William S. Saturn (talk | contribs) →For the record: new section |
William S. Saturn (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,355: | Line 1,355: | ||
For the record, I feel [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.152.38.240&diff=prev&oldid=335224100 your comments] are misguided and idiotic. But actually why does anyone care? --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 06:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
For the record, I feel [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.152.38.240&diff=prev&oldid=335224100 your comments] are misguided and idiotic. But actually why does anyone care? --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 06:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Okay, perhaps the above wasn't the best way to deal with this issue. And I admit that I assumed bad faith, however, I am upset that you are aiding this vandal. [[Suicide bombings]] are not an act of warfare, they are terrorism. The continuous blanking and adding of personal opinion is frustrating. --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:17, 1 January 2010
Welcome to my talk page.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to John McCain, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: John McCain was changed by Tcncv (u) (t) deleting 41895 characters on 2008-03-21T07:06:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2008, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rien 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Arithmetic progression article
Hello... FYI, your note about intermediate versions should go to the IP User:124.82.76.79. My only edit to that page was a revert of vandalism one week ago. --Ckatzchatspy 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Holy barnstars, Batman!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For reverting my dumb friends' edits to Columbus High School (Georgia) Evan ¤ Seeds 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
Sorry
Wup! SO sorry about that! κaτaʟavenoTC 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
re: Etta James
Ok, thanks foe letting me know. Smokizzy (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WTF
I didnt vandalise Matthew Mcnair Secondary I AM A STUDENT THERE the VP's name was spelt wrong. And i am a previous student at hamilton elementary the Vice principal became a principal in a delta school and they have a new vice principal.
What's a good faith edit?
What's a good faith edit? --Deep Alexander (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, it means that I respectfully acknowledge that that your edit was made with the intention of improving the article, but after looking at my sources, I happen to disagree. However, my opinion isn't worth more than anyone else's. Wikiedia welcomes all productive contributions (subject to certain Wikipedia standards). I suggest you investigate the most common usage. If you believe your change to be correct, add it back in and I will leave it alone. Tcncv (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for catching the nice little rollback collision on the Hogwarts article. The other editor and I apparently were both trying to rollback at the same time and, well, you saw the result! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Things get dicey when there are multiple simultaneous vandalism IPs. Sometimes it's best just to compare to the prior day and rollback if there's nothing productive. --- Tcncv (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd
This is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.13.233 (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- In what way? Surely you can't expect your changes to go unchallenged, do you? -- Tcncv (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Brontosaurus
That picture of a Brontosaurus cannot be from 1905, there was no such thing as color back then. It must be from 1945 at the earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.245.207 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Than You For Helping With Organic Wine
I'm new with wiki entries and appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.221.51 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Revert on Bootloaders
Re: Revert on Bootloaders When you did a revert of my previous post was your intention to remove the rather large chunk of the page that you did? I've reverted your undo because the paragraph you deleted was nothing to do with my addition (and thus your "undo" of my edits was a false assertion). (Note from 22:01, 1 April 2008 88.106.191.225 - transferred from my home page, where it initially sat unnoticed, since the change didn't trigger an alert.)
- Hello. Thank you for catching and correcting the material deletion. For some reason the rollback tool sometimes (very rarely) does not restore the entire article as intended. Not sure why - possibly a communication error. I usually check the results, but apparently didn't scroll down far enough to catch this one.
- As for your changes to the article, I originally only reviewed your first change and was of the opinion that it contradicted the discussion of common multi-stage boot processes that appeared later in the article. That was why I attempted to roll it back. I now realize that I neglected to review all of your changes. Had I done so, I would have seen the overall positive nature of your edits and not taken the action I did. Please accept my apologies. I will strive to be more careful in the future.
Reply
No I don't think I did (I was using huggle). Thanks for putting them back. :) -ChetblongTalk/Sign 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Great God Forbid Debate of 08'
Hey noobz. You toaly deleted my addition 2 god forbid n shit. liek dis is toaly uncalled for i was juz stating the obvious LOL. dey are toaly black people hahaha, and i got nuffin rong wit dat, itz juz so tru hahahaha. EDIT: When you sent me a message saying I made a questionable edit, you spelt "have" as "havde". You just lost the game. (Unsigned from 58.173.233.175 (talk) - 08:13, 8 April 2008)
- If you disagree with my assessment, you have the ability to add the change to God Forbid back in. I will leave it alone. Just be aware that due to the content of some of your other edits, you may find that your changes will be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
...for the revert on my talkpage! —97198 talk 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Dindigul
I have replied on my talk page. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Asuming good faith
I wish to remind you that using a level 4 vandalism template on a user that has not recieved ANY prior warning is agaisnt the wikipedia regulations. you did this on User_talk:24.207.122.254
You are doing this far to often so please consider this YOUR only warning :)
Should you continue to do this further action may be taken by administrators. Please do not remove this warning as that will be in breach of wikipedia regulations. Should you have any query's about the good faith policy please contact me via my talk page Prom3th3an (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- My last response didn't take - edit conflict). I jumped the gun on that one. I have doengraded the warning.
- You say I am doing this "far too often". With this exception I feel I have stuck pretty closely to the 1-2-3-4 guideline. Occasionally if the user has prior warnings in the past 30 days, I'll include those in my assessment. Am I wrong to consider these? Do users get a clean slate each day? -- Tcncv (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did a little bit of self-diagnostics to see if I'm as bad as you say I am. I reviewed my last 500 contributions and found that I issued 13 final warnings, 12 were preceded by level 3 warnings, and 1 by an earlier final warning. In the same period I issued three only-warnings. This last one, admittedly in error; one due to vandalism following an unblock, and one on a user that was inappropriate images across multiple pages. Looks like I skipped two levels on that one, so I'm guilty of two offenses. (I think I was monitoring two or more vandals at the time, I'll be more careful in the future. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
- When i said far to often i was referring to one time is to often enough ;) . you seem like a good guy, you can remove this warning and all relevant posts if you want. Remember, every month is classified as a new slate (start from lvl 1 with warnings). Cheers Prom3th3an (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead and leave everything. I don't mind a history that contains a mix of activity. It's a reminder that nobody's perfect and sometimes we go a little overboard when we get fired up. I've tried best I can to keep my a communications friendly and constructive.
:(
he WAS in deus ex! he's in the MJ12 secret facility!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.168.228 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
wtffffff
Why are you deleting my name out of the ARHS noted alumni?
- 1 YOU NEVER WENT THERE SO BUG OFF
- 2 If you ACTUALLY READ the discussion page you will see that OTHER PEOPLE have recognized that I am a noted alumni, therefore BUGG OFF!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_Regional_High_School_(Nova_Scotia)
- Please wee the notability guidelines at WP:N#General notability guideline. It does not appear that you have provided any evidence (reliable, independent, verifiable sources) of notability. Being known by fellow students or in the local community in itself does not qualify for notability. I am adding a {{list_fact}} flag to your entry in Amherst Regional High School (Amherst, Nova Scotia) to indicate that it is in need of appropriate documentation. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I appreaciate the fact that you are patrolling wikipedia, removing the horrible stench of vandalism from its gilded halls of knowledge. However, my addition to beautify the article is in no way said vandalism. It is deplorable people such as yourself have nothing better to do then sit around and bite newbies such as me. I hate your type and must say you ruin wikipedia for all of us. Good day sir ~
- I must say that it is refreshing to have someone notify me of a mistake in such a polite manner. However, after reviewing the change, I believe the my original conclusion was correct - that the change was not constructive. I agree that the article Stade Ahmed Zabana is in need of enhancement, I do not believe adding "Your mother is ridiculously ugly" and an image containing a light prism was a step in the right direction. I hope this does not discourage you from finding other ways to contribute to wikipedia. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the horrific holes in my logic, it is regrettable to say but indeed you have me outdone. I commend you for keeping up the wikipedia spirit! But time is short and I must bid you farewell. In the spirit of so many vandals that have come before me, WTF???? WHY"D YOU DO THAT????!?! ~Your dearest friend
Elevations
The elevations I have been using are the GNIS elevations see here [1]for Beaver Meadows. . I am not sure about the Google elevations and they may be correct, but the USGS ones seem to be "official". Dincher (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing them elevations on Google Earth, I will change them back to what they should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.148.30 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Be sure to cite a verifiable reference, or it is likely someone will come along and revert the chjanges back to the USCG numbers again. -- Tcncv (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Colin Belyea
Yay! Yet another admin to have fun with!
Jeff Probst
On User talk:Bobo192, Tcncv said:
Hello. As a recent editor of the Jeff Probst article, I'd like to invite you to share your opinion in the Talk:Jeff Probst#Born 1961 or 1962 discussion I have initiated.
Thank you for your note. When I made the reversion, I actually was unaware of the fact that there was controversy surrounding his birthdate, based on different sources saying different things. I am as far away from knowing the actual facts as you could imagine, and thus other than quoting the two sources saying completely different things, I feel I would be unable to offer my opinion in the situation. All the same, I hope the issue is sorted soon. Bobo. 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Alice Hamilton
Hello, Can I write Alice Hamilton in the article Progressive Era ? Thank you for your answer and sorry for my English. --Sweet buttuery tart crust (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- See the Progressive Era talk pages. And there is no need to appologize for your English. You can apparently speak English much better than I can speak French or any other second language. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
US AIrline Pilots
Thank you for intervening. I will refrain from inflammatory comments. I only use them to counterbalance when deleting doesn't work. There is very little room for neutrality here until the US Airline Pilots Association comes in with factual data. My comments are in line with the official line, and I can easily come up with an endorsed article from the USA Airline Pilots Association. However, Wikipedia seems to be more like being up to my ass in alligators while my task is trying to drain the swamp. So, what good does it do to get the US Airline Pilots Association to endorse a Wikipedia article if the vandals just keep spewing their garbage? Now I have to hunt for the tilde key..... Found it! Pilotusa (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your candor. I was debating whether to scold you for saying effectively "Don't use the word 'scab', SCAB!" but I see that's not necessary. By the way, I'm only a passer by, with no interest in taking sides, but I would like to see both points of view fairly represented. What is missing are the external references needed to document the views of both sides. For example, there was an assertion that the ALPA did not follow its own guidelines in the arbitration agreement. A reference that documents this would be useful.
Regarding the reference documents...do they have to be web based? That might be difficult. ALPA has predictably (and reasonably) cut us all off from their members-only website where the ALPA policy might be found. Additionally, the "windfall" would require some reader knowledge of the arcana of airline pilot seniority and quality of life issues. These are quite convoluted and almost unfathomable to anyone who has not actually BEEN and airline pilot. Pilotusa (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well in an ideal world, all information in Wikipedia should be supported by verifiable references, but.... As far as seniority goes, I only know that: (1) when group A's livelihood faces off against group B's livelihood, I don't want to be in the middle; and (2) if I ever hear that an east pilot and west piloy are in the same cockpit, I think I'll trade in my tickets and fly United. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Flying United might not help. Word on the street is that US Airways and United are about to announce a merger plan within 10 days. What a disaster! Oddly, I think the pilots of US Airways east and the United pilots will do everything in their power to stop any merger between the two carriers, while the pilots of US Airways west see the United pilots as their knights in shining armor come to rescue them from the big, bad USAPA. Personally, when I go on a vacation that has airline flying involved, I purchase a ticket on Continental when they go where I need to. Pilotusa (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DragonFable Article...
Not totally sure what happened to this article, but your recent edit made all of it disappear except the first two paragraphs. I've fixed it, and all content should now be replaced. Alinnisawest (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- My system hung halfway through the rollback. Had to reboot. Thanks for fixing the article. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I did not provide incorrect information on palal this is true information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.30.90 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have searched and can find no supporting evidence. In the context of your other edits, I believe I was correct to undo your edit to the Palal article. If you believe your information to be correct, please provide a source. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
USPS
I understand why you would continuously change my edit of the United States Postal Service entry, but I assure you, no copyright violations are taking place. I am employed with the USPS, and sought permission from my superiors before typing a single letter of the article. Most of what I included came from the USPS website and is far more factual than what is currently on there.
I would also like to add that I am somewhat new to this whole Wikipedia thing. It is neither fair nor accurate to call me "unwilling" to discuss this with you. Hopefully, I will soon be more Wikisavvy. I currently seek adoption by someone willing to guide me through this a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.36.130 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded here on the article's talk page. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
olympics
The olympic.org website was attacked and the wrong information is written there. Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.65 (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I have noticed other websites were similarly attacked-no doubt a plot by the Russians. You should keep the correct info until the problem is solved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.65 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Check the August 2,1976 edition of the New York Times for the correct information. Thanks for your good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.65 (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Did you ever check the New York Times article? I expect better research from the great staff at Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.65 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC) It seems you are working with the Russians. I am simply defending my great country from you commies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.65 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
A portion of the following thread was moved from the top of my talk page. The first item originally appeared on my user page. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tcncv, sorry for the distruptive edit that I had done. I forget to use the sandbox just now. By the way. Great work! Thank you for loving wikipedia. I have a question, how can I become a admin like you? Do you get paid? Because I heard other admin said that they are beign paid thousand + for monitoring work. I am curious. I thank you for your prompt help in advance.60.50.226.103 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.226.103 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Tcncv, you shouldn't be so irresponsive... I ask you some question but you didn't reply me.
- Are you angry because I accidentally posted my question on your userpage? I didn't see that you don't like it... If you angry I think you are too "small gas"ed......60.50.226.103 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (AKA 60.48.215.103 (talk))
- First, I find it hard to believe that your actions were accidental, since you have made multiple similar disruptive edits across multiple pages. Second, it's hard to know how to respond to someone who asks about becoming an administrator immediately after such a string of disruptive edits. However, in the interest of WP:civility, here is my response.
- Before you could become an administrator, a lot of things need to happen. First, you need to stop your disruptive edits. Next you need to create an account and use it to build a substantial history of constructive edits. Only should you consider following the procedures outlined in Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Your history will be scrutinized and you will be asked to demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, show your ability to work will with others, and to give evidence of your substantial positive contributions. There's much more to it, but in the end, you need to convince existing administrators of your knowledge, skill, trustworthiness, and willingness to work. Only on a consensus vote from other administrators would you be let in.
- By the way, I am a regular user who often acts in the role of a recent changes patroler. I am not an administrator myself, nor do I expect to be in the foreseeable future. Of the millions or registered users, only about a thousand are active administrators. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok! Thank you! Sorry! Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.111.68 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
On restoring warnings
Please don't get into silly edit wars to remove template warnings; they're of little importance, and vexatiously restoring them time and again usually only antagonizes people and encourages further spiteful disruption. This specifically refers to User talk:24.163.199.100. If you must see it in writing, Wikipedia:USER#Removal of comments, warnings has it. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. i always read wikipedia, in english, spanish and italian (my user name is amoroma). Sometimes i read messages about im doing vandalism in articles in english like Canada by population or List of Cities in Venezuela. My little contributions are in spanish. I know there is a problem with IP Share (an IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers and a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many) Im frustrated by these irrelevant messages when im not logged or when i change in english version. What can i do? thanks190.77.40.162 (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)amoroma
- I suggest that you log in and when doing so, check the box labeled "Remember me (up to 30 days)" or "Quiero que me recuerden entre sesiones". This way, your login session will be remembered and you will no longer receive messages for other users who happen to be assigned the same IP. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Olympics
I didn't notice that it said prior, but the listed Olympic record, by Milorad Čavić, was from yesterday, therefore that wouldn't be prior to this competition either. So I don't know who it should say then Ctjf83Talk 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed the same thing. As you were sending the above note, I was retrieving the "prior to this competition" record. Thanks for double checking. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, get it straightened out! Is it suppose to remain prior to this competition? If so, who is the previous Olympic record holder? Ctjf83Talk 02:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previously - Phelps from Athens. Beat by Jason Dunford in heat 7, beat by Milorad Čavić in Heat 9, and retaken by Phelps in the finals.
- Ok, so it should say Phelps from 2004? Ok. Ctjf83Talk 02:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, assuming that early versions of this page are correct. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so it should say Phelps from 2004? Ok. Ctjf83Talk 02:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previously - Phelps from Athens. Beat by Jason Dunford in heat 7, beat by Milorad Čavić in Heat 9, and retaken by Phelps in the finals.
- LOL, get it straightened out! Is it suppose to remain prior to this competition? If so, who is the previous Olympic record holder? Ctjf83Talk 02:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Header standards
Well, I'm certainly not using the word "standard" as a whole but only for the single sporting events articles that are being held at Beijing 2008. Since Day 1, the people who are working in the events single articles (just like the one you cited, Men's 100m) have used and enforced the use of a slightly different header style for the Medalists chart. You won't find a big discussion in the Olympics portal about the issue because of its relative unimportance and since the start of the games, it has been more like a consuetudinary agreement, not an explicit one. Just as your pointing, in the TOC, the section "Medalists" is listed like a ==H2== but it is not: the reason to use a ===H3=== is that the the header is bolder and more visible for the reader who, we imagine, will be searching for the athletes who managed to win the medals in a specific event. Besides, we consider that the medalists table is part of the starting section as it gives a summary explanation of the main highlights of the event, complete results come further in the article. Mannschaftskapitän (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Believe me: ===H3=== is no bigger than ==H2== but it is bolder. Besides the line that goes below ==H2== makes the medalists table look out of place as it should be attached to the starting summary section. Complete finishing results are below. Mannschaftskapitän (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to you too. We all know that what wakes Wikipedia bigger and better every passing day is the possibility of discussing every single change no matter how big or small is. Mannschaftskapitän (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Page move
Hi there Tcncv – at the time of moving the article, I wasn't aware that it would be inconsistent with all the other Olympics articles, although I'm sure that's true because en-dashing in titles isn't always common (especially with topic articles all the same in a "set"). I'd be happy to undo that and leave it consistent, because as you were saying, now is probably not the time to try and assimilate all the articles for moving to proper MOS titles; that's its own project. :-) Thanks for letting me know, good luck! Jamie☆S93 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Category spelling
Yeah sorry bout that. The category is right but its gonna confuse the hell out of people isn't it Basement12 (T.C) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Steven Spielberg
Hello. Was it your intention to restore copyright-violation material to the Steven Spielberg article? See the Washington Post article. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, Of course not. I saw someone adding it on my watchlist and immediately reverted it. Seeing its history now, you reverted first but I accidentally reverted you a few seconds later before seeing that you'd already done it. Reywas92Talk 01:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed in your contributions that you make many similar repeated edits such as removing categories. i recommend WP:AWB which is a much quicker and less tedious method. Reywas92Talk 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Complete conversation is here.)
Bid Image Response
Hi. I just got your message. The reason I'm doing this is because I notice that on some pages (i.e, 2008 Summer Olympic bids) there have been pictures that have been deleted. I hope you understand. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Bid_images.)
I Don't Understand...
I don't understand why my edit to my old high school page keeps getting deleted. I should know who the notable alumni at my own school are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.212.208 (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- In general, notability should be documented and verifiable. Significant (non-local-interest) media coverage may indicate notability. An athlete who has made into professional sports may be considered notable. Often the presence of a Wikipedia article on the person indicates notability, because that article itself must satisfy the notability criteria. Just adding your name to an article without anything to back it up will typically be reverted. See WP:NOTABILITY. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing vandalism in may!--Jab843 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair use of currency images
Hi there,
For currency images, the fair use rationale explicitely says that can be used as long as the coin is either described or critized. The coin is described in both of the articles your removed them, hence there is no problem on the fair use rationale of the image. Let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
Thanks,
Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(Moved to User talk:Miguel.mateo#Palace_of_Knossos_commemorative_coin_images for continuity.)
Math homework question: [1]
Was it the "side" of a blackboard you were thinking of as a plane instead of a line ? If so, that depends on the type of blackboard they meant. I was assuming a wall-mounted blackboard, which has 4 edges (right "side", left "side", top, and bottom). Perhaps you were thinking of a free-standing blackboard, which has a front "side" and a back "side". I hate vague questions like this. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- No I was thinking of each of the four corners of a room, which I see as a line defined by where the walls intersect. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can see how it could be interpreted that way. It depends on what the textbook or instructor intended by "corners" - vertices or edges. The Wikipedia corner article (not necessarily the definitive source for this problem), seems to prefer the edge definition. Shall we post this back to the reference desk to see what others think? -- Tcncv (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish!
Please, explain why you stated on my talk page something along the lines of;
- Tabloid rumours do not qualify not do articles derived from tabloid sources.
If you look at Frank Lampard's page you can find a link here Frank Lampard you'll see source 26 written by Rebecca Evans 'Lampard: I'm true blue' written November 9th 2008 you'll see it was published by the Daily Mirror a newspaper/tabloid. Explain your position. I expect a response within 24 hours. 83.104.51.181 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for the typo. The note should have read "Tabloid rumors do not qualify, nor do articles derived from those tabloid sources."
- There are two things that Wikipedia takes very seriously. Copyright infringement and the introduction of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information in biographies of living persons. I previously referenced WP:BLP#Reliable_sources which contains the guideline, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used." I also call your attention to the section immediately following GRAPEVINE, which begins with the statement, :"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." I believe this clearly applies to the changes that you make to the Matthew Upson article and Struway2 (talk · contribs) was justified in reverting those changes. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Tcncv. I added you to Wikipedia:RD regulars. Hope that's okay. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing really. :) We just thought it'd be fun and it eventually developed a life of its own. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
why are you banning my edits
i am a family member of nate holden, and i know some secrets of his! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserking911 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is against Wikipedia policy to add negative or controversial biographical material in articles on living persons without providing reliable sources to support the content. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Rural numbers
News4d2's refs do not agree with his/her point of view.Nomad2u001 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then please say so in the edit summary. (I'm taking a look at the article history and talk page now.) -- Tcncv (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Physician assistant
Perhaps you would like to review the continued activity at Physician assistant. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comment will be appreciated
I saw that you have visited and edited List_of_Nobel_Laureates_by_country. Unfortunately, I am the only user who seems to be actively taking care of this article. I recently proposed a guideline on the corresponding talk page by which I try to solve the issue on how to correctly mention the birth place of a laureate. I did not get any reaction. As I said, I think noone else has it on watch. For maintaining the article it would be helpful to have consensus on the rules that underly the composition of the list. Unfortunately, I cannot build consensus alone. Also I want to avoid ownership accusations in the future. Therefore, your critical opinion to the topic would be very much appreciated, if you have the time and interest to sort this thing out. Thanks. Tomeasy T C 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
Tcncv,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
Reply
He kept adding some stupid flag of his own creation (called 'Wang Flag') in place of an actual nation's flag. 1. TopGearFreak 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: 98.231.153.180
- Conversation is here
Thank you
Thank you for your kind comments. I feel better now that there are still some objective people out there patrolling edits. Thank you again. I wish you a happy new year! Aruba1018 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Table sorting
Great minds and fools I suppose. With respect to your VPT thread, I've been hacking at the same area.
My approach though was to first solve the problem of complex table headers, such as those in User:Franamax/Sort2test. This uses the classes "sorthdg" and "sortkey" (and "sortable2" for the table itself) and lets you define invariant header rows and specify just one of the multi-spanned headers for sorting. On my local test wiki it works great, and I was planning to extend the "sorthdg" concept to handle multiple in-table headings. For some reason though, when I transferred my script over to User:Franamax/sortable2.js, I get "unterminated string constant" errors.
Anyway, if you can use any of my sortable2 code, feel free. It has a pretty good "look-up-and-over" algorithm for figuring out the actual data column within the header, or at least it looked good on the tests.
Do you have a written-up algorithm for your approach? If so, please send. Not sure if we can combine efforts or not, but I'm interested... Franamax (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like we have been working on separate areas of the same script. I pretty much left headers alone, with the exception of a check for column header class="autorowspan". I had it in the back of my mind to look at table headers as a followup to rowspan/colspan support. I'll take a look at what you have. I'd also appreciate any comments you might have on my enhancements. -- Tcncv (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Some additional (though probably outdated) discussions on the topic have also occured here. SharkD (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
new WP:RDREG userbox
This user is a Reference desk regular. |
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyerc 07:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Naturoid "vandalism"
Thank you for your assistance. It's quite frustrating to spend an hour rewriting journalese and have my changes reverted out-of-hand. – 74 06:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes a BOT (an automated process) will revert an edit that significantly reduces page size and issues a warning, even if the edits are valid. That then puts you on the radar for Huggle (a vandalism patrol tool) whose users tend to be quick to revert changes by editors who have already been reverted earlier. It shouldn't happen, but it does. I was in the process of taking a closer look at your edits when someone else took the quick click-and-revert route. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here's what I saw (amidst patrolling,) that caused me to revert:
- An undoing of Cluebot with no explanation.
- What looked to be a large page reduction.
- An image name which sounded like vandalism appearing in red: "Mechaduck" (which was probably what was the "straw" in the calculation to revert).
- ip editor (yes, I'm used to seeing sweeping changes by ip editors that need to be reverted)
- No discussion/notice of intent to do a sweeping change on the talk page
- Also note that if you glance at my talk page, I make a lot of notes while patrolling -- and usually catch errors that I make. This one didn't trigger my "oops" sense, for the reasons above.
- NOTE: If patrollers didn't make semi-quick decisions, the mathematics of vandalism control do not compute.
- Here's what I saw (amidst patrolling,) that caused me to revert:
- IE: When on patrol, RC patrollers do function a bit like a bot. Based on patterns we've seen and processed, we make a fairly quick decision. Clearly such decisions may be in error -- as may well be the case here. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I realize mistakes happen. I did not mean to criticize. I've had my share of false positives too. I have to admit I almost reverted the edit myself, but changed my mind and decided to scroll down and take a closer look. What really bothers me is that there appears to be no way to restore the user to good standing to Huggle. As far as I know, this user will continue to be flagged as being twice reverted for the rest of his edit session (or however long Huggle tracks this), increasing the chance of further erroneous reverts.
- I do appreciate that you have at least taken a look at the situation. I ran into a similar case with a new user editing the Axis powers back on 31 December. Once the first reviewer reverted, other Huggle users followed. The IP user was event accused of sock puppetry when he created an account to continue editing. I dropped the reviewers a note and at least one responded essentially with an I-don't-case response. Clearly, you are on the other end of the spectrum. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Oliver Black (artist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Oliver Black. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
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) 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another editor had replaced the content of an article about one individual with information about another. I was in the process of moving the new content to a new Oliver Black (artist) page and had not yet restored the prior Oliver Black page. -- Tcncv (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Oliver Black (artist)
A tag has been placed on Oliver Black (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RunningOnBrains 08:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies for the message, I didn't quite get that you weren't the actual author here. I have posted this warning at User talk:Websweweave, where it belongs. Cheers!-RunningOnBrains 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)
Thanks for the heads up. I apologize to the user. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know it's sometimes too easy to hit that big red button when you see a large deletion. I guess an edit summary by the other editor could have made the intent clear. I any case, you efforts patrolling for vandalism are much appreciated. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oliver Black identity debaucle
Hello,
I have read your comments and there is misunderstanding. I agree that the article begun on Oliver Black, the person and artist, needs embellishing and that will be coming. However, *he* is the *person* with the name, the group does not include *any* person of that name and the band has changed their name as described in the article you restored, thus one person was not replacing another on the page.
In essence your action serves to deny the *person* the ability to let folks know of his many accomplishments, giving prevalence to a group that apparently randomly chose his name on a whim for their group in its early years. Perhaps it wpould be more appropriate to remove the information on the group under the name Oliver Black and for Wikipedia to move the rest of their information to a "Towntime" page. It was appropriate and considerate to begin the article with a NOTE leading people to information on the band.
Oliver Black, the person, attempted conversatin with the group when he saw his name associated with it in 2004 after he had had a web presence already as oliverblack.com. They have been unwilling to explain why they were using his name.
Most importantly, the band has now changed its band name, I quote them in Wikipedia: "In September 2008, Oliver Black officially changed their name to suit their new musical pursuits and sounds, to Townline" from the bottom of the article you restored.
I would like to work with you to correct this error in interpretation. I have photographs ready to add to the page on Oliver Black the artist that will demonstrate why an article on him belongs in the encyclopedia.Herongrove (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well first, I do not believe that Oliver Black (artist and sculptor) has exclusive rights to that name. Both Oliver and Black are common names, so I suspect that there are numerous Oliver Blacks out there. Even if the band has no member names Oliver Black, I believe they are free to choose that name for their band. Second, article names in Wikipedia are generally used on a first-come basis. If a conflict occurs, the resolution it typically to name the new article with a qualifier in parenthesis (such as Oliver Black (artist)). I do not believe that replacing one article with another is acceptable. That is why when I noticed your changes, I moved Oliver Black (artist and sculptor) to a new article, restored the original, and added disambiguation links to both articles.
- Unfortunately, in an action unrelated to my activities, the new Oliver Black (artist) article was tagged for speedy deletion due to lack of demonstrated notability. It was deleted shortly afterward.
- If you believe that you can correct the notability issue, possibly by citing some source that demonstrates national prominence, coverage in art publications, of something else that might satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines, you can recreate the article and assert its notability. Although I think there is a way to request that the article be undeleted, it may be simplest to copy your original text from of the Oliver Black article. Although a bit unorthodox, you might also try preemptively adding a
{{hangon}}
template at the top of the article – something like{{hangon|I will add evidence of notability shortly.}}
This might head-off another speedy deletion, but is no guarantee.
- By the way, I'm not an administrator, or any kind of special user – just an ordinary contributor with the same rights as you. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -- Tcncv (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Mariah Carey Sales Figures
- Try MariahJournal.com for the album sales. They're pretty much right except that Music Box sold 26 million and TEOM did ship 10 million WW (via Island Music).LAUGH90 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
U HAVE NO SOURCES THAT SAY EVEN THE NUMBERS U ARE DEPICTING.I WILL HAVE U BANNED IF U DO NOT STOP THE VANDALIZM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.159.237 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
i understand but the truth is it is unknow so there is no reason not to puit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.49.3 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Unknown" and "Unavailable" are two different things. The gross receipts may be know to someone, but are unavailable because there is no published, reputable, verifiable source. For readability it is better just to leave the cell blank. Nothing is gained by adding the unknown (or unavailable) note; it just adds clutter. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- My sources are from the record labels (Sony/Columbia, Island Def Jam, etc.) and are much more factual. That website (8 notes) has info used from Wikipedia back from a few years ago (2005/2006) that is false. For example, "Emotions is only 4x Platinum by the RIAA, not 5x.LAUGH90 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK. This seems to be a growing problem due to Wikipedia's popularity. I wasn't sure about the source, and wasn't in a position to dispute it, so I limited myself to helping the user (whom I assume is a new contributor) enter proper citations for his/her sources. I figured someone else might contest the source, which you have just done. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I know you're just trying to help. I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just trying to get the accurate, record label sources, instead of the fabrications. Once again, thanks and I do appreciate it.LAUGH90 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know which version you propose (link or date/time) and I'll review it (so as not to be accused of meatpuppetry), and if it checks out, roll it back. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I found source for daydream 30 million worldwide
i found the source for my album sales claims.i just dont know how to write the reference on the wikipedia page.so if u can help me and tell me how ican write it once i found the website. THANK U —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balto9902 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. And welcome to Wikipedia. References can be inserted anywhere in Wikipedia text type enclosing the reference between "
<ref> ... </ref>
" tags. Wikipedia will automatically add the reference test to the references section that is typically present at the bottom of each page and will also insert a numbered link in the main text.
- As for what goes inside the "
<ref> ... </ref>
" tags, there are many formats documented in Wikipedia:Citing sources, but a minimal citation for a web page would be something like<ref>[http://web.site.com/rest/of/address.html Title of This Page]</ref>
. The single square brackets indicate a web reference (double square brackets are used for internal Wikipedia links). Inside the brackets, everything up to the first space is the URL (web address). The rest is the title or link text that is displayed by Wikipedia. More formal citations can be created using the{{cite web}}
template, such as "<ref>{{cite web|url=//web.site.com/rest/of/address.html|title=Title of This Page|accessdate=2009-02-04 |publisher=Acme Music Charts |date=2008-12-01}}</ref>
" This form actually is very flexible and has many other options.
- If you choose to use a simpler form, that's OK. Someone else might come along later and convert the reference to something more formal. The important thing is to document the source of your figures. Please let me know if you have any more questions. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- First let me say that it is not necessary to start a new section on a talk page for each follow-up comment. You can added your comments to the end of the existing text, preferably indented using one or more leading ":"s before each parapraph (use one more than the prior comment). Also, if you end your comment with four tildes (~~~~), Wikipedia will automatically sign and time-stamp your comments. Wikipedia has a feature called "section editing" that makes it easier to edit individual parts/sections/topics on a page. If you do not see an "(Edit)" link to the right of each section title, go to your "my preferences" page, "editing" tab, check the "Enable section editing via (edit) links" option, and click save.
- For the source that you mention, I assume that you are referring to http://www.nationmaster.com, that you searched for "daydream(mariah carey album)", and eventually found your way to the http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daydream-(Mariah-Carey-album) web page with a article titled "Daydream (Mariah Carey album)". You can a reference to this using either "
<ref>[http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daydream-(Mariah-Carey-album) NationMaster Encyclopedia: Daydream (Mariah Carey album)]</ref>
". Alternately, you could use "<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daydream-(Mariah-Carey-album)|title=Daydream (Mariah Carey album)|accessdate=2009-02-04 |publisher=NationMaster Encyclopedia}}</ref>
". Examples: First form.[2] Second form.[3]
- For the source that you mention, I assume that you are referring to http://www.nationmaster.com, that you searched for "daydream(mariah carey album)", and eventually found your way to the http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daydream-(Mariah-Carey-album) web page with a article titled "Daydream (Mariah Carey album)". You can a reference to this using either "
- I'm taking a look now. Look pretty good. One problem I see is the sales for #1 were bumped up from 15,000,000 to 18,000,000. I don't think that's correct. (You didn't add a source on that change, but if you did, your source only shows 16,500,000.) There are also ways to share ref's so that all similar ref's point to the same citation in the references section. I'll make the necessary changes for that. But check that figure for #1.
- And to add to an existing note, don't click the "+" or "new section" options. Instead, click "edit this page" (you will have to scroll way hown in the edit box). Or better - scroll down to the existing topic and click "[edit]" to the right of the section header. And always end your comments with "~~~~" to sign and date your comment.
References
- ^ ""Borough of Beaver Meadows"". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. August 2 1979. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ NationMaster Encyclopedia: Daydream (Mariah Carey album)
- ^ "Daydream (Mariah Carey album)". NationMaster Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2009-02-04.
Vandalizm
how do u ban someone who is vandalizing? LAUGH90 who i checked has been warned many times for vandalizm keeps changing them and adding references that clearly state they are false.how do i ban him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balto9902 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you 72.28.159.237?
Hi, no Im not apparently another user wrote on the section I wrote earlier. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
my question is what tells u the verifialbility.for example the site lagh90 used(mariah daily)says clearly under the sales of albums box that those are not actual sales.it says that clearly there,NOT ACTUAL SALES.so how can he use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.159.237 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey thanks for catching and reverting some vandalism done to my talk page. I appreciate that. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A long series of unsourced insertions without edit summaries. Take a look please, I cannot roll back. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sufficiently knowledgeable on this topic to be of much help. Some changes have references. Others do not. If you have sources that contradict the newly added information, you can change it and cite your references. If the changes seem reasonable, you can leave them and add
{{fact}}
tags. If the changes are appear unreasonable, you can remove them and provide an explanation in the edit summary. You can also open a discussion on the talk page and invite the other editors to participate. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Point taken
Hi and thanks for the nice note. It wasn't my intention to bite the user, but such is the disadvantage of having to communicate via text instead of real time speech. I left a note of apology under yours over at the talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Hopefully the user will come back. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
mariah carey discography
hello,the new source clearly states that they are not true or reliable sale figures..it says it right on the bottom of the chart thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balto9902 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sony Music's Mariah Carey page
Honestly, I don't think that Sony Music is a good reference to use. Record labels try extremely hard to promote their artist with marketing tactics. That said, most record labels grossly inflate sales for their artist. Mariah Carey has not sold 200 million albums worldwide. That is simply absurd. Records maybe, but not albums. I would personally refrain from adding sources that directly benefit from her sales and success. User:BalticPat22Pat 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Renaming an article title
Thank you for your assistance a few moments ago! This is my first time to edit/enter Wiki information. Can you instruct me on how to properly rename our article page?
Thanks again,
--Wtwikiauth (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
WealthTrust
One of the complicating factors with this article is that he's admitted he's got a conflict of interest with the article, so there's a little heavier "burden of proof" than normal to provide independent sources for claims in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that and have left instructions specifically addressing those concerns here (fourth paragraph). -- Tcncv (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over the history, and I don't think WealthTrust is eligible for WP:PROD, because it has previous gone through AfD. However, I think it's eligible for speedy deletion. I've tagged it thus to get another admin to consider whether it should be deleted.
Prod and AfD are two different processes. Prod is designed for clear, uncontested deletion; AfD involves debate. Removal of a prod tag is contesting the deletion, so an article can't be reprodded once it's been deprodded—nor can it get tagged for prod if it's been through AfD already. So, in a way, prod is almost AfD light, or an optional step that can be used before AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Doodleyankey Vandalism
I would like to inform you that I was not the person doing the vandalism to The Year of the Hangman.
Doodleyankey (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the warning. Some of your edits, such as this one, included an objectionable phrase a few paragraphs down. However, the remainder of the changes seemed reasonable, so I will assume good faith and that this was unintentional. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Date autoformatting poll
Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
EXTREME VANDALIZM!
Hello,there has been extreme vandalisz occuring on mariah carey discographytake a look ,if u can plz protect it so ony registered accounts can edit...thnx alot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammamia9905 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be a couple of unproductive edits by an anonymous user. I reverted those edits and warned the user. On a side note, I recommend that you find a small screwdriver and use it to pry off your caps lock key and throw it away. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
=)
Hey. I'm sorta new at this so if you could help me or tell me if I do anything wrong I would really appreciate it. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenagomez12 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Precise width control for spanned cells
How's this:
Person | Singular | Plural | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First person | 我 wǒ 'I, me' |
Exclusive | Inclusive | |||||
我们 wǒmen 'we, us' |
咱们 zánmen 'we, us' * | |||||||
Second person | Normal | Polite | 你们 nǐmen 'you (all)' | |||||
你 nǐ 'you' |
您 nín 'you' | |||||||
Third person | Masculine | Feminine | Neuter | Masculine | Feminine | Neuter | ||
他 tā 'he, him' |
她 tā 'she, her' |
它 tā 'it' † |
他们 tāmen 'they, them' |
她们 tāmen 'they, them' |
它们 tāmen 'they, them' |
I set the the borders for the "zero-height" row to be 0. It's weird how assigning a border of 0 for the whole table still leaves all those "ghost lines". I also spread out the code to make it more accessible for inexperienced editors, and removed the valign="bottom"
and height="0"
. Lastly, I made slight changes to the presentation of the actual content. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR caution
Hello. I left a reply for you at my talk. Dr.K. logos 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see it...
I honestly didn't see the hangon notice; it may have been further down the page. If I had, I might not have deleted it. Thanks for brinig it to my attention, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you. This latest article is tagged as a speedy for vandalism, but I don't see it as such. It's really short, but it's at least referenced to print. I may in fact go and remove the speedy notice. It simply doesn't mee the criteria IMO. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You can alert the user to the deletion of you wish, but it isn't absolutely necessary. After some thought, I almost deleted it myself; the term only appeared in the one publication as a sort of joke. Such is the way of the wiki. At least the edit was in good faith and I hope it won't scare the guy off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Cst17 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help
RE: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Keyboard_shortcut_to_the_edit_box
Thank you I really appreciate it! Ikip (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Have a barn star
The Reference Desk Barnstar | ||
For your illuminating answer to the question on the Computing Refdesk about online maps. I never knew that Ajax was behind it all. Heron (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
Rowspan sorting
Hello. I brought up your rowspan sorting feature at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest winners#1969 and rowspan. I have no idea whether we should hope for a sitewide default implementation soon, please join in. Having this feature available would solve so many issues! —JAO • T • C 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
list of billionaires page, question...
Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place for this question, not sure of alternative ways to ask it on Wiki. I see that no Chinese people are included in the list of world's billionaires except for on their own page. One in particular is worth more than even the Walton's, just wondering why they are excluded, or if it is just a matter of time and getting them added. I would offer to help, but I only know the most basic of edits, and don't really understand the table formatting. I saw the disclaimer that heads of state types are excluded, just wanting clarification as to the Chinese exclusion. Thanks, captbrian23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captbrian23 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I took the liberty of copying your question to the article's discussion page and have answered it there. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
what to do about these
User:Sabian1982 doing this [2]. My not sure whether this needs any action. Looks low level? your advice and assistance please? Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- This user appears to be promoting a specific website. Possibly a conflict of interest and possibly linkspam. Reverting the addition, as you have done, appears to be appropriate. If that user disagrees, the issue can be take to the talk page as part of the WP:BRD process. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Blood type GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- My role with that article has primarily been to patrol changes via my watch list. I am not a major contributor. I do see that another editor is working to clean up the issues you've identified. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Calculating the distance between two coordinates
Hi Tcncv! I have been on vacances so I couldn't read about your work on the coordinates distance calculation issue till today. I'm very hapy to see that you have continued working on it and I have been thinking about another use of this calculation. For example lots of templates about places have a place to put the distance between it and the capital city. I. e. in es:Alsasua or eu:Alsasua we have the distance between this town and the capital city, roughly 50 km. But this distance is calculated by road, not by real distance. Every place is further by road than the real distance to the capital city, so it could be developed a way to calculate the real distance and the shortest one by road. It's an idea! -Theklan (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy hell you're amazing
@harej 05:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's been quite a challenge. Unfortunately, I do not (yet) have a working PHP environment to test my code. I think I at least have it close to the point where it is free from syntax errors. My next goal is to set up some text cases - a page with lots of dates in lots of formats that we can feed the bot to see if it flies. For now, time for some sleep. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, unlinker() will have to be tested separately, because the full script is designed for the "production environment", i.e. all of Wikipedia. Isolating it so that it will only work with a single test page shouldn't be too hard. By the way, I've decided to make that test page User:Full-date unlinking bot/Test environment. @harej 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
$match_count = 99;
I am kind of confused on why you put that in the bot code. @harej 04:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The loop statement that follows "for ($i = 0; $i < 10 && $match_count > 0; $i++)" requires that $match_count have a positive value for the loop to continue. The 99 is needed to get the loop started the first time through. After that, it will be checking the results of the preceding preg_replace, exiting when no more matches are found. The loop is also limited to ten iterations as a safety. I'll add a comment. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jessie Corleon
please leave this edit alone. He is from the Sugarhouse and was Michael Vick's cellmate in Leavenworth. Do you not read the news or watch ESPN?
- -- (Preceeding unsigned comment by Thereal801 (talk · contribs).
- Do you have a reliable source that you can cite as a reference? See WP:BLP. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your input on the measurement conversion templates with User:131.123.65.154. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. But you have to admit, that's pretty hilarious stuff. 99.131.168.214 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It's just stupid. I should seriously start a campaign to stop vandalism. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for adminship
I believe the time has come to make you a Wikipedia administrator. @harej 03:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Your RFA
All the best for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know "nigger" is an inflammatory word, but it is the correct original title of And Then There Were None. I'm not vandalizing the page. -- 24.218.51.224 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see you have a point. I saw the change but admit I did not look at the article as a whole. I'll investigate further and undo my action if appropriate. -- Tom (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up notes on User talk:24.218.51.224. -- Tom (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. :) 24.218.51.224 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
AN ADMIN IS YOU! @harej 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You are now an admin
I am pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an admin. The community has seen it fit to entrust you with several new tools; I trust you will serve us well with them. You can test them out at New Admin School. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or any of our colleagues. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you and all of the others who took the time to review and consider my nomination. I also appreciate the comments from both supporters and skeptics (caution is good). I'll start cautiously with a broom, taking the time to make sure I follow the operating guidelines. Eventually, I expect I'll move up to a mop and maybe even a floor polisher. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's an RFA you can frame and hang on your wall. Welcome! - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Tcncv! Im really happy for you, you really deserve it!...:)...cheers!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on passing, and in such flying style :) --Saalstin (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
sorry to be the first one
But now that you are an admin, you might as well get used to being questioned about your actions. I think you should reconsider your block of User:Mccollm04. This user has only three edits, and seemed to have stopped vandalizing after being warned. They have 3 warnings, one for each edit they made, and you gave them an indefinite vandalism block. You may want to re-read the blocking policy and take it a little slower. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I was just about to post a request for someone to review my actions, but you have beat me to it. (more in a moment)... -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look. I would also appreciate you (or someone) critiquing the other block applied to Blarre (talk · contribs). I will unblock that one also if you (or another admin) judges that to be too harsh. For prior observation, I was under the impression that there was less tolerance of a newly created user that immediately begins unproductive work, and that a full range of warnings was not necessary. I do see that in this case, the edits were clustered together and not spread out over time. (In contrast, I judged two IP users as not worthy of a block.) I'll be sure to take it easy, as you suggest. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking is one of our most powerful and dangerous tools, and should always be used with caution. WP:BLOCK has lots more information. An indefinite hardblock for a user with only three edits is indeed overly harsh. The purpose is not to punish the user, but to prevent them from continuing to damage Wikiepdia. Usually first time offenders are given a short block in the hopes that they will understand what that such behavior is not tolerated, but it is nrmally not appropriate to block a user who has not edited since being warned. I'll take a look at the other one now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Same deal here. Again, no edits since the warning=no block. In both of these cases, they never should have been reported to AIV in the first place, it might be a good idea to mention this to the reporting users. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks for the guidance. Out of interest, in the recent past (prior to receiving admin privileges) I had reported several named accounts to AIAV including The Truthinator (talk · contribs), Adampantha (talk · contribs), For græt justice (talk · contribs), Jmcgregor01 (talk · contribs), and BeriohKnee (talk · contribs). Would these reports be considered premature? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those are a bit of a "mixed bag." One of them is almost certainly a User:Grawp sock doing pagemove vandalism, and those are instablocked as soon as they are detected. Another turned out to be a returning sockpupeteer, and those should always be indef blocked. Several of the others were on obvious vandalism sprees, although I'm not sure I agree with indef blocking them. There is often a bit of a disconnect between what policy says and actual blocking practice, a lot of admins prefer to indef block vandals and see if they ever bother to appeal the block, and sometimes there is a subtext that is not clear to the casual observer, as with the Grawp sock. The general feeling with any type of long-term-abuse cases is to revert, block, and ignore them in order to deny recognition. Generally though, if there is a dialogue on their talk page and they are not involved in vandalizing at the moment the request comes in, it's better not to block. It is even possible to "turn" abusive users into competent and helpful Wikipedians with enough good faith and patience. That should be an admin's goal in my opinion, but sometimes during a long bout of vandal fighting it is easy to loose sight of that and just try to bash as many vandals as you can. Ok now I feel like I'm rambling so I just finish by saying congratulations on your stellar RFA, and we'll be seeing you out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to have a look. I was also looking at the block logs in general, and there does seem to be a strong trend towards swift indef blocking of new vandalism-only accounts. Some with only a couple of edits. However, being new and not withing to raise any concerns with others who may be monitoring my activities, I'll steer clear of the questionable cases and limit my activities to the clear unambiguous cases. I have lots to learn in other areas too. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear, I wasn't deliberately monitoring you, in fact I didn't realize till I saw the block that your RFA was over, I just had Mccollom's talk page on my watchlist because of the warning I had left there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply anything. I actually think it would be a good thing for new admins to be the subject of some increased scrutiny. In any case, comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear, I wasn't deliberately monitoring you, in fact I didn't realize till I saw the block that your RFA was over, I just had Mccollom's talk page on my watchlist because of the warning I had left there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to have a look. I was also looking at the block logs in general, and there does seem to be a strong trend towards swift indef blocking of new vandalism-only accounts. Some with only a couple of edits. However, being new and not withing to raise any concerns with others who may be monitoring my activities, I'll steer clear of the questionable cases and limit my activities to the clear unambiguous cases. I have lots to learn in other areas too. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Same deal here. Again, no edits since the warning=no block. In both of these cases, they never should have been reported to AIV in the first place, it might be a good idea to mention this to the reporting users. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking is one of our most powerful and dangerous tools, and should always be used with caution. WP:BLOCK has lots more information. An indefinite hardblock for a user with only three edits is indeed overly harsh. The purpose is not to punish the user, but to prevent them from continuing to damage Wikiepdia. Usually first time offenders are given a short block in the hopes that they will understand what that such behavior is not tolerated, but it is nrmally not appropriate to block a user who has not edited since being warned. I'll take a look at the other one now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look. I would also appreciate you (or someone) critiquing the other block applied to Blarre (talk · contribs). I will unblock that one also if you (or another admin) judges that to be too harsh. For prior observation, I was under the impression that there was less tolerance of a newly created user that immediately begins unproductive work, and that a full range of warnings was not necessary. I do see that in this case, the edits were clustered together and not spread out over time. (In contrast, I judged two IP users as not worthy of a block.) I'll be sure to take it easy, as you suggest. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
AIV
Saw your recent report, thought I'd drop by and wish you congratulations on your adminship, and my admiration for your caution in using buttons early on -- Samir 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fur Die Lulz
We did it for the lulz.
68.177.237.194 (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are lots of productive ways to contribute ti Wikipedia. Take a look at our Welcome Page to find out more about us. Find a topic that interests you. Start reading articles, and if you find mistakes or sections that could be improved, be WP:BOLD and make a contribution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tom! I read your reasons for not blocking Germsburn. I have to say, I’m glad it was you who had to make that decision and not me. My first inclination since this whole thing started just after midnight (EDT), was not to bite the newbie. If you look at the history, another editor tried to help him on his talk page, but Germsburn did not respond to the offer either on his own talk page or on that of the editor making the gesture. I tried to help him out by placing the speedy delete notice on his talk page, which the originating editor had accidentally forgotten to do. Also, when Germsburn did place a hangon tag on the page, he put in the wrong spot, and I moved it for him to where it should go. Also, he placed talk page material in response to the speedy delete on the article page, and I moved that to the talk page for him as well. So, we did try to help the newbie as best we could. Nonetheless, instead of letting the hangon work its magic while he worked on improving the article, he took to deleting the speedy delete tag again. Also, he appeared to possibly be anonymously puppeting, making the same edits to the same article under an IP. (Because the history of the deleted article is not available to me, I cannot state the IP address for CheckUser verification.) So, not wanting to bite the newbie, we tried to help him, by fixing his errors to make the hangon work and by direct offers of help. He did not respond to the direct offer and returned to deleting the tags, including his own hangon. Still, I am glad it was your decision. It canot have been an easy one to make. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I saw your note on Germsburn’s talk page. It was very informative! I only wish when we were dealing with him/her earlier we had thought to suggest userfying the article. That was a good call. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm hoping this can be resolved in an agreeable manner. This new editor may have potential for significant future contributions. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Enigmas
Hi Tcncv -- first of all, congratulations on being a new admin; I just noticed that from the messages on this page. It's ... not always fun. After four and a half years of being one, I just have to say that; indeed it can get right thankless at times. Thank you for your help on the Enigma Variations situation. It's a rather unusual one, not just because the editor refuses to acknowledge our concerns, but because he's got a genuinely good idea (and needs to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal!) I don't like blocking people but it does seem to be heading in that direction. I wouldn't be averse to allowing a link to his blog, because it's well-written and on topic. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hopefully, the editor (User:Sir Padgett will eventually get the message. If not a brief block may be needed to get the editor's attention. Hopefully (again), it will not come to that. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- FYI. Maybe I shouldn't bend over backwards like this, but I want to try to get him to engage with us, talk to us. I don't see this kind of disruptive editor all that often; they're usually straight-up vandals, POV-pushers, trolls, or other readily identifiable species. This guy is enamored of his brilliant idea -- for in my opinion, it is -- but just ignores us. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. A short block is precisely what I would have put in place, and as you noted, an indefinite block may be the ultimate resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have a suggestion, and I apologize if it is out of line, but I notice that Sir Padgett can be contacted by e-mail. Do you think one might have better luck contacting him that way? I was thinking that every time he sees the you-have-new-messages banner, surely he is not ignoring it. But, perhaps when he goes to his talk page he just keeps seeing the big welcome message, {{Welcomeg}}. So I relocated his TOC to the top of the page so he can see the new sections you have both added below the welcome. Again, I apologize if this e-mail suggestion and the TOC move are out of line. — SpikeToronto 01:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are not out of line. Any ideas that might improve the situation and avoid having to block the user are welcome, and you are free to give an email a try. I think we've been more than patient though, and I've given the situation my best shot. Eventually, the editor needs to learn to use the communication mechanisms available to him, especially given the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Sir Padgett" is no dummy. Go to his blog profile (in the external links in the section he's adding that we keep removing). He sees the messages, and he can't possibly miss the huge link on the block reason (I deliberately blocked him while he was editing, so the "you have been blocked" message, with link to his own talk page, would be in his face). Please do try to e-mail him though if you are willing. A lot of admins just block these people out of hand; I'd at least like some evidence we're getting the message through first. Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Bandwagon Music
The only music publishing co-operative in existance! Quite important and worth noting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.64.114 (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
Would you please check Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Users? Thank you. -- Btilm 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
AIV / Denny Chin
Hi Tcncv
With respect to this close, have you reviewed the logs for the user and for the page? One user is using multiple IPs to repeatedly vandalize the page using identical language. The specific IP you declined edited today, and the editor used another soon thereafter. Please reconsider and review in the context of the history of Denny Chin.
Bongomatic 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
- I am re-examining the situation now. If a user is moving between IPs editing a few times each, blocking the IP afterward does not achieve anything. A request to semi-protect the page may be a more effective solution. However, this may be a case of a user repeatedly using three or four IPs. In that case, IP blocks may be in order. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Should probably have explained that in my initial AIV report. Will do next time. Bongomatic 00:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another admin has semi-protected the page against anonymous editing. Blocking the IPs is under consideration, but I am waiting on a second opinion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Should probably have explained that in my initial AIV report. Will do next time. Bongomatic 00:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of The Tariq Nasheed page
I'm a representative for best selling author Tariq Nasheed.The wikipedia page for Tariq Nasheed was deleted and we cannot understand why.Here are several (of many more) links from outside sources that should validate the inclusion of Mr. Nasheed on wikipedia.
- http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/tariq-nasheed
- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821300/
- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE0DA1F30F931A35752C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
- http://www.king-mag.com/online/?p=11637
- http://concreteloop.com/2006/08/mack-lessons-with-tariq-nasheed
- http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Tariq-K-Flex-Nasheed/19216286
- http://urbanangeles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17:master-mack-tariq-nasheed-releases-qthe-art-of-gold-diggingq&catid=19:articles&Itemid=12
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennradio (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Tariq Nasheed article was deleted back in August after the deletion was nominated and discussed here. When the article was recreated, it was substantially identical to the deleted version. For that reason the article was nominated for speedy deletion and later deleted without further debate.
- If you would like to have the deletion reviewed, you can submit a request to the Wikipedia:Deletion review page, and other editors will review the case. I would have submitted a case on your behalf, but I have since discovered that the article is a copy of the contents of this IMDB page, which makes it an apparent copyright violation. That would generally preclude restoring the article in its current form. Also as a representative of the author, you have an inherent conflict of interest in creating and editing this article. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If only all Admins were like you
Your posting at AIV, specifically your follow-up post, shows a lot of maturity and that you not only understand, but more importantly,, respect the powers that have been given you. Thank you for being able to admit when you're not sure about something. I hope that when I finally do an RfA, that if I am successful, I will be as worthy of the position as you are. Thanks. Frmatt (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Raleigh Population
The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see talk page) Why are the wrong Metro numbers allow in on Raleigh Metro, there is no numbers for Urban numbers yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Falls in Karnataka
I have nominated Falls in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 07:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleting my articles and contributions
Hi, why are my contributions conserning "Wetlabs" or "Wet-laboratories" being deleted soon after i make contributions? I also started a new article as WETLAB which is the term used for practical medical training, mostly cardiac surgery training, i thought i would start an article up because a wet-laboratory is a room where wetlabs might happen, a wetlab is the procedure *Like saying football and a football pitch-two different things-although linked, if you catch my drift :) So i started Wetlab up as an article but it got deleted, I have quite alot of expereince in this area because my father set up the organisation of WETLAB which brought the practice to a lot of medical practitioners attention, im not trying to spam, vandalise or anything...im just passionate about the subject at hand. I put a link to the website under 'see also' because as you can see there is alot of information found there, like videos and online classes on the subject, it isnt just mindless spamming! (wetlab.com) Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designer1001 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the first time you created the article, you added an {underconstruction}} tag, but no other content. It was deleted after several hours of inactivity. After you recreated the article, another editor judged that it was partly a promotion of a company whose notability was not demonstrated (see WP:Notability). Since we already have a Wet laboratory article, that editor judged that it would be better to redirect the name to the existing article. I would suggest for general information on wet labs, that you focus your efforts on improving the existing Wet laboratory article, making note of differences in usage there. Please be sure to include references showing sources that others can consult to verify the information you add.
- As for "WETLAB (company)", please be aware that Wikipedia notability guidelines generally requires significant media coverage of a company beyond ordinary press releases or profiles. If you decide to recreate WETLAB as an article on you company, be prepared to justify the notability of the company early-on with references to the previously referenced media coverage. Lacking such references, the article will very likely be deleted or reverted to a redirect on the grounds of "notability not demonstrated". -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
hogenakkal falls .
hi ! saw tht u r much interested in working in the article , it would be nice if the entire talk page discussions ( including those in the archives ) are considered before editing the article . thanks .--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have responded on that article's discussion page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Allied Artists International
Wow, that was fast! Thank you for your help. I hate to see it come to this, but I couldn't see any other way to make them stop. Rees11 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I was just passing by at the right time. With 200 edits in two days with little or nothing to show from it, this was a pretty clear case for protection. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance, although it looks like you've already have TheFeds (talk · contribs) looking into the matter. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a good call locking that article down. The sad part is, after going through the allegations, I think that ChinaUpdater was partly factually correct about Richards' history, but painfully idiotic about the way he edited. (Notice that Warriorboy85 was blocked for legal threats...and ChinaUpdater is well on his way to getting blocked as well.) TheFeds 02:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your time and effort to dig into the details of this case is much appreciated. Wikipedia need more like you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods
Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Wikipedia, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods
- I have seen enough, as of this, - [3] –, which when coupled with the massive other edits by WarriorBoy85, all overtly NN ADVERTs, all NRS, and all COI and POV, to make the following accusations.
- WarriorBoy85 is clearly trying to defraud people who read Wikipedia into thinking Allied Artists International (successor by WarriorBoy85s own edit) to Kimball Dean Richards' company Allied Artists Records.
- I accuse WP:WarriorBoy85 and WP:TechnicalExpertise of being Sockpuppets for Kimball Dean Rechards. I dont care about his overt legal threats, or his history of Solicitation for Murder here [4].
- KDR is owner of Allied Artists Records according to here[5], here[6], here[7], also here [8].
Kim Richards, CEO of Allied Artists International, by WarriorBoy85’s own original edit of his side bar, is one and the same as Kimball Dean Richards, who was named, indicted, and convicted of Major Fraud using these names and associated names.
- ALL of the HUNDREDS of Wikipedia entries are nothing more than ADVERTising for Allied Artists International and its "artists" should be deleted on NN, and NRS, COI, POV, as well as SP.
- All of the HUNDREDS of entries, such as “artists” web sites, and redirects, done by WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpert should be undone by high ranking Admins, and let the rest of us low level folks get back to our far more simple editing work.ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
OVERT ADVERT
- UserWarriorBoy85 is trying to advertise his company, and its artists, by doing things like this - HERE[9]. This is clearly an ADVERTisment of Kimberly Dean Richars companies, all using names associated with Allied Artists Records.
- Quoting “Kimball Dean Richards now (1984) owns Allied Artists Records – a recording and promotional company – in Los Angeles.” here [10], and specifically listed as names used by Kim Richards in the indictment here [11] and here [12].
- I have been legally threatened by WarriorBoy85, who admits to being able to contact Richards' attorneys at will, on a Sudnay.
- Who do I go to in order to look carefully at ALL articles created by, and edited by, WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpertise? ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Kimball Dean Richards' [[Allied Artists Records}} and Potential Fraud on Wikipedia
I wrote an article on Kimball Dean Richards and his huge frauds he pulled by getting pieces of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation name and misleading people into giving him tens of millions of dollars. Now he is doing the same on Wikipedia.
Look HERE [13]. You will see Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, the REAL movie company STILL EXISTS.
- Kimbal Dean Richards is trying to pull the same fraud using WIkipedia, that he pulled in the federal case, where The (real) Feds got him, by trying to make people think he is Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [14], when he is not, by using musleadingly similar names, and finding freed up trademarks and things that enter the public domain.
- I had never heard of any of this before a few days ago. In fact, I thought the name was Allied Artists MOTION Picture Company, a different name entirely, and I cretainly never heard of this RIchards guy.
- I Suspect that he is trying to sell stock in his company, using the HUGE number of Wikipedia pages he created, based on NOTABILITY, all linked to a company he does not own, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [15].
- In effect, he is trying to use lax Notabiilty standards of WIkipedia to create an illusion of a relationship with Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [16] that he does not have, and effectively steal a company from a computer illiterate 93 year old man who really owns Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, [17].
- Allied Artists International (which is the new name of Allied Artists Records) is not Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which is at least in part owned by a 93 year old man who has no relationship to KDR, NONE.
- The Feds, please reconsider that there may be a plot to buy similar names to Allied Artists Pictures Corporation in order to use Wikipedia to mislead people into thinking Kimball Dean Richards' companies, all with similar names, are the same as the EXISTING company. Please reconsider your vote to keep. If anything, Allied Artists International, which WarriorBoy wrote is a name change from Kimball Dean Richards' Allied Artists Records, and is linked as the same by WarriorBoy, should have mention in an article on Kimball Dean Richards, who his biggest notariety by being convicted of doing exactly the same thing on WIkipedia, as Richards did in the federal fraud case, misleading people into thinking he was the movie company, which still exists. ChinaUpdater (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading is FUN
Did you bother reading my edit summaries before you reverted? or examine the edit history? or the talk page archives? blundering editors like you are a real problem for wikipedia. Next time before blindly reverting a page in a knee jerk reaction try looking into it first! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That was perhaps a tad harsh, but it gets somewhat frustrating, anyway thank you for taking the time to consider your actions before implementing a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed the edit summary at first, but if you notice, I immediately reverted myself and am reviewing the article history now. I realize it is frustrating to be reverted and I apologize for that. Based on what I am seeing in the edit history, this appears to a a snails-pace edit war that has been going on for months. I am inclined to protect the page and open up an RFC in an attempt to establish consensus. Still reviewing for now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Barnard College protection
Hi Tcncv,
You removed the protection from Barnard College, but I am not sure how to proceed. May I change the version now? I am concerned that we will restart the editing war with user Wkiwoman. Best, Matan (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I had protected the article for one week, and the protection ended automatically at the end of that period. (Note that the version of the article that was retained was the one that happened to be in place at the time page protection was put in place. It does not imply that I or anyone else supports or endorses that version.)
- I would suggest that you attempt to summarize, in a neutral manner (recognizing and respecting for opposing points-of-view), the principal positions and opinions of the key participants in the discussion. If there appears to substantial support for a particular position, you can propose a statement of consensus and ask for a poll for or against that statement. If a significant majority can agree (for stated reasons - consensus is not simply a vote), you can declare a result and implement the decision. In some cases, it may be wise to propose a compromise - wording that simply states that the facts are unclear and to present the reader with references that they can follow to make their own assessment. It might be best to not edit the article until you've documented the consensus on the talk page. However, it would be acceptable to add a
{{Disputed}}
tag to the relevant section(s) of the article until this is resolved.
- Note that although I have recently been granted administrator rights, my voice an opinion is no different than any other editor. It's like Dilbert asking the garbage man for advice – you might get lucky and get some great insightful advise, but I'm not an authority on matters of dispute resolution. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Your Jian Ghomeshi Edits
Just so that I might improve my edits to articles, I'm a bit confused regarding why you removed my edits to the Jian Ghomeshi page. Particularly how they were listed as 'unsourced'. I did indeed provide actual dates of actual podcasts for verification of the quotes I provided. So to improve my edits, what exactly was missing? What would have made it a better edit? Is noting the irony always going to be a 'biased' statement? If I could have cited that 'irony' to a more reliable source who noted the 'irony', would that have helped it avoid the bias claim?
Thanks. If I haven't made it clear enough here, I'm not upset, just confused and sincerely want to see what I might have been missing in my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysonberea (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assume that you are referring to these edits, which are the only ones that I have reverted in that article. I reverted those edits because they appeared to be in violation of Wikipedia editing policies for Biographies of living persons. In particular, the changes appeared to include inflammatory statements and heavily opinionated statements that were (in my initial assessment) not backed by references to reliable sources (i.e. "unsourced"). In contrast to other articles, where questionable material might simple be flagged with a "citation needed" tag, biographies of living persons are held to a much higher standard and and Wikipedia has a policy to immediately "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Please take a closer look at WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS for more information. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why?
Why did you delete my page? I don't mean to come across as extremely angry but, seriously? No one takes wikipedia seriously but unfortunatley people like me write random things as practical jokes. I was going to delete it but I wanted to show the person I wrote it about how much we cared. 12 seconds after i published it!!! Damn you are good at finding spam!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle f m. (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Namaste, Tom. I wonder if you would consider unprotecting this article now that one of the parties responsible for the edit war has been indefinitely blocked? It is rather undesirable that an article be protected while at AfD, as it prevents editors from bringing it up to a salvagable quality. Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 12:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Questioning your labelling my edit as vandalism
I fail to see how reverting edits of the George R. R. Martin article where the previous edits by 81.109.90.16, inserted opinion, not fact, into the article is vandalism. The edit I was reverting, that the author is 'extremely slow' is not fact but unsourced opinion. Thankfully another has made the correction again.Caidh (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- My appologes. I've already undone self. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tom, I've decided to take on this case now that my months-long LaRouche mediation attempt went down in flames. If you have any suggestions, ideas, or questions feel free to leave them at my talk page. My plan on looking this over is to first figure out exactly who will be involved in the dispute (there are many editors listed on the case page, some of whom are blocked and/or inactive). I'll then try to summarize and organize the disputed points, and attempt to engage the involved parties in a dialog, with some rules (focus on the content, not contributors, etc.). Hopefully a compromise can be reached at the article. I'm planning on having the debate itself take place on the talk page of the article. Thank you. -- Atama頭 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this on. I have no personal interest in the article, but saw that it seemed in need of a moderator. It may just be a matter of getting someone to propose a consensus statement that (hopefully) most of the involved and interested editors can support. Having that consensus clearly documented should resolve the problem. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
More vandalism
Our blocked friebnd has renewed the IP> Can someone just do the intelligent thing and do a semi protect to stop the shit? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you are referring to Chaco Culture National Historical Park, that is a featured article for the day. Those are only protected in cases of very extreme vandalism, but I do not think it has reached that level yet. For now, we just watch and revert. Your efforts are appreciated though. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I count at least 12 vanalisms today only. How long until an admin takes a finger from their ass or leaves the circle jerk to take care of the problem? It wastes eveyones time who has to revert and go back and continue changing it. 12 times in one day is extreme.
wp:Ignore seems to be a self explanatory thing but no one seems to remember it when they plead policy...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please be WP:CIVIL and cut the insults. If it was up to me, I'd take the easy way out and protect, but long standing consensus is to leave it open. Perhaps to attract new editors. As for wp:Ignore, today's page isn't being hit much more than past featured articles, so there in not presently a justification to ignore the rules at this time. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Now if I had said take your finger out your ass and leave the circle jerk civil might apply. As it is I didn't direct it at any specific person so if you feel guilty by that sorry. I do however maintain someone neds to do it, It's a complete waste of time to continue the shit when you can stop it at anytime. Unfortunately you as an admin are contributing to the problem by not doing something about it, especially when you do have authority to do it through policy. Sure seems like you're taking the easy way out by not doing it... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
64.228.129.62
64.228.129.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) should be blocked for at least a month and you should disable talk page editing. It never turns out well with this vandal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this is a recurring incident but the IP has no prior history, this likely means that the IP is dynamic and a longer block will have little long-term effect. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- It will prevent him from returning on the same IP. Blocks of a week or less in length, he will wait it out and edit from the IP again. Blocking him on this IP will force him to change IPs and allow me to get more evidence to get his subscription removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- And at least disable talk page editing. He may realize the string that is preventing him from putting a screed on articles that is blocked by edit filter #213.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I increased the block scope and duration. I did see come repeat use of at least one other IP address. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you protected Barnard College instead of blocking the one editor that has reverted the article 7+ times today in clear violation of the consensus established among the other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd likewise throw my $0.02 in that the article would be better served by blocking the offending editor and taking advantage of other experienced editors' attention to allow them to improve it in light of the many relevant and important sources brought to light during discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Database query
I am interested in working to align date formats within articles, but I currently have no way of finding these without clicking on random articles, and even so, they are easily missed if the page is large. Would it be possible to extract a database dump of all articles with a mixture of mdy and dmy date formats (excluding yyyy-mm-dd) for me, please? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is possible, but it will take me a while. Ping me in a week if you don't hear back by then. I assume you just need a list of articles. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, 'just' a list will do. I say just because I know it will amount to a huge file size. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've completed my scan and identified 50,000+ articles with an apparent mix of day-month and month-day dates. Let me know how you would like me to transfer the list. I can upload it to user space, but will likely need to do so in chunks due to its size. 1.4MB text, 455KB zipped, 396KB rar'ed. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tom. could I ask you to post them at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with potential issues post Dynamic Dates, please? Maybe 5 thousand per article? I have created new links at the bottom. Or if you're too busy, then just email to me at Ohconfucius at hotmail. BTW, how's the work on recoding the bot going? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I trust the list is unicode. Otherwise, some of the foreign language characters will look a mess. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- 51876 article names have been uploaded and yes unicode has been preserved. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, this scan was not limited to linked dates and did not require the presence of a year part. Any month name or abbreviation adjacent to a one or two digit integer or ordinal was considered a month & day pair. The presence of both a month-day pair and a day-month pair qualified the article. I updated the lead-in in WP:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with potential issues post Dynamic Dates to reflect this. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Great work! I didn't think it could be done (unlinked dates, that is). That will keep me out of mischief for a while ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI - The regular expression used for the AWB database scan was essentially "
month day.*day month|day month.*month day
", where "day" is one or two digits plus an optional ordinal suffix. More specifically,\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b.*\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b|\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b.*\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b
- To more closely examine the dates of a particular article, you can paste the edit window contents into the AWB regex tester (or equivalent) and use the following expression to identify all likely day-month or month-day pairs.
\b(?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)[ _]\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)\b|\b\d{1,2}(?:st|nd|rd|th|)[ _](?:Jan(?:uary)?|Feb(?:ruary)?|Mar(?:ch)?|Apr(?:il)?|May|June?|July?|Aug(?:ust)?|Sep(?:tember)?|Oct(?:ober)?|Nov(?:ember)?|Dec(?:ember)?)\b
- The above expressions are best copied from edit window, and the ignore-case option should be used for both. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI - The regular expression used for the AWB database scan was essentially "
- Thanks, Great work! I didn't think it could be done (unlinked dates, that is). That will keep me out of mischief for a while ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, this scan was not limited to linked dates and did not require the presence of a year part. Any month name or abbreviation adjacent to a one or two digit integer or ordinal was considered a month & day pair. The presence of both a month-day pair and a day-month pair qualified the article. I updated the lead-in in WP:Date formatting and linking poll/List of articles with potential issues post Dynamic Dates to reflect this. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- 51876 article names have been uploaded and yes unicode has been preserved. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've completed my scan and identified 50,000+ articles with an apparent mix of day-month and month-day dates. Let me know how you would like me to transfer the list. I can upload it to user space, but will likely need to do so in chunks due to its size. 1.4MB text, 455KB zipped, 396KB rar'ed. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, 'just' a list will do. I say just because I know it will amount to a huge file size. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, what's the code to 'Mark edit as minor' for such a script? also to insert some text automatically to the bottom? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the full date unlinking bot or to AWB or some other tool? AWB has a menu option to "mark all as minor. Wikipedia user account preferences have a similar option under the Editing preferences. I'm not sure what it takes to automatically append text to a page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib
- Sorry I wasn't clear. I have a few lines of code in my monobook (from a script by Lightmouse) which I use to automatically insert an edit summary: 'function edit_summary()' or somesuch. To save me typing {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} each time, and so as not to annoy people by having the template at the top, I would like to build that into the relevant function to write it as the very last line of the file because it's usually part of the same edit. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although I've taken a look at Lightmouse's code in the past, I don't have a sufficient knowledge in the techniques used to offer an answer to you're question. If I recall correctly, some of the scripts added menu or sidebar items that could be clicked to trigger a semi-automated edit action. I'm sure that the same techniques could be used to do what you are asking, but I'm not yet at the point where I could write such a script. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, never mind. Thanks anyhow. Perhaps someone at AWB can help. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although I've taken a look at Lightmouse's code in the past, I don't have a sufficient knowledge in the techniques used to offer an answer to you're question. If I recall correctly, some of the scripts added menu or sidebar items that could be clicked to trigger a semi-automated edit action. I'm sure that the same techniques could be used to do what you are asking, but I'm not yet at the point where I could write such a script. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
FDUB code
If you have plans to make changes to the unlinking bot before the third trial run, let me know on my talk page. @harej 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
work on James's script
Tom, thanks—your work is not going unnoticed! Tony (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed the bot has treated articles such as Labour Day. Could be easy to exclude by searching for calendar terms in titles ("day", "week", "month", "year", etc.). But I notice such articles have not been "excluded" here. Thanks. Tony (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since I'm not handling the article selection logic directly, I moved the above item to User talk:Full-date unlinking bot#Articles such as Labour Day for further discussion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
24.1.111.19
Greetings. First of all, thanks for blocking this IP. This editor keeps making the same edits each and every time it's able to do so, adding in speculative movies based on video game properties (many of which haven't been critical successes as games, let alone creating enough buzz to tempt someone to buy the movie rights in a genre that has produced very few hits). During the blocks, the user appears to be prepping for more disruption by adding items to their talk page.
My question to you is this. Is it your opinion that an attempt should be made to try and dissuade the user from making these edits, or should we simply let them disrupt, then revert and block again? Let me know what you think, and thanks again.
--McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the user has posted similar information to their talk page, which leads me to suspect that they are working from a list of undetermined origin. I think it would be a good idea to contact that user on their talk page and ask where the information is coming from. That may lead to some coaching on WP:verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, or WP:Crystal. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello
You might find this interesting. NW (Talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I'll take a look. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that I have been snared and my imperfection has been revealed by the CSD police. "Captain, your logic was impeccable. We are in grave danger." I shall now carry out my prime directive and exterminate all imperfection. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re [18] your opinion matters, at least to me (and perhaps to several others, including at least one other admin, who have also had the displeasure of discovering NEWT the hard way). I'm considering an MfD, particularly given that ArbCom has not specifically sanctioned this project. Thoughts? Opinons? Advice? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that an MfD would succeed since I expect the project members would object. I'm thinking about dropping a note on the pump for general discussion though, but will give myself some cool-down time first. It seems to me that it would be more productive if those involved were to focus their energy on sampling the active CSD tags for potential problems and dropping a note to individual editors as needed. Much preferable to creating bait pages and building up a public "look who we caught today" project. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that your idea would be much better and probably more effective. This very suggestion was made at the project page or perhaps at my AN/I discussion earlier today, can't remember which. Please let me know if you do initiate a pump discussion, I'd like to participate in that. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that an MfD would succeed since I expect the project members would object. I'm thinking about dropping a note on the pump for general discussion though, but will give myself some cool-down time first. It seems to me that it would be more productive if those involved were to focus their energy on sampling the active CSD tags for potential problems and dropping a note to individual editors as needed. Much preferable to creating bait pages and building up a public "look who we caught today" project. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just want to let you know, I sincerely regret the distress my actions with NEWT have caused to you. I was wrong to so publicly single you out like I did. I hope we can put this matter behind us and look forward to working together some time in the future. NW (Talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your comments are appreciated, as are you actions to remove references to individual editors from the NEWT project page. Unfortunately, there still appear to be some on the project that do not share your views. I suspect I would have been much more receptive to constructive criticism had I been notified of the situation in a more personal manner on my talk page, and given a chance to review and respond before the issue was posted to a public forum.
- Being a new participant in the CSD process I was consciously attempting to limit my actions to what I considered clear and non-controversial cases. I've reviewed my deletion history for the past month and did not see any cases that stood out as being problems. Of the deleted articles that are currently blue links, it appears that all were either article moves (the deletion making way for the move) or cases where the original article was eventually replaced with a redirect (as is now the case for Matrena balk).
- In the case of the Matrena balk article, I am still not convinced that the article "clearly asserted notability". What I saw was an article that asserted that the subject was a relative of an associate of a notable person, which I did not consider to qualify as an assertion of notability by Wikipedia standards. However, I realize that reasonable people can disagree and there may be a subtle but important difference between the concept of notability and an assertion of notability. I suspect that such a question posed to a dozen people outside of the NEWT project might fail to produce a clear consensus answer. At least three other editors agreed with my assessment to delete, but what is unknown is how many other admins examined the CSD nominations and took no action during the time periods between the tagging and deletion actions.
- In any case, one thing is clear – it would have been better had I personally contacted the new editor given the question posted on the article's test page, regardless of my opinion on the CSD issue. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Traded Life Policies
Hello. You nominated my entry for Traded Life Policies for speedy deletion due to copywright infringement. I just wanted to check whetherI would be able to repost the article if I removed the offending paragraph? Thanks, AtomicMonarch 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic Monarch (talk • contribs)
- Yes, you can recreate the article, but copyright problems in the original version were not limited to a single paragraph. Although the article seems to have been compiled from multiple sources (which is a good thing), nearly all of the excepts I examined each appeared to be verbatim copies of sentences and paragraphs from those sources. When you restart the article, please be sure the content is original writing. Copyright is an area Wikipedia takes very seriously.
- We welcome new editors and your contributions are much appreciated, and we hope you will continue to participate in expanding the Wikipedia knowledge base. Good editors are a valuable asset. If you have any further questions or problems, feel free to ask them here, or for a quicker response at the Wikipedia:Help desk. You can also find much useful information on the Wikipedia:Help pages. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Correction on de Clare article
Thank you, Thank you, thank you! Mugginsx (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- As to the defending of the new contributor who might get unduly bitten by the Wikipedia establishmen, I only wished I had seen your page earlier. I would have called upon you help. Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, another major problem seems to be the "Fitz _________". They should always be in lower case, such as fitz Gilbert. Mugginsx (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I changed your comment title to a new section header by surrounding it with "==", as is customary when starting a new topic on a talk page. See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet for other commaon Wikipedia formatting syntax.
- As for changing the "Fitz ..." articles, you can be WP:BOLD and do this yourself where you see the need – just add "
{{lowercase}}
" at the top of the article, as I did here on the de Clare article.. You can serach for articles that start with "Fitz" by clicking on "Special pages" in the left column, then click on "All pages with prefix", type in "fitz" and click the "go" button to get a list of articles. I'd suggest you limit the changes to articles where the lower case "fitz" is clearly present in the article lede, since many names have been Anglicized and are now properly spelled with an upper case "f". Feel free to ask additional questions of on the Wikipedia Help Desk, which may give you a quicker response.. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, another major problem seems to be the "Fitz _________". They should always be in lower case, such as fitz Gilbert. Mugginsx (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comment and return to NPP. It honestly was never my intention that WP:NEWT involve "marginal situations specifically designed to trip up good-faith volunteers", and I hope you don't regard either of my own articles in that way. In any event, regardless of how we collected that data, there have been a number of WP:NEWT#proposals inspired by these tests and your input on them would be very welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Avocent protection
Thanks for Protecting Avocent from that guy, but if you track back, he has been doing it to this page for nearly 4 months, i dont think 1 week lockdown will stop him. Perhaps it may be easier to simply just lock the page indefinitely? Since it doesnt see that much in the way of updates, that shouldn't be too much of a problem i suppose - 121.44.244.88 (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Our normal operating procedure is to protect a page in increments of increasing duration if and when vandalism resumes as earlier protections expire. Hopefully at some point the user will lose interest and move on, and the page can return to an open editing state. I realize this can be frustrating, but if everybody had their way, half of Wikipedia would be under indefinite page protection, which would be contrary to the mw:Founding principles. Unfortunately, this means we have to accept and deal with some degree of vandalism. For now, if vandalism resumes after protection expires, just request protection again and the administrator who handles the request should implement a longer duration protect. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Row/colspan bug
What ever happened to this proposal? Also, have you any idea about possibilities to align text by column (rather than manually setting the align in each field? ) - aka bugzilla 986 Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since the table sorting code is part of the wikibits.js (javascript) module which is part of the Mediawiki distribution,so this needs to go through the Mediawiki development team to get implemented. Instructions on in Mediawiki site direct new developers to contact one of the lead developers. I posted a note, but never received a response. At the time, there were some other proposed changes to the table generating code to support THEAD, TBODY, and TFOOT elements which would likely impact what I wrote, so I figured I'd wait to see what changed. I later got sidetracked and didn't follow up. I'll revisit the state of things and make another attempt at contacting the development group.
- Aligning text by columns sounds like a great idea, but would probably need to be implemented as part of the core Mediawiki table processing, with some enhancements to the table syntax. A javascript solution would break the page for devices that do not implement javascript. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Negative integer sorting
Hi Tcncv. I remember reading somewhere that you had managed to make negative numbers sort correctly in tables. If possible, could you to apply your fix to the negative number at List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks#Statistics (bottom row, fourth column from the right)? Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see. So there's no way to sort using the minus sign? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Hello Dabomb87. In this case, the fix was straightforward. Changing the minus-3 to a hyphen-3 fixed the sort. Although the minus sign (−) is typographically more correct, the javascript used to implement table sorting only recognizes the hyphen. I had done some work in the past on a possible upgrade to the
{{nts}}
template to allow negative numbers, but that does not apply here. Recognizing the minus sign might be worth including in a future table sorting enhancement though. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Hello Dabomb87. In this case, the fix was straightforward. Changing the minus-3 to a hyphen-3 fixed the sort. Although the minus sign (−) is typographically more correct, the javascript used to implement table sorting only recognizes the hyphen. I had done some work in the past on a possible upgrade to the
Hi there! I just want to say thanks for semi-protecting this article. It's been the scene of growing amounts of IP vandalism for a while now, so a semi-protection certainly was necessary. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Budd BB-1 Pioneer
I just added a Link because the Guy that designed the Budd BB-1 Pioneer was italian american as it is easily demonstrable if you read about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a follow-up comment on your talk page. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Mario Biaggi
Rrburke seems to have an obsession with this user and undoing all of his edits, including the ones that are documented. If you want to ask for additional sourcing, that's fine, but undoing everything in one great swoop and then threatening him to have him blocked is over the line.
The user makes a great point. What does RrBurke know about NYC politics, which the user (and I) know a lot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackJackMulligan (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I suspect that RrBurke may not know NYC politics, but is familiar with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources which are especially important in cases of WP:biographies of living persons, which qualifies him to make judgments in such matters. I might disagree with some of the actions, but reasonable people can disagree. If you also disagree, I suggest opening a calm dialog on RrBurke's talk page of the talk pages for the articles in question asking for clarification and possibly asking for advice. A polite tone is much more likely to receive a positive response than one that starts with an accusation. One of the problems with this recent note by 69.126.242.217 was the tone and name calling ("thugs"). That is likely why RrBurke simply deleted it and the previous post without responding. (Personally, I would have preferred to see a more positive response.)
- If you find that you are not making progress resolving this on the talk pages, to can take the topic to the Administrators' noticeboard and ask that the the situation be independently reviewed. Again, you will have the best chance of receiving a helpful response if you state you case in a calm and polite manner, and avoid name calling. (You might also review the policy on WP:Wikihounding, which discusses the topic of tracking another editor's history.)
- On a separate topic: Based on the WP:DUCK test, I would assume that you and 69.126.242.217 (talk) are one in the same. If you are not the same, you can ignore this note. However, if you are the same, I should caution you that you are on thin ice. It is okay to switch from editing anonymously to editing as a registered user, but to edit using multiple identities in a deceptive manner is considered sock puppetry and can lead to permanent suspension of editing privileges.
Unlinking bot
I am aware that writing code for Maxlag, as well as gaining approval from BAG both take time. However, it seems that pleas on the talk page to apply for maxlag are falling on deaf ears. I am slightly concerned because, whilst not complaining about the current work-rate, the action of letting two bots run at a collective 10/12 edits per minute may be in breach of the authorisation by BAG, and may be seized by opponents of delinking (I note they have not disappeared) to "spanner" the progress. As it seems that the main concern of BAG is not to affect server load, applying to uncap the bot speed whilst subjecting it to 'MAXLAG' is a more sensible way to go. What do you think? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the bot is now processing steadily at roughly 600 edit per hour or 15,000 per day. I don't know if the 10,000-per-day limit was mandated or was just a target. I could not find a specific reference. As to implementing Maxlag, that's not my area of expertise. I contributed the regular expression search and replace logic, but harej (talk · contribs) maintains and operates the overall bot. I suspect that he might need help implementing Maxlag, if he has not done so before. If you know of someone familiar with other bots that implement Maxlag, I suggest you pass that information on to harej. As for running two bots simultaneously, I don't understand the advantage over tweaking the timing for a single bot. I probably would have recommended against it, but it was implemented before I even knew about it. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The 6-7 epm instruction probably came from here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Googling wikipedia gives these. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: your message
Hi, Tom. Thanks for your note. Um, Quack indeed.
I agree that Huggle sometimes has the unfortunate effect of blasting a whole series of edits when only a one is problematic. That's why I have returned to this editor's contributions in order to disentangle which material is backed up by reliable sources and which is not. For example, in this instance I left intact the assertion that Governor Carey had kept the growth of government spending below the rate of inflation because that information is explicitly contained in the source. But I removed the rest because it greatly exceeded what what claimed in this (single) source. Specifically:
- a) the source itself did not say the Governor Carey was "widely credited" with controlling state spending
- b) being praised in a single article in a publication with a decided political slant does not constitute being "widely credited"
Another passage contained the ludicrous claim that this article, published the year before Pataki became Governor, contrasted Governor Carey's thrift with Governor Pataki's extravagance. Clearly, this is a comparison the editor himself would like to draw, but it doesn't occur anywhere in the source. (It couldn't). I left what was justified by the source and took out what wasn't. The editor or his alter ego restored the balance of the material with a knee-jerk reversion without adding any sources that would justify it.
I have also revisited this editor's other contributions, not as harassment, but because I have found that when an editor reacts defensively to being asked to observe a core policy, reviewing the editor's other contributions nearly always reveals repeated violations of the policy he or she so resents being reminded of. Such, in fact, turned out to be the case with this user, who has repeatedly added (and later re-added, even after being cautioned) material -- on some occasions, negative material about a living person -- without citing a reliable source, citing sources as the basis for claims not actually occurring in the source cited, or, frequently, without citing any source at all: [19][20][21][22][23][24]. I removed the material not accompanied by a reference to a reliable source[25]. The user and his alter ego restored most of it without improving the sourcing.
Please see Talk:Roy M. Goodman for a sample of the kind of material I removed and for my rationale for doing so.
--Rrburke(talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Rrburke's changes
The purpose of Wikipedia is to allow users to gradually expand articles, especially short or stub ones. All the additions have been made in good faith. Even when citations are supplied, Rrburke still isn't satisfied.
He also shown himself to be hypocritical. The Roy M. Goodman STILL article contains unsourced material such as that he is considered "the statesman of the Senate" and that he is a liberal Rockefeller Republican. Why didn't he take this out? The section about his role as NY County GOP Chairman contains links to other Wikipedia entries. Two NYT articles were cited that prove the Rolodex story, but he still isn't satisfied.
The Hugh L. Carey still has unsourced material about him opposing the death penalty. Why didn't he take out more material?
Since Rrburke lives in Canada and has no knowledge of local NYC politics, why is he preventing the good faith expansion of articles in those areas?
The entry for "The Legend of Billie Jean" (1985) contains NO citations at all. So shouldn't the whole article be scrapped?
What he is doing is harrassing other users and discouraging ordinary people from making contributions especially the minor ones which millions of people do everyday. BlackJackMulligan (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The fact that Wikipedia has accumulated (and continues to accumulate) much information that lacks proper sources is actually a problem and should not be considered the accepted norm. Ideally, everything added should be supported by a verifiable reliable source, but the reality is that we have many more contributing editors than recent-changes patrollers, so not everything that is added satisfies that standard. That editors like Rrburke take the time to review the sources to pick out what is verifiable and what is not should be applauded, not criticized.
- Although the initial reverts of your material may have removed a mix of sourced and unsourced information, I believe Rrburke has exercised due diligence to take a closer look at the content and sources to pick out information that is backed by the cited references. If you disagree and believe other facts are supported and should be included, I suggest you start one or more discussion items on the article's talk page that clearly identifies the fact in question and its source. This is part of the Wikipedia bold, revert, and discuss cycle.
- As for the other examples that you cite – yes, they slipped through the net. However, since the information has been present and unchallenged for extended period, out policy is to preserve that content, to find sources if possible, and to mark it with a "citation needed" tag if no source is immediately found. The information in question may later be removed if the "citation needed" condition remains unresolved. (The key difference between old and new content is that the editor contributing new content is immediately available and should be able to provide a proper source when asked.) Wikipedia has a number of editors who focus their efforts on improving existing articles by finding sources, removing unverifiable claims and opinions, and make numerous other improvements with the goal of raising the article to a good article status. In the case of biographies of living persons, the standard of inclusion is much more strict. Any unsourced-controversial or disputed information should be immediately removed and may only be added back in when it can be backed by a reliable source.
- Your efforts to contribute are appreciated, and I hope you will continue keeping the above guidelines in mind. And yes, you will likely find other cases where you disagree with other editors. The key is to respect other's opinions and use the various forms of dispute resolution to seek common ground. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Protection
Thank you for protecting those user pages. My rollback finger was getting sore and that IP hopping vandal seems to be very bored. Wperdue (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
I believe a thank you is in order for protecting my talk page. I had no idea that was happening until I looked at wp:rpp and the history! :| Insane trolling o.O Well thanks Tom (you too?) lol --Tom A8UDI 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
no thanks
Ah no ur grand actually!! brian moore (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a 3-day edit protection although you report it here as a 7-day protection at WP:RFPP.
Speaking from past experience, I think a week might be better, but of course it's up to you. Thanks for protecting it. Things were getting messy. --TS 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. I was on the fence between a three or seven day protect on this and apparently came down on both sides. I have bumped up the full-protection to seven days. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of word 'refutation' in climategate page
Hi
You have locked this page for editing.
Could you please correct the error in the use of the word 'refutation'.
The text states that 'prompt refutations were issued'.
To refute means to disprove.
In point of fact the questions of what is alleged in Climategate are still under investigation and therefore cannot be said to be refuted.
The use of the word 'refute' is frequently used when a person accused of something wishes to deny the charge, but also wishes to seem more authoritative than would be the case with a simple denial.
I believe that to be the case in this instance which in addition to being an error of fact makes it an error of NPOV.
Please adjust the wording to be:
'prompt denials were issued'
Which is both correct and NPOV.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.176 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the requested change has already been addressed in Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Denial is not refutation, which is the proper forum for such a request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
protect Macbeth?
Hi
(Please reply here, I prefer a conversation be all on one page. Thanks.)
I just noticed you protected Charles Dickens.
Macbeth has been see a lot of vandalism lately too. Several attacks a day for at least the last week. Could you protect it as well? Thanks either way Lentower (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The normal channel for such request is via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have documented the request there and have semi-protected the page for three days. Although this seems like a short time, our policy is to add protection incrementally if vandalism resumes. If you see aditional valdalism activity after the current protection expires, you may submit another request at the above linked page, and another administrator will likely institute a longer block. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Dates
Thanks for the note, the bureaucracy always takes a while to catch up.
The AWB settings are available at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings. They are not perfect. Rich Farmbrough, 06:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
- No it is just (hastily assembled) regex. You can do a lot with regex if you are determined, in the past I implemented a limited integer arithmetic to calculate ISBN checksums, that code is sadly lost. Rich Farmbrough, 06:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Delinking code
I don't know what you're after specifically in terms of AWB code, but I trust you are aware of the code written by Lightmouse (here). In the meantime, have an excellent Christmas! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
"SonicFan" block
Hi! I blocked it because of the possibility of compromise. The last edit was an "article" which merely echoed the title. I can unblock it in the hopes that everything's OK with the account. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that last (now deleted) edit did seem questionable. I suspect that earlier edit was a prank by someone else than the registered user (roommate, amily, or friend(?)) who had access to the computer. It's up to you. The user can always appeal. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
MrSkaloon block
Could you leave a standard block template on user talk:MrSkaloon. I was actually looking through his contribs when he was blocked and suspect hijacking. Off course, the block was justified, but I would give a chance for unblock. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just did. I was investigating the discrepancy between past and present behavior an came to the same conclusion. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
SBS Troll
If they're not vandalism, are they sockpuppetry? This guy has been doing this garbage since October (hell, since 2008 if the others in the image's revision history are the same person). He has persistently refused to listen to how he has to go about dealing with copyright issues, instead choosing to blank the image dozens of times. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I looked further into the history and see that there was some earlier discussion here that the user participated in. Since the user has been informed of policy and continues their edits, I will add the protection. I will also link that discussion for the copyright review. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. This guy gets more on my nerves than any other user I've yet encountered. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Understand. I've protected the image page for two weeks. I know this might be insufficient. If the user resumes the disruptive editing after the protection expires, please re-report it and another admin will likely protect it for a longer period. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Understand. I've protected the image page for two weeks. I know this might be insufficient. If the user resumes the disruptive editing after the protection expires, please re-report it and another admin will likely protect it for a longer period. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. This guy gets more on my nerves than any other user I've yet encountered. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I agree with your assertion that the initial content changes shouldn't be construed as vandalism and totally agree with your action. I just wanted to drop a note that the reversions I did were when he began adding commentary directed at editors into the article, as per WP:NOTFORUM. I also noted that on the article's talk page. Just wanted to clear that up for you. Thanks for stepping in! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I saw that too, but would tend to forgive such and act as one of a frustrated new editor who no one would listen too. His/her primary transgression was not providing an edit summary for the material deletion, which led recent changes patrollers to blindly revert his/her edits. Note that we experienced editors also sometimes leave messages in article space – the difference is that we use templates. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand my comment -- it wasn't that I'm trying to get him blocked. I totally agree with you that such an action should be forgiven; I just wanted to make sure you understood the reason for my reverts. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I didn't interpret your statement that way. Your contributions as a recent changes patroller are very much appreciated. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand my comment -- it wasn't that I'm trying to get him blocked. I totally agree with you that such an action should be forgiven; I just wanted to make sure you understood the reason for my reverts. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
About that IP editor
I don't get why the IP had to lie about what he did. I did tell him that he removed those sections without consensus and that it was properly reverted. I would have talked to him more if only he hadn't vandalised my talk page and gave me those false warnings. That's what made the situation worse and for him to lie about his actions. I just hope that he learns from all this and next time he should bring that controversial edit to the talk page and talk about it. Momo san Gespräch 06:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record
For the record, I feel your comments are misguided and idiotic. But actually why does anyone care? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, perhaps the above wasn't the best way to deal with this issue. And I admit that I assumed bad faith, however, I am upset that you are aiding this vandal. Suicide bombings are not an act of warfare, they are terrorism. The continuous blanking and adding of personal opinion is frustrating. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)