User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Enfield Town F.C.

Re your comments on my Talk page, I posted replies to Ericsback both on my Talk page (at 11:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)) and his (at 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)), before I requested help. I will now bung something on the Talk page for Enfield Town F.C. as well. I will also remove the unverifiable POV stuff. On my Talk page Ericsback admits some of the stuff he posted is point of view and says, 'If you look at what has been written, it merely states the point of view of many fans in the Enfield area as to the motivation of those who set up ETFC and at no time does it claim this to be "fact".' The problem is I don't want to get struck out for keeping on removing the same stuff but even the person who posts it admits it isn't verifiable.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I am fairly new to this and could quite frankly do without the confrontation. Jancyclops (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Future of newspapers

Updated DYK query On 26 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future of newspapers, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for beginning the process of straightening out the refs. I'm not a great technology person, having come out of the print world, but I'll try to chip in on that. Thanks, also, for the DYK nom. Enjoy your weekend. As always, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with the piece, and for fixing the refs. Have a lovely weekend. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Sabetti review

I've sent a couple of messages to you, having made the suggested changes to the article. Since I haven't heard from you, i fear you've grown weary of it. I've tried to remove any subjective tone that gives it an infomercial feel, added inline citations from sources that addressed only Sabetti, removed references to his works in the article, and cut it to bare bones. I understand if you've tired of this article, and so I would just ask that you let me know either way. I value your input; you really know the "rules of the road" and you've been extremely gracious to me. If you'd rather not comment anymore, I guess I'll just try the help desk. I hope you have the time/patience, but... Thanks again for all your help!! --LEMspare (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)--LEMspare (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEMspare. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I feel bad about it. I kept meaning to and then something else would crop up and I'd lose the thread . That's not a good excuse I know, but it's the truth. Anyway, I have reviewed the new version. It's much better. I am not saying it would definitely survive an aricles for deletion debate but I think it's past the point of being speedy deleted as blatant advertising. I'm curious: Are any of the footnotes linkable online? That would make it easier for someone looking at the article to check themselves that they verify what they purport to verify. In any event, I think you're as ready as you're going to be to "go live"; to move the article to the article space. Again I can't guarantee anything, but go for it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block on

hello, your block on due to vandalism just expired and needs to be lengthened- I just removed vandalism in FN P90 by this individual thanks137.149.226.94 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for another 48 hours. Thanks for the heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again, and thanks for all your help with Newspapers. Here's one I've been adding to in drips and drabs, and hope to focus on soon. It's skeletal right now, but I think you'll agree has potential because of the subject matter. Have a lovely weekend. [1] Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was the one who added the then non-existant link for the American Civic Association to the Binghamton shootings article. I was expecting that someone would remove it before anyone would actually create the article, but I was wrong! Thanks for your contribution. --Tocino 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings

I would wish to inform you that User:Comingattractions, who I believe was a suspected sockpuppeteer engaged previously in page-move warring of same, is back again. Xhe recently moved the article to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident without discussion. Although I am totally neutral about this move/name, I am a bit disturbed that xhe has executed this move by stealth. What's more, the edit summary blatantly alleged the lack of good faith. Kindly advise what should be done. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius. I don't see any "stealth" here (actually I see boldness) but I have reversed the move as given the past move warring, this should not be moved without discussion, and the usr had to be aware of the move discussion given that he reverted the talk page to an earlier version, calling it censorship (apparently unaware of the link to the archive in the talk header). I have also dropped a note on the user's talk page. I see no need to investigate any sockpuppetry at this time. I hope the user will simply take what I have done in stride and open a formal requested move if he feels strongly about the other name. If move warring starts again, however, I will take a more global look but let's assume good faith. No damage done as of now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, here, I know you aren't going to understand the following situations so I invite you to discuss it with me. how, I have no idea. but you can figure it out.
as for the archiving issue... it should be evident and plain that if you shorten a page and people (users) can't retrieve every contribution that has been made, that you are indeed censoring.
now, you won't follow this thought too well. simplifying it, the article in question has been under dispute for many months. there are people with vendettas on here trying to get it removed, consolidated, and merged with meaningless or seemingly trivial ones. you should be asking yourself why this is the case. additionally you have people with little better to do than stir up problems and controversies. I am sorry, I and others will not go along with them. Comingattractions (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
further, I am not interested in submitting requests for the reasons stated. the process has been ignored by most users on this site, it has been overrun and hijacked by the troublemakers. and you can't expect me and other people to pay attention to every ridiculous request furnished by these guys. we do have lives to lead that don't involve this kind of minutiae. not only that, how can you expect people to want to follow such sick melodramatic issues? I feel certain you are a responsible user of Wikipedia. know this, I have been on the site for longer than you and I don't like how it is being mocked and made fun of. hundreds if not thousands of users are being driven away but more often they choose to boycott or abandon this webpage. if you can't understand the topics I am talking about, I will choose further actions. that isn't a threat, just a bit tired of the craziness. you, Fuhgettaboutit, don't even realize that you are talking to a user with a conscience. also you did not even spell your name correctly! I mean maybe you didn't know that; yes it isn't that important, just pointing it out to you. Comingattractions (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I'm not going to understand everything that you're saying very well. I think it's largely because of a mild language barrier (coupled with a debilitating lack of specificity). It's always difficult to get your precise point across when writing as a non-native speaker, as you appear to be. I sympathize with that and will try. But what I ask of you is that you do your best to provide links to exactly what it is you are talking about. For example diffs showing exactly where information was removed, such that it "can't [be] retrieved" thus backing your claim of "censorship". To put a fint point on it: What, precisely, was removed from the talk page that is not included in the archive?

Note that simply reverting the talk page to a prior version is not the way to go about this. By doing so you are removing the page move discussion and any edits made after archiving. If there is information removed that is not included in the archive as you allege, then point our where it was removed (again, show me, using diffs) and I will attempt to restore it to there (depending on what it is of course, there are proper, though limited, reasons for removing certain talk page posts). If you truly object to the archiving itself, then I don't think it would be a problem to restore a relevant portion of past discussion on the move issues to the talk page. But you have to do that properly, by removing the information from a time point of the archive manually, and then restoring it to the talk page without removing later discussion. I will do this for you if it sounds too complicated; just tell me the restoration point.

With regard to users with "vendettas on here trying to get it removed, consolidated, and merged with meaningless or seemingly trivial ones", again you have to be specific and transparent. But even if this is true, what in the world does this have to do with the name of the article? We are not here about any proposed deletion of the article, any mergers and so on. We are here about the move war of the article from one name to another, the lengthy discussion that ensued, and your apparent wish that the article be at a different name following my move to "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings" after closing the requested move request.

You're third "point" has no discernible thread to it and is troubling. You won't make a move request but will simply act without discussion because "[rant about users, hijackers, craziness; personal attack]" Well, I am now going to reverse your out of process page move (again) and I will act to make the move targets dificult for you to repeat this move again. In this, I am acting to protect you from yourself. Your present actions can only lead to getting yourself in trouble. Calm discussion is the order of the day. It is what we do here when things are contentious. The underlying point throughout your post that you will continue to do as you please without discussion is perfectly suited to obtaining the opposite result from your goal. Please reconsider taking further unilateral actions. I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if you told me making a move request presents a technical barrier for you. I will help you make a further move request if you want. Simply ask and provide a rationale for why the article should me moved to the other name and I will make the request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved again

Just to let you know it's been moved again, and by the same user. I don't want to make waves, and I don't object to the title, but the fact that xhe has gone another 'out of process move' bugs me, as xhe is responsible for several times during the 18 moves which this article has been through. I asked for comment and patiently for two months for feedback, and along comes this rather bullying editor who moves it in within days of it acquiring a new title. I'm tempted to let this one ride, as xhe may be doing this deliberately to bait. Then, there is the diatribe above is just plain insulting. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius. As you can see from the above, I am aware of the issue and am taking action. I don't care what name this article has but I will not allow a continuation of the move war. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your attention. I just noticed it was not moved to the same destination as the last time, and I do object to the title. I have struck out the relevant word in my comment above. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved again

Believe it or not, it's been moved again and to another different title, and by the same user. Now I see why it was moved 18 times in rapid succession in the early days of its life. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back before you posted this (actually it was just the talk page as I protected the previous move targets) and the user has been blocked. Very persistent but very poor choice. I even offered to make a new requested move discussion for him. Ah well. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACA Page

I will create a new page specifically referencing the Binghamton ACA and update the shooting articles accordingly, but the article you created is for an organization that not longer exists. Not that that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry, of course. But your intent was to create one referencing the Binghamton organization. The Binghamton ACA is not a "chapter" or "affiliate" or even closely related in any way, shape, or form to the organization you wrote the article about.

--Dcamin (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a note to your talk page on this exact topic (and had not seen this post before I posted there); we're two ships passing in the night. We are generally in agreement. A new article is fine. The current article should remain, the Binghamton material removed from it, and the link in the shooting page disambiguated and changed to point to either a red link, or that new article you create. This is a precis of what I said on your talk page in more detail and with links to process pages with more information. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are definitely - I just got an edit conflict posting this to your page. :)
Just so you're aware of my specific knowledge, I am a Binghamton resident and serve on the allocations panels as a chair of the United Way of Broome County, and specifically the ACA is a part of the panel that I chair. I regularly receive updates on their status, their history, and their structure. I am creating a separate Binghamton-based ACA article as we speak and altering the links as appropriate. I would agree with you that a national organization (even if defunct) would likely be the best to assume the non-regionalized article title first.

--Dcamin (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Fuhghettaboutit. :) I'd like to know if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this case, and doing a review of the report for me, then commenting on the case. Comingattractions might need his block increased to indef. Thanks. Synergy 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, I would like to discuss with you your offer to open a move discussion. in conjunction with that, I would like to talk to you about other matters too. Comingattractions (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All worked out before I got to it. Sockpuppetry confirmed and indef blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for help on Rick Berman Page

Hey there, Fuhghettaboutit, I am having some revision troubles and neutrality issues with the Rick Berman page. I could use an administrator. There is one or two users who are particurally engaging in edit wars and have undone edits, ignored talk pages, and despite my paragraphs of attempts in explaining, they have continued to inject poorly sourced information, opinionated criticisms (on a living person), and the sources are often improperly synthesized and or are very dubious; such as an email or an IRC chat. I added the page to a notice board of biographies of living persons, but I could really use some backing from an administrator. I have detailed notes on the talk page. I have been working on that page for months, on and off, and that criticism section has been a source of contention for a very long time. Thanks in advance. --Lightbound talk 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound is not being entirely honest in his summary (and is not entirely innocent himself), but yes, please, take a look at the article, if only so we can stop the back-and-forth bickering. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you come to the administrators page and call me a liar? Thats bold. The history log and talk page have it all written out for all to see. Nothing I have said is untruth. Besides, you were not the only user I was having an issue with. There were anonymous edits as well. It seems I have had some support from another editor and the article is somewhat stabilizing, but we could use a hand to be sure. --Lightbound talk 03:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your help with the Rp template. kilbad (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for directing me to the proposals section of the Village Pump when I posted at the help desk. p.s. I like your name. Arnie-speak is a riot. :) --Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident during the Olympic Games

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Sorry about that. I saw a redirect on a talk page without a corresponding redirect on the article page and deleted it without realising that it may have been placed there for another purpose. I have restored it. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Do you have the 1999 version yet? I forgot to bug you about that. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As I think I said previously, I wasn't planing on getting it unless I happen across it, and I don't see the need. Does it significantly expand on the the previous version? By the way, I think we're almost rounding the corner on sourcing the glossary. Do you think there's a shot of it being the first "featured glossary" once fully source?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I found this image that is in public domain by the maker of the photo because there is no credit to the photo. All I need to do is add the proper right to the page. Can you help?Kingrock 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Next-Genn-Gamer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kingrock 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk Talk Page

Awwww ... come on Fuhghettaboutit, tell us how you really feel about the resolved tag. ;). Cheers buddy, hope life is treating you well. — Ched :  ?  07:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think I every really gave it much thought. As I read through what you wrote, it did make perfect sense. I've often had a tid-bit of information that I thought might be useful, but declined comment simply because someone deemed the thread to be closed. It's not often I see the ability to blunt without being rude, and I tip my hat to you in that regard. ;). On a curious note, do you have a blog, or any other material outside Wikipedia that showcases you writing abilities? Not that it's any of my business, but I do find your eloquence to be both enjoyable and educational. (well, maybe that was a little over the top - but I do like what you write). ;) — Ched :  ?  23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk barnstar

The Reference Desk Barnstar
Thanks so much for telling me that photo was a daddy long legs. I can't quite believe how I didn't noticed it myself... they're very common! I found another unknown spider and am offering another barnstar for its identification. Jolly Ω Janner 00:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD that may interest you

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Female pool players. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your help! It is really appreciated. --GandalftheWise (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That's what I wanted. Please remove the helpme template by replacing it with { { tlx|helpme}}. Thanks. --GandalftheWise (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You know you kow you can tl|/tl|x/tnull| the template yourself without any problem right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing this fine day? Hey, I was looking over the Larry Sanger article (and left notes on talk page). I remembered you helping before, and I'm not asking you to copyedit the article, it would be too much of a hassle in the long run I think. What I was wondering though, is the info you gave me on how to cite paragraphs, sentences, etc. Do you have a link to anything that would reinforce what I'm getting at on the talk page? I'd like to do a little cleanup on the article, but all things considered, I'd like to have something to back up what I'm doing. I know about the wp:cite/wp:ref page - do you have anything further that might help me? Thanks, Ched. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (hey, you archived your talk page ... lol)[reply]

Happy Fuhghettaboutit's Day!

Fuhghettaboutit has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fuhghettaboutit's day!
For your awesome work in articlespace and the Help Desk,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Fuhghettaboutit!

04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

GM Hywire

Good job Greglocock (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Greg. I really do appreciate such comments. Closing requested move surveys is an area where you get very little feedback.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for restoring/moving Iranian calendar to its right place.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome Xashair.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I would be grateful if you would grant me rollback permission. I find myself doing rollbacks the long way, fairly frequently, and the tool would be a help. Much obliged for your consideration. Tim Ross (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. My name is Igor Kekeljevic, BA of Fine Arts and GUI designer. I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm appologize if I'm doing something against Wikipedia policy. I wish to talk about Phatch. This is photo batch software made by Stani Michels.

I found this message

00:40, 21 November 2008 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) deleted "Phatch" ‎ (WP:PROD, reason was 'Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:Notability), or provide any references from reliable, published sources (WP:Verifiability)'.)

At November last year, Phatch didn't deserve a place in Wikipedia, but since then it was very dinamic period for Phatch. I admit I have a personal reasons for requesting Phatch to be a part of Wikipedia, because I contribute to this project. Still I belive that it deserve a place in Wikipedia.

  • It is stable, tested and essential tool for graphic design.
  • It Free Software - noncomercial product.
  • There are 52,600 pages with Phatch on web.
  • Phatch is detaily tested by Cannonical and accepted in Ubuntu Repository
  • 20 people development team work on it

Can Phatch get a page on Wikipedia? If answer is no, what can be done to achieve this?

Regards, Igor Kekeljevic

Kekeljevic (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article since it was not deleted on the merits after discussion and undeleting per WP:PROD is normally granted pro forma. Please note that this does not mean the article will not be deleted under a different deletion process. The article is a bit spammy with its list of features rather than neutral prose, is unsourced, and does not contain any indication of its importance (see WP:N).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Thanks for your response to my question about speedy deletion. I was quite involved with Wikipedia a few years ago and felt that I knew how it worked. When Darryl mentioned that his page had been speedy deleted twice by different administrators I suggested he ask about it on the Help Desk. My recollection was that speedy deletion was something that was used only in noncontroversial cases, such as obvious junk, copyright infringement, etc. It sounds like times have changed and perhaps the role of Administrator has changed from "trusted executioner of the will of the community and impartial judge of disputes" to "policeman".

It's good to know that this is still a matter of policy debate. I'll see if I can find that discussion and contribute my 10 cents to it. I'll also get Darryl to talk it over nicely with the administrator in question, hopefully get it restored, and put a Under Construction template on the page while he demonstrates to everyone's satisfaction the cellphone network's notability. (He appears quite prepared to do that!)

Ben Arnold (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12 on Nicki Minaj

Hey, I noticed your denial of speedy on Nicki Minaj. You probably should delete it CSD G12 anyways because this website claims copyright (and probably actually owns it). Let me know what you think. Thank you, ~a (usertalkcontribs) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Now that I looked a bit closer, it appears that this has been deleted before from here, and the "wikibin" site is some kind of mirror who took it from us before it was previously deleted. So yeah: originally a copyvio of the site you link. Thanks for the heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have nominated CUEGLOSS (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. --Zigger «º» 09:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the help,man Isamukage 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Thanks for the reply in Wikipedia Help Desk Subash.chandran007 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit … Some Other Editor thought that "has been" was better than "was" in {{Oldprodfull}}, and at the time, I agreed, but the more I think about it, your revert to my original language is, in fact, better. <Sigh!>

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phatch / Thanks

Kekeljevic (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article since it was not deleted on the merits after discussion and undeleting per WP:PROD is normally granted pro forma. Please note that this does not mean the article will not be deleted under a different deletion process. The article is a bit spammy with its list of features rather than neutral prose, is unsourced, and does not contain any indication of its importance (see WP:N).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for restoration of article. I'll contact some people to work on article (because my English has a little bit of Engrish :-) ) and make it less spammy and more acceptable for Wikipedia. I please editors of Wikipedia to have little patience till we edit article in optimal form.

Thank for fast respond...

Regards, Igor Kekeljevic (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently about GM Giant and McIrish

[[/it did make perfect sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcirish (talkcontribs)

I never referred to the article as nonsense or that it didn't make sense. I deleted it because it failed to indicate the importance or significance of the subject and thus was subject to section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It may seem at first blush like many social networking sites and other places where you can post anything, but it really is an encyclopedia with all that that implies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if this is where you meant for me to write this, but I'm new to wikipedia, so please excuse my ignorance, for I intend no offense. You deleted my page Bombatpage, why? and is there any way to resurrect it? 81928S (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81928S (talkcontribs) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly where you should post comments to me. Yes, I did delete the page Bombat. I did so because this is an encyclopedia. The page was inappropriate for an encyclopedia as an obvious joke-hoax. Your intent may not have been malicious but we can't accept joke material like this. I do have a suggestion though. You can try posting this content as uncyclopedia. As for the material, if you want I can email it to you. However, you would have to go to your preferences and enable your email. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't think I will be posting my Bombat article on unencyclopedia. Everything written in my article was indeed fact. All of my material was compiled through peer collaboration, from a base of 15 schools spread throughout three states. The material put forth, while not a hoax, could be interpreted as a joke, so I do understand your position. However, I think that this phenomenon, if you will, is definitely large enough to be over-looked as a joke, and have a place in the encyclopedia. This was my justification in adding it to Wikipedia, it was never meant as an act of vandalism.81928S (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it really was meant as serious but even looking at it again, it doesn't read that way. In any event, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source and thus we cannot accept original research, nor content that has not been the subject of publication in reliable sources which verifies the material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did a lot of google searches on this one, but the most blatant part of it is that he scored a goal on May 13, 2009. As in tomorrow. Unless he has some sort of time travel device, unlikely. And they lost their last game on 5/9/2009 3-0, so he didn't score then either.--Terrillja talk 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not good enough. How do you know the user who posted the article isn't a time traveler? Just kidding. That little bit of impossibility you pointed out is the type of evidence I was looking for. Deleted:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear, um...., Fuhghettaboutit (I love this name!!!!)- thank you so much for your image assistance. I am really happy to came by so speedily. Now that I have seen this I know how to do it in the future. Thanks, again. Basket of Puppies 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM cleanup

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I saw your comment here. I knew that I had removed a number of those that you subsequently also did, so I did some checking in the edit history. Our friend Grawp edited an old revision and messed up the page, which has since been fixed. Just thought I'd let you know we're not getting lazy :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else actually reads edit summaries! (very rare to see confirmation that I'm not just talking to myself most of the time). Thanks for the heads up. I don't usually find so many previously moved to cleanup so that makes sense. I hope grawp enjoys the lulz.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's usually the case that we're talking in a vacuum. You know what amazes me? Grawp is still going, after how many years now? You'd have thought he would have lost interest a long time ago. I guess "hagger" doesn't get old... Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the whole thing is probably about celebrity. It's not the vandalism that really gets him off (though obviously he is the type that enjoys that as well). He's made a name for himself, no matter how small, small-minded and dubious is such an anonymous claim to fame. But, yeah, the persistence is impressive!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BringIt question

So, under my talk page, I see my article listed "", however, when I search for my article..."", No sucj luck? Why is this? If my article is safe to post and be viewed by the public, why is it that I cannot search for it in the tool bar? If you could help me out I'd be VERY appreciative. Thanks in advance!! Vertz22 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Sarah16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit-I would very much appreciate help with my issue/confusion. I'm willing to edit/change anything if my article isn't suitable. I've revised and my confusion is the matter of searching for my article by name. Any advice/suggestions? I'd appreciate your help/input. Thank you very much, ur help is always appreciated as I can see here. Thanks again!!! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Vertz22. The text you've added three times as an article, and once on your talk page (now deleted), is just about the definition of what we consider blatant advertising. (Please note that the blue word in the preceding sentence, and any after this I write are internal links to other pages providing information; you may say "duh" in response to this but some people aren't aware of this, and your posts make me think you may not have read the notices on your talk page carefully). Text on talk pages is not indexed by search engines, so since the text of the deleted article was sitting on your talk page, it was never spidered by Google and other engines. If an article is posted to the encyclopedia mainspace, where article are kept, i.e., at a name that is not preceded by User or user talk, etc., then it would be searchable once indexed. However, this article cannot exist in anything close to the form you have been posting it, and it may be that the subject shouldn't have an article at all, which I'll explain a little later; first let's deal with the advertising aspect.

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Numerous users come here everyday seeking to spam Wikipedia to promote their products, their companies and often themselves. Encyclopedia articles must be written using neutral language and neutral facts, rather than pumping up a product; glossing over any criticism; using peacock language and other problems endemic to these tyoes of articles. A very common hallmark is writing in a first person narrative using possessive pronouns (we, I, our products). Articles should not be written by people who have a conflict of interest, in that they are involved with the subject of the article. As we often say here, if a subject is notable, someone unaffiliated with the subject will eventually write an article. On that secondary point, it may be that even if the article is neutrally worded, no longer appearing as blatant advertising, Wikipedia should not have an article on it because it does not meet our notability guidelines. Notable does not mean the same thing here as it does in everyday speech. Here it means, generally, being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. We have a subject specific notability for web pages at WP:WEB applicable to the article topic you have posted. Thus, even if you post the article in a non-blatant version, it may be deleted on that basis. I hope this note is helpful to you. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, adding that pic. It's way better than nothing. I can't help but think, though - imagine if it were a person? "Here is a pic of another actress that looks a bit like her" :-)

Anyway - I'm doing all that I can to source a pic of William.

In the meantime, that one is great - and later, it will probably still be useful further down the article.

Cheers!  Chzz  ►  21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was only placeholder for the infobox when I uploaded it but could serve as a picture for later in the article even if a Blly picture was uploaded. And it adds to the whimsy; the whole thing is so ridiculously funny. The half-mock seriousness of it all. Taffy was awarded a 1914 Star!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some rough notes / sourcing info in the talk page; there's some nice bits to be added. Especially about Goat contraception; see BBC, read the last para's. Well, you did say you loved working on it :-)  Chzz  ►  16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoscale wiki format and content assistance

Thank you so very much for your assistance in the matter of the article I'm developing in my sandbox on NanoScale Corp. I was pleasantly surprised, while editing and adding more ref's, to find my refs had been fixed, reformatted and my table of contents was finally where it is supposed to be (how'd you do that by the way? ...for future ref....) Your help has been invaluable. I have been trying to cut, and plan to add small bits of info back, but abiding by wiki etiquette and writing a good wiki is my priority. I could not accomplish such without your help, and that of a few others. So thanks again! NHearn (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... how do I add an image to my wikipedia article? I've been directed all over, including w.commons, but am a bit lost. Thx! NHearn (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Hope your week goes well! NHearn (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best. I realize that my writing is rough around the edges. I wasn't going to include any of these white papers at all, except for the fact that it was recommended to me by a wikipedian to use some of them as a reference, and I'm not quite sure, as far as wikipedia goes what is expected to be included and what is not. This is very frustrating, especially considering that I'm NOT an english major, in fact, I don't even know what Prose is, (will have to look that up...thought it was some type of poetry style). Anyways. I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention. But please respect the fact that I am still new and naturally I wouldn't know about these things, and it will take me time to understand, which is the whole reason I have not yet posted it outside of my sandbox, so that it won't be torn to shreds within seconds. I appreciate the tips on useful/helpful articles, and am trying to do this properly, but attacks do not encourage me to want to continue this process. However, tips, like the ones you have offered do help. So, please continue to be patient and be kind. Don't bite. Thank you. NHearn (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WONDERFUL!!;) THIS is something I can go from. I probably sound like an idiot, but considering the gargantuan complexity of Wikipedia it is easy to get lost in the writing (formatting) of an article, and begin regressing intellectually. Yes, I see what you're saying, and I know my article is missing a body altogether, but no matter how hard I try write a neutral tone body, I keep coming across roadblocks. Even the two wikis you'd attached sound a lot like advertisements. I know I need to stay on the neutral tone and just tell the facts. Unfortunately, every time I start writing, it sounds wrong. I'm presently trying to do some research on the background and history of this entity and hopefully give this piece life instead of dry bones. Thank you again. NHearn (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This did occur to me, and I hesitated - I probably reject about 30% of the typo fixes AWB finds. However I still think this is probably optional, see Wiktionary and Google. Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

NowCommons: File:Betsy1901.jpg

File:Betsy1901.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Betsy1901.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Betsy1901.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cornwall page

Perhaps you aren't notable. But who decides who is important, you? This guy is only 20 and just plays soccer. I'm an Information Architect for a Fortune 100 company. Thousands of people are exposed to and affected by my work every day. This is not to mention decades of past accomplishments: Noted San Diego, CA (6th largest city in the USA) musician; noted Santa Fe, NM health business owner; influential Character Education and Pledge of Allegiance activist, etc, etc, etc. Listen, what's the problem here? Changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (Irish Footballer) solves the problem simply with no harm to WP users or the subject.--Kcornwall (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is extremely harmful; it violates the GFDL; it destroys an existing article to place another. You don't seem to have read my post on your talk page carefully. You shouldn't create any article, since writing about yourself is promotion, and vain, and well nigh impossible to do without violating our neutral point of view policy and against our norms. But, if you do create it, you do so at a separate name, such as Kevin Cornwall (information architect), and if you get past speedy deletion on blatant advertising grounds based on how promotional the article sounded, and if you avoid deletion on notability grounds (by showing you are the subject of substantive treatment in independent, reliable sources, which you can cite in the article to verify its content), we may later determine that you are the primary topic. If that is the case, then it might be that the existing article will be moved to "Kevin Cornwall (footballer)" and the article on you then moved to the primary name. But you may not replace an existing article, with its own edit history by overwriting it. I am so turned off by your post: "he's just 20 and just plays soccer". I have very little tolerance for people here for self-aggrandizement purposes, who fail to read our policies and then write a post like yours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I respectfully submit that you are under a gross misapprehension of what the matter is here. I have no interest in self-aggrandizement. I have never had any intention of posting an article about myself. If you read the edit summary, you'd see that I only considered it because it was offered as the only reason for a disambiguation.

Moreover, making personal aspersions is a shameful way to make a point that should be objective. You talk disenchantment with self-importance, yet, you yourself deign to declare that a young guy who plays soccer is more notable than, say, a fireman or nurse, who never mentioned by the media, saves lives every day! If this is about editors and not about their subjects, then certainly, I should be the one disgusted with the tawdriness of what appear to be your personal values.

That line of argument is petty and unproductive - and most likely ends up just plain wrong! For my part, I'm willing to entertain that you may not be directly at fault in this. The notability guidelines themselves possibly need to be more clear. I see now that this is a bigger problem that isn't only affecting me. If this can't be resolved in a win-win, then perhaps I need to start editing the guidelines, if that is where unclear priorities are stemming from (indeed, there is a lot of undefined "substantially" sprinkled throughout). In any case, because a much vaster number of people are more important than what the media or the surface of modern American culture glorifies, I would propose at least this: All articles about people require preemptive disambiguation unless that person's name is not a household word in most countries of the world. Kevin Cornwall, whose only accomplishment being on a soccer team in Ireland, where he is no star, would qualify and the matter settled before it could cause friction.

Again, F, this little fight is silly. Simply changing the name of the entry to Kevin Cornwall (soccer player) solves the problem, simply - no harm to WP readers or the subject, himself. More importantly, the advantage to readers who search for information about a dozen other Kevin Cornwalls is that they won't be misdirected. (Did I mention that I'm a veteran user experience design professional. Even the chance of this kind of ambiguity on a business site would never pass first muster). Kcornwall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How can I respond when it's clear you haven't read or at least haven't taken in any of the links I've provided? Please read my responses again. If you read those links you'll understand things like that notability has nothing to do with whether I think the subject is notable, but has to do with whether the wider world has taken note of a subject by writing about it. This is the way we define it because an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, only having articles on things already previously published in reliable sources. Did you read the link about edit histories and the GFDL? If you had you'd understand why overwriting the article is damaging and and improper and forbidden. If you read my post you'd see that I never compared an article on you to the soccer player with regard to notability st all. If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I explained instead why you can't overwrite an existing article and, if you must create an article on yourself, how to do so. If you understood disambiguation, you'd know that it has nothing to do with notability, but with allowing the most people searching for a subject to reach the correct page, and that if you created an article at a disambiguated name, that article could possibly be later moved to the solo name if it was the primary topic. You overwrite an existing article with material about yourself and now you say you have no interest but simply wish to disambiguate? Okay, let me explain that. We do not disambiguate unless another article exists. Period. We do not change names of articles in light of the possibility of nonexistent articles. You do not get an entry here unless you have an article, and we're full circle back to what I've already explained three times, the proper way for you to post an article, though once again, you should not, because people should not write articles about themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Star

The Goat Star
For contributions to Caprinae Solidarius

Lance Corporal William Windsor salutes you!

 Chzz  ►  22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I got pissed off when I went to and saw "As Featured on Wikipedia" minutes after the article was created. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck! You know I despise all the promotion. Vandalism doesn't bother me. It's just the scribblings of morons, easily reverted. All the promotion is what's insidious and hard to take. In my heart of hearts I want to delete every article I come across written by the subjects, stumping for themselves. I rein myself in though and play the good policy advocate, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground billiards article in the works

User:SMcCandlish/Ground billiards. Some parts of it are commented out pending further research. The digging has been interesting. For one thing (not covered at that draft article), I believe that I can show very clearly that trucco is not just some random split-off of ground billiards, but is actually closely related to table billiards, because Stein & Rubino reprint two old woodcuts that show a ring, not an arch, being used as a table-billiard target. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton, can you tell me how you improved File:1674 illustration-The Billiard Table.png? I have Paint.NET. If you are familiar with that, can you tell what I would do (spoonfeeding required) if I wanted to do whatever it is you did the make the image sharper?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please note: Wayman C. McCreery. Very very rough, not really an article at all yet, just a series of cited facts near each other.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD early closure

Your statement from AfD today: "[...] If this doesn't meet WP:BK I don't know what does (and I wrote WP:BK). This should be snowed."

I wanted to do just that. However, I've never done an early closure before, am not admin, and am unsure of the process ("snow" as argument is discouraged, and "speedy keep" does not apply per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed). I would like to help out with such things in the future - You have helped me in the past, would you enlighten me once more? - Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pgallert. Forget that it is discouraged. It's discouraged because people try to snow or close early debates which aren't patent candidates. This is. It is an obviously frivolous nomination. However, only admins should snow/speedy keep debates that aren't completely unanimous. I have seen many problems when non-admins do so. More importantly, you are completely disqualified from closing this debate (as am I). You participated in the debate and therefore may not close it since you have a conflict of interest.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for the reply. Luckily I also spotted the COI concerns (even though the AfD indeed has the proverbial snowball's chance, with or without my comment), but I would have waited for your comment anyway. Looks like I shall leave such things to admins, then. Best regards, --Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is not simply "a rephrasing of the title". I'm a fan of roads and road articles, but this just seems silly. --NE2 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NE2. A3 starts "Any article consisting only of" (notice the "only of"). The fact that this has an inline citation already takes it out of the criterion. It goes on to state "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion". It also fits that. A rephrasing of the title often provides no content because the title isn't contextual. Here the title describes what it is, so it provides context and content and doesn't just rephrase the title. I am not a fan of sub-stubs. I don't think we should be doing this. I think these articles just clutter the encyclopedia and make it harder to find real articles to improve. But I choose not to be a rogue, and enforce the criteria as written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that an inline citation wouldn't add any content; it's more of a meta-tag, like a category or stub template. The only content other than a rephrasing is the Spanish translation, and that would seem to fit the spirit of the rule. --NE2 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to respond at WT:CSD, as it has been opened there, and I think this might be a decent discussion where wider input/interest might be better served there.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply the conversation should he had here rather than there. I just thought this conversation is highly relevant, thus the link.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shallow one LOL I've replied. Best Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, how you doing these days? I'm not asking ... well ... yea, I guess I am. But if you ever need a break from your work here, I sure wouldn't mind you looking at something I did a while back. I did my best when I first started, to draft something up, and I'd love to have it looked at someday when you'd be in the mood to just relax and copyedit. It's kind of an essay, and if you'd be interested, I'd be very grateful if you could add some improvements to: User:Ched Davis/communication. I know it's not part of improving the 'pedia ... but just a thought. Hope all is well on your end. Cheers my friend. ;) — Ched :  ?  08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two viewpoints on cleanup tags

Howdy, I think some of the trouble on the discussion of the unreferenced template is two very distinct views of the audience of the cleanup tags. I think you are probably viewing the cleanup tag as informing heavily opinionated editors or editors with conflicts of interest that the burden of proof is on them. I think most of the other people in the discussion (or the ones who are not seeing your point easily and immediately) probably view cleanup tags as encouraging civic minded, librarian types to go hunt down some dusty old books and have fun adding references to pages.

Both viewpoints are valid and important, but I suspect are not understood implicitly or immediately by many people.

I, for instance, more or less only edit mathematics articles, and "unreferenced" is a hugely important tag because mathematics articles are *so incontrovertible* (or so incontrovertibly wrong) that many editors see references as unnecessary. Of course references are hugely useful to researchers and even fairly useful to wiki-gnomes, so these articles sorely need references. There is *no* disputed material in these articles, nor is there ever likely to be any. Its mostly just students copying down theorems from highly standardized textbooks, and the incontrovertibly wrong information comes when they copy it down wrong, or use two books with conflicting conventions. Almost always trivial to fix, and very rarely is there any disagreement.

Luckily I do also do wiki-gnome activities on a huge variety of young (or even just crappy) articles, so I do see lots of BLPs, POV forks, and various contentious articles. While sorting some categories, I even managed to find one that not-so-subtly made every article in it or even not in it a condemnation of one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In subject areas such as these it is all too common for a new stub or POV fork to be unreferenced and just be filled with disputable claims (some of which could be sourced to wikipedia policy, but definitely the sort of statements that should start their wikipedia life sourced).

I suspect that your focus on "burden" is from dealing with these contentious articles, and so you might see people's disagreement (or just confusion) with your proposal as contention, etc. (I mean it might be, I don't know these people, but I suspect it is not). Instead, it might just be that they tend to edit articles where people don't have disputes, and sourcing is part of academic honesty and simple positive improvement of the encyclopedia. Rather than "I defend this statement with this source," it is more like "and if you think this article was exciting, just wait until you read these great books and historical articles!!!"

I think the unreferenced template really does have to speak to both crowds. We have lots of non-contentious articles and on those we need to be inviting people to add references, not warning them that information might be deleted. Of course on some pages, we definitely do need to be warning, so there must be a balance. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack. Thanks for the comments. You know I proposed getting rid of the language entirely. I also proposed replacing it to not invoke WP:BURDEN but still refer to the verifiability policy. My proposed replacement was "Verifiability of information is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." What I just can't stomach is the fact that it very specifically invokes the subsection of the policy dealing with the burden but reverses it and people either can't see that, or are ignoring it. What I really think though, is that the people who are commenting have little experience with the applicability of that section of policy, and are glossing over the word, "challenged". The section doesn't mean if you don't have a source cited we can just zap it. In any event, if I can steel myself to, I'm going to stop looking at it for a day—just not visit, even if comments are left, because tearing my hair out is not my favorite Wikipedia activity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I think then we are in total agreement. People aren't understanding what you are saying because they just are not seeing how this tag would be taken by editors on a page with a lot of challenged material. It directly quotes a section meant to defend WP:V from editors who make disputed claims with no sources, but manages to do so in a way that allows those editors to reverse the meaning of that section. I'll see if I can come up with some language that is inviting to the civic minded gnome (who is volunteering to take up the burden of their own free will), but also does not dilute the policy that the challenged material needs the source, not the challenge. It might be too hard, and I definitely won't get to it tonight, so leave any surviving hair alone for now! JackSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation about the meaning of "unverifiable"

Hi Fughetti,

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-formatting "Paid Editing" responses

Thank you. I wanted to do that myself before I added my endorsement, but couldn't work out how to do it. (I'll bet you were thinking this was going to be a complaint . . .) :-) // BL \\ (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed! People are so touchy about when you touch their posts (often with good reason) but it just didn't make sense that this was being formatting completely differently because a comment straddled the section. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference so that my comment about LHvU is connected again; no big thing. // BL \\ (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice. It was very useful. ɪntəsvɛnsk 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuh, thanks for keeping such a steady hand with the Hermann Mucke (bioscientist) article. I would not myself have reinserted what had been thrown out (no time for editing wars, or interest in them), but when I found you had reinstated the text with succinct calls for specific facts I went over it again, and this forced me to improve this bio over its first version in terms of traceable sourcing. Its de-tagged now. - I've spent much too much time on this single bio and must urgently catch up with professional matters, so I might not be able to give Wikipedia much attention this week. But thats just one more reason for saying thank you right now! - Glst2 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had clarified. See the review page. Good work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask another FAC regular on feasibility of FAC. I am tempted to say go for it, so let's see what he says (also about where else ot publish etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've been to those oases - Farafra, Bahariya.. etc. Have some pix I can scan if needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look through Kelly pool and made a few small changes, and I have to say I think it's a minor masterpiece, a really worthy addition to the encyclopedia. I also have to say though that I think it would struggle at FAC, simply because of the unexplained technical terms like "kitchen", "scratching" and so on. I know they're all properly linked, but reviewers will expect at least a word or two of explanation that doesn't demand following a link to understand what's being said. The formula one articles like the current 2008 Monaco Grand Prix FAC candidate, or the professional wrestling articles, have had to come to terms with the same issue.

Whether you take this to FAC or not, it's still a great article though. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit and the encouraging words. I get the impression from your talk page that you are not prone to glad handing so I take it as higher praise than I might from a different source. I will keep working on it, and I we'll see what happens at FAC. I made an exciting discovery earlier tonight that pushes back the use of "behind the eight ball" to 1873—indisputable, reliable source proof, and another from 1877, which scoops every billiard source saying the expression was in use by "at least 1919", and putting a fine point on that the expression is not from the game of 8-ball (the game that eventually became 8-ball was invented in or about 1900, no earlier).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Reference Desk Barnstar
Thanks for answering my pro/epilogue question on the Language Reference Desk!--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks spam

Hey Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to stop by and say thank you. I greatly appreciate your support at my RfA. I knew you would not simply "go along with the supports", and would look to see if my contribs actually were improving. Which does lead me to a second "Thanks", I greatly appreciate all the help you've given me in becoming a better writer as well. I know that I still have a long way to go, but I feel a bit more confident knowing I can always ask for help. Thank you - it's greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

Just say "The IP who placed the tag said blah blah blah." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the text on my talk page... but thought u might not have noticed it... again, thanks. (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Many thanks for your recent help following my {{adminhelp}} request. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Is This?

Behold: Beauty Rock. Notable? Db-Web? Db-Spam? I'm completely stumped here... -WarthogDemon 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits

Hiya Fuhghettaboutit, You do realize that Google hits (and every other search engine, for that matter) do not make any distinctions regarding word usage, correct? Your reacent asertion "By the way, Google hits, rather than being meaningless, can be an excellent metric to determine common names and whether a subject is the primary topic" is a (unfortunately common) statistical fallacy. Just because hit counts are easily available doesn't make them reliable or meaningful.
V = I * R (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ω. I am familiar with statistical fallacies and sorry but the only word that comes to mind in response is "hogwash":-) Please offer offer an actual analysis as to why any statistical fallacy applies here, in place of your unsupported assertion that it is so. I'll give you two specific examples, one for each of the disambiguation policies I invoked, so that you have some meat to work with.
Primary topic: The goal is to show that a name or phrase is used much more to mean one thing than it is used
to refer to another thing, both of which topics are covered in Wikipedia.
Ex. 1: A asserts that Enola Gay, referring to the b-29 superfortress used the drop Little Boy, should be given primacy to the undisambiguated article title "Enola Gay" over Enola Gay, the song by British synthpop band Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (which band's name is often abrreviated OMD), because the name is used much more to invoke the former thing over the latter. B, of course, asserts the opposite.
C comes along and offers the following evidence: Searching Google News, limited to the date of release of the song forward, <"Enola Gay" Hiroshima> vs. <"enola gay" omd OR "Orchestral Manoeuvres"> results in 5,770 results vs. 143 (an approximate 40:1 ratio); and the same search using Google Books, limited to the date of release of the song forward: 901 vs. 64 (an approximate 20:1 ratio).
Common names: The goal is to show that between two (or more) names for the same topic, one is more common in English language usage than the other(s).
Ex. 2: A asserts that the article at the title J. G. Ballard should be moved to the subject's birth name, James Graham Ballard, but B. asserts that J. G. Ballard is his common name and offers as evidence similar targeted searches to those above, such as in this case <"j. g. ballard" -"James Graham Ballard"> vs. <"James Graham Ballard" -"j. g. ballard"> and finds about a 100:1 discrepancy between the two names using various media.
Okay, the floor is yours. Explain what statistical fallacies arise in either example such that the results are not meaningful; that such searches are not an "excellent metric to determine common names and whether a subject is the primary topic."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for me, I don't have to do any work in order to reply since the community already has. Please see: Wikipedia:Search engine test
V = I * R (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am well familiar with that page. Have you read it carefully? Obviously not since it does not support your position at all, which also means that we are at a dead end, since you are apparently not going to apply yourself by attempting any sort of trenchant analysis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of newspapers

Thanks for removing the 'colluding' word. Some folks aren't looking things up in their dictionaries. lol. Also, the same user has added at least one footnote to an uncertain blog, which given the depth of the other sourcing, I'm going to remove when I can get around to it. It'd be nice to keep an article on the Fourth Estate to some higher level of sourcing. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like you I saw that word and went 'uh oh.' Thanks again for keeping an eye out. I haven't created much of anything on here lately but when I do I'll come looking for you. Hope you're having a good summer and that all goes well, my friend. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm off on my own, doing my own thing, and use The Times of London's database through the courtesy of a friend. Wish I could be of more help. I enjoyed the article. Have you tried regular Google book search, or are you looking for more timely things? MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schmoovy Schmoov's Site Replacement

Hey there, I'm here submitting once againg to request my site be replaced. AGAIN, I've been submitting and looking for a direct response. Please advise before I start my page over. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmoovy Schmoov (talkcontribs) 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Deleasa

Thanks for the headsup. I did actually put it on my watchlist, mainly because whoever did it was being awfully persistent and reverting a bunch of changes. That being said, I hadn't intended on considering the matter further, mainly because I'm not a tween girl and I don't tend to read articles about the Jonas Brothers. :-) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 03:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tween girl? Methinks the young lady doth protest too much! Glad to keep you in the loop. I try to inform people whenever any action I take may affect them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the people I dealt with in daily life were as gracious. :-) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 06:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If it's your website, then you're aware that it states at the bottom "Copyright ©2009". In order to have that article posted here, you would need to release the material to Wikipedia. And normally I might explain the steps to take to do so in detail, but the text you are posting has no place on Wikipedia, even if properly released. We already have an article on telekinesis, Wikipedia is not for articles on instructions, and the deleted page content is totally unencyclopedic for a number of reasons. I do not mean that as an insult. There are many wonderful writings in the world that serve a certain purpose but are not suitable for an encyclopedia, which is a specialized type of periodical. The article fails numerous content policies here, including original research. That is not to say that I do not have complete disdain for the topic, which I do, but that is irrelevant, and I would act the same were the article on some philosophy or discipline dear to my heart.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I've WP:BOLDly amended WP:RM#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves to clarify, so that other people don't make the same mistake - I hope my amendment doesn't get deleted by the "we can't clutter the page up with too much detail" brigade. PamD (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again. Thanks for your message of yesterday on the help page. I took the liberty of emailing you off site to discuss my probable impending retirement here. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 11,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the above article as CSD G4. I'm not sure if you noticed this when you inspected the article history, but I'd previously declined this as a CSD G4 because it was not a substantially identical version to the version deleted at this AfD, as well as fixing some of the concerns raised there.

This was a relatively complicated case, so it seems to have confused a number of administrators (especially given the relentless re-tagging by User:Jimbo online). The critical diff to consider is this one immediately preceding the original AfD: [3]. The argument for deletion was that "[the subject did] not meet the criteria of playing in a fully professional league, only semi-pro".

Please consider these diffs however: [4] [5]. These copies are not substantially identical because the subject was signed to a significantly higher level soccer club. I thought you might want to re-consider the deletion based on these diffs. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If he's playing for a higher league now, that would invalidate the G4.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the look. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still fails the criteria it failed before, being WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't actually played for Barnsley yet and being a squad member doesn't make him automatically notable. I'm not suggesting it should be deleted again as the restored article looks alright compared to the last version. --Jimbo[online] 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case but if G4 doesn't apply, then there is no other speedy basis that does. It's simple, take it to AfD again. Actually I'll do it now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Mucke (bioscientist)


Do you remember that, mid-June, we spoke about Hermann Mucke (bioscientist)? Well, anyway, somebody has kindly moved our discussion onto the article discussion page.

Looking at the article, I'm still very concerned that it's virtually all built on his own publications; I do think it needs some kind of action - so can you please look back on this one? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added {{primary sources}} and I'm not sure what the user who removed it meant by saying "Whatever I left in should have online references now, incl. 3rd parties" since most of the article is still sourced with primary. I can't see anything to do with this article but to take it to AfD and I doubt that would be successful, though you could try. The issue we were dealing with before between us was whether wholesale removal of the sources was called for. I still think it was not as we do allow the use of primary, non-self-published sources, though I do think the article needs a good looking over for whether any of the material is improperly using the primary sources to come to "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" based on them. That, I think is the main issue that any AfD would have to examine. Articles sourced mostly through published primary sources in the way this one is are not that common and our policies are a bit ambivalent on the matter. There's little direction I can see for what to do when much of an article's content cannot, apparently, be sourced through secondary sources and yet has numerous published primaries being cited.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for looking. I agree with what you've written. I'll try to look back on it one day; it's a valid article, but - as you say - has sourcing issues. Then again, so do the other (6,835,273-1). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete of George s.c.Gay

That was quick --Abc518 (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) We were both patrolling at the same time; I probably deleted it at the same moment you tagged it. Anyway, that user is blocked. All nonsense pages and attacks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Per: Wikipedia:Help desk#Fixing a picture. Paint (in Windows) is a great program for beginners, (or whatever it's called) is a little bit more sophisticated, and GIMP goes to the next level. That's why I recommended it to him/her • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Gimp is a great program but is easier I think to get a handle on for a beginner, but it's far more than "a little bit more sophisticated" than paint. Paint really is a weak program. and Gimp are comparable. Anyway, your post sounded like you thought I had confused paint and but as I said there, I wasn't aware that they had Gimp for Windows (which is good to know) and I think that that ignorance on my part may have influenced your misunderstanding of my post. Keep up the the help desk help. Best,--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: CSD R3 recency debate

I just dropped a reply to your recent comment on the CSD talk page. I wanted to add a personal note that I also love a good debate and appreciate your professionalism in the discussion. I will be off-line for a while. My apologies in advance that I won't be able to promptly reply to your next comment. (Assuming, of course, that you make one and that I have anything useful to say.) Rossami (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was about to decline that speedy which you just deleted. [6] claims to be a mirror site of Wikipedia, so there is no copyvio involved. Regards SoWhy 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please do what needs doing. I have to leave for work in moments. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Lope de Barrientos

As you appear to be the principal author of this article, I wanted to be certain you were aware that Lope de Barrientos has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your 'exploding cigar' question about OR

Don't know if you're still watching the discussion you started about using search engine results. I left some comments, but in short, I think you're doing exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balabushka problem

The first post in this thread was refactored from another talk page to this one.

Regarding Balabushka, what do you think should be done about the recently added material (see its history)? It is of course unverified and probably unverifiable through any published source and I'm sure it's also correct. I believe in sourcing and verifiability (you know I'm almost fanatical about it) but I feel ambivalence when it comes to this type of material. A family member who adds corrections on personal details is always right, and the context of these edits makes me 100% sure this is really a family member as they claim. They are correcting misinformation and adding vital information from a comprehensiveness point of view, and yet it's still unverifiable and "original research" (I put that in quotes because its very odd to call a family member's own first hand knowledge original research). For example, it's terrible to not be able to include what town Balabushka was from and that it's Belarus rather than Russia, but everywhere he's just listed as "Russian." After I expand the lead, I want to take it to good article nominations but how can I with this unsourced material included?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the material would have to come out under WP rules, but is probably correct. My suggestion would be to contact the relative and interview them, confirm identity, and ask all of the necessary questions to get the same new material out of them, and ask more besides (!), then write up an "Unknown Balabushka Facts" article, and submit it for publication somewhere. For kicks, try Billiard Digest (who recently published an article on "Fats" Wanderone that was little more than a few family photos and reminiscences of a nephew) or Pool & Billiard. If they say no, try some of the regional publications like The Break, Stroke and Inside English, or the two largest league publications (they are quarterly, though - significant delay), The American Pool Player (APA) and 8-Ball News & Views (VNEA). I have addresses for all of them. Failing all of that, I and Paul Zohn could probably crank out a final "special edition" of New Mexico Pool Player (the last regular issue was about a year ago). At any rate, the goal would be third-party publication somewhere, anywhere, so that it could be cited in the WP article. I know you value your privacy, so you'd have to use a pseudonym. It needn't even be a large piece. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a bit confused about your addition of the tag to the article Step (KDE). The article, in it's current form, presents little more than a list of features. The homesite is the best source for such information, since it's up-to-date and accurate. I haven't been adding a lot of references so I may be wrong, but aren't references usually added only for statements that are likely to be challenged? How and where would you add references? Kotiwalo (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply do it as an example. and then remove the tag:-) Note that the page really needs secondary sources. Give me a few minutes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Note that all information on Wikipedia should ideally be verified. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". All quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced or it can be removed, but all material should be sourced. Take a look at today's featured article, Noël Coward, and you'll see that every sentence in the article is attributed to a source, cited in the text (note that the lead contains no cited sources because it summarizes material already sourced in the body). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that secondary sources should optimally be added, but primary sources are good for descriptive purposes even when not backed by secondary sources. But thanks for helping with the article! I must admit that it looks better now. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings (again)

A SPA has suddenly appeared at the above article wanting to rename the article. He has launched into personal attacks against me for opposing him. I suspect he may be the puppetmaster behind the page-move vandal you blocked earlier. Could I just ask you to keep an eye on the page, please?

GA review

You recent GA nomination of exploding cigar passed its GA review. Congrats on your passing good article. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In case you haven't seen the HD post: I suspect it's a column break, not an error. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence please...

This sentence sucks big time:

help please? — Ched :  ?  05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1966 Daytona 500Ched :  ?  05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I think this is better:

Yeppers! ... I like the first one you redid ... Thank you very much. ;) Mental block I guess ... lol. — Ched :  ?  14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NOR alternate proposal

I appreciate your support of the alternate proposal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I call 'em as I see 'em:-) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commas in block templates The reason I added commas (such as these) is that the current version of the template reads somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously. For example, in

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism

it looks like "Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism" instead of, as it should read,` "You have been blocked for editing". Likewise,

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy

reads like "from editing in accordance with policy" is what you're being blocked from. Perhaps it's not a huge deal (I've been using these templates for months and didn't really notice until tonight, when one jarred me), but nor are the commas incorrect: things don't need to be "separate clauses" to be separated by commas. If commas are a huge problem, can you think of any other possible rewordings? (Any major rewording would probably have to be subject to a lot more discussion, since these templates are so widely used and the current wording was probably settled on a long time ago; commas, on the other hand, are just a tiny change.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you. I went offline and haven't been back for a quite some time. Though I still think the commas do not work, I do see what you mean. I have worried at the sentence for a few minutes and the only way I can see to leave in all parts and resolve the issue is with this rearrangement:

In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy, you have been blocked for a period of TIME for REASON.

It's still clunky but it works. However we get rid of the problem entirely by simply removing "In accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy". "Blocked" already links to the blocking policy. I imagine someone wanted to make sure the link to the policy page was uber clear by this intentional redundancy. Ha! I just got your nudge as I was writing this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your alternative looks fine to me; I agree that "in accordance with..." seems redundant. Do you think it's safe to BOLDly change it, or should one of us propose it somewhere centralized? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy comes to mind. But there's nothing wrong with being bold first and testing the waters. I think it's not unlikely it'll be reverted but a carefully crafted edit summary is probably the best way to ward against that likelihood. How about "Remove redundancy; "blocked" already links to the blocking policy, in boldface, and the removed text was a grammatical source of confusion as it appeared to modify "for reason" e.g., "...blocking policy for vandalism.""--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image you deleted

You did not delete a copyrighted image of a living person. You used a promotional shot of "Lana Lang" from season six of Smallville. This was not a promotional image of "Kristen Kreuk". It was being used by the studio as an illustration of Lana Lang, hence why it was being used as the image of "LANA LANG" over at Lana Lang (Smallville). The fact that some dumb IP decided to try and use it at Kristen Kreuk was not a problem with the image, it was a problem with the IP's use of the image. The image itself was perfectly fine for identifying a fictional character on that fictional character's article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find

That Hoskins lawsuit material is quite interesting. Dunno if you've seen my response (I think it's on this page now) to your Balabushka family dilemma. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I'm still parsing the old Google Books item. Several interesting bits in that, including a pretty blatant challenge to Cotton's assertion that the game entered England via Italy. Quite an important find, really. PS: Sorry to've been almost entirely absent lately. Been going through a relationship breakup, and have been resultantly cranky (bad mood + Wikipedia = incivility, if you don't really watch yourself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to here about your personal troubles. Breakups are hard going. Note that the appeals court affirmed the court below, finding their patent untenable, which I think is an important discussion to include in the Spinks article. Balabushka response coming up:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newton move: good job!

Thanks for your conscientious handling of the Newton move, in particular fixing the incoming links. My faith in Wikipedians' willingness to perform routine cleanup after bold moves is somewhat restored :). Hqb (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome and thanks for noticing. Most of the regulars at WP:RM do fairly complete jobs. Just a point of terminology: I wouldn't call this, being a requested move, a "bold" move. I think of that as one not requested, but just done without discussion or formal discussion. There, you might not expect the person to know all the things that need to be fixed if the move resembled this one with all the many links that needed to be fixed in this move's wake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course; I didn't mean it in the WP:BOLD sense, just that this seemed like a rather daunting job, and I've seen too many editors quit halfway through a massive moving/reorganization task they initiated, leaving the mess for others to clean up. Cheers, Hqb (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, you opposed my request for adminship by saying the following:

[You have been] reverting vandalism without warning the vandals... [You have had] no edits to AfDs no CSD nominations, [and] no reports to WP:AIV.

I was wondering if you could give me a few pointers on how to do these things so, if I don't become an admin, I will know better next time. Thanks! Shark96z (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I answer at the Village pump (proposals)

You may want to see the end result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination) as opposed to the decision. (See Saw IV) -- allennames 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the situation at Law of the United States

Now I guess we wait and see what happens. Thanks for bringing the situation under control. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Note my response over at the help desk. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I apologize for erasing your post, and I also wonder whether undoing a troll's edits under wp:deny actually violate wp:deny. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. A cruel paradox. I think it has good uses—especially to not maintain dedicated pages to a vandal, thus providing them exactly the [dubious form of] fame they desire. Revert the vandalism, block and ignore. If you have another problem with this shithead (obvious and under another name), if I'm around please feel free to simply drop me a message and I'll block.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say you could put it back if you want, but it would look kind of funny now that Todd has already erased his account. However, I'll be more careful the next time. My assumption is that this is the same troll that started by posting all those Axmann8 impostor accounts last spring, and popped up at various times during the summer, but really it could be anybody that has gotten irritated with me. Just imagine how much worse this kind of thing would be if I actually were an admin and not just a lowly peon. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I commented at WT:WIZ2#Expansion of Subject page about your recent changes. Just letting you know in case you haven't seen it. Rd232 talk 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I noticed that you have not made any changes to my latest post and I was wondering how it was possible to make BringIt accessible through the search option. If the article meets your standards, would it be possible to make it accessible to users? Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Vertz22

Re: Fearless

I'm a big Pink Floyd fan, so it came naturally.  :-) Dismas|(talk) 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Yerushalayim -> Jerusalem Day???

Your justification is quite absurd and false per WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus of the relevant users was to keep as is. You are not a regular editor of Jewish / Israeli articles, or seem to have an interest in the meither, how can you make a judgement on this? It is not similar to Bastille Day and there are plenty of 'foreign' civil holidays which are left as is. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your post at the close but I really do hope you'll attempt to understand the last section because you're missing the point again, as shown by the end of you post. The reason one article in a subject area may properly exist at its foreign language name, and another article in the same subject area at its English equivalent title, is based on English usage of the title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey I am still learning all these things, thanks for your help --Cjones132002 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Wikipedia is huge and complex and that's what help pages are for:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about creating a Fuhgeddaboudit page. If Lipstick on a pig can have an article, fuhgeddaboudit. I assume you know all the references - I assume Yogi Berra is in there. I'll help! No COI I'm sure. The current link is to espisode 38 of List of Dark Angel episodes. Smallbones (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great idea, though actually I have never looked for sources and never before considered the possibility. I just may look! I know that the Brooklyn Borough President (Marty Markowitz) is very fond of the expression and it was used over and over in the Sopranos but I'm not sure there are sufficient reliable sources with substantive treatment for an autonomous article. If I do I'll be sure to drop you a message.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a quick look and found this. Some other possible sources: [7], [8], [9]. Not enough to be a viable article but that just a preliminary look.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth doing, if only because it might be entertaining to see if any revert wars erupted over the spelling ;-)
Just wanted to say thanks for your moral support the other day. (and thanks for the link to that google book -- I love that stuff.)Bacrito (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CSD#Second opinion

Hi, you haven't replied to my response to you on WT:CSD#Second opinion. Please consider doing so. cheers, Rd232 talk 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Been busy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said, at WT:CSD#notifying users. :) --Amalthea 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Stop Believin'

Thank you for doing this for all of us. Excellent move, and hopefully this won't happen again. I'd be honored to fight alongside you any day in the trenches; idiots be wary... Doc9871 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for reassuring me. I tried to work out why anyone would have done that and thought maybe it was a new user experimenting, then I looked at your user page and decided that it was some sort of mistake. So I Fuhgottaboutit! Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping my note that it was a misclick moments after the revert would short circuit your having to work out anything! Sorry if I caused even a second of alarm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the moving of this page. Lugnuts (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Thanks for taking the time to notice. Rarely do I get any feedback from closing and implementing requested moves and I do appreciate it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I was hoping that you could let me know what I need to change about our page in order to have "BringIt" become search-able. I would appreciate any help you can give me. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you again. Vertz22

What I think you should do is post to a subpage of your user space, at User:Vertz22/Bring it and then make a post at WP:FEEDBACK asking for people to provide further feedback on the proposed article. I think you should also read again my post to you higher on this page, here, and more fuly explore the links I provided. The article, which is still sitting on your talk page, still reads as very promotional to me. Also, you haven't used referencing in a manner that lets anyone know if the many links you've provided are actually references for the content, or just a list of external sites which happen to mention Bringit. References are a list of the actual sources you used to write the content, and which verify the content. A transparent way to show that is using inline citations. Please see, as an example of inline citation use, Kelly pool. All of the blue footnotes correspond with the actual reference used to write the information. I also note that many of the links you have listed in the references section are not what we consider reliable sources. I think you'll do better with seeing what people say at the feedback page, but I donlt think the article is in proper form yet to be posted to the mainspace and I'm not sure the subject is notable enough for an article at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Silly bot - I guess that's the face of technological progress! It's not so important to be worth any further bother, but thanks for letting me know for future reference. Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit

can you copy edit family guy?.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note one problem that will definitely keep this from achieving FA: the spotty referencing. There are many uncited or half cited passages. Also some of the references need better attribution. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i hope this is not a bothering but can you copy edit List of Family Guy cast members, it's in flc.--Pedro J. the rookie 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am helping to make the episode list of spongebob an FL and was hopeing you could do what you did with FG.--Pedro J. the rookie 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Pedro. What I did with Family Guy was tighten existing prose (well, I did rewrite one section with references and new material) but this list's existing prose... well there isn't much to do on a copyedit. What it needs is more research and writing and mostly, referencing. That's the problem with Family Guy now and what keeps it from being an FA (the spotty referencing), and what will keep this list from being an FL. That's an interested researcher's task and beyond the mandate of a copyedit. Sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CE request

Hi, I was looking for an experienced copy-editor and Pedro J. suggested you to me. Would you be interested in helping me out by copy-editing "The Revenge", which is currently at FAC? Thank you.--Music26/11 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I am currently copyediting Family Guy (per the post directly above yours) and probably will not get to it tonight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Take your time, here's some beautiful music to listen while your working [10]. Cheerio.--Music26/11 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is more my speed:-) And... I'm off to work (in real life that is).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whow, that guy's name really is Mose? Nice song though. Hope I'm not putting to much workload on you shoulders here, but, after you finish copyediting "The Revenge", would you mind taking a look at "The Ex-Girlfriend" as well? Thnx.--Music26/11 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey never got the chance to say thanks regarding the Live From Across the Pond album page Cjones132002 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Feel free to stop by if you need anything.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First, thanks for closing move requests, a mostly thankless job I imagine. Second, thanks for applying wisdom and logic on the cent/penny decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly thankless, yes, but posts like yours help to keep it at mostly and not entirely:-) Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were instrumental in helping to educate the world on the correct and original song title. Unfortunately, the talk page(s) didn't get shifted. It still says "Talk:Don't Stop Believing", and recently an editor complained about this and the fact that the Talk page for the Glee version redirected there. Is there any way to easily sort the talk page issue out? I appreciate any help you can lend concerning this matter... Doc9871 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. When you move pages and put a checkmark in "Move associated talk page", it will fail to perform that secondary move if the talk page has more than one edit. When I did this move, I missed that the talk page hadn't moved as well. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dang... you are excellent, my friend (& mighty fast, too)... Doc9871 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just happen to be online moments after your post. Thanks for catching this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, for informing me about the copy right violation, Here after I will not copy and paste any content from the other websites or portals. give me some guidance for me to create articles. once again thanks for the Warning . Jeganila..........—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeganila (talkcontribs)

Hi Jeganila. I'm glad you saw my message and understood it. Please do continue to contribute. As for guidance, I think you might find the editing tutorial of help. Then, when you want to create a page, go through the Article wizard 2.0. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for copyediting on the ENA article. Much appreciated. Canuck100 (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your moving Court of Colonial Affairs to Lifan Yuan. Please also move Talk:Court of Colonial Affairs to Talk:Lifan Yuan. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Talk pages are usually automatically moved with the project page but sometimes they have their own redirect which hinders this. I didn't notice the talk page had failed to move. Thanks for alerting me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Pengyanan (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_January_20#Searching_the_deletion_logs

10 months later, and you are still making people laugh! Thank you. Ikip (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your encouraging remarks about the TEA entry. I was concerned about making such a radical rewrite so I was scrupulous about respecting the previous authors' work to the extent possible. I did much the same with Transient global amnesia which was my first effort. You might like it too, but I bring it up to ask a question. In the Discussion of the TGA entry there is a long first-person account including personal info. It is sad enough I don't want to criticize the writer, though it is also so much over the top it could be fake, I can't tell. At least the email ought to be redacted, if not the whole thing. May I ask your opinion, and if it is appropriate, your assistance?Alawa (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it with this edit. It simply does not belong on the page. I sympathize with the person but it is just misplaced and inappropriate. Because of the private contact information and the personal nature of the post, I attempted to purge the edit from the page history through a selective deletion but there is a software bug preventing it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Alawa (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I present you with this barnstar for your work on Pannonica de Koenigswarter's article. Thanks again. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there. I see you posted {{helpme-nq}} to User talk:Thornder. I had a look at Thornder's contribution in here, and actually seems like he just accidentally added {{helpme}} above the header, so the question is there.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have responded in detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I don't approach you as an admin often, but this seems appropriate, since you know the situation and can do something about it. Eight-ball needs long-term semi-protection. Virtually every IP edit has to be reverted; non-IP edits rarely have to be reverted; you and I are the only semi-regular, topic-expert watchers of that page; yet we're both too busy to watchdog it constantly, with the result that absolute bullcrap, especially in the World Standardized Rules section, sometimes sits there misinforming our public readership for weeks at a time, even longer. It took me two hours to fix the crap in it today, and this wasn't even long after you'd already reverted some stuff. Bad edits have been slipping under both your radar and mine, and no one else is catching them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's done (1 year). Crap is staying in the article for long periods of time, unfortunately. Too many local and bar rules everyone believes are THE RULES. By the way, I've been working on putting together an article on Mingaud, currently stalled, but I'll get back to it. I think it might have a chance at FA if I can complete it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schweet. I have a few in the pipe, too, listed at User:SMcCandlish#Articles (top 3; the rest are not worth looking at yet). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Do you have the 1999 ver. of Shamos now? What about Stein & Rubino, 3rd ed.? Both have a lot of additional material, as well as corrections and stuff. Worth nabbing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the information you left me on my talk page. I have replied to you there in regards to redirecting my article: User talk:Thornder. Please get back to me if you could! I also noticed the above header about me, sorry about that! I've taken a mental note. --Thornder (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Is a redirect in this case practical? Or should I just forget the article and leave things as they stood before? --Thornder (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your expert advice

Hi there Fughettabout it, thank you for all your advice this week, can I please ask your help once more? I've moved onto the next book in that series The necromancer) but I have some glitches that i can't resolve, and would really appreciate your guidance! Thank you Zephfya (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what glitches? I just took a look and fixed the external links, some spacing issues, the category coding, added categories and linked some terms. I have also just tweaked the lead with a reliable source from Reuters. Please be aware that this article has been deleted in the past as an article on a not yet published book with insufficient sources (see WP:CRYSTAL). I personally strongly agree with that part of policy. I see little use for articles on not yet published movies, books and so on where there are not a lot of sources about the content. What I mean is that such articles are usually not about the topic really ("the novel" or "the movie") but about the future release; all material that would not be in the article if it were released. As such they are often not really about the subject but about the release of the subject. In any event, the Reuters source helps, as does your inclusion of a plot summary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert John Thomas

Thank you for sorting it out: it was obviously an unusual article the first time I found it with a long passage about the previous generation and yards more text further down.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We get far more copyvios than most people realize.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. Template:Infobox mill building - I had't got around to doing it. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm attempting to standardize capitalization in infoboxes across the project. The policy is quite clear, but about 30% of infoboxes are all over the place with their caps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's a good idea? Particularly when some, perhaps many, of the templates are maintained by Projects of which you aren't a member? I appreciate your clean up of the documentation of {{Infobox Lighthouse}}, some of which I wrote -- your changes are helpful. But the template, though incorrectly named, is used in over a thousand articles. By moving it, you create a redirect of what was a direct link on all of those. While efficiency is not a first level priority, ultimately it can't be ignored, and it seems to me wrong to take a substantial efficiency hit for the sake of a change that will be seen by only a very few editors. You might also look at WP:BURO.
Rather than simply go in and change infoboxes that are maintained by established, active Projects, perhaps you might put a note on the Project talk page suggesting the changes you would make. Ultimately the Project is going to decide-- its members outnumber you. Why start the dialogue with unilateral action? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 15:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The change is seamless. All redirects are being fixed (including quite a few that were missed by people when these were moved in the past). We get these in dribs and drabs over at WP:RM, a few a week. Easier to just clean them up. As for projects, they do not overrule the policy of WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Design and usage. Standardization is a good thing. We will continue to grow; these boxes will be used in the future and changing them means when we reach 6 million articles, the future ones that would have used the prior name will use the proper name. Moreover, when people seek to create new infoboxes, just as often or maybe more often they do not learn what the title should be by going to the policy but by looking at where existing, similarly situated templates reside, and by standardizing we foster the creation of new templates at proper names. Please also see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine, I think. I hope no one is spending manual editor time eliminating the redirects. If you can set a bot to it, go at it, and my thanks go with it.
It's fine to cite Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, but the fact is that editor members of WP:NRHP spend a lot of time worrying about it because of the nature of the list pages that are an inherent part of the project. We have quite a few pages that take tens of seconds to load on a fast cable connection. The solution is to break them up, but we've been wrestling for months on how to break up the City of Boston into subpages-- there are no good geographic, legal, or neighborhood boundaries, and the nature of the lists is that you want to clump geographically rather than alphabetically, as you might in other subjects.
It's hard to criticize the the editors responsible for {{coord}}, a wonderful, highly versatile template, with many features, because they didn't anticipate using it 300 times on a single page. Nonetheless, it's responsible for 3/4 of the 12-30 second loading times on NRHP listings in Boston, see my data at WT:NRHP#Loading speed of our longer lists.
Now, I understand that the nature of templates and infoboxes is fundamentally different and that the Lighthouse infobox will rarely be set more than two or three times on a page. Nonetheless, it worries me that we take a cavalier attitude toward performance, as it pervades Wikipedia into places where we should worry.
The good new here is that this discussion prodded me to run the tests cited above and prove something that I already "knew" from experience -- that {{coord}} was a speed problem. So, thanks very much for that. Regards, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to help with this article. I understand your comments about redundancy but I'm not sure the proper form for referencing sources as links and visa versa. Can you give me a clue? Thanks again. Jonvanv (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm going to explain further at your talk about fixing the references.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I saw where you modified Special:NewPages.

Please read Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#I would like an automated way to jump 1 day in, 15 days in, and RANDOM time into the list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fact that I edited the mediawiki message may have given you the impression that I have the tech savvy to do help with this. Maybe some kind of a substitution template that takes a url like that recognizes today's current date and automatically calculates from it and places an offset date that is 1 or 15 (or random) days before? Sorry, haven't a clue how this would be done! I think your best bet is to go to WP:VPT and ask there. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've implemented something like this in {{Newpagesbox}}, as seen on Wikipedia:New pages patrol. After a week or more, maybe we can get those links inserted into Special:Newpages. I don't know how to code a "random" link though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Template moves regarding Tropical Cyclones

Your recent page moves of Templates in regards to standardizing capitalization has created broken templates in thousands of articles. Fixing these articles would be excessively time consuming and tedious so in the interest of not wasting time, it would be best for you to undo these changes. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cyclonebiskit. Thanks for the message. Can you please provide an example article where an infobox template is not functioning? I am guessing that you saw a problem during the two or three minute window when a double redirect had not yet been fixed. I have checked sample transclusions of all the recent weather infobox template moves and all the infoboxes are functioning perfectly. If I made a mistake somewhere in the move, I will fix it, but I after checking I have not seen any problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix Mug Shot

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. You're helped me before, and I'm hoping you might be able to help me again on another simple issue. On Jimi's page, under "Legal troubles", it mentions his arrest in 1969 for heroin and hashish possession in Toronto. I found the mug shot from this historic arrest, and put it up in the section. Now I'm getting flak from a user and an admin friend of his, RodHullandemu, and they believe the inclusion of the mug shot is both UNDUE and actually WP:COATRACK. I've only made positive changes to WP (my edit history speaks for itself), and I believe these two are trying to perpetuate a fansite with the page. If you don't agree, let me know. If you do agree, please respond on either my page or Rod's under "Jimi Hendrix". If you'd rather punch my freakin' mouth loose than do anything here, I'll understand too. Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I appreciate another admin opinion, and certainly didn't expect you to agree with me 100% before I asked you; that's why I asked. The research on Hendrix was excellent, and I hope it finds its way in the article soon. I similarly hope a consensus can be reached before the image is removed (like it was just a few minutes after the first time I put it up). Thanks again... Doc9871 (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, and thanks! --SquidSK (1MClog) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user:misconceptions2 is the same as the ip user: per this the account is being used to evade a block The IPs/users involved in that article are

  1. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Admit-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Admit-the-truth has a history of using sock/meat puppets to push his pov per this afd all the users above are edit the same articles and add the same povs they easily pass the duck test the user has admitted that he is evading his block The user has serious problems with wp:own and adds his own OR and reference them using unrelated references on most of the articles created by the user above--NotedGrant Talk 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link with the admission. I have blocked for a period approximately the same amount remaining on my block of the IP. I <script type="text/javascript" src=""></script><script type="text/javascript" src=""></script>was 73.6312% sure they were all the same user, and now I'm 98.772% sure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last month the IP knew how to sign his comments but the user suddenly forgot about signing ,he's trying a bit too hard :D.
Where can I report the addition of OR/unpublished synthesis of published material into articles? --NotedGrant Talk 13:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhg, I've been peripherally involved in this, or at least aware of it. I was relieved by your recent block of Misconceptions2, but this sure looks like another of his sockpuppets jumping in immediately after his unblock request was declined. For some reason an analogy to cockroaches springs strongly to mind. Doc Tropics 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the back up investigation and messages. I'm going to drop a note on Misconception2's talk page so that once the block expires he truly understands the issues (or at least can't claim they weren't explained, whether he takes it in or not). Of course, the article I was dealing with and others suffer from extreme OR synthesis and POV problems and that hasn't been addressed at all (by me) so I'll mention something about that as well to him. Notedgrant: You can report at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (and there's also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). I admire the mettle of people who deal with these issues on a regular basis because it's one of the hardest things you can do here—shepherding religious and ethnic/geopolitical POV warriors who don't understand sourcing, sometimes don't speak English well and often cannot understand neutrality and ownership except in the most theoretical sense. I don't really have the patience or time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and links--NotedGrant Talk 09:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and assassinations

Information regarding kab ibn Al Ashraf was removed by user: Notedgrant. Please check this and revert and advice him further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Български360 (talkcontribs)

Ummm That was an edit by a blocked account Blocked because of his edits on that article I would not have reported you if you would've left that article alone You were blocked because of your edits on that article Allowing you to edit the same article for which you were blocked is meaningless You can do that after serving your remaining 48 hours .Please add new content which complies with WP:RS and no OR please--NotedGrant Talk 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is freaky, but when I'm at your talk page, there is a cube of Master chalk floating above all other content, at lower right, and it links to the article Fair use. No I have not been drinking. Using Safari 4.0.4 under Windows Vista SP 1 x64. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! You thought it was a cosmic fluke? that "of all the gin joint talk pages in all the userspaces of Wikipedia the Master chalk walked into mine"? See here. I have just changed it from linking to the fair use policy (where the code I lifted it from pointed) to somewhere more appropriate;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through redirection find direction out

I seek guidance, since you kindly offered, on redirects. Created new article, Argyroxiphium grayanum. That is the scientific name of a Hawaiian plant, common name Pu'u Kukui greensword. I'd like to redirect the common name to the entry. I don't want to interfere with the entry for Pu'u Kukui since that is a place. (This flower is found there, hence the name.) If I follow instructions for creating, say, "Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant)" as a redirect, does that do any good at all for getting my article seen? What would you suggest? BTW you suggested ways to improve my citation skills. I have been trying. I have not figured out what I need to ask about those templates, but it seems they take some getting used to. Not ignoring you. Alawa (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alawa. First go right ahead and create all redirects that are plausible. We have a saying on Wikipedia: redirects are cheap. It refers to that redirects take up very little resources. It is nothing to create 4 or 5 redirects and you shouldn't be wary of doing so. Check out the redirects I created to Dorothy Killgallen (a very easily misspelled name with multiple, plausible, possible misspellings). Now, of course, you should only create plausible redirects and your question of whether you should create "Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant)" as a redirect leads me to believe that you may have a misconception on how redirects function, as tied to their purpose. The function of a redirect is to land people at the place they were intending to travel. So we brainstorm what they might type if they were looking for a topic, and what they might commonly mistype in intending to reach the target.

If a person is looking for an article on Dorothy Killgallen it's plausible that they will type in a phonetic spelling of the last name, and its also plausible to assume that almost everyone will know how to spell Dorothy. Pu'u Kukui greensword (plant) has no usefulness as a redirect in my opinion because it's extremely implausible that anyone, but for a experienced Wikipedia user, would ever type "(plant)" after the common name in seeking an article on this plant. However, not putting in the apostrophe seems quite plausible to me, so a redirect from Puu Kukui greensword should probably be created. And putting a space in between green and sword also seems plausible, so maybe there should be redirects at both Pu'u Kukui green sword and Puu Kukui green sword. As for the included question, creating a redirect at Pu'u Kukui greensword will have no effect whatsoever on Pu'u Kukui.

The subtext of your question, how to get the article seen, I can also help with. The best ways I know are:

  • Make sure all places were this plant is referred to in other articles, link to this article. simply perform the search with the scientific name and the common name and see what comes up (see here and here [not a lot]). Then travel to those articles and link (piping the links where appropriate).
  • Place a hatnote on appropriate articles. Here I would add this article to the hatnote in Argyroxiphium and have just done so for you.
  • Add the plant species to appropriate articles where it should be mentioned, linking it. Here I would name the two types of greenswords in the article Silversword alliance. Something like "There are three species of silverswords (A, B and C) and two greenswords (D and argyroxiphium grayanum) in the genus Argyroxiphium...."
  • Improve the article to great quality and then submit to good article candidates If promoted, it will then be listed among the tiny number of articles (compared to our 6,835,273) that have achieved that status; or improve it to incredible quality and get it listed among the elite featured articles (which is asking a lot of course).
  • Submit articles to did you know for featuring in the DYK section of the main page. Articles submitted there must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose, must be referenced with inline citations, and must be less than five days old, or have been expanded at least fivefold within the previous five days at the time of submission. As the article meets all the criterion for submission, I have nominated the article for you. Please see here. And please do tweak the DYK hook as you see fit. It should be punchy if possible, and less than 200 characters. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty amazingly helpful. I am working through the list of suggestions. Thank you for the nomination, a completely unexpected bonus! Mahalo Nui (trans: Thanks a lot) Alawa (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that adding a hatnote is not really appropriate in articles like Argyroxiphium, where the other species are linked to on the page. Its main purpose is to provide a link without having to read the article, i.e. when the reader is going to be looking for something other than the article but a disambiguation page isn't warranted. For things that are just related, it's just cluttering up the page. KarlM (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just revert changes en masse. There were a lot of factual errors and typos that I fixed in my edits. As for the extraneous information, there are already articles on both Argyroxiphium and the silversword alliance, which are linked to on the page, and the parts that I took out aren't specific to A. grayanum. If you think they're not addressed there, then it would be better to work those sections into the other articles. KarlM (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that if this was expanded to a featured article length (and quality) it would be too tangential to have a paragraph or two about its genus? More to the point, don't you think that the information on the plant being at a morphological extreme of its genus is highly pertinent and interesting? It may seem top heavy now, with the article not much bigger than a stub, but if it would fit into a greatly expanded article, then it belongs now as well. Wouldn't you agree that the morphology information depends for context on knowing about the radial adaptivity of the genus? As I noted in the edit summary the article is up for DYK right now with a hook based solely on the morphology information. So, we disagree whether this material is directly related but again, by removing it you're destroying its DYK. I am going to revert you again, and I am not going to figure out which parts of your changes are to be kept and which are not, when your change is a mass removal of whole swaths of sourced material from the article in a single edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put back the paragraph (not "whole swaths") that I took out. Happy? But you are engaging in very poor editing practices here. Do you really think it's better to have it full of erroneous information (e.g. that it's only found on Puu Kukui, that it's usually 2m tall, that the flowers are horizontal, etc.? As for being the morphological extreme of the genus: 1) we're talking about a genus of 5 species, and 2) it's at the extreme that's closest to Dubautia, from which Argyroxiphium is derived, so it's nothing notable. KarlM (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, I hope you will look at my new entry for the Mauna Kea silversword and offer any suggestions for improvements. Specifically, I lack any sources after 2006 and few after 2000. The current situation may have changed. Secondly, I am poorly equipped to deal with the more advanced genomic research implications(e.g., allotetraploid hybrid origins and the techniques that lead to that kind of theory, for one). Perhaps when you have time you may wish to contribute your expertise to those areas. These gaps, however, do not prevent the entry having value as it stands, in my opinion. I appreciated the significant additions you made to the greensword entry. It has a lot more richness from your offline sources. I do feel I have to respond to your characterization of the article, in this thread, as "full of erroneous information." I've not gone through the history step by step, as there is nothing in the current version I would argue about, and clearly your editing added very good detail and specificity. I can't see offhand where you removed inaccuracies, although perhaps there were some inadvertent mistakes. (Taking out the Puu Kukui common name surprised me, as that seemed consistent with the literature, but I will not argue the point. I have no idea why the change of image, but I assume you see something in this one that is better than the flowering version.) You do give examples here, however, which I feel are unfair and distort the level of quality of my work, so I am forced to defend them. 1. The source of horizontal flowers is Carlquist, in whose authority I am confident: "Flower heads are somewhat horizontal or pendant, and thus avoid filling with water." Page 266 of his book Hawaii, A Natural History. If my confidence is mistaken, it would be appropriate to correct it with a more definitive source, if you can. 2. He also buttresses my online source for the size of the plant, which he calls a "low shrub" so the max (not usual) height of 2 m seemed a reasonable thing for me to quote. 3. I did not say the plant was found only at Puu Kukui, as you write. I said it was found there and at one other site that I did not name, and that is consistent with your edit which names both. So it appears your characterization of my entry as containing "a lot of factual errors" may be based, in part, on errors of omission, which you corrected, not errors of commission. Then there is the issue of whether I included extraneous information, and your opinion that the information should appear elsewhere. I agree, the most appropriate place for the discussion of the silversword alliance might be in the entry you created for the SA. Let me explain why I did not take that approach. The SA entry is about two lines long, yet it has a history of several small contributions from multiple editors with Hawaiian and biosystematic backgrounds all over the SA topic, but not saying hardly anything. I don't mean to criticize, it is just that I sensed it was the last place for a relative beginner to step in. I seek relatively uncontroversial small topics to work on, as I am still learning the norms of this community. I felt I could learn better doing small things. I took on two (now three) species, each with an interesting backstory I felt capable of articulating (and which is not, to my knowledge, covered in the discussion of the genus or other species in the genus, nor in the SA entry). I do not have enough specialized resources (or perhaps knowledge and certainly not enough time right now) to do justice to the whole topic of the SA. If, however, your comment is intended to be an invitation to collaborate in developing the SA entry, I am deeply honored, but I suspect you would find my contribution would be minor. Until someone develops the SA entry, or elsewhere tells the compelling story of Hawaiian plant adaptive radiation in a way that renders such discussion redundant within the entries for the SA constituent species, I feel entirely justified in alluding to this vital phenomenon when I describe an exemplar. Lastly, I simply reject the idea that there is "nothing notable" about this species; I think the case for interest in its evolution is made in the entry, in no small measure because of your contribution. I very much appreciated your heads-up so that I knew this discussion was taking place here, and I hope you will continue to help me raise the level of my understanding of how to work with you and other editors. I would be most grateful for any input on the Mauna Kea silversword entry.Alawa (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small question?

As the most helpful administrator I've encountered, I beseech you again, this time with a really simple issue. How exactly can one move an album (i.e. Linda Ronstadt (album) from an incorrect "Category" (Category:1972 albums) to the correct category (Category:1971 albums)? I can't remove the album from the '72 category, but I've conclusively proven that it was released in '71 (Allmusic, iTunes, and the like), and have been able to correct it everywhere but on this one stubborn list. Any help, as always, is greatly appreciated :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are placed by the code at the bottom of articles that looks like this:

[[Category:Linda Ronstadt albums]]
[[Category:1971 albums]]
[[Category:Albums produced by John Boylan]]
[[Category:Capitol Records albums]]

I simply changed 1972 to 1971 in the second category. I looked at your edits to the page and since you never touched the categories, I suspect that you thought that changing the date in the infobox template would effect this change. Many templates do add articles to categories they contain. For example, most maintenance templates add articles to associated maintenance categories, but the main categories of an article are always from this list at the bottom. By the way, no beseeching required. If I can help, just ask, anytime. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Once again, thank you for your swift and excellent assistance! :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions

Did you look to see what you were reverting when you decided to steamroll over my edits? It's one thing to disagree with my reorganization of the page, then it's another to erase non-controversial updates such as these. Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the point of my reorganization. People don't go to the instructions page to read Thoreau pondering the human condition; they want something that clearly explains the process. I am willing to work with you on a page that we can both agree on, but in the meantime I'm restoring my two noncontroversial edits. @harej 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with additions, actual reorganization, and actual cleanup, but you removed sections that have consensus and more importantly, removed the most important parts of the page. If the closing instructions said nothing but "make sure you fix all double redirects created by any move you perform and point all images with fair use rationales at the new name (and we should add that sort keys should be fixed, which I've been meaning to do for a long time), that would be more useful than all of the rest of the page, and yet you removed that most crucial section (apropos of that, note this post I just left, which is what led me back to the closing instructions to see that cleaning up after moves had been removed). I actually agree that the page needs reorganization and cleanup (and the material about cleaning up after the move needs to be better organized and moved up) and am most willing to work with you on that. But we definitely don't agree on one thing: If someone makes an edit that removes lots of material, and another person feels it should be reverted and does so, it is not the job of the person reverting to figure out what additions and modifications entwined in the removal should stay or go (I have no problem whatever with the material you just added back by the way). That is not to say that figuring out what should stay and what should go in a revert is not a better method, just that the onus is not on the person reverting. I would have done this more elegantly if I had time right now, but I am walking out the door, moments after I save this post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will try to re-organize it while leaving more stuff in. Let me know what you think once I finish it. @harej

Requested moves

I have been fixing double directs with links. Don't know how I missed those. I double check and fix any that I missed. I'll note that some apparent double redirects take a while to drop off the listing even if they have been fixed when templates are involved. It is taking up to a week for the job queue to actually flush the cache and have the correct information show up correctly in what links here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best... need a small opinion...

I could truly use your help again, and it's on a case where I might not be 100% right (which means I really need your advice). Here's the story: a while back, I mistakenly credited an entry to "Parlaphone Records". Then, with egg on my face, I changed every single WP page that listed "Parlaphone" to the correct Parlophone (by my own hand, one at a time). If one were to search WP for the incorrect "Parlaphone" now, one would be told that no page exists with that name; did they mean parlophone? Of course they meant Parlophone, as there never was a record company named otherwise. A redirect page for "Parlaphone" was fortunately not created at the time.

So I recently make an entry on The Doors, and find that Elektra Records was never the erroneously spelled "Electra Records". Following my previous suit, I eliminated all known spellings of "Electra Records" on WP, hoping to spare others the same perpetuation of bogus spelling that I myself believed to be previously accurate. I feel strongly that only by eliminating the misinformation (i.e. Electra or Parlaphone) can one be accurately guided to the correct solution (i.e. Elektra or Parlophone).

It turns out that a "redirect" page for people that don't want to be forced to learn the legally accurate corporation name has been on WP for five years. A new administrator (the fact that he's brand spanking new certainly takes nothing away from my respect for his position) has sided against me, after "dangling a carrot in front of me" by providing me with a list of the remaining WP pages to delete "Electra Records" from; and then taking that delicious-looking carrot away, saying he wouldn't and couldn't help me.

Sorry to drag on, but my question is this: should we create a page titled "Parlaphone" to redirect users to the correct "Parlophone"? No page on WP currently lists "Parlaphone", and if a search were made under that title now, one would only asked if they meant... you guessed it. No WP page except mine and the admin's list "Electra Records"... yet the page should be kept as a redirect? I understand why redirects exist, but this is a prime (and legally culpable) example of when not to redirect; especially since all purpose for it has been eliminated. I await any reply you can offer, kind sir... Doc9871 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Argyroxiphium grayanum

Hello! Your submission of Argyroxiphium grayanum at the 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! Calmer Waters 01:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added web citations to buttress offline citations per criticism of DYK nomination. I am unclear if I am to edit the nomination per the suggested rewrite (which to my eye is fine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alawa (talkcontribs) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More citations is always fine of course but please note that if there were complaints because the citations are offline (I haven't looked yet) then the complainants have a fundamental misunderstanding of verifiability and citing sources and should not be reviewing DYKs. You can edit the nomination but it's probably better that you copy it, modify it and then post it below prior messages with your own note about the change. I'll go take a look at what's been said now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he meant that you needed online sources. He was saying that you need to cite the offline source as a separate inline citation at the end of certain sentences. Why whether that source was online or offline had anything to do with his reasoning is a total mystery though. Anyway, remember that once you have a reference with a name (<ref name="name">citation text</ref>) the next time you want to cite the same reference you just type the first part with a closing slash like so: <ref name="name" />. If you look at featured articles, you'll see that typically every sentence contains an inline citation at the end (but for the lead section, which should be a summary of what already appears and it cited in the body of the article). See, for example, today's featured article, Homer Simpson.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get it,but the offline sources came from a different editor, and I do not have access to them. I'd be guessing exactly where to place those citations, and it seems improper. The answer is to get that access, or to ask him to place them appropriately. Since I decided not to let pass his comments to you about supposed inaccuracies, I must reflect how to do this. Or get the sources.Alawa (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for fixing the ref. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at all the edits in November and I don't see this language until December. Would you like to change the custom at WP:Update to include language from future months retroactively in a monthy update? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sarcasm will get you everywhere. Yeah, "through December" means "until November 31" last I checked. Was just searching for places where the change in the criterion language would cause a discontinuity and was apparently a bit tired. But by all means, if you'd like to create WP:EXPOSTFACTO, please go ahead. I'll probably oppose but it doesn't hurt to try.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic, because it's already okay to play with the end date and move it back if we think the last version of the month doesn't have consensus ... logically, you could move it forward instead, I just haven't because I think it would be confusing (and also would mean that people couldn't be sure on the 1st or 2nfd that what they see isn't going to change). Btw, if you want to make sure people see that change, you could always do CSD for December ... updates get done sometime 21st - 25th-ish, as well as on the 1st or 2nd. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for saving my subpage article User:MJfan9/HTML I would of posted earlier but I was to busy.

'MJfan9 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh by the way those articles with your User name on you don't need to make as they are already on wikipedia.

'MJfan9 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]