Sumsum2010 (talk | contribs) m Talkback (User talk:Sumsum2010) |
→Have another barnstar: new section |
||
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
==Talkback== |
==Talkback== |
||
{{talkback|Sumsum2010|ts=17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)}} |
{{talkback|Sumsum2010|ts=17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)}} |
||
== Have another barnstar == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#if: {{ifequal|{{{2}}}|alt}}|[[File:Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[File:"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For writing a script to add a pending changes link to the taskbar. Thanks [[User:danno uk|<font color="#339900">'''d'''</font><font color="#009900">'''a'''</font><font color="#006600">'''n'''</font><font color="#336633">'''n'''</font><font color="#003300">'''o'''</font>]] 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 18:51, 14 July 2010
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Reversion on In God we Trust
Why in the world do you consider what I wrote as vandalism ? It is the truth and I can verify it.
Most sincerely, In God We Trust the Artist, formerly known as Steve Kreuscher
Twinkle
Please respect redirects. --Gwern (contribs) 02:24 3 May 2010 (GMT)
RfA thanks
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't remember voting for User:Example.... ;) Congrats, and good luck! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
AN/I about Peter Godwin (singer)
{{talkback}}
guidance needed
Hi Joshua, check out my reply to your message on my talk page. Thanks, X12R5G (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Guenter Rieger
Please explain why this post should be deleted. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontabo (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Guenter Rieger
Please remove Guenter Rieger. I have to learn more about WIKIPEDIA. Thank you. Guidance welcome for future articles. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontabo (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Revised Article
Hi Joshua, If you have a minute, please check an update on my talk page.
Thanks, Bob X12R5G (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey
I dont understand why you keep changing my updates.
Didnt I put the hangon marker to indicate that I was contesting the speedy deletion???
tyrekm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrekm (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the db-a7 tag needs to stay in as well. The author of an article is not allowed to remove the speedy deletion template. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
ok i didnt know that. sorry, I thought you were just being a jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrekm (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly wasn't my intention. I'll leave the article alone, though. However, if it doesn't meet the notability guideline it will eventually be deleted anyway. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Raw Water
Speedy delete for an article created in 2004 seems a little bizarre. However it was only created to satisfy a whim of another editor and could happily be deleted. Speedy though seems a little over the top! Velela Velela Talk 08:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This guy is still spamming his blog site to other articles, despite your warnings. He keeps calling my reverts and warnings "revenge" edits (he has some serious issues, if his website is any indication). As he claimed to "understand" your warning about his spamming on one page, perhaps you can clarify for him that it is not appropriate on any article, not just that one? I've asked User:The Rambling Man to take a look at his actions as well, as I'm getting really tired of his bad faith personal attacks and he doesn't seem to have any actual desire to be productive here other than his one cleaning of the Beyonce article. I've already left him a final warning, but his responses show he has no intention of changing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done some work on the article, turning this into THIS. Might you offer advice for further improvements... or care to asist in researching the additional ACTRA Awards? Thanks, --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked, but that was pretty much all I found. There are some interviews on the YCDTOT website, if you want to extract something from there. Well done on fixing the article up, I think there probably is some more out there, just not online. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did quite happily find that the good folks at the YCDTOT website have archived some of the Ottawa Citizen articles no longer online. You did some pretty good BEFORE yourself at the AFD... and kinda helped motivate me to fix it up some. Wiki-beers all around. ~ Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"... less than 123 years old"
Hi. I noted your addition to the BLP policy page to the effect that the BLP policy will apply to an individual who would be less than 123 years old, unless there is reliable proof of death. I was wondering whether there has been any prior discussion that established a consensus for this, or whether it is your own suggestion. If the former, I'd appreciate a link; if the latter, it might be best to have such a discussion (perhaps on the BLP talkpage). Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was brought up briefly at WT:BLP#Here's an easy one. Is this article a BLP?, but I mainly based it on the language at Category:Living people. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, but considering that any article in Category:Living people would be eligible for BLP protection, the change seemed logical to me. I do note that Jclemens, who's one of the strongest proponents of reducing the scope of BLP, did not seem to have a problem with the language, so I would think this will have easy consensus. Nevertheless, if you would like to see plainer consensus, I'd be happy to have an RfC. I'd rather have the age at 110 years, plus anyone on List of living supercentenarians. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Although I wish there were a reasonable possibility that people born 123 years ago or even 110 years ago would still be living persons, as a practical matter I think a presumptive age of 100 would be more than ample. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I've opened a discussion at WT:BLP#Maximum age of living persons. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Although I wish there were a reasonable possibility that people born 123 years ago or even 110 years ago would still be living persons, as a practical matter I think a presumptive age of 100 would be more than ample. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
LiberalFascist - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Thank you! 7 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
PIGS
{{Talkback}}
Would you comment on the back-story to the sources problem (a bold rewrite of the article by 99.141.*.* that I see as introducing many of the referencing problems)? I've replied to you here about it. --RA (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
High Peak disambig.
Hi, Just to say you've done an impressive job of disambiging the various High Peak entries. Cheers. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Edits concerning page on Ivan L. Moody (american singer)
I have answered your message on my page concerning these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.218.220 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding subject-specific notability
Right now, editors are considering all the subject specific guidelines as a way around the GNG. This isn't a problem with the wording of your new proposed guideline, it's a fundamental problem with the way that subject-specific notability is handled right now. Here are some examples:
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wassim_Almawi_(2nd_nomination) - No third party biographical coverage at all, but his published work is cited, so we keep it.
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_S._Alberts - His name is dropped in a couple places, but no third party biographical coverage. His work is notable, but he isn't. But that doesn't matter, because highly cited work meets WP:PROF, regardless of whether there's any sources upon which to actually build an article.
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olav_Basoski No biographical sources, but charted a song at #45 on UK charts, so was kept per WP:MUSIC #2
- Dr. Handel: "Wikipedia's "specific" notability criteria are what made all of this possible. Without WP:ACADEMIC, it would have taken a lot of maneuvering to sell the article as passing the general notability guideline, and it may well have been deleted." Sure it's a breaching experiment, but the subject-specific notability is what let an unverifiable article exist for as long as it did.
The entire point of the subject-specific guidelines is to allow these unverifiable biographies to continue to exist. If there were sources upon which to build a verifiable article, then it should be pretty easy to demonstrate that the person meets the GNG. It is for this reason I will oppose all subject-specific guidelines as long as they supersede the GNG and WP:N. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can respect your position, and I am opposed to the SNGs superseding the GNG as you are (especially when it comes to living persons). However, right now WP:ATH is a much worse guideline than NSPORT, so I'm trying to move toward a SNG that relies on the GNG, and just gives rules of thumb to prevent deletion just because there's no WP:GHITS. In short, we are attempting to create a SNG that is completely opposite WP:PROF. I do think the SNGs are important because AfD is a very iffy process, and concrete rules rather than the vague "significant coverage" help keep it grounded. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank spam!
{{talkback}} TFOWR 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 03:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)
AWB - HMS Birkenhead (1845)
Please check your edits when using AWB, it messed up an image on HMS Birkenhead (1845). Regards --palmiped | Talk 07:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do check my edits, but I have to admit that It didn't occur to me that doubled single quotes inside an image link would break the display of the image. That seems like a bug of some sort. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
unreferencedBLP tag
Hi. I've left a reply on my talk page. Epbr123 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Script
Ok - I'll try it! also, something that might be causing it, judging from my layman's eye - with the variable c_end, "index of" recognizes ";" , while in c_start, "pendch_show_box"is blue., should the parentheses be around C_start instead? I'm just comparing it to CSS and HTML.
// get our cookie if (document.cookie.length > 0) { var c_start = document.cookie.indexOf("pendch_show_box="); if (c_start != -1) { c_start = c_start + 13; var c_end = document.cookie.indexOf(";", c_start); if (c_end == -1) { c_end = document.cookie.length; }~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
sorry about the tony morris page
im sorry for not refernecing the tony morris page and thanks for bringing it to my attention , reminds me of getting things wrong when i was at school do i get a punishment of detention haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginofish (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for my very first Barnstar! I have cleared more than 60 of those unreference BLP articles, but I didn't really expect anyone to notice. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
What a kind appreciation! Thank you!!! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
PIGS again
And again (reverted to the version that you had reverted from on 11th June). I reverted again.
You may not believe this, but I don't like reverting between versions, but there is still no explanation from 99.* as to what he/she dislikes about the version he/she keeps over writing. Or an answer to the criticism of the text he/she keeps putting in. --RA (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I replied on the talk page. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR on the part of that editor. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Indefinite Block
You may not have noticed yet, but you have been blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia, the reason bing that you have “unsuitable user name”. I would like to petition for you being unblocked, as I think that that's a ridiculous reasoning, but in order to do so, regulations have it that I have to ask for your consent to do so. Would you be so kind ... ? Fossa?! 11:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, my name is Minderbinder over on the German Wikipedia. I am the sysop who has blocked you there. You should know two that in parallel to blocking you on de:WP, I opened a discussion on our admin board, as I felt that my decision could use some more scrutiny. Maybe you want to have your say there. I assume you do not speak German, in that case I will gladly translate for you. You can still edit your de:WP User talk page, or you can answer here, it does not matter.
- Contrary to stereotypes of Germans, I do enjoy humour, even of the scathing kind. Springtime for Hitler is hilarious, but it would have been impossible to produce this film in 1968 in Germany with a German cast. Names have different undertones in different settings. So while I apppreciate that your user name is not meant in any harmful way, and the humour is apparently tolerated here in en:WP, Germany has a vastly different past with respect to Fascism and Nazis. The book Liberal Fascism is virtually unknown in Germany, so that pun is lost as well. I simply do not want to find the word Fascist in any version history or contributors log. It is simply revolting, if you forgive me for expressing my feelings so strongly. Have a good day! PS: I cannot use my SUL account here on en:WP, as it was taken. So it is not an undue burden to have separate accounts for separate languages. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message, I have replied on my talk page --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have answered you there. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I have removed the point about Fossa's standing and presumed motives in this thread, as it is really not relevant to our conversation.
- Thank you for the message, I have replied on my talk page --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Rename on de:WP
Hello Joshua, would you like your name change to Joshua Scott to become effective on the German Wikipedia as well? If you answer in the affirmative right here on your talk page, a local bureaucrat at de:WP will take care of it. No need for filling out forms. How is that for German bureaucracy? ;-) --Minderbinder-de (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great! (And from what I've seen, you're not even close to en.wiki bureaucracy :) ) --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. You have to merge the account on de.wp into your SUL-account again. Regards, — YourEyesOnly (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ivan L. Moody
If i may ask, on good terms, what part of the information added was in a negative light, beyond that which was already there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.218.220 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Revert Ben Franklin
Hi Joshua, I edited the Ben Franklin page yesterday and it looks you accepted the pending changes, and then someone came along and undid that, which then caused someone else to revert the page back to before my edit as a result of 'vandalism'. It was only a small addition on his magic square invention as a test for my first contribution. Can you revert the page again? Also, just FYI I plan to create another account with a more appropriate handle(I created 'Sgvogel' in haste yesterday) tx Sgvogel (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my user page the other day. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Revert
Thanks for reverting my talk page :D James'ööders 06:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Haven't seen you edit this for nearly a month now. What's happened? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The list had gotten pared down and aged to the point of being irrelevant (IMHO), so I've been using Special:Export to grab the list of URBLPs, and the AWB database scanner to find ones that have '<ref>' in them. Once I have that list, I run a replace operation in AWB to replace the various unreferencedBLP tags with {{BLP sources}}. I'm checking each one, and skipping it if the sources aren't any good. There's probably only about 200 at this point that are incorrectly tagged (with a <ref> tag), if I had to guess. If you're interested, I can explain exactly how you can run the report.
- Lately, though, I've been working through Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Unreferenced BLP stubs and adding 1 or 2 references to those, and removing the tag. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS - now that I look, seems it's been updated. I'll have to take a look after I'm off work. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we just got a new list from Tim1357. I looked at thirteen and was able to remove twelve tags, so apparently we haven't finished yet. I'd never thought of looking at stubs only though - I'll have to give that a try too. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Have another barnstar
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For writing a script to add a pending changes link to the taskbar. Thanks danno 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |