Re your comments on my Talk page, I posted replies to Ericsback both on my Talk page (at 11:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)) and his (at 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)), before I requested help. I will now bung something on the Talk page for Enfield Town F.C. as well. I will also remove the unverifiable POV stuff. On my Talk page Ericsback admits some of the stuff he posted is point of view and says, 'If you look at what has been written, it merely states the point of view of many fans in the Enfield area as to the motivation of those who set up ETFC and at no time does it claim this to be "fact".' The problem is I don't want to get struck out for keeping on removing the same stuff but even the person who posts it admits it isn't verifiable.
Anyway, thanks for your help. I am fairly new to this and could quite frankly do without the confrontation. Jancyclops ( talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for beginning the process of straightening out the refs. I'm not a great technology person, having come out of the print world, but I'll try to chip in on that. Thanks, also, for the DYK nom. Enjoy your weekend. As always, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've sent a couple of messages to you, having made the suggested changes to the article. Since I haven't heard from you, i fear you've grown weary of it. I've tried to remove any subjective tone that gives it an infomercial feel, added inline citations from sources that addressed only Sabetti, removed references to his works in the article, and cut it to bare bones. I understand if you've tired of this article, and so I would just ask that you let me know either way. I value your input; you really know the "rules of the road" and you've been extremely gracious to me. If you'd rather not comment anymore, I guess I'll just try the help desk. I hope you have the time/patience, but... Thanks again for all your help!! -- LEMspare ( talk) 11:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)-- LEMspare ( talk) 11:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
hello, your block on 211.120.229.142 due to vandalism just expired and needs to be lengthened- I just removed vandalism in FN P90 by this individual thanks 137.149.226.94 ( talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, and thanks for all your help with Newspapers. Here's one I've been adding to in drips and drabs, and hope to focus on soon. It's skeletal right now, but I think you'll agree has potential because of the subject matter. Have a lovely weekend. [1] Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 04:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who added the then non-existant link for the American Civic Association to the Binghamton shootings article. I was expecting that someone would remove it before anyone would actually create the article, but I was wrong! Thanks for your contribution. -- Tocino 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would wish to inform you that User:Comingattractions, who I believe was a suspected sockpuppeteer engaged previously in page-move warring of same, is back again. Xhe recently moved the article to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident without discussion. Although I am totally neutral about this move/name, I am a bit disturbed that xhe has executed this move by stealth. What's more, the edit summary blatantly alleged the lack of good faith. Kindly advise what should be done. Thanks, Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that simply reverting the talk page to a prior version is not the way to go about this. By doing so you are removing the page move discussion and any edits made after archiving. If there is information removed that is not included in the archive as you allege, then point our where it was removed (again, show me, using diffs) and I will attempt to restore it to there (depending on what it is of course, there are proper, though limited, reasons for removing certain talk page posts). If you truly object to the archiving itself, then I don't think it would be a problem to restore a relevant portion of past discussion on the move issues to the talk page. But you have to do that properly, by removing the information from a time point of the archive manually, and then restoring it to the talk page without removing later discussion. I will do this for you if it sounds too complicated; just tell me the restoration point.
With regard to users with "vendettas on here trying to get it removed, consolidated, and merged with meaningless or seemingly trivial ones", again you have to be specific and transparent. But even if this is true, what in the world does this have to do with the name of the article? We are not here about any proposed deletion of the article, any mergers and so on. We are here about the move war of the article from one name to another, the lengthy discussion that ensued, and your apparent wish that the article be at a different name following my move to "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings" after closing the requested move request.
You're third "point" has no discernible thread to it and is troubling. You won't make a move request but will simply act without discussion because "[rant about users, hijackers, craziness; personal attack]" Well, I am now going to reverse your out of process page move (again) and I will act to make the move targets dificult for you to repeat this move again. In this, I am acting to protect you from yourself. Your present actions can only lead to getting yourself in trouble. Calm discussion is the order of the day. It is what we do here when things are contentious. The underlying point throughout your post that you will continue to do as you please without discussion is perfectly suited to obtaining the opposite result from your goal. Please reconsider taking further unilateral actions. I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if you told me making a move request presents a technical barrier for you. I will help you make a further move request if you want. Simply ask and provide a rationale for why the article should me moved to the other name and I will make the request.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know it's been moved again, and by the same user. I don't want to make waves, and I don't object to the title, but the fact that xhe has gone another 'out of process move' bugs me, as xhe is responsible for several times during the 18 moves which this article has been through. I asked for comment and patiently for two months for feedback, and along comes this rather bullying editor who moves it in within days of it acquiring a new title. I'm tempted to let this one ride, as xhe may be doing this deliberately to
bait. Then, there is the diatribe above is just plain insulting.
Ohconfucius (
talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, it's been moved again and to another different title, and by the same user. Now I see why it was moved 18 times in rapid succession in the early days of its life. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I will create a new page specifically referencing the Binghamton ACA and update the shooting articles accordingly, but the article you created is for an organization that not longer exists. Not that that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry, of course. But your intent was to create one referencing the Binghamton organization. The Binghamton ACA is not a "chapter" or "affiliate" or even closely related in any way, shape, or form to the organization you wrote the article about.
-- Dcamin ( talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Dcamin ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Fuhghettaboutit. :) I'd like to know if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this case, and doing a review of the report for me, then commenting on the case. Comingattractions might need his block increased to indef. Thanks. Syn ergy 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, Fuhghettaboutit, I am having some revision troubles and neutrality issues with the Rick Berman page. I could use an administrator. There is one or two users who are particurally engaging in edit wars and have undone edits, ignored talk pages, and despite my paragraphs of attempts in explaining, they have continued to inject poorly sourced information, opinionated criticisms (on a living person), and the sources are often improperly synthesized and or are very dubious; such as an email or an IRC chat. I added the page to a notice board of biographies of living persons, but I could really use some backing from an administrator. I have detailed notes on the talk page. I have been working on that page for months, on and off, and that criticism section has been a source of contention for a very long time. Thanks in advance. -- ☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the Rp template. kilbad ( talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to the proposals section of the Village Pump when I posted at the help desk. p.s. I like your name. Arnie-speak is a riot. :) -- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Sorry about that. I saw a redirect on a talk page without a corresponding redirect on the article page and deleted it without realising that it may have been placed there for another purpose. I have restored it. Cheers. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the 1999 version yet? I forgot to bug you about that. ;-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this image that is in public domain by the maker of the photo because there is no credit to the photo. All I need to do is add the proper right to the page. Can you help? Kingrock 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Kingrock 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Awwww ... come on Fuhghettaboutit, tell us how you really feel about the resolved tag. ;). Cheers buddy, hope life is treating you well. — Ched : ? 07:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thanks so much for telling me that photo was a daddy long legs. I can't quite believe how I didn't noticed it myself... they're very common! I found another unknown spider and am offering another barnstar for its identification. Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Female pool players. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! It is really appreciated. -- GandalftheWise ( talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I wanted. Please remove the helpme template by replacing it with { { tlx|helpme}}. Thanks. -- GandalftheWise ( talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing this fine day? Hey, I was looking over the Larry Sanger article (and left notes on talk page). I remembered you helping before, and I'm not asking you to copyedit the article, it would be too much of a hassle in the long run I think. What I was wondering though, is the info you gave me on how to cite paragraphs, sentences, etc. Do you have a link to anything that would reinforce what I'm getting at on the talk page? I'd like to do a little cleanup on the article, but all things considered, I'd like to have something to back up what I'm doing. I know about the wp:cite/wp:ref page - do you have anything further that might help me? Thanks, Ched. — Ched : ? 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (hey, you archived your talk page ... lol)
Fuhghettaboutit has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
Good job Greglocock ( talk) 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring/moving Iranian calendar to its right place.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I would be grateful if you would grant me rollback permission. I find myself doing rollbacks the long way, fairly frequently, and the tool would be a help. Much obliged for your consideration. Tim Ross (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. My name is Igor Kekeljevic, BA of Fine Arts and GUI designer. I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm appologize if I'm doing something against Wikipedia policy. I wish to talk about Phatch. This is photo batch software made by Stani Michels.
I found this message
At November last year, Phatch didn't deserve a place in Wikipedia, but since then it was very dinamic period for Phatch. I admit I have a personal reasons for requesting Phatch to be a part of Wikipedia, because I contribute to this project. Still I belive that it deserve a place in Wikipedia.
Can Phatch get a page on Wikipedia? If answer is no, what can be done to achieve this?
Regards, Igor Kekeljevic
Kekeljevic ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to my question about speedy deletion. I was quite involved with Wikipedia a few years ago and felt that I knew how it worked. When Darryl mentioned that his page had been speedy deleted twice by different administrators I suggested he ask about it on the Help Desk. My recollection was that speedy deletion was something that was used only in noncontroversial cases, such as obvious junk, copyright infringement, etc. It sounds like times have changed and perhaps the role of Administrator has changed from "trusted executioner of the will of the community and impartial judge of disputes" to "policeman".
It's good to know that this is still a matter of policy debate. I'll see if I can find that discussion and contribute my 10 cents to it. I'll also get Darryl to talk it over nicely with the administrator in question, hopefully get it restored, and put a Under Construction template on the page while he demonstrates to everyone's satisfaction the cellphone network's notability. (He appears quite prepared to do that!)
Ben Arnold ( talk) 00:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed your denial of speedy on Nicki Minaj. You probably should delete it CSD G12 anyways because this website claims copyright (and probably actually owns it). Let me know what you think. Thank you, ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated CUEGLOSS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Zigger «º» 09:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help,man Isamukage 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Thanks for the reply in Wikipedia Help Desk Subash.chandran007 ( talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit … Some Other Editor thought that "has been" was better than "was" in {{ Oldprodfull}}, and at the time, I agreed, but the more I think about it, your revert to my original language is, in fact, better. <Sigh!>
Happy Editing! — 141.156.164.7 ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Kekeljevic ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank You for restoration of article. I'll contact some people to work on article (because my English has a little bit of Engrish :-) ) and make it less spammy and more acceptable for Wikipedia. I please editors of Wikipedia to have little patience till we edit article in optimal form.
Thank for fast respond...
Regards, Igor Kekeljevic
93.86.175.138 ( talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[[/it did make perfect sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcirish ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if this is where you meant for me to write this, but I'm new to wikipedia, so please excuse my ignorance, for I intend no offense. You deleted my page Bombatpage, why? and is there any way to resurrect it? 81928S ( talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81928S ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't think I will be posting my Bombat article on unencyclopedia. Everything written in my article was indeed fact. All of my material was compiled through peer collaboration, from a base of 15 schools spread throughout three states. The material put forth, while not a hoax, could be interpreted as a joke, so I do understand your position. However, I think that this phenomenon, if you will, is definitely large enough to be over-looked as a joke, and have a place in the encyclopedia. This was my justification in adding it to Wikipedia, it was never meant as an act of vandalism. 81928S ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I did a lot of google searches on this one, but the most blatant part of it is that he scored a goal on May 13, 2009. As in tomorrow. Unless he has some sort of time travel device, unlikely. And they lost their last game on 5/9/2009 3-0, so he didn't score then either.-- Terrillja talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear, um...., Fuhghettaboutit (I love this name!!!!)- thank you so much for your image assistance. I am really happy to came by so speedily. Now that I have seen this I know how to do it in the future. Thanks, again. Basket of Puppies 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I saw your comment here. I knew that I had removed a number of those that you subsequently also did, so I did some checking in the edit history. Our friend Grawp edited an old revision and messed up the page, which has since been fixed. Just thought I'd let you know we're not getting lazy :) Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, under my talk page, I see my article listed "BringIt.com", however, when I search for my article..."BringIt.com", No sucj luck? Why is this? If my article is safe to post and be viewed by the public, why is it that I cannot search for it in the tool bar? If you could help me out I'd be VERY appreciative. Thanks in advance!! Vertz22 ( talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Sarah16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fuhghettaboutit-I would very much appreciate help with my issue/confusion. I'm willing to edit/change anything if my article isn't suitable. I've revised and my confusion is the matter of searching for my article by name. Any advice/suggestions? I'd appreciate your help/input. Thank you very much, ur help is always appreciated as I can see here. Thanks again!!! ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Numerous users come here everyday seeking to spam Wikipedia to promote their products, their companies and often themselves. Encyclopedia articles must be written using neutral language and neutral facts, rather than pumping up a product; glossing over any criticism; using peacock language and other problems endemic to these tyoes of articles. A very common hallmark is writing in a first person narrative using possessive pronouns (we, I, our products). Articles should not be written by people who have a conflict of interest, in that they are involved with the subject of the article. As we often say here, if a subject is notable, someone unaffiliated with the subject will eventually write an article. On that secondary point, it may be that even if the article is neutrally worded, no longer appearing as blatant advertising, Wikipedia should not have an article on it because it does not meet our notability guidelines. Notable does not mean the same thing here as it does in everyday speech. Here it means, generally, being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. We have a subject specific notability for web pages at WP:WEB applicable to the article topic you have posted. Thus, even if you post the article in a non-blatant version, it may be deleted on that basis. I hope this note is helpful to you. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Chzz ► 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway - I'm doing all that I can to source a pic of William.
In the meantime, that one is great - and later, it will probably still be useful further down the article.
Cheers! Chzz ► 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your assistance in the matter of the article I'm developing in my sandbox on NanoScale Corp. I was pleasantly surprised, while editing and adding more ref's, to find my refs had been fixed, reformatted and my table of contents was finally where it is supposed to be (how'd you do that by the way? ...for future ref....) Your help has been invaluable. I have been trying to cut, and plan to add small bits of info back, but abiding by wiki etiquette and writing a good wiki is my priority. I could not accomplish such without your help, and that of a few others. So thanks again! NHearn ( talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing... how do I add an image to my wikipedia article? I've been directed all over, including w.commons, but am a bit lost. Thx!
NHearn (
talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! Hope your week goes well! NHearn ( talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying my best. I realize that my writing is rough around the edges. I wasn't going to include any of these white papers at all, except for the fact that it was recommended to me by a wikipedian to use some of them as a reference, and I'm not quite sure, as far as wikipedia goes what is expected to be included and what is not. This is very frustrating, especially considering that I'm NOT an english major, in fact, I don't even know what Prose is, (will have to look that up...thought it was some type of poetry style). Anyways. I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. But please respect the fact that I am still new and naturally I wouldn't know about these things, and it will take me time to understand, which is the whole reason I have not yet posted it outside of my sandbox, so that it won't be torn to shreds within seconds. I appreciate the tips on useful/helpful articles, and am trying to do this properly, but attacks do not encourage me to want to continue this process. However, tips, like the ones you have offered do help. So, please continue to be patient and be kind. Don't bite. Thank you. NHearn ( talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
WONDERFUL!!;) THIS is something I can go from. I probably sound like an idiot, but considering the gargantuan complexity of Wikipedia it is easy to get lost in the writing (formatting) of an article, and begin regressing intellectually. Yes, I see what you're saying, and I know my article is missing a body altogether, but no matter how hard I try write a neutral tone body, I keep coming across roadblocks. Even the two wikis you'd attached sound a lot like advertisements. I know I need to stay on the neutral tone and just tell the facts. Unfortunately, every time I start writing, it sounds wrong. I'm presently trying to do some research on the background and history of this entity and hopefully give this piece life instead of dry bones. Thank you again.
NHearn (
talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This did occur to me, and I hesitated - I probably reject about 30% of the typo fixes AWB finds. However I still think this is probably optional, see Wiktionary and Google. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
File:Betsy1901.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Betsy1901.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Betsy1901.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you aren't notable. But who decides who is important, you? This guy is only 20 and just plays soccer. I'm an Information Architect for a Fortune 100 company. Thousands of people are exposed to and affected by my work every day. This is not to mention decades of past accomplishments: Noted San Diego, CA (6th largest city in the USA) musician; noted Santa Fe, NM health business owner; influential Character Education and Pledge of Allegiance activist, etc, etc, etc. Listen, what's the problem here? Changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (Irish Footballer) solves the problem simply with no harm to WP users or the subject.-- Kcornwall ( talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I respectfully submit that you are under a gross misapprehension of what the matter is here. I have no interest in self-aggrandizement. I have never had any intention of posting an article about myself. If you read the edit summary, you'd see that I only considered it because it was offered as the only reason for a disambiguation.
Moreover, making personal aspersions is a shameful way to make a point that should be objective. You talk disenchantment with self-importance, yet, you yourself deign to declare that a young guy who plays soccer is more notable than, say, a fireman or nurse, who never mentioned by the media, saves lives every day! If this is about editors and not about their subjects, then certainly, I should be the one disgusted with the tawdriness of what appear to be your personal values.
That line of argument is petty and unproductive - and most likely ends up just plain wrong! For my part, I'm willing to entertain that you may not be directly at fault in this. The notability guidelines themselves possibly need to be more clear. I see now that this is a bigger problem that isn't only affecting me. If this can't be resolved in a win-win, then perhaps I need to start editing the guidelines, if that is where unclear priorities are stemming from (indeed, there is a lot of undefined "substantially" sprinkled throughout). In any case, because a much vaster number of people are more important than what the media or the surface of modern American culture glorifies, I would propose at least this: All articles about people require preemptive disambiguation unless that person's name is not a household word in most countries of the world. Kevin Cornwall, whose only accomplishment being on a soccer team in Ireland, where he is no star, would qualify and the matter settled before it could cause friction.
Again, F, this little fight is silly. Simply changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (soccer player) solves the problem, simply - no harm to WP readers or the subject, himself. More importantly, the advantage to readers who search for information about a dozen other Kevin Cornwalls is that they won't be misdirected. (Did I mention that I'm a veteran user experience design professional. Even the chance of this kind of ambiguity on a business site would never pass first muster). Kcornwall ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
The Goat Star | ||
For contributions to
Caprinae
Solidarius Lance Corporal
William Windsor salutes you! |
The award is documented in
User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress
William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!
Chzz
► 22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I got pissed off when I went to www.trustedopinion.com and saw "As Featured on Wikipedia" minutes after the article was created. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish/Ground billiards. Some parts of it are commented out pending further research. The digging has been interesting. For one thing (not covered at that draft article), I believe that I can show very clearly that trucco is not just some random split-off of ground billiards, but is actually closely related to table billiards, because Stein & Rubino reprint two old woodcuts that show a ring, not an arch, being used as a table-billiard target. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Your statement from AfD today: "[...] If this doesn't meet WP:BK I don't know what does (and I wrote WP:BK). This should be snowed."
I fail to see how this is not simply "a rephrasing of the title". I'm a fan of roads and road articles, but this just seems silly. -- NE2 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh shallow one LOL I've replied. Best Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing these days? I'm not asking ... well ... yea, I guess I am. But if you ever need a break from your work here, I sure wouldn't mind you looking at something I did a while back. I did my best when I first started, to draft something up, and I'd love to have it looked at someday when you'd be in the mood to just relax and copyedit. It's kind of an essay, and if you'd be interested, I'd be very grateful if you could add some improvements to: User:Ched Davis/communication. I know it's not part of improving the 'pedia ... but just a thought. Hope all is well on your end. Cheers my friend. ;) — Ched : ? 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, I think some of the trouble on the discussion of the unreferenced template is two very distinct views of the audience of the cleanup tags. I think you are probably viewing the cleanup tag as informing heavily opinionated editors or editors with conflicts of interest that the burden of proof is on them. I think most of the other people in the discussion (or the ones who are not seeing your point easily and immediately) probably view cleanup tags as encouraging civic minded, librarian types to go hunt down some dusty old books and have fun adding references to pages.
Both viewpoints are valid and important, but I suspect are not understood implicitly or immediately by many people.
I, for instance, more or less only edit mathematics articles, and "unreferenced" is a hugely important tag because mathematics articles are *so incontrovertible* (or so incontrovertibly wrong) that many editors see references as unnecessary. Of course references are hugely useful to researchers and even fairly useful to wiki-gnomes, so these articles sorely need references. There is *no* disputed material in these articles, nor is there ever likely to be any. Its mostly just students copying down theorems from highly standardized textbooks, and the incontrovertibly wrong information comes when they copy it down wrong, or use two books with conflicting conventions. Almost always trivial to fix, and very rarely is there any disagreement.
Luckily I do also do wiki-gnome activities on a huge variety of young (or even just crappy) articles, so I do see lots of BLPs, POV forks, and various contentious articles. While sorting some categories, I even managed to find one that not-so-subtly made every article in it or even not in it a condemnation of one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In subject areas such as these it is all too common for a new stub or POV fork to be unreferenced and just be filled with disputable claims (some of which could be sourced to wikipedia policy, but definitely the sort of statements that should start their wikipedia life sourced).
I suspect that your focus on "burden" is from dealing with these contentious articles, and so you might see people's disagreement (or just confusion) with your proposal as contention, etc. (I mean it might be, I don't know these people, but I suspect it is not). Instead, it might just be that they tend to edit articles where people don't have disputes, and sourcing is part of academic honesty and simple positive improvement of the encyclopedia. Rather than "I defend this statement with this source," it is more like "and if you think this article was exciting, just wait until you read these great books and historical articles!!!"
I think the unreferenced template really does have to speak to both crowds. We have lots of non-contentious articles and on those we need to be inviting people to add references, not warning them that information might be deleted. Of course on some pages, we definitely do need to be warning, so there must be a balance. JackSchmidt ( talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fughetti,
I'm curious about your thoughts on this. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted to do that myself before I added my endorsement, but couldn't work out how to do it. (I'll bet you were thinking this was going to be a complaint . . .) :-) // BL \\ ( talk) 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It was very useful. ɪntə svɛnsk 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Fuh, thanks for keeping such a steady hand with the Hermann Mucke (bioscientist) article. I would not myself have reinserted what had been thrown out (no time for editing wars, or interest in them), but when I found you had reinstated the text with succinct calls for specific facts I went over it again, and this forced me to improve this bio over its first version in terms of traceable sourcing. Its de-tagged now. - I've spent much too much time on this single bio and must urgently catch up with professional matters, so I might not be able to give Wikipedia much attention this week. But thats just one more reason for saying thank you right now! - Glst2 ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had clarified. See the review page. Good work :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a good look through Kelly pool and made a few small changes, and I have to say I think it's a minor masterpiece, a really worthy addition to the encyclopedia. I also have to say though that I think it would struggle at FAC, simply because of the unexplained technical terms like "kitchen", "scratching" and so on. I know they're all properly linked, but reviewers will expect at least a word or two of explanation that doesn't demand following a link to understand what's being said. The formula one articles like the current 2008 Monaco Grand Prix FAC candidate, or the professional wrestling articles, have had to come to terms with the same issue.
Whether you take this to FAC or not, it's still a great article though. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thanks for answering my pro/epilogue question on the Language Reference Desk!-- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to stop by and say thank you. I greatly appreciate your support at my RfA. I knew you would not simply "go along with the supports", and would look to see if my contribs actually were improving. Which does lead me to a second "Thanks", I greatly appreciate all the help you've given me in becoming a better writer as well. I know that I still have a long way to go, but I feel a bit more confident knowing I can always ask for help. Thank you - it's greatly appreciated. — Ched : ? 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Just say "The IP who placed the tag said blah blah blah." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your recent help following my {{ adminhelp}} request. Jdrewitt ( talk) 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Behold: Beauty Rock. Notable? Db-Web? Db-Spam? I'm completely stumped here... - Warthog Demon 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Fuhghettaboutit, You do realize that Google hits (and every other search engine, for that matter) do not make any distinctions regarding word usage, correct? Your reacent asertion "By the way, Google hits, rather than being meaningless, can be an excellent metric to determine common names and whether a subject is the primary topic" is a (unfortunately common)
statistical fallacy. Just because hit counts are easily available doesn't make them reliable or meaningful.
—
V = I * R (
talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the 'colluding' word. Some folks aren't looking things up in their dictionaries. lol. Also, the same user has added at least one footnote to an uncertain blog, which given the depth of the other sourcing, I'm going to remove when I can get around to it. It'd be nice to keep an article on the Fourth Estate to some higher level of sourcing. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm here submitting once againg to request my site be replaced. AGAIN, I've been submitting and looking for a direct response. Please advise before I start my page over. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmoovy Schmoov ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. I did actually put it on my watchlist, mainly because whoever did it was being awfully persistent and reverting a bunch of changes. That being said, I hadn't intended on considering the matter further, mainly because I'm not a tween girl and I don't tend to read articles about the Jonas Brothers. :-) -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 03:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
PsionicsProf: COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT?????!!!!! THAT IS MY ARTICLE AND THAT IS MY SITE!!! WHY SHOULD I WASTE A PERFECT GUIDE POSTED ON A SITE THAT BARELY GETS A SINGLE VISITOR? TelekinesisProf ( talk) 03:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've WP:BOLDly amended WP:RM#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves to clarify, so that other people don't make the same mistake - I hope my amendment doesn't get deleted by the "we can't clutter the page up with too much detail" brigade. PamD ( talk) 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks for your message of yesterday on the help page. I took the liberty of emailing you off site to discuss my probable impending retirement here. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 11,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in
United States legal articles to take a look at
WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
What you can do now:
Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the above article as CSD G4. I'm not sure if you noticed this when you inspected the article history, but I'd previously declined this as a CSD G4 because it was not a substantially identical version to the version deleted at this AfD, as well as fixing some of the concerns raised there.
This was a relatively complicated case, so it seems to have confused a number of administrators (especially given the relentless re-tagging by User:Jimbo online). The critical diff to consider is this one immediately preceding the original AfD: [3]. The argument for deletion was that "[the subject did] not meet the criteria of playing in a fully professional league, only semi-pro".
Please consider these diffs however: [4] [5]. These copies are not substantially identical because the subject was signed to a significantly higher level soccer club. I thought you might want to re-consider the deletion based on these diffs. Thanks. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Do you remember that, mid-June, we spoke about Hermann Mucke (bioscientist)? Well, anyway, somebody has kindly moved our discussion onto the article discussion page.
Looking at the article, I'm still very concerned that it's virtually all built on his own publications; I do think it needs some kind of action - so can you please look back on this one? Cheers, Chzz ► 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That was quick -- Abc518 ( talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Help desk#Fixing a picture. Paint (in Windows) is a great program for beginners, PAINT.net (or whatever it's called) is a little bit more sophisticated, and GIMP goes to the next level. That's why I recommended it to him/her • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I just dropped a reply to your recent comment on the CSD talk page. I wanted to add a personal note that I also love a good debate and appreciate your professionalism in the discussion. I will be off-line for a while. My apologies in advance that I won't be able to promptly reply to your next comment. (Assuming, of course, that you make one and that I have anything useful to say.) Rossami (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was about to decline that speedy which you just deleted. [6] claims to be a mirror site of Wikipedia, so there is no copyvio involved. Regards So Why 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As you appear to be the principal author of this article, I wanted to be certain you were aware that Lope de Barrientos has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still watching the discussion you started about using search engine results. I left some comments, but in short, I think you're doing exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Balabushka, what do you think should be done about the recently added material (see its history)? It is of course unverified and probably unverifiable through any published source and I'm sure it's also correct. I believe in sourcing and verifiability (you know I'm almost fanatical about it) but I feel ambivalence when it comes to this type of material. A family member who adds corrections on personal details is always right, and the context of these edits makes me 100% sure this is really a family member as they claim. They are correcting misinformation and adding vital information from a comprehensiveness point of view, and yet it's still unverifiable and "original research" (I put that in quotes because its very odd to call a family member's own first hand knowledge original research). For example, it's terrible to not be able to include what town Balabushka was from and that it's Belarus rather than Russia, but everywhere he's just listed as "Russian." After I expand the lead, I want to take it to good article nominations but how can I with this unsourced material included?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about your addition of the tag to the article Step (KDE). The article, in it's current form, presents little more than a list of features. The homesite is the best source for such information, since it's up-to-date and accurate. I haven't been adding a lot of references so I may be wrong, but aren't references usually added only for statements that are likely to be challenged? How and where would you add references? Kotiwalo ( talk) 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A SPA has suddenly appeared at the above article wanting to rename the article. He has launched into personal attacks against me for opposing him. I suspect he may be the puppetmaster behind the page-move vandal you blocked earlier. Could I just ask you to keep an eye on the page, please?
You recent GA nomination of exploding cigar passed its GA review. Congrats on your passing good article. -- The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you haven't seen the HD post: I suspect it's a column break, not an error. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence sucks big time:
help please? — Ched : ? 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I think this is better:
I appreciate your support of the alternate proposal. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason I added commas (such as these) is that the current version of the template reads somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously. For example, in
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism
it looks like "Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism" instead of, as it should read,` "You have been blocked for editing". Likewise,
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy
reads like "from editing in accordance with policy" is what you're being blocked from. Perhaps it's not a huge deal (I've been using these templates for months and didn't really notice until tonight, when one jarred me), but nor are the commas incorrect: things don't need to be "separate clauses" to be separated by commas. If commas are a huge problem, can you think of any other possible rewordings? (Any major rewording would probably have to be subject to a lot more discussion, since these templates are so widely used and the current wording was probably settled on a long time ago; commas, on the other hand, are just a tiny change.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's still clunky but it works. However we get rid of the problem entirely by simply removing "In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy". "Blocked" already links to the blocking policy. I imagine someone wanted to make sure the link to the policy page was uber clear by this intentional redundancy. Ha! I just got your nudge as I was writing this.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy, you have been blocked for a period of TIME for REASON.
You did not delete a copyrighted image of a living person. You used a promotional shot of "Lana Lang" from season six of Smallville. This was not a promotional image of "Kristen Kreuk". It was being used by the studio as an illustration of Lana Lang, hence why it was being used as the image of "LANA LANG" over at Lana Lang (Smallville). The fact that some dumb IP decided to try and use it at Kristen Kreuk was not a problem with the image, it was a problem with the IP's use of the image. The image itself was perfectly fine for identifying a fictional character on that fictional character's article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That Hoskins lawsuit material is quite interesting. Dunno if you've seen my response (I think it's on this page now) to your Balabushka family dilemma. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I'm still parsing the old Google Books item. Several interesting bits in that, including a pretty blatant challenge to Cotton's assertion that the game entered England via Italy. Quite an important find, really. PS: Sorry to've been almost entirely absent lately. Been going through a relationship breakup, and have been resultantly cranky (bad mood + Wikipedia = incivility, if you don't really watch yourself). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your conscientious handling of the Newton move, in particular fixing the incoming links. My faith in Wikipedians' willingness to perform routine cleanup after bold moves is somewhat restored :). Hqb ( talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you opposed my request for adminship by saying the following:
[You have been] reverting vandalism without warning the vandals... [You have had] no edits to AfDs no CSD nominations, [and] no reports to WP:AIV.
I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers on how to do these things so, if I don't become an admin, I will know better next time. Thanks! Shark96z ( talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You may want to see the end result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination) as opposed to the decision. (See Saw IV) -- allen四 names 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I guess we wait and see what happens. Thanks for bringing the situation under control. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for erasing your post, and I also wonder whether undoing a troll's edits under wp:deny actually violate wp:deny. → Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I commented at WT:WIZ2#Expansion of Subject page about your recent changes. Just letting you know in case you haven't seen it. Rd232 talk 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have not made any changes to my latest post and I was wondering how it was possible to make BringIt accessible through the search option. If the article meets your standards, would it be possible to make it accessible to users? Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Vertz22
I'm a big Pink Floyd fan, so it came naturally. :-) Dismas| (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your justification is quite absurd and false per WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus of the relevant users was to keep as is. You are not a regular editor of Jewish / Israeli articles, or seem to have an interest in the meither, how can you make a judgement on this? It is not similar to Bastille Day and there are plenty of 'foreign' civil holidays which are left as is. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey I am still learning all these things, thanks for your help -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you thought about creating a Fuhgeddaboudit page. If Lipstick on a pig can have an article, fuhgeddaboudit. I assume you know all the references - I assume Yogi Berra is in there. I'll help! No COI I'm sure. The current link is to espisode 38 of List of Dark Angel episodes. Smallbones ( talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you haven't replied to my response to you on WT:CSD#Second opinion. Please consider doing so. cheers, Rd232 talk 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this for all of us. Excellent move, and hopefully this won't happen again. I'd be honored to fight alongside you any day in the trenches; idiots be wary... Doc9871 ( talk) 08:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reassuring me. I tried to work out why anyone would have done that and thought maybe it was a new user experimenting, then I looked at your user page and decided that it was some sort of mistake. So I Fuhgottaboutit! Best wishes. -- Guillaume Tell 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the moving of this page. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was hoping that you could let me know what I need to change about our page in order to have "BringIt" become search-able. I would appreciate any help you can give me. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you again. Vertz22
Silly bot - I guess that's the face of technological progress! It's not so important to be worth any further bother, but thanks for letting me know for future reference. Knepflerle ( talk) 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
can you copy edit family guy?.-- Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
i hope this is not a bothering but can you copy edit
List of Family Guy cast members, it's in flc.--
Pedro J.
the rookie 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am helping to make the episode list of spongebob an FL and was hopeing you could do what you did with FG.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking for an experienced copy-editor and Pedro J. suggested you to me. Would you be interested in helping me out by copy-editing " The Revenge", which is currently at FAC? Thank you.-- Music 26/ 11 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey never got the chance to say thanks regarding the Live From Across the Pond album page Cjones132002 ( talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks for closing move requests, a mostly thankless job I imagine. Second, thanks for applying wisdom and logic on the cent/penny decision. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
You were instrumental in helping to educate the world on the correct and original song title. Unfortunately, the talk page(s) didn't get shifted. It still says "Talk:Don't Stop Believing", and recently an editor complained about this and the fact that the Talk page for the Glee version redirected there. Is there any way to easily sort the talk page issue out? I appreciate any help you can lend concerning this matter... Doc9871 ( talk) 09:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for informing me about the copy right violation, Here after I will not copy and paste any content from the other websites or portals. give me some guidance for me to create articles. once again thanks for the Warning . Jeganila..........—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeganila ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for copyediting on the ENA article. Much appreciated. Canuck100 ( talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your moving Court of Colonial Affairs to Lifan Yuan. Please also move Talk:Court of Colonial Affairs to Talk:Lifan Yuan. Thanks. -- Pengyanan ( talk) 13:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_January_20#Searching_the_deletion_logs
10 months later, and you are still making people laugh! Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging remarks about the TEA entry. I was concerned about making such a radical rewrite so I was scrupulous about respecting the previous authors' work to the extent possible. I did much the same with Transient global amnesia which was my first effort. You might like it too, but I bring it up to ask a question. In the Discussion of the TGA entry there is a long first-person account including personal info. It is sad enough I don't want to criticize the writer, though it is also so much over the top it could be fake, I can't tell. At least the email ought to be redacted, if not the whole thing. May I ask your opinion, and if it is appropriate, your assistance? Alawa ( talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Alawa ( talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I present you with this barnstar for your work on Pannonica de Koenigswarter's article. Thanks again. Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
Hey there. I see you posted {{ helpme-nq}} to User talk:Thornder. I had a look at Thornder's contribution in here, and actually seems like he just accidentally added {{ helpme}} above the header, so the question is there. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't approach you as an admin often, but this seems appropriate, since you know the situation and can do something about it. Eight-ball needs long-term semi-protection. Virtually every IP edit has to be reverted; non-IP edits rarely have to be reverted; you and I are the only semi-regular, topic-expert watchers of that page; yet we're both too busy to watchdog it constantly, with the result that absolute bullcrap, especially in the World Standardized Rules section, sometimes sits there misinforming our public readership for weeks at a time, even longer. It took me two hours to fix the crap in it today, and this wasn't even long after you'd already reverted some stuff. Bad edits have been slipping under both your radar and mine, and no one else is catching them. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information you left me on my talk page. I have replied to you there in regards to redirecting my article: User talk:Thornder. Please get back to me if you could! I also noticed the above header about me, sorry about that! I've taken a mental note. -- Thornder ( talk) 09:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Fughettabout it, thank you for all your advice this week, can I please ask your help once more? I've moved onto the next book in that series The necromancer) but I have some glitches that i can't resolve, and would really appreciate your guidance! Thank you Zephfya ( talk) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting it out: it was obviously an unusual article the first time I found it with a long passage about the previous generation and yards more text further down.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Template:Infobox mill building - I had't got around to doing it. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to help with this article. I understand your comments about redundancy but I'm not sure the proper form for referencing sources as links and visa versa. Can you give me a clue? Thanks again. Jonvanv ( talk) 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw where you modified Special:NewPages.
Please read Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#I would like an automated way to jump 1 day in, 15 days in, and RANDOM time into the list. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent page moves of Templates in regards to standardizing capitalization has created broken templates in thousands of articles. Fixing these articles would be excessively time consuming and tedious so in the interest of not wasting time, it would be best for you to undo these changes. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. You're helped me before, and I'm hoping you might be able to help me again on another simple issue. On Jimi's page, under "Legal troubles", it mentions his arrest in 1969 for heroin and hashish possession in Toronto. I found the mug shot from this historic arrest, and put it up in the section. Now I'm getting flak from a user and an admin friend of his, RodHullandemu, and they believe the inclusion of the mug shot is both UNDUE and actually WP:COATRACK. I've only made positive changes to WP (my edit history speaks for itself), and I believe these two are trying to perpetuate a fansite with the page. If you don't agree, let me know. If you do agree, please respond on either my page or Rod's under "Jimi Hendrix". If you'd rather punch my freakin' mouth loose than do anything here, I'll understand too. Thanks... Doc9871 ( talk) 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks! -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The user:misconceptions2 is the same as the ip user:188.221.108.172 per this the account is being used to evade a block The IPs/users involved in that article are
User:Admit-the-truth has a history of using sock/meat puppets to push his pov per this afd all the users above are edit the same articles and add the same povs they easily pass the duck test the user has admitted that he is evading his block The user has serious problems with wp:own and adds his own OR and reference them using unrelated references on most of the articles created by the user above-- NotedGrant Talk 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhg, I've been peripherally involved in this, or at least aware of it. I was relieved by your recent block of Misconceptions2, but this sure looks like another of his sockpuppets jumping in immediately after his unblock request was declined. For some reason an analogy to cockroaches springs strongly to mind. Doc Tropics 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Information regarding kab ibn Al Ashraf was removed by user: Notedgrant. Please check this and revert and advice him further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Български360 ( talk • contribs)
This is freaky, but when I'm at your talk page, there is a cube of Master chalk floating above all other content, at lower right, and it links to the article Fair use. No I have not been drinking. Using Safari 4.0.4 under Windows Vista SP 1 x64. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I seek guidance, since you kindly offered, on redirects. Created new article, Argyroxiphium grayanum. That is the scientific name of a Hawaiian plant, common name Pu'u Kukui greensword. I'd like to redirect the common name to the entry. I don't want to interfere with the entry for Pu'u Kukui since that is a place. (This flower is found there, hence the name.) If I follow instructions for creating, say, "Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant)" as a redirect, does that do any good at all for getting my article seen? What would you suggest? BTW you suggested ways to improve my citation skills. I have been trying. I have not figured out what I need to ask about those templates, but it seems they take some getting used to. Not ignoring you. Alawa ( talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If a person is looking for an article on Dorothy Killgallen it's plausible that they will type in a phonetic spelling of the last name, and its also plausible to assume that almost everyone will know how to spell Dorothy. Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant) has no usefulness as a redirect in my opinion because it's extremely implausible that anyone, but for a experienced Wikipedia user, would ever type "(plant)" after the common name in seeking an article on this plant. However, not putting in the apostrophe seems quite plausible to me, so a redirect from Puu Kukui greensword should probably be created. And putting a space in between green and sword also seems plausible, so maybe there should be redirects at both Pu'u Kukui green sword and Puu Kukui green sword. As for the included question, creating a redirect at Pu'u Kukui greensword will have no effect whatsoever on Pu'u Kukui.
The subtext of your question, how to get the article seen, I can also help with. The best ways I know are:
This is pretty amazingly helpful. I am working through the list of suggestions. Thank you for the nomination, a completely unexpected bonus! Mahalo Nui (trans: Thanks a lot) Alawa ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't just revert changes en masse. There were a lot of factual errors and typos that I fixed in my edits. As for the extraneous information, there are already articles on both Argyroxiphium and the silversword alliance, which are linked to on the page, and the parts that I took out aren't specific to A. grayanum. If you think they're not addressed there, then it would be better to work those sections into the other articles. KarlM ( talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Karl, I hope you will look at my new entry for the Mauna Kea silversword and offer any suggestions for improvements. Specifically, I lack any sources after 2006 and few after 2000. The current situation may have changed. Secondly, I am poorly equipped to deal with the more advanced genomic research implications(e.g., allotetraploid hybrid origins and the techniques that lead to that kind of theory, for one). Perhaps when you have time you may wish to contribute your expertise to those areas. These gaps, however, do not prevent the entry having value as it stands, in my opinion. I appreciated the significant additions you made to the greensword entry. It has a lot more richness from your offline sources. I do feel I have to respond to your characterization of the article, in this thread, as "full of erroneous information." I've not gone through the history step by step, as there is nothing in the current version I would argue about, and clearly your editing added very good detail and specificity. I can't see offhand where you removed inaccuracies, although perhaps there were some inadvertent mistakes. (Taking out the Puu Kukui common name surprised me, as that seemed consistent with the literature, but I will not argue the point. I have no idea why the change of image, but I assume you see something in this one that is better than the flowering version.) You do give examples here, however, which I feel are unfair and distort the level of quality of my work, so I am forced to defend them. 1. The source of horizontal flowers is Carlquist, in whose authority I am confident: "Flower heads are somewhat horizontal or pendant, and thus avoid filling with water." Page 266 of his book Hawaii, A Natural History. If my confidence is mistaken, it would be appropriate to correct it with a more definitive source, if you can. 2. He also buttresses my online source for the size of the plant, which he calls a "low shrub" so the max (not usual) height of 2 m seemed a reasonable thing for me to quote. 3. I did not say the plant was found only at Puu Kukui, as you write. I said it was found there and at one other site that I did not name, and that is consistent with your edit which names both. So it appears your characterization of my entry as containing "a lot of factual errors" may be based, in part, on errors of omission, which you corrected, not errors of commission. Then there is the issue of whether I included extraneous information, and your opinion that the information should appear elsewhere. I agree, the most appropriate place for the discussion of the silversword alliance might be in the entry you created for the SA. Let me explain why I did not take that approach. The SA entry is about two lines long, yet it has a history of several small contributions from multiple editors with Hawaiian and biosystematic backgrounds all over the SA topic, but not saying hardly anything. I don't mean to criticize, it is just that I sensed it was the last place for a relative beginner to step in. I seek relatively uncontroversial small topics to work on, as I am still learning the norms of this community. I felt I could learn better doing small things. I took on two (now three) species, each with an interesting backstory I felt capable of articulating (and which is not, to my knowledge, covered in the discussion of the genus or other species in the genus, nor in the SA entry). I do not have enough specialized resources (or perhaps knowledge and certainly not enough time right now) to do justice to the whole topic of the SA. If, however, your comment is intended to be an invitation to collaborate in developing the SA entry, I am deeply honored, but I suspect you would find my contribution would be minor. Until someone develops the SA entry, or elsewhere tells the compelling story of Hawaiian plant adaptive radiation in a way that renders such discussion redundant within the entries for the SA constituent species, I feel entirely justified in alluding to this vital phenomenon when I describe an exemplar. Lastly, I simply reject the idea that there is "nothing notable" about this species; I think the case for interest in its evolution is made in the entry, in no small measure because of your contribution. I very much appreciated your heads-up so that I knew this discussion was taking place here, and I hope you will continue to help me raise the level of my understanding of how to work with you and other editors. I would be most grateful for any input on the Mauna Kea silversword entry. Alawa ( talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As the most helpful administrator I've encountered, I beseech you again, this time with a really simple issue. How exactly can one move an album (i.e. Linda Ronstadt (album) from an incorrect "Category" (Category:1972 albums) to the correct category (Category:1971 albums)? I can't remove the album from the '72 category, but I've conclusively proven that it was released in '71 (Allmusic, iTunes, and the like), and have been able to correct it everywhere but on this one stubborn list. Any help, as always, is greatly appreciated :> Doc9871 ( talk) 07:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[[Category:Linda Ronstadt albums]]
[[Category:1971 albums]]
[[Category:Albums produced by John Boylan]]
[[Category:Capitol Records albums]]
Did you look to see what you were reverting when you decided to steamroll over my edits? It's one thing to disagree with my reorganization of the page, then it's another to erase non-controversial updates such as these. Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the point of my reorganization. People don't go to the instructions page to read Thoreau pondering the human condition; they want something that clearly explains the process. I am willing to work with you on a page that we can both agree on, but in the meantime I'm restoring my two noncontroversial edits. @ harej 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been fixing double directs with links. Don't know how I missed those. I double check and fix any that I missed. I'll note that some apparent double redirects take a while to drop off the listing even if they have been fixed when templates are involved. It is taking up to a week for the job queue to actually flush the cache and have the correct information show up correctly in what links here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I could truly use your help again, and it's on a case where I might not be 100% right (which means I really need your advice). Here's the story: a while back, I mistakenly credited an entry to "Parlaphone Records". Then, with egg on my face, I changed every single WP page that listed "Parlaphone" to the correct Parlophone (by my own hand, one at a time). If one were to search WP for the incorrect "Parlaphone" now, one would be told that no page exists with that name; did they mean parlophone? Of course they meant Parlophone, as there never was a record company named otherwise. A redirect page for "Parlaphone" was fortunately not created at the time.
So I recently make an entry on The Doors, and find that Elektra Records was never the erroneously spelled "Electra Records". Following my previous suit, I eliminated all known spellings of "Electra Records" on WP, hoping to spare others the same perpetuation of bogus spelling that I myself believed to be previously accurate. I feel strongly that only by eliminating the misinformation (i.e. Electra or Parlaphone) can one be accurately guided to the correct solution (i.e. Elektra or Parlophone).
It turns out that a "redirect" page for people that don't want to be forced to learn the legally accurate corporation name has been on WP for five years. A new administrator (the fact that he's brand spanking new certainly takes nothing away from my respect for his position) has sided against me, after "dangling a carrot in front of me" by providing me with a list of the remaining WP pages to delete "Electra Records" from; and then taking that delicious-looking carrot away, saying he wouldn't and couldn't help me.
Sorry to drag on, but my question is this: should we create a page titled "Parlaphone" to redirect users to the correct "Parlophone"? No page on WP currently lists "Parlaphone", and if a search were made under that title now, one would only asked if they meant... you guessed it. No WP page except mine and the admin's list "Electra Records"... yet the page should be kept as a redirect? I understand why redirects exist, but this is a prime (and legally culpable) example of when not to redirect; especially since all purpose for it has been eliminated. I await any reply you can offer, kind sir... Doc9871 ( talk) 14:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Argyroxiphium grayanum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 01:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added web citations to buttress offline citations per criticism of DYK nomination. I am unclear if I am to edit the nomination per the suggested rewrite (which to my eye is fine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawa ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I get it,but the offline sources came from a different editor, and I do not have access to them. I'd be guessing exactly where to place those citations, and it seems improper. The answer is to get that access, or to ask him to place them appropriately. Since I decided not to let pass his comments to you about supposed inaccuracies, I must reflect how to do this. Or get the sources. Alawa ( talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the ref. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at all the edits in November and I don't see this language until December. Would you like to change the custom at WP:Update to include language from future months retroactively in a monthy update? (Watchlisting) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving my subpage article User:MJfan9/HTML I would of posted earlier but I was to busy.
oh by the way those articles with your User name on you don't need to make as they are already on wikipedia.
Re your comments on my Talk page, I posted replies to Ericsback both on my Talk page (at 11:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)) and his (at 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)), before I requested help. I will now bung something on the Talk page for Enfield Town F.C. as well. I will also remove the unverifiable POV stuff. On my Talk page Ericsback admits some of the stuff he posted is point of view and says, 'If you look at what has been written, it merely states the point of view of many fans in the Enfield area as to the motivation of those who set up ETFC and at no time does it claim this to be "fact".' The problem is I don't want to get struck out for keeping on removing the same stuff but even the person who posts it admits it isn't verifiable.
Anyway, thanks for your help. I am fairly new to this and could quite frankly do without the confrontation. Jancyclops ( talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for beginning the process of straightening out the refs. I'm not a great technology person, having come out of the print world, but I'll try to chip in on that. Thanks, also, for the DYK nom. Enjoy your weekend. As always, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've sent a couple of messages to you, having made the suggested changes to the article. Since I haven't heard from you, i fear you've grown weary of it. I've tried to remove any subjective tone that gives it an infomercial feel, added inline citations from sources that addressed only Sabetti, removed references to his works in the article, and cut it to bare bones. I understand if you've tired of this article, and so I would just ask that you let me know either way. I value your input; you really know the "rules of the road" and you've been extremely gracious to me. If you'd rather not comment anymore, I guess I'll just try the help desk. I hope you have the time/patience, but... Thanks again for all your help!! -- LEMspare ( talk) 11:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)-- LEMspare ( talk) 11:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
hello, your block on 211.120.229.142 due to vandalism just expired and needs to be lengthened- I just removed vandalism in FN P90 by this individual thanks 137.149.226.94 ( talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, and thanks for all your help with Newspapers. Here's one I've been adding to in drips and drabs, and hope to focus on soon. It's skeletal right now, but I think you'll agree has potential because of the subject matter. Have a lovely weekend. [1] Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 04:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who added the then non-existant link for the American Civic Association to the Binghamton shootings article. I was expecting that someone would remove it before anyone would actually create the article, but I was wrong! Thanks for your contribution. -- Tocino 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would wish to inform you that User:Comingattractions, who I believe was a suspected sockpuppeteer engaged previously in page-move warring of same, is back again. Xhe recently moved the article to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident without discussion. Although I am totally neutral about this move/name, I am a bit disturbed that xhe has executed this move by stealth. What's more, the edit summary blatantly alleged the lack of good faith. Kindly advise what should be done. Thanks, Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that simply reverting the talk page to a prior version is not the way to go about this. By doing so you are removing the page move discussion and any edits made after archiving. If there is information removed that is not included in the archive as you allege, then point our where it was removed (again, show me, using diffs) and I will attempt to restore it to there (depending on what it is of course, there are proper, though limited, reasons for removing certain talk page posts). If you truly object to the archiving itself, then I don't think it would be a problem to restore a relevant portion of past discussion on the move issues to the talk page. But you have to do that properly, by removing the information from a time point of the archive manually, and then restoring it to the talk page without removing later discussion. I will do this for you if it sounds too complicated; just tell me the restoration point.
With regard to users with "vendettas on here trying to get it removed, consolidated, and merged with meaningless or seemingly trivial ones", again you have to be specific and transparent. But even if this is true, what in the world does this have to do with the name of the article? We are not here about any proposed deletion of the article, any mergers and so on. We are here about the move war of the article from one name to another, the lengthy discussion that ensued, and your apparent wish that the article be at a different name following my move to "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings" after closing the requested move request.
You're third "point" has no discernible thread to it and is troubling. You won't make a move request but will simply act without discussion because "[rant about users, hijackers, craziness; personal attack]" Well, I am now going to reverse your out of process page move (again) and I will act to make the move targets dificult for you to repeat this move again. In this, I am acting to protect you from yourself. Your present actions can only lead to getting yourself in trouble. Calm discussion is the order of the day. It is what we do here when things are contentious. The underlying point throughout your post that you will continue to do as you please without discussion is perfectly suited to obtaining the opposite result from your goal. Please reconsider taking further unilateral actions. I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if you told me making a move request presents a technical barrier for you. I will help you make a further move request if you want. Simply ask and provide a rationale for why the article should me moved to the other name and I will make the request.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know it's been moved again, and by the same user. I don't want to make waves, and I don't object to the title, but the fact that xhe has gone another 'out of process move' bugs me, as xhe is responsible for several times during the 18 moves which this article has been through. I asked for comment and patiently for two months for feedback, and along comes this rather bullying editor who moves it in within days of it acquiring a new title. I'm tempted to let this one ride, as xhe may be doing this deliberately to
bait. Then, there is the diatribe above is just plain insulting.
Ohconfucius (
talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, it's been moved again and to another different title, and by the same user. Now I see why it was moved 18 times in rapid succession in the early days of its life. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I will create a new page specifically referencing the Binghamton ACA and update the shooting articles accordingly, but the article you created is for an organization that not longer exists. Not that that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry, of course. But your intent was to create one referencing the Binghamton organization. The Binghamton ACA is not a "chapter" or "affiliate" or even closely related in any way, shape, or form to the organization you wrote the article about.
-- Dcamin ( talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Dcamin ( talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Fuhghettaboutit. :) I'd like to know if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this case, and doing a review of the report for me, then commenting on the case. Comingattractions might need his block increased to indef. Thanks. Syn ergy 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, Fuhghettaboutit, I am having some revision troubles and neutrality issues with the Rick Berman page. I could use an administrator. There is one or two users who are particurally engaging in edit wars and have undone edits, ignored talk pages, and despite my paragraphs of attempts in explaining, they have continued to inject poorly sourced information, opinionated criticisms (on a living person), and the sources are often improperly synthesized and or are very dubious; such as an email or an IRC chat. I added the page to a notice board of biographies of living persons, but I could really use some backing from an administrator. I have detailed notes on the talk page. I have been working on that page for months, on and off, and that criticism section has been a source of contention for a very long time. Thanks in advance. -- ☯Lightbound☯ talk 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the Rp template. kilbad ( talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to the proposals section of the Village Pump when I posted at the help desk. p.s. I like your name. Arnie-speak is a riot. :) -- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Sorry about that. I saw a redirect on a talk page without a corresponding redirect on the article page and deleted it without realising that it may have been placed there for another purpose. I have restored it. Cheers. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the 1999 version yet? I forgot to bug you about that. ;-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this image that is in public domain by the maker of the photo because there is no credit to the photo. All I need to do is add the proper right to the page. Can you help? Kingrock 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Kingrock 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Awwww ... come on Fuhghettaboutit, tell us how you really feel about the resolved tag. ;). Cheers buddy, hope life is treating you well. — Ched : ? 07:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thanks so much for telling me that photo was a daddy long legs. I can't quite believe how I didn't noticed it myself... they're very common! I found another unknown spider and am offering another barnstar for its identification. Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Female pool players. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! It is really appreciated. -- GandalftheWise ( talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I wanted. Please remove the helpme template by replacing it with { { tlx|helpme}}. Thanks. -- GandalftheWise ( talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing this fine day? Hey, I was looking over the Larry Sanger article (and left notes on talk page). I remembered you helping before, and I'm not asking you to copyedit the article, it would be too much of a hassle in the long run I think. What I was wondering though, is the info you gave me on how to cite paragraphs, sentences, etc. Do you have a link to anything that would reinforce what I'm getting at on the talk page? I'd like to do a little cleanup on the article, but all things considered, I'd like to have something to back up what I'm doing. I know about the wp:cite/wp:ref page - do you have anything further that might help me? Thanks, Ched. — Ched : ? 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (hey, you archived your talk page ... lol)
Fuhghettaboutit has been identified as an
Awesome Wikipedian, Cheers, If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox. |
Good job Greglocock ( talk) 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring/moving Iranian calendar to its right place.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I would be grateful if you would grant me rollback permission. I find myself doing rollbacks the long way, fairly frequently, and the tool would be a help. Much obliged for your consideration. Tim Ross (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. My name is Igor Kekeljevic, BA of Fine Arts and GUI designer. I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm appologize if I'm doing something against Wikipedia policy. I wish to talk about Phatch. This is photo batch software made by Stani Michels.
I found this message
At November last year, Phatch didn't deserve a place in Wikipedia, but since then it was very dinamic period for Phatch. I admit I have a personal reasons for requesting Phatch to be a part of Wikipedia, because I contribute to this project. Still I belive that it deserve a place in Wikipedia.
Can Phatch get a page on Wikipedia? If answer is no, what can be done to achieve this?
Regards, Igor Kekeljevic
Kekeljevic ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to my question about speedy deletion. I was quite involved with Wikipedia a few years ago and felt that I knew how it worked. When Darryl mentioned that his page had been speedy deleted twice by different administrators I suggested he ask about it on the Help Desk. My recollection was that speedy deletion was something that was used only in noncontroversial cases, such as obvious junk, copyright infringement, etc. It sounds like times have changed and perhaps the role of Administrator has changed from "trusted executioner of the will of the community and impartial judge of disputes" to "policeman".
It's good to know that this is still a matter of policy debate. I'll see if I can find that discussion and contribute my 10 cents to it. I'll also get Darryl to talk it over nicely with the administrator in question, hopefully get it restored, and put a Under Construction template on the page while he demonstrates to everyone's satisfaction the cellphone network's notability. (He appears quite prepared to do that!)
Ben Arnold ( talk) 00:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed your denial of speedy on Nicki Minaj. You probably should delete it CSD G12 anyways because this website claims copyright (and probably actually owns it). Let me know what you think. Thank you, ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated CUEGLOSS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Zigger «º» 09:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help,man Isamukage 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Thanks for the reply in Wikipedia Help Desk Subash.chandran007 ( talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit … Some Other Editor thought that "has been" was better than "was" in {{ Oldprodfull}}, and at the time, I agreed, but the more I think about it, your revert to my original language is, in fact, better. <Sigh!>
Happy Editing! — 141.156.164.7 ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Kekeljevic ( talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank You for restoration of article. I'll contact some people to work on article (because my English has a little bit of Engrish :-) ) and make it less spammy and more acceptable for Wikipedia. I please editors of Wikipedia to have little patience till we edit article in optimal form.
Thank for fast respond...
Regards, Igor Kekeljevic
93.86.175.138 ( talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[[/it did make perfect sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcirish ( talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if this is where you meant for me to write this, but I'm new to wikipedia, so please excuse my ignorance, for I intend no offense. You deleted my page Bombatpage, why? and is there any way to resurrect it? 81928S ( talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81928S ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't think I will be posting my Bombat article on unencyclopedia. Everything written in my article was indeed fact. All of my material was compiled through peer collaboration, from a base of 15 schools spread throughout three states. The material put forth, while not a hoax, could be interpreted as a joke, so I do understand your position. However, I think that this phenomenon, if you will, is definitely large enough to be over-looked as a joke, and have a place in the encyclopedia. This was my justification in adding it to Wikipedia, it was never meant as an act of vandalism. 81928S ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I did a lot of google searches on this one, but the most blatant part of it is that he scored a goal on May 13, 2009. As in tomorrow. Unless he has some sort of time travel device, unlikely. And they lost their last game on 5/9/2009 3-0, so he didn't score then either.-- Terrillja talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear, um...., Fuhghettaboutit (I love this name!!!!)- thank you so much for your image assistance. I am really happy to came by so speedily. Now that I have seen this I know how to do it in the future. Thanks, again. Basket of Puppies 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I saw your comment here. I knew that I had removed a number of those that you subsequently also did, so I did some checking in the edit history. Our friend Grawp edited an old revision and messed up the page, which has since been fixed. Just thought I'd let you know we're not getting lazy :) Regards, Parsecboy ( talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, under my talk page, I see my article listed "BringIt.com", however, when I search for my article..."BringIt.com", No sucj luck? Why is this? If my article is safe to post and be viewed by the public, why is it that I cannot search for it in the tool bar? If you could help me out I'd be VERY appreciative. Thanks in advance!! Vertz22 ( talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Sarah16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fuhghettaboutit-I would very much appreciate help with my issue/confusion. I'm willing to edit/change anything if my article isn't suitable. I've revised and my confusion is the matter of searching for my article by name. Any advice/suggestions? I'd appreciate your help/input. Thank you very much, ur help is always appreciated as I can see here. Thanks again!!! ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Numerous users come here everyday seeking to spam Wikipedia to promote their products, their companies and often themselves. Encyclopedia articles must be written using neutral language and neutral facts, rather than pumping up a product; glossing over any criticism; using peacock language and other problems endemic to these tyoes of articles. A very common hallmark is writing in a first person narrative using possessive pronouns (we, I, our products). Articles should not be written by people who have a conflict of interest, in that they are involved with the subject of the article. As we often say here, if a subject is notable, someone unaffiliated with the subject will eventually write an article. On that secondary point, it may be that even if the article is neutrally worded, no longer appearing as blatant advertising, Wikipedia should not have an article on it because it does not meet our notability guidelines. Notable does not mean the same thing here as it does in everyday speech. Here it means, generally, being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. We have a subject specific notability for web pages at WP:WEB applicable to the article topic you have posted. Thus, even if you post the article in a non-blatant version, it may be deleted on that basis. I hope this note is helpful to you. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Chzz ► 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway - I'm doing all that I can to source a pic of William.
In the meantime, that one is great - and later, it will probably still be useful further down the article.
Cheers! Chzz ► 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your assistance in the matter of the article I'm developing in my sandbox on NanoScale Corp. I was pleasantly surprised, while editing and adding more ref's, to find my refs had been fixed, reformatted and my table of contents was finally where it is supposed to be (how'd you do that by the way? ...for future ref....) Your help has been invaluable. I have been trying to cut, and plan to add small bits of info back, but abiding by wiki etiquette and writing a good wiki is my priority. I could not accomplish such without your help, and that of a few others. So thanks again! NHearn ( talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing... how do I add an image to my wikipedia article? I've been directed all over, including w.commons, but am a bit lost. Thx!
NHearn (
talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! Hope your week goes well! NHearn ( talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying my best. I realize that my writing is rough around the edges. I wasn't going to include any of these white papers at all, except for the fact that it was recommended to me by a wikipedian to use some of them as a reference, and I'm not quite sure, as far as wikipedia goes what is expected to be included and what is not. This is very frustrating, especially considering that I'm NOT an english major, in fact, I don't even know what Prose is, (will have to look that up...thought it was some type of poetry style). Anyways. I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. But please respect the fact that I am still new and naturally I wouldn't know about these things, and it will take me time to understand, which is the whole reason I have not yet posted it outside of my sandbox, so that it won't be torn to shreds within seconds. I appreciate the tips on useful/helpful articles, and am trying to do this properly, but attacks do not encourage me to want to continue this process. However, tips, like the ones you have offered do help. So, please continue to be patient and be kind. Don't bite. Thank you. NHearn ( talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
WONDERFUL!!;) THIS is something I can go from. I probably sound like an idiot, but considering the gargantuan complexity of Wikipedia it is easy to get lost in the writing (formatting) of an article, and begin regressing intellectually. Yes, I see what you're saying, and I know my article is missing a body altogether, but no matter how hard I try write a neutral tone body, I keep coming across roadblocks. Even the two wikis you'd attached sound a lot like advertisements. I know I need to stay on the neutral tone and just tell the facts. Unfortunately, every time I start writing, it sounds wrong. I'm presently trying to do some research on the background and history of this entity and hopefully give this piece life instead of dry bones. Thank you again.
NHearn (
talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This did occur to me, and I hesitated - I probably reject about 30% of the typo fixes AWB finds. However I still think this is probably optional, see Wiktionary and Google. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
File:Betsy1901.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Betsy1901.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Betsy1901.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you aren't notable. But who decides who is important, you? This guy is only 20 and just plays soccer. I'm an Information Architect for a Fortune 100 company. Thousands of people are exposed to and affected by my work every day. This is not to mention decades of past accomplishments: Noted San Diego, CA (6th largest city in the USA) musician; noted Santa Fe, NM health business owner; influential Character Education and Pledge of Allegiance activist, etc, etc, etc. Listen, what's the problem here? Changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (Irish Footballer) solves the problem simply with no harm to WP users or the subject.-- Kcornwall ( talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I respectfully submit that you are under a gross misapprehension of what the matter is here. I have no interest in self-aggrandizement. I have never had any intention of posting an article about myself. If you read the edit summary, you'd see that I only considered it because it was offered as the only reason for a disambiguation.
Moreover, making personal aspersions is a shameful way to make a point that should be objective. You talk disenchantment with self-importance, yet, you yourself deign to declare that a young guy who plays soccer is more notable than, say, a fireman or nurse, who never mentioned by the media, saves lives every day! If this is about editors and not about their subjects, then certainly, I should be the one disgusted with the tawdriness of what appear to be your personal values.
That line of argument is petty and unproductive - and most likely ends up just plain wrong! For my part, I'm willing to entertain that you may not be directly at fault in this. The notability guidelines themselves possibly need to be more clear. I see now that this is a bigger problem that isn't only affecting me. If this can't be resolved in a win-win, then perhaps I need to start editing the guidelines, if that is where unclear priorities are stemming from (indeed, there is a lot of undefined "substantially" sprinkled throughout). In any case, because a much vaster number of people are more important than what the media or the surface of modern American culture glorifies, I would propose at least this: All articles about people require preemptive disambiguation unless that person's name is not a household word in most countries of the world. Kevin Cornwall, whose only accomplishment being on a soccer team in Ireland, where he is no star, would qualify and the matter settled before it could cause friction.
Again, F, this little fight is silly. Simply changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (soccer player) solves the problem, simply - no harm to WP readers or the subject, himself. More importantly, the advantage to readers who search for information about a dozen other Kevin Cornwalls is that they won't be misdirected. (Did I mention that I'm a veteran user experience design professional. Even the chance of this kind of ambiguity on a business site would never pass first muster). Kcornwall ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
The Goat Star | ||
For contributions to
Caprinae
Solidarius Lance Corporal
William Windsor salutes you! |
The award is documented in
User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress
William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!
Chzz
► 22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I got pissed off when I went to www.trustedopinion.com and saw "As Featured on Wikipedia" minutes after the article was created. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish/Ground billiards. Some parts of it are commented out pending further research. The digging has been interesting. For one thing (not covered at that draft article), I believe that I can show very clearly that trucco is not just some random split-off of ground billiards, but is actually closely related to table billiards, because Stein & Rubino reprint two old woodcuts that show a ring, not an arch, being used as a table-billiard target. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Your statement from AfD today: "[...] If this doesn't meet WP:BK I don't know what does (and I wrote WP:BK). This should be snowed."
I fail to see how this is not simply "a rephrasing of the title". I'm a fan of roads and road articles, but this just seems silly. -- NE2 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh shallow one LOL I've replied. Best Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing these days? I'm not asking ... well ... yea, I guess I am. But if you ever need a break from your work here, I sure wouldn't mind you looking at something I did a while back. I did my best when I first started, to draft something up, and I'd love to have it looked at someday when you'd be in the mood to just relax and copyedit. It's kind of an essay, and if you'd be interested, I'd be very grateful if you could add some improvements to: User:Ched Davis/communication. I know it's not part of improving the 'pedia ... but just a thought. Hope all is well on your end. Cheers my friend. ;) — Ched : ? 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, I think some of the trouble on the discussion of the unreferenced template is two very distinct views of the audience of the cleanup tags. I think you are probably viewing the cleanup tag as informing heavily opinionated editors or editors with conflicts of interest that the burden of proof is on them. I think most of the other people in the discussion (or the ones who are not seeing your point easily and immediately) probably view cleanup tags as encouraging civic minded, librarian types to go hunt down some dusty old books and have fun adding references to pages.
Both viewpoints are valid and important, but I suspect are not understood implicitly or immediately by many people.
I, for instance, more or less only edit mathematics articles, and "unreferenced" is a hugely important tag because mathematics articles are *so incontrovertible* (or so incontrovertibly wrong) that many editors see references as unnecessary. Of course references are hugely useful to researchers and even fairly useful to wiki-gnomes, so these articles sorely need references. There is *no* disputed material in these articles, nor is there ever likely to be any. Its mostly just students copying down theorems from highly standardized textbooks, and the incontrovertibly wrong information comes when they copy it down wrong, or use two books with conflicting conventions. Almost always trivial to fix, and very rarely is there any disagreement.
Luckily I do also do wiki-gnome activities on a huge variety of young (or even just crappy) articles, so I do see lots of BLPs, POV forks, and various contentious articles. While sorting some categories, I even managed to find one that not-so-subtly made every article in it or even not in it a condemnation of one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In subject areas such as these it is all too common for a new stub or POV fork to be unreferenced and just be filled with disputable claims (some of which could be sourced to wikipedia policy, but definitely the sort of statements that should start their wikipedia life sourced).
I suspect that your focus on "burden" is from dealing with these contentious articles, and so you might see people's disagreement (or just confusion) with your proposal as contention, etc. (I mean it might be, I don't know these people, but I suspect it is not). Instead, it might just be that they tend to edit articles where people don't have disputes, and sourcing is part of academic honesty and simple positive improvement of the encyclopedia. Rather than "I defend this statement with this source," it is more like "and if you think this article was exciting, just wait until you read these great books and historical articles!!!"
I think the unreferenced template really does have to speak to both crowds. We have lots of non-contentious articles and on those we need to be inviting people to add references, not warning them that information might be deleted. Of course on some pages, we definitely do need to be warning, so there must be a balance. JackSchmidt ( talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fughetti,
I'm curious about your thoughts on this. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted to do that myself before I added my endorsement, but couldn't work out how to do it. (I'll bet you were thinking this was going to be a complaint . . .) :-) // BL \\ ( talk) 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It was very useful. ɪntə svɛnsk 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Fuh, thanks for keeping such a steady hand with the Hermann Mucke (bioscientist) article. I would not myself have reinserted what had been thrown out (no time for editing wars, or interest in them), but when I found you had reinstated the text with succinct calls for specific facts I went over it again, and this forced me to improve this bio over its first version in terms of traceable sourcing. Its de-tagged now. - I've spent much too much time on this single bio and must urgently catch up with professional matters, so I might not be able to give Wikipedia much attention this week. But thats just one more reason for saying thank you right now! - Glst2 ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had clarified. See the review page. Good work :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a good look through Kelly pool and made a few small changes, and I have to say I think it's a minor masterpiece, a really worthy addition to the encyclopedia. I also have to say though that I think it would struggle at FAC, simply because of the unexplained technical terms like "kitchen", "scratching" and so on. I know they're all properly linked, but reviewers will expect at least a word or two of explanation that doesn't demand following a link to understand what's being said. The formula one articles like the current 2008 Monaco Grand Prix FAC candidate, or the professional wrestling articles, have had to come to terms with the same issue.
Whether you take this to FAC or not, it's still a great article though. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
Thanks for answering my pro/epilogue question on the Language Reference Desk!-- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to stop by and say thank you. I greatly appreciate your support at my RfA. I knew you would not simply "go along with the supports", and would look to see if my contribs actually were improving. Which does lead me to a second "Thanks", I greatly appreciate all the help you've given me in becoming a better writer as well. I know that I still have a long way to go, but I feel a bit more confident knowing I can always ask for help. Thank you - it's greatly appreciated. — Ched : ? 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Just say "The IP who placed the tag said blah blah blah." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your recent help following my {{ adminhelp}} request. Jdrewitt ( talk) 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Behold: Beauty Rock. Notable? Db-Web? Db-Spam? I'm completely stumped here... - Warthog Demon 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Fuhghettaboutit, You do realize that Google hits (and every other search engine, for that matter) do not make any distinctions regarding word usage, correct? Your reacent asertion "By the way, Google hits, rather than being meaningless, can be an excellent metric to determine common names and whether a subject is the primary topic" is a (unfortunately common)
statistical fallacy. Just because hit counts are easily available doesn't make them reliable or meaningful.
—
V = I * R (
talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the 'colluding' word. Some folks aren't looking things up in their dictionaries. lol. Also, the same user has added at least one footnote to an uncertain blog, which given the depth of the other sourcing, I'm going to remove when I can get around to it. It'd be nice to keep an article on the Fourth Estate to some higher level of sourcing. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm here submitting once againg to request my site be replaced. AGAIN, I've been submitting and looking for a direct response. Please advise before I start my page over. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmoovy Schmoov ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. I did actually put it on my watchlist, mainly because whoever did it was being awfully persistent and reverting a bunch of changes. That being said, I hadn't intended on considering the matter further, mainly because I'm not a tween girl and I don't tend to read articles about the Jonas Brothers. :-) -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 03:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
PsionicsProf: COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT?????!!!!! THAT IS MY ARTICLE AND THAT IS MY SITE!!! WHY SHOULD I WASTE A PERFECT GUIDE POSTED ON A SITE THAT BARELY GETS A SINGLE VISITOR? TelekinesisProf ( talk) 03:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've WP:BOLDly amended WP:RM#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves to clarify, so that other people don't make the same mistake - I hope my amendment doesn't get deleted by the "we can't clutter the page up with too much detail" brigade. PamD ( talk) 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks for your message of yesterday on the help page. I took the liberty of emailing you off site to discuss my probable impending retirement here. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 11,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in
United States legal articles to take a look at
WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
What you can do now:
Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the above article as CSD G4. I'm not sure if you noticed this when you inspected the article history, but I'd previously declined this as a CSD G4 because it was not a substantially identical version to the version deleted at this AfD, as well as fixing some of the concerns raised there.
This was a relatively complicated case, so it seems to have confused a number of administrators (especially given the relentless re-tagging by User:Jimbo online). The critical diff to consider is this one immediately preceding the original AfD: [3]. The argument for deletion was that "[the subject did] not meet the criteria of playing in a fully professional league, only semi-pro".
Please consider these diffs however: [4] [5]. These copies are not substantially identical because the subject was signed to a significantly higher level soccer club. I thought you might want to re-consider the deletion based on these diffs. Thanks. IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Do you remember that, mid-June, we spoke about Hermann Mucke (bioscientist)? Well, anyway, somebody has kindly moved our discussion onto the article discussion page.
Looking at the article, I'm still very concerned that it's virtually all built on his own publications; I do think it needs some kind of action - so can you please look back on this one? Cheers, Chzz ► 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That was quick -- Abc518 ( talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Help desk#Fixing a picture. Paint (in Windows) is a great program for beginners, PAINT.net (or whatever it's called) is a little bit more sophisticated, and GIMP goes to the next level. That's why I recommended it to him/her • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I just dropped a reply to your recent comment on the CSD talk page. I wanted to add a personal note that I also love a good debate and appreciate your professionalism in the discussion. I will be off-line for a while. My apologies in advance that I won't be able to promptly reply to your next comment. (Assuming, of course, that you make one and that I have anything useful to say.) Rossami (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was about to decline that speedy which you just deleted. [6] claims to be a mirror site of Wikipedia, so there is no copyvio involved. Regards So Why 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As you appear to be the principal author of this article, I wanted to be certain you were aware that Lope de Barrientos has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still watching the discussion you started about using search engine results. I left some comments, but in short, I think you're doing exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Balabushka, what do you think should be done about the recently added material (see its history)? It is of course unverified and probably unverifiable through any published source and I'm sure it's also correct. I believe in sourcing and verifiability (you know I'm almost fanatical about it) but I feel ambivalence when it comes to this type of material. A family member who adds corrections on personal details is always right, and the context of these edits makes me 100% sure this is really a family member as they claim. They are correcting misinformation and adding vital information from a comprehensiveness point of view, and yet it's still unverifiable and "original research" (I put that in quotes because its very odd to call a family member's own first hand knowledge original research). For example, it's terrible to not be able to include what town Balabushka was from and that it's Belarus rather than Russia, but everywhere he's just listed as "Russian." After I expand the lead, I want to take it to good article nominations but how can I with this unsourced material included?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about your addition of the tag to the article Step (KDE). The article, in it's current form, presents little more than a list of features. The homesite is the best source for such information, since it's up-to-date and accurate. I haven't been adding a lot of references so I may be wrong, but aren't references usually added only for statements that are likely to be challenged? How and where would you add references? Kotiwalo ( talk) 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A SPA has suddenly appeared at the above article wanting to rename the article. He has launched into personal attacks against me for opposing him. I suspect he may be the puppetmaster behind the page-move vandal you blocked earlier. Could I just ask you to keep an eye on the page, please?
You recent GA nomination of exploding cigar passed its GA review. Congrats on your passing good article. -- The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you haven't seen the HD post: I suspect it's a column break, not an error. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence sucks big time:
help please? — Ched : ? 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I think this is better:
I appreciate your support of the alternate proposal. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The reason I added commas (such as these) is that the current version of the template reads somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously. For example, in
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism
it looks like "Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism" instead of, as it should read,` "You have been blocked for editing". Likewise,
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy
reads like "from editing in accordance with policy" is what you're being blocked from. Perhaps it's not a huge deal (I've been using these templates for months and didn't really notice until tonight, when one jarred me), but nor are the commas incorrect: things don't need to be "separate clauses" to be separated by commas. If commas are a huge problem, can you think of any other possible rewordings? (Any major rewording would probably have to be subject to a lot more discussion, since these templates are so widely used and the current wording was probably settled on a long time ago; commas, on the other hand, are just a tiny change.) rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's still clunky but it works. However we get rid of the problem entirely by simply removing "In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy". "Blocked" already links to the blocking policy. I imagine someone wanted to make sure the link to the policy page was uber clear by this intentional redundancy. Ha! I just got your nudge as I was writing this.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy, you have been blocked for a period of TIME for REASON.
You did not delete a copyrighted image of a living person. You used a promotional shot of "Lana Lang" from season six of Smallville. This was not a promotional image of "Kristen Kreuk". It was being used by the studio as an illustration of Lana Lang, hence why it was being used as the image of "LANA LANG" over at Lana Lang (Smallville). The fact that some dumb IP decided to try and use it at Kristen Kreuk was not a problem with the image, it was a problem with the IP's use of the image. The image itself was perfectly fine for identifying a fictional character on that fictional character's article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That Hoskins lawsuit material is quite interesting. Dunno if you've seen my response (I think it's on this page now) to your Balabushka family dilemma. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I'm still parsing the old Google Books item. Several interesting bits in that, including a pretty blatant challenge to Cotton's assertion that the game entered England via Italy. Quite an important find, really. PS: Sorry to've been almost entirely absent lately. Been going through a relationship breakup, and have been resultantly cranky (bad mood + Wikipedia = incivility, if you don't really watch yourself). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your conscientious handling of the Newton move, in particular fixing the incoming links. My faith in Wikipedians' willingness to perform routine cleanup after bold moves is somewhat restored :). Hqb ( talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you opposed my request for adminship by saying the following:
[You have been] reverting vandalism without warning the vandals... [You have had] no edits to AfDs no CSD nominations, [and] no reports to WP:AIV.
I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers on how to do these things so, if I don't become an admin, I will know better next time. Thanks! Shark96z ( talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You may want to see the end result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination) as opposed to the decision. (See Saw IV) -- allen四 names 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I guess we wait and see what happens. Thanks for bringing the situation under control. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for erasing your post, and I also wonder whether undoing a troll's edits under wp:deny actually violate wp:deny. → Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I commented at WT:WIZ2#Expansion of Subject page about your recent changes. Just letting you know in case you haven't seen it. Rd232 talk 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have not made any changes to my latest post and I was wondering how it was possible to make BringIt accessible through the search option. If the article meets your standards, would it be possible to make it accessible to users? Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Vertz22
I'm a big Pink Floyd fan, so it came naturally. :-) Dismas| (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your justification is quite absurd and false per WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus of the relevant users was to keep as is. You are not a regular editor of Jewish / Israeli articles, or seem to have an interest in the meither, how can you make a judgement on this? It is not similar to Bastille Day and there are plenty of 'foreign' civil holidays which are left as is. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey I am still learning all these things, thanks for your help -- Cjones132002 ( talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you thought about creating a Fuhgeddaboudit page. If Lipstick on a pig can have an article, fuhgeddaboudit. I assume you know all the references - I assume Yogi Berra is in there. I'll help! No COI I'm sure. The current link is to espisode 38 of List of Dark Angel episodes. Smallbones ( talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you haven't replied to my response to you on WT:CSD#Second opinion. Please consider doing so. cheers, Rd232 talk 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this for all of us. Excellent move, and hopefully this won't happen again. I'd be honored to fight alongside you any day in the trenches; idiots be wary... Doc9871 ( talk) 08:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reassuring me. I tried to work out why anyone would have done that and thought maybe it was a new user experimenting, then I looked at your user page and decided that it was some sort of mistake. So I Fuhgottaboutit! Best wishes. -- Guillaume Tell 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the moving of this page. Lugnuts ( talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was hoping that you could let me know what I need to change about our page in order to have "BringIt" become search-able. I would appreciate any help you can give me. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you again. Vertz22
Silly bot - I guess that's the face of technological progress! It's not so important to be worth any further bother, but thanks for letting me know for future reference. Knepflerle ( talk) 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
can you copy edit family guy?.-- Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
i hope this is not a bothering but can you copy edit
List of Family Guy cast members, it's in flc.--
Pedro J.
the rookie 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am helping to make the episode list of spongebob an FL and was hopeing you could do what you did with FG.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking for an experienced copy-editor and Pedro J. suggested you to me. Would you be interested in helping me out by copy-editing " The Revenge", which is currently at FAC? Thank you.-- Music 26/ 11 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey never got the chance to say thanks regarding the Live From Across the Pond album page Cjones132002 ( talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
First, thanks for closing move requests, a mostly thankless job I imagine. Second, thanks for applying wisdom and logic on the cent/penny decision. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
You were instrumental in helping to educate the world on the correct and original song title. Unfortunately, the talk page(s) didn't get shifted. It still says "Talk:Don't Stop Believing", and recently an editor complained about this and the fact that the Talk page for the Glee version redirected there. Is there any way to easily sort the talk page issue out? I appreciate any help you can lend concerning this matter... Doc9871 ( talk) 09:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for informing me about the copy right violation, Here after I will not copy and paste any content from the other websites or portals. give me some guidance for me to create articles. once again thanks for the Warning . Jeganila..........—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeganila ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for copyediting on the ENA article. Much appreciated. Canuck100 ( talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your moving Court of Colonial Affairs to Lifan Yuan. Please also move Talk:Court of Colonial Affairs to Talk:Lifan Yuan. Thanks. -- Pengyanan ( talk) 13:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_January_20#Searching_the_deletion_logs
10 months later, and you are still making people laugh! Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouraging remarks about the TEA entry. I was concerned about making such a radical rewrite so I was scrupulous about respecting the previous authors' work to the extent possible. I did much the same with Transient global amnesia which was my first effort. You might like it too, but I bring it up to ask a question. In the Discussion of the TGA entry there is a long first-person account including personal info. It is sad enough I don't want to criticize the writer, though it is also so much over the top it could be fake, I can't tell. At least the email ought to be redacted, if not the whole thing. May I ask your opinion, and if it is appropriate, your assistance? Alawa ( talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Alawa ( talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I present you with this barnstar for your work on Pannonica de Koenigswarter's article. Thanks again. Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
Hey there. I see you posted {{ helpme-nq}} to User talk:Thornder. I had a look at Thornder's contribution in here, and actually seems like he just accidentally added {{ helpme}} above the header, so the question is there. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't approach you as an admin often, but this seems appropriate, since you know the situation and can do something about it. Eight-ball needs long-term semi-protection. Virtually every IP edit has to be reverted; non-IP edits rarely have to be reverted; you and I are the only semi-regular, topic-expert watchers of that page; yet we're both too busy to watchdog it constantly, with the result that absolute bullcrap, especially in the World Standardized Rules section, sometimes sits there misinforming our public readership for weeks at a time, even longer. It took me two hours to fix the crap in it today, and this wasn't even long after you'd already reverted some stuff. Bad edits have been slipping under both your radar and mine, and no one else is catching them. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the information you left me on my talk page. I have replied to you there in regards to redirecting my article: User talk:Thornder. Please get back to me if you could! I also noticed the above header about me, sorry about that! I've taken a mental note. -- Thornder ( talk) 09:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Fughettabout it, thank you for all your advice this week, can I please ask your help once more? I've moved onto the next book in that series The necromancer) but I have some glitches that i can't resolve, and would really appreciate your guidance! Thank you Zephfya ( talk) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting it out: it was obviously an unusual article the first time I found it with a long passage about the previous generation and yards more text further down.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Template:Infobox mill building - I had't got around to doing it. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to help with this article. I understand your comments about redundancy but I'm not sure the proper form for referencing sources as links and visa versa. Can you give me a clue? Thanks again. Jonvanv ( talk) 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw where you modified Special:NewPages.
Please read Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#I would like an automated way to jump 1 day in, 15 days in, and RANDOM time into the list. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent page moves of Templates in regards to standardizing capitalization has created broken templates in thousands of articles. Fixing these articles would be excessively time consuming and tedious so in the interest of not wasting time, it would be best for you to undo these changes. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. You're helped me before, and I'm hoping you might be able to help me again on another simple issue. On Jimi's page, under "Legal troubles", it mentions his arrest in 1969 for heroin and hashish possession in Toronto. I found the mug shot from this historic arrest, and put it up in the section. Now I'm getting flak from a user and an admin friend of his, RodHullandemu, and they believe the inclusion of the mug shot is both UNDUE and actually WP:COATRACK. I've only made positive changes to WP (my edit history speaks for itself), and I believe these two are trying to perpetuate a fansite with the page. If you don't agree, let me know. If you do agree, please respond on either my page or Rod's under "Jimi Hendrix". If you'd rather punch my freakin' mouth loose than do anything here, I'll understand too. Thanks... Doc9871 ( talk) 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks! -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The user:misconceptions2 is the same as the ip user:188.221.108.172 per this the account is being used to evade a block The IPs/users involved in that article are
User:Admit-the-truth has a history of using sock/meat puppets to push his pov per this afd all the users above are edit the same articles and add the same povs they easily pass the duck test the user has admitted that he is evading his block The user has serious problems with wp:own and adds his own OR and reference them using unrelated references on most of the articles created by the user above-- NotedGrant Talk 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fuhg, I've been peripherally involved in this, or at least aware of it. I was relieved by your recent block of Misconceptions2, but this sure looks like another of his sockpuppets jumping in immediately after his unblock request was declined. For some reason an analogy to cockroaches springs strongly to mind. Doc Tropics 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Information regarding kab ibn Al Ashraf was removed by user: Notedgrant. Please check this and revert and advice him further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Български360 ( talk • contribs)
This is freaky, but when I'm at your talk page, there is a cube of Master chalk floating above all other content, at lower right, and it links to the article Fair use. No I have not been drinking. Using Safari 4.0.4 under Windows Vista SP 1 x64. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I seek guidance, since you kindly offered, on redirects. Created new article, Argyroxiphium grayanum. That is the scientific name of a Hawaiian plant, common name Pu'u Kukui greensword. I'd like to redirect the common name to the entry. I don't want to interfere with the entry for Pu'u Kukui since that is a place. (This flower is found there, hence the name.) If I follow instructions for creating, say, "Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant)" as a redirect, does that do any good at all for getting my article seen? What would you suggest? BTW you suggested ways to improve my citation skills. I have been trying. I have not figured out what I need to ask about those templates, but it seems they take some getting used to. Not ignoring you. Alawa ( talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If a person is looking for an article on Dorothy Killgallen it's plausible that they will type in a phonetic spelling of the last name, and its also plausible to assume that almost everyone will know how to spell Dorothy. Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant) has no usefulness as a redirect in my opinion because it's extremely implausible that anyone, but for a experienced Wikipedia user, would ever type "(plant)" after the common name in seeking an article on this plant. However, not putting in the apostrophe seems quite plausible to me, so a redirect from Puu Kukui greensword should probably be created. And putting a space in between green and sword also seems plausible, so maybe there should be redirects at both Pu'u Kukui green sword and Puu Kukui green sword. As for the included question, creating a redirect at Pu'u Kukui greensword will have no effect whatsoever on Pu'u Kukui.
The subtext of your question, how to get the article seen, I can also help with. The best ways I know are:
This is pretty amazingly helpful. I am working through the list of suggestions. Thank you for the nomination, a completely unexpected bonus! Mahalo Nui (trans: Thanks a lot) Alawa ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't just revert changes en masse. There were a lot of factual errors and typos that I fixed in my edits. As for the extraneous information, there are already articles on both Argyroxiphium and the silversword alliance, which are linked to on the page, and the parts that I took out aren't specific to A. grayanum. If you think they're not addressed there, then it would be better to work those sections into the other articles. KarlM ( talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Karl, I hope you will look at my new entry for the Mauna Kea silversword and offer any suggestions for improvements. Specifically, I lack any sources after 2006 and few after 2000. The current situation may have changed. Secondly, I am poorly equipped to deal with the more advanced genomic research implications(e.g., allotetraploid hybrid origins and the techniques that lead to that kind of theory, for one). Perhaps when you have time you may wish to contribute your expertise to those areas. These gaps, however, do not prevent the entry having value as it stands, in my opinion. I appreciated the significant additions you made to the greensword entry. It has a lot more richness from your offline sources. I do feel I have to respond to your characterization of the article, in this thread, as "full of erroneous information." I've not gone through the history step by step, as there is nothing in the current version I would argue about, and clearly your editing added very good detail and specificity. I can't see offhand where you removed inaccuracies, although perhaps there were some inadvertent mistakes. (Taking out the Puu Kukui common name surprised me, as that seemed consistent with the literature, but I will not argue the point. I have no idea why the change of image, but I assume you see something in this one that is better than the flowering version.) You do give examples here, however, which I feel are unfair and distort the level of quality of my work, so I am forced to defend them. 1. The source of horizontal flowers is Carlquist, in whose authority I am confident: "Flower heads are somewhat horizontal or pendant, and thus avoid filling with water." Page 266 of his book Hawaii, A Natural History. If my confidence is mistaken, it would be appropriate to correct it with a more definitive source, if you can. 2. He also buttresses my online source for the size of the plant, which he calls a "low shrub" so the max (not usual) height of 2 m seemed a reasonable thing for me to quote. 3. I did not say the plant was found only at Puu Kukui, as you write. I said it was found there and at one other site that I did not name, and that is consistent with your edit which names both. So it appears your characterization of my entry as containing "a lot of factual errors" may be based, in part, on errors of omission, which you corrected, not errors of commission. Then there is the issue of whether I included extraneous information, and your opinion that the information should appear elsewhere. I agree, the most appropriate place for the discussion of the silversword alliance might be in the entry you created for the SA. Let me explain why I did not take that approach. The SA entry is about two lines long, yet it has a history of several small contributions from multiple editors with Hawaiian and biosystematic backgrounds all over the SA topic, but not saying hardly anything. I don't mean to criticize, it is just that I sensed it was the last place for a relative beginner to step in. I seek relatively uncontroversial small topics to work on, as I am still learning the norms of this community. I felt I could learn better doing small things. I took on two (now three) species, each with an interesting backstory I felt capable of articulating (and which is not, to my knowledge, covered in the discussion of the genus or other species in the genus, nor in the SA entry). I do not have enough specialized resources (or perhaps knowledge and certainly not enough time right now) to do justice to the whole topic of the SA. If, however, your comment is intended to be an invitation to collaborate in developing the SA entry, I am deeply honored, but I suspect you would find my contribution would be minor. Until someone develops the SA entry, or elsewhere tells the compelling story of Hawaiian plant adaptive radiation in a way that renders such discussion redundant within the entries for the SA constituent species, I feel entirely justified in alluding to this vital phenomenon when I describe an exemplar. Lastly, I simply reject the idea that there is "nothing notable" about this species; I think the case for interest in its evolution is made in the entry, in no small measure because of your contribution. I very much appreciated your heads-up so that I knew this discussion was taking place here, and I hope you will continue to help me raise the level of my understanding of how to work with you and other editors. I would be most grateful for any input on the Mauna Kea silversword entry. Alawa ( talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As the most helpful administrator I've encountered, I beseech you again, this time with a really simple issue. How exactly can one move an album (i.e. Linda Ronstadt (album) from an incorrect "Category" (Category:1972 albums) to the correct category (Category:1971 albums)? I can't remove the album from the '72 category, but I've conclusively proven that it was released in '71 (Allmusic, iTunes, and the like), and have been able to correct it everywhere but on this one stubborn list. Any help, as always, is greatly appreciated :> Doc9871 ( talk) 07:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[[Category:Linda Ronstadt albums]]
[[Category:1971 albums]]
[[Category:Albums produced by John Boylan]]
[[Category:Capitol Records albums]]
Did you look to see what you were reverting when you decided to steamroll over my edits? It's one thing to disagree with my reorganization of the page, then it's another to erase non-controversial updates such as these. Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the point of my reorganization. People don't go to the instructions page to read Thoreau pondering the human condition; they want something that clearly explains the process. I am willing to work with you on a page that we can both agree on, but in the meantime I'm restoring my two noncontroversial edits. @ harej 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been fixing double directs with links. Don't know how I missed those. I double check and fix any that I missed. I'll note that some apparent double redirects take a while to drop off the listing even if they have been fixed when templates are involved. It is taking up to a week for the job queue to actually flush the cache and have the correct information show up correctly in what links here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I could truly use your help again, and it's on a case where I might not be 100% right (which means I really need your advice). Here's the story: a while back, I mistakenly credited an entry to "Parlaphone Records". Then, with egg on my face, I changed every single WP page that listed "Parlaphone" to the correct Parlophone (by my own hand, one at a time). If one were to search WP for the incorrect "Parlaphone" now, one would be told that no page exists with that name; did they mean parlophone? Of course they meant Parlophone, as there never was a record company named otherwise. A redirect page for "Parlaphone" was fortunately not created at the time.
So I recently make an entry on The Doors, and find that Elektra Records was never the erroneously spelled "Electra Records". Following my previous suit, I eliminated all known spellings of "Electra Records" on WP, hoping to spare others the same perpetuation of bogus spelling that I myself believed to be previously accurate. I feel strongly that only by eliminating the misinformation (i.e. Electra or Parlaphone) can one be accurately guided to the correct solution (i.e. Elektra or Parlophone).
It turns out that a "redirect" page for people that don't want to be forced to learn the legally accurate corporation name has been on WP for five years. A new administrator (the fact that he's brand spanking new certainly takes nothing away from my respect for his position) has sided against me, after "dangling a carrot in front of me" by providing me with a list of the remaining WP pages to delete "Electra Records" from; and then taking that delicious-looking carrot away, saying he wouldn't and couldn't help me.
Sorry to drag on, but my question is this: should we create a page titled "Parlaphone" to redirect users to the correct "Parlophone"? No page on WP currently lists "Parlaphone", and if a search were made under that title now, one would only asked if they meant... you guessed it. No WP page except mine and the admin's list "Electra Records"... yet the page should be kept as a redirect? I understand why redirects exist, but this is a prime (and legally culpable) example of when not to redirect; especially since all purpose for it has been eliminated. I await any reply you can offer, kind sir... Doc9871 ( talk) 14:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Argyroxiphium grayanum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 01:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added web citations to buttress offline citations per criticism of DYK nomination. I am unclear if I am to edit the nomination per the suggested rewrite (which to my eye is fine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawa ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I get it,but the offline sources came from a different editor, and I do not have access to them. I'd be guessing exactly where to place those citations, and it seems improper. The answer is to get that access, or to ask him to place them appropriately. Since I decided not to let pass his comments to you about supposed inaccuracies, I must reflect how to do this. Or get the sources. Alawa ( talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the ref. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at all the edits in November and I don't see this language until December. Would you like to change the custom at WP:Update to include language from future months retroactively in a monthy update? (Watchlisting) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving my subpage article User:MJfan9/HTML I would of posted earlier but I was to busy.
oh by the way those articles with your User name on you don't need to make as they are already on wikipedia.