This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
FLC and ACCESS
As a regular at FLC, I'd like to draw your attention to ongoing discussion here about changes to the format of tables which will affect all existing FLs and all current and future FLCs. Your input would be welcome. Thanks for your contributions so far! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Black Ambient
Hi there, I'm sorry for talking about this with you and here, which I'm quite sure isn't the best place for talking about it, but unfortunately I can't find nowhere where to talk about it, so I am hoping you will, at least, direct this comment to the right place. There was a long time ago an article about Black Ambient - in fact that are still wikipedia pages pointing to there (check, for instance,
Drone Metal
). While in the deletion discussion it was refered that Black Ambient is a kind of "derivative" from Dark Ambient, the Black Ambient page was deleted and redirected to Black_Ambient#Modern_black_metal . I see several problems with it, tho:
* there are pages pointing to black ambient, but then black metal's page doesn't say anything about it;
* the redirection would probably make more sense redirecting to
Dark Ambient
;
* the redirection is going to a section (Modern black metal) of the Black Metal article, which no longer exists.
While I'm not disagreeing with the deletion of the "Black Ambient" article, I'm pretty sure you'll agree that, at least, it's redirection should be fixed... Marcos Marado (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have this book:[1]? I'm planning on buying it and it would be great if we both had a copy of it. From what I can tell it looks like the best biography available on him, I think. Also do you have any books on Satchel? Not to get ahead of ourselves but if Feller goes well maybe we could work on that too. I'm mentioning that because if I buy several books I get free shipping. So any Paige books I need I could get now.
Yeah, I only glanced quickly over Paige but it does look fairly good. Maybe too long and in need of shorter sections in places but it looks like a lot of work went into it. I just saw the long uninterrupted sections and thought it was worse than it was. Maybe you and
I would prefer to avoid Paige, too many chefs in the kitchen tbh. I'm ordering the books tonight, including Dobe. It would be cool obviously if you could get that one but if not fine. I'm actually happy you're not in a rush to get this done, I wouldn't mind it being a longer term project. Of course I might get the book and rush right into it as well depends on how much free time I have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
You told me about your pet project, now here's mine after I finish with Eppa Rixey and Reggie Jackson, Lefty Grove horrible article whose just as great as your project. I just bought the biography of the article, if you want to work with me on it, it would be a great help. Again probably the worst article out of the all-time greats. Secretaccount05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
topic is ok ? Because in Simpsons situation its that all of episodes in series should be into GA. And in this topic there is only two episodes. Also in this "season" article there is only this two.
Its some rule of en.wiki, that some episodes don`t have articles or it should be as in Simpsons, and so its shouldn`t be FT ? PMG (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have also question for you. Are you correct person to ask about FT ? :) Because i start something like this on pl.wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Grupy Artykułów) and sometimes we don`t undestand some rules what are in FT in en.wiki. And because i don`t want to finish like french or georgian FT sometimes i need person from en.wiki. So - are you correct person, who now quite well FT ? PMG (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Please reconsider your "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players. All of the delete votes were based on an earlier version that was essentially just the NFL's list of players, and most of these votes were based on the perceived copyvio. However, the copyvio was removed, and I then completely re-wrote the article so that it was about the 10-part NFL Network television series that presented the results of the list. There were no delete votes after I did so. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi I disagree with your deletion of the page Synchrony IOL
this is not advertising, it is provided needed information about a new medical device that is on the market in Europe and soon will be in the US. I am a cataract sufferer and I was surprised to learn about this product and think it is important for others to know about other potential IOLs soon to be on the market —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchronycreator (talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But at second thought I think it would be more consistent with Wikipedia's attribution policies that the original article with its full contribution history be redirected. Please let me know if I am incorrect.--PinkBull15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hoax article
Greetings. I have twice marked the article Illumination (Stratovarius album) as a blatant hoax/speedy deletion candidate, but the user insists on re-creating it. He has done so three times now. At this point I'm unsure of what to do, so perhaps you may be able to help. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm contesting the deletion of the post "puerto rican wet willy" it references nothing sexual and holds no bad content. As the ability to contest it on the post has been removed, I'm messaging you directly.
Why was the page deleted? Can't it be incubated instead to enable further improvement? I am not sure what is needed to make the page better. If you let me know I can add the required sources. I would appreciate if it can be kept for a few more days to allow me to add content that I am working with some other editors to get from Sri Lanka archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Russ Christopher
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm really concerned about this article's reliance on the 1894 edition of the ODNB. I have online access to the latest version, so would you have any objections if I were to check and update the citations against that? Obviously if I find any discrepancies between the two versions then I'll flag that up for you to fix.
The article says in the Loss of the Colossus section that "No lives were lost in the sinking, but Sir William Hamilton's collection was lost with her". What the ODNB says though is that there was one casualty, and that "many of Sir William Hamilton's less valuable treasures ... were lost", not that his entire collection was lost.
In the French Revolutionary Wars section the article says that "He was present at the Action of 23 April 1794 of Guernsey, where Warren's four frigates fought an engagement with three French frigates and a corvette, capturing two frigates and the corvette." The ODNB makes no mention of any action in 1794 involving Murray. Shouldn't that be "off Guernsey" as well?
Also in the French Revolutionary Wars section the article says "The Nymphe however saw little of the fighting, being some way off as the action began", but the ODNB makes no such claim.
The ODNB says "... when eleven years old, he joined the frigate Niger (Captain Francis Banks), and he later transferred with Banks to the Pembroke (60 guns), serving mostly in the Mediterranean". What the article says is "His proper service in the navy probably only began in 1772, when he joined HMS Panther, which was then the flagship of Commodore Molyneux Shuldham, for service on the Newfoundland station." It says nothing about his initial service being a "titular employment for rank".
The article says "Nelson briefly detached Murray in command of a squadron of seven ships of the line, before they both returned to England". The ODNB says "He continued in the Baltic in command of a squadron watching the Swedish fleet at Karlskrona until August 1801 when he transferred to the London (90 guns) and paid her off at the peace."
The article says "With the resumption of hostilities after the Peace of Amiens, Murray returned to sea in command of the 74-gun HMS Spartiate, but word soon reached him that Nelson had requested him to be his captain of the fleet in the Mediterranean." The ODNB says "On the renewal of war Nelson selected Murray as his first captain (or chief of staff) in the Victory, a testing post which he held during the long watch off Toulon (1803–5) and the chase to the West Indies in 1805", i.e., no mention of HMS Spartiate.
The article says that "The Monmouth formed part of Commodore George Johnstone's expedition to the Cape of Good Hope that year, and was present at the capture of six Dutch merchants in Saldanha Bay that year". What the ODNB says is "Murray joined the Monmouth (64 guns) commanded by James Alms, his fellow townsman, before sailing in April 1781 to the East Indies. On passage she took part in Commodore George Johnstone's inept action off the Cape Verde Islands against Suffren", nothing about any battle in Saldanha Bay.
All the citations I've left in ref #4 are those where there's some discrepancy between what the article is saying and what the ODNB is saying.
I know that you remove the image placeholder templates from bio articles when you come across them (as I do). What do you do when an editor restores the template and is adamant that it remain in the article? This is what is happening at Desmond Elliot, with a related discussion spilling over here. I've never had anyone revert my removal of the template, so I'm curious how you have responded in the past. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete the Dropknee page from wikipedia? Can you please restore the page. Dropknee is a notable sport and deserves a page. If there was an issue regarding the page please let me know and i will make the necessary adjustments upon the restoration of the page. Thankyou
I'm having an hard time keeping my wikibreak as well. I'm doing all these final papers and I keep using wikipedia to source them (bad) and running into articles that has some sort of problem (real bad). Hopefully this doesn't become a problem for me next semester. Secretaccount04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you closed the AfD for the above article back in November. I nominated it for deletion; the original author is now asking that the page's contents be sent to him: User talk:Strange Passerby#Deleted?. Could you please respond there/answer the request? Thanks. StrPby (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. They were especially valued coming from a former colleague on the committee. Regards, and see you around the baseball pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I got these a few days ago. I got some other books first and started reading them, rewriting some articles, so I want to finish that first rather than stop in the middle. But should be soon. I hope you didn't mind me rewriting parts of that article the other day. I was just trying to help with the sports backlog and thought that would be faster. AaronY (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wizardman, it might be possible, given that we have no Choice of the week for FTs, to include a round-up of the year's FT promotions, perhaps in the last edition this year or the first in January (without feeling every promotion needs to be mentioned)? Two or three paragraphs giving us the big picture of how FT promotions have been going/(changing?), and your picks of the best ones and why? Tony(talk)04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
PS that raft of promotions today will be reported in the 20 December edition. Could you check through what I write, then? I'm a bit confused about the 19-article version, for starters. The green box doesn't show 19 articles. Tony(talk)04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. If you're around over the break, I'll buzz you. There's no imperative to include it in any particular edition, but by the first one or two of next year would be most appropriate. Tony(talk)04:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You're familiar with FAs
Hello, since you have a lot of experience at FAC, could you help me by giving some tips of what needs to be done to
Hello, Wizardman. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Could you obtain a copy of the contents of (deleted)
Cardinal Edward Egan
in 2004 which exposed a scandal (other than sexual abuse), which reverberates today over the character of Catholic education.
This confrontation led to his resignation as pastor, and ultimately the closing of the school in question. It greatly tarnished the reputation of Cardinal Egan. This is well-documented in reliable sources with its impact evident in those accounts. I suppose the article did not adequately explain the significance of Murr's reform of St. Francis de Sales school and his subsequent resignation. I can repare an article that will pass WP:N, ostensibly the reason for its deletion this month. patsw (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just discovered that Nezdmin Kozlo has now been knocked off. I'm not sure how many of the multiple championship-winning team you've targeted. I've just banged in a reference for the league championships which will hopefully be enough to delay the team's own article from ending up being deleted, along with the Wikipedia last resting places of the team members identified in the championship team photographs (likewise I've got the first reference in for the national volleyball league article too, hopefully enough to postpone any deletion there).
I don't have the time to go rushing round trying to reference more than the odd couple of the under-referenced articles of "foreigners" that are constantly being submitted for deletion to a rather narrow and on the whole self-selecting group of participants at AfD. So I have to accept that Wikipedia will continue to cleanse itself of articles contributed by those outside the core Wikipedia community with its predominantly Anglocentric Wikipedia/internet-savvy composition. The process will be made easier as Wikipedia is abandoned by discouraged former aspirant contributors from outside the club, as I have been made aware.
The relentless pursuit of unsourced/undersourced yet uncontentious articles about foreign artists, writers, politicians, sportspeople, etc., reminds me of the fundamental finding of the MacPherson Inquiry - that institutional processes carried out fairly and diligently by those working within the institution can yield biased outcomes which the individuals involved find difficult to recognise as such - the bias is structural, not located within individuals.
I have no argument with your Operation Big Bear project. It seems to me that you're expanding the availability of knowledge that's of interest to people consulting Wikipedia as well as engaging in something that's personally rewarding - win/win as the expression goes. But perhaps you might consider the incongruity of someone with all the resources and skills at your disposal simultaneously moving forward a process that trashes the efforts of the "Wikipedia marginals".
I am not accusing you of bad faith, I am simply saying that the way you and many others are choosing to apply the Wikipedia guidelines - what I'd call a "cleansing of the inadequates" - is actually consolidating institutional bias and prejudice at Wikipedia and ultimately thwarting what II understand to be the basic premise of Wikipedia - subject to constraints on abuse and practicality, to encourage anyone who so chooses to help bring all knowledge together at one place for all to use and enjoy. Opbeith (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your decent reply. I'm reassured to know that it wasn't a systematic purge and that you're approaching the issue from a thought-through point of view.
Unfortunately that's not universally the case. During the chance visit to AfD that led me to spot Sanjin Bezdrob's AfD and then the similarly chance spotting of Nedzmin Kozlo's deletion I caught glimpses of some of the sharks, including one particularly Darwinian UBLP crusader.
The fall-out from their activities in fact discourages bilingual editors. I know a number of Bosnians with fairly good English several of whom have sadly abandoned Wikipedia feeling pretty bruised by the way (non-contentious) contributions have been treated.
As a (Romance language) linguist my own knowledge of Bosnian is fairly minimal but I'm alert to some of the issues that affect non-native English language speakers. I'm also aware of the problems that conscientious researchers in any language have to grapple with. I'm conscious a lot of the time at Wikipedia of a rule- rather than guideline-based approach being followed that's often associated with a frankly punitive attitude. It seems to encourage a cultural insensitivity that strays close to and occasionally beyond the margin of racism and other forms of discrimination, even in areas within Anglo culture.
That's a problem that Wikipedia is not coming to grips with and perhaps even exacerbating as effort is concentrated on other matters, such as dealing with insufficiently well sourced articles. I fully understand the potential threat they pose but over-cautious risk management has its own costs. An unreferenced or less than adequately referenced statement should not be treated as ipso facto contentious but too often is. What often comes across as excessively rigourous "quality control" and "policing" has a powerful deterrent effect on potential collaborators. There often seems to be an assumption that the only options available should be kill or cure.
Anyhow, I'm happy to know that you're not part of a Balkan volleyball witch-hunt and thanks for the thoughtful response.Opbeith (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD#R3. I'm not sure if you were aware, but "gridiron football" is apparently a common term for American football in Australia and some other countries. Therefore, I don't believe the redirect is an "implausible typo or misnomer" as specified in the CSD condition, and politely request that you restore it. Thanks. –Grondemar18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. I kinda agree, but I also worry about its absence setting off another American/Canadian/gridiron football page move war. It's probably better for the redirect to exist rather than risking someone trying to move the safety position article to that title. –Grondemar18:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Changing the tags back
Hey there, I see that you basically went through and changed all the NFL articles that I had changed to a BLP sources and a nofootnotes tag back to a BLP unsourced tag. As I'm sure you're aware, all articles that I changed had a link to either NFL.com, databasefootball.com or pro-football-reference.com (sometimes all three as well like this one). I asked at WT:NFL
here and was confirmed that it should be changed to a BLP sources tag (which I'm sure you saw, as you posted right below it and didn't disagree). So basically, I'm pretty confused why you've gone through and reverted me. The articles that I changed all had a link to at least one reliable source (I also checked and none of them were dead links FWIW). So can please explain why you did this? You seem to be implying that because the link is in the infobox it isn't as valid as if it was in an "external links" section. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And this one was sourced to the team's official website. In case you hadn't noticed, the BLP unsourced tag states "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources" (my bolding) and all these articles do have at least one link to a reliable source. Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Very poor form to undo all of them without any discussion. Jenks did everything right - he asked first, then put more informative tags on, but some people seem so hung up on "BLP unsourced" as the only tag that matters... well one day (and probably not that far away, less than 6 months I reckon) we will have cleared the backlog of UBLPs and we'll move onto to other tasks, and all of these other tags will be there guiding our efforts to clear the next backlog, or we'll all retreat back to our wikiprojects or private interests and work from there... bottom line is UBLP isn't the only tag that should be on BLPs that need improvement - think like a newby sometimes - you read the BLP unsourced template, but look at the article and see a link, and because you don't have any idea about {{
cite}} or ref tags you end up thinking that this place is stupid. Jenks did nothing wrong. The tags he added were more informative and correct. You should have discussed it with him before you reverted 20 articles. The-Pope (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, change them back. My problem was that can you really count some random link in an infobox as a reference? If you guys are going to clean up the articles, just slapping two different tags on misses the point; they cold have just as easily been referenced and any tags removed entirely. I'll let them stand, even though all it means is they'll stay like that again for years... WizardmanOperation Big Bear15:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your apology. I'm sorry that I got so angry in the above posts, it was just that I was bit frustrated that you didn't tell me, rather than what you were actually doing. Anyway I do understand your concerns that changing the tags will cause the articles to ignored for years, but I would like to assure you that, for me at least, when the 'unreferencedBLP' backlog is cleared, I do intend to work on the 'BLP sources' backlog. Having said that, your concerns are valid and I should have realised how easy it is to miss the links in the infobox and not gotten so angry about it. Thanks again for your apology, Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year. Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Click to play!
Please note that the book is notable enough. It is written Christopher West who already has his page here. The book is also quoted academically as the author has written it by referring to other known exponents of morality. There were no objective grounds for the removal of the article. Alan347 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you get back to me on this. I'm concerned about it. The book is notable enough to be entitled to an article on Wikipedia. There are hundreds of articles regarding books of similar notability. Alan347 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for nominating and fine-tuning this to get GA status! I wrote most of it way, way back before I burned out and took my two-year wikibreak. It was created by a descendant of McKnight's who is also related to
Questia
, found lots of stuff about the guy, and spent a couple of days fixing it up. The article looks pretty much as I left it, too.
I found some more documentation on both McKnight and Browning as I was transferring files to my new Christmas gift, so I'll add that stuff sometime this week. It was a nice surprise to find it's a GA - maybe we can work to take it to A-class, then FA? I'm completely new to anything above GA and it's a little intimidating. Wanna work with a sarong-shaking volcano goddess like me? ;-) Thanks again - KrakatoaKatie04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Wizardman! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the
Online Ambassador
. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Hi Wizardman, I saw that you reverted IP edits today at Garrett Wittels. Could you remove this edit and protect it indefinitely from IPs? If you don't get to it, I have notified the protection page as well. Thanks!--TM23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know that discussions have concluded that substantial (IE, not quick-fail and more than 1000 bytes' worth) reviews will be offered two points per review. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Done I finished it all, and I removed a few extras that you didn't mention. 
on hold pending resolution of a couple of minor concerns. You can read the review here. –Grondemar 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
passed the good article nomination. Congratulations! –Grondemar 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
