There is nothing to discuss.
Sanborn maps
collapsed to make more readable |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
No, I didn't. Thanks! :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
|
How
Collapsed; trolling TreacherousWays (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How did you find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)? Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
How did you find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)? You voted "delete" there - it was your first AFD vote of all time. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking because I'm interested. Where was this link? Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Nothing about ice links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Where did you find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)? Hipocrite (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Please list your other accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Fair use rationale for File:NESC.jpg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NESC.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. I will edit the photo and re-upload a lower resolution one. Please notify me if my actions are insufficient. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Non Free Files in your User Space
weird; reverted a deleted userspace article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
'2010 Health Care'
You and Netsquall have this right, and then some. This article should be about the reconciliation process. Its a waste of time to focus on 2010 health care in this article. It is wp:recentism--Work permit (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment, but have no strong opinion on the topic. I *would* like to see a focus on the process, however. TreacherousWays (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
RE:Jazwares
Dont worry, I am sorry for the false warning, your not wrong, bu this shouldn't be blanked, but should be tagged with WP:CSD, thats how such a page get deleted, per A 7 criteria, anyway keep up the good work, and feel free to ask any questions MaenK.A.Talk 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the encouragement. I wanted to try correcting vandalism for a few days to see how the process worked. It's interesting, though not something I plan to do long-term. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is the nomination for speedy deletion, and I reported the username as it appears promotional, look here at this page MaenK.A.Talk 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Hey there. I've been keeping up on the NewPages, as you have. I've noticed you haven't been notifying the creators of the articles when you tag them for deletion-- that's what the template is for :). AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I could improve my attention to detail in that matter, but I don't have much enthusiasm for putting templated notices on spam accounts. In those instances, I get the impression that my notice will go unread in an account that will never again be accessed. I do leave notices in accounts where the user seems genuinely inexperienced, where there have been previous edits, or where the article seems to be an honest effort to make an encyclopedic entry. But when new user "Obamacansuckmynuts" creates the stub "Obama and Pelosi are Communists", I kind of figure that they won't be around long enough to appreciate the effort I put into applying a properly-formatted level one attack warning (Welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that you've made your first article - Obama and Pelosi are Communists .... ) Peace and love, AlexHOUSE. TreacherousWays (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Daniel Wesson.jpg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:Daniel Wesson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Fort Storey Shield.jpg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:Fort Storey Shield.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello TreacherousWays. You've participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia, and this discussion could be interesting for you. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Southern 500
The "Showtime Southern 500" is a spring race that started in 1957. The "Southern 500" is a race that was run from "1950-2004." The list in question was actually fixed by the IP. Even I (as a NASCAR Fan) was confused for several minutes by this. Thanks, and good editing.--intelati(Call) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! TreacherousWays (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding unverified material
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Jay_Severin. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Xerxesnine (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Xerxes, for your timely notice! I wasn't aware that you were an admin - congratulations! TreacherousWays (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Article improvement
Hi TreacherousWays. One thing you could do is find a couple of externals to support some of the useful additions that appear uncited, some of the personal detail can be cited to the subjects personal comments or similar location, like the college/school stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had a lot of trouble with his early years. I had to rely on a sort-of-bio on his old radio station's website. I included it because it flled the gap and didn't didn't seem "overly self-serving". For instance, nothing I've seen so far identifies his place of birth beyond what I wrote. I'm pretty sure it was Poughkeepsie, but I don't want to *pay* for the priviledge of reviewing his birth cert (even if they'd let me). I've been running down as many references as I can- I honestly thought that I had got most of the contentious stuff. I was *very* careful about the first wife as I've only seen one online reference to her, and I was thrilled to be the first to confirm her existence and include her. The Vassar ref was also pretty rough - it can be confirmed at the link I gave, but you have to enter his name in the database for alumni. The Yippies connection is unconformed; only Severin himself has made the claim. I've been looking for eulogizers at the Abbie Hoffman funeral; Severin claims to have delivered one. LOL Yeah, it needs more and better references. I swear I've been trying! If Xerxesnine will help, I am sure that the gaps can be filled, as early edits by that user were sometimes aggressive but usually accurate. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Global warming improvements
Hi, since we haven't met, I wanted to apologize if I come across as overly challenging. It's my opinion the article scares away newcomers by being too much all at once. However, I don't have any ideas for addressing that, and I edit like I back-country telemark ski.... if you can't see over the edge, don't ski over the edge. In other words, I'm not opposed to doing something big to the article, I just want to know why and to make sure currently active GW editors have had a chance to offer alternative approaches for achieving those goals. In other words, I'm hoping you stick with our conversation at "observations". Maybe something will emerge. First up on my agenda is a clear statement what people think are the weaknesses of the article and possible goals we could work towards. So far I've got redundancy, traffic, and some rough spots in wordsmithing. Please reply in that thread, or my talk page. caio~ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- PS.... check out the time stamp on my comment above, and your comment at the observations thread. Insert theme song to Dr. Who. Weird.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why?
are you even trying? There is only one view allowed. No deviation from that view is allowed. Any deviation from that view is viewed with extreme suspicion. You will never achieve any concensus on any change of view because all that suggest any change are run out. Man is the sole cause of Global Warming, that is the end of the story, unless you can find a significant peer-rewieved published view which questions any aspect. That itself will never happen since the entire research arena has been co-opted. Hell a publisher just resigned from a journal just for publishing the CERN research which points out that cosmic rays may influence cloud formation and therefore impact global warming. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Arzel. I usually limit comments in this space, but I guess I ought to explain my motivations for the record. I honestly had and have no intention of trying to influence the direction of the article, only the clarity of what's presented. A lot of what's in the Global warming article ought to be presented in a simple one- or two-sentence summary with a wikilink. That would shorten the article to a readable length, provide a good basis for further reading, and provide the conceptual framework that introduces more complicated and technical articles. I'm pretty much at the point of diminishing returns, however, and I'm going to give it a rest rather than beat a dead horse. I pointed out in my original thread that there had been precious little good faith to be found in those spaces. My ham-handed efforts seem to have failed to generate any more. (shrug) That's OK. Lots of articles need attention. Thanks for dropping by, and for your consideration. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Clarity would be nice, and I thought your change was a bit more clear and without any bias, however the responses showed a clear suspicion to your suggestions indicating that they thought your change was actually a subtle attempt to influence the direction of the article. Best of luck in your future edits. Regards, Arzel (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Arzel. I usually limit comments in this space, but I guess I ought to explain my motivations for the record. I honestly had and have no intention of trying to influence the direction of the article, only the clarity of what's presented. A lot of what's in the Global warming article ought to be presented in a simple one- or two-sentence summary with a wikilink. That would shorten the article to a readable length, provide a good basis for further reading, and provide the conceptual framework that introduces more complicated and technical articles. I'm pretty much at the point of diminishing returns, however, and I'm going to give it a rest rather than beat a dead horse. I pointed out in my original thread that there had been precious little good faith to be found in those spaces. My ham-handed efforts seem to have failed to generate any more. (shrug) That's OK. Lots of articles need attention. Thanks for dropping by, and for your consideration. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
CSD on Mamo (yeti)
Hi TreacherousWays, thanks for helping to keep the place clean. However, the article wasn't gibberish--G3 was more appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cool - and thanks for the input. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
AIV
In reply to your comment at AIV, the block on the IP address had expired (allowing edits from the IP again), but the block message remained on the page. This happens often, so the message specifies that editing may be currently disabled, not is currently disabled. Hope this explains. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stiff_Richards --> Under "Website" and "External Links", the Stiff Richards site is not for the same band. Please remove "Official Site" and "Website" links. That is a completely different band. The band -- that this site is about -- currently does not have a website. Maybe you can tell how that snuck in there. Thank you for your time on this. Sorry for wasting your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividburst222 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Learning something new is not wasting time. I thought that the website linked to MP3 songs from the band; I figured that was better than the dead link, even if it wasn't a home page per se. Do you have a connection with the band? Do you have any plans to improve the article? TreacherousWays (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello TreacherousWays. Feel free to remove the Coppers Wheels link. I do not mean to break any rules with that. Thank you for removing the links to that other band web site. If our sound was close, I wouldn't have said anything. But someone did email me about it saying it was wrong so I had to look for myself. Yes, I am the guitar player/singer for The Stiff Richards. We still write a couple songs/year and then blast our friends' emails with the songs and wait for the hilarious replies. It looks like the article isn't exactly "notable". I may be able to help with that over some period of time. But, I wouldn't doubt that SR is actually not notable so wouldn't disagree that it should be taken off of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividburst222 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Question
Did your comment on Tea Party talk end up where you wanted it? ("OK, so you have this quote and this reference. What are you hoping to add to the discussion? What specific changes do you want to see made to the article?") -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry - got distracted. Will drop by tomorrow. In all truth, I was just hoping that the tags could be removed. Perhaps that can happen, yet, but it looked rather contentious yet. TreacherousWays (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Paternity Testing Corporation
Just to let you know, I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Paternity Testing Corporation because it isn't "Blatant spam" and contains a sufficient claim of importance to pass WP:A7. If you still believe that the page should be deleted then by all means take it to WP:AfD because I guarantee that deletion of this page will be too controversial for a PROD.--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I may follow through, though I think I'm done with patrolling for a while. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I can appreciate that there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the CSD criteria and several strange seeming exceptions (particularly within the importance criteria) so it isn't really a big problem. The only issue with getting it wrong is that it can scare some new contributors off. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that I misinterpreted the criteria or that I got it wrong; I'm as confident of my assessment as you are of yours, and I still feel that the article could have been deleted for either spam or notability without issue. It was a new article on a for-profit organization that emerged fully-formed from a SPA. I think that it is part of a group of articles that are mutually supporting and placed on wikipedia for promotional purposes. Unless, that is, you assert that a "newcomer" threw together an infobox and formatted wikilinks, bulleted lists, references, and external links on their first try. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- They submitted it through Articles for Creation and it was approved by another editor. They received a fair amount of assistance from multiple people from the AfC project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was uanaware of the assistance, and might have hesistated asserting speedy had I known. Nonetheless, and with all due respect to your opinion and those of the reviewers and the article creator, I stand by my assertion. As with other things, I know it when I see it. It doesn't mean that I'm right, merely that I know my opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- A brief review of the AfC process suggests to me that the other editor wasn't too impressed by the subject of the article, either " ... (Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable company or organization) ... edit history TreacherousWays (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is indeed true, the article was rejected twice after which User:DNATESTER improved it with the help of AfC project members. I'm not denying that appears to be a conflict of interest on the part of the editor, or that this article needs some work (including with neutral point of view. I'm not even denying that it could be a candidate for deletion. However "blatant spam" it is not because it wouldn't have passed the review; and there is a credible claim of importance: "collection center network of over 2500 centers in the United States, and more worldwide" preventing WP:A7 from applying. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- A brief review of the AfC process suggests to me that the other editor wasn't too impressed by the subject of the article, either " ... (Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable company or organization) ... edit history TreacherousWays (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was uanaware of the assistance, and might have hesistated asserting speedy had I known. Nonetheless, and with all due respect to your opinion and those of the reviewers and the article creator, I stand by my assertion. As with other things, I know it when I see it. It doesn't mean that I'm right, merely that I know my opinion. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- They submitted it through Articles for Creation and it was approved by another editor. They received a fair amount of assistance from multiple people from the AfC project. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that I misinterpreted the criteria or that I got it wrong; I'm as confident of my assessment as you are of yours, and I still feel that the article could have been deleted for either spam or notability without issue. It was a new article on a for-profit organization that emerged fully-formed from a SPA. I think that it is part of a group of articles that are mutually supporting and placed on wikipedia for promotional purposes. Unless, that is, you assert that a "newcomer" threw together an infobox and formatted wikilinks, bulleted lists, references, and external links on their first try. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I can appreciate that there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the CSD criteria and several strange seeming exceptions (particularly within the importance criteria) so it isn't really a big problem. The only issue with getting it wrong is that it can scare some new contributors off. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I may follow through, though I think I'm done with patrolling for a while. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)