Avocado - don't add more than one stub tag to an article. →Raul654 18:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. It seems most people agree with your proposal, so well done! If you need help implementing it, let me know please. R adiant _* 09:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Great! I would suggest "### (United States area code)", per conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, and guidelines for naming countries (North America is strictly speaking the continent, and the codes are for the US). Feel free to be WP:BOLD. R adiant _* 07:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, if the codes for Canada and the US don't overlap (e.g. 0001 being both Washington and Ontario, or something) then North America is fine.
  • Here's how to do a quick merge... open ten or twelve different browser windows (or tabs, if using Firefox) on source pages, and one on the destination page. Copy/paste everything from all source windows into the destination. Copy/paste "#shortcut destination page" into all source pages, overwriting the old content. Save all source pages; they are now redirects with edit history intact. Then, click 'show preview' on the destination page, and edit it until the layout is acceptable. Save, lather, rinse, repeat. Once you get the hang of it it's quite fast really. Yours, R adiant _* 07:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Avocado - As per your generous offer on the Pre-clinical project page, I was wondering if you could take a look at Asthma, which has recently been the medical COTW and let us know what confuses you. That would be really helpful! Thanks :) Mr.Bip 21:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Mr. Creamy-Green-Fruit - Thanks for looking at the article. Why don't you leave your comments on the Asthma Talk page, so everyone can see. Mr.Bip 01:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Lots of thanks for looking at the Asthma article. Its very hard to tell when you're using jargon if you're a doctor/biologist. Your work is appreciated greatly. -- Mike C | talk 10:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Avocado - I've been away from my computer the past two days, but I greatly appreciate your criticism. I hope I can make the article more approachable in the next week. Thanks for your help! Mr.Bip 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Avocado. Thank you for your nice thoughts on the WikiProject Math talk page. I added the paragraph discussed there to meromorphic function. I have one request. Sometimes for us mathematicians it is not obvious when something is not obvious to others. :) One suggestion I have is that when you encounter such an article with lots of math jargon, it is good if besides posting a {{ technical}} template, to also go to its talk page and write a thoughtful paragraph or two about what you would want improved. This can take time of course, but it will be very helpful to people willing to improve on an article but not realizing what is not clear. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 23:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. -- nixie 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Uncle G's major work 'bot is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review Category:Greek Area Codes, Category:United Kingdom area codes, and Category:North American area codes, and then contribute to the discussion at Talk:North American Numbering Plan#US-centric_area_code_page_titles. Uncle G 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed that you are a participant in the WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. The article Connecting tubule has been nominated for deletion. As this is an anatomical subject I was hoping to get somebody within the project to adopt the article for expansion. I could find no way to add the article to this project. I hope you or your fellow particpants would consider adopting this article to love. James084 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. -- WikiInquirer 12:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC) ^{talk to me} reply

It's the template that need emending, not its scope. Please read the actual template (not the stub box) - the Filmmaking project has been incorporated into WP Films as a task force, while WP Films now covers all film topics. Girolamo Savonarola 14:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm working on rewriting it right now, if you wouldn't mind. :) Girolamo Savonarola 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you think that tap water campaign should be deleted? After all, it's a stub, and the author hasn't edited since creating and editing the article. At least one of the external links are POV, in my opinion. Just want your thoughts. -- Kannie | talk 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 250 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 10:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 500 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 10:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be good to have your feedback/comments on the drive at the Tag & Assess workshop

Thanks again for your help, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 10:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Your application to use autowikibrowser has been been approved but please take care as you are getting used to the tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GUCT, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{ db-author}} to the top of GUCT. Bearian ( talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced wiki-gnomes and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Chevrons (1000 articles) Golden Wiki First place

Thanks you for your message. If you've been around for a few months, got your wits about you, and have a "feel" for what B-Class is about, you'll be fine. I'm sure these all apply :) -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! How are you finding it? I've had a quick look and found very little to grumble about :) Keep up the good work, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 06:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. I tend to reckon that B-class is okay if the article fulfills all the other criteria well but falls shorts on, say, two or three refs. In other words, it had six or seven refs but could really use more. This is a judgement thing though and not everyone would necessarily agree with me :) I've done a fair amount of fine-tuning so far so please don't think that you're being singled out, or that your work is below par. All the best, and well done thus far, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for letting us know. I wish everyone was as courteous :) -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 10:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

Can you please stop tagging articles with the {{ unref}} template when there's no content that needs to be verified with public sources? This is stupid. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Part of Wikipedia policy is that the notability of every article should be provable with reliable sources -- every article should have at least one source, and unsourced articles are vulnerable to deletion proposals. In fact, these days, new stubs without sources tend to be speedy-deleted on sight. Sorry if my tagging is bothering you. -- Avocado ( talk) 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I moved your reply on my talk page here.

I think you need to read and understand WP:V: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

You are, at least the second user I've spotted adding this stupid tags to every single article that has no source in it. Please understand that not every information needs to be cited because it is not likely to be chllenged. A very similar situation was reported on the AN/I, you can read the report here.

If you wish to reply, please do so here. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 13:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It isn't clear to me that that discussion reached consensus. I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, so I will not return the tag to the article you removed it from, but I will continue to tag articles that have no references. -- Avocado ( talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've only remove the tag from only one article, that's because it was on my watchlist and I don't have the time to be following your contribs and remove the tag where is obvious it is not needed.

But if you continue adding it to articles that clearly have information that won't be challenged or requires verification, I'll report you and the situation. I suggest you to stop. That's all. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

(Asked to comment by Tasc0.) Please understand WP:V. Statements such as "X is an album by Y, released on DD-MM-YY" are unlikely to be challenged, and stubs containing that information do not need tagging. Nor should they be speedied, as you suggest. Please do not tag until you fully understand the policy you are tagging per. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yikes, I am not making threats to speedy anything, nor suggesting that such articles should be speedied! I was merely observing what I've seen happening one the few occasions when I went to observe how NP Patrol worked.

Clearly either WP:V policy has changed since I read the policy and discussions surrounding it, or I was extremely tired at the time. (Maybe I was thinking of something I read at WP:BLP?)

In any case, as it's clearly a problem, I'll be more frugal with the "unreferenced" tags in the future. At the same time, I'd appreciate not being called "stupid" or accused of threatening to delete stubs. Thanks. -- Avocado ( talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Eek, sorry if I came off as accusing, was definitely not intended - well all share that common goal, I think. :) Yeah, that is an observation that I'm not overly happy about...

Yes, if you would re-read WP:V, it'd be great...in retrospect, you probably were thinking about BLP. Not a big deal, we all make mistakes. :)

Again, I'm sorry if I came of as accusing...I don't intend to. I can't speak for Tasc0's comments other than to say that you didn't deserve that. Thanks for your help. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies if you thought I called you stupid. I called this tagging an stupid thing to do. Not you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm glad we could work this out. Happy editing! -- Avocado ( talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you please take a look at the Category:Unassessed biography articles? Your javascript (monobook.js) is showing up on the top of the list for unassessed biographies. I have looked at the code in the link but can not figure out why this is happening. Please review it and get it off of the list. If you can not, please alert an administrator to take a look at it. Thanks, C. Williams ( talk) 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

A
User:Avocado/monobook.js

You might be interested in this discussion.-- Aervanath's signature is boring 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I guess i should've read the criteria better! As the focus is on building a web, instead of what i thougt, reducing backlog, i'll be more careful. Still, some pages can never be de-orphaned i guess. Thanks for the hint! Shoombooly ( talk) 21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes specifically set up to develop the articles. Progress is being made at Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status. All we need is more french people on english wikipedia to write full articles ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi- You are putting orphan tags on some articles about towns in Wisconsin. Please see Political subdivisions of Wisconsin. I personally feel it unneccesary to put orphan tags on articles about local units of governments. Thanks- RFD ( talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

stepping in: If they have nothing linking to them, how will people find them? Shoombooly ( talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: Responded on RFD's talk page. -- Avocado ( talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

What's the purpose of tagging them as orphans? Do you plan to work on them? Don't expect someone at WikiProject Wisconsin to work on them, because there are very many articles similar to them. Royal broil 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

There are several dedicated volunteers at the Orphanage working on adding links to orphaned articles. -- Avocado ( talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Adding -- the backlog of these articles is actually not as huge as you might expect. Most Wisconsin (and other state) location articles are not orphaned due to the use of navigation templates. There appear to be a small minority that do not have these templates and are unlinked-to. -- Avocado ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It does not matter when someone starts deorphaning it, the point is that it should be visible as orphaned. Also, this should encite the author(s) of orphaned pages to either deorphan themselves, or to try harder not to start articles as orphans. Wikipedia cannot exist of unlinked pages. WP:BTW wasn't created for no reason. Shoombooly ( talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I can see your point about the navigation templates and I am trying to add them as needed to the various Wisconsin local government articles. I am also adding notable people, attractions, municipality websites, etc., if possible to these articles. I thank you for your kind and patience. RFD ( talk) 00:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, RFD. Do you object to my continuing to tag the articles? I've been doing so as part of clearing out a 5-year-old backlog, and the tagging may also help you out by attracting the attention of the de-orphaning team to help with adding links.

Naturally, nobody will object to removal of the tags once there are three other qualifying articles linking to the article. There is also, as you may have noticed, a bot that runs around removing tags from articles that it can confirm are no longer orphans.

BTW, you're doing some pretty impressive work with those articles! -- Avocado ( talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, if you find a clump of orphan Wisconsin community articles, please be sure to let RFD or me know, since we work with the county templates that those communities are supposed to be listed on. Nyttend ( talk) 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it would be great to collaborate on this. I'm currently going slowly through a list of about 3500 articles that were orphaned as of 5 years ago. About 95% are false positives, but a decent percentage of the hits are Wisconsin towns. They should be showing up at a rate of a few per week for the next couple months, and dropping into Category:All_orphaned_articles (as well as the monthly categories for either general orphans or geographic orphans). Maybe the best thing to do would be to run a bot through there when we're done and make a list of all articles with "Wisconsin" in the title, so you don't have to monitor or comb through the list? -- Avocado ( talk) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

RFD and Nyttend stold my thunder. All of these orphans need to be added to a county template because they should have been added originally when those county templates were set up. I might be able to use an AWB to comb through the titles for the word Wisconsin. Let me know when you're done with creating the list. Sorry that I got bitchy. I know what it's like to do a thankless task. Thank you for doing this tedious task! Royal broil 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Are we allowed to remove non-orphaned articles from the list? I follow county templates nationwide, and I've already added to templates one from Minnesota and some from New York. Nyttend ( talk) 06:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course! And thank you! BTW, if you're doing this nationwide, you may be interested in the new Category:Orphaned articles about a place. It uses a new tag that not everyone's familiar with yet, so not all the place orphans are going in there just yet, but it may be worth your keeping an eye on. -- Avocado ( talk) 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

[unindent] I've removed several kilobytes of community names. You may note that I've not removed any Maine communities, as Maine doesn't have any county templates (yet :-) Nyttend ( talk) 14:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I went through the unincorporated communities of Wisconsin and added navigation templates as needed- there were 134 of them. I watch the WikiProject Wisconsin of new articles that are coming up so I will keep my eyes out. As for the cities, towns, and villages of Wisconsin I am not sure of what has navigational templetes or not. Thanks- RFD ( talk) 16:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I went through the census designation places of Wisconsin 44 of them: they all had navigational templates. However, in several of the CDPs I had to do redo the WikiProject Wisconsin template in the talk pages because of some redirects. Is this a problem? Thanks- RFD ( talk) 16:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You guys rock! =) -- Avocado ( talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! There were towns in Polk and St. Croix Counties, Wisconsin that did not have navigational templates that I had added on. Also there were 3-4 existing Wisconsin town articles that were not on the templates that I was able to add on. When the list of Wisconsin local government-cities, villages, cities becomes available that are orphans becomes available, would you please make the list available at the WikiProject Wisconsin page? Thanks again- RFD ( talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. I'll probably put in a bot request to run off a list.

Nyttend, would you find something similar to be useful for the rest of the states? -- Avocado ( talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know what you're asking me to do, sorry. I have gone through the list that you gave me, and all communities are now linked. May I delete the page? Nyttend ( talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, I just thought that list would be of interest to you. I hadn't had a chance to actually review it yet, so if they're all linked, please feel free to delete it. Thanks!

The other question was whether when we run a bot through the Orphaned Articles category to find orphaned Wisconsin articles for RFD, you'd be interested in our doing the same for other states for your use? -- Avocado ( talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think I'd have time to work with all these communities yet. I'd like to continue placing county templates (only Maine, Montana, and four New Hampshire counties remain), and there are probably lots of such communities. I'd be fine with running a bot to do this, and I think it's a good idea (I'd like to participate in the future) to do now, so that we can see how much there is to do. By the way, about that page you showed me: I did find the list interesting, so I went through all of them; it was easy, since there were only sixty something pages linked. Nyttend ( talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, when you find Maine communities that aren't orphans, would you be willing (a) to leave them there, or (b) move them to their own section? It's helpful having these links, since some of these communities (even the non-orphans) aren't listed on the articles about their counties, and since Maine has no county templates yet. Nyttend ( talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I won't leave non-orphans there, but I can try to collect the Maine ones somewhere. Thanks for all your help clearing those location articles from the list! -- Avocado ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

[unindent] By all means, yes, please. Bibb City is an exception: I've looked at it before, and it doesn't get a template because it's part of another city. Nyttend ( talk) 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

By the way, I just noticed your Maine page; since you say it's for my use, do you mind if I modify it? Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Looking at the long orphans page, I note that you had to rework the HI section at the top of the page because I merged it with H. Should I avoid merging little sections from now on? Nyttend ( talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Nah, it's not a big deal. Just put that note there because I didn't want to shuffle around the entire table layout and didn't know how to merge table cells in wikisyntax instead. Let's leave no less than one list per letter, though. Thanks for all your help with that list! -- Avocado ( talk) 14:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Winthrop, ME, etc.

I'd advise just leaving a comment on his talk page: he's been around for two years, but all his edits (except two) have been made this month, so he's probably misunderstanding those templates — I myself don't view it as him just deleting templates, since the edits you showed me plainly demonstrate that he thinks he's deorphaning them. Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Maine

I've placed templates on all Maine communities that I can find, including all on the long orphans page that you've done so much on, and all that are on your page that you extracted for me. Since you said that you created that subpage for me, and since I have no more use for it, would you like me to delete it? Nyttend ( talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Like with other states, the Maine county templates are part of a separate project: it's not simply to help the Orphanage :-) but I'm glad that it can help a lot. I definitely don't think it's good for an article about a community to be forgotten! Thanks so much for your work with this orphans list, both for helping the county-template-placing process and in general. By the way, I've nominated the orphaned William Hetherington case for deletion; would you be willing to comment on it? Nyttend ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Some articles are linked from List of New Testament uncials, and Categories of New Testament manuscripts, but this is another list, although looks like article. But article Codex 2427 is linked only from one list. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) On fr-wiki and ru-wiki one link is enough (someone removed tag, not me). On pl-wiki orphans are not marked. It is also good an opportunity to read an articles, if the subject is interessting for me, and improve language. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, it was me! Thanks a lot for your welcome message, anonymous Avocado! Regards from Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs in Mexico City. -- correogsk ( talk) 04:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 10:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I thought I had replaced the stub tag with a more relevant one. My internet cuts out sometimes(thank you college internet access). It must not have saved my changes. Undead Warrior ( talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I reverted those 5 edits. I'll put an exclusion in for pages starting with "Library of Congress Classification:". Are there other patterns also? -- JLaTondre ( talk) 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Glad to see you're finally official! -- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi- I was wondering if you came across any more Wisconsin towns articles that need templates. I came across the town of Waupun article-Fond du lac County that needed one. Also some editor redirected an article about the town of Hartford in Washington County, Washington to the city of Hartford article same county. I had to ask an administrator to revert that change. The ongoing problem is that people want to merge Wisconsin town articles with the corresponding articles about Wisconsin villages-cities. The Wisconsin towns are separate municipalities along with the cities&towns. If there is any Wisconsin towns that needed templates please let myself know. This is also includes articles about Wisconsin cities-villages-unincorporated communities. Again my thanks- RFD ( talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your comment and help- RFD ( talk) 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason why I removed to orphaned article template from the articles are listed below:-

• Edinburgh Record PM - removed template because it can only have a link from the main Daily Record (Scotland) article page, as this paper is an off-shoot of the main Daily Record paper.
• 3 mobile tv (UK) - removed it because it contains information only mentioned in the main 3 page.
• Sleight Out of Hand (CSI: NY episode) - This article refers to an episode of CSI:NY, surely if this article is deemed to be orphaned, then why are most of the pages containing information about a single episode of a TV programme not classed as orphaned articles?

Please could you respond to my usertalk page regarding what happens to articles which only link to one or two pages due to the nature of the content on the page. - Dreamweaverjack ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Does this mean that the articles which can only ever have one linking article to them should ideally be merged in as a section on the bigger article which links to them (if possible), as is possibly the case of Edinburgh Record PM? - Dreamweaverjack ( talk) 21:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey. I was just reading up on the Library of Congress, saw the tag about deorphaning the classification pages (like Library of Congress Classification:Class Q -- Science), and logged in (I try not to...too addictive...) to remove the tag because I can't imagine that there would be any reason for anything in the entire universe except the other Library of Congress classification articles to link to it. This is a very, very specific-purpose article. If there are some new rules about deorphaning that I'm not familiar with (possible), could you let me know? Because I think otherwise labeling these is counterproductive in that they'll never be cleared. Thanks. (I asked User:JLaTondre first and he suggested I bring this up with you.) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm going to be largely ignoring Wikipedia for a while, since I don't need the extra source of stress in my life. Please do not be offended if I do not repond to your comment immediately. -- Avocado ( talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, we noticed you haven't been around en.wiki for awhile, so you've been moved to the WikiProject Orphanage Inactive list. We hope you'll come back, move your name back to the active list, and get back to de-orphaning real soon! Aervanath ( talk) 18:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

While that was a canned message, I just wanted to let you know that I personally miss having you around and active on the project. I'm sorry Wikipedia was a source of stress in your life, and I hope your other sources of stress are taken care of soon so that you can come back and join us. You were a real credit to the project. Yours,-- Aervanath ( talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've sort of taken over coordinator duties of the Orphanage since Aervanath's departure. I too hope to see you add your name back on the active list. -- œ ^™ 05:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Your contributions have been noticed and appreciated. Keep up the good work ;) œ ™ 05:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The RFK Bridge article was renamed Triborough Bridge. See Talk:Triborough Bridge#Proposal To Change Improper Article Title; Triborough Bridge Is Common-Use Name According to Wall Street Journal. for details. - Denimadept ( talk) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I won't argue. -- Avocado ( talk) 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Honestly, I already tried. Then I found out that it wasn't worth arguing about after speaking with some NYC'ers. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm a New Yorker, and I call it the Triborough, never the RFK, but I thought since that was the official name (including on road signs) it was what we should use. Wasn't aware there had been an official discussion on WP. -- Avocado ( talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Avocado, I see you're not especially active these days, but I noticed you tagged Bluffton Beavers football with a merge request almost a year ago without starting a discussion section on the talk page to argue the proposal. Are you still interested in seeing that merge happen? I'm inclined to remove such stale tags, but I wanted to first see if you wanted to carry forth with that one. Also, if you're interested, I'm trying to forge a codified approach to stale merge tags at WT:Proposed mergers#Proposals without discussion. Thanks! I'm with the new WikiProject Merge, and settling this general issue would go a great way to helping us manage our massive backlog. Best, BDD ( talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't particularly care about the merge, but it seemed logical. I probably encountered the article in a list of articles that needed wikifying, and thought it made more sense to merge than to stand alone in its current state. -- Avocado ( talk) 14:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Avocado. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English calamity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kappel. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

hey bro thanks for helping me am new to coding so it was kinda hard for me DutchHistoryNerdWW2 ( talk) 19:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My pleasure! As a next step, I recommend adding some sources and citations to your article to help ensure it's retained and to encourage others to help continue to expand it. -- Avocado ( talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Ill try i used the military Wiki to get a source so ill try to do that DutchHistoryNerdWW2 ( talk) 19:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Sounds like you're on the right track. Good luck! -- Avocado ( talk) 19:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Just did thank u for ur advice

If u have any freetime could u then help me DutchHistoryNerdWW2 ( talk) 19:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not really a subject I have much interest or expertise in, but if you ask on the Talk page of the military history wikiproject, you might find someone who'd be interested in a collaboration. There's also a mentorship project where you might be able to get some general purpose help as a new editor. -- Avocado ( talk) 19:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks i just did DutchHistoryNerdWW2 ( talk) 21:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Greetings. With regard to the Heaviside condition, it is a hypothetical curiosity that no transmission line has ever come close to meeting. It is one of my back burner projects to "fix" that article.

R/L = G/C seems cool, except R and G are strong functions of frequency and L becomes a strong function of frequency if you add any magnetic material. It is simply impossible to meet the Heaviside condition over any appreciable frequency range.

And then there is the problem that G/C is about 8 orders of magnitude less than R/L. You just cannot change any of these parameters that much.

The following is copied from my sandbox:

The loaded cable section discusses the Heaviside condition and shows approximations that are valid for cables operating under the Heaviside condition. However, no practical transmission line was ever operated under the Heaviside condition, hence the mathematical approximations are not valid for a typical loaded line. I intend to cut that section back to what is true. That means most of the section.

The plot shows impedance ratios for a typical coaxial cable with three different dielectric insulations. The good curve is typical of modern high quality foam insulation. The medium curve is typical of gutta-percha. The low curve is typical of pulp insulation.

The blue curve is the ratio R/(ωL). At low frequency, R is a constant dominated by the dc resistance, R_DC. In the low frequency domain, R/ωL decreases as 1/ω. Around 100 kHz, skin effect becomes dominant and R/ωL decreases as 1/ω^0.5

The red curves are G/(ωC). At very low frequency, G is a constant dominated by the dc conductance, G_DC. In the very low frequency domain, G/ωC decreases as 1/ω. At some low frequency, which depends on the dielectric, loss tangent takes over and G/ωC→loss tangent, which is more or less a constant.

The Heaviside condition is satisfied where the blue curve touches a red curve.

Loading the transmission line increase inductance. The effect is to push the blue curve toward the left.

Constant314 ( talk) 22:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Constant314! May I ask, instead, how you would describe the topic in a short description? It's totally fine if my versions are incorrect. I'm just trying to get a short description, any short description, onto the page. One written by someone who understands the topic in some depth would be ideal. I just add one that reflects my understanding based on lede and categories -- in the hope that if it's not correct, someone like you who's interested in the topic will come around and replace it with one that is more correct, rather than removing it entirely. Is that something you might consider trying to do? -- Avocado ( talk) 22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I have been giving that some thought. It is just that I say it like it is I might get sucked into an edit war. However, I will try to come up with an accurate, but not misleading, and not provocative description. The only problem with that is it might not be short. Constant314 ( talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no interest in an edit war, and promise not to edit the short description again. I do see you've put one up there -- really appreciate it! -- Avocado ( talk) 23:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, let's see if it lasts. Constant314 ( talk) 23:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a person using Italian mobile IPs targeting articles about towers and buildings who is engaged in long term abuse, they are not sincere, they frequently engage in vandalism with sometimes non-vandalism to confuse people. Every edit they make should be reverted. It's been almost daily for months. User_talk:93.147.210.61 first section they wrote. I agree about conversion to templates as it makes it easier to spot their vandalism, one of their favorite edits is removing those templates. -- Green C 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up! I just noticed a couple of their edits being reverted on articles that hadn't had conversion templates in the first place, and figured it was a good excuse to put the templates in. Glad someone's looking out for that vandalis! (With that sort of thing, it makes you wonder why the vandal even bothers....) -- Avocado ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply