Welcome!
Hello Folajimi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- New Page
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia:Maintenance
- Copyright_paranoia
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ElBenevolente 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ryan Anderson
Take a look at Jack Ryan for what you'll probably want to do here. If there are a list of different people with the same name (being similarly notable), the article for the name should point to the different people. Take a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages) for the gory details. -- ElBenevolente 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- The disamibuation page you've created for Ryan Anderson looks pretty good right now. I'd keep Ryan Anderson (traitor) for the article title, and redirect Ryan G. Anderson to the traitor article. -- ElBenevolente 05:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think "Ryan G. Anderson" would be a more natural way to disambiguate "Ryan Anderson". For one thing, as far as I can tell from the article, the guy wasn't convicted--or even charged--with treason.
- —wwoods 01:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. "I suspect that such an effort might require action from a Wikipede with admin rights to make the move..." Yup. As it happens, I am such a person. —wwoods 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
William Ryan
William Ryan looks good now. User:Mpearl moved all the links to the numerous William Ryans onto the William Ryan page. Keep up the good work, Wikipedia is certainly a work in progress! -- ElBenevolente 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Common names
For names like Will, Bill, Willy, Billy, the proper convention to use is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common_names). In other words, you should use the common name, that is the name that the person is best known for. ElBenevolente 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Adam Forkner
I've removed the tag from Adam Forkner. The musicians of Yume Bitsu should surpass these requirements. I'm off for a few days, enjoy! -- ElBenevolente 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- The warning about seizures seems appropriate for the external link. Regarding your edits to John Fitz-Gerald, make sure that your article clearly establishes notability. The article was deleted by the A7 clause of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. If you recreate it, try to establish importance so it won't get speedy deleted next time. -- ElBenevolente 23:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adam Forkner is looking good! It's clearly not a stub. We still have the issue of the images you uploaded. Those that are clearly for media publicity should be good. For the other ones you have a few options - fair use should allow you to reproduce CD covers if you have any. I think images really add to wikipedia, but you have to keep in compliance with all the copyright laws. Another option is writing email to the relevant people and asking for permission to use images in wikipedia. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 04:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More fun with disambiguation
Good question about how to handle South (band)... For now, I would create the article on the American band as South (US band). Eventually, you'll probably want to make South (band) a disambiguation page and move the UK band to a distinct page. But for now I'd just create the article on the American band and make sure to establish notability per WP:Music. If there is a second US band named south that is notable enough, you'd probably want to rename the articles something like South (Whatever state band), and link them on the South (band) page. Just use your good judgement! -- ElBenevolente 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chris Bennett looks fine! -- ElBenevolente(talk) 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation and avoiding speedy deletion
My best advice for you is to be bold! Using the disamiguation policy as a guide, and create any relevant disamig pages and articles. Wikipedia is very flexible and self-correcting, so just use the policy as a guideline and create articles. The community, as well as yourself, can make improvements as time goes on.
To avoid speedy deletion, make sure your new articles comply with WP:Music or WP:Bio guidelines and express notability as much as possible. If you feel a music-related article was wrongly speedy deleted, then I would recreate it and emphasize the history of the band or musician, include a discography, and include any information about collaborations -- then the article will not be a candidate for speedy deletion. I would also add a discography to the M.O.T.O. article when you can, to show that the band has a number of albums produced on indie labels. -- ElBenevolente 20:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Dan Burton
'Dan Burton (politician)' or 'Dan Burton (U.S. Congressman)' would probably be most appropriate place to move the 'Dan Burton' page. I've seen both used before for members of the House. Politician may have a negative connotation, so moving it to (Congressman) or (U.S. Congressman) may be preferable. If you move it, make sure to move the plethora of inbound links. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Technical limitations
There are a few characters that cannot appear in a page title, and + is one of them. Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical_restrictions) for how to handle this. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Me'Shell NdegéOcello page move
Before moving the page, I'd quickly propose the move on the talk page first. I doubt this would be a controversial move, but its a good idea to get consensus before moving anything around. It also looks like the article will have to be rewritten to use the accented spelling. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- No faux pas at all, that's what talk pages are for! Regarding how much time to allow for discussion on the talk page, I'd give it a week or so to see if anyone objects. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
To send me an email, go to my talk page and click on "E-mail this user" from the toolbox in the left hand panel. Thanks. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair use and signatures
Publicity photos probably fall under fair use - take a look at Wikipedia:Publicity photos for the details of what can be used. Changing your signature is fairly simple; just go to "my preferences" and put something like:
[[User:Example|Example]]<sup>[[User talk:Example|(talk)]]</sup>
for your nickname, and select "raw signatures". You can use the sandbox and the preview function to test your new signature. If you run into problems, check out Wikipedia:How to fix your signature -- ElBenevolente(talk) 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Watchlists and article submissions
I've not experienced the watchlist issue you're seeing, it could be a bug in the Mediawiki software. I doubt anything else would be going on. There are no limits regarding the number of articles or edits you can have during a day, so you're welcome to create as many articles as you feel like, keeping in mind the various Wikipedia guidelines (WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc).
If you sign your message with four ~'s, the date should show up after your signature. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Subject's Acting
In response to your question, the performances of an actor are, in every case that I have seen, included in the article/stub with the actor. --Emersoni 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Emersoni 21:40 December 29, 2005 (UTC)
Bright
Once you've made Bright (band), I'd probably move Bright to Bright (noun) and make a disamiguation page on Bright. The usual disclaimers apply: WP:MUSIC and fixing inbound links (article links will probably be sufficient in this case). -- ElBenevolente(talk) 03:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Edit conflicts
Edit conflicts happen from time to time. It isn't too uncommon for an editor to quickly edit a newly created page to insert a stub template, various categories, speedy deletion notice, or something of the sort. I wouldn't be too concerned with it. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 00:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Stubs, signatures
Robert Alexander (general) is no longer a stub -- I've removed the stub notice and placed the wikify template on the page. It certainly needs to be cleaned up. Regarding the three Moser-Sachs articles: since they all seem to have the same content using redirects would make sense. I'd find which name is the most common way to refer to him, and redirect the other ones there.
I'm not sure why you're having problems with your signature. Under "my preferences", I have exactly the following:
[[User:ElBenevolente|ElBenevolente]]<sup>[[User talk:ElBenevolente|(talk)]]</sup>
with "raw signatures" enabled. When I sign my messages with four ~'s, it seems to leave the timestamp correct. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Here seemed a good place to respond. For my signature, the code I use is
[[User:GeeJo|<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #809EF5; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #809EF5">GeeJo</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:GeeJo|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/GeeJo|(c)]]</sub><small>•</small>
with raw signatures enabled, this produces GeeJo (t) (c) • . For the date, I use
<small> ~~~~~</small>
So overall I type ~~~ <small>~~~~~</small> when signing posts. This produces GeeJo (t) (c) • 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC). You're welcome to use any, all, or none of the code if you want.
Martin Moser
Aloha! As to my comments about good faith, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Basically it looked like someone had copy-pasted the article from another encyclopedia, but since a quick google search didnt show anything matching it, I assumed the author was simply trying to present the article in typical encyclopedia format, rather than having lifted it from a print source. Hence the {{wikify}} tag. Regarding responsibility, since you moved the article, the history was maintained - so I could see it wasnt you who created the article anyways, but rather 80.123.151.230. Happy new year! GeeJo (t) (c) • 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Images
Some of the images you uploaded might not live up to Wikipedia:Fair Use. I'll take a look in depth tomorrow and let you know. The ones that are clearly publicity photos should be fine. Getting images on Wikipedia can be tricky... ElBenevolente(talk) 06:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the comment. It's not that I personally think there's anything wrong with the article, but many articles about bands eventually get nominated for deletion if they don't meet one of the requiremenets listed in the guideline WP:MUSIC. So if you know that their album charted or the band received mainstream media attention or something, you should mention that on the article. And it's probably better to leave the tag on so that people know to improve the article until it's clear if it qualifies per the guideline. - Bobet 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like a good sized stub article that does assert notability to a degree so I removed the {{music-importance}} tag. I hope no one else will feel the need to disagree. - Bobet 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
South, Bryan Hoffa, Signatures, Images
Greetings! South (U.S. band) looks good so far. Regarding Bryan Hoffa, is there a way you could add an article to a references section? It is good to cite sources, but you can go overboard. I'm not sure what's best in this case... For your signature, what happens when you sign with ~~~~? That's all I do for my signature.
Now to the images... The relevant places to look for official policy are Wikipedia:Publicity photos and Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. In general, you can only use images of people that have been placed in the public domain, or are specifically meant to be used for publicity. However, fair use would allow you to take an image of an album or CD cover, and place that in Wikipedia. Screen shots from TV or video should also be acceptable. But unless an image is meant to be a publicity photo, it probably isn't good to use. ElBenevolente(talk) 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Any images you've uploaded without confirmed copyright status should be deleted within a week. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Alexandru Xenopol
Take a look at the change I made to Alexandru_Dimitrie_Xenopol - adding links to other language wikipedia articles works like that. -- ElBenevolente(talk) 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Bryan Hoffa tag
Any reference or source that provides evidence that Bryan Hoffa was a sound engineer who has worked with Camper Van Beethoven, Cracker, Carbon Leaf, Patrick Phelan, South, Tanakh, The Saints or Neil Hagerty & The Howling Hex would do the trick. At the moment the article only asserts this as truth, but the claims needs to be verifiable. I notice you provided a link to the Sound of Music Studios, but unfortunately that site doesn't seem to provide confirmation of Hoffa's involvement in the studios (unless I missed something, of course). Regards, Sliggy 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Digging a bit further, I notice the Sound of Music Studios' myspace site does mention Hoffa, which is a positive. Sliggy 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The tag indicates my opinion is that the article should back its claims with verifiable source(s). I was noting that the above site provides some evidence for one of the claims in the article. Sliggy 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are no source(s) for the claims regarding Camper Van Beethoven, Cracker, Carbon Leaf, Patrick Phelan, South, Tanakh, The Saints or Neil Hagerty & The Howling Hex at the moment, and myspace web pages don't generaaly form adequately verified sources. Sliggy 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd chuck the link into an 'External links' section. However, I do notice that the AMG entry is for a "Brian Hoffer", but the article is about "Bryan Hoffer", you might want to include a quick note on the homonym. It goes a long way to providing source material. Any more sources available? Sliggy 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, be bold and put the link in then! Sliggy 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Sliggy 13:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
amg links
To get them to format properly, just use the template {{amg}}. Instructions for using it are on the template's talk page at Template talk:Allmusicguide. - Bobet 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"Working group" wikifications
Please take care when setting up internal links to "working group"; "Working Group" goes to a disambiguation page, and "working groups" causes a redirect. I see you are going through a significant number of articles and setting up this link, so please be sure to format the link as [[working group]]s (with the "s" on the outside of the brackets) if you want to make a plural. It will look the same, but will avoid the redirect. I've gone through a few to correct them, but I wanted to give you a heads up to try to nip the problem in the bud in case you have a few hundred more to go through. Thanks very much for your work, and happy editing! Kafziel 20:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, but the title of the page is singular so the plural form has to go through an automatic redirect page before it can get to the correct title. It's really just a matter of trying not to tax the system too much. If you put the s outside the brackets, it will still look blue like the rest of the word, but the link will go straight to the article.
- As you can see, both of these look the same, but if you click on working groups (correct format) and working groups (incorrect) you can see the difference: the little note under the title that says "redirected from...".
- Also, if you want to capitalize the whole thing, put [[Working group|Working Group]] so it goes to the right page.
- Hope that clears it up. Thanks again. - Kafziel 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all. I have gone through and fixed quite a few, and you formatted a lot of them correctly anyway. Thanks for all your effort. Kafziel 21:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to delete the redirect pages themselves; those are good to have, for the next time someone formats a link the same way, or in case someone searches for the plural form. It's okay to have them sitting out there, it's just better not to use them in the articles if we don't have to. Kafziel 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Glad I could help; that's why I'm here. Great job on the articles! Happy editing! Kafziel 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Takashi Hasegawa and why I nominated the article for deletion
Depends what you mean.. personal reasons? none whatsoever. don't know him, never met him, never used his program, never heard of his program etc... I care as much about this guy as I do about the man on the moon. Wikipedic reasons? There is no indication from the entry that he is truly "notable" which is the basic requirement for an individual to have a separate page on wikipedia. Writing an application, being a university grad or working for Hitachi does not automatically make someone notable. This does not mean that his inventions / collaborations are not notable - if they are (I have not participated in discussions on any of them) then it might be appropriate to include info about him there - rather than the other way round. Think how many computer programmers out there think they have created something special... millions. If you have information that is not in the article, now would be the time to add it and enhance the chances of the page being retained. As it stands, the article is a very short, uninformative biography of a computer programmer who wrote some code in 1998. A quick look at Wikipedia:Notability_(people) will show you that this falls a long way short of what is expected.
Would people expect to find information about this guy in an encyclopedia? Computer programmers do not deserve to be in wikipedia simply because it is a web-based entity. The practice of analysing "google hits" is also slanted with programmers which makes it necessary to give closer analysis to other factors.
The reason I nominate any article for deletion is because i agree with the principles of wikipedia and think that it's helpful to uphold and enforce them. You can find out a lot more about the pillars of wikipedia from the links at the top of this page. Hope that clears things up. --Deiz 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sweet.. I'd love it if everyone could have an entry too... but I guess that's called having a user page or a blog... take it easy --Deiz 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Spoken Wikipedia on Nightwish
Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how long spoken articles have been available for Wikipedia? Folajimi(talk)
- Well, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia was created on 2005-04-12, if that helps. ~MDD4696 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
SVG edit question.
No, I am not aware if the GIMP developers ever made such claims. I have made the edits based on my own experiences: The GIMP can import SVG files, but I have not been able to export (or save as) SVG. Jeff schiller 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'Sup Folajimi, well, yes, the GIMP does import AND export SVG's. The export function is well-hidden, on the other hand. See Talk:Scalable_Vector_Graphics if you want to see my explanation of how to do it. 68.100.68.23 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Acid Test inquiry.
- Hi, I noticed that Catapult updated the Acid Test page to correct an oversight on my part. Thanks! Folajimi 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)(talk)
- Just out of curiosity, does the bot also watch for vandalism??? Folajimi 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)(talk)
You're welcome, but I just realized the article for the band itself doesn't seem to exist. If they aren't notable enough for an article, they shouldn't be listed on the disambiguation page either. Do you plan to write an article? As for watching for vandalism, no, it's not that smart yet. Maybe sometime in the future. — FREAK OF NURxTURE () 03:24, Jan. 19, 2006
- Well, what can I say? They look like stubs, of course, lol. I'm not sure I understand the question. As for "Acid Test", I was merely updating everything that linked to the disambiguation page "rock" to point to a better target. This should not be interpreted as interest in the topics of the articles being updated by my bot. — FREAK OF NURxTURE () 15:24, Jan. 20, 2006
Re. 411 on Henry Taub revision.
- Hi,
- I noticed that you recently did a revert on an edit to the Henry Taub article. It seemed like the edit you reverted was vandalism. Yet, you were cordial and even took the time to talk to an IP??? What's that all about??? Just curious, is all... Folajimi 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)(talk)
Sine it was the first edit from that IP address, I was assuming that it was a "do they really let any random web sufer like me edit?" test edit. It only takes a few seconds to drop {{test}} on a user talk page, and by giving advice on how to edit it helps prevent biting newcomers. -- AJR | Talk 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
re: Joshua Ortega
Adding template messages to articles (like "stub") will draw different editors working on different projects to the article. I was working on stub-sorting, which is changing simple "stub" tags to more specific ones like "US-author-stub". I often just change the stub to a more appropriate one, ignoring other issues.
In the case of the Joshua Ortega page, when I got there it looked pretty comprehensive, so I removed the stub (I may have been wrong, but I've certainly seen shorter, less detailed articles without it). As you pointed out, it wasn't in any categories. I don't know much about categories, so I added the "uncategorized" tag to the bottom of the page, which should draw people working on that.
And for the record, I haven't been here as long as you, I just got into stub-sorting and have a pretty good feel for it after sorting a whole bunch. Thanks for dropping me a line. - Dharmabum420 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Chrissplash.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrissplash.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 02:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Eugène Soubeiran
Hello,
According to the sources, the content is correct. I would also try to find more references to complete this stub. Cheers, Korg (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
NSIDC edit
It's not as obvious as the "joey is gay" sort, but we're seeing an increase in subtle vandalism, in this case adding mystifying junk to the text. For nonobvious edits, the anon needs to describe in the edit summary or talk page, otherwise blam. Stan 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi. You asked, Today, I stumbled onto this WP page and was wondering how that really works. Can you reconcile those remarks with the action known as "speedy deletions?"
- These may be of interest: Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I haven't gotten deeply involved in the subject myself. Thus far, I've just used deletion to move articles. For instance deleting the old "Ryan G. Anderson", which was just a redirect with no significant history, to make room for the article on the guy.
- —wwoods 07:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
User page editing
While I appreciate the interest, I'll edit my user page myself, thank you. (Some people really really hate that, so be aware.) Why don't you make a user page of your own? Stan 13:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I did a quick cleanup. Dynamic programming isn't what you think it is: it's a kind of algorithm, like Dijkstra's algorithm and the solution to the knapsack problem. I made the definition more general, but it might not be what you like. I'd leave it broad, though, because people use interface inheritance in Python without any specific machinery. What the page needs now is an example and perhaps a formal model, and then it's golden! --Mgreenbe 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure! C++ interface inheritance is generally through pure virtual functions. This, however, isn't the STL approach: it uses agreed upon interfaces rather than virtual base classes. This is necessary because one needs to be able to treat a pointer as an iterator. --Mgreenbe 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again,
I've corrected a link, since Académie des Sciences ([1] - hist.) and Académie de Médecine ([2] - hist.) (Academy of Medicine) are not the same entity. Are you sure of his birthyear and his second name? A page mentions a birthyear of 1786 (see [3]), and another website spells his name "Pierre Éloi Fouquier" (see [4]). Best regards, Korg (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Eloi or Eloy is a masculine name, and Eloi is more widespread. Yes, his middle name written as Édouard is creddible too. I'd try to search other sources...
- Best regards, Korg (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Patphelan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Patphelan.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Sen16.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sen16.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jury
I'm no legal expert and thus would have preferred somebody else do it... David.Monniaux 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Stub
While the OBE article shorter than ideal, a stub is an article of only three or four sentences. Since almost every article is shorter than need be, we should be careful only to mark those greatly in need of attention with stub tags. - SimonP 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Re:Personal page
We all make mistakes now and then. No harm meant.Bjones 17:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your personal page has been reverted, except that it's no longer a red link. It's the best I can do.
- Sorry for any inconvenience.Bjones 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll see what you can do tonight. Can probably find an admin willing and able.
- BTW, your personal touch could use a little work. Just sayin'.Bjones 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a request to an admin. If he hasn't responded, my options are somewhat limited, since I don't have those priveleges myself. I'll try the village pump tonight and hope for the best.Bjones 13:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ignored me? That's quite possible, if not probable. The problem is that I don't have a personal relationship with any admin, and can't compel them to do as I ask. As I said before, I'll bring it up at the village pump tonight, and I hope that that will rectify the situation. Ultimately, that's all I can do.Bjones 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have made the request now at the village pump. Fingers crossed, and sorry.Bjones 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: Ann Cotton
Well, I somehow decided that it's a long article. I don't mind you (or anyone) inserting stub tag(s) back into it ({{UK-bio-stub}} and {{philanthropist-stub}} would do well, I guess). Conscious 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
311 page
I must have made a mistake - I thought I was removing the "needs a category" comment.
Please return the stub, or let me know and I will.
- Stafford
Thaddi Herrmann has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- So has Herrmann & Kleine. NickelShoe 04:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of the proposed deletion of stubs I created. Where exactly should I go to respond to the charges? The link provided takes me to a page for an item which does not even exist yet.
Eagerly awaiting your reply... Folajimi 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- In case I am unavailable when you do respond, here is some of the information to defend the articles:
- To put it mildly, de:bug is a German magazine dedicated to electronic music — perhaps the nation's most distinguished publication in that category. Is it valid to argue having Thaddi Herrmann as an editor for the publication is non-notable? As great as it would be to create an entry for the magazine in the encyclopaedia, it appears that Wikipedia's technical limitations make that impossible to implement. Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how to proceed with creating such an article?
- Also Herrmann was part of Sonic Subjunkies, an outfit that released at least a pair of full-length recordings, and were one of many artists featured in the online tribute from BBC's Radio 1 to John Peel. There is more I would like to say on the subject, but it should be said that google produces more than a handful of results on the outfit.
- As for information the duo known as Herrmann & Kleine, does information available on Template:Amg count?
- Cheers, Folajimi 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- All you have to do is remove the "prod" notice on the pages, and that'll stop the deletion process. You'll of course want to incorporate this information here into the articles, so they don't get sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, a deletion process that relies on debate (for which you would not be allowed to remove the notice). NickelShoe 14:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The "edit this page" link inside the prod notice is actually the same as hitting "edit this page" at the top of the page. Only for some reason Herrmann & Kleine is confused and sends you to the wrong place... I think it's the ampersand. Just edit the page normally. I'll get rid of the prod template for you if you don't do it in a little while, but please remember to add this information so that people know the article ought to be kept. NickelShoe 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Stub-sorting
Wow, your response was so formal I was taken aback! (at the time I saw it I was placing my bets in Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool, so I was in a fairly goofy mood). My feeling on stub-sorting is that articles should always have some sort of category applied rather than the generic stub so that users with more expertise in a particular field can review the article to either add to it or {{prod}} as necessary. I just got done fixing articles with stub tags placed in a number of awkward spots and figured no one would read my edit summary until at least a week from now so I sort of vented. Sorry if I offended! At times the generic Stub-sorting. You can help! message doesn't seem to get the message across that the stub tag is deprecated and I'm just so used to users who haven't taken the time to read the basics about Wikipedia before pounding away on their keyboards. =P Anywho, sorry! — Indi [ talk ] 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- And many thanks for your concern with my digestive tract. ;-) — Indi [ talk ] 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken, if that's even possible!
In the end I just felt I was out of my depth, either my brain's choice, or my mental capacity, I never distinguish between the two. :) --Zeizmic 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your Userpage
Bjones recently created a userpage for you by accident. He requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) that it be deleted, and I have taken the liberty of doing so. This returns it to being a redlink without a page history. If for some reason this doesn't work for you, just leave me a message. Canderson7 (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you're satisfied. Canderson7 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect
I assume you are referring to Academy of Medicine which redirects to a French title meaning roughly the same thing. This redirect isn't harming anything, and I did specifically state that it could be replaced with a separate article whenever somebody gets around to writing one. If you feel strongly about this, I encourage you to write the article about the Georgia institution you mentioned and place it at this title. — Mar. 3, '06 [18:11] <freakofnurxture|>
ACPOC Syndrome
You may notice that I've been removing your references at ACPOC Syndrome, and that I restored the neologism complaint that you removed. This is because the cited references do not support the idea that there is something called "ACPOC Syndrome". I have preserved the links on the article's talk page for future use if this term is eventually properly sourced, because they do seem to talk about the idea, if not the term. I've also explained why I've taken these actions. If you feel these links are sufficient, you should make your case on the talk page instead of just re-adding material that others have removed with explanation. If you have any questions, feel free to post me a note on my talk page. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
I didn't knew you were still editing it when I moved it. The rational of the move was it is not advisable to have an encyclopedia article just for telling that a person has a pseudonym. It can be better addressed at his own article page. A redirect from his pseudonym should be sufficient for redirecting people to where they were looking for. If you sincerely think that noone will look for his name and everyone will look for his pseudonym only, you can move back the page, but then build the whole article there and don't create a wiki link for his real name. Didn't want to startle you though. Cheers. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to edit, or even undo the move. I have told my logic of the move. If you contest you may, as you are the original author. Keep up the good work. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but there's a lot of confusion between us. Let me first put the things as I see it, and if you disagree, we can go ahead with what you suggested.
First of all, by moving the page from Aarktica to Jon DeRosa, the only thing that happened is that all the content that were initially present in Aarktica are now present in Jon DeRosa. A redirect from the former to the latter has been created so that anyone searching for Aarktica will be redirected to Jon DeRosa's page. The rational behind this was that the naming conventions requires people to be named by their real names unless they are uncommon.
According to you, Jon DeRosa has been famous long before Aarktica gained popularity. This means you will also agree that Jon DeRosa deserves to have a page dedicated to himself, that talks about his achievements and biographical details not related to his being Aarktica. Now, if we have a consensus on this, let us find out what a person looking for Aarktica will be looking for as against one looking for Jon DeRosa. The one looking for former will clearly be interested in only his musical career, while the latter would be interested in his whole life (including his work as a musician). Clearly, the former is a sub-set of the latter. Hence, the main article should be on Jon DeRosa. But someone searching for Aarktica should be able to reach what he was looking for but avoiding data dupliaction. This is achieved by redirects. To test how robust the system is, ask any friend of yours to find out about this person from Wikipedia, and then take his feedback. I am sure he would tell that he was satisfied. Actually after going through what you have said, it seems to me that even you have wanted a separate page for Jon DeRosa, but I am not able to understand why you are not happy about it.
Now the second issue. It appears like you don't know the difference between a revert and a rollback. A rollback is a feature available exclusively to admins (not to lesser mortals like us). Using this feature they can tackle vandals better by having to click just one button to undo the damage done by vandals. A revert on the other hand is a more general term used for undoing something that has been done. It is achieved by editing the page that you want to revert back to and saving the page as it is. This will undo the change made since. More details can be found at WP:REVERT. Now what needs to be done in this case is neither a revert nor a rollback. What needs to be done is (considering you still want it to be done) a move (again). Anyone can do a move operation and if the logic is given correctly, noone will object to it. Please note that it does not require any approval from admins or even any contact. So there is no case of tarnishing one's image.
Howsoever right I felt at my decision to move the page, I accepted your full right to undo what I said just because of the reason you told...about not stepping on other's foot. I am sure after reading this you will realise that we have been wanting the same thing, as it exists now. If not, there is no need to debate. You can do it yourself (by choosing move from the tabs above). If you feel uncomfortable doing it, I don't have any problem in doing it. Just leave a message and it will be done. Any kind of re-move will not be considered as an edit-war or uncivil behaviour as everything has been agreed upon. Even if you decide to move the page, I extend my full support. Anyway, keep up the good work and ask for any other help if needed. Regards, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul Hernandez
Eh it's not your article (or mine). I can move it whenever I want so long as its a valid move. I don't see how it matters who moved it or when, it needed to be moved. --W.marsh 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Eh look... it would only be a faux pas if my acting quickly did something that actually wasn't a good decision for the article. Which it didn't. I don't understand what the problem is. If you had come to me in a more civil tone, my reply wouldn't have been so hasty. --W.marsh 05:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul Hernandez (photographer) has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikilinking year names
Hi--I just reverted some of your recent edits on the UML page, and suggested you take a look at WP:DATE#Avoid_overlinking_dates. There's been some controversy over wikilinking years lately, and I don't feel I'm 100% on top of the issue, but my understanding is that we shouldn't link years unless there is something specifically important about that, which I don't think there is in this case. Feel free to discuss, revert, whatever, but check out the link about first. (Someone else apparently wanted to senf you the same message, but put it on your user page instead of here for some reason.) · rodii · 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Delinking dates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
Guinnog 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do apologise for accidentally posting my reply on your user page! Guinnog 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Done
I've deleted your user page as you requested and moved the message placed there to your talk page. Happy editing! Canderson7 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for contacting me. I hadn't seen your proposed version, so I wasn't trying to "short-circuit the review process". I found a page in need of a little aid, so I was bold and fixed it up. Your proposed version looks like an improvement over the current one, so please, edit away. Cheers! Deltabeignet 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Gnome (Bot)
sorry about the delay, I was explaing here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gnome (Bot) Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikify by date
Hi, to add an article to the by date category, add {{Wikify-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}
which is the same as {{Wikify-date|March 2006}}
rather than the old {{Wikify}} tag. I don't really know how you could help, other than to use this newer template, and of course by wikifying some articles, The old category has about 6000 articles in it, so it will by a while before the by-date categories have taken over fully. thanks Martin 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately adding months pre march 2006 won't work, as the categories dont exist, they could be created, but it is unlikely many articles would ever be added to them. Martin 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know when the articles where tagged, that is why I started the by-month categories, so in the future it would be easy to find out, and also so the categories wouldnt continue to get bigger and bigger. I'm not sure if there is any way to determin which are the oldest articles in the category. Martin 16:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Creating the categories is really very simple, look at the one I made before . That will show you how to make the category ([[Category:Wikify from January 2006]] for example), then to add an article to the category, just add the template
{{Wikify-date|January 2006}}
for example. Martin 17:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Creating the categories is really very simple, look at the one I made before . That will show you how to make the category ([[Category:Wikify from January 2006]] for example), then to add an article to the category, just add the template
That template has been substituted, i.e. that is the code contained in the template directly placed on the article, this can be done by adding {{subst:Wikify}}. It is not recommended for templates like these. While those categories are empty they are not needed, I removed the delete tage from the november one though as that is more likely to be used than the July 2005 one. Martin 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Pile driver
Hi, thanks for the message. While I was editing Pile driver, I noticed that there was another entry about the same device under Piledriver. It's usally smart to search wikipedia before creating a new article to avoid these accidental forks, there's been a few of them lately. I merged Piledriver into your article since yours was the far better of the two, and it seems like Pile driver is the most common spelling. Again thanks for the comment, it nice to get some positive feedback now and again. Eivindt@c 08:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Bryan Thomas Schmidt
Hey, I finished looking into the Bryan Thomas Schmidt article. If it weren't for the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, I think it could easily deleted as a db-bio/vanity. The article does assert his notability, and he does have an IMDB entry. However I think the claims are unverifiable or unimportant, and I don't think that the IMDB entry is a reliable source since it appears that it was written by Bryan Thomas Schmidt himself.[5] I definitely think this is AfD-able. — TheKMantalk 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Disambig
Hey, no problem. Check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more info. Mrtea (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
wikify-date
Hey, look at that. Who knew that template existed? Thanks for letting me know... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Folajimi,
Thank you for your clarification. I'll keep this in mind when I tag new articles.
Covington 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Good day,
Today, I noticed that a bot which you created is involved in the ongoing wikification effort. Could you please explain the bot's M.O. so that interference is kept to a minimum? Cheers. Folajimi 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- The algortithm is the same as for cleanup-date. The {{wikify}} tag and known redirects are replaced by {{wikify-date|MONTH YEAR}}. Pearle will look at previous versions in the page history, at one-month intervals, to determine the month in which the tag was originally assigned. Human editors can continue to use {{wikify}} and not worry about assigning the correct date, if they wish. Pearle sometimes also does some category and interwiki link cleanup, as described on User:Pearle. -- Beland 16:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Could you explain what Pearle is up to with the wikification effort? Although it updates the tags, the modified entries are not moved to the new subcategories. --Folajimi 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- You can look at the history of, for example, Live Squad, and see that the tag is changed and that the category has also changed. What leads you to believe that the category is not changing in sync with the tag? Sometimes there is a brief delay, but there is currently no backlog on the job queue (which is noted on Special:Statistics). -- Beland 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Initially, I did not think much of the delay, until I noticed that some of them remained on the old page, even after several page cycle attempts. For an example of what I am talking about, please see this delayed response. Then again, "...a brief delay..." is relative.
- I tried playing "spot the difference" with several of the revisions; apparently the bot was not making any syntax errors. The cause of the delays — some of which were longer than the example I gave — baffled me. I was just wondering if you knew why it happened, is all... Folajimi 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thinking more about the job queue, as far as the database is concerned, the change should take effect immediately. But there's any number of reasons why you might have been looking at a cached version of a page. It might be something in your web browser, or it might be some other kind of minor server lag. I haven't been able to catch any delays in action. I guess I wouldn't worry about it unless you have a problem that persists for more than a day? Pearle is working her way through the huge backlog of articles to be sorted; when she is finished, I will make sure there are no leftovers. -- Beland 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Does the bot ever [have to] "take a break" from working? Just curious. Folajimi 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, computer programs don't get tired, so not really. Pearle will soon run out of work to do, though. She's activiated around 4am (my time) every day to perform some accumulated cleanup tasks, and those usually get completed within the hour. Pearle would actually go a lot faster, except that there is a bot "speed limit" of no more than one edit every ten seconds. She also "sleeps" for a bit if the Wikipedia servers get overloaded enough to respond slowly, so human editors get priority. -- Beland 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you know? {{prod}} takes a parameter.
Hello there. You have proposed the article Bryan Thomas Schmidt for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I didn't mean to imply you did wrong; the article does indeed look a bit vanity-ish and has no sources. But he may well be notable (WP:BIO) for his producing work alone. I am no expert, so I have no opinion, really. If you think the article should go, you could take it to WP:AfD. Best, Sandstein 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- What are the odds of successfully pursuing AfD with this entry? Well, we won't know until we try it... :-) Sandstein 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
{{wikify-date|date}}
Hello there. Thanks for the heads up. will keep that in mind while tagging. Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 13:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable suggestion, I try to remember using that in the future (althought I've tried to tag mainly uncategorized articles). As for hyphen or no hyphen, I'm not sure what would be more appropriate - Skysmith 13:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your RFA
Hi, I moved your FRA to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Folajimi. Martin 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi, I've added a few questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would respond to them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please withdraw
I dont mean to be cruel, but your RFA is not going to pass. Please withdraw your candidacy. There's no point in continuing. I suggest you try again in 2-4 months, KI 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I saw your RfA as well, and I'll have to second KI's recommendation to withdraw your candidacy for now. Take the constructive criticism posted within the RfA to heart, and given a few months, I think a future request should easily succeed. See you 'round — TheKMantalk 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I supported your RfA, but I'd also suggest, if not withdrawing, that you take all of the oppose comments on board. If you do, I'm sure you'll succeed in another RfA down the line. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for Adminship
It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki "Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture" to wikisource?
I recommended that Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture be moved to wikisource. Like you I made some good faith edits to that article without realizing that it was not a summary of the document, but a cut and paste of the original.
Since you did some work on the article I thought you might want to voice an opinion on the transwiki. Have you ever been involved in a transwiki?
Cordially, Geo Swan 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Jumping the gun.
Good day,
It was recently brought to my attention that you were one of the people involved in the arbitrary deletion of an article I created a few months ago. While it had always bothered me that I did not get a fair shot at defending the article, I was uncertain who to express my concern to about the matter.
At any rate, others have recreated the deleted article, using the exact same content used in the entry you helped give the deep-six. The entry has since survived because others have vouched for its notability.
I say that to say this: please be careful with your privileges. It takes quite a bit of effort to contribute articles to this project; I would appreciate it if you could refrain from deleting entries and be courteous enough to offer the author a chance to defend the article.
Cheers. Folajimi 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Without knowing what article you are referring to, I can't make any reply to this. Can you please link to the article for me? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article in question is Cuba (band). Folajimi 17:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Collaboration
Hey -- got your message. What kind of collaboration did you have in mind? Currently, I've been working on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and List of shock sites (the latter being a very controversial page that needs a lot of cleanup; I'm trying to calm people down and get people discussing their edits). I'm also trying to get Cryptography ready for a nomination to WP:FAC. I'm also interested in cleaning out the cruft from disambiguation pages; there are a lot of them out there and many contain inappropriate redlinks or don't conform to the style guidelines, and furthermore, articles link there when they shouldn't. What are you working on? Mangojuice 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I took a look at Robert Salerno and made it a stub about the film producer (since nothing else links there, and the other two are redlinks). The danger there, I think, is that if someone DOES make an article on those people, there's no guarantee they'd name them the same as you did. Plus, the film producer seems to be easily the most notable use of that name. Not sure how Lokman is supposed to be a disambiguation issue. Henry Havemeyer strikes me as unnecessary: perhaps it would be best to just make this a redirect to Henry O. Havemeyer, until someone makes an article on the painter. (Might they be related, by any chance?) What's the deal with Lokman? Mangojuice 22:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Catboy
You're not supposed to do this. If anybody (even the creator fo the article) removes the {{prod}} tag, you are not allowed to return it. But, you are allowed to tag it with {{afd}}, of course. --Dijxtra 19:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Folajimi, I noticed this too. If anyone deletes the {{prod}} template, it's considered a contested deletion and you're not supposed to restore the {{prod}}. This is documented at WP:PROD. In this case it's a little confusing, because it looks like the first removal was done as part of a page blanking by a vandal, so it's easy to see how you wouldn't think of it as "re-prodding" so much as "restoring a vandalized page." But it looks like at least one person really was intending to delete the {{prod}}, in which case PROD no longer operates. · rodii · 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem--I assumed there was no malicious intent. PROD is new and we're still working out the kinks, and like I said, this wasn't a straightforward case. · rodii · 00:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The text was so poorly written that I commented it. It was an automated translation. Try to edit the article and you will see it. Ciao! Attilios
- You could undo it by yourself. It was very awful, however. A question: I'm of Italian language and ain't the more apt person to do it. Why don't you wik ify it, if you've time? Let me know.Attilios
Pneumo-whatsis
The article is on Afd at Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-coniosis where the result is either going to be a redirect or deletion; sorry if the summary was confusing. Thatcher131 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it looks like it has been boldly redirected in spite of the AfD. Thatcher131 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Acad Ronin
Re Jetha Lila
Of course it is not notable, unless you are researching Indians in East Africa, the Zanzibari revolution and its impact, the development of financial institutions in Africa, or foreign banks in East Africa, as I was when I finally found the article that I used to source the stub. I found the article by chance after having looked literally for years for any info on who the heck Jetha Lila was after finding some fleeting references in Colonial Office Annual Reports, and in directories of banks. I put the stub in as a pointer to the article in the hope that should someone else be doing research on any of the topics I mentioned above, or even some others I can't even imagine, they could benefit from my research.
Basically, I see no benefit from throwing away factual, well-documented information. I have a couple of other such stubs in Wikipedia that I put in for precisely the same reason. It is the ability of wikipedia to act as a central repository of potentially useful, though obscure info, that makes it of value. There are lots of sources for info on well-known stuff; it is the input by hobbyists of the detailed knowledge they have gleaned on highly specialized topics that is valuable.
Joze_Abram
Hello,
You WayneRay recently created the entry Joze_Abram entry, but the article's notability was not established. Please provide credible information to establish the notability of the subject. Folajimi 01:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no recollection of this although my name is there on the history page. The only thing i can think of is when I was going through the lists of poets or writers, i may have googled the name and made a page but I should have just made a link to the googled page I found. It doesnt seem to be a article about a writeror poet so just delete it. Where was the link from?? WayneRay 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
===List of slovenian writers=== he was there but I see no thing about writing so I deleted his name so go and delete the page I remember now adding. WayneRay 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
Re: Jim Maxwell (commentator)
Hello. Is there a way to clarify the decision behind the keep? Considering that the content which is being kept is not the same as the entry I nominated, it is important that this distinction be made. Folajimi 12:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)talk
- Done. See the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Maxwell (commentator). Snottygobble 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
John Francis Laboon Sr.
You recently closed the requested deletion of the entry John Francis Laboon Sr. The remark left on the debate page "Transfer to WP:CP".
First, there was never any debate. Rather, there seems to be no record of such a debate, as far as I can tell.
Also, the aforementioned target does not list the supposedly transferred entry.
Can you explain what this is about? Folajimi 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)talk
- I am sorry, I forgot to properly transfer the issue to WP:CP. This has now been completed.
- Standard Wikipedia procedure dictates that copyright violation issues take precedence over the AFD procedure. The debate therefore should not take place at WP:AFD, at least not until the copyright problem has been settled. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Patent nonsense
Please don't tag things as patent nonsense that aren't. Patent nonsense only refers to total gibberish, such as alsk;djJKK:JKJ;kjazs v89c*(***!!!!LKNL. No matter how poorly formatted the text is, if it's legible, it's not patent nonsense. Snoutwood (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your informed message.
- To be honest, it never occured to me that you meant anything different by "read like" than "it is." I certainly respect your diligence in choosing your words, but I think that most admins who see that on a tag would not discriminate the two, and I don't believe that most editors would mean "read like" in the same way that you did. In the future, I'd recommend actively discriminating, that is, make it clear that that's what you mean by saying something like "reads similiar to patent nonsense, as differenciated from 'it is' patent nonsense."
- In response to your second point: you are indeed correct that there is another definition of patent nonsense, one which I do not believe applies. My original post was terse, and did not reflect that. I apologize: I've been meaning to make a proper template about this issue, which I've come across a lot, and I'll be certain to do so now. I interpret case 2 as meaning "although not utter gibberish, confused in a manner such that any intended meaning is lost or impossible to understand, such as properly spelled but entirely random words." I interpret it as such as it says "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever" (emphasis mine). I conclude that had the intention been for it to be more liberal, than there wouldn't be so much emphasis placed on it being entirely impossible to make any reason from the sentence. Sentences that are meaningful but irrelevant are to be speedied under different criteria.
- The article in question, Oxidation base, does not meet that criterion. It is misspelled and the grammar is poor, but every sentence is sensible. Although I cannot be sure of the article's accuracy, I have no question as to what each sentence means. As far as I know, the article may be wrong. I don't know. But as far as I understand patent nonsense it is not that.
- As to your third concern, I don't doubt your good faith, and I'm glad to hear that you take such care with your edits. All I saw was an article that I thought was mismarked as nonsense, a very common error (although I can tell that you'd thought this over, and understood what you were doing), and I didn't want it to happen again. That's all.
- I hope that you find this reply helpful and satisfactory. Yours, Snoutwood (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- For ease, I will quote your passages and reply under them. When you reply, it's probably best if you don't interweave, as that makes things hard to follow.
- Or did you mean something else by planning "...to make a proper template about this issue..."?
- Yes, I did mean something different. I mean, "create a proper template in my userspace that I can use to explain to people what patent nonsense is a clear manner."
- First, let me say that your point about diction is well taken; however, I am afraid that I cannot be responsible for the interpretation of the rationale behind my actions.
- To a point, yes. But if you craft a sentence poorly or unclearly it is not my fault if I take it in the way it appears, even if that's not what you intended. "Reads like patent nonsense" isn't a CSD, so it's entirely natural for me to assume that you meant for me to speedy it under the actual CSD, which is "it is patent nonsense." As to assuming good faith, I have assumed good faith. I just didn't assume that you understood patent nonsense, which is different. Also, that it took you a long time to craft the sentence doesn't change that what you came up with is a phrase that isn't a CSD but is understandable close to a CSD, and I think that anyone would assume that that's what you meant. If you disagree, feel free to get some other views from the admins' noticeboard or the village pump.
- As to the second point, notice that I provided references to support my reasoning. While the sentences were coherent, they were wholly inaccurate. You said that you do not believe the second criteria applies; can you provide any evidence to refute the arguments I put forth, or are you [respectfully] making the assertion that my point of view is invalid?
- I have no idea if the article is wrong or not. I don't doubt your sources. But "article is wrong" isn't a CSD. I can't speedy an article for that. Not to mention that what we're talking about is patent nonsense, and that doesn't change that it isn't PN (see also WP:PN#Not to be confused with...). If that article's wrong, fix it or take it through WP:AFD.
- While I will acknowledge that I can see your point, the phrase which preceded it — "...that no intelligent person..." — did much to negate that point of view for me.
- Just to be clear, that's not my phrasing, that's a direct quote from WP:PN. And yes, the point is "to everyone": it has to be that confused. Which is why only gibberish (defined in #1 as random key pressing) and near gibberish, such as "John is a turnpike-eating waffle man!" (defined in #2 as "while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever") applies.
- Sure, the article in question does not qualify, based on your interpretation. Notice that my argument made no reference to spelling or semantic errors; that would have undermined my case.
- Yes, your point seems to be based on the article being wrong, which is different.
- Finally, you said that you cannot determine the accuracy of the remarks. If that is the case, why should questionable information — for which I have provided information which casts doubt on said entry's assertions — be allowed to stay in the main space? Why make Wikipedia a willing party to the charges that the Internet is a primary resource for misinformation dissemination?
- Because when something is tagged for speedy deletion, it's not my business to determine the accuracy of the content. It's my business to see if it falls under a CSD. There's a good reason that I can't just speedy things that I want to or that I think are wrong: I might be. If you don't like the content, fix it or take it through AfD. Snoutwood (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Or did you mean something else by planning "...to make a proper template about this issue..."?
Automation
If you have Windows you can use AWB. Are you going to populate the category? If so, it should be renamed to Category:Working groups, a plural form (or whatever decided at CFD). Conscious 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
AWB
In short, it didn't. I had AWB set to unicodification, removal of white space, and alerts; I was a klutz with it and made an edit that didn't need making. Apologies if I was confusing. Matthew Platts 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Have been "in use" since you created them... Rich Farmbrough 16:29 11 May 2006 (UTC).
Folajimi
The name Folajimi sounds Yoruba to me. Is that right? — mark ✎ 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I guess so. Folajimi 18:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
? But what I meant to ask was: are you a Yoruba, do you speak Yoruba, or is there another reason you chose a Yoruba name? — mark ✎ 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, I would have to say it's the latter. However, I consider myself to be semi-fluent. Folajimi 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Jim Phelan
My mistake - I meant to put it on a different page instead. Thanks for finding my error! --fuzzy510 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
inuse
You added the tag 2 weeks ago and made no edits since. The only plausible point of that tag is to avoid edit conflicts on busy articles... it is not a flag to be planted on articles you claim as your own. Leaving it up for prolonged periods of time might discourage people from editting an article. --W.marsh 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about the GFDL. Anyway it was effectively forgotten if it had been 2 weeks. Perhaps I should have said "misused template" or whatever. --W.marsh 01:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- So what, this is over a word I used in an edit summary? As for the GFDL, I am unsure of whether that really applies as that's more of a legal concept (I am not sure that people have a legal right to edit articles on Wikipedia's servers). WP:OWN would be the relevent policy here. --W.marsh 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)