![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
If you're interested in working on local articles, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver or Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia. Cheers, bobanny 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Inserted by Franamax:
Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know of there is no such tool.
To do it right, I think you'd need to have an extension in the MediaWiki server to do it in the database. I've been fooling around with MediaWiki code, but am not up to programming something like that at the moment.
For now... everyone does it by hand.
Georgewilliamherbert 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A test of my work on this tool. Franamax 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL still testing Franamax 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine that anyone who might've replied didn't because of all the blah blah. But if a discussion gets too messy, it seems to work best to start a new section and even repeat comments if they got lost in the fray without being addressed. People would get PO'd if you altered their comments, but it's also perfectly acceptable to re-organize comments to make the overall discussion legible, such as breaking it up into smaller sections. I find it more common to post a comment on a talk page and have it sit there for many months before getting a response, if it gets any at all. Some of us (especially me and Skookum1 on the Vancouver Project) tend to be long-winded and meander off into tangents, so others might see me as part of a problem that I don't see myself. There are talk page guidelines that some of us frequently break, and it's okay to jump in and remind people to get back on topic or whatever. But it's not like we're in danger of running out of space for these discussions, and personally, I find them more productive oftentimes if they're dynamic and provocative than by-the-book and clinical. It also helps to assume your audience has ADHD. cheers, bobanny 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Testing a talk subpage User talk:Franamax/sub-page Franamax 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Here I will try to create some talk sub-pages
1st one worked, let's try again
Regarding New Inn Tennis Courts, I got lucky. I'm a newpage patroller, and when I find something that needs to be speedied, I tend to check users other edits for anything else that needs tagging. In that case the person who created New Inn Tennis Courts had made an edit to the AfD discussion for it. My only suggestions would be to see if your bot can surf their user talk pages (& possibly it's history) for AfD notifications for that article. Good luck with the bot, if you get it running well it'll help stamp out the annoying recreations. Improbcat 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- - - - - -
crPatrol - test output sample
Title: Benjamin page User: Woodburyu Date: 06:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Cesari and McKenna User: Rollinsk Date: 06:47, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Zulqarnain zaidi User: Znzaidi Date: 06:46, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Roger Bourke White User: Cyreenik Date: 06:43, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Yamanote Halloween Train User: Daikanyama Date: 06:06, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Rock Instrumental Classics User: People Week Guy Date: 05:53, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071007
Title: NBA Live series soundtracks User: Adambaker04 Date: 05:10, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071020
Title: Dustin Haskins User: Beldingfan Date: 05:02, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Giblink User: Tosshoo Date: 03:34, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071018
Title: Glove gun User: Jamesclemow Date: 03:13, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Peter Slowik User: Just plain Bill Date: 02:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Alfreda Williams User: AlfredaW Date: 02:30, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Gamma Adventurers User: Maxgamma17 Date: 02:29, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: TYRO GYN PHI User: Agustinclan Date: 02:12, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071022
- - - End of sample - - - Franamax 08:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
JzG's revert had nothing to do with you. To a new user it may appear that he is reverting you, but that's just a quirk of the differencing page. No experienced user would think it was you he was reverting. It's nothing to worry about. ATren 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The diff screen shows the selected revision and the previous revision. There is really no relation between the two - they are just sequential. It is somewhat confusing because there is no guarantee that the newer change is in any way related to the previous one. Think of the left hand side as simply a preview for the previous change - it is not at all related to the diff in question. In effect, the top left rectangle could be eliminated from that screen without losing any information pertinent to the change being viewed - it really is just a preview.
Any change you make will make the diffs appear this way. But as I said, experienced users already know enough that the two revisions are not necessarily related (and often aren't)
ATren
15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The inputs I made has since been edited by User:Ckatz.-- Cahk ( talk) 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've replied there. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you just reverted my edits of User talk:Durova without a linked explanation. You left the message "RfC or AN/I" but they weren't linked so I don't know what you're talking about. Scott Keeler ( talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied there. Good points. Most arguments boil down to epistemology, do they not? "How strong do we know this?" as Feynman used to say. S B H arris 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what my mother always says. Kevlar67 ( talk) 09:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that client-side tool. Digging around, looks like it's just 4.252.0.0/16, not a 24. Kww ( talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a practical joke which, in my twisted mind, seemed absurdly funny. Ha Ha. :) Editorofthewiki ( talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
wpW5 sounds absolutely amazing. I hope you can pull it off. You should consider it as a commercially-licensed product (for unlimited access) and keep it limited to 5 searches per day for "normal" free subscribers. - Yug Pah Yug ( talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You valiantly tried to fix the page flow up after I made the mistake of putting a response to an editor in a place where the whole thread was liable to be disrupted. I made a stab at putting a post of mine where I would prefer it to be. Please review and if you don't think it's appropriate, revert what I did. No diff's supplied, I'm sure it's on your watch! Thanks & cheers! Franamax ( talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
To my great surprise, you are right that his birth name was in fact David D. Eisenhower. I was indeed hasty to label the change vandalism. However, he rose to prominence and was elected president as Dwight D. Eisenhower, and so that is the correct name to use in this context. Nevertheless, I appreciate your correction, and I will try to be more careful in the future. Plazak ( talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got islands on the brain, too. Did you happen to see Hochelaga Archipelago? It's an article I've taken on. (I even created an article for it on citizendium, which will of course never b seen by anyone). As a lifelong Montrealer, I'd never even heard of this until I came across the article. I got so excited I created a cat for it, too. Speaking of which, should BC's own Gulf Islands should be added to Category:Archipelagoes? Are they considered an archipelago? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia article contains a wealth of blue-links. These are links that will take you to other places in Wikipedia, where you can learn more new things, they are also called hyperlinks. But there is another way of linking things called "looking around" in the real world - what's that over there? I think I'll go check it out.
One of the easiest ways of exploring throughout human history has been to just follow the rivers. One of the best human inventions for following rivers is the canoe, you can follow the water at your own pace and see all there is to be seen along the way - or you can put your head down and get somewhere fast.
My proposal is to create pages for river systems so that Wikipedia can be explored by water. Every river system is rooted at an ocean. From the ocean, one can paddle upstream through gulfs, bays and deltas, past the tideline, into river systems. As you paddle up the river, on each bank outlets of tributaries appear. You can choose to paddle up any of those tributaries as well, and paddle up all the streams that join.
Of course, all the other river-related things on earth eventually show up here. Waterfalls, islands, rapids, lakes, marshes, cities, ports, dams - you will see them all from the canoe.
All Wikipedia articles on inland water-related features can in principle be grouped, water always goes somewhere and usually only goes one way. There are five(?) endpoints (oceans), the trick is to create not-too-large pages to contain expandable/linkable navigation loci; the canoe icon on each article would pop you into the right part of the tree, you could click upstream or downstream and paddle away.
Initial (borrowed) concept statement, this goes much further, please hack away. :) Franamax ( talk) 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember a while ago hearing people that would contact these guys about forked material without attribution, but it may have been on the mailing list... if I don't get a response, I'll either post to the mailing list or just contact them myself. Either way, I'll let you know. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry, I don't generally copy/paste code multiple places. — Random832 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; very kind. I'll do some digging in this direction. I took the twinkle error back to the Twinkle owner so hope that that one will be solved that way. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they're all Twinkle errors, having just removed Twinkle from my monobook.js. User:AzaToth has indicated that he's not interested in getting Twinkle compliant with IE, fullstop. So perhaps that's as far as we need take it. I was merely concerned that all IE users were getting the same errors. if it's just twinkle users, well, they should be using firefox anyway :). Thanks nevertheless. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do know him and no he doesn't have an article. I take it that you know him as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for adding this section to the geostationary orbit article! The material you added was so good I copied it into the space law article as well. I'm not sure if there's some way to maintain and improve it in both places. (In my opinion this topic might even deserve an article of its own!) Anyway, thanks again for providing well-referenced coverage of this topic! ( sdsds - talk) 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just would like to let you know: you could spare yourself some work by not taking time to add those reference sections to Kansas articles. We're in process of getting a bot to do it. Of course, not to say that it's not good to do it :-) but you might not want to bother with so many little edits. Nyttend ( talk) 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been controversies in the past in the article. Both Kinshasa and Abidjan are more populated than Montreal. It all depends how you count French speakers (1s language speakers only? or also 2nd language speakers?). What's uncontroversial is that Montreal is the second-largest French speaking city in the Western world (neither Lyon, nor Brussels, nor Marseille, nor Québec City have as many inhabitants as Montreal). Any worldwide statement is controversial due to Kinshasa and Abidjan. Godefroy ( talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And an additional comment; if you'd like a template to be clickable, so that people can go to the page without it being transcluded, then include the parameter prefix {{tl|}}. For example, {{tl|helpme}} results in {{ helpme}}. Sorry to keep bothering you! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
...for letting me know. It is appreciated! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, your answer to the person asking for advice on using Wikipedia was excellent. Thanks! Crum375 ( talk) 00:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the idea of telling new spouses apart by the methods now being applied by ArbCom, is very droll. Weiss went to India to get married, and his "sock" who did his bio, went with him. Well shut me up. The two must be the same guy. --Sherlock. S B H arris 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The stock market operates on ads, which are closely kept track of by the SEC and FTA. In opposition are consumer reports and stock analysts. Nobody censors anybody, really. If you wish to "pump and dump" a crummy penny stock, there are many ways to get around the rules. And naked short selling is a potent way to counteract such bull. We need both. So, we should discuss both fairly. If Overstock needs a puff page, with a summary of criticism on it, AND a separate criticism page, with a summary of the puff page, well, that's within policy. We did it with the Apollo moon landings and the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. What prevents us from learning the lessons we learned THERE, and applying them HERE? S B H arris 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
...is going to end up RFAR, based on this. Lawrence § t/ e 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Muhammad (no images), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad (no images) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Yes, this edit [1] fixes it properly. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the catch. Darn frustrating, to be sure, and I certainly don't like leaving a mess for others to clean up. Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice statement! Do you think it would be helpful to provide links or diffs, especially to stuff not mentioned or linked by others? One thing, BC and BCB are pretty clear, but you might want to make clear who MMN is. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never lived outside of Ontario in my life. I know the municipal amalgamations of the Harris years are unpopular — I grew up in "Greater" Sudbury, attended university in Ottawa, and moved to Toronto just in time to watch the whole megacity affair, so I've literally spent my entire life living in cities that still curse the ground Mike Harris walked on. But like them or not, as long as the amalgamated municipalities are the municipalities that actually exist right now, they have to be the primary priority precisely because they actually exist as incorporated municipalities — famous or not, artificial or not, they are the entities that actually govern those municipalities right now. Until I started merging smaller hamlets early this year, about 20 per cent of the municipalities in Ontario were still redlinks, which is really unacceptable.
And for what it's worth, I'm also getting very tired of the common belief that Wikipedia should privilege popular perception over the reality of things as they actually stand right now (such as by calling every settlement a town whether it actually holds that status under law or not.) And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the notion that Cobden should be a higher or even equivalent article priority to Whitewater Region fits right into that little bugaboo, because it's basically an assertion that Wikipedia should treat some municipalities as subordinate to their communities — and since we don't treat all municipalities that way, it basically sets up a dual class of articles based on a completely artificial, ideological and not-obvious-to-most-readers set of reasons that fail NPOV and OR. So until Whitewater Region either (a) has a long enough article to merit division, or (b) gets dissolved by a future provincial government, it has to be the higher priority article, because it is the actual municipal government in that area. Bearcat ( talk) 08:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I don't know if I appreciate being lumped in an "I hate Beta" crowd, when that's not the case for me, and for many--if not most--of the critics. But here's my thoughts: at one time, I thought perhaps there was a way forward outside of arbcom. In the last week or two, Beta has convinced me there's not. If there isn't some kind of sanction saying, "Here's how you have to treat people, and how you have to use your bot in the community" there's no way Beta will change. He has reached a point where he seems to feel like he has a kind of special user status, and that needs to be dealt with, in my view. What are your thoughts on the whole thing? Bellwether B C 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on images now for a couple of months and thigns just seem to have gotten worse. I've racked my brain on this one, and don't see anything than an Arbcom at the end. Even WP:AN/B replaced in my mind, the WP:RFC process. Look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, is there anything other than binding arbitration that would make both sides happy? MBisanz talk 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I should be OK with the non-free images. My worklists are in the page history at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries (and the talk page). I imported a load of image names from some categories, so should be able to work from that, and the contribs of the admins who deleted or ImageRemovalBot, to identify the article where it isn't obvious. I want to concentrate on book and magazine covers (I actually think there is a good case for first edition magazine and book covers, rather than the generic "any old cover" that is used at the moment - purely because there will, in general, be more that can be mentioned in the article about first edition covers, and because they will usually become public domain before any of the other possible covers). I also do historical images. Speaking of which, one of the categories I never got hold of a list for is discussed here. I don't think it is possible to find out what the images were in Category:Denver Public Library images that got deleted (if any), but maybe you could look through Morven's image uploads to see if you can find which ones got deleted? Or any other ideas you might have? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you've been around awhile now. I figured I should point you towards some useful editing tools. WP:TW is a great tool for vandalism reverting. WP:AWB is great for long sequences of edits. WP:ROLLBACK is also good for vandalism (drop me a line and I'll assign the rights to your account, ditto for AWB). WP:NPW is a good tool for WP:CSD editors. WP:FRIENDLY is good for welcoming new users. WP:FURME is good for image FURs, especially for the most common categories. And if you ever need anything undeleted or doublechecked, I'm willing and able to serve. MBisanz talk 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And, I'm sorry for my impatience earlier; as that was unfolding, I had about six people hitting my talk page at once with problems, in addition to dealing with the lies posted about me an AN/I ... so now that the day has settled a bit, I do appreciate your help for a fellow editor, as it was one less thing for me to solve :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See answer on my talk page. S B H arris 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I used that long ago, back when I was a little more instrumental in trying to clear up the backlog over at Editor Review... Your French was alright, I got the main point! (Une) catégorie is a feminine noun, and perhaps, (although I'm not completely certain,) the correct term for dead link would be "lien mort" or (red link) "lien rouge." Cheers, -- w p k t sfs 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd probably want to do it with javascript, since with the other way to do it (parser functions) you run into caching problems. However - I'd also like to say that this is probably not a particularly good idea. -- Random832 ( contribs) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That is great but I can't find this album. I must have. the_undertow talk 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) I took the liberty of posting your suggested question for RfA's from the Village Pump and put it here [2]. I thought you might like to know it seems very well received.
(2) I notice you seem to create "read-only" bots dealing with diffs. Would you be interested in helping with a bot request (my first, so be kind) I recently made here [3]?
-- Low Sea ( talk) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So, the great cross-tabbing is done and there is a list of 700 images at
User:Betacommand/Sandbox 3 that show images classed as both free AND non-free. Obviously, an image can only be one of the two, so if editors could go through and correct the images, striking them out on the master list it would be great. Thanks.
MBisanz
talk
03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just thought I'd tell you (Franamax, StuRat, hydnjo, Atlant) how the flaming drink thing went. Well, mixed results. It's all made, but sometimes it works and some times it does not. What makes it extra odd, is that it works 100% of the time for me, but only about 50% for the girl that has to do it. So far, three shows with an audience and it only lit once. UGHH!!!
What I did: I made a fire place poker out of mostly thin PVC pipe. In the handle is a gas grill starter with wires going inside the pipe. Franamax - You mentioned the handle idea and I had already thought of that, but I didn't want to steer people towards what I was already thinking. I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike. ;-)
All of it is painted with "Hammered" spray paint made for outside plastic furniture. Here's a shot of it close up without the flame. http://wonderley.com/shows/2008/FarmersDaughter/Photos/Page01/shots/2008-04-17~069.jpg That's me on the couch. In the sort of V shaped tip is the igniter at the tip and the other wire coming at an angle. My invention sparks 99% of the time.
In the coffee mug is a metal jigger that I raised to the level of the top of the mug with a piece of PVC pipe. That was a mistake. I made the level of the jigger come to the level of the top of the cup so that the most amount of the flame would be visible. It should be raised, but not all the way to the top. I have to pretend to drink from this cup and the jigger (which gets scolding hot) is hard to NOT touch if the jigger is too high.
I scuffed up the inside of the mug and the other side of the jigger to get the glue to stick to it. The fact that the jigger is metal does not appear to have any effect on the spark.
In the jigger was originally only about 1/16 of an inch of "Golden Grain" booze - 95% alcohol. At my house, it ignited every time. But, not for Cheryl. I later thought about it was having it on my kitchen counter. That's higher up so I was holding the poker at more of an angle on the mug rather than straight down. So, we changed the jigger to about an half inch on alcohol. Soon before going on stage with it, she moves some of it on the side of the jigger for even more surface area.
When we do get a flame the poker flames a little as well and she blows it out. That actually looks great. The idea of adding salt is awesome - Thanks Atlant. However, I had no luck dissolving salt in the alcohol. I warmed up some alcohol with having hot water all around it in a thin glass and stirred a lot of salt in it. I then let it settle some and used a syringe with a wide tip to suck up some of the alcohol from the middle thinking I'd get the best alcohol with dissolved salt that I could. It did not appear to make any difference in the color of the flame or the ability to light it. However, we put salt in a sugar bowl. Once lit, putting a pinch of "sugar" in the flaming drink was an awesome effect.
I also tried freezing some of the booze so that the 5% that was not alcohol would be solid and use the 100% alcohol that was left - after it warmed back up and it made no difference. In fact, whatever the 5% that wasn't alcohol, appeared to be unfreezable as well.
Thanks again for all of your ideas. If you want to see more about the show, visit Wonderley.com -- Wonderley ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is at John Allan Broun. Discussion moved to the talk page as suggested. Hope you like the article! Carcharoth ( talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but being in Courtenay, and having no personal vehicle, I'm way out of range. -- Denelson 83 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I responded here. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I doubt our CSD tagging is quick enough to delete it, but, when you re-upload, adding {{keepLocal}} should deter most people until its deleted from commons, at which point it can be removed. Just make sure not to add {{NowCommons}}, which will point the bot at the image. MBisanz talk 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you do not see that as a problem. Have you heard of what are "birds of a feather"? Thank God I do not live in Vancouver anymore. It is all yours and you guys can continue to make the Vancouver article "tourist-perfect". Jafarw ( talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments regarding my edits. How is the Academy section different from the nobel prize? Understandably, the date reference may be too much, but why not include the listing of awards and winners? I started this project because I noticed there were entries on the nobel prizes and ship events? I was trying to keep things standard across the board throughout all the years.-- TravelinSista ( talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the recent contributions to the calendar related articles. As regular patroller and contributor to calendar articles I would state that valid arguments can be presented on both sides. The notability of 'Best Pictures' certainly meets the criteria, however, it should be noted that the Oscar Awards presented by The Academy are a commercial en devour where as the Nobel Prize is an international award. Also, United States related versus world related. As such the Nobel Prize has more relation to an article about the year (an international common) than an American award for film. I would suggest mentioning the year and number of the Oscars but like the Olympics, not mention every gold, silver, and bronze medal winner. The Oscar awards are heavily written about and the article is strong enough that a wikilink to it is a very substantial source. Think in the terms of a reader. The repetition of the information is not necessary when it's one click away. Mkdw talk 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, the AA awards section has been removed. Thanks for your KIND request to remove info. I agree with your argument. Time to find a new project! (Let me know if you have any suggestions) :)-- TravelinSista ( talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I thought you would have run by now...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a special thanks for your super-speedy support for my RfA! My fingers are crossed here, not so far from where you're located, as we figured out the other day. Anyhow, thanks again. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I'd like to help a bit with the LOC images. Unfortunately, although I've done lots of work with Creative Commons and public domain images, I have essentially zero experience when it comes to fair use. For example, with this: Image:Davidson Dunton.jpg, why is a FUR even required if the image can be used for any purpose? I don't understand the problem. Can you point me to examples of FURs that would be suitable for these kinds of pictures? If it's more work to explain this than to do it yourself, do let me know - I won't be offended :) Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Tinucherian 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 or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! --
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) -
09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
Because the plain title Bonavista is a disambiguation page which isn't supposed to be linked to directly at all, not even on talk pages, unless for some reason the dab page is itself the intended topic of discussion. Proper disambiguation maintenance doesn't leave talk pages uncorrected just because they're talk pages. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, impressive your cleanup of havana. How can I get your software? -- Iroko ( talk) 11:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Yes, I wanted to check out those websites. The government policies may be stated elsewhere. Better to source straight to the governments. What also does not emerge from the list is that some governments don't fluoridate the water because the natural levels of fluorides are quite high anyway. But I'm off on wikibreak for a bit now, so unless you want to return to the fray it will have to wait. Posting a message on the fringe theories noticeboard would attract a number of fair-minded editors. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything in commons:Category:Plain_circles that floats your boat? MBisanz talk 07:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary shows misunderstanding. The edit was performed to the logs, not the text of the ArbCom case. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just been reading your user page. Am very interested in test driving your software tools. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is, to be honest, and as long as it's in the infobox, I see no problem with it. Finding a mailing address for a University or College can sometimes be difficult at best, and not everyone readily has access to the internet. So if someone using a public library computer, for example, they have an easy way to contact that College or Uni. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. GreenJoe 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you be interested in this? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hye Franamax. I am looking for a tool which would modify part of this one [5] - I was keen to find a tool which lists my mainspace edits by article - bit like the section on this but listing all articles and ranking by number of edits rather than just the top 15. Is it easy/difficult? My aim is to get most of my edtis into articles to reach GA or FAC. i.e. stable points. I hope to have a tool like this so I can see where I have devoted my energy and get everything I have edited alot to GA or FA. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Hi, neat tool, but I'm a software illiterate - I can see Casliber's results, but I can't figure out how to run it on my contributions. Can you point me in the right direction please? jimfbleak ( talk) 05:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I got a little itty bitty start to the Canada wikiproject on comons, and someone wants to delete it with a This gallery has been requested for deletion. tag which doesn't make too much sense on a wikiproject which isn't even a gallery. Did you think the start of the wikiproject on commons makes sense and did you want to try joining before it is deleted? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created the article Sand Lake (Parry Sound District, Ontario). Please feel free to add whatever information you can to this article as I do not know very much about Sand Lake. Enjoy! -- Magnetawan ( talk) 10:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz, some random questions for you:
I don't necessarily want to open a can of worms, I'm mostly interested in the first two questions, so you can consider the rest optional. Thanks! Franamax ( talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
To Franamax for some really cool tinkering to come up with solutions for 2 questions of mine....(I know, I haven't used the first one but someday..) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
If removing the red links to show the article does not exist is still bothering you, you could always put them somewhere in Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hopefully you've been able to keep control since the original occurrence. ;) -- Emesee ( talk) 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your note at Possibly useful tool about User:Franamax/Ucontribs. I agree that it is quite interesting, but if it is all the same to you I'd rather not be listed there - I like to keep track of stuff I contribute to more focused on article quality drives and such. Thanks for your efforts, Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across a link for the tool, and was wondering if you would be kind enough to run it on me? Thank you, regards Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 08:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well after much controversy, the Commons:WikiProject Canada is back up again to see what can be made of it. ...I left a note on your commons talk page as well. I wasn't sure which place you check. SriMesh | talk 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I tried to help with the article. i've restored the image. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, sorry I messed up some formatting things like putting posts on hte bottom rather than top, improper signing, etc. I don't know anything about this webpage format, I've been teaching myself how to use Wikipedia by opening up the edit pages of other articles and figuring out what each thing means.
Second, I don't expect you to fix everything up for me, but I certainly appreciate it! Especially things that I haven't quite figured out how to do yet like catorgize things or how to properly site images. I just gave up trying to add an image beacuse I figured it wasn't worth trying to figure out how to properly post the logo, so thanks for doing that for me! I had planned on reviewing the site some more but I was being doing work and havent gotten the chance to look at is as much as I would like. One thing I think I have to clarify is that while I do work for the Council, I wasn't told to do this page/doing this isn't part of my job. I'm doing this on my own time beacuse I was surprised the Council did'nt have one yet.
I have made further edits to the texts, added third party sources (mostly news sources), and tweaked it a little more
Agian, thanks for all your help on this. Take a look and if you still have issues let me hear it.
p.s. I'm not sure what consitutes sending a "message" on wikipedia (like you did to me) so I posted it on my wall as well as both of yours.
Have you ever tried the process at Wikipedia:Translation? Long ago I requested a translation of Basle earthquake. I've now done Wikipedia:Translation/Amédée Guillemin. It's always terribly exciting to now whether someone will actually take on the translation or not! The templates are at Category:Interwiki translation templates. I'll add that to the page. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Franamax! In regards to your questions yesterday, I'm happy to provide some expansion to my comments. In regards to OTRS, I have found that the more specific the e-mail address, the faster the response to the OTRS ticket. In my experience, the fastest response comes from uploading a free image to Commons, then sending the permission e-mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. I think this is because the Commons OTRS volunteers spend most of their time handling precisely this type of issue. In my experience,
User:Riana is particularly good at answering questions about delayed or unprocessed OTRS tickets.
Regardless of the place uploaded, or the backlog time for OTRS, it may help to place the template {{ OTRS pending}} on the description page of the image in question, once the e-mail has been sent to the OTRS volunteers. This generally dissuades image reviewers from requesting deletion until a reasonable amount of time has passed.
Please, feel totally free to drop me a line should you ever have a question about image policy - this is what I spend most of my time on, and I am happy to help. I always prefer to find a way to keep useful images rather than seeing them deleted. With respect - Kelly hi! 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
See. I told you in winter it was a barren wasteland. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I just found out about User:Franamax/Ucontribs. I would enjoy seeing my own results from the tool, if it's not too much bother. Thanks! -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, since you have commented on some changes of mine, I'd like to pose some questions to you, as I am quite new to Wikipedia, having only started to make small changes in the last couple of months.
Well, if you arrived here, thanks a lot for reading :) Fpoto ( talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear sir, please refrain from making furthe vandalisms to the Marc Emery page. Wikipedia is a forum designed to maintain neutrality and fairness. Please test your revisions using the sandbox before attemption to edit the man article. Thank you, and may you be well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.107.38 ( talk) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you expressed interest: Pre-proposal for redlink-removing bot - Pseudomonas( talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said: its over at ANI, best to talk there, talking past a user on their talk page is usually impolite. No thats not a threat... William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye out for that page. I haven't really been looking at my watchlist much lately (more of a focus on IfD and AfD cleanup). Your points are completely valid and I don't understand why the case is still even open. Thoughts? (you can just respond here). — BQZip01 — talk 07:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This one looks to be an alternate scan of another one, right down to the footsteps. You didn't provide an accession number with yours (tut-tut) so I can't compare them at source, they look similar at upload.wikimedia but yours previews more sharply and I am going to substitute it at Place Jacques-Cartier. Interesting historical photo, I took one in 1990 from almost the identical spot. I'm ashamed to say that Library and Archives Canada seems to have nothing comparable. We still have better beer though ;) If you want to work your magic on that photo, please by all means do so. Based on your previous work, a restored photo can find a place in Montreal and any number of subsidiary articles. Go for it! Franamax ( talk) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added you to this list for whatever arbitrary reason entered my mind at the time. Well, perhaps not so arbitrary ;-) - hydnjo talk 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I simply offered referenced quantitative data on brightness and safety. Your strong comments on safety are unnecessary; the discussion was about the extreme brightness of objects such as lasers, not about people intentionally looking at them and miraculously avoiding eye damage. Everyone knows not to stare at the Sun, a laser, or a welding arc for an extremely long period of time, especially considering the context, but not everyone is aware of the data I provided.
Note that I was not rebutting your advice, hence the weak "rarely causes". If you want to offer safety advice, do so with accurate and sourced information. The science reference desk is about, well, science, and misleading information should not be posted there.
If you would like to respond to the post you're challenging on the reference desk, feel free to do so. -- Bowlhover ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome mediation, as the continued incivility against myself and so many others is not only tiring, it is antithesis to the most basic tenet of Wikipedia: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This behavior against policy has even caused others to consider leaving Wiki altogether. It is extremely telling that your own inputs, gladly accepted earlier when your reasonings supported that editor's positions, are now called bias because you do not agree with a continued pattern of negative behavior. I am reminded of the very recent example here, where one editor adamently attacked another for having been open-minded and neutral, yet had the temerity to delete that example here when the exposure of that attack would have cast doubt on his own motivations for the later acceptance of that same editor's comments when they concurred with his own... giving the appearance of a major imnpropriety, as if the attacker had been successful in his bullying. Michael Q. Schmidt ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just remembered to thank you for your extremely funny albeit apt response to anon's question. It's been a while since I've laughed so hard on the reference desk, not counting inane questions like the recent ID question on WP:RD/S Nil Einne ( talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Iowa class battleship. I don't understand what seems to be a concern for appearances in the review discussion itself; I think what matters is what is in the article being discussed. Also, I appreciate your commenting about that table in WP:CANVASS and everything else you said. I sure am glad that i posted the notice over at wt:plagiarism.
I don't want to concede that there should be no discussion of any practice that can be labelled as a "policy issue", to be discussed elsewhere or never. I believe that policies can derive from discussion of specific articles, and the right time to discuss issues on featured articles is when the articles are up for review. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning. But, perhaps there should be some discussion at the Featured Article Review talk page about the general issues involved, and why (in my view) some weight ought to be given to avoiding use of general disclaimer templates. Laying some groundwork there would perhaps enable more concise discussion in the context of specific articles up for FAR. Thanks again! doncram ( talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
CC, Franamax, and BQZip01, how is the situation that was discussed on my talk page coming along? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I went to the Dolmen article for another look at claim about a capstone being 150 tonnes -- the dimensions in metres are 2.6 x 7.1 x 5.5 and for this I get feet: 8.5 x 23.3 x 18 -- how much would one that size weigh? Thanks for your help, Julia Rossi ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced his version of who is who is correct yet. On the other point, are you saying he is or isn't behaving with his new name, ie, did he return to his old ways or not? Respond on my page. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I emailed you back, but sometimes my messages get sent to spam. Might you check? Bstone ( talk) 11:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why this is medical advice?
"Please do see a doctor or use a pregnancy test. Some areas, including Canada, prohibit abortion after the first 3 months of pregnancy."
Do you object to my suggestion of a pregnancy test, or to the entire post? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice does not prohibit personalized messages recommending the OP to consult a professional. -- Bowlhover ( talk) 20:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
If you're interested in working on local articles, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver or Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia. Cheers, bobanny 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Inserted by Franamax:
Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know of there is no such tool.
To do it right, I think you'd need to have an extension in the MediaWiki server to do it in the database. I've been fooling around with MediaWiki code, but am not up to programming something like that at the moment.
For now... everyone does it by hand.
Georgewilliamherbert 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A test of my work on this tool. Franamax 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL still testing Franamax 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine that anyone who might've replied didn't because of all the blah blah. But if a discussion gets too messy, it seems to work best to start a new section and even repeat comments if they got lost in the fray without being addressed. People would get PO'd if you altered their comments, but it's also perfectly acceptable to re-organize comments to make the overall discussion legible, such as breaking it up into smaller sections. I find it more common to post a comment on a talk page and have it sit there for many months before getting a response, if it gets any at all. Some of us (especially me and Skookum1 on the Vancouver Project) tend to be long-winded and meander off into tangents, so others might see me as part of a problem that I don't see myself. There are talk page guidelines that some of us frequently break, and it's okay to jump in and remind people to get back on topic or whatever. But it's not like we're in danger of running out of space for these discussions, and personally, I find them more productive oftentimes if they're dynamic and provocative than by-the-book and clinical. It also helps to assume your audience has ADHD. cheers, bobanny 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Testing a talk subpage User talk:Franamax/sub-page Franamax 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Here I will try to create some talk sub-pages
1st one worked, let's try again
Regarding New Inn Tennis Courts, I got lucky. I'm a newpage patroller, and when I find something that needs to be speedied, I tend to check users other edits for anything else that needs tagging. In that case the person who created New Inn Tennis Courts had made an edit to the AfD discussion for it. My only suggestions would be to see if your bot can surf their user talk pages (& possibly it's history) for AfD notifications for that article. Good luck with the bot, if you get it running well it'll help stamp out the annoying recreations. Improbcat 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- - - - - -
crPatrol - test output sample
Title: Benjamin page User: Woodburyu Date: 06:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Cesari and McKenna User: Rollinsk Date: 06:47, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Zulqarnain zaidi User: Znzaidi Date: 06:46, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Roger Bourke White User: Cyreenik Date: 06:43, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Yamanote Halloween Train User: Daikanyama Date: 06:06, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Rock Instrumental Classics User: People Week Guy Date: 05:53, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071007
Title: NBA Live series soundtracks User: Adambaker04 Date: 05:10, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071020
Title: Dustin Haskins User: Beldingfan Date: 05:02, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Giblink User: Tosshoo Date: 03:34, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071018
Title: Glove gun User: Jamesclemow Date: 03:13, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Peter Slowik User: Just plain Bill Date: 02:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: Alfreda Williams User: AlfredaW Date: 02:30, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024
Title: Gamma Adventurers User: Maxgamma17 Date: 02:29, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025
Title: TYRO GYN PHI User: Agustinclan Date: 02:12, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071022
- - - End of sample - - - Franamax 08:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
JzG's revert had nothing to do with you. To a new user it may appear that he is reverting you, but that's just a quirk of the differencing page. No experienced user would think it was you he was reverting. It's nothing to worry about. ATren 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The diff screen shows the selected revision and the previous revision. There is really no relation between the two - they are just sequential. It is somewhat confusing because there is no guarantee that the newer change is in any way related to the previous one. Think of the left hand side as simply a preview for the previous change - it is not at all related to the diff in question. In effect, the top left rectangle could be eliminated from that screen without losing any information pertinent to the change being viewed - it really is just a preview.
Any change you make will make the diffs appear this way. But as I said, experienced users already know enough that the two revisions are not necessarily related (and often aren't)
ATren
15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The inputs I made has since been edited by User:Ckatz.-- Cahk ( talk) 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've replied there. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you just reverted my edits of User talk:Durova without a linked explanation. You left the message "RfC or AN/I" but they weren't linked so I don't know what you're talking about. Scott Keeler ( talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied there. Good points. Most arguments boil down to epistemology, do they not? "How strong do we know this?" as Feynman used to say. S B H arris 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what my mother always says. Kevlar67 ( talk) 09:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that client-side tool. Digging around, looks like it's just 4.252.0.0/16, not a 24. Kww ( talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a practical joke which, in my twisted mind, seemed absurdly funny. Ha Ha. :) Editorofthewiki ( talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
wpW5 sounds absolutely amazing. I hope you can pull it off. You should consider it as a commercially-licensed product (for unlimited access) and keep it limited to 5 searches per day for "normal" free subscribers. - Yug Pah Yug ( talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You valiantly tried to fix the page flow up after I made the mistake of putting a response to an editor in a place where the whole thread was liable to be disrupted. I made a stab at putting a post of mine where I would prefer it to be. Please review and if you don't think it's appropriate, revert what I did. No diff's supplied, I'm sure it's on your watch! Thanks & cheers! Franamax ( talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
To my great surprise, you are right that his birth name was in fact David D. Eisenhower. I was indeed hasty to label the change vandalism. However, he rose to prominence and was elected president as Dwight D. Eisenhower, and so that is the correct name to use in this context. Nevertheless, I appreciate your correction, and I will try to be more careful in the future. Plazak ( talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've got islands on the brain, too. Did you happen to see Hochelaga Archipelago? It's an article I've taken on. (I even created an article for it on citizendium, which will of course never b seen by anyone). As a lifelong Montrealer, I'd never even heard of this until I came across the article. I got so excited I created a cat for it, too. Speaking of which, should BC's own Gulf Islands should be added to Category:Archipelagoes? Are they considered an archipelago? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia article contains a wealth of blue-links. These are links that will take you to other places in Wikipedia, where you can learn more new things, they are also called hyperlinks. But there is another way of linking things called "looking around" in the real world - what's that over there? I think I'll go check it out.
One of the easiest ways of exploring throughout human history has been to just follow the rivers. One of the best human inventions for following rivers is the canoe, you can follow the water at your own pace and see all there is to be seen along the way - or you can put your head down and get somewhere fast.
My proposal is to create pages for river systems so that Wikipedia can be explored by water. Every river system is rooted at an ocean. From the ocean, one can paddle upstream through gulfs, bays and deltas, past the tideline, into river systems. As you paddle up the river, on each bank outlets of tributaries appear. You can choose to paddle up any of those tributaries as well, and paddle up all the streams that join.
Of course, all the other river-related things on earth eventually show up here. Waterfalls, islands, rapids, lakes, marshes, cities, ports, dams - you will see them all from the canoe.
All Wikipedia articles on inland water-related features can in principle be grouped, water always goes somewhere and usually only goes one way. There are five(?) endpoints (oceans), the trick is to create not-too-large pages to contain expandable/linkable navigation loci; the canoe icon on each article would pop you into the right part of the tree, you could click upstream or downstream and paddle away.
Initial (borrowed) concept statement, this goes much further, please hack away. :) Franamax ( talk) 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember a while ago hearing people that would contact these guys about forked material without attribution, but it may have been on the mailing list... if I don't get a response, I'll either post to the mailing list or just contact them myself. Either way, I'll let you know. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry, I don't generally copy/paste code multiple places. — Random832 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; very kind. I'll do some digging in this direction. I took the twinkle error back to the Twinkle owner so hope that that one will be solved that way. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they're all Twinkle errors, having just removed Twinkle from my monobook.js. User:AzaToth has indicated that he's not interested in getting Twinkle compliant with IE, fullstop. So perhaps that's as far as we need take it. I was merely concerned that all IE users were getting the same errors. if it's just twinkle users, well, they should be using firefox anyway :). Thanks nevertheless. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do know him and no he doesn't have an article. I take it that you know him as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for adding this section to the geostationary orbit article! The material you added was so good I copied it into the space law article as well. I'm not sure if there's some way to maintain and improve it in both places. (In my opinion this topic might even deserve an article of its own!) Anyway, thanks again for providing well-referenced coverage of this topic! ( sdsds - talk) 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just would like to let you know: you could spare yourself some work by not taking time to add those reference sections to Kansas articles. We're in process of getting a bot to do it. Of course, not to say that it's not good to do it :-) but you might not want to bother with so many little edits. Nyttend ( talk) 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been controversies in the past in the article. Both Kinshasa and Abidjan are more populated than Montreal. It all depends how you count French speakers (1s language speakers only? or also 2nd language speakers?). What's uncontroversial is that Montreal is the second-largest French speaking city in the Western world (neither Lyon, nor Brussels, nor Marseille, nor Québec City have as many inhabitants as Montreal). Any worldwide statement is controversial due to Kinshasa and Abidjan. Godefroy ( talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And an additional comment; if you'd like a template to be clickable, so that people can go to the page without it being transcluded, then include the parameter prefix {{tl|}}. For example, {{tl|helpme}} results in {{ helpme}}. Sorry to keep bothering you! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
...for letting me know. It is appreciated! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, your answer to the person asking for advice on using Wikipedia was excellent. Thanks! Crum375 ( talk) 00:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the idea of telling new spouses apart by the methods now being applied by ArbCom, is very droll. Weiss went to India to get married, and his "sock" who did his bio, went with him. Well shut me up. The two must be the same guy. --Sherlock. S B H arris 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The stock market operates on ads, which are closely kept track of by the SEC and FTA. In opposition are consumer reports and stock analysts. Nobody censors anybody, really. If you wish to "pump and dump" a crummy penny stock, there are many ways to get around the rules. And naked short selling is a potent way to counteract such bull. We need both. So, we should discuss both fairly. If Overstock needs a puff page, with a summary of criticism on it, AND a separate criticism page, with a summary of the puff page, well, that's within policy. We did it with the Apollo moon landings and the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. What prevents us from learning the lessons we learned THERE, and applying them HERE? S B H arris 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
...is going to end up RFAR, based on this. Lawrence § t/ e 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Muhammad (no images), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad (no images) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Yes, this edit [1] fixes it properly. Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the catch. Darn frustrating, to be sure, and I certainly don't like leaving a mess for others to clean up. Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice statement! Do you think it would be helpful to provide links or diffs, especially to stuff not mentioned or linked by others? One thing, BC and BCB are pretty clear, but you might want to make clear who MMN is. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never lived outside of Ontario in my life. I know the municipal amalgamations of the Harris years are unpopular — I grew up in "Greater" Sudbury, attended university in Ottawa, and moved to Toronto just in time to watch the whole megacity affair, so I've literally spent my entire life living in cities that still curse the ground Mike Harris walked on. But like them or not, as long as the amalgamated municipalities are the municipalities that actually exist right now, they have to be the primary priority precisely because they actually exist as incorporated municipalities — famous or not, artificial or not, they are the entities that actually govern those municipalities right now. Until I started merging smaller hamlets early this year, about 20 per cent of the municipalities in Ontario were still redlinks, which is really unacceptable.
And for what it's worth, I'm also getting very tired of the common belief that Wikipedia should privilege popular perception over the reality of things as they actually stand right now (such as by calling every settlement a town whether it actually holds that status under law or not.) And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the notion that Cobden should be a higher or even equivalent article priority to Whitewater Region fits right into that little bugaboo, because it's basically an assertion that Wikipedia should treat some municipalities as subordinate to their communities — and since we don't treat all municipalities that way, it basically sets up a dual class of articles based on a completely artificial, ideological and not-obvious-to-most-readers set of reasons that fail NPOV and OR. So until Whitewater Region either (a) has a long enough article to merit division, or (b) gets dissolved by a future provincial government, it has to be the higher priority article, because it is the actual municipal government in that area. Bearcat ( talk) 08:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I don't know if I appreciate being lumped in an "I hate Beta" crowd, when that's not the case for me, and for many--if not most--of the critics. But here's my thoughts: at one time, I thought perhaps there was a way forward outside of arbcom. In the last week or two, Beta has convinced me there's not. If there isn't some kind of sanction saying, "Here's how you have to treat people, and how you have to use your bot in the community" there's no way Beta will change. He has reached a point where he seems to feel like he has a kind of special user status, and that needs to be dealt with, in my view. What are your thoughts on the whole thing? Bellwether B C 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on images now for a couple of months and thigns just seem to have gotten worse. I've racked my brain on this one, and don't see anything than an Arbcom at the end. Even WP:AN/B replaced in my mind, the WP:RFC process. Look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, is there anything other than binding arbitration that would make both sides happy? MBisanz talk 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I should be OK with the non-free images. My worklists are in the page history at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries (and the talk page). I imported a load of image names from some categories, so should be able to work from that, and the contribs of the admins who deleted or ImageRemovalBot, to identify the article where it isn't obvious. I want to concentrate on book and magazine covers (I actually think there is a good case for first edition magazine and book covers, rather than the generic "any old cover" that is used at the moment - purely because there will, in general, be more that can be mentioned in the article about first edition covers, and because they will usually become public domain before any of the other possible covers). I also do historical images. Speaking of which, one of the categories I never got hold of a list for is discussed here. I don't think it is possible to find out what the images were in Category:Denver Public Library images that got deleted (if any), but maybe you could look through Morven's image uploads to see if you can find which ones got deleted? Or any other ideas you might have? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you've been around awhile now. I figured I should point you towards some useful editing tools. WP:TW is a great tool for vandalism reverting. WP:AWB is great for long sequences of edits. WP:ROLLBACK is also good for vandalism (drop me a line and I'll assign the rights to your account, ditto for AWB). WP:NPW is a good tool for WP:CSD editors. WP:FRIENDLY is good for welcoming new users. WP:FURME is good for image FURs, especially for the most common categories. And if you ever need anything undeleted or doublechecked, I'm willing and able to serve. MBisanz talk 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And, I'm sorry for my impatience earlier; as that was unfolding, I had about six people hitting my talk page at once with problems, in addition to dealing with the lies posted about me an AN/I ... so now that the day has settled a bit, I do appreciate your help for a fellow editor, as it was one less thing for me to solve :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See answer on my talk page. S B H arris 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I used that long ago, back when I was a little more instrumental in trying to clear up the backlog over at Editor Review... Your French was alright, I got the main point! (Une) catégorie is a feminine noun, and perhaps, (although I'm not completely certain,) the correct term for dead link would be "lien mort" or (red link) "lien rouge." Cheers, -- w p k t sfs 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You'd probably want to do it with javascript, since with the other way to do it (parser functions) you run into caching problems. However - I'd also like to say that this is probably not a particularly good idea. -- Random832 ( contribs) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That is great but I can't find this album. I must have. the_undertow talk 05:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) I took the liberty of posting your suggested question for RfA's from the Village Pump and put it here [2]. I thought you might like to know it seems very well received.
(2) I notice you seem to create "read-only" bots dealing with diffs. Would you be interested in helping with a bot request (my first, so be kind) I recently made here [3]?
-- Low Sea ( talk) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So, the great cross-tabbing is done and there is a list of 700 images at
User:Betacommand/Sandbox 3 that show images classed as both free AND non-free. Obviously, an image can only be one of the two, so if editors could go through and correct the images, striking them out on the master list it would be great. Thanks.
MBisanz
talk
03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just thought I'd tell you (Franamax, StuRat, hydnjo, Atlant) how the flaming drink thing went. Well, mixed results. It's all made, but sometimes it works and some times it does not. What makes it extra odd, is that it works 100% of the time for me, but only about 50% for the girl that has to do it. So far, three shows with an audience and it only lit once. UGHH!!!
What I did: I made a fire place poker out of mostly thin PVC pipe. In the handle is a gas grill starter with wires going inside the pipe. Franamax - You mentioned the handle idea and I had already thought of that, but I didn't want to steer people towards what I was already thinking. I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike. ;-)
All of it is painted with "Hammered" spray paint made for outside plastic furniture. Here's a shot of it close up without the flame. http://wonderley.com/shows/2008/FarmersDaughter/Photos/Page01/shots/2008-04-17~069.jpg That's me on the couch. In the sort of V shaped tip is the igniter at the tip and the other wire coming at an angle. My invention sparks 99% of the time.
In the coffee mug is a metal jigger that I raised to the level of the top of the mug with a piece of PVC pipe. That was a mistake. I made the level of the jigger come to the level of the top of the cup so that the most amount of the flame would be visible. It should be raised, but not all the way to the top. I have to pretend to drink from this cup and the jigger (which gets scolding hot) is hard to NOT touch if the jigger is too high.
I scuffed up the inside of the mug and the other side of the jigger to get the glue to stick to it. The fact that the jigger is metal does not appear to have any effect on the spark.
In the jigger was originally only about 1/16 of an inch of "Golden Grain" booze - 95% alcohol. At my house, it ignited every time. But, not for Cheryl. I later thought about it was having it on my kitchen counter. That's higher up so I was holding the poker at more of an angle on the mug rather than straight down. So, we changed the jigger to about an half inch on alcohol. Soon before going on stage with it, she moves some of it on the side of the jigger for even more surface area.
When we do get a flame the poker flames a little as well and she blows it out. That actually looks great. The idea of adding salt is awesome - Thanks Atlant. However, I had no luck dissolving salt in the alcohol. I warmed up some alcohol with having hot water all around it in a thin glass and stirred a lot of salt in it. I then let it settle some and used a syringe with a wide tip to suck up some of the alcohol from the middle thinking I'd get the best alcohol with dissolved salt that I could. It did not appear to make any difference in the color of the flame or the ability to light it. However, we put salt in a sugar bowl. Once lit, putting a pinch of "sugar" in the flaming drink was an awesome effect.
I also tried freezing some of the booze so that the 5% that was not alcohol would be solid and use the 100% alcohol that was left - after it warmed back up and it made no difference. In fact, whatever the 5% that wasn't alcohol, appeared to be unfreezable as well.
Thanks again for all of your ideas. If you want to see more about the show, visit Wonderley.com -- Wonderley ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is at John Allan Broun. Discussion moved to the talk page as suggested. Hope you like the article! Carcharoth ( talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but being in Courtenay, and having no personal vehicle, I'm way out of range. -- Denelson 83 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I responded here. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I doubt our CSD tagging is quick enough to delete it, but, when you re-upload, adding {{keepLocal}} should deter most people until its deleted from commons, at which point it can be removed. Just make sure not to add {{NowCommons}}, which will point the bot at the image. MBisanz talk 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you do not see that as a problem. Have you heard of what are "birds of a feather"? Thank God I do not live in Vancouver anymore. It is all yours and you guys can continue to make the Vancouver article "tourist-perfect". Jafarw ( talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments regarding my edits. How is the Academy section different from the nobel prize? Understandably, the date reference may be too much, but why not include the listing of awards and winners? I started this project because I noticed there were entries on the nobel prizes and ship events? I was trying to keep things standard across the board throughout all the years.-- TravelinSista ( talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the recent contributions to the calendar related articles. As regular patroller and contributor to calendar articles I would state that valid arguments can be presented on both sides. The notability of 'Best Pictures' certainly meets the criteria, however, it should be noted that the Oscar Awards presented by The Academy are a commercial en devour where as the Nobel Prize is an international award. Also, United States related versus world related. As such the Nobel Prize has more relation to an article about the year (an international common) than an American award for film. I would suggest mentioning the year and number of the Oscars but like the Olympics, not mention every gold, silver, and bronze medal winner. The Oscar awards are heavily written about and the article is strong enough that a wikilink to it is a very substantial source. Think in the terms of a reader. The repetition of the information is not necessary when it's one click away. Mkdw talk 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, the AA awards section has been removed. Thanks for your KIND request to remove info. I agree with your argument. Time to find a new project! (Let me know if you have any suggestions) :)-- TravelinSista ( talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I thought you would have run by now...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a special thanks for your super-speedy support for my RfA! My fingers are crossed here, not so far from where you're located, as we figured out the other day. Anyhow, thanks again. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I'd like to help a bit with the LOC images. Unfortunately, although I've done lots of work with Creative Commons and public domain images, I have essentially zero experience when it comes to fair use. For example, with this: Image:Davidson Dunton.jpg, why is a FUR even required if the image can be used for any purpose? I don't understand the problem. Can you point me to examples of FURs that would be suitable for these kinds of pictures? If it's more work to explain this than to do it yourself, do let me know - I won't be offended :) Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Tinucherian 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 or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! --
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) -
09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
Because the plain title Bonavista is a disambiguation page which isn't supposed to be linked to directly at all, not even on talk pages, unless for some reason the dab page is itself the intended topic of discussion. Proper disambiguation maintenance doesn't leave talk pages uncorrected just because they're talk pages. Bearcat ( talk) 00:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, impressive your cleanup of havana. How can I get your software? -- Iroko ( talk) 11:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Yes, I wanted to check out those websites. The government policies may be stated elsewhere. Better to source straight to the governments. What also does not emerge from the list is that some governments don't fluoridate the water because the natural levels of fluorides are quite high anyway. But I'm off on wikibreak for a bit now, so unless you want to return to the fray it will have to wait. Posting a message on the fringe theories noticeboard would attract a number of fair-minded editors. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything in commons:Category:Plain_circles that floats your boat? MBisanz talk 07:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary shows misunderstanding. The edit was performed to the logs, not the text of the ArbCom case. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just been reading your user page. Am very interested in test driving your software tools. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is, to be honest, and as long as it's in the infobox, I see no problem with it. Finding a mailing address for a University or College can sometimes be difficult at best, and not everyone readily has access to the internet. So if someone using a public library computer, for example, they have an easy way to contact that College or Uni. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. GreenJoe 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you be interested in this? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hye Franamax. I am looking for a tool which would modify part of this one [5] - I was keen to find a tool which lists my mainspace edits by article - bit like the section on this but listing all articles and ranking by number of edits rather than just the top 15. Is it easy/difficult? My aim is to get most of my edtis into articles to reach GA or FAC. i.e. stable points. I hope to have a tool like this so I can see where I have devoted my energy and get everything I have edited alot to GA or FA. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Hi, neat tool, but I'm a software illiterate - I can see Casliber's results, but I can't figure out how to run it on my contributions. Can you point me in the right direction please? jimfbleak ( talk) 05:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I got a little itty bitty start to the Canada wikiproject on comons, and someone wants to delete it with a This gallery has been requested for deletion. tag which doesn't make too much sense on a wikiproject which isn't even a gallery. Did you think the start of the wikiproject on commons makes sense and did you want to try joining before it is deleted? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created the article Sand Lake (Parry Sound District, Ontario). Please feel free to add whatever information you can to this article as I do not know very much about Sand Lake. Enjoy! -- Magnetawan ( talk) 10:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi MBisanz, some random questions for you:
I don't necessarily want to open a can of worms, I'm mostly interested in the first two questions, so you can consider the rest optional. Thanks! Franamax ( talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
To Franamax for some really cool tinkering to come up with solutions for 2 questions of mine....(I know, I haven't used the first one but someday..) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
If removing the red links to show the article does not exist is still bothering you, you could always put them somewhere in Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hopefully you've been able to keep control since the original occurrence. ;) -- Emesee ( talk) 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw your note at Possibly useful tool about User:Franamax/Ucontribs. I agree that it is quite interesting, but if it is all the same to you I'd rather not be listed there - I like to keep track of stuff I contribute to more focused on article quality drives and such. Thanks for your efforts, Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across a link for the tool, and was wondering if you would be kind enough to run it on me? Thank you, regards Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 08:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well after much controversy, the Commons:WikiProject Canada is back up again to see what can be made of it. ...I left a note on your commons talk page as well. I wasn't sure which place you check. SriMesh | talk 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I tried to help with the article. i've restored the image. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, sorry I messed up some formatting things like putting posts on hte bottom rather than top, improper signing, etc. I don't know anything about this webpage format, I've been teaching myself how to use Wikipedia by opening up the edit pages of other articles and figuring out what each thing means.
Second, I don't expect you to fix everything up for me, but I certainly appreciate it! Especially things that I haven't quite figured out how to do yet like catorgize things or how to properly site images. I just gave up trying to add an image beacuse I figured it wasn't worth trying to figure out how to properly post the logo, so thanks for doing that for me! I had planned on reviewing the site some more but I was being doing work and havent gotten the chance to look at is as much as I would like. One thing I think I have to clarify is that while I do work for the Council, I wasn't told to do this page/doing this isn't part of my job. I'm doing this on my own time beacuse I was surprised the Council did'nt have one yet.
I have made further edits to the texts, added third party sources (mostly news sources), and tweaked it a little more
Agian, thanks for all your help on this. Take a look and if you still have issues let me hear it.
p.s. I'm not sure what consitutes sending a "message" on wikipedia (like you did to me) so I posted it on my wall as well as both of yours.
Have you ever tried the process at Wikipedia:Translation? Long ago I requested a translation of Basle earthquake. I've now done Wikipedia:Translation/Amédée Guillemin. It's always terribly exciting to now whether someone will actually take on the translation or not! The templates are at Category:Interwiki translation templates. I'll add that to the page. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Franamax! In regards to your questions yesterday, I'm happy to provide some expansion to my comments. In regards to OTRS, I have found that the more specific the e-mail address, the faster the response to the OTRS ticket. In my experience, the fastest response comes from uploading a free image to Commons, then sending the permission e-mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. I think this is because the Commons OTRS volunteers spend most of their time handling precisely this type of issue. In my experience,
User:Riana is particularly good at answering questions about delayed or unprocessed OTRS tickets.
Regardless of the place uploaded, or the backlog time for OTRS, it may help to place the template {{ OTRS pending}} on the description page of the image in question, once the e-mail has been sent to the OTRS volunteers. This generally dissuades image reviewers from requesting deletion until a reasonable amount of time has passed.
Please, feel totally free to drop me a line should you ever have a question about image policy - this is what I spend most of my time on, and I am happy to help. I always prefer to find a way to keep useful images rather than seeing them deleted. With respect - Kelly hi! 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
See. I told you in winter it was a barren wasteland. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I just found out about User:Franamax/Ucontribs. I would enjoy seeing my own results from the tool, if it's not too much bother. Thanks! -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, since you have commented on some changes of mine, I'd like to pose some questions to you, as I am quite new to Wikipedia, having only started to make small changes in the last couple of months.
Well, if you arrived here, thanks a lot for reading :) Fpoto ( talk) 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear sir, please refrain from making furthe vandalisms to the Marc Emery page. Wikipedia is a forum designed to maintain neutrality and fairness. Please test your revisions using the sandbox before attemption to edit the man article. Thank you, and may you be well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.107.38 ( talk) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you expressed interest: Pre-proposal for redlink-removing bot - Pseudomonas( talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said: its over at ANI, best to talk there, talking past a user on their talk page is usually impolite. No thats not a threat... William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye out for that page. I haven't really been looking at my watchlist much lately (more of a focus on IfD and AfD cleanup). Your points are completely valid and I don't understand why the case is still even open. Thoughts? (you can just respond here). — BQZip01 — talk 07:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This one looks to be an alternate scan of another one, right down to the footsteps. You didn't provide an accession number with yours (tut-tut) so I can't compare them at source, they look similar at upload.wikimedia but yours previews more sharply and I am going to substitute it at Place Jacques-Cartier. Interesting historical photo, I took one in 1990 from almost the identical spot. I'm ashamed to say that Library and Archives Canada seems to have nothing comparable. We still have better beer though ;) If you want to work your magic on that photo, please by all means do so. Based on your previous work, a restored photo can find a place in Montreal and any number of subsidiary articles. Go for it! Franamax ( talk) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added you to this list for whatever arbitrary reason entered my mind at the time. Well, perhaps not so arbitrary ;-) - hydnjo talk 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I simply offered referenced quantitative data on brightness and safety. Your strong comments on safety are unnecessary; the discussion was about the extreme brightness of objects such as lasers, not about people intentionally looking at them and miraculously avoiding eye damage. Everyone knows not to stare at the Sun, a laser, or a welding arc for an extremely long period of time, especially considering the context, but not everyone is aware of the data I provided.
Note that I was not rebutting your advice, hence the weak "rarely causes". If you want to offer safety advice, do so with accurate and sourced information. The science reference desk is about, well, science, and misleading information should not be posted there.
If you would like to respond to the post you're challenging on the reference desk, feel free to do so. -- Bowlhover ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would welcome mediation, as the continued incivility against myself and so many others is not only tiring, it is antithesis to the most basic tenet of Wikipedia: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This behavior against policy has even caused others to consider leaving Wiki altogether. It is extremely telling that your own inputs, gladly accepted earlier when your reasonings supported that editor's positions, are now called bias because you do not agree with a continued pattern of negative behavior. I am reminded of the very recent example here, where one editor adamently attacked another for having been open-minded and neutral, yet had the temerity to delete that example here when the exposure of that attack would have cast doubt on his own motivations for the later acceptance of that same editor's comments when they concurred with his own... giving the appearance of a major imnpropriety, as if the attacker had been successful in his bullying. Michael Q. Schmidt ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just remembered to thank you for your extremely funny albeit apt response to anon's question. It's been a while since I've laughed so hard on the reference desk, not counting inane questions like the recent ID question on WP:RD/S Nil Einne ( talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Iowa class battleship. I don't understand what seems to be a concern for appearances in the review discussion itself; I think what matters is what is in the article being discussed. Also, I appreciate your commenting about that table in WP:CANVASS and everything else you said. I sure am glad that i posted the notice over at wt:plagiarism.
I don't want to concede that there should be no discussion of any practice that can be labelled as a "policy issue", to be discussed elsewhere or never. I believe that policies can derive from discussion of specific articles, and the right time to discuss issues on featured articles is when the articles are up for review. Deductive vs. inductive reasoning. But, perhaps there should be some discussion at the Featured Article Review talk page about the general issues involved, and why (in my view) some weight ought to be given to avoiding use of general disclaimer templates. Laying some groundwork there would perhaps enable more concise discussion in the context of specific articles up for FAR. Thanks again! doncram ( talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
CC, Franamax, and BQZip01, how is the situation that was discussed on my talk page coming along? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Franamax, I went to the Dolmen article for another look at claim about a capstone being 150 tonnes -- the dimensions in metres are 2.6 x 7.1 x 5.5 and for this I get feet: 8.5 x 23.3 x 18 -- how much would one that size weigh? Thanks for your help, Julia Rossi ( talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced his version of who is who is correct yet. On the other point, are you saying he is or isn't behaving with his new name, ie, did he return to his old ways or not? Respond on my page. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I emailed you back, but sometimes my messages get sent to spam. Might you check? Bstone ( talk) 11:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why this is medical advice?
"Please do see a doctor or use a pregnancy test. Some areas, including Canada, prohibit abortion after the first 3 months of pregnancy."
Do you object to my suggestion of a pregnancy test, or to the entire post? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice does not prohibit personalized messages recommending the OP to consult a professional. -- Bowlhover ( talk) 20:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)