User talk:OlEnglish/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:OlEnglish, for the period August 2010 - September 2010. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010/Newsletter 8-1}}

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks again for helping me with my article, Harris Levey from the very start Old English. I will work on it more over time. Jonathan Levey 03:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -- œ^™ 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider. Please send me a message if you have any further questions, or if you would like further information. Thanks a lot!

BTW, I know you are probably really busy with stuff (you probably being an admin and all that) so if you can't help due to just being too busy that's fine. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally pop in to WP:FEED from time to time and give feedback to several requests. I too was alarmed at the recent backlog btw. -- œ^™ 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As we both agree, taking your edit summary "trivial" as read, then this most certainly should be merged with the main article. Perhaps you would be kind enough to merge the two articles together. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why there should be TWO articles for ONE song. OTOH a judicial editing of the cover versions might be in order. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually common procedure to split out needlessly long embedded lists into their own separate articles, especially when the list is disproportionate to the rest of the article and consists of mostly trivial and unreferenced entries. It's a "cruft-magnet" and attracts spammers that constantly add more and more until the article becomes an eyesore. In fact, perhaps the better option would have been to just remove the entire list of covers and not have a separate list article at all, I just thought we should try to preserve the information so I did the split.

The main article about the song is about the song itself, and its "Covers" section should only briefly mention, in summary style, some of the most notable or popular covers and some details behind those; the separate list article on "Christ song covers" should only be about all the various covers that exist, and it can afford to be an exhaustive list as it's its own subject (not "two articles about the same song"), in this way we can improve the main article by keeping it free from unnecessary information, focused on the subject, balanced, easy to read, and within Manual of Style guidelines. Otherwise, with it full of unreferenced example cruft, it would never have passed a GA (Good Article nomination), much less an FA with it the way it was. I hope you understand. This is a standard way of doing things and there's many examples of it, I could track some down if you want. Read Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style), and Wikipedia:Article size for more information on why I did the split and the justification for it. Regards, œ^™ 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read above. As you brought it up, perhaps you could read the bit about splitting unnecessarily - size isn't cutting the mustard, the main article has little chance of rising above start class (and I think I am being generous there) without much much more work so reference to FA/GA is not realistic. I only know of two other songs split like this, one was done to avoid a merge of one song Bohemian Rhapsody, and not a process I approve either, the other I shall be merging in due course. If you have any examples where a split like this actually works I would be interested in seeing. Your arguments are along the idea it's the articles that count, not the content. Oh dear! I should also remind you that WP:Songs state that most songs don't warrant an article, yet for artificial reasons you think this song is worth two articles. Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to phrase it as "quality over quantity", but nevermind that, we obviously differ in editing philosophies.. 'tis not a big issue but let's play this out anyway per the WP:Dispute resolution process. I requested a third opinion, perhaps an outside view will settle it, I'm willing to concede to whatever the 3rd party suggests. -- œ^™ 06:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. BTW sections 3.2, 3.3. and 3.4 of Wikipedia:Article size pretty much confirms my opinion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to 3O, see also shorter discussion at Talk:List of The Christmas Song covers.

(←) (3O response) I am leaning toward agreeing with OlEnglish. The list size is way to long for inclusion in the main article, and is not particularly relevant. I suspect if we looked hard enough we could find another few thousand artists who had covered that song (everyone has). I'd lean toward leaving it split, or more likely deleting the list all together (unless one person's cover of the song becomes notable). Leaving the 3O open for further comment.  7  07:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the 3O. Looks like we reached a consensus at Talk:List of The Christmas Song covers. Further opinions are still welcome, but it's probably safe to remove it from the list. -- œ^™ 09:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talkpage to main article, redirects on the list and the list discussion page. Now we are singing harmony please feel free to edit in any way you think fit. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear OIEnglish, I have noticed that a few questions on this forum have shown to be designed to be offensive. Recently we had: "Perpetual verginity of Mary" put in by someone who does not give their name. I will not now answer or respond if it is like this. Can something be done about offensive and provocative questions and statements? MacOfJesus (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can simply ignore them. Wikipedia is not censored, so unfortunately you may sometimes see some things that may offend you, but if someone decides to be immature or is unprincipled and immoral it's their problem, you shouldn't let them prevent your enjoyment of Wikipedia, it's just some words on a screen, don't let it get to you. -- œ^™ 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you OIEnglish, however, this is bordering on sacrilegious. I can answer but I am sure my answer would be rubbished too. I saw your question on Frazer River, I was going to check it out, but someone made a very good reply before me. Regards MacOfJesus (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only sacrilegious to you if you pay it attention.. like I said, just ignore it. You're not obligated to answer, nor even read, every single question. The question may be offensive or even blasphemous but it's still a valid question, and since Wikipedia is not censored, it does not have any policies forbidding offensive or immoral questions, so I'm afraid there's not much that can be done about it.

BTW I just wanted to correct you on something, I notice you often mistype my username as OIEnglish with a capital I as the second letter, I realize they look very similar but it's actually "OLEnglish" with a lower-case L not an I. ;)

Could not Wikipedia insist everyone use their name. You do have some banned people as I remember being told that a question asked was made by someone not allowed to use Wikipedia, and my answer went onto another question! I can trace this if you wish! Regards MacOfJesus (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be easier for me to just quote from the relevant policy pages to answer this.

From Wikipedia:Privacy: "Wikipedia requires no personal information from anyone who wishes to edit it. The IP addresses of editors are logged, but only visible if the editor has not created an account name. Some editors use their real name for their account, most others use a pseudonym."

From Wikipedia:Banning policy: "A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages, usually in the scope of an article ban or a topic ban, though it may extend to the entire project. A ban may be temporary or permanent. The standard Wikipedia invitation to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users."

The user in the incident you referred to above was probably banned sitewide and therefor was not allowed to make an edit anywhere in Wikipedia including the reference desk, so his question was removed. That does not mean he was banned for asking the question or that his question was removed for being inappropriate, it's just that he was not supposed to be editing in the first place. With regards to the offensive "Perpetual virginity of Mary" question, the anonymous user posting that question is not banned from editing so his question is allowed to stay. -- œ^™ 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you OLEnglish, and sorry for getting your name wrong. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's no big deal at all. In fact you can call me OE if you want, it's easier to type. -- œ^™ 23:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

When you delete my articles it just makes me more determined to spread the knowledge of these buidings. Evangp (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By creating "articles" that consist of only 6 words you're not spreading very much "knowledge" at all. -- œ^™ 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Thank you for spreading kindness to newcomers and oldcomers alike! Funandtrvl (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. :) -- œ^™ 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OE! I appreciate your assistance with my help desk query concerning the existence of two simultaneously-open move requests for the same article. I've replied to your kind offer of further assistance, there. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- œ^™ 07:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, OE. Definitely "extra mile" on your part, and I appreciate it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Old English,

I took a rest from working on myHarris Levey article for the last few weeks, as it was draining me. I felt relaxed knowing that I had done my best to post it as objectively as I thought possible and to verify at least some of the claims with plans to do more verification in the not too distant future. Unfortunately, I received this message at the top of my article: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."

...it seems that a fellow Wiki member, Sharp962, has been spending quite a bit of time and through removing all non-verified pieces of the article and I believe he has reported it so that it is now up for review and is vulnerable to being removed totally, if wiki rules to do so... but not sure that it has reached this near final stage yet, so please confirm. and suggest what I can do to help keep the article posted in some form, rather than it being deleted after so much hard work. Frankly, I would have greatly appreciated it if Sharp962 had contacted me and warned me first prior to removal, kindly suggesting what I needed to do to verify section, or even helping me to verify sections, prior to removal.

I guess it is too late and much of my hard work is and will be lost. Anything yo can do to help in this matter, and possibly communicate with Sharp962 on my behalf, letting him know I am new to wiki and that my intentions are good, would be most appreciated. Perhaps I will send the same request to Old English.

Thanking you in advance, and looking forward to hearing your sage advise. Jonathan Jonathan Levey 02:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

I was able to remove the COI tag, but I cannot do much about Sharp962's edits as this is a collaborative editing environment and as such noone owns any article. He was attempting in good faith to improve the article according to policies and guidelines. You have the option of undoing one or more of his changes but you must follow up with a post on the talk page detailing your rationale for why the content in question should remain in the article. Currently the article is NOT up for deletion and as far as I know he hasn't "reported" it anywhere, so you shouldn't worry. Your best bet at this point is to attempt to engage Sharp962 in discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, œ^™ 02:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much Old English, for your helpful intervention and sound perspective. I am not sue how to communicate with Sharp962, since his talk page does not have a leave message function. I believe yo are suggesting that I simply post a note to him on my article's talk page.. is that right? Perhaps you might also be kind enough to send him a brief note asking him to give the article more time to be improved and verified before removing unverified sections. The good news is, as you point out, that he was making his revisions with good intentions, in good faith and not being malicious with ill-intent. In fact, I see now he has an alternate wiki name and that in previous weeks when he made a few modifications, he said he was concerned about COI, but also that he was a fan of my dad's Air Wave comic illustrations. Thanks again for all of your attention and timely help in this matter. JonathanJonathan Levey 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Every page, including all user talk pages, can be edited. They don't need a "leave message function". Just click on the 'edit' button at the top of the screen and type your message.

You can leave your message at his User talk page if you want.. but what I suggested was to start a discussion at the article talk page, as that's where discussions about article content normally take place. Or you could do both, if you so desire: start a discussion on the article talk page, then leave Sharp962 a note on his user talk page directing him to join you in discussion at the article talk page. -- œ^™ 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonathan Levey 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

Dear Old English, As soon as you have the chance, please visit my articles talk page Harris Leveyand see if yo can answer some of my many yet very basic questions on whether or not certain documents I have are worthwhile to upload into the article. At the same time yo will see my request for Sharp962 and other Wiki members that are not connected/related to Harris Levey to ad their research, verifications and modifications to make this article much better and more authenticated. Jonathan Jonathan Levey 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

I also thought that if I photographed my dad's original artwork that he drew while employed at DC comics then it would help the verification process. But perhaps if DC has copyrights to the original drawing, this cannot be uploaded? Is that right? What about scanning and uploading onto Wikipedia an in-house company newsletter that shows my father's photo on the cover and includes a two page written article with related photos inside? There is a publisher listed on the inside of the cover, but i have looked everywhere in this in-house magazine/newsletter and do not see the word "copyright" or the copyright symbol anywhere. Would this be OK and helpful to upload? Please advise.Jonathan Levey 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs)

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's Image use policy but I'm pretty sure you cannot upload any copyrighted images from DC without explicit permission from them. The best place to ask questions concerning image copyrights and what is or is not okay to upload would be the WP:Media copyright questions page. The fine folks over there are more knowledgeable than I about image copyrights and they should be able to help you, just follow the instructions at the top of the page. -- œ^™ 03:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Old English, I see on my article's Talk page, there is a rectangular yellowish box that says the following:

"Blue alert icon. A Wikipedia contributor, Jonathanlevey (talk · contribs), may be personally connected to the subject of the article. This user's editing has included significant contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

Can this Blue alert warning and related text be removed at this point? If so,can yo help me to do so? Jonathan Levey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanlevey (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot remove this notice as it's required because you do have a direct conflict of interest, and it's important that other editors be informed of it; this is in order to comply with the policy. I placed that notice there in order to remove the other one from the top of the article. It's either that one or the other one, I think you're better off with that one. :) But it's nothing to worry about really, in fact, you should consider it more of an honor.. because you get to be placed in your very own category! ;) œ^™ 03:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...honoured it is (and I am!) :) Thanks for your great attention and timely work Old English! Jonathan Levey (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I undo vandalism whenever i see it. To be honest i dont see that much of it. Inka 888 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I'm sure you have the best intentions for Wikipedia. I'm just not seeing a large enough number of reverts in your contributions to justify you needing rollback.. at this point in time anyways.. give it a bit more time, keep scanning recent changes, show some strong anti-vandalism work, try out Twinkle, get more involved, then reapply, I'm sure you won't have a problem getting it then. -- œ^™ 03:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey OE! I was wondering, do you have any idea why Sinebot keeps appending Jonathan Levy's posts and signing for him? I've been checking and he's been signing properly, yet Sinebot still follows him around signing. Any ideas? Thx Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 01:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure why that is happening actually... if he IS in fact signing with the four tildes as proper, then maybe it could be because in his "My preferences" settings, under the tab "User profile", and under "Signature", he has ticked "Treat the above as wiki markup" but then has nothing there, just an empty box. But I don't know, he should experiment with that and do some trial and error and he should be able to figure it out. -- œ^™ 03:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a way of opting out so that SineBot will ignore you, see User:SineBot#Opting_out. -- œ^™ 04:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right Old English, I had the wiki box checked off and this may have caused the SineBot problem. I have unchecked it and will see if the problem is solved. Hope so.Jonathan Levey (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. :) Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ol English, I understand that my article on Harris Levey is being modified to uphold the criteria and integrity of Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. But I am very surprised that all references about how Harris Levey (aka Lee Harris) left DC Comics to serve as a member of the Air Force's Photo Tech squad in WWII, was removed. I understand Harris Levey did not gain notoriety for his Photo Tech work --where he was sent into concentration camps to document the carnage, and over bombed enemy territory to document the bombings, but to remove all reference to his War years seems a shame since I believe it reveals important information that shows how his work at DC Comics was interrupted like many other patriots (ie. Stan Lee, creator of Spiderman) to serve in the war, only to return to DC comics and his work as an illustrator for DC when the war ended. Also, I realize that too much info about Harris Levey's wife and son's (ie. their names) might be to much info and seen as COI, but someone removed the name of Harris Levey's wife (Elinor Levey) and also the fact that he had two sons). I would think, for historical context, showing that Harris Levey had a wife and two sons would be pertinent. I know that Stan Lee's Wiki article shows lots of references to family and their specific names. Of course , if this is wrong and not in the spirit of Wiki, then Harris Levey's article should be void of details that are not pertinent. Yet I thought that they were. Kindly verify, either way and if these brief details on family and brief info about Levey's war years are permissible and written objectively so as to avoid COI, can yo please put this info back in --in whatever modified form you feel is prudent and right? Many thanks Ol English. Also, perhaps you could add further insights and comments into the discussion on my article's Talk Page that will shed some light on the validity of this article for Sharp962 and others that seem to feel it should be removed or much of the content deleted. If I have information there that is not relevant or should not be there, or not yet verified (though perhaps verifications will come overtime t this article), then by all means, please edit the article accordingly. I trust your knowledge and judgment above all. Quite frankly, with all of the recent spate of criticism and attempt to remove information without giving the article more time to gather interest and constructive input (ie. other wiki editors adding verifications, etc.), I am beginning to regret having posted this article to begin with. However, because I have gained your and PianoTech's encouragement and support throughout my witing and learning process, I believe that something of wiki value wil result form all this input (including Sharp962's input --which, as you have pointe dout is being done with good intentions and in good faith and most importantly, in th espirit of Wiki's purpose , mission and parameters Jonathan Levey (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not me you should be trying to convince about the pertinence of specific content but the other editor who is involved in editing the article. I already tried restoring some of the content but I was reverted. However, it looks like he has responded on the talk page and started a discussion so all you have to do now is reply and try to come to a consensus. I may be knowledgable on Wikipedia's policies and procedure, but am no expert in the subject area of comics and their creators (although Sharp962 does seem to be), so I don't want to involve myself in a dispute that deals with the article's facts. Sharp962 may have good reason for removing certain content, and what should or should not stay in the article is a content issue that you should resolve yourself on the article's talk page, one way being via the Bold, revert, discuss process.. a perfect opportunity for you to learn how these sorts of disputes get resolved on Wikipedia.. it will help you in the future when you start editing other articles. Don't worry if things don't go your way in the end, Wikipedia is huge and there's plenty of other articles to write, right? :) -- œ^™ 05:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Understood. Makes sense. Thanks, OlEnglish, for helping me to get the discussion started on the article's talk page. I really am not looking to argue or even disupte. I just wanted to get something of wiki value up there on Harris Levey. Again many thanks.Jonathan Levey (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

--The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing those links, they had eluded me. I, Englishman^{Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork} 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are the person who wrote the "Gin and Juice" entry, I would like to commend you. It's priceless. I'm writing a screenplay and I would like to refer to it. Would that be okay? Thank you in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qtprof (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, if you're referring to the "Synopsis" in the Gin and Juice article, no, I didn't write it.. but whoever did was obviously not trying to be serious, and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks for telling me about it, I've tagged it for now, hopefully someone will come along and rewrite it, if not I will be deleting it soon. -- œ^™ 08:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he had such an outcome in mind when he wrote the message. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know.. nice sig btw. -- œ^™ 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yours is nice too. Very... corporate. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 10:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot to focus on in real life, so I'm retiring from Wikipedia. If an administrator has not already done so, will you indefinitely full protect my user page, just in case? Thanks in advance. I may or may not return next summer, so until then, goodbye. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I sense a heaviness in your words and I hope everything's okay. I wish you the best for the future and hope you will come back someday. Remember you always have support from the community here. -- œ^™ 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: your latest comment, Don't you mean the "Allow" camp? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Not watching your talkpage; please ping mine if you deem a response necessary.

Nope. What I meant was, seeing that usernames can be created by arranging non-standard block characters into profanity or offensive "drawings", is a reason to disallow their use, because it's obviously disruptive. -- œ^™ 07:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh but I see what you mean.. it's in the way I phrased it.. instead of 'showing' a reason to the allow camp, I was 'giving' a reason to the disallow camp ;) -- œ^™ 07:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right; your phrasing was weird. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You can try out whatever you like. I have no opinion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just a quick note in case it's not on your watchlist.

I split out the template code that you had added to Talk:Celilo Falls, so that it is now usable in any talkpage: Template:Outreachwiki case study. (We can tweak the wording/variables as needed). I created it primarily because there's a new toolserver tool that enables tracking "related changes" to any article, based on the talkpage templates it contains. E.g.

• http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=Outreachwiki+case+study
• http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=WikiProject+Cats

So hopefully that will be useful once there are more case studies built. I've already let Pete Forsyth know. That's all. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In case I never thanked you for this excellent template -- THANKS! I actually didn't even notice it until Quiddity pointed it out. It's a great idea to track things that way, and hopefully we will have more "life of an article" items to use the template for before long! -Pete (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you done testing at File:Covernt1.jpg? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hehe, yes I am, why? -- œ^™ 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still showing up in Category:Test category and should probably be deleted if no longer needed (nothing links to it). It still doesn't list any categories and individual diffs still don't appear to work though. I don't suppose you submitted a bug report to get a developer to look at it? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 03:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's used in Hot (Taeyang album) so it shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps it should be moved to Commons. A bug report was submitted at bugzilla:23851. -- œ^™ 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hot (Taeyang album) uses File:Taeyang - Hot.jpg not File:Covernt1.jpg, the later being a redirect to the former. That bug report states the problem with diffs is fixed in r67762, but according to Special:Version Wikipedia is currently running r73534 and the problem still exists. That also does not address the problem of the categories not showing up. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're right, the article doesn't use it, I forgot it was a redirect. About the version number, if you look at [1] you will see that individual parts of the code are still at Rev 64689, including redirect.php. I don't know how the developers determine when to commit the various bug fixes but I presume the problem will be fixed when they get around to updating the rest of the code. I'm pretty sure the problem of the categories not showing up is related to the same bug. Also, deleting the file won't solve the problem because it's the same situation for all File: namespace redirects, although you're probably right that it's a useless redirect and probably could be safely deleted anyway. -- œ^™ 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you, as an admin, would follow your own advice, and AGF when dealing with an AfD from a relatively inexperienced user. CTJF83 chat 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off sounding a little harsh. It's only out of frustration that I reacted upon impulse. I understand that you and the other user were only doing what you thought was right. -- œ^™ 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your comments, so the other user, this is his/her first AfD, isn't "bitten" to nominate other articles in the future. CTJF83 chat 04:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh is it their first? I did not realize.. it sure doesn't seem like it.. they display a very capable level of knowledge of policy.. -- œ^™ 04:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They must've researched the policy, I guess, after all the Keeps. CTJF83 chat 04:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have come across a new person on Wikipedia, Cgpgrey, who seems knowledgable on Human Height over History. Perhaps he needs a Welcome! I think I have found the article page he/she was looking for. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already welcome them.. that's good. -- œ^™ 04:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article page, Saint Athanasius, I am having difficulty allocating the reference which you kindly placed in at position 2. However, I attemped to place the same reference in another spot in the article page at "Veneration", but it comes up as 10. It does come up with the correct citation, but it has dublicated 2. Can you help, OE. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I fixed it. If you want to learn how to do this yourself, you should read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. -- œ^™ 10:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again; Thank You, OE, I am going to learn how to do this myself, soon. Everyone can be very proud of a very well made article page: Saint Athanasius. Has it's status increased? MacOfJesus (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "status" but the WikiProject banners on the talk page still have it assessed as C-class, which is a rating two levels below a 'Good' article. Another way of quantifying an article's status would be to check how many page-views it gets. You can do this by going to the article's Revision history and clicking on the link "Page view statistics". According to the traffic statistics, Athanasius of Alexandria has been viewed 1600 times in September, 2010. -- œ^™ 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Once again; Thank you OE. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know that I've decided to return to Wikipedia, only in a semi-retired state instead of completely retired. Life has somewhat settled down for me, and since I'm ditching pre-calculus I'll have a little more free time on my hands. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) -- œ^™ 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell me please, how to use userboxes?Constantinehuk (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that if you looked here and here your question will be answered. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Constantinehuk (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Snak the Ripper, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak the Ripper until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Old English, thanks for your comment on overkill. I am still finding my way around WP and learning the ropes so am interested in aspects like how much to cite. Why and when to cite sources gives a lot more reasons to cite than just info that might be challenged. I work a lot on BLPs and with writers, so work with direct quotations quite a bit. I imagine you have to cite every time you quote - that's what I understand from this guideline. It leaves me wondering what overkill looks like. I'm guessing that GAs and FAs try and use very little direct quotation for this reason. Your thoughts are appreciated. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spanglej, thanks for replying. The comment I left was just my own personal opinion and editing philosophy. I understand the importance of citing sources frequently and consistently, but get frustrated when editors place 'citing sources' above 'providing information' which is the main purpose of an encyclopedia. When it comes to BLPs the policy is a lot stricter; every new BLP created must have at least 1 reference or else it will be deleted via WP:BLPPROD. This is understandable because we do not want there to be any chance of causing harm to a living person. With quotations, yes WP:V states all quotations must be attributed and of course this makes sense too. Overkill, in the context of that essay, is mainly just a style issue. Articles are much more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read without a string of numbers following every second sentence. To see what that looks like, this article is a great example. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Examples for more. I don't necessarily advocate removing these citations, I just want to encourage users to use common sense and keep the reader in mind. And I want to discourage users from thinking that just because an article is unsourced it's no-good and must be deleted. This seems destructive to me and not in the spirit of building Wikipedia. The way I see it is, with the exception of BLPs and obvious hoaxes, if any uncontroversial content CAN be sourced then it should NOT be removed no matter how long its been sitting there, because it IS verifiable and therefor does not violate the verifiability policy. -- œ^™ 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, thanks for the applause, thanks for the comments :):) I was fascinated by the speed and ease with which you wrote <applause> below my theatrical piece :):) I guess it worked in attracting the attention of others. Thanks again and my deepest respect. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Which bit is self referential? The Antique Pair of Snuffers image ;) Sorry, I just had to! Nice work on the edits, I will maybe give this some time myself after I have finished what I can with my 2 current article projects. --Lakkasuo (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I just removed the "as can be seen in the above kinetoscope of Fred Ott" bit that referred to an image within the article. -- œ^™ 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Glossary&action=rollback&from=86.147.153.107&token=30c487a5f1cd757f71cb3eadccc070fc%2B\ - i think the first item heading is still wrong - and the reverted edit probably needs blanking by an admin maybe SatuSuro 10:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no I think it's meant to be like that.. to signify non-alphanumeric characters. I've blanked the edit summary for the reverted edit, thanks. -- œ^™ 10:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ta for that SatuSuro 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've just done some basic categorization and cleanup. I still need to improve a few details though.

I tried to solve the navigation issue we talked about recently with a navigation menu: see Category:WikiProject Usability. Do you think it's okay? Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It looks great. -- œ^™ 14:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

I’m a little unclear on what counts as “original research”. Please see the note I posted at Talk:Abell_2029: according to the star-atlases I looked at, the coördinates of this object are in Virgo, not Serpens [Caput]. However, I haven’t been able to find a source that actually says so; I read some abstracts of research papers about the cluster, but (unsurprisingly) none of them mention the constellation. If the statement in the article hadn’t been referenced, I’d have had no qualms about changing it, but I’m reluctant to contradict a published source, even if it’s ‘only a Web page’—and several years old at that. I wrote to Harvard about the Chandra gallery page the Wikipedia article cited, asking for a correction (or clarification, in case there’s some good reason for the discrepancy) but they haven’t (yet) replied. What do you think is the best course of action: boldly correct the statement on the sole basis of the given coördinates (and my eyes), or wait until I either hear from the Chandra people or can find a ‘better’ source that explicitly identifies the correct constellation? Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry nah t’ TLAP above: I be nah quite fluent, although I do ’ave a translation widget in me Dashboard. But if ye doubt me piratical credentials, see | me Pirates@home profile.

P.P.S. I couldn’t get the above link to format properly: without spaces the pipe & “me” were appended to the URL, but with spaces the pipe becomes visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysseus1479 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the late reply. Hmm, is there a possibility that the coordinates as shown at that article could be incorrect? They were added fairly recently in the article's history by a User:Telescopi with this edit. Maybe he made a mistake? Also, I'm a bit confused.. the article gives a Cornell Univ. web page as a source but that page doesn't mention which constellation it's in. It also cites that Chandra site but in the "Fast Facts" box at that page it clearly does give Virgo as the constellation, not Serpens.. unless I'm missing something? I think it's probably safe to change it to say Virgo. -- œ^™ 01:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I had checked the coördinates in Simbad: although not identical they were very close to those given in the article, the difference being a small fraction of the distance to the Serpens border. (Some slight discrepancies are expected for such objects: one researcher might give the centre of the group, another the largest or brightest member.) But revisiting the Chandra page for another check against what they gave, I see now that they’ve quietly fixed the constellation ID. Unless I hallucinated the whole thing … no, the Wayback Machine has the version with Serpens. But they didn’t fix the typo I pointed out to them while I was at it. :( Anyway, should I delete my note on the article’s Talk page, now that the issue has evaporated?

Could you please tell me what I did wrong with the Pirates@home link in my PS above, or point me to a reference that explains the syntax? Thanks for all your help. Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh I figured they might've changed it after you emailed them :) They could have had the courtesy to return your email though! No there's no need to delete the post on the talk page, we don't usually delete posts, we either strike them out or archive them. To format an external link you don't use a pipe.. like so:

[http://pirates.spy-hill.net/view_profile.php?userid=4904 me Pirates@home profile]

gives: me Pirates@home profile. See Help:Wiki markup for more help. And may I say you look very much like a pirate in that picture :) -- œ^™ 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this. Basically, this would give you access to the PediaPress renderer used to print books and should allow you to review book as they would be printed (minus covers). If you find errors and problems, please report them at Help:Books/Feedback.

You either received this message because

• You edited several books
• You are part of WikiProject Wikipedia-Books. (If you aren't, please free free to join in. We'll take any help we can.)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Headbomb (talk) at 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

OE, I noticed that in The Humanities Desk an entry was made on the 28 August no: 1. 7, entitled: "Human Height over History" asked by a newcomer: Cgpgrey, that seems on the face of it a genuine question. Now in the same Desk a question was asked: "Religion", 23 September no: 6. However the question does not make any sense whatsoever, as Phillip van Rjndt has written on American novels. The asker is a newcomer: Cbre4229. I fear that the two may be connected and is a "fishing vandalism". Cgpgrey is now a disappeared newcomer! Could something be done to warn us of "trapping-questions", and is not this an abuse of the system? However, this may be a question regarding a novel and so would be purly imaginary, but the question the way it is worded seems to be misleading. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry for the late reply. I'm not seeing any connection between the two posts.. fishing for what? and if it doesn't make sense that's probably why it received no replies. As far as I can see there's been no other edits from the Cbre4229 account, so I wouldn't worry about it, it's best to just ignore these types of posts, we're not obligated to respond to every question. And Cgpgrey appears to be the same person as User:CGPGrey who's made several recent edits so I don't think he disappeared, just changed the capitalisation in his username. -- œ^™ 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, OE, and Happy Anniversary. From my looking it would appear that Phillip van Rjndt is/was a reviewer of novels, and thus it is impossible to take the question in the literal/historical context, which I was beginning to do. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! wow.. can't believe it's been two years. -- œ^™ 18:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! **Blushing** Eh, it's something I like to do anyway, though. Just can't bear looking at an article that's uncategorized that is perfectably capable, IMO, of being categorized. Plus, 95% of the time, the articles I categorize are of interest to me. As for those of not so much interest, in those cases I look for links to similar articles, which have been(in my searchs so far) 100% categorized and I use those categories I find to take of the article I'm working on in the 1st place. Ohhhhh good, I just gave it away, didn't?! NOOOOOOOOO! ;) That said, I'm keeping the barnstar. :D Alvin Seville (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Well, the point is.. you're doing the work.. If you come up with a technique that allows things to go even smoother, then that's all the more reason to commend you for doing a great job! ;) -- œ^™ 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: your note on the Vancouver assessment page. While writing the article, it occurred to me that it may be better presented as a list article. After reviewing other cities approaches to nicknames, I noticed that Lists usually end up with a lot of unsourced and trivial entries (such as Chicago's, while an article-based approach can lead to a very nice article like Nicknames of Houston. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have plans of expanding in an article type direction, and am scared of an unsightly list of little-used (and sometimes offensive) names. Would appreciate your thoughts, The Interior (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that answered my question then.. If you're planning on taking it in the direction of an article then it should be assessed as one. I also agree that an article-based approach would be better and of a higher quality. Let me know when you've finished expanding it and I will take another look and provide an assessment then. -- œ^™ 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

This is an archive of past discussions about User:OlEnglish. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15