said, then bring it up with me rather than gossiping with other users about me behind my back. It's just a request and you're under no obligation to follow it, but I don't think it's an unreasonable request.
Furthermore, it would seem to me that if you are concerned about divisiveness and battleground mentalities, then approaching me directly would be a more effective way to go. Starting clandestine discussions about how one could send me a message to "give it a rest, so that us peaceable grownups around here can have some respite from this constant sniping" (which I read as, "find a legitimate way to temporarily block SnottyWong to send a clear message", but I could be misinterpreting) only serve to create a divide between you and I. Again, I don't know why you feel this way about me, or why you label my contributions as "constant sniping" despite the fact that Dream Focus and I have almost never interacted before this MfD. If you'd like to talk about it, I'm here, and I think you'd find me more receptive to criticism and more open to changing my ways than Dream Focus. SnottyWongcommunicate01:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that close, my suggestion was made when I thought it might have hope, but I couldn't find sourcing and absurdity only continued downhill.--Milowent • talkblp-r17:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you have removed Mexico from the article and thanks for that but it remains in the template on the right under "Stable release Release 27 / September 30, 2010; 8 days ago (2010-09-30)
More locations added:" so you should remove it from there too. There is another issue that I've just noticed, that someone blindly reverted my tidying work on the future section, you can see my thoughts in the talk page. Maybe you could place that back. It said
A disproportionate number of the Darius Dhlomo's articles are about Dutch atheletes. And a number of those articles cite Dutch sources. Which makes it very possible that DD knows Dutch himself. Which brings me to my chilling thought: What if he has been editing the Netherland's wikipedia too? What if he is editing it now?--*Kat* (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If they are, it's under a different user name per nl:Gebruiker:Darius Dhlomo, so it could take some research to figure it out if they are. There aren't really any effective interwiki communication channels, so following leads like that is generally left to whichever individual editors approach dual-fluency and are actually interested. In practice, this means that everyone just deals with local problems. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All they really need to do is keep an eye out for a sudden influx of new sports articles. I wonder if they have an embassy like Japan's....--*Kat* (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, as above, the Dutch Wikipedia was where I found nl:Darius Dhlomo, which we didn't have at the time, leads me to believe that when it comes to Dutch athletes, at least, the Dutch Wikipedia's coverage has been written by other people. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I also courtesy blanked the closing. I don't disagree with it. But people searching for her on Wikipedia may get to the deletion discussion with its descriptions of extensive deception, misrepresentations, and falsehoods associated with her.--Chaser (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are "Mr. Notability" here, could you comment, either here or at the AFD, on my last "keep" !vote, do I have it right? (and to those who would say I'm canvasing, Uncle G could easily say I'm way off base and !vote to "nuke it into the stone age") --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's Capitalistroadster when we need xem, eh? I am currently steering clear of Bands, Biographies, and Businesses for Deletion, simply because I don't have the time right now to do the research. I might take a look. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've removed the notinsource tag from IPU for cite #3 after reading the preceding pages through the one listed (as well as page 146 and it's preceding pages). I'm guessing the cite itself simply links to (one of) the page(s) that mention of the IPU is on, instead of to the section that defines the premise for it's mention. In reading the whole thing, it seems to support the premise indicated in cite #3. Best, ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on that dismal Shakespeare list. I certainly would not tag the article as it exists now for deletion - I do think the declaration has sufficient notability to stand alone. Let us see if your change sticks, however. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Clyde Lucas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Sven ManguardTalk04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am sort of lost in exploration of the Sahelian kingdoms, and trying to resist nominating Parfait-Louis Monteil for DYK. I have dumped in too many obscure Nigerian articles lately. The reviewers seem to automatically accept them as long as they are sourced, new enough and long enough. A long way from the world of Clyde Lucas and His California Dons. He would not have been a big hit in Sokoto. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But who knows? Maybe the District Officer in Sokoto was a big fan. (Click here). Perhaps as the sun sank over the residency, the strains of "Dance with a Dolly" could be heard faintly through the braying of camels and the calls of the Muezzin. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know … that Monteil regularly visited Louis Faidherbe, in his apartment, in the 1880s; but Mogho NabaWobogo refused to see him at all in 1891 (instead signing a treaty with G. E. Ferguson)? ☺Oh, andDid you know … that Wobogo's given name was Boukary Koutou, and that he lived in perpetual fear of assassination according to Dr Crozat? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tempted to point out to the DYK people that we appear to be travelling backwards in time, here. I notice that they are now travelling backwards in time, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
… a fact that can be frustrating at times. When I rescued Cardiff Kook (AfD discussion) I went looking for pictures. There are a fair few pictures of the Kook on Flickr. But almost no-one had decided to release their pictures under a free copyright licence. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversion cites your own edit summary from August. The cite, if you are referring to [8] is a dead link, with nothing in the Internet Archive. (I found a couple of other cites, searching for the article title and the author, so I can confirm that he uses "feldercarb", for what it's worth.) I can pull it up at the university library tomorrow if necessary, but I also note that a search of the two terms shows more hits for "fergercarb" than "feldercarb", and the Battlestar Galactica wiki redirects the latter to the former, and here on WP, Felgercarb is a redirect to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series)#Language and Feldercarb is a redlink. (Yes, I am aware that none of these are reliable sources, either.) However, this reference, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazetteis a reliable source, using the "felgercarb" spelling. So is this one, from Entertainment Weekly. Arguably, this editorial from the Roanoke Times and this blog from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel also qualify. It's not terribly important to me, since it's all fiction, but I do have a bit of trouble with you using your own edit summary as a justification to revert, when there are obviously other sources which indicate otherwise, and apparently more than one other editor has noted the same discrepancy. Horologium(talk)02:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading. The edit summaries are amply clear that I'm using the source cited, right there in the article, as justification for having the article say the same thing as the source says. As I pointed out in the first edit summary, the talk page arguments were not verifiability in action. Neither are your counting Google hits or looking at what redirects we have and haven't yet created. Google hits have zero meaning. All of the things cited at Wikipedia:Search engine test#References should be enough to disabuse anyone of any erroneous notions to the contrary.It is a falsehood to say that anyone at all has pointed out a discrepancy. Not even you did in your edit summary. Certainly the other editor didn't. See what is actually written on the article's talk page. I am the only person to have pointed out a discrepancy, namely the discrepancy between the spelling changes made and what the source cited says. It's only now that you're doing the right thing, that actually makes a proper argument, which is citing more sources. That's what you should have done at the time, rather than make an unsourced change where it had already once been pointed out that the change made the article not match the source actually cited for the content.However, you should note that Dudek2009 makes no mention of profanity and is talking about toothpaste on eBay. There's no indication that xe's using the spelling from the show itself, or the spelling of the profanity rather than of the toothpaste brand name. Bernardin2009 is talking about toothpaste, too. Trejbal2006 is better than either of those two, as is Linn2008, since at least they are talking about profanity rather than toothpaste. So the question, which should be raised on the article's talk page, as really this here should have been, is whether they defeat Tabott2008, since that latter is the only one of the three that explicitly pays attention to spelling, and the only one where it seems likely that the journalist at one point asked "How do you spell that, please, Mr Larson?". Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't go to the talk page or the edit history first is that I didn't realize that a) the dead link was being used as a reference for the spelling of the word (which I didn't consider to be particularly contentious), and b) I didn't realize that the spelling change had been reverted before. I normally don't check for disputes when wiki-gnoming in generally non-contentious areas; it looked like a typo to me. Only after you reverted it (with a rather testy edit summary) did I go and look at what you were going on about. As I clearly noted in my first response, I am fully aware of the limitations of open wikis and Ghits (I explicitly stated that I knew that they were not appropriate sources), which is why I followed up with the reliable sources. (I actually spent about 30 minutes on that reply, adding and subtracting text as I found references. I had intended to remove the section about going to the library, since I found copies of the dead linked article in newspaper websites.)Bernardin is not talking only about toothpaste, he is also talking about the profanity; read the last sentence of the first paragraph. And it's not at all apparent that Talbott asked about the spelling of Felgercarb/feldercarb, because it is only mentioned once as an aside; the rest of the article focuses on frack/frak, and the variable spelling of that word is a topic addressed by Talbott. (FWIW, I am reading a copy of the Talbott article here; if there is more to the article, I don't have access to it.) I may take this to the article talk page, although I originally had not planned to do so; I have never edited the article before, and probably would not have edited again if not for the sharp tone in your edit summary. I encountered the article by chance when following links, and fixed what appeared to be a minor error (and note that my edit summary made it quite clear what I had changed). I didn't expect such an abrupt reversion without any discussion at all. (And no, you haven't discussed it on the talk page either.) Horologium(talk)15:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traumatic grief[edit]
I am not convinced this is a useful style for Wikipedia. It is a carry-over from print book style, where a page footnote gives source and page (e.g. * Smith 2007 p71.) and then an appendix at the back of the book gives the full citations of the referenced works. A Wikipedia article has only one page, so it seems a bit complicated to separate the footnotes and references. There could be a case for it if the article mainly quotes different pages scattered within one or two books, but that is rarely the case. My guess is that very few readers look at the citations. The triple-entry approach is going to be tough for most editors to maintain:
This is not separating the footnotes and references. Ironically, what you're talking about is this sort of edit, which I don't do because I think it to be wrong. As you say, the use of ((harvnb)) here is a way to ensure that we don't have either (a) multiple ((cite book))s that differ in page numbers or (b) single ((cite book))s that point to multiple pages of the same book making it difficult to find the page being cited for any given content. I've done enough writing from books as sources, and grown my own fair share of pages=32–35,87,126–128,543 citations expansion by expansion, to know that the latter is fairly important and also common for subjects that are treated more than incidentally by the books. It's not in my experience rarely the case at all.So I go with a single References section (not separate Notes and References sections as you made them there), with the books ref=harved into a subsection of that. It doesn't matter in such a system that other future editors don't do the same. If someone adds a new citation and simply uses <ref>((cite book|…))</ref> inline in the prose body, then that nonetheless slots in quite simply to the top of the References section alongside the ((harvnb)) cross-links, especially if one uses ((reflist|1|refs=…)) rather than multiple columns. (Multiple columns can be reserved as a space saver for the case when everything is ((harvnb))ed, such as here for example.) In other words: It's a system that allows editors of varying proficiencies with citation templates the flexibility to mix and match. It's the separated Notes and References sections system, which as I said I think to be wrong (not least because true notes are something else entirely), that forces people into one triple-entry scheme, and where it does matter if someone else in the future uses the inline-in-the-prose-body style.Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing through, but thought I'd say thanks for that suggestion. I hadn't thought of doing it like that, but that would work very well for an article I'm currently editing which has about 8-10 separate references, and another 8-10 all from different places in two sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not spot your response before - my fault. This example was my attempt to follow the structure suggested in the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened footnotes. I don't particularly like it. I do quite like putting the ((cite)) details down at the foot of the article, because it unclutters the text and makes it easier to shuffle sentences into a natural flow, and have been doing that recently. Maybe the compromise is to normally just put the citation with all its details in the ((reflist|refs=)) area, but when citing from different non-consecutive pages in a book, move the detail out to a sub-section and link using harvnb. The result is not symmetrical, but once other editors start adding sources it will start to look like that anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've completely reformatted all four of your recent DYK nominations. I've had to guess whether to give you creation or nomination credit. Please check to see if I've guessed correctly, and please review the proper way to submit DYKs at Template:NewDYKnomination/guide. Thanks. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting that - it was a mess there today. I suspect it's not over yet, either. In hindsight, getting myself involved was a mistake, but then I had no way of predicting it would be such a fiasco so quickly... Again, the protection probably saved a ton of time and effort, so thanks! -Addionne (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm looking for things on the listed buildings, in order to start a section on those, at the moment. Then there'll at least be an outline for other editors to build upon. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Uncle G. I'm having a slightly surreal conversation with an IP editor at Google Street View and I wanted a quick sanity check, as I gather you have some history there. You protected the article and fulfilled an edit request (I think). I responded to an ((editprotected)) (which I declined) and then got drawn into subsequent requests. The editor was initially fairly co-operative - I fulfilled their request - but they've followed it up with what they claim is a very, very minor request related to your edit. It doesn't seem that minor to me, I'm not sure why they didn't simply ask you to do it, and I can't seem to impress upon the editor that I'm being deliberately cautious because I don't know the first thing about the subject (and fully-protected articles are a huge taboo, even for admins). So - my question is: am I being too cautious? Could you take a quick look and see if I'm digging my heels in dickishly? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFOWR (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. I found the above thread (I "had" to rename this one as a result) but the ANI thread is also useful. So, in summary: you deliberately protected the article at The Wrong Version, and now one of the participants in the edit war is wanting me to create The Right Version?! I feel reassured about my heel-dragging - thanks! TFOWR10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with copyvio pages, please don't replace stub tags with stub categories. Instead, please either leave the stub tag, or remove the stub category entirely.
Go and read the main CCI discussion where both of these points have already been discussed. And also note that the 'bot run has long since been done. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From talk page stalking I gather that you might need to consult Pevsner. I have Cheshire and Staffordshire, and more usefully I have access to a library with a complete set, which I visit once or twice a month; I shall be there this coming weekend if you have any current queries. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clyde Lucas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
I was going to mention that Cincinnatti does have a couple more riots in its history. But you wouldn't want to know that … any more than you'd want to know that hidden in one of the sources cited as further reading is the name of the first person to die in the 1884 riot. I'm keeping that to myself, so that I get to write a bit more content. ☺ There's more to say about Thomas C. Campbell's status within the city prior to the riot, too. I recall that I saw the name of the shop owner who shot the three rioters in a source somewhere, as well. … Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that modern-day Riots in India have less pull than the article that could come out of the discussion Boston Gentlemen's Driving Club (AfD discussion) for the enterprising writer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to suspect that you are suffering from a short span of attention, hopping from one subject to another. I will not mention Baptists. But the article on the Cincinnati Riots is full of redlinks, mostly odd-numbered years. So far there are only three main articles. I may start working up from the bottom. Easier to get pictures pre-1923. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all comes from doing AFD patrol and article rescue. In essence, what I end up working on is often the result of what someone else has nominated for deletion, and fall out from my reearching it. The Baptist articles were nominated for deletion, for example. I just wrote driving club because of Boston Gentlemen's Driving Club (AfD discussion) being nominated for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just kidding. I think I am much the same, and have started or rescued quite a lot of oddball articles when I stumbled across a subject that seemed to have potential. I like driving club. I will probably keep tinkering with the Cincinnati riots though. It is surprising how varied the causes were it what seems to have always been a rough city, and the series will give a slightly unusual thread through its history. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please help or the article will stayed lock forever[edit]
"LOL are you thick? .. just go to Google Maps and see for yourself if that isn't a "external source" then I don't know what is. Maybe you should get out more whoever you are and see how the world really works."
"89.110.232.235 THE source-MAN"
etc.
What you can see is a total lack of understanding for how Wikipedia sourcing policy works and even users making fun of me as thick and being "the source-MAN" for trying to follow those rules. Those are the same users that removed fact templates because "you can see for yourself that this is true, what else do you need" etc. and then the edit war over the maintenance templates brought the article to locked state.
For as long as an admin doesn't step in and gives a clear explanation of the rules for sourcing, the article will stay locked. What is also needed is a clear explanation of what happens to those who insist on adding unreferenced original research and to those who remove maintenance templates. Can you please help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google_Street_View#UPDATED_ANIMATIONS
On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wobogo, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
On 23 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herb Wiedoeft, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
I don't think I've seen anyone opposed to blanking as yet (most of the argument seems to be on basic principles that are a bit beside the point, really).
Hi, I have contacted the two users and the IP accounts in an attempt to resolve this issue at Talk:Google_Street_View#Dispute_solution the IP commented on the article and one of the accounts commented on his talkpage User Sebwite and the other account did not reply User Simon 14. IMO there is no remaining issue, and there is or was no real dispute against the IPs edits, he added fact tag and the content should haver beren cited but it was not, and the accounts have not explained their position, I suggest unlocking and watching, but no discussion is happening so there is no value in keeping it locked. Perhaps a note to let the users know that you are unlocking the article and to avoid repeated reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Rob How on Earth are you involved with this? Small world, eh?! Semi would be a bad idea. One of the sides in the dispute is the IP on their lonesome, and they would be disenfranchised by semi (the other side could then edit with impunity). I'll leave it to Uncle G to consider no protection - I've not looked at the article or its talkpage for a week or so now (and don't Ἔreally plan to, to be honest). TFOWR16:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi amigo. I was just attempting to mediate the issue. I think the IP has enough edits to overcome auto-confirmed, what about pending protection? - Any de-escalation of the imo not needed full protection that is currently applied. The two named accounts have not clearly expressed any actual policy issues after my asking them to explain. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Auto-confirmed only applies to accounts (unfortunately - there are a few IPs I can think of that I'd cheerfully trust with more than we currently trust them with...) so semi and pending will both hurt the IP but not the other editors. It's either full-prot or nothing, I'm afraid. No worries about you mediating it: I lost patience with the IP but I suspect they're in the right here. TFOWR17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find a dispute remaining, if it rears up again I would be watching and don't see why it shouldn't be easy to resolve , so .. yes. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I will step back and unwatch it. I don't see any reason for its continued to be locked though and that in itself is against one of the main reasons for our existence .."You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I've been delayed in coming back to this. Something seems to have come up each time. I'm currently quite busy with a copyright violation challenge to the currently featured article on the main page, for example. You may have read the kerfuffle on the administrators' noticeboard. ☺ I do have it as an outstanding matter to come back to, though. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is very timely. I had seen the watchlist notice and the discussion of how to resolve the problem (I understand the editor's name was "Darius Dhlomo" or something like that) but never thought we could do that with BLPs.
When you first mentioned the idea of blanking crappily sourced and unsourced BLPs my first thought was to ask "we can actually do that?" and my second thought was to wonder "will the wider community accept this idea to resolve a problem that for many years it has steadfastly denied even exists?"
Then I saw the first favorable responses and I thought "we have the makings of a solution." I still think that, and so far it looks better every minute. Thank you. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac10:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your blanking proposal on the BLP discussion page, and I see that it is being used in that CCI case as well. The idea looks very good, and I was wondering if you came up with the blanking idea originally, or whether it was others as well. It also reminds me of pure wiki deletion, but it's better in that it retains tracking information. The similarity is that it keeps editors in the loop, rather than restricting access to deleted content to admins. Carcharoth (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to support a trail of your blanking uBLP bot because the current process if not amended is likely to take another 3 years before the uBLP backlog is clearer. If your bot use is being discussed in a specific way somewhere please let me know. Regards, SunCreator(talk)10:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of digging heals in so far expressed on that thread it is not likely a place where consensus is allowed to flourish. Regards, SunCreator(talk)11:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a copyvio para here before expanding, but I suppose it should be blanked. It was all in the very first edit, which can be totally blanked - it's all gone now. Is that something you do? Many thanks if yes. It's now up for DYK btw. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of posting this to WT:DYK, but that place is already getting to large to navigate. The part about the bot in this diff isn't quite accurate; the bot was unhappy that the queue hadn't been tagged as "ok". (If you notice, the queue was full when the bot posted that message.) Just FYI. Shubinator (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cincinnati Riots of 1884, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
It was mostly your fault that this whole series got started - almost entirely your fault. I have never even been to Cincinnati. And with what I have found about the constant riots, will give it a wide berth in future. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on, you should stay clear of the place too. Your bright idea to start this series has probably wrecked the tourist industry for years. Mass unemployment, broken lives, then they hear that the person who started it all is visiting town. What are they going to do? What else do they do in Cincinnati... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a river, which I understand is one of the requirements. But I don't know. I have a growing list of unfinished projects. They can wait. Somewhere tropical maybe. A dam project perhaps, or nature reserve, plenty of them with no articles. Sokoto river basin is on hold for the map: I should bug User:Kmusser. Or listen to user:jomillsjo and do some weaver bios. But no more USA ones for a while - too many articles already, and it is past its prime... I just fool around picking topics and writing them up for my own amusement, like doing jigsaw puzzles. How do you stay sane arguing over sockpuppets (which I cannot take seriously), copyright violations, edit wars and all the other flak? Don't bother to answer. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Uncle, I just came across Ricci Luyties. I could go and rewrite the whole thing from scratch (there are sources available, even books), and remove the template you placed on it, maybe, but I looked through the history and there have been no helpful (or independent) edits made to the article, ever--so should it be db-copyviod? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, yes. But the quicker route, especially for those without administrator tools, is to rewrite the prose body from scratch (The old prose does indeed all appear to come from that source.) and tell me, Moonriddengirl, or some other administrator about it so that we can revision delete the prior edits. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Driving club, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.
I am, but I'm right now emailing the church website if we could use their content with full attribution, and sent it (if they allow us to use it) through the WP:OTRS system. If they approve it, it would be a great help to the article. Thanks Secretaccount16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe then, although possibly not even then. It wouldn't now. Go and take a look at User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood. The only major things that the church text will get you above what's there now are all of the "Before the day be through" type dialogue, which isn't in any of the history books that I've read, and (by the citations at the foot of the church WWW page) seems to originate with the re-enactors, as I've noted elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've carried out the redirect as per your suggestion, but it's occurred to me that I may have jumped the gun somewhat... Have I closed the AFD discussion as per accepted procedure? Catfish Jim& the soapdish12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I was curious about how AFD closure worked, having never done it before, and kind-of got carried away with the moment... I'll be more patient next time! I've placed messages on Hairhorn and JamesBWatson's talk pages to alert them to it. Cheers, Catfish Jim& the soapdish13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got email regarding some sources that I received from Rlevse, your rewrite is enough I believe, I can't expand it further without using those unreliable retelling stories from USA Today, etc. Secretaccount16:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the furore after one AFD and twoDRVs is about to finally recede since it appears (perhaps unsurprisingly) that almost all of the "pro" editors were socks. One of them signed off with some vandalism before saying goodbye.
This is all just info, but my query is the userfied article at User:Misssinformative/Emily Schooley because it is 4th in a Google search for "Emily Schooley". Is the way to fix this:
Noinclude the userfied page so it (hopefully) won't show up on search engines?
Move to article incubator (although the article won't be improved as such, it's just waiting for more evidence of notability)?
Userfy to someone else (I'd happily look after it)?
Sorry to bring this to your door, but you've been involved with bits of it, so just give me a number (and maybe a reason to satisfy my curiosity) and I'll try to do the necessary. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that 1. was the beginning of an answer. The problem is that there is not yet sufficient coverage in WP:RS, so the problem is one of notability, which can really only be resolved by waiting, and hoping others take an interest. It's close, but it's not quite there, and I looked really hard! Bigger digger (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Misssinformative (talk·contribs), EmilySchooley (talk·contribs), and Bytemeh (talk·contribs) are all one person, it seems clear, from the fact that xe went to deletion review as Bytemeh immediately after requesting and obtaining userfication as Misssinformative, that that person had no intention of working on the userfied article. So the first question to ask yourself is whether you want to retain a draft article, that by your own account is unlikely to reach article-worthy status, in your userspace. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the work done is worth keeping so that if/when she becomes notable editors don't need to reinvent the wheel. Given that the article at Emily Schooley was moved to User:Misssinformative#Emily Schooley, and that will probably be deleted as it's in the userspace of a sock, it's unclear to me how someone in say a year's time will be able to follow the trail to get the presumably then deleted information reinstated. I think I've made that confusing enough. I would be happy for it to sit and wait in my userspace – even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow it would still be relatively easy for someone to search for and find as it wouldn't be deleted, if it escaped WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wow, I've made this more confusing than I first suspected, but my motivation is the sentiment in the first sentence, and I'm not sure of the best way to achieve it! Bigger digger (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is cruel and unusual punishment. Hakenmeister, Gancho principal, Maître de crochet... you choose. I need a URL. Gimme a break. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you fix the filming date information in time. I've given you the phrase to look out for. I suspect that the peso figure is the original, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the date, fixed it one place, left the wrong one another place. I default to "Preview and full view" on a book search, so "palo y hueso"+5.500.000 does not find anything. That was bugging me. The dollar equivalent probably means more to English readers. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stray notes: "civil" referred to kiddo, which some might find offensive (Physchim is rather a teacher than a pupil - a very knowledgeable chemist actually - and winding him and yourself up is hardly constructive). You might be setting the plank too high for volunteers. We all make mistakes and you've got a sharper eye for that. Please help and fix, and teach others how to spot them. It would be really great if people like you, DS, Sandy would scroll the queues from time to time (ideally T:TDYK, but queues are faster to read). Another note - I myself never read TFA and ITN and could not know that a hook was featured - here extra eyes always help. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do when the whim strikes, as you know from experience. There is, of course, only one of me and many patrols to do. ☺ The problem in this specific instance isn't reading FA, or even being involved in FA. It's checking that the boldfaced article isn't simply regurgitating a fact that was in one of the other linked articles already, making the answer to "Did you know X?" be "Yes, thank you. The other article that you linked to has said it for some years.".The problem in general is not my patrolling DYK at all, but the people who so want change, or indeed who so vehemently argue that they can fix without change, aren't doing the same. They aren't doing a thing. Point to a problem entry — one of at least three currently listed, one of which is an outright factually inaccurate article — and they do nothing at all about it, except more talk page argument of course. That inaction makes the former group people who just waste hundreds of KiBs in talk page discussion that they themselves won't in fact follow through on; and the latter group people who are going to encourage greater pressure for change by their complacency. Both are being foolish, and yet will almost certainly express surprise and outrage when the obvious consequences of their inactions come to pass.Uncle G (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) We require the DYK articles to be new, we do not require the hook facts to be new - maybe we should. Such proposal are hard to push through (akin rejection of boring hooks), but there is no such proposal yet.
(ii) We do not require checking unbolded articles linked in the hook - many wlinks are actually added at later stages. Again, maybe we should, but there is no such proposal yet.
(iii) Shouting at talks while doing nothing is a WP norm :-) which has annoyed DYK regulars not once (i.e. outsiders propose something and who will implement that? When the DYK bot broke down and we're doing manual updates for weeks, we desperately needed and asked for help with fixing the bot and updates. Nobody stepped out).
(iv) "If you want a thing well done ..", meaning if DYK is really important then best editors might think about making time and screening it on a regular basis. Another way is to educate and stimulate other reviewers, by showing them common errors, etc. - many editors whom you review are reviewers themselves. DYK has lost a few experienced reviewers several months ago (well before rlevse). Your help is much appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Crawford case is simply not a problem under the DYK rules, as 3 editors have now pointed out to you. If you don't think articles should be on DYK then reject/query them using the symbols. In this case I'm sure it would have been reversed but in others there may well be problems. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You and that other editor (There are only the two of you.) are wrong and by your inaction when it comes down to it are actually part of the problem that people have identified and discussed over the past fortnight. You support changes in talk page polls, but when it comes to practical applcation, you fight tooth and nail to defend the status quo even in the most obviously problematic of cases. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that review, I understand that you're trying to help, but do you really have to be that aggressive about it? Your condescending tone was not constructive. I can sympathise that you've been stressed after arguing with Physchim on DYK talk, but please don't transfer that stress on to me, or any of the other nominators. I assumed, with good faith, that the New Yorker article was accurate, since they're generally known for having high editorial standards, and they did directly interview Mischel. This was an honest mistake, but please don't attack me for it. However unintentional, from my perspective your tone was highly inappropriate and your reaction went overboard for something relatively minor.--hkr(talk)06:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse detail with aggression. And don't read attacks when the subject of you yourself didn't even come up in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Rodriguez, Monica L. (1992). "Delay of Gratification in Children". In George Loewenstein and Jon Elster (ed.). Choice over time. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN9780871545589. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
Thank you for the links, I've fixed the dates in the article. I guess the lesson is to never completely trust journalists. ;) --hkr(talk)21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just journalists. I did a little research of the subject in order to find those papers. There are several pop-psychology, management self-help, and other books that tell the same, arithmetically unsound, version of the story, probably all parrotting one another. This is not unusual. That's why it's important to go to the original research and to proper academic sources that cite the original research. Of course, this makes for a better DYK in some ways. We can tell stuff that actually dispells the pop-psychology self-help mythos, stuff that people did not actually know. See also Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez 1992, pp. 150–151 where they summarize their earlier work, which should help with the broad outline here. Uncle G (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, most of the material written was based on the New Yorker article that I linked to, and they did directly interview Mischel. Since the New Yorker article seems to be what popularised the experiment to the mainstream, it might be that the journalistic mistakes made in the original article became the basis for all the other mistakes copied into later news articles and books. Regardless, the article is fixed now.--hkr(talk)22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I found out where the number for the correlation comes from: Jonah Lehrer provided the number in a radio show (8:20), where he was being interviewed alongside Mischel. It's possible that when Lehrer interviewed Mischel (not in the radio show, but earlier on, for a book), Mischel provided an estimate, and Lehrer assumed that was the exact number.--hkr(talk)22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: I've seen you around, "in the trenches," and I'd like to offer some help on the DD CCI cleanup project. Since you appear to be the man in charge, and very busy, could you direct me perhaps to another, experienced editor who might be willing to hold my hand on my first cleanup, to ensure I don't screw things up? I'm looking for someone who might be willing to donate 15 minutes, show me how things are done, and then perhaps look over my shoulder as I try to clean up an article on my own. I have read the various pages associated with the cleanup project, and I'm still having questions. Thanks in advance for your time. Saebvn (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not serious - looking at the queues, the editors working on them seem to be falling behind and certainly do not need a massive checking job like this. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Htun, Hla Tin (2007). Old Myanmar paintings in the collection of U Win. Thavibu Gallery. ISBN9789749931820. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
You are confusing Baptists (e.g. George J. Geis) and Buddhists. They are not the same thing at all. I am unsure if there is a need for any more of these U articles. To be clear, the 13 articles so far, which cannot possibly fit into one DYK nomination, were triggered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Myanmar, leading to Major General Hla Myint Swe. What followed was unavoidable. Don't blame the Doctor, although his pictures and improvements are certainly welcome, particularly the clarification to U Aung Soe, previously a rather puzzling article. The Harvardization is a still bit difficult to follow, but I can fix that. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll probably use those sources though to create further stub articles like Yadana Cave Festival... I can't believe this is our first article on a Burmese festival. Category needs populating badly!! Any work you can do on Burma, whether its starting stubs or whatever all helps..♦ Dr. Blofeld14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the mass DYK nomination for the seventeen Burmese artists has been preempted by nomination of U Ba Nyan. Never mind. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boita. Interesting. But seriously, there seems to be a problem on the DYK queues - not enough in the pipeline. Is this just normal fluctuation or is there a real need for reviewers? I have never done this before, am not really a critic (no insult - that is clearly valuable work), but could help out if it is needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your action in clarifying the title of that AFD. Note that the matter is now under discussion at ANI where I mentioned some of your similar actions which may have led me to believe that such boldness is proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I found (and still find) it difficult to find the appropriate templates for speedy deletion and notification. (When I couldn't find the correct template, I did try to notify everybody informally on their pages, though.)
Do you think we'd ever be able to rename it? I saw your comment on AN, and I've thought the exact same thing before... it's a truly unfortunate name. At least bureaucrat is a silly enough name. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity did. Citizendium did. I'm not stating that their choices of names ("custodian" and "constable" respectively) are better. But they are existence proofs that such a thing is possible, albeit that MediaWiki and its various interfaces still use the software's own terminology. Now whether it is practicable for this project, with so much inertia behind the current names, and such a comparatively large community, is a different matter. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be edit protected? as in fully protected? and pending protected at the same time...I just wanted to repair those redlinked named citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several of the edit-warring accounts are autoconfirmed. If you can help with what I asked at User talk:Scott MacDonald#Louise Glover that would be good. It's a little more complex than just putting the citations back, which is why I didn't do so. I believe that the subject objects the hyperlinking to several sensationalist tabloid news stories. And I think that we ought to check what we are actually citing before thinking of putting the citations back. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is very weak indeed to claim anything on. The Daily Mirror is such a scandal rag and shouldn't be used for any BLP content, imo, many people share that feeling also ,it is a poor quality citation to use in a BLP that is for sure, imo, if she says she never went to Israel I believe her, but thats not policy. It needs a fair trimming imo, if they insist on keeping the disputed content. I personally wouldn't mention the trivia but if they insist then just trim it to the bones to take the weight out of it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I never heard of Louise Glover until I noticed the AfD. I took a look at the whole situation and want to commend you for your efforts to trim the article of sensationalist garbage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just happened to have that one on my book-shelf and in my memory. The fundamental theory (of matter/anti-matter symmetry breaking) has come a long way since 1976, and the AMS has the potential to give us important new observational data in the next couple of years. But there should be more recent references out there. The AMS science team should have referenced the most recent literature extensively (er, one side of it, anyway) in their efforts to keep the science justification for the instrument solid during the travails of getting it launched. You might look around in their materials. Wwheaton (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything newer that contradicts the 1976 conclusions about the Milky Way, though? That's what's important for the task at hand. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's weak. This is not some Wikipedia-specific thing that a novice to Wikipedia cannot be expected to know. This is basic when-was-the-book-written stuff, which isn't Wikipedia-specific in the slightest. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Google Books kept track of publication dates? I assumed that specifying "21st century" would be enough, but it seems it isn't. I'll admit that I'm wrong, and I've learned something new today. I'm still new to researching regarding notability, which is a "Wikipedia-specific thing", and the part that I consider to be bite-y. But must we fight over this? I've already admitted I'm wrong, and I've remained civil throughout. Please understand, I'm trying to do my best here as a new editor, and my intentions have been good.--resLaozispeak23:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that your intentions were not good. That would — possibly — be "biting". But pointing out bad research and a wholly flawed argument is not. Trying to turn a refutation of such bad research and flawed argument into "biting" is a poor show. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point! I didn't know that Google Books, as opposed to a general Google search, is considered to be a "flawed argument" on AfD. This is the Wikipedia-specific thing that I wasn't aware of. And I admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to point out that this is where the misunderstanding lies over why I called the comment "biting". I didn't know that the Google Books rationale on AfD is considered a flawed one, and appreciate that you've attempted to help, so hopefully that ends this dispute.--resLaozispeak23:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nosey, so had a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evangelical_mysticism. HKR, if an admonishment to you begins "Tut tut!", points out the mistakes and then suggests ways to improve I don't think that could be considered bitey – can you suggest a better way of phrasing it for next time? A bigger problem is the fact that your signature doesn't seem to match your username! Bigger digger (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... as the King of Java said in his message to the Emperor of China. Any advice on how a hook can be constructed for this important subject? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had the time to do anything other than read through. I've been working up User talk:Pfagerburg#So ... and looking for copyright violations on I felt a Funeral in my Brain. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The hook works. Don't know why I didn't see it at first. Thanks for suggesting the article. I wish I had the ability to do it justice: it really is a huge subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sextography, which someone else may want write up. A young person I know told me the other day that Santa knows if you have been naughty or nice because he is watching you through the security cameras in the shopping malls. Probably a more suitable - and seasonal - subject for an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I happened across your comment re: some improvements that could be made to Hamilton C shell when I clicked what links here on that page. I'm pretty new at this but I'd like to get things right. I don't have a copy of the Nebett reference you mentioned in your note; can you summarize the points? I'm wondering if perhaps there's a disconnect: I'm aware the underlying kernel does support fork(). That was needed for the POSIX subsystem. But it's not exposed in Win32 and I cited an old post by Hamilton relating reasons given by Mark Lucovsky related to the Win32 GUI (which was not accessible from POSIX.) Is there more to the story? I'd appreciate suggestions, corrections and pointers, please, if you have time. Msnicki (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, although it's not a full text search like the others. There are actually several more that I would have liked to have included, except that they don't have ways to encode their database searches into URLs. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably too concerned about creating a bio when so far there is only one source directly discussing the subject. More will be written. In fact, he had a very interesting career. Convicted of horse stealing in 1872, he designed many golf courses before being shot in September 2010February 1924 while serving as a Rural Police Officer. Three ISBNs is enough to establish notability, my view. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always look for multiple published works, independent of the subject and by people with good reputations, documenting the subject in depth, yes. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have been suckered into something that may impair my reputation as a serious editor, if that is possible. When I worked for a big corporation I saw no connection between the puffy journal I got every month and the Hammond that helped me relax. Jharkharo is still a redlink. Hilly tracts. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had Chandabali on my to-do list. You've saved me some trouble, by already covering some of the things that I had sources for. I've fleshed it out a tiny bit with one of the sources that I had remaining. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew who you were talking about—certainly notable for a long life (138 years plus the age to become a convicted horse rustler!). The only golf course designer I could find with a connection to horse theft was this one (check out Tehachapi). Bongomatic13:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, see Ismaël Touré for a hybrid, half-Harvard referencing style. This is what would be expected if an article started out with Harvardization and then had other sources added by less experienced editors. It is not symmetrical, but I think it works o.k. I am inclined to follow it going forward, just Harvardizing books for which there are scattered page references. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few minutes to give to Wikipedia before leaving for work this morning, and for some reason "banana powder" caught my eye. I noted two sources and left. A few hours later, I saw a full blown debate. Thank you for your kind words about my little effort, and thank you especially for insisting on adherence to policy. I try to learn and apply policy correctly, but have much more to learn. I am frustrated sometimes at certain editors who seem so eager to delete rather than investigate and improve. I have also thanked Silver Seren for improving the article dramatically. Thanks again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, the most tireless, indefatigable fixer of the apparently irredeemable, rescuer of lost causes and all-round good egg. The ultimate good cop to the evil bastard JzG bad cop, exemplary Wikipedian and embodiment of all that is fine and upstanding. I salute you once again. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
w:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism[edit]
I palced notice on article, created nomination page (it was not there before), added a sub-section on talk page, notified creator of article and put notice on talk page of recent editors. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never responded. I hope I didn't offend you. ^_^; Please feel free to let me know about any other AfD discussions (or other articles in general) that come up and i'll do my best for them. SilverserenC18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't seem that you were looking for a response. I suggested a possibility, one of two. You gave your opinion, based upon what further work you have done, that that possibility was indeed the correct approach, and took steps. The thing that concerns me now is a general concern that shilajit is not necessarily inclusive of all points of view, having seen some non-Ayurvedic sources that are sharply at odds with the article. Mind you, the article has been in worse condition. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is separating the sources that have a separate point of view. For now, it would probably be better to build up the shilajit article and then split mumijo if enough sources are found later on that make it large enough that that would work. SilverserenC19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you should have a little more courage about being right, here. ☺ To split this into the Russian name and the Indian name, and have the Ayurvedic point of view in the latter and the non-Ayurvedic point of view in the former seems too much like POV forking. Now if there were differences in the geographical origins of the twain, they might warrant a split; but, at least from what sources I've seen so far, that isn't truly the case. Did you see anything indicating a geographic split into two distinct things? Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was going off of what you said. :P They all seemed to be pretty specific about being on that topic, it's just that the sources jumped around with different names for it. But it seemed to all be about the same "mysterious" substance. SilverserenC19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your assistance with improvements to the Banana powder article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear... and making it into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i'm going to focus on Unsourced BLPs rather than AfDs for a while. Much less contentious and argumentative that way. :P Look, I just finished this one.
Less contentious in the sense that I don't have to argue with people while i'm working on them. And the more I get done, the sooner we'll be done with all of them. And, hey, I can even submit them to DYK if I get them referenced. SilverserenC23:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(lurking) yes, working on the unreferenced blps is less contentious. Arguing about what to do with them is another matter. (; --Nuujinn (talk)23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if we get them all done, then there won't be any more arguing. ^_^ And the cool thing about working on them is that they can occasionally introduce you to something that you can make an article on. Like how working on Katy Munger has now shown me what Tart Noir is, which i'm going to go make an article on now. SilverserenC23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. :P I think i've just gotten a bit burned out with AfDs. I'm rather just happily work on things on my own for a while, rather than trying to think on how to phrase arguments. I've got so many things in my sandbox that are all half-finished or less. SilverserenC00:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to give adequate coverage of the role of Orissan-influenced Burmese artists and Baptist jazz musicians in Guinean politics and Nigerian national parks. The problem is serious, and hard enough as it is. Dead headmasters? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dead headmasters who had a handbag fight, no less.
There is no value in books on dead headmasters that refuse to provide even snippets. The article is closed and complete. He never played jazz, never went to Guinea. There is no more to be said. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was someone else with the same userid. Happens all the time. But maybe there are a few more malformed refs to add over the next few days or weeks. Maybe not. I notice that the Grammarians' War has joined the same illustrious company of unusual articles as Roadkill cuisine. Be warned that the roadkill article only lasted an hour on DYK before it was yanked due to howls of protest from Vegans. The grammarians may be at the same risk, although I can't quite see how. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McCulloch, Gary; Woodin, Tom (2010). "Learning and liberal education: the case of the Simon family, 1912–1939". Oxford Review of Education. 36 (2): 187–201. doi:10.1080/03054981003696697. ((cite journal)): Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Sir Lyte was single-barreled, I think. At least Davies was connected to jazz, although his biography was quite unknown. Not sure about the others. This seems to be another of those long regressions of people who wrote about people who wrote about ... The chain could start in a 21st century Wikipedia article, I suppose. Talking about that, you may be interested in this early video of an AfD nominator arguing his case before the Review Board. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single-barrelled, you say? Much embarrassment for the people who spell it otherwise, I'd say, then.
Johnson, Charles (1940). "Sir Henry Churchill Maxwell-Lyte 1848–1940". Proceedings of the British Academy. 26. Oxford University Press. ((cite journal)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
A fairly significant embarrassement for Arthur Maxwell-Lyte, his son, for having the wrong surname, too.
Savage, Gail (1996). The social construction of expertise: the English civil service and its influence, 1919–1939. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 199. ISBN9780822955962. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |rev= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |seriee= ignored (help)
As well as for silly M. Hyamson, who listed him under Maxwell-Lyte in his dictionary (Hyamson 1951, pp. 408).
Hyamson, Albert Montefiore (1951). A Dictionary of Universal Biography of All Ages and of All Peoples (2nd (republished Taylor & Francis, ISBN9780710015808) ed.). Routlege & Keegan Paul. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |edition= at position 40 (help)
I doubt that they were all that embarrassed, even his son. Living in a pre-Wikipedia age, they had no way of finding the correct spelling. The links below are for pentographers, I believe. Triographers I can accept, quadrographers maybe, but pentographers. What next? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get around to needing them, here are the sources that I found:
((sfn|Landman|1941|pp=509))
((sfn|Patai|1971|pp=527))
((sfn|Endelman|2002|pp=219))
((sfn|O'Sullivan|2004))
((sfn|Townsend|1868|pp=77))
* ((cite encyclopaedia|ref=harv|article=Hyamson, Albert Montefiore|encyclopedia=The Universal Jewish encyclopedia: an authoritative and popular presentation of Jews and Judaism since the earliest times|volume=5|editor1-first=Isaac|editor2-last=Landman|publisher=The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, inc.|year=1941))
* ((cite encyclopaedia|ref=harv|article=Hyamson, Albert Montefiore|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel|volume=1|first=Raphael|last=Patai|publisher=Herzl Press|year=1971))
* ((cite book|ref=harv|title=The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000|volume=3|series=The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies|first=Todd M.|last=Endelman|publisher=University of California Press|year=2002|isbn10=0520227190|isbn=9780520227194))
* ((cite journal|journal=The Journal of Jewish studies|volume=5|publisher=Society for Jewish Study|year=1966|title=Albert Montefiore Hyamson 1875–1954))
* ((cite encyclopaedia|ref=harv|first=Margaret|last=O'Sullivan|article=Bigsby, Robert|encyclopedia=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2004|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/2383))
* ((cite encyclopaedia|ref=harv|encyclopedia=Men of the time: a biographical dictionary of eminent living characters of both sexes|first=George Henry|last=Townsend|location=London|publisher=G. Routledge and sons|year=1868|edition=7th|article=Bigsby, Robert))
I'm sure that it was just an oversight that you added this to the NZ deletions list but forgot to put a delsort in the AFD, so I fixed it. (I always add the delsort template first - easier to remember!) dramatic (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources said he was very knowledgeable, knew which book had the answer to every question. That could be added. But perhaps some readers may not be interested in breakthroughs in the manufacture of soap and candles. The DYK addicts (readers, not editors) could be discouraged when they click through to this kind of article. Maybe the heptagraphers would be more interesting to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-11 00:28:15
If you want to read about writing the biography of a biographer's biographer's biographer, see Dunn 2000, pp. 51 who discusses that very thing. And there are in fact already coined words for what you're discussing, which are not, in contrast to your nonce words, incorrect back formations that misconstrue "bio-". "bibiographer" is the word for a biographer of a biographer, for example, and was first used on 1973-03-30 in the Times Literary Supplement with reference to a life of Plutarch, according to Winslow 1980, pp. 4. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some linguistic confusion here. According to Kindred 2006, pp. 329 a tri-biography is one written by three people, while a dual biography is one written about two people. An article about Kindred, the biographer, would be a triography. The word "biography" (gr:βιογραφία) is of course derived from "bios" (life) and "graphia" (writing), while "bios" in turn is derived from "bi" (two) and "o" (oh). Thus "pentagraphy" (πεντάγραφία). (five + ah + writing). Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
colwidth=30em makes sense to me. I don't want the references broken up over too many lines, but want to save vertical space, and don't really care how many columns there are. Maybe there is some drawback I can't see. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunn, Richard Maxwell (2000). "Geoffrey Scott: Writing the biography of a portraitist". In Karl, Frederick R. (ed.). Biography and source studies. Vol. 5. AMS Press, Inc. pp. 51–60. ISBN9780404634155. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
In the past few weeks, I've noticed that various users have brought articles to AfD that they don't want deleted, but merged. You then suggest that they merge the article instead and close the AfD thread. Out of curiosity, why don't you ever merge the articles? (I'm always tempted to, but I figure since you didn't and you're an admin, you wanted to keep the discussion open for some reason.) Erpert(let's talk about it)18:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do AFD patrol, and I'm usually at the input end of the AFD process in doing so. I'll happily speedily close a discussion if a speedy deletion criterion applies, or if a nomination is vandalism. But otherwise I find that persuading people to learn better, to learn to be braver, more willing, and more inventive with the tools that they themselves possess, is a lot more productive than simply shutting down discussion by fiat. There are of course many other reasons aside from this, and I could go on at length. I don't have the time to do so, so I'll give just one and a half: If it were to become the habit for administrators to shut down and speedily merge things, then people would start to rely upon administrators as article merger services. It's happened before in the history of Wikipedia that people have felt less and less empowered to enact solutions to problems themselves, and that sort of thing is generally how it starts. The truth is that everyone with the edit tool can do mergers, rewrites, cleanup, expansions, redirects, vandalism reversions, fact corrections, source additions, talk page cleanup, and a whole host of other ordinary editorial actions. Administrators aren't edit-on-demand services. Which of course means that if someone starts a discussion, and is rapidly persuaded that an ordinary editorial action will suffice without the need for an administrator to be called upon to use one of the administrator-only tools, another ordinary editor can come along and helpfully enact the consensus. (There have been non-administrators who have helpfully enacted speedy mergers and redirects in the past.) That has to be done with care, to avoid giving people the feeling that their toes are being trodden upon (which touches upon another reason not to be too quick to shut down discussion). But as Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Be bold have for a long time pointed out, this is a wiki, and what can be done with the editing tool can be undone with the editing tool; and administrators are not funnels through which every ordinary editorial action must pass. Furthermore, and indeed, AFD isn't "Articles for merger" and it is high enough in traffic already, without passing requests that don't involve any administrator tools, including Wikipedia:Requested mergers and Wikipedia:Cleanup through it as well. That's not a slope to start sliding down, either, and it's a bad idea to encourage people to think that they can make three edits to make an AFD nomination, and thereby hand off the burden to someone else to enact a merger (as well as add burdens to all of the people who variously patrol AFD) when the original nominator, who had the itch that needed scratching, could have enacted it xyrself in two edits. Uncle G (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apology, I didn't read your edit close enough to ascertain you were intervening on BLP grounds. Faux pas on my part. __meco (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've stuck the content from the page into Oxford Street which is probably where it should stay (am unconvinced enough content could be garnered for a merge). But rather idiotically never attributed it. Not entirely sure the best way to manage that now. During the AFD I fixed the content fork by redirecting it. As it is; I wonder if we should restore the list article and redirect it to the Oxford Street article page. That way everything can be attributed. (edit: and simply delete the content fork & recreate it as a redirect) --Errant(chat!)16:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate THIS You beat me to it. I have done what I could so far for Fintan Connolly. A bit more and there's a 5x expansion DYK possible. Troublesome that there are many sources referred to in the reference section HERE for which I have no access. However, I think I made it a keeper. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think oppose is ambiguous. I've proposed the article be deleted; they are presumably opposed to that happening. AD23:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've just had an AFD discussion go through Deletion Review because "oppose" is ambiguous and unclear. One could be opposed to all sorts of things, from the nomination through the existence of the article to the statement of the immediately preceding participant. This ambiguity comes up from time to time over the years, and it's best to nip it in the bud. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is pertinant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daran Norris. In learning that the fellow had a much more significant career than the nominator alluded to at the AFD, I've done some major re-structuring and minor sourcing of the Daran Norris article.[16] What creates a difficulty is that he appears to keep his private life very private and avoids publicity, and is searchable under six different spellings of his own name as well as under seven different pseudonyms. I believe I have shown his meeting WP:ENT, but considering how little personal information for this guy is online, it's kind of difficult to expand. Yikes. As I have great respect for your own google-foo, care to help out? Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.20:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've self-closed that, maybe IAR but it seemed appropriate. I then realised what I'd done wrong. I mean, the title of the article does say glyph, right? So my search was "seven dots" glyph -- I carefully didn't put 'glyph' within the inverted commas. And that doesn't work. Mind you, there's some OR in the lead which I see you've noted. I haven't seen the 'span' bit of the template, is that new or just rarely used? Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That material could possibly have come from another part of the book. Other entries in it cross-reference that one, I notice. The article's creator is the person to consult on that. I just cross-linked for the part of the book that I read. Talking of creators: You might like to see who the creator of Template:cn-span was. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to WP physics article alerts report page[edit]
Hi! I see you added an entry to the Physics article alert report page. Do note that the bot will overwrite this addition in its next run. The entry will also not be added automatically unless you tag the page's talk page with Physics project banner. Thanks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Apparently, I did something wrong when I added the deletion sorting templates to, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajime Wakai. What do I have to consider when I select the templates? I thought since these were Japanese composers of video game music, all of the added categories would apply. Would be nice if you'd clear that up for me. Prime Blue (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler than that. The notices said that the discussion has been deletion sorted into various bins. Those notices were erroneous. The article wasn't deletion sorted into any bins at the time of the notice removal. I left the notice on for the bin that I was sorting into in another tab. Gene93k has just applied notices for the bins that xe has — now — sorted into. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically this means I don't have to add any deletion sorting templates since I did no sorting before? Prime Blue (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add the notices if you haven't done (and aren't immediately going to do) the sorting work. Think about it. Would the discussion actually get deletion sorted that way? Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought the templates would do the sorting. At least the manual gives off that vibe by not explaining the previous step. Anyway, thanks for clearing up! Prime Blue (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedying of South Indian Food in New Zealand[edit]
Hey, I was wondering why you tagged the article South Indian cuisine with ((db-advert)). While I agree that the article should be deleted (I'm the one who nommed it at AfD), it's not really an advertisement or spam, so I removed the speedy template. However, if you explain why it's an advertisement/spam, I'd be fine with you reinstating the speedy template. Thanks! --- cymru.lass(hit me up)⁄(background check)06:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on the AfD discussion seemed to classify it as copyright infringement, not advertisement. Maybe the thing on Commons goes into more detail? If so, could you put a link here, so I can look at that? Thanks --- cymru.lass(hit me up)⁄(background check)06:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Uncle G! Thanks for coming to the rescue for Premium (marketing).
My question is concerning the link to Captain Midnight premiums reference that looks like this "sfn|Widner|1998". Now it links back to the page Premium (marketing) and not to the citation. I am sorry that I don't know enough wikilingo to communicate more effectively about this, but I don't know how to fix it and hope you can. Please forgive my ignorance, but I am trying to learn. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Jeffrey Scott Maxwell (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't remember if the contents were the same - so I db-bioed it and was declined. I didn't know about the earlier prod. Thanks anyway. Peridon (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were falsehoods. They stated that the discussion had been deletion sorted. It hadn't been. Don't apply the notices unless you've actually done the sorting work that you are stating has been done. Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled on this one just after watching Men in Black, and it struck me that the world ought to know the truth that the government is trying to hide from us. It fits DYK criteria of being lighthearted and trivial, at least that was the spirit of the expansion, but perhaps I went a bit overboard. Also, I am not sure if it presents Wikipedia in its true light as a serious source of information about serious subjects. And I can't think of a good tag. You are the expert on those. What do you think? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serious information about serious subjects? You've come to the right place.
One cannot get much more serious and further away from the fringe of human thought than Big Brother, ne?Now you can tell me what the proper name of Wisdom Christianity (AfD discussion) is. It's probably in one of the several books cited at the bottom of the article.Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monchanin? Maybe, but I think you are trying to distract me from the more important task of rescuing Gevaerd, whose article is being attacked on the basis that his views may not be entirely plausible. Personally, I find them very informative. For example, I always thought the flying saucers were manned by little green men, but apparently they also come in grey and brown varieties. The world needs to know. I am not sure about the tag. I was sort of saving it for the important series I was planning on Brazilian Big Brother contestants. Daniel Gevaerd is clearly notable in his own right. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the deletion debate on this guy. Seems a bit frantic. Do you think there is some hidden reason to get rid of the article that I can't spot? It seems harmless enough to me, sort of amusing, plenty of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I immediately got around to issuing a warning to someone who has been misreading some of the policies. Joy and happiness. Mind if I return to my peaceful slumber? ;-)
Apparently this one person deletes warnings from their user talk page. Keep an eye on them. If they cause any more trouble and you want to start an RFC, I'll certify the RFC: relevant diff .
I think that your recent comments were unacceptable. I found your comments rude and aggressive. It's funny that there's a discussion at WT:RfA about a difference in standards and how some current admins behave unacceptably. I have replied to your aggressive and rude comments. I would appreciate an apology. — Fly by Night(talk)00:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It anything it is you should be apologising for wasting everyone's time and trying to beat other editors into doing work that you want done, and can do yourself, with repeated AFD nominations where you do none of the work yourself. There's nothing rude in pointing out that that's exactly what you're doing, and your trying to portray yourself as the victim when someone else (administrator or no) points out your fault is actually what is unacceptable. You are not the victim. You are someone who is doing nothing yourself whilst berating others about the fact that after a mere three days something that you wanted done, agreed should be done, and even had the tools to do, wasn't done; and abusing AFD as a big hammer. You are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you made an overt attack on my editing abilities. Saying that deletion was the only song in my repertoire. Your rhetoric continues to be both unfriendly and aggressive. I'm sorry, but that's out of line. Whether or not you agree, you have clearly upset another editor. But you have made no attempt to make peace. You're more than happy to continue with conflict escalation. Have a happy new year. I think we're about finished here. — Fly by Night(talk)02:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. You're the one waving your editing abilities around, remember. No-one else even brought them up. I'm the one asking you why you didn't use the tools that you have rather than do nothing at all except renominate a page for deletion again and again. I've asked you three times, now, and here you are trying to play the victim again, rather than answering the very simple and straightforward question of why on Earth you didn't pick up your tools and do. Stop putting up this smokescreen. You didn't do what you yourself wanted to do, agreed to do, and could do; but just tried to abuse AFD to hammer other people into doing for you. Because of that you're the problem. Indeed, you're the very problem that you're complaining about. As I've already said, ((sofixit)) applies. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake: stop it! you brought up my editing abilities with this edit when you said " Is nominating things for deletion the only song in your repertoire?". This was your first, and the first, comment in this AfD. So you just went straight for my throat. There is no smoke screen. I've said again, and again, on the AfD why I won't work on the article. It's a waste of serve space, I don't think it should be on here, it needs a rewrite and a rename. I'm not going to do either of those things because it's a two sentence, self sourced stub that doesn't meet WP:ORG. Please, don't make me repeat myself for a fourth time! I hereby make a formal request for your personal attacks to stop, e.g. saying "you're the problem".— Fly by Night(talk)03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. That's not bringing up your editing abilities. It is, however, asking you if nominating the page for deletion is the only thing that you do. I could have indeed, just observed outright that the evidence is that this is the only thing that you do, with a page that you think should be renamed and rewritten (which is cleanup not deletion). It's the only thing that you've done. You've done nothing at all — no article edits rewriting what you say should be rewritten, no use of the rename tool to rename what you think should be renamed — to fix the problem that you knew how to fix, wanted fixed, and had the tools to fix. You are doing one thing over and over here, and your only way of dealing with an article that you keep saying should be cleaned up, with renaming and rewriting, is not to actually clean it up, but nominate it for deletion again and again. And you complain that no-one else did your bidding after a mere three days, on top of that. You are the very problem that you complain of. (That's not a personal attack, either, unless your making the complaint about people not renaming the article for you is also a personal attack on everyone else. You're hiding behind that "I'm attacked." smokescreen again. Stop that silliness.) You've failed again and again to explain why you keep saying "it needs a rewrite and a rename" and why on Earth you did not just rewrite and rename, then, but came to AFD demanding that since neither anyone else nor you had done this you were going to expend loads of edits (It's somewhere in the 10s, now.) on another AFD nomination instead. You've not even explained that once, let alone four times. Now stop hiding behind smokescreens with silliness about nonexistent personal attacks. That's dodging the question, not answering it. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're making me repeat myself. I'm sorry to ask: but have you been drinking? Let me repeat AGAIN: "I've said again, and again, on the AfD why I won't work on the article. It's a waste of serve space, I don't think it should be on here, it needs a rewrite and a rename. I'm not going to do either of those things because it's a two sentence, self sourced stub that doesn't meet WP:ORG." I will not work on the article because it is a waste of space and need deleting... PERIOD! I'm finished here now. You ask the same questions in an ever more verbose way. I supply the same answer, and get asked the same question in an ever more verbose way. The edit histories will provide you, and all those interested will all the facts they need for the rest of time. Once again: Happy New Year! — Fly by Night(talk)04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sad thing. They already have provided it to people such as me who've looked at your edits to that article. You did nothing. No rewrites. No renames. Two AFD nominations, taking far more edits to do than rewriting and renaming would have taken. It's entirely unimpressive. But yet less impressive still is your response to being asked why you did nothing except nominate for deletion again and again, which is to dodge the question again and again in various ways, laughably try to claim that it's an attack even to be simply asked why you did nothing when you could have just done what you wanted, and (quite ironically) make personal attacks, yet more of which (alongside yet another failure to answer why on Earth you don't use your own edit and rename tools to do rewrites and renames that you want done, but try to beat other editors into doing the work for you with repeat AFD nominations after a mere three days) I note in the above.Do nothing. Demand that everyone else do something for you. Abuse AFD. Argue and dodge incessantly the question of why you don't pull the tools out and just do renaming and rewriting in a case where you keep saying an article "needs a rewrite and a rename". Your edit history shows it all, alas. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edit history shows that I've created scores of nice new articles, I've helped out at the reference desks and I've rolled my sleaves up and got stuck in vandal fighting and at WP:AIV. Just because I think an article is a piece of rubbish and needs nuking doesn't take anything away from my track record. I can sleep soundly knowing that I have made a profoundly positive net improvement to the project. You'll never admit that, just like you won't return my wishes of a happy new year. But hey... C'est la vie. — Fly by Night(talk)05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now we see a distraction fallacy. Two, in fact. Still no answer to the question of why you don't use your own tools and want everyone else to do the work for you, and will happily abuse AFD to that end, though. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Uncle G, but I have to agree with Fly by Night; you have been unnecessarily aggressive in these AfDs lately. And when someone says so, you either ignore it or dismiss their disagreements as "nonsense" ([18][19]) Just what kind of example are you trying to set? (Newcomers aren't the only users that can be bitten, you know.) ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?08:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone puts forward rubbish like that, one tells them that it's rubbish. And it is. Should we not go around saying that something is wrong when it is wrong? Don't be silly. Disagreeing with things that are wrong is not aggression. However, claiming "I'm attacked." and "You're drunk." and so forth are bad ways of replying to simple questions and making one's argument, and quite transparently so. As is, too, riding the coat-tails of a bad argument in order to decry the fact that one was told that one should actually check things out, and put content and deletion policy into action as they are intended to be put. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When something is rubbish, it's rubbish. And silliness about not saying that something is wrong when it is wrong, somehow because of "caring" (which is in reality completely unrelated to the issue), is just absurd. Read the absurd argument that you're making here. Try thinking about what you would think if someone told you not to tell xem that xe was wrong and tried to make out that it was because you didn't care about xem. That's absurd and transparent manipulation, not to say a foolish over-relativistic argument that the erroneous should be given equal validity to the correct because it's better to pander to manipulative "Don't you care about me?" arguments than it is to be concerned with doing things correctly and to the benefit of the encyclopaedia and to point out when things are being done wrongly (Fly by Night) and to ask for explanations when something is wholly unexplained (you). You should know that that's daft. Think! Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G's stylistic proclivities aside, renominating an article for deletion instead of renaming it is highly counterproductive and wastes a great deal of time that community members could otherwise be spending productively. On the substance, Uncle G is unquestionably right. Arguments that the renominator has done other good deeds in the past are wholly irrelevant. If one wants to be easily bruised and treated with kid gloves, don't interact with Uncle G. If one wishes to become a more productive volunteer, understand what he's saying (and if you don't like his tone, boo hoo hoo). Bongomatic22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwinnable about me copy pasting material from article to another one during an active AfD. Sorry, I was not quite aware that that was frowned upon. I was certainly not circumventing the "delete" outcome. I added ((Copied)) to Talk:No-win situation and I hope this sufficiently preserves attribution. My goal was really to preserve material which I thought was decent and could expand the target article. Thanks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK10:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a laudable goal, but the copyright licences simply don't permit it. That's frustrating to people at times, but the simple maxim to remember is this: If one wants to copy and use content elsewhere, one may not have it and its supporting edit history deleted. One has to pick either copying, using, and keeping the edit history, or deleting, losing, and not using the content anywhere.Personally, I thought that it was a poor article at a bad title (Subject names are generally not adjectives.), whose content is probably wrong anyway. (I just, as a result of the AFD discussion at CSI (pinball) (AfD discussion), came across discussion in a book of termination conditions and victory states in games, and I suspect from that and other reading that the bad names and poor explanations that we have aren't supported in the actual literature on the subject at all, and that the encyclopaedia isn't doing a very good job of passing along the actual knowledge of the subject to those who don't know it.) The comments by Niz and others in the history of Talk:Unwinnable tend to bear that out. Uncle G (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Uncle G, can I recreate a page for Thomas Howes (which you and others have deleted) - I am just watching Downton Abbey again - a major (judged by viewing figures and comments) UK TV series, and Howes has what seems to me a sufficiently prominent role to warrant a page. I have added further refs. to his stage and radio career also, which helps I think. I have a draft here: User:Msrasnw/Thomas Howes (actor). What do you think? The Downton Abbey page's redlink on Howes looks anachronistic. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)) PS - I have also asked User:Ronhjones[reply]
Hello, Please take a look at this AfD debate, and in particular, the late November deletions and accusations of vandalism by RobertRosen. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After my researches into Ademar José Gevaerd (who survived AfD but had too many dubious sources for DYK) I may have a touch of Neilasparophobia myself. But not the little green ones, who are sort of cute. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Uncle G. I was reviewing pages with indef. full protection in case some pages where the remaining protection might have been inadvertent. When I came across this page, it looks like you fully protected the page to stop an edit-war, although it also looks like there might be some form of pending changes protection on the page as well. Shortly after your edit, it looks like disputing parties concede the current revision is fine. Since that was in 8/2010, I was wondering if you thought the protection might be removed, or at least reduced to pure PC protection or semi. It's your call, but I thought I'd point it out in case you didn't intend the page to be protected this long. Hope all is well!--GnoworTC16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Perhaps semi protection might resolve the issue, along with removal of privileges of review for user in question, and SPI if user continues to vandalize page through socks. Although this seems a lot of work when full protection would solve the same problem, the the third pillar seems to suggest indef. full protection might not be appropriate if other options are available to resolve concerns. It's your call, which is why I bring this here rather than at WP:RPP (not trying to start any wheel-wars). Still, I'd hate to see some random new user that is chased away if this is the first article which they want to contribute, and they don't understand how to do that based on the full protection, perhaps we lose a potential member of the community.--GnoworTC17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I started a unforgivably unhavardized article on Jacob Vernes, a prominent pastor in Geneva in the 1700s who had arguments with Voltaire, Rousseau and D'Alembert. Moving on, I started a highly havardized article on Jacob Vernet, a prominent pastor in Geneva in the 1700s who had arguments with Voltaire, Rousseau and D'Alembert. The David Jan Sorkin reference on the Vernet article has a chapter on Vernet, but some of the pages referenced are not in the chapter. As a message to deletionists, I would like to make it clear that the subject is the subject of a chapter in a book. How do I do that? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you might have Vernes in the pipeline, from reading the sources. I recommend against even thinking of people as "-istas" of any stripe. The "-istas" were bad ideas from the start. Anyway, we don't cite sources for people who choose to foolishly polarize over a mechanism of the tool that we happen to use to write the encyclopaedia. We cite them for readers to follow up on and for fellow editors to employ. Are you looking for something like this? There are alternative ways of doing the same thing, including specifying the chapter and page number with the loc= parameter to ((sfn)). Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about loc= - should read the documentation more carefully. Loc= and page= seem to be mutually exclusive, but the page number can be put into the Loc parameter, and that would work. Your solution with two versions of the ((cite)) works too, maybe better.I think by "istas" you mean "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist". I tend to look at topics in terms of what can be done to make a useful article rather than why it should be scrapped, but have no problem with the basic notability principles. Most AfD nominations seem entirely reasonable. I watch a lot of pages and quite often revert a POV attempt. They do not bother me - just someone who does not understand what the project is about. The same applies to the attempts to start articles that do not belong. Nice try, but no banana. What bothers me much more are tags like ((I don't like this)) or AfD submissions for subjects that are obviously appropriate. Seriously though, how about inflicting total boredom on the DYK readers with "..that Jacob Vernes and Jacob Vernet were completely different people?" Forget it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw "not to be confused with ..." early on, so avoided confusion, but kept coming across Vernet when reading about Vernes, so thought there may as well be an article for each of them. The other day I did get mixed up with Kagara, Nigeria which had a lot of trouble getting a dam built, and then a couple of months ago was flooded when the dam burst. Fortunately, I spotted a couple of discrepancies in the sources (Kagara is well south of the Sahel and quite a large place, unlike Kagara) - otherwise the article could have been spreading confusion for years. ☺I agree that there are huge gaps in coverage of non-English subjects. Bios of people like Jacob Vernet tend to be fairly easy, since they have good coverage in copyright-expired and therefore full-view books. Bios like Lansana Diané are much harder, often with unsatisfactory results, even though the subjects may be equally important. Part of me thinks the latter type deserves more effort, part of me likes bashing out the bios of dead Americans or Europeans where there are lots of sources. No shortage of topics, either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A dead encyclopédiste
... that Adam Smith thought Claude Yvon was indulging in OR, and proposed Amour for AfD?
... that Claude Yvon had to edit as an IP from 1754 to 1762?
I'm surprised that we didn't have an encyclopédiste. I'm not surprised that parallels can be drawn. See the debates on the subject of biographical articles, for example. Or Leslie Stephen on the subject of notability when discussing the Dictionary of National Biography. Indeed, see how long it takes to write an encyclopaedia. If you want someone else to write about:Did you know … that Johann Heinrich Zedler was the first encyclopaedist to include biographies of living persons, and didn't just use bare URLs as his source citations (Collison 1966, pp. 105)?Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collison, Robert Lewis (1966). Encyclopaedias: their history throughout the ages: a bibliographical guide with extensive historical notes to the general encyclopaedias issued throughout the world from 350 B.C. to the present day (2nd ed.). New York: Hafner Pub. Co. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
I need help on this. I started expanding Johann Heinrich Zedler but got stuck on making a ref to Quedenbaum 1977 from an explanatory note. Apparently #tag:ref solves the problem, but I can't see how to get it to work. I could avoid the problem, but would prefer to solve it. Help! Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your bigger problem is ((Zedler Online)). Our version doesn't have many of the mechanisms that the German Wikipedia's one does. But since it isn't transcluded to the extent that the German Wikipedia's one is, it might, in contrast, be easier to update. Wikisource has a copy of the text at s:de:Zedler:Zedler, (Johann Heinrich) and for now you can probably get by with linking to that manually, specifying the numbers explicitly, and simply not using that template in the footnote at all. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can get round the links to the sources. They are there, online, I can point to them. I can handle the extraordinary propensity of the editors of the version of the article that is found in the German language version to state everything using the maximum number of words, with no concerns about the repetition that sometimes results from stating everything using the maximum number of words, a propensity that I find reflected in the number of words that are found the German language version of the article, which in some cases (at least in my view) indicates a propensity to repetition. But how do I link from an explanatory note to a source? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned your comments at the ANI discussion on Black Kite. Sorry, but if BK's uncivil comments are being discussed, I thought your comments should be added to give the context. Interesting how heated some people can get over art. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've got no comment on the article as I haven't looked at it. But I think 'twat', like 'bloody', is viewed very differently by different people and I'm sure a lot of people, like me, used them both for a long time before discovering some people were deeply offended by them. The OED gives twat both meanings, and AGF suggests to me we should never assume someone knows them both - I don't think it's like 'cunt' - I'd expect almost everyone to know what that means. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors[edit]
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:
I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything alright Uncle G? Irritating conflicts inevitably happen on here. If you feel strongly enough about content then there is nothing you can do about it.. . Please return when you feel better.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Screen of Death until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Onthegogo (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you are not so busy, check the current version. This is still just a superficial view of the subject. It does not do justice to the sources it draws upon, and there are many more sources that could be used for additional content. When several books have been written about a subject it is reasonable to give it an encyclopedia entry. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested although it seems unlikely given your prolonged abstention perhaps because sometimes life is more important then editing from discussions on this site in the fact that some advice you gave a while ago led to Lagos Colony using the ((#tag:ref|text ((sfn|text))|group=fn)) construct. The article justifiably has a footnote within a footnote. A unique case. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in November last year you put a PROD on Anthony Stabile, and I subsequently deleted it. The article has recently been recreated, using a copy of an earlier version of the article. Since this amounts effectively to a belated challenge to the PROD, I have restored the history of the article. You may like to take it to AfD if you still think that the deletion reasons you gave apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. With respects, I have included a link to your exceptional User:Uncle G/On notability.[20]
Also, there has been a suggestion for a possible name change. Maybe a contest? The only caveat being that it must be simple and easy to remember, and give a clue to what the essay contains. I'm thinking maybe WP:Newcomer's guide to policy, guideline, and editing or WP:Newcomer's PG&E or WP:NGPGE.
Hi Uncle G. I just came across the Stephen Donald article and noticed that it has an editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Stephen Donald). I'm sure you had a good reason for creating it at the time (glancing at the article history, I see some edit summaries about BLP issues), but it seems fairly outdated now, as it's referring to a match from last October. Not sure if it should be simply deleted or changed to make it less specific (and, to be frank, less confrontational), but I thought I'd ask your opinion before doing anything myself. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have a reputation for "fixing" bad articles, including some articles that most editors would think are hopeless. (this being a good example) I have even heard this referred to as being "Uncle Gd". Therefore I would like your opinion on this essay. I wrote it in response to a number of cases at WP:REFUND where an editor goes through the process of getting OTRS clearance to include material from another website on WP only to see it immediately deleted, example here.
While I'm basically trying to argue that it's better to write a new article from scratch in these cases, it does touch on the issue of an article possibly being so hopeless that it's best to "blow it up and start over" so I would like the opinion of someone for which there is almost no such thing as a "hopeless article". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help with a copyright cleanup issue?[edit]
Hi. :) I'm hoping to find somebody with tool skills who can help create a list of edits from 950 articles that use the text string "merg". (The articles are listed at User:Moonriddengirl/Wtshymanski article edits 2 and User:Moonriddengirl/Wtshymanski article edits 1.) Unlike with Darius, this is a copyright situation that should be easily cleaned, as we just need to check attribution where content is copied from one article to another. The contributor is evidently also checking his edits manually; this is intended to help ensure that nothing is overlooked.
Can you help in compiling such a list? I checked with User:Dcoetzee, since he created the CCI tool that created that list, but he is not available at this point. Of course, I had immediately thought of you, given your fabulous contribution to the Darius Dhlomo CCI. :) If you're not able to help out, please just let me know, and I'll poke around elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to sort out the list in Burma National Literature Award by linking the names, adding dates and putting it into some sort of organization. Also I added some actual award winners for a couple of years. Now I am not sure how to handle it. This is indeed a legitimate list of well-known authors, some of whom may have won prizes. The ones who died before the prizes started up probably did not win, although perhaps they could have posthumously. I hate to throw out a good list. It could be moved over into Burmese literature. Or just turned into a stand-alone list. Not sure what is best... Aymatth2 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that, but I started a couple of missing articles and did not get the big red previously deleted warning. I may start a couple more and think about it. Something tells me that the awards have not always been entirely to do with to literary merit. Men and women of letters will be dutiful to nation only if their works serve public interest. Internal and external elements resorting to various means to tarnish Myanmar’s image. It is time to compile mass of literary works designed to rebut various forms of accusations and made-up stories created at home or abroad. Quite so. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that most of the authors with articles did not get an award, and vice-versa. Only government-approved authors get prizes, and these authors seem less notable than others. I find it hard to find much about them. That could be partly a language problem, but only partly, I think. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just in regard to a point you raised at the AfD, I've been following up on all these articles for year a year or so, but due to the sensitive nature of them I've been taking it carefully. Well, that and it is a topic that is difficult to work in, and not really handled by many editors, so I tend to manage them when I'm up to working through the sources, taking a break when the subject matter is a tad much. Lately I've been more focused on linkvio in these articles and copyvio elsewhere, so it was the prompt from the user that made me think about AFD.
It is a difficult area to work in - the editors who create a lot of these articles have very strong feelings that warrant respect, but at the same time there are a lot of problems in the articles. - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, to followup on my reply to VPP-- I can't do the job people at AFD do. I don't know how admins keep patrolling, day after day after day. I can't do your job, and I know your job NEEDS to get done and done right. I'm not the person you are, and I want you to know that. You are more vital to Wikipedia than I am.
I used very emotional language to make the connection between Notability and Retention clear for the readers. I wanted it to be crystal clear to anyone who read it that there is a straight line between deletions and editor attrition.
But I made a mistake in that my initial words made it seem like I was just whining or criticizing people who do your job. I wasn't.
I cannot do you job, but maybe I can do something else-- maybe I can make your job easier. Maybe I can look at the needs of newbies and the needs of patrollers and see a way to make both their lives easier.
For example, it's been suggested to me that creating articles in userspace and getting others to help with them before putting them into Wikipedia is a good way to ensure high quality. I think that's a great suggestion that should become more widespread.
I just didn't want you to think I was bashing-- I'm trying to figure out a way that poor quality authors can still write without their work automatically becoming part of Wikipedia articles until they've reached good quality. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Influenced partly by your comments in this discussion, I have closed this discussion as "no consensus". However, it is a minor pet peeve of mine that newbies try to present things like this. Newbie or not, one would think that it would make sense to see what WP articles actually look like before trying to write one. Here's a real life analogy. If you were invited to a party that you knew nothing about and showed up in a leisure suit (or blue jeans and T-shirt) but before you walked in you saw through the window that everyone was wearing tuxedos and black ties, would you just walk in or would you go home and change into a tux?
I once recommended to someone who was trying to get copyright clearance for an essay that they hit "random article" a few times just to get a feeling of what WP articles look like but sometimes that doesn't give you the best examples. Perhaps what we need is a selection of "sample" articles from various subjects to link from WP:FIRSTARTICLE. They should not be "good" or "featured" articles but just "mediocre" articles that can be written in an hour or two. Hitting "random article" 4 times produced this which is a "so so" movie article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the general point, rather than the specific case: There do seem to be a lot of people claiming to be encyclopaedia writers who have clearly never been encyclopaedia readers. I'm not limiting that to just Wikipedia, either. Some people don't seem to have ever read any encyclopaedia, and haven't the first clue about even the basics thereof. There is an obverse to this, of course. When those people come across an article written by someone who clearly has an idea of what encyclopaedias can contain and that resembles what one usually finds in some encyclopaedias — a continuous narrative flow rather than an unconnected grab-bag of factoids, a paper-printed style of citation links, and a structured approach to the whole subject — they call it an "essay". Reading other Wikipedia articles is only the start, because very few articles give an idea of what we're aiming for but mostly haven't yet reached. Getting to grips with what one finds in encyclopaedias in general is also necessary. Aiming for what Wikipedia currently has overall is aiming quite low. But yes, it's saddening to see people unable to even reach the "pocket encyclopaedia" level of article that most of Wikipedia is at or below. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. What I'm talking about is — ironically — written to a much better standard of writing than that. I'll try to remember to point one out when I spot one. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're being contacted because you participated in a discussion that touched on (or was about) how Wikipedia treats new pages, new editors, and the people who deal with both - patrollers. I'm happy to say we've started work on New Page Triage, a suite of software that will replace Special:NewPages and hopefully make it a more pleasant experience for all. Please take a look, read about what we're planning to do, and add any notes on the talkpage, where some additional thoughts are already posted :).
In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've read the area of dispute several times and still have no idea what your complaint is. According to SummerPhD both varieties are used in sources. This was explicitly mentioned in their second edit summary, they regarded (correctly IMO) VenomousConcept's changes an an undiscussed change to the article replacing one legitimate variant translation with another and reverted it. And in doing so improved the articles's consistency (although missed the infobox which another editor had already changed). They probably should have added the alternate spelling as well so I wouldn't say their behaviour was excellent, but it doesn't seem to deserve the level of complaint either.
My current and only remaining guess is you're complaing about the infobox (which you never mentioned) and LEDE not matching in the version SummerPhD was reverting to. (Despite the fact you've now mentioned the lead.) If so, while it's true the infobox (which you never mentioned) and prose of the article did not match after modification by this IP [21] this was unfortunate but easy to miss. It's also not a problem with the lead which was the locus of the dispute (and you yourself later mentioned solely the lead which leaves me even more perplexed). In particularly, I don't think it should always be necessary for an editor to completely check an article for internal self consistency when they are reverting a change made without discussion which goes against the article's current title in favour of another alternative title. (Of course if you are making a change to an article, you generally should do the job properly and make sure you change all relevant usages rather then just changing one and leaving the rest. By relevant I do of course mean blind search and replace should not be used either.) Personally I don't consider the infobox to be a big part of what the 'encyclopaedia actually says', as it is something both editors and readers alike often ignore if they are reading the prose of the article. We should make sure it's right, but if editors miss it it isn't the greatest sin in the world. Incidentally I was well aware that the infobox and lede weren't the same when I replied having seen the edit history and Favonian correcting it, it just presumed you weren't referring to it since it sounded to me a lot like you were talking about the lede or at least the article proper.
In any case, I don't see any evidence either editor (i.e. including VenomousConcept) was aware of what the infobox said. VenomousConcept's rationale seems to have been that it was the 'correct' or 'preferred' translation. And the fact that they misread the lead and missed multiple other usages doesn't give much credence to the idea they noticed what was in the infobox.) As has been mentioned, the correct course of action here would have been to revert the infobox, if the article is to be changed, it should be moved. Adding the alternative translation to the article would also have been a good thing but this wasn't what VenomousConcept was doing, rather they were replacing the existing translation. (It may be true someone else had added it to the infobox first but this is a moot point, the fact that someone else had done something they should not have does not mean VenomousConcept is justified in doing something they should not have.) Ideally SummerPhD should have added the alternative translation rather then just reverting, particularly as the translation was mentioned in the article. But this isn't stricly required, they were within their rights right to revert those edits which weren't an improvement. Obviously he/she should have reverted the change in the infobox as well but as stated I presume it was missed.
As I've already said and I hope you don't dispute, there's of course nothing wrong with saying 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (also translated as "Thus Spoke Tharathustra"' presuming that this is accurate (i.e. Thus Spoke Tharathustra is an alternative translation). Although we should obviously also mention Spake if it's a common (possibly more common then Tharanthustra) alternate spelling that doesn't make the earlier LEDE wrong, just incomplete. In that vein, you could perhaps claim 'Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (also translated as "Thus Spoke Tharathustra"' is a minor improvement since although we're still missing a common alternate spelling, we at least mention both Spoke and Spake in the infobox but it's still small comfort and when taken together with the other problems (lack of internal consistency and disagreement with article title) I think it's clear it's not.
Note that if we actually do read the article it seems clear that SummerPhD's version was surely the better version. E.g. [22]. Other then the infobox, the article mostly used 'Spoke'. Not surprising since it used spoke until an anon changed the infobox then VC came along and change the first 2 instances but ignored the rest and the fact that the article was still located at Spoke. The only other mention of Spake other then editios and sources is where the article says 'Common's poetic interpretation of the text, which renders the title Thus Spake Zarathustra' which is fine. Whereas in VenemousConcept's version the article said things like 'Other aspects of Thus Spoke Zarathustra relate' and 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra remained unpopular', in other words the article was not internally consistent way beyond the infobox. (And as stated, as they were making a change to the article in favour of another version apparently because they thought it was the 'correct' spelling rather then simply reverting what was seen as an indiscussed change to a stable version, they IMO had a greater duty to try and ensure internal consistency by checking for other instances and making sure they were changed.)
Also you seem to have missed my point. I was never suggesting that the dispute was about the bold faced words nor that they were introduced by VenomousConcept. Rather as evidence by my statements above, I was confused and am still confused why you think SummerPhD 'didn't pay any attention to what your reversions made the encyclopaedia actually say'. So far, everyone who has read the LEDE which was the locus of disputed has agreed there was nothing wrong with the LEDE of the version SummerPhD was reverting to. (As mentioned, the infobox is a different matter, and seems to be the only thing that was problemtic.) My assumption was that you misread the LEDE (as I admit I did the first time) as saying 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra, also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. If our article had said that, this would clearly be a bit stupid and I would agree in that case that SummerPhD should have taken more care. It's apparent that VenomousConcept also read our article saying that, as they said in an edit summary as I pointed out when I replied. However when I looked more carefully, I realised our article never said that or at least not in the diffs of concern so there was no problem with the LEDE (other perhaps then failing to mention the alternative spelling spake which was later mentioned). As said, since this was the only thing that I could think of that you may have been complaining about (other then the infobox which didn't seem to be what you were referring to), I made the assumption that you had made the same mistake and so helped clarify the article never said that despite VenomousConcept claiming it did. It now sounds like you didn't make this mistake which is great, although from what I can tell, I'm not the only one perplexed as to what you're complaining about.
P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying VenomousConcept made some major error here. This is one of the cases which hopefully could have been resolved by either party taking the time to do the best thing and introduce the alternate spelling properly in to the LEDE (and starting and RM if they felt another spelling would be the better title) which unfortunately did not happen until after you mentioned in on ANI. Sadly neither party did so. You could perhaps argue that as the experienced editor we have greater expectation of SummerPhD to know the best way forward. But as I've also said from where I stand, VenomousConcept's changes made the article worse then SummerPhD's did and your comments notwithstanding, it does seem we have more evidence that VenomousConcept didn't look at what they were doing given that they only changed 2 usages when there were more and seemed to think the article said 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra, also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra' when it didn't. (And I don't believe either editor used the talk page early on too.)
Therefore it's of a crapshot which one is more 'wrong' and in any case, it's often simply not beneficial to single out either editor in a dispute when there were problems on both sides. The best thing to do IMO would have been just to politely suggest to both of them the way they could resolve such disputes in the future rather then single out SummerPhD for such strong condemnation (particularly given the unclear justification) hence my concern. In particular, I don't see any reason to assume this had anything to do with their shared history, but all to do with their personal peeves. SummerPhD apparently doesn't like people changing spelling variants out of process (a peeve I admit I share) and VenomousConcept appears to have strong preference for changing the spelling if they regard it as incorrect. (As stated before, I do regard SummerPhD as being correct here in the absence of a policy based consensus for change.) And ultimately while the page wasn't excellent, IMO neither version was as terrible as you made SummerPhDs variant out to be (which as I've stated was I feel was in fact the better version in the grand scheme of things even if still incomplete and with infobox inconsistency).
Hello Uncle G/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]
Hi. When you recently edited Sovereign Principality of Zargaristan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No thank you; I have no need. Nor have you. That's a hint, too. Think! Put the old brainbox in gear, read that AN/I discussion, and think about what error you're making over and over. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming another Wikipedia editor will interact in a collegial and respectful manner? No worries, I've (re)learned my lesson. Nobody Ent19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being silly. You got collegial and respectful, with several good-humoured nudges that you were making a fairly basic mistake, giving you plenty of opportunity to have a private moment of "Oh gosh! I'm being thick, aren't I?" revelation and not lose face. Perhaps you're more used to approaches such as: "Nobody Ent, you're a bonehead! You used the plural and there are two articles mentioned and even directly linked-to several times over in the discusion. Try dropping your nutty fixation on one, which you keep pointing to over and over as if it proves something, and look at the other one. Two minus one is one. As you were told from the get-go, you patently mis-read the logs when you thought that one of the articles is salted in the first place.". I tend to avoid those. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectful is communicating clearly and directly, not playing word games. I thought you were pompously mistaken about Kraftwurx being protected; didn't realize you were playing a game I'm not interested in. The important issue was that articles were inappropriately protected, whether the number was one or two isn't that significant. Meaning depends on context -- what you consider gentle nudges I classify as acting like a fucking asshole.Nobody Ent22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I tend not to use phrases like 'fucking asshole' I'd agree with NE that your gentle nudges were in fact opaque, indirect and unhelpful. I AM an admin and I couldn't tell what the hell you were talking about. A simple, immediate and straightforward clarification would have been much more helpful than what actually transpired. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were indirect. I wasn't about to write "Nobody Ent, you're being dim." as above. So gentle and indirect, with humour, is what is used instead. The simple phrase "one of them" is not hard to understand, any way that one paints it. Nor is it hard to check two out of two article logs. Being an administrator doesn't even enter into it. Everyone can see those logs. One sad thing is seeing the people, including you reading the discussion as an observer, who didn't check the logs for themselves to see the actual facts of the matter at hand. As an administrator, you most certainly should have looked at both article logs. It's been reiterated time and again that one of the worst mistakes that administrators make at AN/I is not looking at the logs and edit histories. You'd have understood immediately, irrespective of any obliqueness, had you done so. Indeed, you'd have understood simply by reading the whole discussion to that point, as it had already been mentioned that one of the twain isn't creation-protected. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two people have given you feedback that your communication style was unhelpful - would you be prepared to accept we may have a point? Indirect you certainly were, but I'd call it confusing and obfuscating rather than gentle. There would be no need to write "Nobody Ent, you're being dim" - you could simply have clearly pointed out that only one of the articles was affected. I did read the whole thread, I did look at the logs and I still couldn't make head nor tail of what you were saying. Maybe it's just me. But it wasn't only me and you might consider whether there's anything you could have done to make your communication more straightforward. Now I won't bother you again, having said my piece. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No irony intended. I am grateful. I caught the tail end of some of the great education establishment war with some disgust. It did Wikipedia no good at all. I don't intend to elaborate there simply because it will harm and derail the discussion, nor do I intend to say much here, save that, history notwithstanding, there is a behaviour there that is... difficult, and I feel it to be important to note it there, as I have done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it did us no good. We re-learned, from it and other events, a lesson that people at the time had forgotten: discuss, don't vote. Of course, it's a lesson that has to be re-learned every few years if the new influx of people is not accultured. The organized block voting on schools was also one of the major things that made people averse to canvassing. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated your comments here. They're spot on, in general, and also re the context that was presented above my request. But I wasn't sure whether you were aware that the request I made wasn't about the BLPish/outing spat at all? I could be mistaken, but I suspect Drmies question, "Is it correct that they removed comments?" was directed to me specifically, and that he directed it my way because he'd followed the "link/snapshot" I provided to a different section of the same talk page, and had seen the remarks I made at 21:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC) about other comments that had been removed by IP 209.x. No reply necessary or expected here, on your talk, although welcome, of course: I also dislike "splitting" conversations. Thanks again, --OhioStandard (talk)19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:N, I especially am pushing for a rewrite of the lede. In part, I don’t like seeing “notable” being implicitly defined as “worthy of notice”, and indeed do not see any useful benefit in using the lede to repeat real-world definitions that differ to our usage. Long ago, you added a dictionary definition to the lede[23] You may like to comment at WT:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Uncle G, Status has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Thanks for sorting out the mess. Sorry if I complicated things, but that was my interpretation of the situation. Perhaps I should have had a closer look at the text in the other sections before deciding not to tag as G12 (which is arguably what should have been done some years ago). -- Trevj (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been summoned, judged, and sentenced at one go.
Your charges are open to debate--some of the articles the body of the
text were sourced from other publications, but they were listed below
in the sources. And you took umbrage with pasting notes, ie text into
talk pages. The notes were not placed into the article.
As to the other things, the pages have been so re-worked that they have
been obliterated. Wikipedia is a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarists and copyright violators like you don't expend any time on writing in the first place; you just lazily steal — lock, stock, and barrel — the work of others who have. So you haven't actually had any time to have wasted, although you have caused a waste of time for other people around you, including those who now have to clean up your damage to the project. Thank you for reminding me that you also needed to have your abilities to edit and to create accounts through that IP address revoked. Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks that way. I'll leave it alone for now. My goal is to stop the persistent utterly unencyclopaedic additions and the wasting of everyone's time, which that account has yet to be employed for. Thank you for letting me know. Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Uncle G/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.
As a matter of long-standing policy, I conduct my business here on-wiki. That particular matter is not, however, something that belongs on-wiki, as you have correctly judged. Fortunately, I'm the wrong person to pass it to anyway. Please inform the Arbitration committee of the matter. The committee has dealt with such things before. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Regarding that AFD, I did do research before tagging it. Why would it take more than 2 minutes to Google the subject. Also, I know the guidelines for deletion, but that case seemed borderlien, so I took it to AFD. Also, I don't think that I was biting the new user, but I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks again, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The changes look mostly okay except for the part where you italicized "claimed to be a different person". He actually mistakenly self-identified as RM in that email. I ended up seeing the (real) name he used to sign up with thanks to Gmail's real name policy. MarcusQwertyus03:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it has been so long since a second person was working on a CCI while I was, I've got into some bad habits of leaving the edit window open too long. :) I've updated 21-40 with the ones I've done, and I'll move to 1-20 instead. btw, it is great to have edit conflicts on one of these - we may be able to get one off the books. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doffers to the right. This picture is fair use for en.wiki - historical, subject is dead. It was made prior to 22 December 1911, probably around 1870. I don't think that qualifies for commons (?) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going close to thermal relief. From a quick check, these are two really interesting subjects, both with plenty of material, no orphan problems and pictures available - the most important point. I will make a start, but may be a bit busy the next couple of days. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article from the Gale Encyclopedia of Biography is available on the WWW, and seems (from comparing it to the other things that I found) to provide a fair roadmap of where the topic goes. If you're going to ask Commons about the Bushman book photograph, note that Harvard University Library has two other portraits which you might want to ask about at the same time.As for the orphan status: Yes, you're right. There's only the one paltry inbound link to the first so far, and I added that. But I expect that this could be tied to Lowell Mill Girls and probably Lowell Offering too. I've just de-orphaned doffer.Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harry S. Truman doffingDoffer being used to remove wool from a small hand-carder
I'm not sure what you're planning to do with this but, to share my findings, note that doffer is a rather generic term from the simple root of do off, i.e. something that unloads or takes off. In a quick browse, I found at least three particular usages in the field of cotton processing and so care is required to avoid confusion between them. Warden (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect and hope, given the photographs and the potential DYK hook, that Aymatth2 is going with the occupation. What's far more mysterious is how a woman who died in 1911 has two Facebook accounts. The mind boggles as to what their status could be. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went to Wiktionary first thing. I wasn't surprised at all to see that it already had the word. Wiktionary doesn't have the problem of bands and businesses usurping titles that Colonel Warden mentioned, and can concentrate upon such stuff. Note that you'll probably hit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use common names) arguments with bobbin doffer, given that pretty much everywhere that I've de-orphaned it it has been simply "doffed", "doffing", or "doffer", and that seems to be the name in the world at large, too. It's a fairly moot point until we have another article that would go at doffer, anyway, at which point we can address the problem in some fairly obvious ways; and I think that we're probably overthinking this.By the way: You might get a very obscure second hook out of why mill workers' songs used to talk of "yellow belly doffers".Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not overthinking at all. I see this as a very serious issue, and took the trouble to arrange for a picture of a carder doffer to be uploaded, one that unknown to me was being used now and then in my house. If you suppose that all doffers doff bobbins, then you suppose eroneously, for some are not doffers of bobbins of cotton as you suppose all doffers to be. Time for a break, maybe a very long break. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I thought that might trigger some productive contribution, and was right. But if you check "doffer" in books with preview, you will find the word almost always means what is now filed as doffing cylinder, the subject of a huge body of literature. Doffer as in a person who doffs the bobbins or pirns is not used much at all. After moving doffer to bobbin doffer and back again, I don't have the heart to move it again, and don't know where it would be moved to anyway. "Doffer (mill worker)" is ugly. Most of the WP links refer to the human type, so I suppose the article can keep its name. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just let you get on with it with respect to the names. As for your triggers: I was waiting so that you had the first edit. This is so that when that 'bot comes around trying to blame someone for DYK, it goes to your talk page. ☺ The hook material for the biography is now in the article, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I compressed the comment on Harriet's role in the strike a bit too much. It seemed out of place in the "mill worker" section, since it discussed later embellishments, but I was having trouble fitting it in towards the back of the article. A footnote seemed to work, but it was decidedly Gibbonish so I squished it down - too much, obviously. I forgot I was not the only person taking the blame. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep meaning to come back to the article to see whether I can expand it further. I noticed that you did something with the drawing-in girl part that I left dangling and was going to get back to. It turns out that I now have to knock together a paragraph for Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#This is an encyclopaedia article, supposedly.. I had a very quick look for biographical sources for Joseph Vaissète, whom I was going to throw your way, but I didn't have the time to do a thorough job and I don't have anything for you. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pas de problème!. But this one source may be all the sources, and with no picture what kind of bio would that be? On the Côte d'Ivoire question, the more heated the argument the less it matters. If it is impossible to get agreement, the pros and cons are closely balanced. In a situation like that it is reasonable for a mediator to insist on a compromise that is unsatisfactory to everyone like Ebur-Bordo. How do I apply for the mediator job? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not lawyer or Latin expert, but after reading that article, "man-made posited law" was what I intended to comment on the extradition treaty. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:your ANI note, that's interesting stuff. Interesting also is that such a case should make for instant Wikipedia notability--perhaps we should add a clause to WP:PROF: "If a researcher has been found to have plagiarized, a claim supported by reliable sources, xe are automatically notable". And then wreak havoc on our BLP policy. I was surprised to find that this guy didn't have an article yet. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you've ever been told this before, but when you edit noticeboards, you apparently edit the entire page rather than the section you're interested in. Watchlists already don't have the technical capability of watching topics, but at least the watchlist shows you which section was edited. With your "method", I can't even tell what thread you commented on. Like many other editors, I am not necessarily interested in all the threads. So, more work for me to figure it out.
Anyway, I don't know why you do it this way, whether you can change (habits are sometimes hard to change), or whether you're even inclined to change, but because it seems lately that you've been contributing more to areas that I watch, it keeps annoying me (mildly).
Hopefully, this came across as a constructive "complaint". Obviously, you don't have to change just because I've asked you to, but at least consider it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this editor while discussing the Admiralty tug article, and I notice you blocked him for copyright violation. As this seems pretty widespread, I'm thinking this probably affects all the articles he created. Did you have any thoughts on what to do about them? I've taken the liberty of putting a warning note on their talk pages (see here); started to, anyway: Is that OK? I'm also thinking (looking at them) that some aren't worth keeping (not notable, not referenced, etc) What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UncleG, I hope I'm misreading some implication in your post with the timeline which, in fact, only confirms what I was saying (well, in my opinion of course): there was no need for Sarek to continue his involvement after Roux told him off. (This wasn't some BLP or an FA on the front page--it was a spat between editors on their talk pages.) If the suggestion is that I am excusing Roux's language by saying Sarek should have stayed away, I deny that: I make no apology for Roux's language or behavior, that's entirely him, and I am not interested in making accusations about (or character assassinations of) Sarek either. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What suggestion? What on Earth are you on about? You said "Sarek, in those diffs above […]". I gave you and others a timeline with a more complete picture of what was going on, and made a general request to read the full contributions histories. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What on Earth"--you singled me out, as if I hadn't read, or should have read more fully, the background of the dispute. But never mind. I don't care for hyperbole, and apologize for any suggestion or misreading. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enciclopedia Gesta de autores de la literatura boliviana[edit]
Thanks for pointing out Adolfo Costa du Rels. Interesting. He never met Edith de La Chevalerie as far as I can tell - Bogota is a long way from Bolivia. But you surely cannot think that Wikipedia should have an article for every entry in every book that claims to be an encyclopedia, even books written in Foreign. Surely not. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you would like it. Fortunately for the English Wikipedia, Ramón Ortiz (priest) (1814–1896), whom I wrote about at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Ortiz (disambiguation), was written about in American. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything hookworthy about him. Or at least I haven't found anything yet, although I'm still reading. The best that I can get, which is pretty poor, is that he was the Man From El Paso who said "no". There might be something that tweaks the sensitivities of a modern readership in the fact that he was arrested and deported by the United States for successfully recruiting thousands of Mexican citizens to leave the U.S. and live in Mexico, and other "un-American" activities. Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many priests are named Ortiz. You are probably confusing this "Ramón" with Stirling Dickinson of Chicago, a sort of Moses of the Beatniks, who led 100 expatriate reds from the U.S. to San Miguel de Allende. More accurately, he moved there and the artists and fellow-travelers showed up later. Maybe Dickinson was more un-Mexican than un-American, come to think of it. I don't think he was deported. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that Dickinson, or Ramón as you insist on calling him, was in fact deported, but to the United States rather than by the United States. He recruited American (not Mexican) citizens to leave the U.S. and live in Mexico. And the House Un-American Activities Committee said he was an o.k. guy after they had talked to him for a while. I hope this clears up the confusion. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are writing about those people from Estados Unidos de América, again. I thought that you wanted Foreign, to counter that systemic bias. If you wanted Domestic, you should avoid writing about Frederick Varley, because our article on him is quite complete. Similarly, avoid Reva Brooks (née Silverman) who is only famous for being a friend of Varley. Her husband, Leonard Brooks, was in the Navy during World War Two or something. Mind you, these people are from Canadia, and so maybe count as Foreign. Well one of them is, anyway. The first one is from London, England, U.K., Europe. The third one is a Damn Red who came from London, England, U.K., Europe, too. But his Navy pay was in Canadian, eh? M. Ortiz at least had the decency to fight in an All-American war. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I made a start at Ramón Ortiz y Miera, which was his full formal name although rarely used. I prefer it to Ramón Ortiz (priest), but don't feel strongly. I am not at all satisfied with the current version. The book sources seem partisan and inaccurate. The Mexicans want to go and want to stay, afraid of slavery and welcoming freedom. A ghostly Governor John M. Washington flits across the scene. And then there is the enigmatic Donaciano Vigil, who seems more interesting than Ortíz in some ways, and who took over as Governor of New Mexico after Charles Bent was killed, but whom Wikipedia refuses to list as a governor. I will dig around to try to get a more convincing view. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore this person. There's obviously a conflict of interest, there. After all, they're both from New Mexico and share the same surname. On the subject of Nuevo México, though, and other things that professor Maurilio E. Vigil has written about:
Did you know … that the Mama Lucy Gang was named after a restaurant?
Thanks for your quality additions to the Ivory Coast names section. Would you consider eventually allowing it to be spun off into and article like Name of Greece or Names of Sri Lanka? I have done this with a few others in the past as they reached appropriate length. — AjaxSmack02:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not because, at four paragraphs, it's probably nowhere near long enough. And not because of the naming dispute. But because we need a super- article here, not a sub- article. Reading the sources, it was clear to me that these "coasts" and their names are better dealt with together, as a single topic, which would be a ((main)) for Gold Coast (region), Pepper Coast, and Côte d’Ivoire#Names. I just haven't worked out where in the encyclopaedia that would be. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harriet Hanson Robinson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Harriet Hanson Robinson(pictured) went on strike from her job as a bobbin doffer at age eleven? 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.
I think I saw some of this from a sideline a day or so ago. This morning I was thinking about giving up the bit to stop bothering myself (and others) with such messes and start writing articles again. I'll toast you from the Wikimania reception in the LoC tonight, if I make it on time. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who aren't actually writers aren't as messy to deal with as some. This sockpuppeetteer is just a spammer and an impersonator. Messes involving people who actually are encyclopaedia writers are more difficult. People who aren't writers at all we can simply show out of the door.If you want to relax and enjoy writing, have a look at the #Enciclopedia Gesta de autores de la literatura boliviana section above, where Aymatth2 has been recolouring my redlinks. I haven't found enough sources yet for the Mama Lucy Gang to be happy. Maybe an article on the Mama Lucy Gang and Cowboys or some such, with a wider scope, is necessary. And of course any person with a biography in the Enciclopedia that we don't yet have one for is fair game. ☺By the way, it's funny how these things sometimes turn up. I found out about the Enciclopedia, and told Aymatth2 about it at User talk:Aymatth2#An encyclopaedia, because I was looking at the citations in Edith de La Chevalerie (AfD discussion). One of them was a book by Adolfo Costa du Rels. Trying to find out more about him and his book led me to the Enciclopedia.Uncle G (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the actions of Kasanders (talk·contribs) is evidence enough that he is at least a meatpuppet in the whole Stephen M. Cohen article debacle. My attempts to fix the page by going back to a version that comes from before their intervention and whitewashing has been met with opposition because one of the references in the version I went back to was not relevant to the article as a whole. He's also decided to prod the article in further attempts to whitewash the existence of the subject's past indiscretions. Also he's accused me of working for Kremen. Please block him so we can be rid of this group of socks and/or meatpuppets.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you take a look at the raw text in the edit window, you'll see that both Kasanders and Samuelmeza put three spaces after each full stop. I think that odd typing quirk is enough behavioral evidence.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I almost felt guilty! But the carne asada was too good--the only non-physical entity that disrupted my dinner was, well, I guess it slipped my mind. Happy days, Uncle. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I should have checked the history—I spend half my life at working at Copyright Problems. Nevermind, I now know about a school I'd never heard of. By the way, it was listed at CP by a bot but only as being a copy of another WP article Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2012-07-12, not a copy of something else. I'd say Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bandaranayake Central College - Veyangoda. ought to be deleted too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you didn't; at least not yet and not that explicitly. Jimmy's talk gets enough exposure that this is more likely to balloon out of our ability to fix. I think there is something we can do, and I'll get the ball rolling there, but bringing too much attention to this from the start might hinder more than help. — Coren(talk)02:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that I haven't thought about it. That's why I was waiting so impatiently for the checkuser results. I was hoping that it would turn up an account that wasn't a living person's name, allowing us to proceed with a polite fiction. But they all are, it turns out. I thought long about Jimbo's and Newyorkbrad's talk pages. But the risk of exposure outweighed the benefit of getting Jimbo and the Office, or the ArbCom, or both, to step in right now; and events on the BLP noticeboard threatening to blow up rather forced my hand, too. I didn't use "important" in the edit summaries lightly. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, because of Wikimania, everyone is in DC and likely to be hard to reach and slower to react. Oh, well; we'll cope. — Coren(talk)12:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, twist my arm and PayPal me $50 for a taxi, and I'll get dressed, turn the TV off, and head down to the Buffalo Billiards to go get some of the big shots to look at this issue. Better yet (and cheaper), call DGG, who is probably out there on the dance floor as we speak. BTW, Jimbo, if he was speaking the truth in his opening address, isn't here anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of those AFD queries on my talk page. I'm dealing with some real life issues right now. (it's actually a new relationship) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article has been a mess for a while now and I'm planning to work on it when I get a chance. However, User:fightingagainstlies has been trying to update it but keeps getting confused between truth and verifiability. Perhaps everyone can calm down now and re-write the article from a NPOV perspective. I was trying to get them to work together, but to no avail. Afraid I won't be able to edit it as you've restricted it to sysop, but perhaps after everything settles down we can address it. Thanks again. VertiumWhen all is saidand done01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it now. Do it on the talk page. Draft a good three or more paragraph stub in a section of its own, and when it's ready, take me up on my offer. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ramón Ortiz y Miera is working through the DYK queues. Thanks for identifying him. He has led me into filling redlinks, and redlinks in the redlinks, not done yet, for a series of notable and (to me) interesting New Mexicans. Not always the same thing. No, Wikipedia is not yet quite complete.
This has been a learning experience. I did not realize the Republic of Texas was quite so large, but see map. The University of Texas is presumably a reliable source.
Did you known that when a party of Texan representatives visited Santa Fe in 1841 to point out that Mexico really should not be claiming the half of the Texan republic that they had been illegally occupying since 1598, the governor gave them a free trip to Mexico city, via El Paso del Norte, where Father Ramón Ortiz refreshed them after the tiresome cross-desert leg of their journey through the Jornada del Muerto? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. You seem to have stumbled across a rather large hole that needed filling. Are you going to try for bluelinks all of the way back to the 16th century? Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that some of them do not deserve even a thumbnail. For example, Fray Pedro Zambrano Ortiz called Juan de Eulate (1618-1625) "a bag of arrogance and vanity without love for God or zeal for divine honor or for the king our lord, a man of evil example in word and deed who does not deserve to be governor." Come to think of it, he sounds interesting. But then there are all the other angry priests and governors of all the other provinces in all the other countries. I have a short span of attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any source for this statement about misspelling? Each and every source in the article uses "Jaitley", with the one exception of a source that uses "Jaitely" and "Jaitley" both. Not a "Jaitly" in sight.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the complaints about Wikipedia mis-spelling her name published by the subject herself outwith Wikipedia were given on the BLP noticeboard. Go and read them. Yes, she's blaming us instead of the (minority of) newspapers that have made this error. (In part that's because some people are pointing her to Wikipedia rather than the newspapers.) But that doesn't make her incorrect about the correct spelling of her own name. Frankly, undoing everything because you didn't look anywhere beyond the citations in the article was a very foolish thing to do.And no, you did not actually do even that. I can tell because I did check things out, from the IMDB entry through various newspaper archives, books, and the verified account on Twitter, to the subject's official WWW site to see whether the public complaint about Wikipedia is repeated there. (It isn't, but the site uses the correct spelling, even in its name.) If you actually had done what you claimed to have done but did not, and read even merely all of the sources so far cited, you'd have found that one of them has a URL that doesn't work unless the correct spelling Jaitly is used (and uses that spelling throughout, nowhere using the other), a second that actually uses the correct spelling in the source itself but has had the headline mis-spelled when copied to Wikipedia (and also uses that spelling throughout, nowhere using the other), a third that doesn't have the surname in the headline but again uses the correct spelling in the body, and a fourth with the incorrect spelling in the headline but the correct spelling in the body.You didn't really do anywhere enough reading and checking on this, and you certainly didn't do the checking that you state.But at least it will be your name, not mine, that the newspapers might be reporting tomorrow in the stories of how Wikipedia writers insisted upon the mis-spelled name despite the evidence and didn't even read their own article (to see her father's name) or the Times of India piece. I'll be the Wikipedia administrator who actually did my research in response to a BLP complaint and valiantly tried and failed to get the biography corrected. ☺Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked every reference listed in the article. Provide me a reference link, and I will add it to the article and rename back. The very references next to her name in the article lead use "Jaitley". I may have failed in research, but your rename provided no verifiable source. I see now that the infobox lists a "http://www.celinajaitlyofficial.com/", but that was not used as a reference. I will revert, but I would suggest that your edit summary the next time this occurs actually points to the discussion, and your edits should have removed references that the article contradicts. Don't presume that people would ever track your edit back to a noticeboard.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's excuse making and a poor show. "subject's public statements as to the correct spelling of her own name and the mis-spelling by Wikipedia writers" should have been more than enough to clue for anyone that there's more than a noticeboard discussion here. And you are not thinking at all if you think that removing citations from a biography solely because the sources cited contain spelling mistakes, that aren't relevant to what those sources are supporting, is in any way proper behaviour on a biography of a living person by a Wikipedia administrator. Come on! You know better than that. I've asked that M. Jaitly not mis-spell your name, by the way. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to personally protest there being an article for Mr. Holmes on wikipedia it is an encylopedia not an newspaper and when I bring down an encylopedia of Brittanica I do not find the sensationalist stories like the one included on wikipedia just now forfgoing the obvious reasons that this is simply giving this person the fame he was after, it does not warrant a whole article since this is a single event in his life his name warrants conclusion in the article about the shootings but not his own article as It others (the victims) involved would not warrant their own pages but inclusion on the page of the massacre I'm protesting to you since you protected the page and have taken the lead on it while also being an editor I understand there are past examples of this but those sully this website being called an encylopedia as well and we should not allow it to happen anymore Algonquin7 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't protect the page. You need to learn how to read edit histories properly. I've also refactored all of your Project:Biographies of living persons policy violations, here and at the article's talk page. You need to learn policy on that, too. Straightaway. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you disappeared at one point and I for one have been glad to have you back. Your comments in discussions generally get things to the point quite quickly. I just think things are better here for your presence. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, the guidelines I personally use for deciding whether a source for a UK road is reliable are not are roughly as follows :
Any user generated content on the SABRE forums or the SABRE wiki is unreliable as anyone can create an account and edit it
OpenStreetMap coverage on SABRE Maps is unreliable for the same reason
Google Maps coverage on SABRE maps is unreliable because frankly it's full of errors and I don't trust it at all (as we've just seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1438 road).
Ordnance Survey Openspace coverage on SABRE maps is reliable because it's a link to content hosted directly on Ordnance Survey's own servers, produced for HM Government
Historic OS Map coverage on SABRE maps is reliable because it's effectively a transcription of a document produced for the Ministry of Transport (as was) or the Department for Transport
The Highways Agency pages are reliable as they're a government organisation
The MT files in the National Archives are reliable, provided the document number and link to TNA catalogue is provided, so other people can verify it
All trunk roads are notable. All primary routes are notable. An A road might be notable. A B road probably isn't notable. There doesn't seem to be any definitive choice whether to merge or delete non-notable roads.
I just took the simple route of taking the clearly inapplicable (It was the wrong road!) source off and marking the content as in need of a source. ☺ In looking around to see whether there were any sources for this article, I noticed that A12 road (England) is missing some information from the 1970s, in particular the construction of the 11.5km "Ufford and Wickham Market Bypass", whatever that is. I don't have the access to sources that you have, and this is your area, so I leave that hole in the encyclopaedia for you to fill. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure it's tagged with a ((cn)) and / or ((refimprove)) and someone ought to get round to it. Dates tend to be a bit hit and miss depending on whether the relevant government body or council could be bothered to document them. --Ritchie333(talk)14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey? Do you know that some Wikipedia Users are doing valdalism by showing themselves as the advocates of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia ?[edit]
Sinanoglu is not only a chemist, the "moreover" and "the" more important, he is the icon of the "Turk Superracism". The person who is subject of that article (Oktay Sinanoglu) published autobiographical book in 2001 in Turkey by using the fake titles of the “World’s Youngest Professor”, “Lord of U.S.A”, “at the peak point of science in U.S.A”, “The Turkish Einsten” etc. so he gained a lot of prestige in Turkey and a few million Turkish student accepted him as their idol and having been believed the fake titles of Sinanoglu are exactly true they occured the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement”. The last ten year (2001 – 2011) Sinanoglu became the “Hero of People” by using these fake titles that he published them in his bestseller autobiographical book. Today, by contributing a few million college student, the “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” was like the superracist “Hitler Youth Movement” in Turkey and Sinanoglu became the icon of the "Turk Superracism" everywhere. By reading the autobiographical book of Sinanoglu, large amount of college students became “superracist Turks” under the influence of Sinanoglu’s megalomanic and fake titles. So, they are conducting the election campaign: “Sinanoglu must be the President of The Republic of Turkey!” Eight years ago, the first edition of this article was written by some members of “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” as the summary of Sinanoglu’s autobiographical book and this Wikipedia article was used by them in Turkey as the proof that the titles of Sinanoglu had been accepted as exactly true by whole world, so every Turk must believe that this titles of Sinanoglu was exactly true. That was the begining and the developing of the "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" in Turkey. Did you understand now why I was interested and why I am working to edit this article by using verifiable documents over 200 references? Please look at the edit history of the article. You will see a lot of vandal attacks to clean my editings. The last vandal attacks came from “Salvador21”-“Khazar2”-“Bobrayner” If you look at these users pages, you will see that these users are Turks and they are related with “Ottoman Empire” articles in wikipedia and they advocated “New-Ottomanist Imperialist Ideology” that Sinanoglu propagated this ideology in his autobiographic book. As a result, the some members of the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement" cleaned the all words of the article which is writen by me and they provided to put blockage to my editings by showing themselves advocates of the Wikipedia Five Pillars. The “Sinanoglu Youth Movement” are in joy that Wikipedia blocked my editings. And now, they sing a song: “Long Live the Five Pillars of Wikipedia! We can do vandalism by showing ourselves as advocates of these Pillars"--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An SPI was filed here. Presumably, this is now redundant and can be withdrawn, or is CU still advisory to link to a sockpuppeteer and find further accounts? Ankh.Morpork18:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name confirms it but seeing as this account made no contributions, how did you spot it? Ankh.Morpork19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another: Israel and terrorism, courtesy of User:Atomsshearatomsshear. @AnkhMorpork: these accounts just recreate the same page, I nom them per G4 and add them to the SPI, and Uncle G nukes and blocks them. The process is pretty quick, so the contribs aren't visible for long. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has contributions. They are now deleted. ☺ It just re-created the same page and the above redlink changed colour. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sockpuppet created State terrorism and Israel. Can you protect this page from imminent re-creation? Ankh.Morpork21:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sanitizing a convicted crominal's efforts to portray blackmail as a public service[edit]
Your censorship of my edit summaries regarding the Cliff Stanford article is grossly inappropriate. Stanford is a self-admitted (he plead guilty, after all) convicted criminal. He nevertheless wants his Wikipedia article portray the actions for which he was charged and convicted as some sort of public service. Nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines prohibits pointing out that a convicted criminal's characterization of his own actions is recounted from the perspective, inescapably, of a convicted criminal. You seem to think it's OK for a convicted criminal to use Wikipedia to whitewash his reputation while violating our BLP policies -- or at least that it's not as bad for him to do that as it is for another user to point out what he's doing.
Wikipedia and its editors tolerate, often actively promote, grossly excessive coverage of embarrassing incidents and commentary about celebrities, generally of peripheral importance to their careers, and too often reports malicious and abusive commentary without real importance. But for all the character assassination that goes on here, it's now inappropriate to point out that a convicted criminal is editing the Wikipedia description of his own criminal behavior to make his misconduct appear to be a public service. I find this baffling. Perhaps you can provide a more appropriate way to say this, but I really doubt it.
And your comments about my editing of the Stanford article are quite misleading. Something over a year ago, I did nontrivial cleanup to the article, adding sources and citations, clearing out unsourced statements, noting remaining sourcing problems, etc.[24] That's not "effectively zero improvement", as you describe things. And since then, Stanford and his girlfriend have been teeing off on me without regard to truth, accuracy, or civility. I didn't refer to Stanford's criminal history as insulting invective, I pointed it out because it's extremely relevant in evaluating the commentary he provides concerning his actions that led to his conviction.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments about the Onions of Arbcom (and I agree, I'm surprised we don't have an essay already), and the cadence of the words immediately brough The Whales of August to mind : ) - jc3700:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the comment, but I saw you commented there, and on a bunch of other things. All the while, we were swimming, I made pizzas and fruit salad and a variety of cocktails, and now I'm watching a ten-year old dog and a six-week old kitten make friends. There's ice cream and (homemade) chocolate syrup and fruit for desert. My wife is in the pool and I might join her. What have you done for fun today, Uncle? All work and no play... Drmies (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Geocode". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 August 2012.
I don't mean to pulverize a dead horse, but I had a discussion with another admin about reliable sources, and the unsourced defamatory claims in this article DO have sources — they are just listed in a separate article. If the page was deleted because those controversial claims were not sourced, I am prepared to add reliable sources. --Jprg1966(talk)17:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial claims made in the biography were unverifiable. There are no reliable sources to add for the claims made in the article. There were many claims, made about several living people, in that article over its history. The sources that you're obviously thinking of only touch upon one of those people and one matter of criminal conduct, and don't even cover the rest of what was in that article. They do not even actually support that one claim. The contemporary, 2004, sources make the point that there's nothing to support even an arrest warrant. And the sources from several years later point out that nothing ever came of the matter.That was an utterly unacceptable biography. It knocked the Siegenthaler incident into a cocked hat. If it gives you some measure of how bad it was — one of the worst that I've ever seen on Wikipedia — the early versions of the article from 2005 were speedily deletable under 2005 standards for speedy deletion of biographical articles. It's clear from the edit history that the article's subject spent the years from 2006 to 2009 trying to remove unproven and unreliably sourced negative material. During 2007 he was labelled a vandal in edit summaries several times. In August 2007, one of the "sources" that was being relied upon, by everyone (including other sources), deliberately changed its content such that any use of it as a source for a Wikipedia article came up with something else, completely undermining its reliability — something that hit the administrators' noticeboard at the time. It's clear from the edit history that in 2009 OTRS ticket #2009031710055272 had been raised to complain about this. That didn't help. Many editors, from Materialscientist to Alansohn tried to combat the problem. There was a talk page section pointing out that the material was not properly verifiable. In 2010, My76Strat pointed out in an edit summary that the sources didn't actually support the content. By 2011/2012, the subject had taken to rewriting the article make negative unverifiable biographical claims about the person (apparently some sort of business rival) that he has elsewhere asserted to be behind the whole thing — a bad approach that, as fallout, lead at one point to ClueBot NG making a BLP-violating edit. He also made threats to sue for libel, in edit summaries.Even you got caught by the fall-out. One of your edits to the talk page, because you weren't careful about editing out a section heading when editing a section, had a BLP-violating edit summary.And that's ignoring all of the other unverifiable claims of criminal actions that were in the article at various points.We do not write the encyclopaedia this way.Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you! And a Finnish Nazi added for free.[edit]
I'm feeling generous, and virtual beer is cheap, as cheap as a block. Uncle, have a beer with me before I have to put dinner on the table. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to Migration Studies, and searching for him (old and new last name) in JSTOR and EBSCO gave me nothing. I don't know how you found that article, and I can't continue on the article without it and without more sources. I'm afraid that DYK will be all yours. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a German book that mentions him as visiting Greifswald in 1919, that's all. By now I searched all the databases I could get through our university. Oh, I could not add that reference Harvard style--I'm leaving that up to you. I still have a DYK review I can cash in on a new nomination. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Locke was an interesting topic, but I am not comfortable with putting him in for DYK in part because I have doubts about the accuracy of the hook you suggested despite what the source says and in part because the article is full of redlinks, although that can be fixed and may lead to better hooks anyway: ... that it took Donald Locke thirty years to shake off the influence of the California Clay Movement? The main reason is that the article relies too much on one self-published work, maybe 30%. Perhaps it should be trimmed down, even at the cost of losing relevant and almost certainly accurate information. I am not really concerned about the source being self-published, but after researching and starting "paraphrasing of copyrighted material" I am concerned about the substantiality of the portion used. The WP guidelines on questions like this are very vague, perhaps deliberately. The essay on WP:PARAPHRASE is basically useless, if not dangerous. Do you have any views on the subject? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Stanley Greaves might have got that wrong. (You saw that it was Greaves who wrote that article, ne?) Although I did see other sources claiming that the money dried up around that point. I don't understand the relevance of the amount of redlinks. That's some DYK thing, obviously. Relying upon autobiography is always cause to stop and think. If you want another slightly more independent source, Locke has an entry in Gale's Who's Who Among African Americans (ISBN9780787690304). You'd do well to cross-check the obituary and autobiography against that. I've added a citation for de Souza 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFde_Souza2001 (help) which is also independent and which you can also link in as a supporting source in several places. There are various potted biographies all over the place that you can use in addition to the obituary for things like the place of birth, the Guggenheim fellowship, and so forth. There's one such in Black Enterprise that covers the fellowship. There's another such in Tradition redefined: the Larry and Brenda Thompson collection of African American Art that covers Stewartville and the WPAC. There are several more, and you can cite them as alternative sources to the autobiography and the obituary. Your access to these sources is better than mine, of course. Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice it was Stanley Greaves - I have added an authorlink. The reason I think he may be wrong about the 1954 British Council art scholarship being the last is that Locke got a "British Council bursary" in 1969. Probably the British Council was dishing out scholarships in the early 1950s, then ran out of money and stopped for a while. So it was the last of that batch. Also, see UK in Guyana. The redlink thing is just a habit. I like to blue them before a DYK article gets to the main page, and the process quite often turns up more material that belongs in the article. I have put in material from the two citations you added. I wish I had better access. I can't see the entry in "Who's Who Among African Americans".
But I dunno about this one. I suppose the structure and content in a biography is fairly standard. The autobiography seems reliable enough for basic facts: "he got that funding to go there then and do those things." Where other sources overlap with it, they agree with it. I could scrabble around and find alternative sources for more of the content. But I suspect that a lot of relevant and plausible content only exists in the autobiography: "In Edinburgh, he met artists A, B and C, who had great influence on his style." The underlying thing that makes me uncomfortable is that the "biography" section of the article comes across as a precis of the autobiography, and that is essentially what it is. Citing different sources does not change that. Grumble, mutter ... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the "495875713" is a time and date stamp rather than a "counter" of edits? And the same would be true if picking a particular page out of history? Or a "diff" such as:
where diff= "503210831" and old= "502586252" are references to time and date stamps rather than a sequential numerical "count" of the edit to the en.wp database. Is that correct? Is there a simple equation to establish the date and time from the number? (not that it's important, as I do realize that page history also gives a common date and time for each entry - I was just curious). — Ched : ? 11:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The offset parameter can also take an alternative, machine readable, form. And the oldid parameter is a revision ID, from the revisions table in the MediaWiki database, which has nothing to do with either form for offset. But in common use by humans, and per the MediaWiki manual, the value of offset is a calendar date and time. You can just copy and paste the date and time from an edit history, strip out the punctuation, and put it in. Your last 5 edits before 11:27:32 UTC today are done like this, for example.
Wikitext: ((plainlinks|1= ((fullurl:Special:Contributions/Ched Davis| offset=20120806112732&limit=5 )) |2=Ched Davis was here.))
Thanks for bringing me stuff, it has been interesting. As always your input improves the project, you are a legend and I hope you know it. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator you do not have the authority to make a decision with yourself and change people's template, you may open a new discussion at admin noticeboard which already closed lately. Thanks.--Neogeolegend (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, kid, being a plain old editor here gives me "authority" to edit a common userbox template in the Template: namespace. It isn't your template. You don't own it. I predict that you are about to experience exactly what that means, because either someone else is going to come along and reinstate such a change, or someone is going to nominate that userbox for deletion. You had the opportunity to do a sensible thing, given to you by someone who was here through the userbox arguments. Here come the consequences of your choice not to. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Kid!! why do you think i am kid!. This is insulting. i may elder than you. I told you, you may open a new discussion at admin noticeboard.--Neogeolegend (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I almost went to User talk:Black Kite to invite xem into a sweepstake on how quickly things would happen. ☺ It took 40 minutes for the first part of my prediction to come true, and two hours for the second. I could have also told you that there would be a unanimous consensus to delete and a speedy closure of the discussion. I said that this has happened before. Yup, the next thing that happens is that the badge wearer goes to Deletion Review and starts going on about "justice" and people complain of the early closure. Have another prediction: You'll be trying to claim freedom of speech, next. At least there wasn't a wheel war this time. We have actually learned that much. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You didn't read User talk:Neogeolegend#Unwisely provocative badges, did you? I can tell because it shows that (A) is false and answers (B) hours ahead of the question even being asked. You need to learn your history, and I don't mean the 20th century kind. This is why I saved a polite explanation within seconds of changing the image, didn't use any administrator tools, and didn't edit war. It's even why I told Rtc (talk·contribs) to let it go when xe was making thinly veiled implications. I have learned from history. You also need to think about one thing: Neogeolegend has been practically called a Nazi, yet there's not one outraged peep from xem anywhere about that. Use "kid" in a sentence, though, and xe's all bent out of shape.If you go and help Neogeolegend out, as I did by showing xem a way off this well-trod path (would that xe had had the wisdom to take it), with making a properly formatted nomination at Deletion Review, you can watch as all of the next steps unfold. They'll include — This is another prediction. — bitter arguments about freedom of speech, you being involved in a wheel war over the block tool, a hotly debated userspace template, edit wars over the portal and user page, all three being nominated at MFD, loud calls for bannination, and possibly an arbitration request, which the arbitrators will probably decline and push back to the community if you manage to avoid that wheel war ahead. So consider this me showing you a way off this well-trod path. Go and help Neogeolegend with the procedural mechanics at Deletion Review, where (fourth? fifth? prediction. I've lost count.) the community will end up divided over the precipitateness of the deletion whilst in the main endorsing the result. Follow my example of using the edit tool to try to redirect the otherwise inevitable and offer a way out for a wise person to take. I wonder whether The Land is still around ….Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Geocode, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Could you clarify what you meant here? I'm guessing you mean contact someone off-wiki but remember that the Help Desk is for newbies mainly and they might not know how or who. I don't want to add my own contribution until I'm sure what you mean.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a help desk question; Dodger67 is not a newbie; I'm sure xe has no trouble working out how to handle situations off-wiki given that xe clearly already has in the past; and it's not usual to continue discussions within archives. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant your response, sorry. However, I didn't see that the responses were adequate, and I don't come to Wikipedia often enough to really help out on the Help Desk. Still, if I see that an answer or a better answer is needed even after three days, someone who is new might benefit from the information that was added after my involvement.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. The Cliff Stanford page has had its protection reduced but not removed, which means (I think) that an admin is needed to make any changes? I've posted my proposal on the talk page, along with some links to Hosken's work available online. Do you mind taking a look? Also, having turned me on to sexy citation styles, can you explain the inline references? I'm not clear on how to use CITEREF with page numbers so I've just put them in as plaintext for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming here to say, UncleG made this (to me, enigmatic) change to the protection level on 4 August, but it seems to have left the page fully protected, and I didn't like to unprotect because I was not sure what his intention was. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted the protection to drop automatically after a year if we didn't sort this out and forgot about it. I picked a year because the prior edit war was nine months long. Feel free to comment on the suggested prose on the talk page, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are the other two. It was for that reason that I used full protection, not semi-protection, to stop the edit war. I think that the three way combination of following the COI guidelines, some review by your talk page stalkers, you, and JzG, and working to improve and expand content will stave off our coming back to the edit warring in the future. If we can get to the point of editors without a conflict of interest being happy with the suggested prose, then we can put it in, drop the protection, and see whether that indeed happens. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually fairly simple if one is used to Harvard referencing, because the raw wikitext is quite similar. Instead of wikitext like <ref>[Dimoldenberg page 126]</ref> one writes wikitext like ((sfn|Dimoldenberg|2006|p=126)), and just puts a |ref=harv in the ((cite book)) template in the references section. The templates do the necessary magic for hyperlinking the twain. There's more, including a lot of stuff that is the harder way to do the same thing which you'll probably not care too much about, at Help:Shortened footnotes. See the wikitexts of Talk:Ivory Coast#Draft content, as per the next section and Frederick William Sanderson for two places where I've used this myself.I've asked Drmies and xyr talk page watchers to have a look over the proposed content.Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I cheated a little bit and treated the Guardian article with two authors as just a news article with no authors, because that confused me. Other than that though, I think I've got it!Thanks for your help (on all counts).AkaSylvia (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that you yourself referred to. Go to noticeboard archive 214, as hyperlinked, and read what you wrote right at the top. The rest is, I presume, somewhere in your own archives. You have my sympathy on that one, by the way. Wouldn't it have been nice if, two years afterwards, people had learned what you pointed out at the bottom? It would have been such a simple thing, too. Uncle G (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a link in that discussion to archive 214. If you mean when I requested an unblock for him in 2010 here, the point of that wasn't to highlight a breaching experiment (I assume you're referring to his creation of accounts to see whether admins would block one making good edits). Would you mind striking/removing the reference to me in your post? It reads as though I was not supportive of an unblock. SlimVirgin(talk)16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: PLease archive this page, it's really getting long!
Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]
Hi. When you recently edited Sagaan Ubgen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
El emigrante (short story) has two reader comments made after the article was censored, two readers who did not find what they were looking for. One said "The piece of fiction" and the other "All this talk about how important this story is...any the story itself is not included ?"
The first three words of the story, ¿Olvida usted algo? (Did you forget anything?), are given in the article. In Latin America you will often see a sign with these three words when leaving a bus or an airplane. The author added the word ¡Ojalá! (I hope) to make the story. The article thus includes 75% of the four-word story, a substantial amount. The curious reader can scroll down to the "References" section, where they will find the full text in the titles of two of the sources, and can follow links to six other articles that hold the full text, three on other wikis. The four word story has been reproduced in various newspapers, magazines and books that discuss it. If they are violating copyright, we should not use them as sources. But that would leave no sources at all, no basis for an article. Yet the subject is clearly notable. And we should purge the four words from the other articles, including ¿O***** u**** a***? – ¡*****!
We could say that this four-word story is not a copyrighted work in itself, but a small excerpt from a much larger copyrighted work, the book in which it was published. For me, that works in this case. But if this little haiku-like fragment had been published as a stand-alone work and had become famous as a result, and if it had no separate title, how would we write an article about it? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally aside, I really like Monterroso dinosaur story--I hope mentioning one word out of the seven does not fall foul of fair use guidelines. The indeterminacy of the gender of the personal pronoun (inevitable for use English-reading folk) makes it even more fascinating. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was sort of hoping nobody would spot that equally notable but untitled story until we had some clarity on the underlying principles. Fair use considers both amount and substantiality. I think you could copy "when" without trouble, and probably "(s)he", but I have my doubts about the d-word. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from the right person to be using the bogus "But the article feedback says so!" argument on. Article feedback, as you can see on the administrators' noticeboard, is full of people asking for porn, requesting telephone numbers, and just saying "poo". It's hardly authoritative on what's best for an article. After all, that someone asks for the history of an Antarctic mountain in Nuneaton does not mean that it's a legitimate thing to give. That said, you really need to take this up with the people who are asserting that this is unfair use. All that I said was that those people should be consistent across all articles, rather than touch just one in the one day that it was linked on the main page. I can understand the frustration of being edit warred for a day and then no-one will discuss, but I have no magic wand that will make MikeWazowski talk to you. Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know they had Antarctic mountains in Nuneaton - sounds interesting. This is the first time I saw article feedback. Obviously "readers asked for it" is not a reason to include it, but I agreed. The article would make more sense if it gave the text of the story, as it did before. I was hoping for insight on how to describe a very short work like this. It is rather trivial though. Maybe some other editor will take up the challenge of Monterroso's dinosaur. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not a social network and all that, but I wish I could favorite your comment at the Oikema AfD. I think "witless waffle" is my new favorite phrase. And thanks for the Greek lesson too by the way StarM01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Holy moly. Today I learned that the WMD we supposedly sought in Iraq were actually there after all, they just weren't what we were told that we thought we were. This from someone formerly in the field. But St. Peter in a brothel, and "Wikipedia" as "foot fetishist of Ishtar" (or whatever), that's a whole nother paradigm. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was special... There were some gem phrases in that AfD, including bafflegap... At least we all got an edumacation. Thanks for the housekeeping, Drmies. StarM00:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Uncle G, heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Every editor most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kalervo Kurkiala, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Finnish priest Kalervo Kurkiala, a chaplain in the Waffen-SS, believed that military service was good for "country boys" and for "numerous bookworms and spoilt sloppy idlers"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kalervo Kurkiala. 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.
On 26 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ye Shiwen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 16-year-old Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen won two gold medals and broke two records at the 2012 Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Shiwen. 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.
Been waiting for quite some time to give out this reward rather than receive. Mighty fine work! I award you this Mongolian Barnstar of National Merit. Wear it with pride!♦ Dr. Blofeld18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Restoration of the Geocode article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
If you remain unwilling to engage in the conversation that you started, I will just go forward with adding the template I created. You have seem unable to enlighten me as to your objections and I remain baffled by your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
The main reason your Beatles test case on test2.wikipedia.org shows a lot of Lua CPU time is the frame:preprocess() done by Wikitext.tag() to generate a <ref> tag for ((sfn)). If you move the #tag call back to the sfn template, instead of having it in the module, then it won't be accounted against the Lua limits anymore. It should also make parsing faster, because you'll only be double-parsing the reference text instead of triple-parsing it. Like this:
((#tag:ref|name=((#invoke:citation|refid))|((#invoke:citation|sfn
|PageSep=, p.
|PagesSep=, pp.
))))
The text is parsed once by the root-level preprocessor, then again by the <ref> hook, same as in the existing template on Wikipedia. In the scheme you have in test2, the arguments are preprocessed before being passed to Lua, then again by frame:preprocess(), then a third time by <ref>.
Introducing an mw.text.tag() as you suggest in your module comment would still only allow for double-parsing, with about the same performance as the solution above. I think it would be best if we had a solution that only involved a single pass through the wikitext preprocessor. -- Tim Starling (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm writing this from memory. The Test2 Wikipedia appears to be non-functional at the moment.You're optimizing prematurely. The mw.text.tag() function in Module:mw isn't intended to be the last word. It's a temporary bodge that only exists at all because the Scribunto library isn't complete as documented. Optimizing it is optimizing completely the wrong thing. Make a propermw.text.tag() function as part of the Scribunto-supplied library, and then profile that.I note from the doco that special tags are marked with the DEL character and some magic encoding. What we need is a mw.text.tag() that does that. (Obviously it cannot be done in Lua, because Lua code has no access to the internal magic encodings stuff.) Then we can optimize it. Worrying about the expense of it doing a nested preprocessing call is missing the fact that, like most of what's in Module:mw, a proper implementation of the Scribunto library would, because it has access to the internals of MediaWiki that Lua code does not, operate quite differently.Put another way: If the speed of the temporary bodge, that's only there in the first place to make up for beta-test library deficiencies, is such a factor, then you've made a good case for moving mw.text.tag() from should have to must have status.Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, introducing mw.text.tag() would provide only a small improvement in overall performance, and is certainly not the right way to do the thing that you are doing. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw that MediaWiki was updated on en.Wiktionary, but somehow we didn't get the Scribunto extension with it. Several editors are eagerly waiting for it to be installed, so could you tell us what is happening? Thank you! CodeCat (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in -- I was searching for discussions of the Lua/Scribunto stuff and I happened across this discussion. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Wiktionary did not get Scribunto deployed today, and there is no schedule, right now, for Scribunto deployment to wikis other than mediawiki.org and test2.wikipedia.org. This Bugzilla issue is tracking the request to get Scribunto onto English Wiktionary, in case you would like to comment on it or add yourself to the cc list to get updates. Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara02:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some major refactoring of Module:Convert to implement my plan to create the required data table from a master list. I have put the resulting data into the module, and the source list is here. If we agree on that procedure, it will be important that updates to the conversion data occur in the master list only—data in the module should not be changed except by copying the results of processing the master list.
I am working on a list I have created by copying all data from Template:Convert/list of units (and each of the "full list" pages that it links to). I hope to update my master list with nearly all the conversion data in a few days, but several details will have to be determined before it is complete (for one thing, the power units are not documented). Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was editing using a 7" cheapo tablet on a train; enough of a struggle typing an AfD comment, far less doing a Google Search for the site with the original text! Right outcome though. 18:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
If you hadn't pointed out the use of the first person, I wouldn't have spotted the AFD discussion and done the check. You really should give up tablets, though. Abacuses have been invented, you know. There's even talk being bandied about by the more extreme technophiles of some new fangled stuff made from plant innards … Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Uncle G. It's good that you've protected the Rotherham by-election article because it was going cuckoo-bananas. However could you unprotect it a little earlier? Maybe the 28th, long enough I think for the troublesome elements to get bored, and in anycase I'm very uneasy about the article not having the full result for so long....doktorbwordsdeeds12:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't checked your calendar. The 29th is polling day. There is no result to be had on the 28th, unless you are intending to make one up of your own choosing and write it in Wikipedia the day before the election. That will not go down well. ☺ Unprotection happens at 00:00:00 UTC the day after polling day. There won't necessarily be a result by then, either. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been more than a year since the protection that I set on it expired entirely. It expired on 2011-02-12. It was Dabomb87 who re-raised it back up to indefinite semi-protection three months afterwards. That was to do with disabling pending changes, which, ironically enough, comes back into operation in three days' time. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what happened is that the 'required review permission' you set on it wasn't set to expire so at the end of the trial the page was indef semi'd to make up for PC. I'll ask Dabomb87 to have a look at this thread so he can weigh in. Re PC - yeah quite ironic really (hopefully it goes off without a hitch). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous statement was put back in with edit summary 'Often removed by COI editors'. I have taken it back out with a direct 'source does not support statement' but the editor may stick it back in. Slightly amused that they mentioned COI, because if I take their username as a possible link to their actual name, two massive potential COI's are easily found. Turning this from 'mild competance arising from not reading sources' into 'deliberate low-level vandalism of a rival/hate target'. If they hadnt mentioned the COI policy, I would never have thought to head to google. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After it was closed, an IP reopened it... and I fell into the trap and voted Speedy Keep, preventing me from undoing the IP's edit. Oops. Can you re-close the AfD again, please? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO you have done a superb job with St Marys Church, Clophill (I could perhaps be trite and recommend an alternate name such as St Mary's Church, Clophill but also see below). I do wonder whether it is a good idea to combine the two churches, the old and the new, in one article. From the brief information I have gathered, the new church is active, at least as active as any other English church is nowadays, whilst the old church has had a rather chequered (recent) history. In addition, thinking ahead, if there is indeed a feature film in the process of being made, then the article will receive a lot of attention at the time the film is released. It would not do (IMHO) to taint the existing (new) parish church with such (erm) devilish activities. Consider splitting the articles. Pevsner calls them St Mary, Clophill and Old St Mary, Clophill. The listing at English Heritage names the (old) church "Church of St Mary the virgin, Clophill (formerly listed as Old Parish Church, Clophill) ... Former parish church, now redundant and a ruin" --Senra (talk)15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the old church was formally The Church of St Mary The Virgin, and the new church is St Mary's Church. Central Bedfordshire Council has three different pages for two churches, with duplicate information on each, and I suspect from this that it is rather confused and unreliable as to the names. The English Heritage listing, a much better indicator of the name I think, gives Old Parish Church as the old title in the listing, which was itself created 111 years after the church had been switched from the old building to the new. The change of listing title seems like an error correction if anything. The church commissioners in the Gazette also called the old building the Church of St Mary and the new building St Mary's Church, which as both a contemporary and an official source seems the best of the lot, hence my first sentence here.
In reality, there are two buildings here, both of which have been, colloquially, St Mary's Church and St Mary, Clophill; but they were never both St Mary's simultaneously. So an article about the church I think can possibly address the multiple buildings that it happens to have been over the centuries. There's also a maintenance argument for keeping the stuff together, in that the two buildings are inextricably linked and it makes sense to discuss them in a single narrative than to have two separate narratives that duplicate each other. It's not as if the article is hitting any length limits, either. It's barely twice its old size. ☺
I agree about the apostrophe, though. The church commissioners used it. I just haven't worried about it too much in favour of getting some content in there to ward off the nonsense. After all, the article did start at the even less formal title of Clophill Church. So we have come some way already. ☺
I agree with your impeccable logic, Uncle G. I plainly posit the petrifying probability that perenial paragnostics will propagate paranormal poppycock within your priceless prose post picture-production :) OT: a 0.876MB talk-page is rather large don't you think? He he --Senra (talk)19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the following is relevant—you be the judge. The alleged murder of Michael Gregsten by James Hanratty in August 1961 took place in a lay-by off the A6 road near Clophill at a location known as Dead Man's Hill on approx. the 90m contour—OS ref: TL075383. The Old St Mary's Church is also located at approx. the 90m contour of Dead Man's Hill too—OS ref: TL091388. Using OS grid dist, the distance between TL075383 and TL091388 is close to 1 mile (1.6 km). Do you think it worth noting this fact in the article? Perhaps just to make it clear that the murder was not at or immediately around the old church? (OS grids and contours taken from OS Get-A-Map in Aerial and Leisure modes using the "Grid Reference at centre" feature) --Senra (talk)17:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... is in DYK right now, with a tagline very similar to the one you suggested for Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Méditerranée, but not so foreign. Thanks for that. The commission was proposed by Decio Vinciguerra, who had been on the expedition to Tierra del Fuego led by Giacomo Bove, now also heading dykward. The captain of the ship only survives in citation-light translation form. I always feel a bit guilty when I fail to follow up and track down sources for translated articles, but not so guilty as to lose much sleep over it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Romanian snaps found its way into the CIESM article, but I used a citation-free translation from the French instead of a longer citation-free one from the Romanian. I am no longer entirely confident about translating from languages I scarcely know. With Johann Heinrich Zedler I almost had the WP front page asserting that his wife was eleven years old rather than eleven years older than him. Never mind. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is for your comments on the Omniverse article. I don't know if you can truly understand what you bring to Wikipedia. We need more editors (and admins) like you. You rock! --Sue Rangell✍ ✉01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tools of your trade, sir. Any man as good at figuring things out as you are needs them, surely. (I'd recommend an occasional "Elementary" and "The game's afoot" as well.) (And I agree with Sue about the rockage.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were also advised to stop evading your block and request an unblock on your main account if you want to continue editing. Alas, you refused. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to evade, but I am trying to remove said bias. I took your advice (brought it to talk) and asked others in the wikiprojects for advise. But how can I request an unblock?
I'll be interested in seeing your rationale for deletion, given what's on my bookshelf, but I'll put the notice on if that's what you want. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written, the article is purely an instruction manual and a clear violation of WP:NOT. It would be different if it had significant descriptions of the histories of the development of the various techniques, important historical and contemporary uses, etc. but right now it's just an application manual that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It goes in the discussion page, not here. ☺ So let's see whether anyone gets around to citing the books on my bookshelf before I do. Or indeed cleaning up that mess of an article. I still have Cinematic television (AfD discussion), and a collection of sources, on my to-do list. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some people might disagree with an AfD nomination but I strongly dislike that you are in effect using your administrative powers to prevent such a nomination and subsequent discussion. That doesn't seem to be the purpose of protection and I don't think there would be widespread agreement for its use in such a manner. (I acknowledge that you protected the article for another, legitimate reason, so please don't think that I'm accusing you of protecting it solely for this reason! But it's also having this effect and that's worth consideration, too.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't pay attention much, or even read simple declarative sentences, do you? Luckily, my user talk page is a fairly out of-the-way place for appearing foolish. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For no particular incident, but rather for continuous all-round level-headedness, good decision making and well-considered tool use. You set an example for us all. Yunshui雲水08:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asega-bôk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I suspect, although I haven't checked, that the article already covers everything that's in Long 2011, p. 295, although if the article doesn't already make the point that this is an unstudied theory the book is certainly a source for that. ☺ I wasn't putting it forward as a source for expansion, of course, merely as an example for an editor who doesn't see the difference between what xe receives in unpublished electronic mail from non-independent sources and what gets written down and published by independent sources.
Long, Kelvin F. (2011). Deep Space Propulsion: A Roadmap to Interstellar Flight. Astronomers' Universe Series. Springer. ISBN9781461406075. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
The sixteenth is when a guy walks into a school and kills 20 kids. Anyway, I found what I think are some useful references and am getting ILL involved. This story is bigger than you and me, Uncle--it involves Jerome, Cynewulf, the Cursor Mundi, and Shakespeare, for starters. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I regularly get complaints about the size of my talk page (ahem); yours is four times bigger than mine's ever been, methinks. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sue Rangell✍ ✉ is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Kid, you've been mucking around on the talk page. Now you're mucking around here. The removal of the disputed section was explained at length on the talk page, and anyone with even half a brain can clearly see who the person is who actually wanted to have the article deleted, which makes it evident that this is just pot-stirring. This is your last chance. Stop mucking around, or go the way of those two IP addresses. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be politeness, gentleman! "mucking around"? I'm sorry, "and want to delete it entirely from WP" should be "and soppurt someone to delete it entirely from WP" cuold you tell me how to talk with you in private? Q5968661 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be here just for suggesting a reversion of the section ( A tabular method to calculate the day of the week)because even it's title has been removed now. which version should be reverted, it's up to you.Q5968661 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eileen Younghusband (Le Croissette), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WAAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Markland, Russell; Poole, Charles Henry, eds. (1928). "William Henry Robinson". Staffordshire poets. Poets of the shires. Latham: N. Ling. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
For your arguments at AFDs, which I always look for. It's always a satisfaction to see articles that merit inclusion salvaged from deletion. Happy holidays! §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you make some wiki archives as your talk page is geting full up and it takes like 1 minute to get to the bottom. Use the following template to make one on you talk page i.e. User: Andwhy1 and like this
Yes, please auto archive, even if you set it up for one massive archive page. Coming here has several times required me to close my browser and restart. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am often amused at how closely you sail to the wind of incivility, and at how carefully you achieve almost but not quite stalling your jib and thus being accused of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Birkett (surgeon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's all about an AFD I closed as delete. This is the fourth IP so far vandalizing my talk page, the talk page of the admin who had previously deleted it, and some other random pages. I started an ANI thread here. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I resolve to ... (or, depending on lurker responses, I resolve too ...)[edit]
Dear Uncle
Thank you for helping to make my late 2012 return to Wikipedia so enlightening. As you may not know, I took a long break from Wikipedia because of the actions of the bickering factious oligarchy—collectively called sysops or admins (and their wannabe's) who might more properly be termed a shrewdness—although I was never directly involved myself. At the time I stopped editing, there was considerable civility debate with much vitriol and baiting leading to block–unblock cycles followed by even more debate—though I use the word debate kindly here. Frankly, recent similar activity shows the situation has not changed and may perhaps be even worse. Against this distracting background I attempted, but failed, to continue to do what I came to Wikipedia for: to help construct articles. Whilst I have shown that I am always delighted to help you—such as here and here—and others—such as here and here—my direct interests remain more general and a little more local.
I thus resolve to: continue to edit Wikipedia, e.g. see this peer review submission, and help others where I can without page-lurking and thus depressing myself
There's not much more that I can do that you haven't already done, except semi-protect Golbez's user talk page, which Golbez could also do xyrself, or cut off access to Wikipedia for a large section of Kuala Lumpur, which seems to be an excessive degree of fallout. Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either you created 'user:Ucnle G' as a doppelganger account and forgot to block it, or someone was trying to impersonate you. Either way, I've blocked it for you. DS (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Palgrave sourcing question be raised on the RSN? Or that they are scholarly gives it all enough of a pass that doubts are blunted? I do question how strenuous we should be since we're outing someone worldwide. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping by your talk page to leave a couple of thoughts, and as usual utter amazement at some of the articles you and others work on. The latter prompted mostly by the comment you left here (which I agree with absolutely, I find lists of awards from various science, medical, engineering and other learned societies are a good source of redlinks for people that it is easy to write about and where plenty of sources are available). It was really good to see some of the surgeons you mentioned there now have articles (thanks to Aymatth2), as that is an under-represented area and I've done a couple of articles on surgeons as well. But working on articles like that, where someone has lived a full and long career, and had much written about them, and there are sources in abundance to draw on, convinces me all the more that our approach with currently living people is wrong, that the bar is set too low, and articles can be created prematurely. My thoughts on this are at an ongoing AfD that you commented on, so you may have seen them already: [27], [28], [29]. I was thinking of trying to expand on these thoughts at some suitable discussion venue or talk page. I am aware of the essays in your userspace, but would you have any thoughts on what I said there, or advice on where would be a good place to discuss such matters further? Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Society reporting at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#That CCI's talk page.
All the redirects are now back to redirects. I did most but others had looked at some. All of the targets were blanked, since have some been reviewed. Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
--- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 06:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Noarticletext preload has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
