To some extent the 60 days might be excessive. However it does not apply to established editors. I suspect from what I have seen that the problem is with new and anon editors. The anon editors can not be easily communicated with via comments on the talk page. So the protection is the only way for avoiding the revert wars. If at some point you want to unprotect this before the 60 days and see what happens, drop me a note. Once this is out of the news I suspect that the problem will go away. Also over time, the article will be rewritten to show its cargo only status, further reducing the problem. Today we can not say when this will all change and everything quiets down. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my edit a bit on the Wikileaks page. I ended up slapping current-events on there, and I guess I'd forgotten what it meant (Man, not editing seriously for 6+ months messes up your memory of templates). I'm assuming though, that there's an "ongoing" template of some sort. Not sure but it seems like something like that might be better, since Wikileaks keeps pumping out more documents, turning their threat of document-based retaliation into reality.
So basically, thanks! Now, however, I need to go template hunting :P. Logical2u ( talk)
It is future project. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season 2007-08 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The 'Current sport' template is needed at the moment. crassic![ talk 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Yellowdesk. FYI, you've tagged {{ current motor sport}} for deletion, but haven't listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Conversely, you've listed {{ Current PW}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21, but haven't tagged the template. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about this. I totally forgot about the 24hr delay between Clement and Keisler! Everything is now fixed! - Thanks, Hos hie 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't want you to think I was picking on you. If you don't date a cite tag, a bot will come along and do it. So I was simply getting it out of the way. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I had to revert the last few of your edits to the Electoral College (United States) article in order to return footnotes 44-61 to normal. For some reason, one of your most recent edits to that article had caused those footnotes to be merged into footnote 43. Feel free to again make the reverted edits, as long as the footnotes aren't destabilized again. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to clarify Ted Kennedy's beginning of term. Can you correct an error you left on the table? The 110th Congress got left on a wrong line. Thanks. — Markles 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you have some reference links and templates on your user page. You may (or may not) be interested in {{ Help desk searches}} which I recently made. -- Teratornis ( talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
fwiw.....I'm canvassing for general expertise regarding a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles and would be delighted to get, if possible,
Re:
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. -
Yellowdesk (
talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you please revert the edit to the summary submission for 12:40, 9 June 2008 75.207.232.31 opposed to the one added later by Bdushaw. Bdushaw's summarization is a poorer version compared to the previous submission. A common reader will now not be able to understand how this issue is related to the US Attorney firings, which it is.
Also, is there some way to prevent Bdushaw from constantly removing others' submissions to the page. For the past three weeks, he/she has constantly reverted others submission without providing valid reasons. Now, he appears to have locked out other users from the page and is continuing to remove others submissions.
Lastly, the user did not vandalize the page. If you review the submission, he/she simply summarized the original submission since it was already linked to a separate page.
No, the edit currently on the page does not do that and overlooks key points that should be in a summary related to the dismissed U.S. Attorneys controversy. No, I am concerning the summary that was first changed by a bot, then reverted back, then changed by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.238.20 ( talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Haven't I? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Anybody can edit wikipedia and anybody can undo anybody's edits regardless. Nothing is set in stone. I was previously the editor User:Southern Texas, I am no stranger to using talk pages. An idea is brought up, it is boldly implemented and then discussed. That is how wikipedia works.-- William Saturn ( talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the list of self-admitted socks of the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:William_Henry_Harrison&diff=next&oldid=144474057, subsequently cited at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#Case_of_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_sockpuppetry. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Couple of comments, I hope it doesn't come off as too opinionated. Just food for thought for you going forward.
You replaced the current event template with the future election template because it was " All speculation about election". However, Speculation can be a current event... and more importantly... if it was all speculation... why would you put in a template that definitevly says it relates to an upencoming election... such a template goes beyond speculation and states the speculation as though it were fact fact and would actually be completely inapropriate.
I realize that, at this point, it's been solidifed that Palin is McCain's VP pick so these comments have little bearing on the present... I just wanted to present food for thought.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a discussion about the naming of this article. Perhaps you would like to give your opinions here. Thanks. Abc30 ( talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fresh from the press: http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=456&q1=0&q2=0 :) GordonGross ( talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can contribute in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates about the FHFA action? __ meco ( talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
freddie and fannie chartered by congress...- Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
revert.. valid source. see three revert rule. get consensus from talk before removing or be blocked - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
you deleted 2 times.. next is three and your out - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
lol.. your right.. I revert back... Im fine with your previous text - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've been tangling with some folks that are really full of themselves and getting cranky. I'm working on splitting off major sections of the subprime article and populating them. The trick is leaving the key ideas intact in the main article. I'll start a few tonight. I want to get the main article down to a summary length; can't boil the Ocean with one article, with the way the waves of crises keep spilling out. Farcaster ( talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a current event because the situation is rapidly changing. Our article is unlikely to accurately, or fully, track the rapidly changing situation. Fred Talk 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued diligence on this page - lots of detail to sort through, amidst all of the opinion. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
— Slowking Man ( talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my incorrect use of {{current}} -- I obviously had a severe case of the brain farts today. Todd Vierling ( talk) 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The template at the top is a current-event template. It or a more generic current-event template should stay until editing has died down. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have found the government source at
Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. --
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well you have a point. It would still be historic for the House to go along with such a shenanigan. If the Senate can just shelve any spending bill from the house and reload it with any sort of spending it wants, blue slipping is essentially meaningless. One of the original Senate sponsors of the bill was Paul Wellstone, who has been dead since 2002! [1] But, I guess I'm bordering on WP:CRYSTAL here, I'll try to find a reliable source (as opposed to the blogosphere) reflecting these concerns. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It's even more bizarre, since it seems like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was actually already signed into law in April, making H.R. 1424, passed in May, moot. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._1424 Can you edit the source to make the divisions not be a subsection of the prior division in the table of Contents? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a big blur in the information that's coming down about this Washington Mutual thing.
If your auto insurance company made an actuarial prediction that you were about to have an accident, then showed up in your drive way and sold your car to your neighbor for ten dollars, that's much more representative of what happened with Washington Mutual. That part about the shockholders not getting anything in the deal would be like saying that no allowance was being made for the fact you still owed ten thousand to your dad for the car.
The primary banking assets were stripped out and sold. The holding company that remained then went into voluntary chapter 11. So actually the soul of the company is still alive on the operating table. And the media is all about the body being stolen. But the interests of the stock holders lie with the holding company. And there's wide speculation about what's left. Preliminary reports filed by Washington Mutual claim the company is still worth 33 billion. The company claims 5 billion in cash and says it owes 8 billion dollars in various forms of debt. The bankruptcy filings also claim that there are resources available for the unsecured debt holders but there is no information about how much that will be.
People don't make enough distinction between a voluntary chapter 11 filing and "being Bankrupt" or "being Bankrupted" This is a fine opportunity to educated the public.
I'm truly fascinated by this case! From the perspective of many it's the biggest bank robbery in history. Mid september JPMorgan chase informed ten interested subsidiaries that there might be an opportunity to acquire a major west coast bank and told them it needed to raise capital. At the same time nearly 19 billion in deposits were being withdrawn from the Washington Mutual Bank. The FDIC contacted JPMorgan Chase Mid September about the possibility of the banks failure. So with the information out and JPMorgan Chase telling ten friends so to speak, very soon the word spreads and the Washington Mutual banks bonds are downgraded while certain large depositors flee and the FED lending backstop falls down. So it's one thing to proffit from the misfortune and it's another to profit from a misfortune one caused.
Let's not help them bury the body shall we?
This is no small matter. In Seattle 4200 employees of Washington Mutual who worked at the corporate offices were pink slipped. The city will suffer from the loss of the 200 (low guestimate) million dollar payroll. Houses will be sold. People will suffer huge business losses. A major lender with strong ties to the region has been lost as well.
Let's make the Washington Mutual Article Very Clear about the nature of this transaction because the historians telling us about this in 20 years won't do us much good now. Don't bury this event in bizness lingo.
DH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.153 ( talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yellowdesk: Thanks for taking the time to respond. While i'm new to taking wikipedia edits seriously, i'm not new to wikipedia. But one of my weaknesses is lack of knowledge on policy. I'm almost certain that there is a policy/guideline that calls for stripping our irrelevant information ("kitchen sink" stuff i call it.) In this instance we have an article that's about a controversy over alleged abuse of power for political reasons by the Bush administration in the Justice Department. Someone then includes over 1,000 words about other alleged abuses of power by the Bush Administration, at other times, in other places, etc... While all of this kitchen sink stuff might belong in an article titled "A review of alleged abuses of power by the bush administration" it's entirely innapropriate to include in an article about the specifics of the firing of 9 federal prosecutors. Do you know what the specific guideline on irrelevant information in an article might be? I'll bet one unit of whatever currency didn't lose value today that such a guideline exists. Best and thanks. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding.... read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit. Bali ultimate ( talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Spencer T♦ C 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Yellowdesk!
| |
---|---|
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
Well, to be honest, I was looking at names through recent changes. I'm trying to get as many users as possible, so I asked. Will you join?-- LAA Fan sign review 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the link added by Thacher Proffitt ( talk · contribs) because it was a link to the Thacher Proffitt web site, which is a conflict of interest. Also, they're not a neutral source; they were one of the major law firms promoting mortgage-based securities. Can you find a neutral source? -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I might keep an eye on that. (And here, over lo these many months, I'd all but convinced myself that you were a high functioning bot capable of only complaining about the "misuse" of {{ current}}! Ah, well, this project never ceases to amaze....) I'm usually sponging off slate.com most days, but after they went in the tank for the bailout, I switched over to Huffington post, which, while not an RS per se, isn't bad for an aggregator, and updates quicker than Slate. I actually like the liquidity injection/equity plan, though, which, aside from making way more sense than the "troubled assets" plan, shows how prescient I was about where this was going. [2] -- Kendrick7 talk 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit is not optimal as you can see if you look at the history of the TED spread. There is a spike beginning in mid-September. Fred Talk 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you planning to de-merge this back into a separate article? I wasn't sure from your statement closing the discussion. FWIW, I think it is probably better as a section than as a separate article. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You stated that the reference didn't say anything like that, when this is what it says; "Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts intensified to find a peaceful, long-term solution to the current conflict.
The top U.S. diplomat for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer, was to meet with Congo President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa Thursday, and may travel to Rwanda to see President Paul Kagame, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington.
Wood said Frazer, who is accompanied by a senior researcher from the National Security Council, will try to "get all of the parties to agree to respect international law and human rights."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also spoke with Kagame and was in touch with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Wood said." It states that diplomatic efforts intensified; then, after saying who spoke to Kagame about peace, says "... Rice also spoke with Kagame."
See what I'm saying? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please quit inappropriately removing Template:Current, as you did here. You are not following the current guidelines for its use. We need a template to notify readers of the incomplete and tentative nature of such articles regardless of how often they are edited. And please do not modify the guidelines without participating in the debate regarding proper use of the template at Template talk:Current. Opinion there is clearly against your position. Fred Talk 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss use of Template:Current before engaging in mass reversions. It use is covered by guidelines, not policy. Others may differ regarding its appropriate use. Please note that much of the discussion at Template talk:Current does not agree with your strict point of view. In fact, the consensus is otherwise. Fred Talk 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
MEASURES TAKEN BY INDIA DUE TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: ITS REALLY VERY UREGENT SEND IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND IF POSSIBLE TOMORROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.128.185 ( talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that series of edits was useful or helpful. Greglocock ( talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting take on the above template, i like it. but shouldn't there be a message on the template page saying it has been depreciated? -- SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you recommend an appropriate alternative template? Wik idea 11:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the current template from Superstars of Dance. I'm not going to re-add it because it is extremely no big deal, but your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. The guideline for the template states: "This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change as the event occurs and understanding of it develops." An ongoing competition meets that guideline, IMO. The guideline about hundreds of editors at once says "may also be used" - implying that it is not a requirement, nor even the main reason to put the template. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I ususaly use the first letters fromthe words in the title.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article B.J. Lawson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Albatross2147 ( talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to good article status. |
Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe North Dakota HB 1572 could be considered a current event. While the passage in the North Dakota House is merely news and not a current event, the bill is now moving on to the North Dakota Senate, where it could pass or fail. That will be a development, expected to take place in the next few weeks.-- Muboshgu ( talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you had previously asked User:Teratornis if he were interested in becoming an admin. I'm also interested in proposing him; would you like to be a co-nominator? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you removed the "current" template from linux.com, among others. While I understand that this template is not to be used unless it is being actively changed, what you have done is removed all indications that this article is completely out of date. I've gone and fixed the linux.com article by adding an "outofdate" template, but you need to go back and review all the removals you have done to make sure that you haven't caused readers of the other articles to be under the false impression that the article is current. Wrs1864 ( talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's up and running, and going well. Thanks for all your help on this! I just added my "support" opinion, belatedly; wouldn't hurt if you were to do the same. So, all in all, I've got my fingers crossed that we'll be successful in adding another good person to the ranks of admins. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Since you're more familiar than me regarding this issue, I would like to ask you if you are aware of the statute that states that such municipalities that call themselves towns but with a city form of government are classified by the state as cities. For a background of the issue, see the most recent topic at Talk:Braintree, Massachusetts. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Scheduled event! :( -- Cat chi? 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The Brightman Street Bridge Replacement will remain that even after completion, until they name it or eradicate the previous bridge. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
These are all legitimate templates that were created for a reason and are used on a regular basis. Please don't remove them from articles. Thank you. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
You really deserve this barnstar, regardless of whether I agree with you on certain issues or not. You always say and do what you mean, and you've stood firm to keep wikipedia as honest as possible. William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you were involved at WP:Content Forking, and I'm wondering if you'd take a look at my proposed revision to the lead.
This is a very interesting topic so I plan to do a really close reading of the page sometime. But I won't make any changes without proposing them at the talk page first. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Yellowdesk,
Please stop removing the {{current}} tags from Ted Kennedy. The one you just removed says, "This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." and is appropriate as various memorial events, etc. develop.
There is already such a tag at the top of the article, hence the second one is redundant. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your own edit added a summary of the article into the article body itself. Why would there be a summary within the article that you're trying to summarize? Only the lead should summarize the article. Also, it is not uncommon for a visible page to have maintenance templates; the whole point of the templates is to clearly bring attention to article problems so that they will be noticed and hopefully fixed as soon as possible. With highly visible articles, there is often a better chance that someone will get around to resolving a maintenance template.
Merging the long lead into the article just hides the problem, not resolve it. The biggest problem with the article is that it is too long; I've added a template to the article suggesting that the Senator section be split into its own article, and then that new article summarized in this one. Gary King ( talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude or snippy. I'm a little tired, and probably shouldn't be doing any talk page discussions right now. I've started a discussion at the article talk page, and I'll let it go for a while and see what happens. - Rrius ( talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions. Thank you. — Markles 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
If you guys think that the Current and Future sporting event tags on each event is not needed then you guys need to remove the Current Sports Events and Future Sports Events pages from Wiki too because they are just as useless when you take the tags off of each sporting event page. I personally think they are needed to make it easier to find certain sporting events, if not then eliminate all tags not just some. But that is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimace08 ( talk • contribs) 7:32, September 17, 2009
While I understand that Twitter and other self-published sources generally don't meet the WP:RS criteria, a post by Major Garrett, Fox's senior White House correspondent, would qualify as having been "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources). It's irrelevant now because plenty of other people are reporting it, but I think it's worth noting that such a post is a reliable source. Thanks :) – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See Article I, Section5 of the United States Constitution:
For example, Roland Burris, from the Senate Biography. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001266
Seniority is determined on the date of oath of office, as
Al Franken can testify. He was elected at the same time as all other elected senators, but did not become a senator until months later. Burris had a delay as well. If Burris's credentials were accepted, he would have the same seniority as all other Senators, allowing for the Senate rules that give value to service as governor or as member of Congress.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken about the oath. That is not when an appointed senator's term begins. The Senate can refuse to seat someone, but only when the senator doesn't meet the qualifications or the election or appointment is deemed to be the result of corruption. When an appointed senator is rejected, the Senate isn't saying, "he can't be a senator", it is retroactively saying, "he was never truly a senator". That the date of appointment is the date the terms begins is settled as a matter of law and tradition. I have listed several senators as examples at Talk:Paul G. Kirk, Jr.. Getting back to Burris, he is an exception because, unlike most other appointed senators, his date of appointment is not his seniority date. That fact is a result of the bizarre happenings at the beginning of this year, including the late understanding by Reid and Durbin that, based on Supreme Court precedent, they almost certainly could not just vote to refuse to seat Burris. - Rrius ( talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough for the past. I stand corrected on that count.
For the appointee-designate and senator-elect, we can't know their status until after the fact, after the assessment on credentials has been made, and once it has been made, the term is retroactive to the effective appointment date (Gillibrand) or credentials accepted date (Burris) or whatever credentials and oath and other conditions established the date (Franken).
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) September 26, 2009 (UTC)
For the articles, lists and info boxes, can this be resolved by relying upon a single canonical source? Could this one be acceptable...and if not, what are its inadequacies? One potential weakness: "service date" is a term I have not researched back to statute and Senate rules.
suplemented, perhaps by:
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I re-added the current event tag to the HIV Vaccine article. I believe it is indeed more than appropriate to have that tag up. The tag does not state that another article is undergoing serious revision, it merely states that the article is related to something that has just happened (these vaccine results becoming public) - though the article is not ABOUT that particular study, it is certainly related to it- , and it states that information may change quickly as events develop further, which they abosolutely may! This may turn out to be a hoax, or more information concerning how the vaccine works might be published, or problems with the study might come to light. I added this exact paragraph to the page's talk section - if you seriously have a problem with said tag being on that page, please talk about it there. Thanks amigo! Spiral5800 ( talk) 05:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about how detailed the discussion of the new appointment law should be at Talk:List of United States Senators from Massachusetts#Appointment section. - Rrius ( talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there ambiguity that it needs locating to "Uganda"? I ask because it seems that US and UK legislation doesn't get located at, say, UK Terrorism Act 2006 or US Energy Policy Act of 2005, and it looks a bit biased to do this with other countries. No issues with the year being added, though after the title would be more standard. Pseudomonas( talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The current tag is indeed "intended for articles edited by many on the same day": have you looked at the article's history from 13 November? -- Paularblaster ( talk) 19:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Dubai World crisis and its impact on world finance markets is probably going up on the main page (see WP:ITN/C). You might be interested in expanding some of the articles involved. __ meco ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asa_Seeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision
AFD was merge but the all the merged information was deleted so this is essentially a way around to delete. If you feel "keep" is the 2nd choice, then consider re-creating the article. I might add that unsuccessful, not carried out, assassination plots of presidential candidates has been the subject of AFD keeps (articles about a questionable plot against then-Senator Obama). I have no opinion either way except that there should be an open process in decision making. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit, but I undid it - I think you might have missed the fact that the references are followed by sources, which lists the Federal Reserve website with full inflation data here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought you'd be interested since it revives this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)
cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the news. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I tried to find a "current"-style template for this article. {{ current sport}} didn't seem to apply -- although those of us in the FIRST Robotics community might consider it a sport, I didn't think the majority of Wikipedia readers/editors would. I went with just {{ current}}. I noticed you removed the template with a link to its guidelines for use. I agree with your reasoning
The way FRC works is that a new challenge is announced on the first or second Saturday of January, the build period for robots is from then until late February, and the competition season is during March and April. This article is about the current year's challenge, and I'm pretty sure information will be added to the article will be added throughout the season. (Actual competition pictures as in articles of previous year's challenges won't start showing up until early March.)
So, it's really a current season for a game that is only played during one year.
I think I'll just leave it without a current events template, unless you or someone else can point me to one that might apply.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I have been an FRC mentor since 2002.)
-- Tckma ( talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for working on that!! Decora ( talk) 03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of similar articles, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate on why the current tag was removed. I do see that the guidelines say it should be used when frequent edits are made to a page, and that TS Alex is only updated several times a day. However, the guidelines mention that natural disasters would be targets of rapidly updated information. Rather or not information comes out every few minutes, advisories come out periodically throughout the day. Having the tag warns readers that the page may not reflect the most recent advisory (editing doesn't happen instantly) and reminds editors that they need to "keep on their toes" to keep information relevant. Admittedly, its use doesn't follow the strict wording of the guidelines, but, since it follows the spirit of the tag, I feel it should be used in this instance. Nickm93 ( talk) 04:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis added. From guide:
A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for changing that tag on Dominique Strauss-Kahn - I knew there was a better tag and meant to go find it, but got distracted. Much better now. Tvoz/ talk 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumioko (
talk) 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-06/reaction-to-steve-jobs-death/50674146/1 Might want to add some of those quotes to the Steve Job's Wiki page. 107.10.36.174 ( talk) 02:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Tom
Any suggestions? Adding references in what seems to be the incorrect manner (for which I am still not clear what the proper manner for this specific citation style is) creates just as many errors. It is my belief the referencing style was purposely chosen to discourage further contributions. I can fix the errors at the end of the list...in fact have already done so once, but a revert simply put them back. However the addition of references to the Paul Levinson information under the "leadership" section, seems to be done correctly but still causes the error. I am continuing to research this and learn what the correct method is. Can you tell me what was done wrong there in that instance? I have suggested a simpler style so these errors do not appear and do not create work for others. A silent consensus exist for me to do this but requires a good deal of work which I have begun....but to continue to clean up after those messes are created simply supports the use of this referencing style. I agree with the tag, intend to leave it but ...others may not agree.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For Amber Smalltalk and other open source software articles, it is natural for most of the information available is on blogs and web sites devoted to the particular topic. People who have devoted a great deal of time to the development of the software are often only thoroughly documented on the same kind of sources. It seems that there is an effort to exclude all those sources as unreliable, making it difficult to rescue articles that are, in my opinion, truthful and accurate, important to the people involved, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
For Amber Smalltalk, an interested editor can keep the current article on their hard drive or even on their own talk page, and bring it back when the sources accumulate. Why go through such an exercise? Well, the article is worthy, but the real reason is that the standard for the sources is too strict. I don't know what is to be done about it, but at least I can communicate with another editor who sees the same problem I do. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Yellowdesk. I've removed {{ Current sport-related}} from Infobox ANZC team per your suggestion, and replaced it with a link to the team's current season in the infobox footer. It's about time for me to start updating these netball templates again. Thanks for the heads up. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 23:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI: WT:Twinkle#Tag suggestion. Amalthea 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumioko (
talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on its current state, it's pretty clear that 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks needs some serious work. I've started a discussion about how to go forward at Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks#One cleanup possibility, and you're invited to participate. Thanks in advance, Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumi-Taskbot (
talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Kevin White (mayor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of the Commonwealth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you contribute to Jill Stein page. Just a quick note I added a small section on current position on PACs...the secondary reference is rather if possible..if you are a supporter of this party it would be nice to have a more solid new paper account. Further..see page Political action committee is you want to bring in any of the over 60 references you will find there to expand/modify. Pbmaise ( talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Chief Justice of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward White ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of a {{current}} tag:
you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.155 ( talk) 02:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue what these "current" templates are supposed to be used for. You've removed a bunch of them from various articles related to the current Paralympic Games. The tag is not about the "temporal nature of the subject" as you claim. The template is placed on articles that cover events happening right now. It's purpose is to warn the reader that the article's content will change many times in a short period - while the event is actually happening. Some of the articles concerned are edited in excess of 100 times a day, every single day, for the entire duration of the Games. It's not about the "temporal nature of the subject" its about the high rate of editing of the article over a specific period. As an "editing template" it relates to the process of the article itself - not its subject. Roger ( talk) 11:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I was (and I am still) expecting MANY edits to the article P versus NP problem , due to reasons which are explained on David Eppstein's Talk: page. (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=514401484#Explanation_Re_edit_to_.22P_vs._NP.22_article ).
Do you still think that this "expectation" (of many edits to the article) is off base?
Thank you! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for removing {{ current}}, I was not aware of that. You learn something new everyday... Lego Kontribs TalkM 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebenezer R. Hoar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George H. Williams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Yellowdesk for your contributions and improvements to the Ebenezer R. Hoar article! Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
I couldnt help but notice you removing the "current event" disclaimer from this page. This is a current even that is happening in Bangladesh at the moment. Multiple people are editing the pages on an hourly basis. And the protests are far from over, its only been a few days. Information is changing rapidly and there are still many things people aren't sure about. Due to that, i feel that removing the disclaimer was not an appropriate thing to do at this time. shyrsatr Shyrsatr ( talk) 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
When you removed the {{
current}}
template from the article
2013 Russian meteor event, you said, "intended for articles edited by many on the same day" and cited the
guidelines, which themselves say, "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." Have you looked at
the edit history of that article? It's gotten well over 1000 edits in the last 4 days. I think that qualifies. In any case, I'm not going to argue this with you, since (based on other discussions on this page) you seem to have an issue with that particular template... -
dcljr (
talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
thanks தமிழ்க்குரிசில் ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
I was gonna say
Maybe Google would have said, but I'm time short. You recently reverted an edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mysore_Medical_College_%26_Research_Institute&curid=1113299&action=history (Removed {{ Current}}, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines)
I understand {Current} was not to be used.
But, the situation is: There is a case pending at Supreme Court, the result will decide how the admission is going to be. And there are discussions all around. So, how do I notify people that it is a "current" event.
But then I realized that by stating the same in the article, you don't need to include an extra box to attract attention.
Thanks for that! :D P.S. How do I reference a template without causing the template to appear? asdofindia ( talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
{{tl|current}}
Yellowdesk ( talk) 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to say thank you for removing the current template off Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I was meant to do it myself today, but I've been that busy with real life stuff that it completely slipped my memory. In previous years the Eurovision articles have encountered severe edit conflicts during the semi-finals and grand final, and members of the project discussed using one of these templates during the course of each live broadcast as a precautionary measure - which it did help reduce edit conflicts dramatically. The next being tomorrow (between 20:00 and 23:00 BST) and again on Saturday (between 20:00 and 00:00 BST). I'll add a reminder somewhere so that I make sure someone from the project removes the template as soon as each live broadcast has been completed. Wesley♦ Mouse 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Current}}
and {{
Current sport}}
I added the {{
Current sport}}
tag to
2013 Indian Premier League just to let editors know that the tournament is ongoing. However, you removed it. I am not going to re-add it because it's no big deal. But the edit summary you gave was totally baseless: "Removed the redundant and superfluous {{
current sport}} template. The first sentence of the article clearly states the temporal and changing quality of the topic." And btw, there's nothing in the first line of the lead that points out what the {{
Current sport}}
tag is trying to say. (And how can tags be superfluous, may I ask?) Looking at your contribs page, my question is "Are you just increasing your edit count with these baseless edits?" --v/r
Ankit Maity
Talk
Contribs 06:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).nine teams and is held from 3 April to 26 May 2013."Thank you for removing the current template that I had placed on Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube? that I had posted the day before. This was the first time that I had used such a template. I did so because the game had been completed on that day, May 26th, new information was coming out rapidly, and I noticed many new users were editing it by the minute as new information came out.
Obviously, it was right for you to remove the tag on May 27th as you did after the news and edits had died down. However, I would like to ask you some advice. In your opinion, was I correct in placing the Current tag? At the time I felt that the magnitude and frequency of edits coming in justified it. Was I correct in doing this, or is current reserved for bigger events with more edits than the page was seeing? Thank you! Wall Screamer ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. Do you have sources (not challenging the information, just like to know! - but would be good to have in the article). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Cellucci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't really mind if that template is removed, but we should probably discuss it at the talk page. There seems to be some confusion as to why the template was placed there and, of course, it shouldn't be there forever or even past this weekend, but we should be sure there is consensus for it. I would support the removal if discussed on the grounds that the article seems to have been edited adequately for clarity and any confusion of the event should be clear after a few days and that seems to have past.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Yellowdesk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you edited
Hiroshi Yamauchi's page saying that he was the second largest shareholder in Nintendo. However, if you look at
Nintendo's official Status of Shares, you'll see that he was, in fact, the largest shareholder.
I assume you changed it because a news article, incorrectly, referred to him as the second largest shareholder. But I think Nintendo's official info is a better source.
Greetings!
Cancerbero 8 (
talk) 17:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you've just engaged in a mass removal of the template {{ launching}} from articles. The template is designed to be left in place when inactive and hidden through use of a parameter rather than needing to be removed and replaced several times a year. Most of the templates you removed were correctly placed and hidden. I don't have the time to go through and sort them out, so please can you put them back in. Thanks -- W. D. Graham 09:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Why did you remove the current sport template from the 2014 World Sprint Speed Skating Championships? It is a current event. Sure, that's obvious from reading the lede, but people are often only skimming through ledes, and may read dates without realizing that a date is the current date.
What harm did the template do? What's the purpose of it really? If you'd removed it from an article that was covering an event that wasn't current anymore I'd understand, but this appears just silly. I would of course have removed it myself after the competition. Aren't there more important things to go after?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read and cite your sources next time. The deal has not been completed. [3] And a physical exam is more than just a technicality; just as Grant Balfour. – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew Wiggins may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted a template, quite correctly, from the Natural Philosophy Alliance page. If you look at the subsequent edits, both to the page and its talk page, you'll see trouble brewing. I'm limiting myself to trying to keep the page grammatically correct and in compliance with the MOS, as best I can. However, I think the page might benefit from an admin keeping an eye out for an edit war that's due to break out any day now, between an SPA FRINGE-fighter and a true believer.
I've been too badly burned in encounters with FRINGE-fighters in the past to want to engage substantively.
Whether you decide to add this to your watchlist or not, thanks for your consideration and your good work building up the encyclopedia.
David in DC ( talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yellowdesk, long time, no see :) I've been poking around Wikipedia again and took another look at this article. It seemed to me it was overdue for some reassessments, and I thought about nominating it as a "good article" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Nominating However, the procedures suggest checking with a regular editor first. Hence this message. It seems to me the article has been quite stable, and it reads well (to me at least, hardly impartial). Yet it is still rated "C" class, by several groups, which seems odd to me. Happy to make the nomination, but wanted to check with you first. Bdushaw ( talk) 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bdushaw, for checking in. I really appreciate your thoughtful inquiry.
I think there might be a fair bit of work involved, but maybe some outside reviewer will take it as is. If you're up for giving it a go, feel free. I suggest you also poll Remember if you have not.
I took a look at the leading editors list for the article (see lower on the web page). I'm surprised that there are so few editors above 50 edits, and that among all editors with greater than 10 edits, only two have edited since 2013.
I elected to just now rate the article as "B", which I think is as high as it can go without an outside review. You could also poll the participants of the Legal articles group, and the US history articles group, for points of view. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Quality_scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Assessment#Quality_scale.
If I were to give the article a going over, here is what I would think about:
The article is in many ways like a beached whale. Although it has had a lot of stability, there is a great deal of literature that has come out since the events occurred. It has also suffered from some point of view deletions and rewritings over the years. I recall the inspector general and other special counsel investigative reports are not well summarized, and may have had citations deleted to them, for example. Because the events happened a number of years ago, it is highly desirable to incorporate text and citations from books and biographies that have been published about the events, as well as from long-form journals and scholarly assessments surveying the history and consequences of the event. For example, there are a number of books out about Gonzales, and his fall from grace, as well as of or by other leading Justice Department participants. Since James Comey is back in government, leading the FBI, we are unlikely to see more of his views, besides his testimony in Congress.
Unfortunately also, there may be a lot of dead links, and it is desirable to review, and find the paper copies of some of the sources to cite. The website / journal Talking Points Memo had an archive of released documents and email materials, as did the congressional investigating committees, and other journals. Those archives and references to them probably need to be reviewed, because they may have gone dark. The topic is also related to the Bush Justice Department's views on privacy, secrecy, torture, espionage, and the office of Legal Counsel, about which more histories are being written.
The article in many ways could use some thoughtful organization reflecting the place in history the events hold, both in the Department of Justice, in Presidential and the oversight of Congress, as well as a follow-on to the subsequent careers of dismissed US Attorneys and other participants, many of whom are still active. I would speculate that the article merits upgrading, but getting a "Good Article" takes a gigantic amount of work, worthy of a collegiate master's thesis, since there are many hundreds of references to review, and probably more than a hundred references that are worthy of adding, in view of the subsequent literature that has been created.
The Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Criteria is interesting. Whether a "Good Article" criteria, especially its demand for "summary style" can be matched with such a large topic is doubtful, without major revision and breaking the lead article into even more sub-articles. I did find this comparison educational Wikipedia:Compare_Criteria_Good_v._Featured
I see I asked for an automated review in 2007, see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/May_2007#Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy. Maybe another one of these automated reviews would be useful too.
Cheers,
Yellowdesk (
talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I've never really looked at the documentation for {{ Current}} and so wasn't aware that there were specific guidelines for its use beyond "this is happening as we speak or just happened"; it also doesn't help that I didn't look at enough coverage to form the correct impression of the urgency (actual and perceived) of the event. =X 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ernie Banks may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yellowdesk. I agree it was timely and appropriate to remove the Recent Death template when you did. While the circumstances of his death were never in dispute, this article was under heavy edit with incomplete and unsourced funeral arrangements and links to Facebook statements and tributes. (Which I attempted to link to the actual press releases rather than the social media sites.) So until things calmed down its use fit the template documentation, when several editors "...are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again." Thank you for updating the Talk page BLP parameters as that was something that I missed. Blue Riband► 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you just removed the "current" template from an article I've published recently - on the basis that it is not receiving heavy editing by multiple people. That's fair enough, and tomorrow I will remove the same template which I have put in other related articles in the same way. However I was wondering if you could tell me if there is any alternative notice template that I can use to indicate that the section in question is discussing a future event and therefore the information is incomplete and will change. I couldn't find anything to this effect which is why I used the "current event" template as a standin. Any thoughts? Witty lama 02:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment Talk:2015 Burundian protests#Propose moving to "unrest" following military divisions and fighting -- Aronzak ( talk) 08:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I reverted an edit of yours and since you have WAY more years of experience on here that I do, I wanted to leave you a message. I feel that this is a case of "Letter of the law" vs "Spirit of the law". You make a very valid point about no edits in the last 10 hours. I would counter that by say that by definition the
Cuesta Fire is a "Current disaster" as the fire is burning uncontrolled at this time. I have updated the guidelines that you referenced to include language about uncontrolled wildfires. If you still rardisagree with my assessment please let me know. I usually defer to those with more experience on here but would love to discuss this. :-) Hoping you are well. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [
Hi Yellowdesk. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop patrolling the "current event" templates. With all due respect, you aren't very good at it. You patrol newpages, etc., and remove the template on brand new articles. This has been a long running issue with you that deserves admin review. Please do better or I will be forced to bring this issue to admin. Thank you. Juneau Mike ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you split this football tables : 2006–07 Liga II, 2007–08 Liga II and 2008–09 Liga II in 2 separate football tables ? It will be more aesthetic and because all the seasons are with 2 separate tables. Thanks.-- Alexiulian25 ( talk) 09:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bonewah (
talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I was uncertain of how to respond to Bonewah's aggressive edits and did not want to reargue all the points over again. Your tenacity with the article is impressive, but as I noted, you may have moved on to other things. In any case, best regards, Bdushaw ( talk) 09:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are having a good evening (at least it is evening where I am...). I wanted to direct your attention to a previous conversation about what constitutes a {{ current wildfire}}. Please read This RFC. Thanks! -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit. I believe this was in reference to a unilateral rewrite of the lead without seeking consensus. There is discussion on the talk. Maybe a lead improve template would have been more appropriate, but I believe the addition was intentional. TimothyJosephWood 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Yellowdesk: A number of the messages on this talk page ask you about the rationale behind some of your detagging. Since you are aware that much of what is needed with stale construction tags is performed by bot, and is done at an inoffensive interval of inactivity as determined by community consensus, condordant with the informally set interval discussed in various fora including the template talk page, I just wonder why you chose to pre-empt the bot's automatic interval? You will notice that some time ago a well-known, long-history wikipedian, DGG, suggested that he has never seen anyone push the stale construction tag before 7 days, and yet you (uniquely) are doing so. I am quite certain that the bot does work, so I am scratching my head over what constructive purpose you perceive in manually over-riding the autolisting with an early push? Just asking. FeatherPluma ( talk) 22:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment, you removed the Current template from the Therese Johaug article - When reading the Template:Current#Guidelines I can agree with the removal, but not for the reason you cited. Having an article with many different users editing on a same day is just an optional way of using the template, it is not a binding criteria for using it. I put the template in the article because the news of Johaug's positive doping test broke today, although that is not an adivsable use of the template per the Template:Current#Guidelines third bullet point, hence I agree with the removal. Cheers. -- Marbe166 ( talk) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Yellowdesk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
To some extent the 60 days might be excessive. However it does not apply to established editors. I suspect from what I have seen that the problem is with new and anon editors. The anon editors can not be easily communicated with via comments on the talk page. So the protection is the only way for avoiding the revert wars. If at some point you want to unprotect this before the 60 days and see what happens, drop me a note. Once this is out of the news I suspect that the problem will go away. Also over time, the article will be rewritten to show its cargo only status, further reducing the problem. Today we can not say when this will all change and everything quiets down. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my edit a bit on the Wikileaks page. I ended up slapping current-events on there, and I guess I'd forgotten what it meant (Man, not editing seriously for 6+ months messes up your memory of templates). I'm assuming though, that there's an "ongoing" template of some sort. Not sure but it seems like something like that might be better, since Wikileaks keeps pumping out more documents, turning their threat of document-based retaliation into reality.
So basically, thanks! Now, however, I need to go template hunting :P. Logical2u ( talk)
It is future project. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season 2007-08 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The 'Current sport' template is needed at the moment. crassic![ talk 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Yellowdesk. FYI, you've tagged {{ current motor sport}} for deletion, but haven't listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Conversely, you've listed {{ Current PW}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21, but haven't tagged the template. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about this. I totally forgot about the 24hr delay between Clement and Keisler! Everything is now fixed! - Thanks, Hos hie 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't want you to think I was picking on you. If you don't date a cite tag, a bot will come along and do it. So I was simply getting it out of the way. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I had to revert the last few of your edits to the Electoral College (United States) article in order to return footnotes 44-61 to normal. For some reason, one of your most recent edits to that article had caused those footnotes to be merged into footnote 43. Feel free to again make the reverted edits, as long as the footnotes aren't destabilized again. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting to clarify Ted Kennedy's beginning of term. Can you correct an error you left on the table? The 110th Congress got left on a wrong line. Thanks. — Markles 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you have some reference links and templates on your user page. You may (or may not) be interested in {{ Help desk searches}} which I recently made. -- Teratornis ( talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
fwiw.....I'm canvassing for general expertise regarding a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles and would be delighted to get, if possible,
Re:
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. -
Yellowdesk (
talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you please revert the edit to the summary submission for 12:40, 9 June 2008 75.207.232.31 opposed to the one added later by Bdushaw. Bdushaw's summarization is a poorer version compared to the previous submission. A common reader will now not be able to understand how this issue is related to the US Attorney firings, which it is.
Also, is there some way to prevent Bdushaw from constantly removing others' submissions to the page. For the past three weeks, he/she has constantly reverted others submission without providing valid reasons. Now, he appears to have locked out other users from the page and is continuing to remove others submissions.
Lastly, the user did not vandalize the page. If you review the submission, he/she simply summarized the original submission since it was already linked to a separate page.
No, the edit currently on the page does not do that and overlooks key points that should be in a summary related to the dismissed U.S. Attorneys controversy. No, I am concerning the summary that was first changed by a bot, then reverted back, then changed by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.238.20 ( talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Haven't I? Therequiembellishere ( talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Anybody can edit wikipedia and anybody can undo anybody's edits regardless. Nothing is set in stone. I was previously the editor User:Southern Texas, I am no stranger to using talk pages. An idea is brought up, it is boldly implemented and then discussed. That is how wikipedia works.-- William Saturn ( talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, the list of self-admitted socks of the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:William_Henry_Harrison&diff=next&oldid=144474057, subsequently cited at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#Case_of_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_sockpuppetry. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Couple of comments, I hope it doesn't come off as too opinionated. Just food for thought for you going forward.
You replaced the current event template with the future election template because it was " All speculation about election". However, Speculation can be a current event... and more importantly... if it was all speculation... why would you put in a template that definitevly says it relates to an upencoming election... such a template goes beyond speculation and states the speculation as though it were fact fact and would actually be completely inapropriate.
I realize that, at this point, it's been solidifed that Palin is McCain's VP pick so these comments have little bearing on the present... I just wanted to present food for thought.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a discussion about the naming of this article. Perhaps you would like to give your opinions here. Thanks. Abc30 ( talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fresh from the press: http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=456&q1=0&q2=0 :) GordonGross ( talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can contribute in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates about the FHFA action? __ meco ( talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
freddie and fannie chartered by congress...- Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
revert.. valid source. see three revert rule. get consensus from talk before removing or be blocked - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
you deleted 2 times.. next is three and your out - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
lol.. your right.. I revert back... Im fine with your previous text - Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I've been tangling with some folks that are really full of themselves and getting cranky. I'm working on splitting off major sections of the subprime article and populating them. The trick is leaving the key ideas intact in the main article. I'll start a few tonight. I want to get the main article down to a summary length; can't boil the Ocean with one article, with the way the waves of crises keep spilling out. Farcaster ( talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a current event because the situation is rapidly changing. Our article is unlikely to accurately, or fully, track the rapidly changing situation. Fred Talk 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued diligence on this page - lots of detail to sort through, amidst all of the opinion. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
— Slowking Man ( talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my incorrect use of {{current}} -- I obviously had a severe case of the brain farts today. Todd Vierling ( talk) 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The template at the top is a current-event template. It or a more generic current-event template should stay until editing has died down. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have found the government source at
Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. --
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well you have a point. It would still be historic for the House to go along with such a shenanigan. If the Senate can just shelve any spending bill from the house and reload it with any sort of spending it wants, blue slipping is essentially meaningless. One of the original Senate sponsors of the bill was Paul Wellstone, who has been dead since 2002! [1] But, I guess I'm bordering on WP:CRYSTAL here, I'll try to find a reliable source (as opposed to the blogosphere) reflecting these concerns. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It's even more bizarre, since it seems like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was actually already signed into law in April, making H.R. 1424, passed in May, moot. -- Kendrick7 talk 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._1424 Can you edit the source to make the divisions not be a subsection of the prior division in the table of Contents? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a big blur in the information that's coming down about this Washington Mutual thing.
If your auto insurance company made an actuarial prediction that you were about to have an accident, then showed up in your drive way and sold your car to your neighbor for ten dollars, that's much more representative of what happened with Washington Mutual. That part about the shockholders not getting anything in the deal would be like saying that no allowance was being made for the fact you still owed ten thousand to your dad for the car.
The primary banking assets were stripped out and sold. The holding company that remained then went into voluntary chapter 11. So actually the soul of the company is still alive on the operating table. And the media is all about the body being stolen. But the interests of the stock holders lie with the holding company. And there's wide speculation about what's left. Preliminary reports filed by Washington Mutual claim the company is still worth 33 billion. The company claims 5 billion in cash and says it owes 8 billion dollars in various forms of debt. The bankruptcy filings also claim that there are resources available for the unsecured debt holders but there is no information about how much that will be.
People don't make enough distinction between a voluntary chapter 11 filing and "being Bankrupt" or "being Bankrupted" This is a fine opportunity to educated the public.
I'm truly fascinated by this case! From the perspective of many it's the biggest bank robbery in history. Mid september JPMorgan chase informed ten interested subsidiaries that there might be an opportunity to acquire a major west coast bank and told them it needed to raise capital. At the same time nearly 19 billion in deposits were being withdrawn from the Washington Mutual Bank. The FDIC contacted JPMorgan Chase Mid September about the possibility of the banks failure. So with the information out and JPMorgan Chase telling ten friends so to speak, very soon the word spreads and the Washington Mutual banks bonds are downgraded while certain large depositors flee and the FED lending backstop falls down. So it's one thing to proffit from the misfortune and it's another to profit from a misfortune one caused.
Let's not help them bury the body shall we?
This is no small matter. In Seattle 4200 employees of Washington Mutual who worked at the corporate offices were pink slipped. The city will suffer from the loss of the 200 (low guestimate) million dollar payroll. Houses will be sold. People will suffer huge business losses. A major lender with strong ties to the region has been lost as well.
Let's make the Washington Mutual Article Very Clear about the nature of this transaction because the historians telling us about this in 20 years won't do us much good now. Don't bury this event in bizness lingo.
DH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.153 ( talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yellowdesk: Thanks for taking the time to respond. While i'm new to taking wikipedia edits seriously, i'm not new to wikipedia. But one of my weaknesses is lack of knowledge on policy. I'm almost certain that there is a policy/guideline that calls for stripping our irrelevant information ("kitchen sink" stuff i call it.) In this instance we have an article that's about a controversy over alleged abuse of power for political reasons by the Bush administration in the Justice Department. Someone then includes over 1,000 words about other alleged abuses of power by the Bush Administration, at other times, in other places, etc... While all of this kitchen sink stuff might belong in an article titled "A review of alleged abuses of power by the bush administration" it's entirely innapropriate to include in an article about the specifics of the firing of 9 federal prosecutors. Do you know what the specific guideline on irrelevant information in an article might be? I'll bet one unit of whatever currency didn't lose value today that such a guideline exists. Best and thanks. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Responding.... read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit. Bali ultimate ( talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Spencer T♦ C 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Yellowdesk!
| |
---|---|
Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there! |
Well, to be honest, I was looking at names through recent changes. I'm trying to get as many users as possible, so I asked. Will you join?-- LAA Fan sign review 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the link added by Thacher Proffitt ( talk · contribs) because it was a link to the Thacher Proffitt web site, which is a conflict of interest. Also, they're not a neutral source; they were one of the major law firms promoting mortgage-based securities. Can you find a neutral source? -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I might keep an eye on that. (And here, over lo these many months, I'd all but convinced myself that you were a high functioning bot capable of only complaining about the "misuse" of {{ current}}! Ah, well, this project never ceases to amaze....) I'm usually sponging off slate.com most days, but after they went in the tank for the bailout, I switched over to Huffington post, which, while not an RS per se, isn't bad for an aggregator, and updates quicker than Slate. I actually like the liquidity injection/equity plan, though, which, aside from making way more sense than the "troubled assets" plan, shows how prescient I was about where this was going. [2] -- Kendrick7 talk 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This edit is not optimal as you can see if you look at the history of the TED spread. There is a spike beginning in mid-September. Fred Talk 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you planning to de-merge this back into a separate article? I wasn't sure from your statement closing the discussion. FWIW, I think it is probably better as a section than as a separate article. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You stated that the reference didn't say anything like that, when this is what it says; "Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts intensified to find a peaceful, long-term solution to the current conflict.
The top U.S. diplomat for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer, was to meet with Congo President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa Thursday, and may travel to Rwanda to see President Paul Kagame, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington.
Wood said Frazer, who is accompanied by a senior researcher from the National Security Council, will try to "get all of the parties to agree to respect international law and human rights."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also spoke with Kagame and was in touch with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Wood said." It states that diplomatic efforts intensified; then, after saying who spoke to Kagame about peace, says "... Rice also spoke with Kagame."
See what I'm saying? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please quit inappropriately removing Template:Current, as you did here. You are not following the current guidelines for its use. We need a template to notify readers of the incomplete and tentative nature of such articles regardless of how often they are edited. And please do not modify the guidelines without participating in the debate regarding proper use of the template at Template talk:Current. Opinion there is clearly against your position. Fred Talk 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss use of Template:Current before engaging in mass reversions. It use is covered by guidelines, not policy. Others may differ regarding its appropriate use. Please note that much of the discussion at Template talk:Current does not agree with your strict point of view. In fact, the consensus is otherwise. Fred Talk 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
MEASURES TAKEN BY INDIA DUE TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: ITS REALLY VERY UREGENT SEND IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND IF POSSIBLE TOMORROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.128.185 ( talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that series of edits was useful or helpful. Greglocock ( talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting take on the above template, i like it. but shouldn't there be a message on the template page saying it has been depreciated? -- SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you recommend an appropriate alternative template? Wik idea 11:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the current template from Superstars of Dance. I'm not going to re-add it because it is extremely no big deal, but your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. The guideline for the template states: "This is an advisory to readers that the article may be incomplete and subject to change as the event occurs and understanding of it develops." An ongoing competition meets that guideline, IMO. The guideline about hundreds of editors at once says "may also be used" - implying that it is not a requirement, nor even the main reason to put the template. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I ususaly use the first letters fromthe words in the title.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article B.J. Lawson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Albatross2147 ( talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to good article status. |
Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe North Dakota HB 1572 could be considered a current event. While the passage in the North Dakota House is merely news and not a current event, the bill is now moving on to the North Dakota Senate, where it could pass or fail. That will be a development, expected to take place in the next few weeks.-- Muboshgu ( talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you had previously asked User:Teratornis if he were interested in becoming an admin. I'm also interested in proposing him; would you like to be a co-nominator? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you removed the "current" template from linux.com, among others. While I understand that this template is not to be used unless it is being actively changed, what you have done is removed all indications that this article is completely out of date. I've gone and fixed the linux.com article by adding an "outofdate" template, but you need to go back and review all the removals you have done to make sure that you haven't caused readers of the other articles to be under the false impression that the article is current. Wrs1864 ( talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's up and running, and going well. Thanks for all your help on this! I just added my "support" opinion, belatedly; wouldn't hurt if you were to do the same. So, all in all, I've got my fingers crossed that we'll be successful in adding another good person to the ranks of admins. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Since you're more familiar than me regarding this issue, I would like to ask you if you are aware of the statute that states that such municipalities that call themselves towns but with a city form of government are classified by the state as cities. For a background of the issue, see the most recent topic at Talk:Braintree, Massachusetts. Thanks. -- Polaron | Talk 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Scheduled event! :( -- Cat chi? 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The Brightman Street Bridge Replacement will remain that even after completion, until they name it or eradicate the previous bridge. - Denimadept ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
These are all legitimate templates that were created for a reason and are used on a regular basis. Please don't remove them from articles. Thank you. 209.247.22.164 ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
You really deserve this barnstar, regardless of whether I agree with you on certain issues or not. You always say and do what you mean, and you've stood firm to keep wikipedia as honest as possible. William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, I see you were involved at WP:Content Forking, and I'm wondering if you'd take a look at my proposed revision to the lead.
This is a very interesting topic so I plan to do a really close reading of the page sometime. But I won't make any changes without proposing them at the talk page first. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Yellowdesk,
Please stop removing the {{current}} tags from Ted Kennedy. The one you just removed says, "This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." and is appropriate as various memorial events, etc. develop.
There is already such a tag at the top of the article, hence the second one is redundant. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Your own edit added a summary of the article into the article body itself. Why would there be a summary within the article that you're trying to summarize? Only the lead should summarize the article. Also, it is not uncommon for a visible page to have maintenance templates; the whole point of the templates is to clearly bring attention to article problems so that they will be noticed and hopefully fixed as soon as possible. With highly visible articles, there is often a better chance that someone will get around to resolving a maintenance template.
Merging the long lead into the article just hides the problem, not resolve it. The biggest problem with the article is that it is too long; I've added a template to the article suggesting that the Senator section be split into its own article, and then that new article summarized in this one. Gary King ( talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude or snippy. I'm a little tired, and probably shouldn't be doing any talk page discussions right now. I've started a discussion at the article talk page, and I'll let it go for a while and see what happens. - Rrius ( talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions. Thank you. — Markles 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
If you guys think that the Current and Future sporting event tags on each event is not needed then you guys need to remove the Current Sports Events and Future Sports Events pages from Wiki too because they are just as useless when you take the tags off of each sporting event page. I personally think they are needed to make it easier to find certain sporting events, if not then eliminate all tags not just some. But that is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimace08 ( talk • contribs) 7:32, September 17, 2009
While I understand that Twitter and other self-published sources generally don't meet the WP:RS criteria, a post by Major Garrett, Fox's senior White House correspondent, would qualify as having been "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources). It's irrelevant now because plenty of other people are reporting it, but I think it's worth noting that such a post is a reliable source. Thanks :) – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See Article I, Section5 of the United States Constitution:
For example, Roland Burris, from the Senate Biography. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001266
Seniority is determined on the date of oath of office, as
Al Franken can testify. He was elected at the same time as all other elected senators, but did not become a senator until months later. Burris had a delay as well. If Burris's credentials were accepted, he would have the same seniority as all other Senators, allowing for the Senate rules that give value to service as governor or as member of Congress.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken about the oath. That is not when an appointed senator's term begins. The Senate can refuse to seat someone, but only when the senator doesn't meet the qualifications or the election or appointment is deemed to be the result of corruption. When an appointed senator is rejected, the Senate isn't saying, "he can't be a senator", it is retroactively saying, "he was never truly a senator". That the date of appointment is the date the terms begins is settled as a matter of law and tradition. I have listed several senators as examples at Talk:Paul G. Kirk, Jr.. Getting back to Burris, he is an exception because, unlike most other appointed senators, his date of appointment is not his seniority date. That fact is a result of the bizarre happenings at the beginning of this year, including the late understanding by Reid and Durbin that, based on Supreme Court precedent, they almost certainly could not just vote to refuse to seat Burris. - Rrius ( talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough for the past. I stand corrected on that count.
For the appointee-designate and senator-elect, we can't know their status until after the fact, after the assessment on credentials has been made, and once it has been made, the term is retroactive to the effective appointment date (Gillibrand) or credentials accepted date (Burris) or whatever credentials and oath and other conditions established the date (Franken).
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) September 26, 2009 (UTC)
For the articles, lists and info boxes, can this be resolved by relying upon a single canonical source? Could this one be acceptable...and if not, what are its inadequacies? One potential weakness: "service date" is a term I have not researched back to statute and Senate rules.
suplemented, perhaps by:
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I re-added the current event tag to the HIV Vaccine article. I believe it is indeed more than appropriate to have that tag up. The tag does not state that another article is undergoing serious revision, it merely states that the article is related to something that has just happened (these vaccine results becoming public) - though the article is not ABOUT that particular study, it is certainly related to it- , and it states that information may change quickly as events develop further, which they abosolutely may! This may turn out to be a hoax, or more information concerning how the vaccine works might be published, or problems with the study might come to light. I added this exact paragraph to the page's talk section - if you seriously have a problem with said tag being on that page, please talk about it there. Thanks amigo! Spiral5800 ( talk) 05:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about how detailed the discussion of the new appointment law should be at Talk:List of United States Senators from Massachusetts#Appointment section. - Rrius ( talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there ambiguity that it needs locating to "Uganda"? I ask because it seems that US and UK legislation doesn't get located at, say, UK Terrorism Act 2006 or US Energy Policy Act of 2005, and it looks a bit biased to do this with other countries. No issues with the year being added, though after the title would be more standard. Pseudomonas( talk) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The current tag is indeed "intended for articles edited by many on the same day": have you looked at the article's history from 13 November? -- Paularblaster ( talk) 19:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Dubai World crisis and its impact on world finance markets is probably going up on the main page (see WP:ITN/C). You might be interested in expanding some of the articles involved. __ meco ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asa_Seeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Defying_an_AFD_decision
AFD was merge but the all the merged information was deleted so this is essentially a way around to delete. If you feel "keep" is the 2nd choice, then consider re-creating the article. I might add that unsuccessful, not carried out, assassination plots of presidential candidates has been the subject of AFD keeps (articles about a questionable plot against then-Senator Obama). I have no opinion either way except that there should be an open process in decision making. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit, but I undid it - I think you might have missed the fact that the references are followed by sources, which lists the Federal Reserve website with full inflation data here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought you'd be interested since it revives this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)
cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the news. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I tried to find a "current"-style template for this article. {{ current sport}} didn't seem to apply -- although those of us in the FIRST Robotics community might consider it a sport, I didn't think the majority of Wikipedia readers/editors would. I went with just {{ current}}. I noticed you removed the template with a link to its guidelines for use. I agree with your reasoning
The way FRC works is that a new challenge is announced on the first or second Saturday of January, the build period for robots is from then until late February, and the competition season is during March and April. This article is about the current year's challenge, and I'm pretty sure information will be added to the article will be added throughout the season. (Actual competition pictures as in articles of previous year's challenges won't start showing up until early March.)
So, it's really a current season for a game that is only played during one year.
I think I'll just leave it without a current events template, unless you or someone else can point me to one that might apply.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I have been an FRC mentor since 2002.)
-- Tckma ( talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for working on that!! Decora ( talk) 03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of similar articles, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate on why the current tag was removed. I do see that the guidelines say it should be used when frequent edits are made to a page, and that TS Alex is only updated several times a day. However, the guidelines mention that natural disasters would be targets of rapidly updated information. Rather or not information comes out every few minutes, advisories come out periodically throughout the day. Having the tag warns readers that the page may not reflect the most recent advisory (editing doesn't happen instantly) and reminds editors that they need to "keep on their toes" to keep information relevant. Admittedly, its use doesn't follow the strict wording of the guidelines, but, since it follows the spirit of the tag, I feel it should be used in this instance. Nickm93 ( talk) 04:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis added. From guide:
A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for changing that tag on Dominique Strauss-Kahn - I knew there was a better tag and meant to go find it, but got distracted. Much better now. Tvoz/ talk 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumioko (
talk) 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-06/reaction-to-steve-jobs-death/50674146/1 Might want to add some of those quotes to the Steve Job's Wiki page. 107.10.36.174 ( talk) 02:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Tom
Any suggestions? Adding references in what seems to be the incorrect manner (for which I am still not clear what the proper manner for this specific citation style is) creates just as many errors. It is my belief the referencing style was purposely chosen to discourage further contributions. I can fix the errors at the end of the list...in fact have already done so once, but a revert simply put them back. However the addition of references to the Paul Levinson information under the "leadership" section, seems to be done correctly but still causes the error. I am continuing to research this and learn what the correct method is. Can you tell me what was done wrong there in that instance? I have suggested a simpler style so these errors do not appear and do not create work for others. A silent consensus exist for me to do this but requires a good deal of work which I have begun....but to continue to clean up after those messes are created simply supports the use of this referencing style. I agree with the tag, intend to leave it but ...others may not agree.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For Amber Smalltalk and other open source software articles, it is natural for most of the information available is on blogs and web sites devoted to the particular topic. People who have devoted a great deal of time to the development of the software are often only thoroughly documented on the same kind of sources. It seems that there is an effort to exclude all those sources as unreliable, making it difficult to rescue articles that are, in my opinion, truthful and accurate, important to the people involved, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
For Amber Smalltalk, an interested editor can keep the current article on their hard drive or even on their own talk page, and bring it back when the sources accumulate. Why go through such an exercise? Well, the article is worthy, but the real reason is that the standard for the sources is too strict. I don't know what is to be done about it, but at least I can communicate with another editor who sees the same problem I do. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Yellowdesk. I've removed {{ Current sport-related}} from Infobox ANZC team per your suggestion, and replaced it with a link to the team's current season in the infobox footer. It's about time for me to start updating these netball templates again. Thanks for the heads up. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 23:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI: WT:Twinkle#Tag suggestion. Amalthea 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumioko (
talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on its current state, it's pretty clear that 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks needs some serious work. I've started a discussion about how to go forward at Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks#One cleanup possibility, and you're invited to participate. Thanks in advance, Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--
Kumi-Taskbot (
talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Kevin White (mayor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of the Commonwealth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you contribute to Jill Stein page. Just a quick note I added a small section on current position on PACs...the secondary reference is rather if possible..if you are a supporter of this party it would be nice to have a more solid new paper account. Further..see page Political action committee is you want to bring in any of the over 60 references you will find there to expand/modify. Pbmaise ( talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Chief Justice of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward White ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of a {{current}} tag:
you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.155 ( talk) 02:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it's quite obvious that you don't have a clue what these "current" templates are supposed to be used for. You've removed a bunch of them from various articles related to the current Paralympic Games. The tag is not about the "temporal nature of the subject" as you claim. The template is placed on articles that cover events happening right now. It's purpose is to warn the reader that the article's content will change many times in a short period - while the event is actually happening. Some of the articles concerned are edited in excess of 100 times a day, every single day, for the entire duration of the Games. It's not about the "temporal nature of the subject" its about the high rate of editing of the article over a specific period. As an "editing template" it relates to the process of the article itself - not its subject. Roger ( talk) 11:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I was (and I am still) expecting MANY edits to the article P versus NP problem , due to reasons which are explained on David Eppstein's Talk: page. (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=514401484#Explanation_Re_edit_to_.22P_vs._NP.22_article ).
Do you still think that this "expectation" (of many edits to the article) is off base?
Thank you! -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 22:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for removing {{ current}}, I was not aware of that. You learn something new everyday... Lego Kontribs TalkM 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebenezer R. Hoar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George H. Williams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Yellowdesk for your contributions and improvements to the Ebenezer R. Hoar article! Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
I couldnt help but notice you removing the "current event" disclaimer from this page. This is a current even that is happening in Bangladesh at the moment. Multiple people are editing the pages on an hourly basis. And the protests are far from over, its only been a few days. Information is changing rapidly and there are still many things people aren't sure about. Due to that, i feel that removing the disclaimer was not an appropriate thing to do at this time. shyrsatr Shyrsatr ( talk) 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
When you removed the {{
current}}
template from the article
2013 Russian meteor event, you said, "intended for articles edited by many on the same day" and cited the
guidelines, which themselves say, "the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." Have you looked at
the edit history of that article? It's gotten well over 1000 edits in the last 4 days. I think that qualifies. In any case, I'm not going to argue this with you, since (based on other discussions on this page) you seem to have an issue with that particular template... -
dcljr (
talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
thanks தமிழ்க்குரிசில் ( talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
I was gonna say
Maybe Google would have said, but I'm time short. You recently reverted an edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mysore_Medical_College_%26_Research_Institute&curid=1113299&action=history (Removed {{ Current}}, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines)
I understand {Current} was not to be used.
But, the situation is: There is a case pending at Supreme Court, the result will decide how the admission is going to be. And there are discussions all around. So, how do I notify people that it is a "current" event.
But then I realized that by stating the same in the article, you don't need to include an extra box to attract attention.
Thanks for that! :D P.S. How do I reference a template without causing the template to appear? asdofindia ( talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
{{tl|current}}
Yellowdesk ( talk) 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to say thank you for removing the current template off Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I was meant to do it myself today, but I've been that busy with real life stuff that it completely slipped my memory. In previous years the Eurovision articles have encountered severe edit conflicts during the semi-finals and grand final, and members of the project discussed using one of these templates during the course of each live broadcast as a precautionary measure - which it did help reduce edit conflicts dramatically. The next being tomorrow (between 20:00 and 23:00 BST) and again on Saturday (between 20:00 and 00:00 BST). I'll add a reminder somewhere so that I make sure someone from the project removes the template as soon as each live broadcast has been completed. Wesley♦ Mouse 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Current}}
and {{
Current sport}}
I added the {{
Current sport}}
tag to
2013 Indian Premier League just to let editors know that the tournament is ongoing. However, you removed it. I am not going to re-add it because it's no big deal. But the edit summary you gave was totally baseless: "Removed the redundant and superfluous {{
current sport}} template. The first sentence of the article clearly states the temporal and changing quality of the topic." And btw, there's nothing in the first line of the lead that points out what the {{
Current sport}}
tag is trying to say. (And how can tags be superfluous, may I ask?) Looking at your contribs page, my question is "Are you just increasing your edit count with these baseless edits?" --v/r
Ankit Maity
Talk
Contribs 06:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).nine teams and is held from 3 April to 26 May 2013."Thank you for removing the current template that I had placed on Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube? that I had posted the day before. This was the first time that I had used such a template. I did so because the game had been completed on that day, May 26th, new information was coming out rapidly, and I noticed many new users were editing it by the minute as new information came out.
Obviously, it was right for you to remove the tag on May 27th as you did after the news and edits had died down. However, I would like to ask you some advice. In your opinion, was I correct in placing the Current tag? At the time I felt that the magnitude and frequency of edits coming in justified it. Was I correct in doing this, or is current reserved for bigger events with more edits than the page was seeing? Thank you! Wall Screamer ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. Do you have sources (not challenging the information, just like to know! - but would be good to have in the article). --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Cellucci may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This article documents a
current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
latest updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Arctic Kangaroo ( ✉ • ✎) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't really mind if that template is removed, but we should probably discuss it at the talk page. There seems to be some confusion as to why the template was placed there and, of course, it shouldn't be there forever or even past this weekend, but we should be sure there is consensus for it. I would support the removal if discussed on the grounds that the article seems to have been edited adequately for clarity and any confusion of the event should be clear after a few days and that seems to have past.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Yellowdesk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you edited
Hiroshi Yamauchi's page saying that he was the second largest shareholder in Nintendo. However, if you look at
Nintendo's official Status of Shares, you'll see that he was, in fact, the largest shareholder.
I assume you changed it because a news article, incorrectly, referred to him as the second largest shareholder. But I think Nintendo's official info is a better source.
Greetings!
Cancerbero 8 (
talk) 17:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you've just engaged in a mass removal of the template {{ launching}} from articles. The template is designed to be left in place when inactive and hidden through use of a parameter rather than needing to be removed and replaced several times a year. Most of the templates you removed were correctly placed and hidden. I don't have the time to go through and sort them out, so please can you put them back in. Thanks -- W. D. Graham 09:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Why did you remove the current sport template from the 2014 World Sprint Speed Skating Championships? It is a current event. Sure, that's obvious from reading the lede, but people are often only skimming through ledes, and may read dates without realizing that a date is the current date.
What harm did the template do? What's the purpose of it really? If you'd removed it from an article that was covering an event that wasn't current anymore I'd understand, but this appears just silly. I would of course have removed it myself after the competition. Aren't there more important things to go after?
HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read and cite your sources next time. The deal has not been completed. [3] And a physical exam is more than just a technicality; just as Grant Balfour. – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew Wiggins may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted a template, quite correctly, from the Natural Philosophy Alliance page. If you look at the subsequent edits, both to the page and its talk page, you'll see trouble brewing. I'm limiting myself to trying to keep the page grammatically correct and in compliance with the MOS, as best I can. However, I think the page might benefit from an admin keeping an eye out for an edit war that's due to break out any day now, between an SPA FRINGE-fighter and a true believer.
I've been too badly burned in encounters with FRINGE-fighters in the past to want to engage substantively.
Whether you decide to add this to your watchlist or not, thanks for your consideration and your good work building up the encyclopedia.
David in DC ( talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yellowdesk, long time, no see :) I've been poking around Wikipedia again and took another look at this article. It seemed to me it was overdue for some reassessments, and I thought about nominating it as a "good article" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Nominating However, the procedures suggest checking with a regular editor first. Hence this message. It seems to me the article has been quite stable, and it reads well (to me at least, hardly impartial). Yet it is still rated "C" class, by several groups, which seems odd to me. Happy to make the nomination, but wanted to check with you first. Bdushaw ( talk) 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bdushaw, for checking in. I really appreciate your thoughtful inquiry.
I think there might be a fair bit of work involved, but maybe some outside reviewer will take it as is. If you're up for giving it a go, feel free. I suggest you also poll Remember if you have not.
I took a look at the leading editors list for the article (see lower on the web page). I'm surprised that there are so few editors above 50 edits, and that among all editors with greater than 10 edits, only two have edited since 2013.
I elected to just now rate the article as "B", which I think is as high as it can go without an outside review. You could also poll the participants of the Legal articles group, and the US history articles group, for points of view. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Quality_scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Assessment#Quality_scale.
If I were to give the article a going over, here is what I would think about:
The article is in many ways like a beached whale. Although it has had a lot of stability, there is a great deal of literature that has come out since the events occurred. It has also suffered from some point of view deletions and rewritings over the years. I recall the inspector general and other special counsel investigative reports are not well summarized, and may have had citations deleted to them, for example. Because the events happened a number of years ago, it is highly desirable to incorporate text and citations from books and biographies that have been published about the events, as well as from long-form journals and scholarly assessments surveying the history and consequences of the event. For example, there are a number of books out about Gonzales, and his fall from grace, as well as of or by other leading Justice Department participants. Since James Comey is back in government, leading the FBI, we are unlikely to see more of his views, besides his testimony in Congress.
Unfortunately also, there may be a lot of dead links, and it is desirable to review, and find the paper copies of some of the sources to cite. The website / journal Talking Points Memo had an archive of released documents and email materials, as did the congressional investigating committees, and other journals. Those archives and references to them probably need to be reviewed, because they may have gone dark. The topic is also related to the Bush Justice Department's views on privacy, secrecy, torture, espionage, and the office of Legal Counsel, about which more histories are being written.
The article in many ways could use some thoughtful organization reflecting the place in history the events hold, both in the Department of Justice, in Presidential and the oversight of Congress, as well as a follow-on to the subsequent careers of dismissed US Attorneys and other participants, many of whom are still active. I would speculate that the article merits upgrading, but getting a "Good Article" takes a gigantic amount of work, worthy of a collegiate master's thesis, since there are many hundreds of references to review, and probably more than a hundred references that are worthy of adding, in view of the subsequent literature that has been created.
The Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Criteria is interesting. Whether a "Good Article" criteria, especially its demand for "summary style" can be matched with such a large topic is doubtful, without major revision and breaking the lead article into even more sub-articles. I did find this comparison educational Wikipedia:Compare_Criteria_Good_v._Featured
I see I asked for an automated review in 2007, see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/May_2007#Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy. Maybe another one of these automated reviews would be useful too.
Cheers,
Yellowdesk (
talk) 16:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I've never really looked at the documentation for {{ Current}} and so wasn't aware that there were specific guidelines for its use beyond "this is happening as we speak or just happened"; it also doesn't help that I didn't look at enough coverage to form the correct impression of the urgency (actual and perceived) of the event. =X 「 ディノ奴 千?!」 ? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ernie Banks may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yellowdesk. I agree it was timely and appropriate to remove the Recent Death template when you did. While the circumstances of his death were never in dispute, this article was under heavy edit with incomplete and unsourced funeral arrangements and links to Facebook statements and tributes. (Which I attempted to link to the actual press releases rather than the social media sites.) So until things calmed down its use fit the template documentation, when several editors "...are editing the article on the same day, and it should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again." Thank you for updating the Talk page BLP parameters as that was something that I missed. Blue Riband► 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you just removed the "current" template from an article I've published recently - on the basis that it is not receiving heavy editing by multiple people. That's fair enough, and tomorrow I will remove the same template which I have put in other related articles in the same way. However I was wondering if you could tell me if there is any alternative notice template that I can use to indicate that the section in question is discussing a future event and therefore the information is incomplete and will change. I couldn't find anything to this effect which is why I used the "current event" template as a standin. Any thoughts? Witty lama 02:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment Talk:2015 Burundian protests#Propose moving to "unrest" following military divisions and fighting -- Aronzak ( talk) 08:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I reverted an edit of yours and since you have WAY more years of experience on here that I do, I wanted to leave you a message. I feel that this is a case of "Letter of the law" vs "Spirit of the law". You make a very valid point about no edits in the last 10 hours. I would counter that by say that by definition the
Cuesta Fire is a "Current disaster" as the fire is burning uncontrolled at this time. I have updated the guidelines that you referenced to include language about uncontrolled wildfires. If you still rardisagree with my assessment please let me know. I usually defer to those with more experience on here but would love to discuss this. :-) Hoping you are well. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 19:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [
Hi Yellowdesk. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop patrolling the "current event" templates. With all due respect, you aren't very good at it. You patrol newpages, etc., and remove the template on brand new articles. This has been a long running issue with you that deserves admin review. Please do better or I will be forced to bring this issue to admin. Thank you. Juneau Mike ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you split this football tables : 2006–07 Liga II, 2007–08 Liga II and 2008–09 Liga II in 2 separate football tables ? It will be more aesthetic and because all the seasons are with 2 separate tables. Thanks.-- Alexiulian25 ( talk) 09:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bonewah (
talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I was uncertain of how to respond to Bonewah's aggressive edits and did not want to reargue all the points over again. Your tenacity with the article is impressive, but as I noted, you may have moved on to other things. In any case, best regards, Bdushaw ( talk) 09:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are having a good evening (at least it is evening where I am...). I wanted to direct your attention to a previous conversation about what constitutes a {{ current wildfire}}. Please read This RFC. Thanks! -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Re this edit. I believe this was in reference to a unilateral rewrite of the lead without seeking consensus. There is discussion on the talk. Maybe a lead improve template would have been more appropriate, but I believe the addition was intentional. TimothyJosephWood 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Yellowdesk: A number of the messages on this talk page ask you about the rationale behind some of your detagging. Since you are aware that much of what is needed with stale construction tags is performed by bot, and is done at an inoffensive interval of inactivity as determined by community consensus, condordant with the informally set interval discussed in various fora including the template talk page, I just wonder why you chose to pre-empt the bot's automatic interval? You will notice that some time ago a well-known, long-history wikipedian, DGG, suggested that he has never seen anyone push the stale construction tag before 7 days, and yet you (uniquely) are doing so. I am quite certain that the bot does work, so I am scratching my head over what constructive purpose you perceive in manually over-riding the autolisting with an early push? Just asking. FeatherPluma ( talk) 22:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment, you removed the Current template from the Therese Johaug article - When reading the Template:Current#Guidelines I can agree with the removal, but not for the reason you cited. Having an article with many different users editing on a same day is just an optional way of using the template, it is not a binding criteria for using it. I put the template in the article because the news of Johaug's positive doping test broke today, although that is not an adivsable use of the template per the Template:Current#Guidelines third bullet point, hence I agree with the removal. Cheers. -- Marbe166 ( talk) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Yellowdesk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)