→Bare links: new section |
|||
Line 806: | Line 806: | ||
'''Okay''' Give me an example of an article that I tagged with {{tl|cleanup-linkrot}} that didn't warrant it. Every one that I've looked at has had one. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
'''Okay''' Give me an example of an article that I tagged with {{tl|cleanup-linkrot}} that didn't warrant it. Every one that I've looked at has had one. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:'''Right''' You haven't given me an example of a page which I have tagged incorrectly. [[Never Let Go (live)]] contains two references--the second is such: <nowiki><ref>http://www.roadkill.com/Camel/discog.html</ref></nowiki>. This is a bare URL as a reference, which leads to link rot. [[Wikipedia:Link rot]] is the guiding how-to page here; if you've not read it, I suggest that you do. [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup|Maintenance templates]] are to be added to pages to improve their quality, not denigrate them. If they aren't added, then the articles aren't added to [[:Category:Wikipedia cleanup]] and it's harder to improve their quality. In fact, this is especially true of [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Best_practices_in_obscure_or_unpopular_articles|obscure articles]]--they are ''particularly'' vulnerable to these sorts of issues and are more likely to be improved by tagging than the heavily-trafficked and heavily-edited articles. Applying maintenance tags is likely to increase the quality of obscure articles and simply posting to talk will be very unlikely to increase the quality of obscure articles. [[Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems|It is important to clearly and concisely identify problems with Wikipedia pages to allow other editors to fix them]] and [[Wikipedia:Responsible tagging|this must be done in a responsible manner]]. The nice thing about {{tl|barelinks}} versus, say {{tl|NPOV}} or {{tl|Peacock}} is that the problem is very straightforward to diagnose (just look under "References" and you can see the bare URLs, rather than combing through the text to determine where the POV pushing lies or where vague terminology is applied.) Consequently, it is not necessary to explain yourself on the talk page. Also, there are tools like [[User:Dispenser/Reflinks]] that fill in references semi-automatically, which would not be possible with POV disputes. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 06:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:57, 10 August 2011
Proposed deletion of All Comers Track Meets
Hey Boss, why did you change the information Dave Grohl and high school? You don't know what you are talking about, ok? I went to high school with him and used to drive him home after school. Can you say the same? He attend Ireton as a freshmen -- I have the yearbook here in front of me to prove it. The wikipedia article is now wrong thanks to you. I'm tired of changing it.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article All Comers Track Meets, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Ventura County Transportation Commission
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ventura County Transportation Commission, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.goventura.org/?q=about-vctc, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ventura County Transportation Commission and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Ventura County Transportation Commission with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ventura County Transportation Commission.
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Ventura County Transportation Commission/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Ventura County Transportation Commission saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for Image:Flagguy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flagguy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Guide to Getting Around
I have nominated Guide to Getting Around, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Getting Around. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Arsenikk (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Twilight's Last Gleaming Cross Country Challenge
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Twilight's Last Gleaming Cross Country Challenge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
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. Arsenikk (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Andrew Hecker
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew Hecker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
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. Arsenikk (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Andrew Hecker
I have nominated Andrew Hecker, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hecker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Arsenikk (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of All Comers Track Meets
I have nominated All Comers Track Meets, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Comers Track Meets. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that BLP tagging is too much when the material is far from controversial. However, you should be aware that it isn't a bot tagging it, but merely converting the tag (see here where the original was added). Fancy joining up with the Athletics WikiProject? See the end of my Signature for more info. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:BonnanoHamptoncrop.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BonnanoHamptoncrop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Track and field athletics. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Link also removed from Mondo. That page is intended only for internal links to WP articles. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup
I noticed you or your bot redirected categorization of an article I initiated. It moved Lloyd (Bud) Winter from "Category:Track and field athletics coaches" to "Category:American track and field coaches" which was, I guess, appropriate since the previous category only has other categories now (someone has altered it, perhaps your bot). The problem is, now in its new category, Winter is now not listed alphabetically by his last name W, but by his first L. Since this is an automatically generated page, there is no way to correct it. It appears to be the only such case on the page, but should be corrected by someone with that power, perhaps by you since you caused the change to that category in the first place. Trackinfo (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I added a DEFAULTSORT to cassify with Winter. I hope is okay now --Sisyph (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
World record videos
The simplest and most straight forward idea would be to add an extra column on the record list (after "ref") and use a [bare] external link. A video icon might be nice, but then again it stops being so obvious that the link connects to something outside of wikipedia. Clearly, we won't ever have Wikipedia-friendly videos for this topic!
There seems to be a general dislike of external links mid-list, but I believe these types of video links would make a valuable exception. Indeed, without pictures or videos this is quite a dull, unattractive statistical list. I must say, however, that you should be keen to avoid linking to content of dubious legality. Some good links can be found at the IAAF website as well as their ever-improving and accessible Spikes Magazine. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, just looking on your talk page you seem to have been knocked about quite a bit regarding various Wiki rules. I'm glad you've decided to keep editing (you've done a good job on United States Olympic Trials (track and field); an article I pointed out as missing!). In reference to your above "promotional" reprimand – I was also looking to create an article on Mondo at some point. The best defence tends to be good referencing.
- If you do wish to make an article for Mondo (perhaps better named as Mondo (flooring)?) then you must choose your sources wisely – many editors are highly suspicious at even a whiff of a promotional tone, and rightly so. Look for articles in generally trustworthy and non-promotional publications. With Mondo, there are articles about their tracks from Slate, European Athletics, The Review and Speedendurance. A short article focused on their involvement with the Olympics (and track and field in general) is far more likely to stick than one which focuses on the qualities of their track surfaces.
- Some editors are very keen to delete articles which are a bit unfocused and messy – even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion claims that topics must be judged on notability alone, it has been proven time and time again that diligent referencing, solid writing and a neutral tone can make a largely unimportant article subject to less scrutiny than altogether more important subjects! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your additions of YouTube links, please see WP:EL, more specifically WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. Many of your links do not seem to meet the guideline. Prolog (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Ken Dabrow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Broadcaster with no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Recipient of non-notable award.
While all 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 {{dated prod}}
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 {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bongomatic 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Ken Dabrow
I have nominated Ken Dabrow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dabrow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bongomatic 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bongomatic 00:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bongomatic 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Andy Bakjian, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.usatf.org/HallOfFame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=8. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You just earned a timeout.
That rant on my userpage was totally unacceptable; you are therefore blocked for the next 48 hours for incivility. if you ever come onto my talk page or that of any other user with that big a chip on your shoulder, I promise the next block will be longer. Nothing here is ever lost and I do not cave to threats.
As for the article, no, it does not automatically meet notability standards and makes no effort to establish notability. I will, however, create a user subpage with the original content. That way, you can work on it at your leisure when your block lifts.
Next time, try acting with some civility. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You should know that I do not respond well to threats and I'm not about to quit over something I can reverse with a couple of keystrokes. If you have a dispute with me, ask nicely and we'll work it out. I had slapped a 48-hour block on you for incivility, but that would truly have been a misuse of my administrative position. Simply put, I blew my stack when I saw your message. As a result, I have therefore unblocked you and restored the article, but please do not hurl any more abuse at me or any other user. You should also know that I recognized the name "Ken Dabrow" and I voted to keep the article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution Process
Hello, Trackinfo. I've noticed that you have taken a step in solving an issue by posting in ANI. Please note that it is required that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What "ramifications?" Nothing here is ever lost. Mistakes can be made and thankfully can be reversed. Lots of new users ask why I deleted an article and I always respond in kind. Since I do a lot of new page patrolling, it's only natural that my talk page would have a history of inquiries into deletions. If I delete an article in error, I admit the mistake, restore the content and move on. That's what I did with your article and would have done so cheerfully had you not started in with demanding my head. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop
Trackinfo, you need to stop. I have been watching the situation since you started the AN/I thread about User:PMDrive1061's deletion of the Cornerstone Christian School article and brief blocking of you. While in my opinion, your decision to start a rant on AN/I was a brash one, statements like this are really going across the line into personal attack territory. PMDrive1061 is a widely-respected editor that is held in high regard by the community in general, and your continued attacks are looking more and more like harassment. If you don't drop this issue I will reinstate your block, as your behavior is becoming more and more disruptive. You may consider this your only warning. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please do. I let this drop last night and you're still on my case today even after I've corrected my error. Yes, I do act unilaterally, but so do all administrators. My unilateral acts, however, fall within this site's guidelines. Blocking you was in fact a breach of procedure, but I both unblocked you and restored the article after my temper subsided. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your offer at the noticeboard, but I believe I understand your position and I sympathize with it. I've had several articles of my own either speedy deleted or run through Articles for Deletion and no, it isn't any fun and I once lashed out in much the same way you did. I'm glad we were able to resolve this and I'd like to consider this matter closed. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The article John Whittemore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No evidence to support "world's oldest athlete" other than organization that claimed it.
While all 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 {{dated prod}}
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 {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Flowanda | Talk 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion invitation
Ikip 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored)
Thank you for your wonderful and creative suggestions!
I need help knowing where this oppose goes, I moved your oppose to talk: User_talk:Ikip/Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Oppose Please let me know where this comment goes, or move it there also.
I also moved your section up higher: Discussion_about_creation_of_possible_Wikiproject:New_Users_and_BLPs#Triage It is similar to the proposal in that section. this means more people will see it also Thanks again for your valuable opinion Ikip 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
fyi.--Milowent (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.
Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!
Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.
Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
BLP RFC
To be most effective, please give your input at one or more of the closing proposals. A summary is at the Q&A. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to give it a reread? Such an edit is not appropriate. NW (Talk) 00:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A warm welcome
Welcome to our group. Glad to see your name associated with the squadron.
Hi, Trackinfo, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on . And once again — Welcome! Okip 06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
Removing {{unreferencedBLP}}
May I ask what you are doing with edits like [1], [2]? IMDB is not a reliable source (per RSN, FAC, etc. discussions), and therefore, any links to it go in the external links section. Could I please ask you to not remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tags unless you add a reliable source? Thanks. NW (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the expansive use of IMDB throughout wikipedia, I have always assumed it to be a reliable source. And certainly it IS as source, so the articles I have removed such tags DO in fact have sources, whether you choose to recognize them as such.Trackinfo (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- liked your essay at BLP, and as confirmation, you see the above argument, where references are now "not reliable" (could be worse, i had someone try to argue that the NYTimes was "not credible") as response i will be using more IMDB references in the BLP contest, i recommend more of the same from you. doollee and fandango are similar. WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources and should not be used as sources within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of such articles be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose."
- we also see some references are blocked, where there is an allegation of copyright vio's at a website, (regardless of the reference copyright) Pohick2 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Jordan Hasay
Sorry about that. Fixed my oversight with a reference to her mother being British. Topcardi (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kudpung (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Proxy
I'm just fed up with this BLP deletion discussion. Since your position seems to be as close to mine as any, I'm giving you my proxy, and I've indicated this on that page. I really think anything you'd agree to would probably be OK with me, but I don't have the time to keep up with this, so please accept my delegating you with the power to speak for me as well as for yourself. -- BRG (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP discussion
Hi Trackinfo! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Award of a Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
This Barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to adding references to Biographies of Living Persons.
Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) |
- I hate to be a party pooper, but the link you added to Mark Montano does not count as a reference per WP:RS, and I have restored the BLP tag. This is not enough to make a BLP "referenced". Drmies (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but your removal of the UnreferencedBLP tag on this article is completely unwarranted. You removed the tag and in your edit summary said "references added"--but what you added was a single link (no plural here) to an unreliable source. Such removal of valid maintenance templates is incorrect, and I have reverted your change. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Trackinfo, will you please explain a number of your edits, such as those on William S. Nicolai, Pete Wilson (bass guitarist), Leeman Bennett, and others? In all those cases you removed the "unreferenced BLP" tag after adding a single reference to the article. In some cases, such as Nicolai's, the reference is not to a reliable source; in all cases, the reference added does not cover all the facts in the article. In all cases, therefore, at the very least you should have left a "refimproveBLP" or something like that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- As for your message on my talk page, in regards to Hans R. Camenzind, "If you have an issue with it, spend a couple of minutes adding it to the article, rather than 10 seconds to revert the article and those same minutes to complain"--you are right: it is no use complaining to an editor who can't be bothered to spend a minute looking for reliable sources, an editor who adds URLs to Amazon and Barnes & Noble and thinks that those are acceptable. That you would accuse me of laziness when I take the time to go through your edits and check your sources, which you seem to be unwilling or incapable to do, that only shows a bad conscience. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Hans R. Camenzind. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- This was just a very clear-cut case of you removing a valid template based on the claim that an interview with the subject on a doubtful website (for the "Semi Conductor Museum") would sufficiently reference a BLP. I have looked at maybe a dozen edits you made similar to this one, and have yet to find one where you validly removed the BLP unsourced tag. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Video links
Sorry! Just realised that I got the wrong end of the stick and realised it wasn't you who made these edits. Please ignore and carry on as you were! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Trackinfo, if you're still into sourcing BLPs, this one needs work. Sources can, no doubt, be easily found. I'd love to do it myself, but I gotta run (literally). Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi
You have new messages at my talk page :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLP backlog
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your efforts in resolving the unsourced BLP backlog. Keep up the good work. Gigs (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
a warm welcome
Glad to see a wonderful editor join our ranks.
Hi, Trackinfo, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on . And once again — Welcome! Okip 04:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
Athletics + Track field
I have been writing out a draft for a new track and field article in my userspace for the last few hours. There will certainly be more improvements to make but I believe I'm making a good start of it!
The way I have things in my head (and what can be guessed at by the skeleton structure of the draft) is that the "track and field" article will have links and descriptions of all the track and field events we have articles on. I think the event articles are very much worth having – no article could adequately tackle the entire histories of each event on one page. As you suggested (I think?) the main page at track and field will have a short summary and a link to a sub-article for each event or topic.
On the other side of things, the athletics article will have a brief summary of what types of events are held (e.g. sprints, long-distance, jumps, walks etc) and leaving the further explanation to the five sub-articles of track and field, road running, cross country running, mountain running and race walking (and the event sub-articles that are linked from there).
I urge you not to get too worried because I am confident that I can start something much better than what we've got currently at Track and field athletics. Things might be a bit work in progress for the next week or so though! Your input is always welcome and hopefully together we can deliver something readers will understand and enjoy much more! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand your concerns that I have removed some information from the athletics main article. It is possible that you might disagree with me on this point, but it is my philosophy that articles should not random trivia that does not figure into the greater significance of the subject matter. Examples of things I deleted include:
- "Steeplechase and long hurdle races are generally not held indoors, though inventive people have created some unique events. [3]"
- "In the mid 20th century, there was a series of "duel" races on Madison Square Garden's indoor track, some of which featured two men racing a marathon (42.2 km)."
- I also removed many of the uncommon events because, frankly, almost every distance one can imagine has been contested in some organized fashion at some point or another. More exotic events can eventually be listed in the separate Track and Field article that is to be developed soon. However, I do recognize your concern, and I'll try to re-incorporate the deleted information where I can. Mipchunk (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
About Pat Martin (Broadcaster) being tagged for rescue - I did that
The user, who nominated PM for deletion has a record of going contrary in advocating AfD's. I live in the Sacramento region and know that this radio person is a good guy but that a lot of his references are fleeting. Normally as a Page Patroller, if I nominate an article for Speedy Delete and other regular editor, who has a good history of contributions, comes along and says he declined the nomination. I let it. Not so with TonyB or whatever his username is. I put rescue on it because I did not have the time to rescue it myself. In addition, I did not want to appear as I had POV or WP:OWN issues. Anyone, who lasts 20 years in one market, is a survivor in my book and probably notable if not for that fact alone. If you are involved with the Radio Wikiproject, then I am preaching to the choir. --Morenooso (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know Pat Martin and am not involved in either Radio or Sacramento. I do have a long history in electronic media that started with California radio, back in the early '70's. My days in radio made me a lifelong amateur musicologist, which helps adding to wikipedia articles. But my interest primarily is in rescuing the unreferenced BLPs which are currently under attack. My simple message is that the vast majority, all but a microscopic percentage, are good faith articles about real people with real accomplishments. Most of the subjects belong on Wikipedia even tough the editor of the article didn't do a good job. They just haven't been sourced either due to lack of wiki knowledge, or outright laziness. The fact that someone took the time to read the article and tag the article, without making a effort to source the article is the height of laziness. If you know enough to tag an article, you know how to fix it. You have the tools, use them. As I happen on tagged articles, most source relatively easily. If they don't, I give up easily. You can tell if somebody exists and the claims are legit. Unfortunately for local radio personalities, there aren't standard sources to fall upon. This guy had lots of corresponding or corroborating stories written about him. He certainly is notable in his area. He's not something worth deleting, except that there is a small minded faction of wikipeople who just like to delete stuff. Since this was already on the path to deletion, I had to speak up.Trackinfo (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is precisely what I tried to tell that user both in my edit summaries and then on the article talkpage. Usually, when an article comes up like this, I will place the appropriate tags on it so other editors can take it over and improve it. Often I don't have time to save it myself especially if it is not of interest to me but like your observation deserves to be on Wikipedia. Then when I next see it come up on my Watch list, I will do some small edits to try to improve it. I think that in his heart of hearts, the nominator knew this article should not have been sent to AfD. --Morenooso (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject Running
Wikiproject Running has been serving Wikipedia since 2006 by covering the portion of sports that is not covered by then then sister projects Triathlon and Bicycling. I see that you are interested in the area, and invite you to get involved with our WikiProject. (We chose the name "Running" rather than athletics because in the United States, the word "athletics" also refers to basketball, baseball, football, etc.) We are a very congenial group and would welcome your involvement. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP work -- barnstar
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
Nice work with the quality sourcing of BLPs! Hobit (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
I know you already have one for similar stuff, but great work gets lots of prizes! :-) Hobit (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see the talk page for this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Football 40
Hi track info! Are you referring to the Super 60 event at the Millrose Games?[4] If so, I think that was just a plain 60-meter event. I removed the info as a football 40, by definition of its timing, can never be held as a race, but rather a time trial. I can see your point about US readers expecting some info there –I'll add back a short bit of the info just to clarify, but in my opinion a football 40 has about as much to do with athletics world records as a "longest football throw" record does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 09:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored and changed it a bit to say that track times and football times are incomparable. Previously it said that time was "artificially reduced", but this is not entirely correct. I agree that hand timing allows for great inaccuracies in football times (I'm sure that no coach actually believes they can get that 100th bang on with a stopwatch!).
- Also, on top of this significant factor, its common knowledge that some figures are exaggerated to work to the ends of some interested party or other–many of these so-called "fastest men in the world" ran 6.80s for the 60-meter college track teams! (A time that might just beat the great Reza Ghasemi when he's having a bad day).
- Besides all this, I think the key point is to state that track and football times are simply incomparable as they don't start out to measure the same thing. We should leave football fans to argue over whose inaccurate/falsified times are the best – from an athletics point of view, we must just stress that track conforms to consistent, strict criteria. I'm sure that if anything approaching these criteria occurred in a football 40, it would be accidental rather than by design (!). Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 10:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability Essay
Hello, thanks for your thoughtful comments on the notability essay. I agree that many Afds don't seem to recognize the nuances of our sport. This is why I think it is important to have a an essay to point to for notability. We should probably start it as something non-controversial, by adding the top lists clause. I think the miler you mentioned might make it under WP:GNG as it seems that there should have been significant print coverage anyway. Would you like to help me write a Notability essay for Athletics perhaps starting as a user extension page, then moving it to the community, and then moving it to an essay? I think we have similar goals. While I don't want a bunch of non-notable people getting articles I think the generally likes to exclude in our sport more than they should (hence why I think adding the top lists clause is very important, it is something that is very concrete that we can point to). MATThematical (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Jerry Brown
See Talk:Jerry Brown#Americathon. Will Beback talk 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources for BLPs
Thanks for adding source to BLPs. However, after checking a few that you've worked on I think you may not be aware of the limits on what sources are considered reliable. NNDB and similar sources which allow readers to edit the content do not qualify. Also, the only blogs that can be used are those that are written by the subjects (for information about themselves), and those published by newspapers as part of their regular editing process. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. And a minor detail: references go after punctuation, like this. See WP:CITE#Summary. Will Beback talk 01:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Israel
Israel is a member of the European Athletics Association. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Blogs and Forums
Hi TrackInfo. I totally sympathize with you regarding the idea of "reliable sources" excluding blogs and forums. The thing is, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is merely a guideline. However, people regard it much more seriously than that and most of them would be surprised to realise that the following sits a the top of the page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Jorge Stolfi's comments from February remain all in all very true.
On the flip side of this, WP:RS is regarded as just a suggestion but it is technically impossible to link to many blogs on articles because they have been blacklisted (wordpress etc). How's that for a strong enough guideline? In athletics, however, such problems can be resolved by reading blogs then finding the statistical information that backs them up. Pre-internet subjects remain hard to get a complete picture of (without extensive research that grad students might do for their theses). For example: The Central African Games was regarded as a minor soccer tournament until I actually did some reading on the subject. Books heal all, but will also drain you of much time!
Luckily, the IAAF, USATF, and European Athletics, can be used as a source of information for all major competitions from 2000 onwards. However, the fact that many competitions which GBR Athletics has results for are mentioned only there (and here if sourced) shows how much is missing. Non-specialist editors often sport-specific notability guidelines as a method for declaring all modern athletes notable – clearly missing the point that it is pre-internet age athletes who these guidelines can be most important for.
Getting the correct, contemporary sources for an Olympic finalist from 1960 might take weeks of work, or we can point out the obvious and say "yes they are notable" and get what's available written down without needing weeks of research! The digitized newspaper archives of all News Corp publications will be put behind pay-per-view walls this summer, just as the works on Highbeam will likely continue to go unused here.
Unfortunately for you, I think most of the things you are interested in (track/road/cross country in the US) remain very poorly covered. High-standard, dedicated websites like Bloomsday Run remain the exception rather than the rule. The "Rock and Roll Marathon" brand sums up the approach really (all promotion/no history). Back issues of Track and Field News might help you if you can get your hands on any. Content building is an arduous (and generally thankless) task for most people here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Overseeing
Hiya Trackinfo! Could you check quick to make sure I answered your question the way you intended at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election/Oversight/Arbitrarily0? I had some trouble understanding it, so I just wanted to make sure I answered what you meant. Hope you are well, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD for Linda Black
I'd appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I'm a rabid Deletionist. On the contrary, my views are very inclusionary; however, I do have a very high standard for sources that are used in articles, particularly in WP:BLPs. This standard is backed up at the BLP policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. None of the sources you have added to the article qualify under WP:V#Sources as reliable sources. Please also take a look at WP:SELFPUBLISH, which states that self-published sources cannot ever be used as a source for a BLP. Please let me know if you have questions on this, but as it stands, the sources added to Linda Black will have to be removed to comply with policy. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Adrian Royle
Thank you for posting this article but unfortunately the personal info was incorrect. I have corrected this and hope you will respect that. The sources you used have been wrong from day 1. Sorry I do not have any more sites for you to quote but as the subject is me I think I can vouch for the quality of the info :-)
As I am very new to Wikipedia please excuse any communication problems I am having. It isn't the easiest interface I have used.Old dead runner (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article while I was doing a regular check for sites "borrowing" my photos without permission , which happens far too often. As for sites with good info I'm sure there are some which could easily be found with a quick Google. But rules are a quick turn off for me. If Wikipedia wants to survive and be a respected source of accurate information it needs to adapt to the real world. My life continues quite nicely without it, as much as I enjoy the Web I know crap when I see it ;-) It was good to be able to set the facts right after putting up with pathetic journalists, who couldn't even spell my name, for so long while running.
I did enjoy the article, always good to read somebody's thought regarding what I did. I can supply facts and you now have the correct info so you can link to any sites that agree. You can contact me on adiroyle@aol.com Old dead runner (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I created the sandbox is because the useful parts of it can be moved on something like the article Archenemy or it can also be edited by others to make it better. If you feel like something can be done with the useful information if the main article gets deleted. You can discuss it on the discussion page of the sandbox. Cheers! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and another thing since the article is deleted. I noticed you put sources on the article which I did not have on the sandbox. You are welcome to put that on there for the ones that don't have citations are only hidden not deleted. Cheers! Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks for pointing out High School NCAA record holders
I was the one who originally added that (a very long time ago). If this does not get added back because it doesn't fit well with other sports we should figure out how to put it in the athletics section. --MATThematical (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Grohl
[5] - Created a discussion here. Would've ultimately preferred it to you reverting me :-) Anyway, I do hope we can come to some agreement. ScarianCall me Pat! 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Good News!
The article you wanted to stay, List of fictional archenemies is back sort of. Just click on the link of it and put the main article on your watchlist. Cheers. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Tagging and vandalism
Hi Trackinfo, would you be so kind as to revisit your comment and consider rephrasing "The tagger, essentially the vandal"? Even editors like myself who would agree that some over-enthusiastic tagging is counter-productive usually draw the line at comparing tagging to vandalism; not least because regardless of the effect, the motives are very different. ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in this article! If you've got anything to add to it then please do. I can't find much about what happened after the allegations... Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 12:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
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) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello - I see you reverted my edit to the above article. I had removed Category:Sports equipment because the article is also in child Category:Artificial turf. If Category:Artificial turf is the correct category for the article, then Category:Sports equipment should be removed. Gjs238 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I did not revert your edit, I left it in tact. I re-added the Sports Equipment category because I felt it was still appropriate, not realizing the child status. The parent/child status game is yet another issue. When I've seen such situations, more often than not, they bury and confuse information.Trackinfo (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the parent cat, then you put it back - but you claim that doesn't constitute reverting my edit. If you're dissatisfied with Wikipedia categorization (which is perfectly understandable) then perhaps you should open a policy discussion. Otherwise I am inclined to follow policy and remove the child category IAW policy (not an edit dispute, just following policy.) Gjs238 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEDE#Length. For an article of this length, the lede should be 1-2 paragraphs long, not three sentences. It is a fallacy that the lede of an article is meant to do the bare minimum to introduce the subject; it should serve as an acceptable overview of the entire article. Right now roughly 75% of the article has no representation at all in the lede. I'll be re-tagging on my next pass if the lede remains inadequate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
For this edit [6], do you mean the Olympic Trials? To me, The sentence implies the Olympic race, especially since it's possible that an alternate could compete there.
Also, I don't see where the ref backups either of these claims "This was possibly the closest elite race in history, the photo of the finish still used for instruction in the use of Photo finish devices". I'm looking at page 207, is that correct? While it certainly says it was close, I don't see where the historical perspective is coming from.
Given that it is such a long document, do you think a page number in the citation would be useful?
Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit waring
Recently I removed the Thomas template from the George Carlin article. I did so because the template adds a great deal of unneeded information to the biography on Carlin that is potentially confusing to readers. The template is, after all, about Thomas, not about Carlin. There is already mention of Carlin's role in the Thomas TV series in two places in the article, so the Template is simply repeating this, but also adding a great deal of unrelated information. I am going to remove this template once more. If you continue to think that it should be in the article, please discuss it on article talk page rather than edit waring. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Medal templates
Damage? I've been converting {{Infobox runner}} to {{Infobox athlete}} because the former is deprecated; I had nothing to do with that decision. {{Infobox athlete}} has the field medaltemplates
hidden by default; this is also not my doing. If you want to display these medals, it's a simple matter of adding | show-medals = yes
to the templates. You can easily do this yourself or, if you still want me to help, I can do that. That having been said, none of this constitutes "damage" to the articles or templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Slash
...research before you kill a contribution.
- material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If users don't add references is not my problem. TbhotchTalk C. 00:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
RE:
Yeah, I agree. I don't have any against the WP:ATHLETE criterion exactly, but it was just a general frustration I've had. Yeah, maybe I should have posted at WP:PROF, but honestly, I don't want to get into a large debate about particular points. Both criterions seems pretty good, they just don't seem to be applied very well (especially to new articles). Danski14(talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Flagging articles
Hi Trackinfo - an answer awaits you at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/How to help! SFB/talk 22:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
CCIs
Hi. I appreciate your willingness to help with the cleanup of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo, but unfortunately only members of the community who have no history of copyright infringement are able to assist with CCIs. To quote from the board " All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up." I'm afraid that you do have a history of copyright problems, although not an extensive one, with the earliest version of Ventura County Transportation Commission supplied by you deleted as a copyright infringement in September 2008 and more recent issues in 2010 with Andy Bakjian following too closely on [7], with some verbatim following and some close paraphrasing. Although you might, as you indicate here, "be willing to overlook the tendency toward copyright violations", the community is not. Please do not remove the tags from these articles yourself, but leave their review to those without copyright problems in their history, as the process board directs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation
One good reason that you should not participate in clean up, you have again violated our copyright policy. You claim to have rewritten the content at Pat McCormick (diver). Your rewrite included the following:
The accomplishment of her double-double Olympic diving victories has only been matched only by Greg Louganis the men's side. McCormick’s second double victory at Melbourne came only eight months after the birth of her son, Tim. McCormick continued training throughout her pregnancy and swam 800 metres a day until two days before childbirth. Her margin of victory in the 1956 springboard, 142.36 to 125.89 (more than 16 points) for fellow American Jeanne Stunyo, remains the most impressive in the history of Olympic diving.
The source says:
Pat McCormick’s double-double Olympic diving victories have been matched only by Greg Louganis among the men. McCormick’s second double victory at Melbourne came only eight months after the birth of her son. McCormick continued training throughout her pregnancy and swam 800 meters a day until two days before childbirth. Her margin of victory in the 1956 springboard, 142.36 to 125.89 (more than 16 points) for fellow American Jeanne Stunyo, remains the most impressive in the history of Olympic diving.
Other content, too, is duplicated.
Please be careful. Restoring copyright violations to Wikipedia carries the same sanction as placing them, and as you were notified by the "how to help page," "If you restore a copyright violation, you will be held responsible for that violation, as if you had written the text yourself." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Rewriting involves more than changing words. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this content needs to be rewritten "from scratch". This takes time. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Trackinfo, just letting you know that I took a look at these contributions too, and although we definitely appreciate your contributions and I can see you're making an effort to avoid copyright infringement, there is still some substantial similarity between the structure of the source and that of your edits that is clearly over the line. For example, the paragraph in which you describe her family is identical in the selection of facts presented and the order in which they are presented as the source material. The standard advice I give to avoid close paraphrasing is: 1. read and understand two or more sources; 2. summarize the topic based on your understanding, without looking at the sources; 3. consult the sources again to double-check your own writing. Let me know if you have any questions or need more help. Dcoetzee 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me on the proper use of warning tags at Wikipedia. I am experienced enough to know their proper use. The tone of your comment is quite condescending and unnecessary. The only reason I have not commented further is because I was called away from the computer as I was addressing the issue. My issue is with the overall tone of the article. It seems to be more of a put-down of Richards for not living up to the legacy of his father. Whether or not he is a failure is not a matter of discussion for a Wikipedia article (and frankly, I don't have my own opinion on the matter). Phrases such as "There is an asterisk to Richard's vaulting" tend to impart a point of view about the subject. The same information could be presented without the editorializing. Again, I'm not disputing your opinion, but pointing out that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy dictates that its use is strongly discouraged. Let's see if we can find a less-opinionated way of stating the same facts. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied there. - EdoDodo talk 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive anon editor on Jerry Brown article.
Hello. Regarding the issues you are having with the anon user, 98.247.157.218 (talk · contribs) in the Jerry Brown article, this user seems to have a political axe to grind, in this case, an anti-Democrat one. In addition to the negative wording the user attempts that article, the user has also made disruptive edits like deleting an entire biography section on the Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen.[8][9] Given the user's Washington D.C. location and relatively subtle spin in the edits to candidates' articles, I have a feeling this is a seasoned political operative of some kind. Anyway, I have warned the user against edit warring and will alert admins if he/she continues to violate 3RR.--Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Polly Plumer etc
Mmm, makes it hard when different seemingly reliable sources disagree. But I see it's back at Polly Plumer now, so if you're sure that's the correct spelling then I guess everything's ok. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
100 yard dash
I located a reference for my great great grandfather's listing from Sports Illustrated [10]. When I added it, I saw it backed up by several other references in listed in old published works available through Google Books but I was unsure how to cite them.--T1980 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Jon Stewart
I decided to delete my edit solely so that I could avoid dealing with people exactly like you. Did you even read what I wrote? I agree with you that it was probably overly complicated for the intro, but reading the word “although” as dismissive? That the show is “fake news” is not disputed. It's called “fake news” in all the commercials, etc. It is simply a fact, as opposed to a contentious assertion of some kind. The word “although” in that sentence serves the simple, grammatical function of marking contrast between clauses. The critics in question are arguing a point (in the second clause of that sentence) which contrasts with the very understanding of “fake news” (an understanding which is referred to by the first clause of the sentence). Please, go back to primary school.
Next you claim that I “follow up with the critics assertion of what he 'should' do,” which you claim violates NPOV. I'm not sure where to even begin. Even if I had written what you claim, I would have been very definitely adhering to NPOV, as I mentioned both sides of the argument, and in a very neutral form. In reality, though, I didn't even come close to writing what you claim. No argument which I related could even remotely be construed from their original articles or my paraphrasing as asserting what HE “should do”, as you claim. I wrote that the critics in question were arguing for THEIR right to judge Stewart by journalistic standards. Then, in the next sentence, in full marks, NPOV fashion, I made clear Jon Stewart's counterargument on that point so that both sides' arguments would be fairly represented, even though the critics in question are clearly wrongheaded.
The best part is how your ego is so massive that you really couldn't resist messaging me about it, even though I had obviously decided not to include my edit, and therefore nothing you would say on the matter would have any effect on the world, whatsoever. At any rate, I don't engage in wikipedia pissing contests, so write whatever you want, I really don't care. Write that he's actually a zombie-robot if you want, I won't stop you. Don't bother replying to this because even if I read it (which I probably won't) I won't be replying again.WildlifeAnalysis (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
List of California schools closed in the 1970s and 1980s
The topic is a good one I think, but the year of closure should be listed. What do you think about adding the year of closure & dropping the "in the 1970s and 1980s" in the title? Lionel (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Great idea. We could set this up like a table. However, as I have found, information about defunct schools is not always easy to find. I continue to find out about additional schools to add to the list, but information is sketchy. You know on WP, we strive for accuracy and verifiability. There is also the factor of how to present the case of a few schools that changed names, assuming the name of an older school at the former school's newer location.
- Buchser High School, is now Santa Clara High School--the old downtown location has become Buchser Middle School
- Chester F. Awalt High School became the new location of Mountain View High School.
- Blackford High School is now operating as Boynton High School
- Perhaps we can even address the fate of the schools or location. Most have not been torn down, or torn down in their entirety, but have become another school, community center or other public asset. And all these pieces of information should work up and down into the various articles about each.
- Most importantly, I'm glad somebody else recognizes the significance of the article and that it is worthy of attention. This was one of my first articles on WP, perhaps I need to go back to look at improving it. I welcome the help. Trackinfo (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've been cleaning up some Catholic HS articles, and about to move my Mt Carmel into article space. I've been adding to a mini closed list here. Anyway, all of the Cali HS school lists are a total mess! Take a look at this. Perhaps some kind of structure could be developed, based around a table. A comment column could address the fate. Lionel (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Great work!! I'll control the spelling of Dutch names and places. I forgot my log-in for the english wiki, but I jumped 1.47 in Naaldwijk some weeks ago, you know. 82.215.59.20 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Masters Athletics World Records
I'm not "trashing" your work, simply because your work is already found on the target page, there's no reason for you to create another page with repeated content. Victão Lopes I hear you... 23:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK then, go ahead and explain your intentions. I just want to know why do we need that page for just some data if that data is already found at the target page. Victão Lopes I hear you... 00:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but I didn't understand the "redirect code in each of these lines {{: }}" part. I mean, where is that code, exactly? If you are trying to make more detailed tables, maybe it's better just to rework the main table of results in the target page, because although this encyclopedia is unlimited in terms of space, creating multiple separated pages with little data can confuse readers and make it kind of hard to navigate through articles on that subject. Victão Lopes I hear you... 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get it...but remember that everytime you want to test something regarding to formatting, then you should use the sandbox or create an userpage. I'm afraid I cannot help you with that, since I just copy other's people formattings too. Keep in mind that if the page proves unhopeful to grow beyond that small table, it may be redirected again, if not by me, by another editor that come across the article. Victão Lopes I hear you... 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but I didn't understand the "redirect code in each of these lines {{: }}" part. I mean, where is that code, exactly? If you are trying to make more detailed tables, maybe it's better just to rework the main table of results in the target page, because although this encyclopedia is unlimited in terms of space, creating multiple separated pages with little data can confuse readers and make it kind of hard to navigate through articles on that subject. Victão Lopes I hear you... 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Hubert Indra M50 World Record Score
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Hubert Indra M50 World Record Score. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Masters Athletics World Records. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Masters Athletics World Records - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Kip Janvrin M40 World Record Score
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Kip Janvrin M40 World Record Score. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Masters Athletics World Records. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Masters Athletics World Records - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Gary Miller M50 World Record Score
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Gary Miller M50 World Record Score. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Masters Athletics World Records. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Masters Athletics World Records - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
How to make a template
click the move button, and rename it to template:Gary Miller M50 World Record Score I am doing this now for some articles. But for your new record pages, create it as Template:Gary Miller M50 World Record Score or whatever. The transclusion works the same and you do not need the word template in the curly brackets. The problem is that they do not make a stand alone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, instead of {{:Phil Shipp M70 World Record Score}} or {{:Template:Phil Shipp M70 World Record Score}} use {{Phil Shipp M70 World Record Score}} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
Saw your comments at the Youth Olympics AFD, so checked out your userpage. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's an Unreferenced BLP Rescue WikiProject you might be interested in joining. Cheers! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The Trades, Le Show
If needs be, I'll contact KCRW to verify that The Trades deals w/ the Ad Industry. Is this necessary? Tapered (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you listen to the show? I know the opening capella classica is Mozart, but don't know the exact piece, so refrained fr/ edit. I've listened to the show for 20 years. The subject of "The Trades" is common knowledge to regular listeners. The Trades = advertising. Tapered (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad. Reverted to your edit. Tapered (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your creation of United States Records in Masters Athletics article. Your hard work is appreciated! Philipmj24 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
No problem. Wikipedia seems to have a shortage of athletics enthusiast like yourself. You obviously are doing your part! You know, San Onofre isn't that bad. It takes some getting use to but it grows on you. I've seen worst!Philipmj24 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Mistake (AN/I)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jarkeld (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Masters
I don't know if you saw my reply: summary redirect created, you can create them though, without the admin bit.
Couple of things I'm interested in, relating to your work:
- Why the creation of templates that are only used once?
- The references you are putting in the templates (at least the one I saw) belong in the article - if you are using a standard set of references this is fairly easy to achieve.
- I noticed you use "onlyinclude" nothing wrong with that, but it is fairly rare, and IMHO worth avoiding in templates, as it makes them harder for people to understand.
- I had a look at the website, although it is very slow, it should be possible to script the data import if it is considered reliable.
Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
- The two articles that house the destinations for these templates are: Masters Athletics World Records and United States records in masters athletics. There is some duplication in some of the data. The templates were the only way I could find to lay out a different set of columnar data (the 5, 7 or 10 columns of results) within another table of different formatted columns (11 columns for World, 10 for USA), without destroying the layout of the original table. In html, it would be equivalent with creating a table with a table-a very common layout technique. In wiki, I haven't found any other means of accomplishing that deed, nobody has suggested one. Originally I created these tables within tables as articles, which is why the original formatting was more detailed information to turn the articles into stand-alones. "Onlyinclude" was necessary to separate data. It still didn't work, as articles these were sent up AfDs and lots of discussion ensued. So people with higher wiki skills than I certainly had an opportunity to see what I was doing and why. They had the opportunity to make suggestions, but other than converting this to template (to avoid AfD issues), no other suggestion was forthcoming. Regarding wiki formatting, if I were to have my way using direct html, I'd force the width of the "athlete" and "birthdate" wider, to make those important elements more readable, and I'd shrink the size of the "references" column, maybe even the "meet" column to compensate (in case you have any suggestions on how to accomplish that).
- The references (which do change in some cases, though there is one common source) are specific to that template, not the group of templates or the page. I guess those sources could be put in the references column on the main article, it was easer as I assembled them to place the appropriate reference in the same template as the appropriate data. In mentioning the slow website, I think you are referring to the source that is common to the majority of these templates: [11] Unfortunately that site masks the exact location of its specific data. I'd certainly prefer to direct to the actual source of the data, rather than forcing anybody checking the data to have to call it up (on that slow website) from the generic home page address. I'm not what you consider reliable, or from what perspective. Now typed, this specific data is historical and is highly unlikely to change. If a new record is accomplished, new data will have to be generated to replace this data, but the only changes will be if a correction is needed. As for the reliability OF the information; when I can cross reference it (or even the official data from official sources), certainly I am finding many more errors than I'd like. However, within this niche, this is the best we've got. I am actively pursuing finding additional back up sources for all of this and the new USA page will be announced to the general Masters athletics community in the next couple of days.
- It is a perennial problem, duplicating data an be considered a fork, or useful redundancy. Access for editing is also slightly vexed, regardless of the on-wiki methods available currently. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
- It is a perennial problem, duplicating data an be considered a fork, or useful redundancy. Access for editing is also slightly vexed, regardless of the on-wiki methods available currently. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
Template:Weight Pentathlon top Template:Vanessa Hilliard W60 Weight Pentathlon/sandbox |}
Name | Country | Hammer Throw | Shot Put | Discus Throw | Javelin Throw | Weight Throw |
---|
This sort of thing might help
- avoid the box in a box
- allow references to be used better
It can of course be done better.
References
Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
Thanks!
The Mistagged BLP Cleanup Barnstar | |
This barnstar does not cite any references or sources.[1][2][3] For your work with mistagged BLPs, thank you! The list is now empty with your help. Gigs (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
Redirects
Regarding Lasse Viren 20K and Viren 20K.
You needed to make those into redirects, by putting the code;
#REDIRECT [[Lasse Viren Finnish Invitational]]
I've done that, now, so they'll now take the reader to the article itself. For example, this edit.
Cheers, Chzz ► 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: How did you do that?
Well, I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised... :-) A bit of a coincidence, really: every once in a while I go to Special:NewPages - and this time, the word "athlete" in the article title was magnet for my eyes... GregorB (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved page
I've moved your new page to USATF Masters Hall of Fame, as that appears to be the name of the subject, and because I think the original name of the page is unhelpful in the encyclopaedia, as it could be in any field. It has automatically created a redirect from the old name. --ColinFine (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Well said
Just a note to let you know that I thought your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merkow were on target, and well put. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
removed dup --Fizbin (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
High school national record holder cat
Nice new category - thanks! A couple of considerations:
1. It might be useful to highlight in the name that this is US high schools. If you open it up to other countries you potentially open up a lot of hard-to-verify info. (Not to mention that in many countries - England and Canada for two - high schools have little to do with T&F.)
2. There was a comment when you created the cat that the NFHS generally are the arbiters of US high school records. In fact there are many many issues with the records kept by the NFHS, making them a constant joke amongst high school T&F fans. The primary arbiter for most knowledgeable folks is the mag Track & Field News, and their high school editor Jack Shepard, who publishes an updated record book annually.
edit: and there is no indication that this cat is limited to T&F records. Might want to further define the title. --Fizbin (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Trackinfo,
- Thanks for the feedback. Question on Cory Schubert. When did she hold a HS record? T&FN has her second all-time in the 3k, :but running it eight years after the current record holder. Maybe one of those NFHS-only records?
- http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/tafn-lists?list_id=34&sex_id=W&yyear=2008
- --Fizbin (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not only are open races out with the NFHS folks (killing Ryun's 3:55 and Webb's 3:53 amongst many, many others), so are the post-season meets (GWI and such in the old days, those and the NON-types now), so Michael Carter's 81' footer doesn't exist. The NFHS stuff is almost useless, in my opinion, other than your idea of using it to justify more articles. (BTW, I believe that Ryun's 3:51 was run while he was at Kansas.)--Fizbin (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of credible info from NFHS and T&FN's inconsistent web-based lists are the reasons I buy Jack Shepard's book every year, and have used it a few times here in Wiki for citations. Reminds me that I need to buy the current version, which hit the shelves a month or so ago.--Fizbin (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Gaston Roelants
The birthplace is not supposed to be in the birthdate section. You can move it somewhere else if you think it fits better. Deb (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. I have not edited "a whole bunch" of articles, I have just amended one or two to bring them into line. I see no problem with my edits. And, like I told you before, if you want to put the birthplace somewhere else, feel free. Deb (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is fine in the birthdate section, and in accord w how other encyclopedias do it as well as logical. There is something illogical to my mind about splitting "was born in" and was born on" into separate sections.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Your comment: "What your edits are doing is creating are sentences like: "McTear was born in Okaloosa County, Florida. He recorded an 9.0 mark in the 100-yard dash as a high schooler at Baker School, in Baker, Florida, . . . " and before I added to it "Raschker was born in Hamburg, Germany.[3] She has amassed 68 Gold Medals at the World Masters Athletics Championships . . . " Essentially you are leading the paragraph with something that is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. Thats just not good english."
- I see nothing wrong with the McTear example. To start with his place of birth and continue with his school career seems perfectly logical to me.
- I agree that there is a lot of biographical information missing from the Raschker article but I don't see how that is my fault.
- "Thats just not good english" is bad English. Deb (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Emil Pawlik M65 Pentathlon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:Kaija Jortikka W75 Record
A tag has been placed on Template:Kaija Jortikka W75 Record requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Pat Crandall
Trackinfo,
Yeah, I can see the issues with old folks who keep using the kid's toys. I did note in each article that the 42" hurdles are legit to some extent in masters racing. I would think that we can accommodate events not commonly recognized by teh governing bodies as long as they are using legit senior distances/implements and the meets are legit. As for a cite, I could not fine one for this online but this was a USATF state association champs meet (not masters, so they would have the 110m 42") so there are records somewhere.
And definitely, if you can run the 42" guys at age 55 and above, go for it! The record must be a tad soft because of lack of studly 58 year olds willing to give it a try. Crandall's not bad though. Was a walk-on hurdler at Stanford in the 60s, and never stopped.--Fizbin (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
high school attendance cite fpr Henry Thomas
Hi- I'm guessing you have cites for Henry Thomas; can you add one indicating attendance to his 'notable alumni' entry? Thanks. tedder (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'd prefer to have a centralized discussion, let me know if you need further talkbacks or if you are following my talk page. tedder (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
TV.com
Hi, I responded on my talk page. I don't think there is much of an issue here since TV.com isn't a reliable source for information (it's a wiki). IMDB is a different story, since it's not a wiki, and doesn't appear to be under pressure to be removed from Wikipedia articles. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of CIF California State Meet alumni for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CIF California State Meet alumni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIF California State Meet alumni until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff (2nd nomination). You were involved in a related discussion on notability of Pan Am game baseball participants and are are invited to participate in this AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48
RfA/MOS/KCOY-TV
I have to admit I am genuinely confused by your comments on my RfA. What do you believe a user should do when they see an incorrectly formatted sentence, or a misspelled word, or what have you? Are they supposed to leave the error but start a talk page discussion about it? If I see a named editor, or a single static IP, repeatedly trying to change something in a way that seems wrong to me, I'll gladly start a discussion about it, but those wikilinks seemed to me to being added by a long term disruptive editor (see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox) who keeps adding highly dubious unsourced info to the slogan sections of TV station pages; that's why I continued to revert (as I and others are reverting this same editor on an almost daily basis across dozens of TV station pages) without any discussion. If you follow up on the history discussed at that sandbox (and it goes back farther than that, to a few other editors who've since given up), you'll see that that disruptive editor has been active on very many TV station pages, has been warned and/or blocked numerous times, has had over 30 different IP addresses, and has never once used an edit summary or responded to any request for discussion; thus, we have taken the only stance we can, which is simply to revert all of their additions on sight. It's not about "my way or the highway", it's about a group of users (of which I am but one) trying to stop someone who won't listen, who won't discuss, and who is adding information that is dubious at best and completely fabricated at worst. The wikilinking is just a side issue, just something that I've been noticing recently that the same user is also doing, and which I believe is also against the guidelines.
Please know, if you ever have concerns about any edit I make, just tell me. Leave a note on the article's talk page or my user page, or even revert me in an article with an edit summary that briefly explains why you think I'm wrong (all things that the dynamic IP has never done). If I never know that you have a problem, I really don't know what I can do. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
Thank you for your participation on my RfA | |
Thank you for your comments at my RfA. I look forward to being able to keep working on the MOS issue, and hope that I can show you through my future behavior that I really do try to do what's best for the encyclopedia, not just enforce a set of rules. If you ever have concerns about any of my actions, let me know at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
NCAA Champions
Hi Trackinfo, hope you are well! I've had the idea to start putting together lists of the NCAA champions in track and field. Given the long history of the competition, I was thinking of dividing it along the lines of event, for example: List of NCAA Champions in the 400 meter dash would contain all the outdoor and indoor Division I 400 m winners (male and female). I'm ignoring the other divisions because that information would be a lot more specialist and frankly not worth the effort from my point of view!
My question is: do you know where I would be able to find historical information on the NCAA championships online? I've only been able to find this year's championships info. Hope you can help! SFB 10:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, never mind! I've found an archive of champions here. I'm not sure if you're interested in making any of the NCAA champion lists, but I'll make a start now anyway. SFB 13:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you enjoyed your time at the championships. With so many categories and events, I can understand the amount of time that masters athletics can take up. I wouldn't wish that amount work on anyone and I find the sheer number of events at the regular championships overwhelming anyway! You're entirely right about Wikipedia making this information more accessible. From our perspective, it should help us identify NCAA champions easily through the "what links here" button as well. The NCAAs are certainly of much importance beyond just the US: my draft of 400 m list has already shown how true that is!
- Some good news is that the guy at HickokSports.com has already put up the NCAA champions information in the same format I am currently doing. There's a very, very good chance I'll be able to write a mini program which could do all the time-consuming list-y bits for us! I'll keep you informed. SFB 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Bare links
Okay Give me an example of an article that I tagged with {{cleanup-linkrot}} that didn't warrant it. Every one that I've looked at has had one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Right You haven't given me an example of a page which I have tagged incorrectly. Never Let Go (live) contains two references--the second is such: <ref>http://www.roadkill.com/Camel/discog.html</ref>. This is a bare URL as a reference, which leads to link rot. Wikipedia:Link rot is the guiding how-to page here; if you've not read it, I suggest that you do. Maintenance templates are to be added to pages to improve their quality, not denigrate them. If they aren't added, then the articles aren't added to Category:Wikipedia cleanup and it's harder to improve their quality. In fact, this is especially true of obscure articles--they are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of issues and are more likely to be improved by tagging than the heavily-trafficked and heavily-edited articles. Applying maintenance tags is likely to increase the quality of obscure articles and simply posting to talk will be very unlikely to increase the quality of obscure articles. It is important to clearly and concisely identify problems with Wikipedia pages to allow other editors to fix them and this must be done in a responsible manner. The nice thing about {{barelinks}} versus, say {{NPOV}} or {{Peacock}} is that the problem is very straightforward to diagnose (just look under "References" and you can see the bare URLs, rather than combing through the text to determine where the POV pushing lies or where vague terminology is applied.) Consequently, it is not necessary to explain yourself on the talk page. Also, there are tools like User:Dispenser/Reflinks that fill in references semi-automatically, which would not be possible with POV disputes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)