User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

(Personal attack removed)

Contents

[edit] In relation to the analog alliance article

what you are trying to tell me is that the only things worthy of writing about are found in google searches, seems absurd, if you expect to have wikipedia be a source for people to find out information about the world, i suggest you rethink the criteria you are using to criticize this article, as it appears to be a very shallow, uninformed decision making process..also, what would be the purpose of this website if all the information on it was easily accesible through google or any other search engine on the web?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.253.198 (talk • contribs) .

The purpose of this website is as an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary source. What this means is that things must already be known about in the wider world for them to be encyclopedic. To put this in perspective, if the world's leading authority on physics, for example, wanted to publish a new phenomenon he had discovered here, it would not be proper because we are not a primary source (nor is original research allowed). Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article you posted is unverified, unsourced and does not assert any notability. For that reason, it should be deleted unless you as the poster provide bases for its inclusion. You have interpreted my use of Google incorrectly. It is enough to say that the article is unverfieid, unsourced and has no assertion of notability. I went one step beyond and attempted to check myself whether I could find any basis to avoid the step of proposing the article's deletion by using Google as a tool. You are absolutely correct that there are subjects that may be encyclopedic and have no Google presence. That is entirely besides the point.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Ajax (superhero)

Perhaps we could make a redirection? Currently Martian Manhunter is the main article, but J'onn J'onzz redirects to it. I propose Ajax (superhero) could be another redirect, the content itself being added to Martian Manhunter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricbit (talk • contribs) .

Hi. I got your message. That sounds like a perfect solution to me. Ocasionally, I simply go ahead and make a new article into a redirect, but usually when the article is on the same subject as another, under a different name. I must tell you it is very rare for a newcomer to actually propose a reasoned solution, and which has the function of removing their article (their baby) as an autonomous article, instead of reacting as if personally attacked. While I have only just met you, I already know you will be a great Wikipedian. Why don't you be bold and go ahead and make it into a redirect (just replace all the text with: #REDIRECT [[Martian Manhunter]], and add the information into Martian Manhunter in an appropriate place. By the way, you can add your signature to messages by typing four tildes (~~~~), which you should always do when posting messages on talk pages. I am posting below this a welcome message. It's a template, but is should provide you with some useful links to explore. If you have any problems, feel free to ask me anything on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor de revisar artículo

Please, may you review this stub: Threshing-board, that I wrote in relation to another one that I writting in the spanish wiki.

The english of this stub need a revision, and also some changes that I make in the article Gacería

Thanks--Locutus Borg , Talk to me 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, now is a perfect stub--Locutus Borg , Talk to me 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for trying to fix the AFD Kyros 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for looking at Night of the Living Dead! Dmoon1 08:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome but I only got to the first three sections so far. By the way, note that we need a new HCOTM and we have a lot more members now. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lperez2029

see Electromagnetic Golf. I'm not putting the 'db-empty' tag back in. Leave this one to an admin. This guy keeps creating empty pages. -- CPAScott 22:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have now tagged it with {{db-author}} which at WP:CSD they define as being authorized when an article's sole author removes all of an article's text. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for noticing the DYK that I worked on; it was a great experience! --Doc Tropics 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!!!

Thanks for letting me know! I have been editing a proposal myself for the past 20 minutes (so no harm done I guess). Tell me once you're done and I'll take a look at you have. Already the sandbox version seems quite nice. I guess I'll contribute on the second wave of edits. In the meantime I'll go and update the notability templates to link to the proposed guidelines. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job. I've posted an annoucement on the talk page of the books project so that interested editors can contribute. Pascal.Tesson 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot for the support and edits. Hopefully we can hammer this out to a really good guideline without too much contention.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Not too much contention? Dream on. :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Sigh. You're probably right. Oh, by the way, note my comment on the project's talk page. We really need a separate standard for academics I think, but I don't know where to begin. Any thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldcat

Is there a way to search their database without going to a library/being a subscriber?

Uh, I go there directly from the link on whichever ISBN page is generated, like this one (ISBN 0618126937) or this one (ISBN 0752220160). Seems to work for me. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the puzzled tone of your response. I honestly never explored the page that links when you click on an ISBN. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
WCWM
Canadian Hydro Developers
Novorossiya
The Kids Will Have Their Say
Battle of Artaxata
Royal Nepal Airlines
Gurzuf
List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors
Goatherd
CISTI
Data acquisition
Franz Hartmann
Yemenia
Bamfield, British Columbia
Station (Australian agriculture)
Adler Planetarium
List of rail trails
George of Duklja
Roz Weston
Cleanup
Napoleon in popular culture
Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca and Fischer
Chase (comics)
Merge
List of notable Calgarians
Demographics of France
Chalk River Laboratories
Add Sources
Software engineering professionalism
Two-Face
Hey Arnold!
Wikify
King Khalid International Airport
Steve DeVito
Muscovite Manorialism
Expand
List of Little Penguin colonies
List of British entomological publishers
Battle of Mount Hyjal

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples for books

Thanks for the feedback. Actually while you were posting your comment on my talk page, I was adding a note on the talk page of the WP:BK project. Feel free to edit as need be. Indeed the algebra text book should go. I think the tricky thing is to find examples of articles that have been deleted but have an AfD debate that suitably explains what the book was and why it got deleted! One option to better organize the examples is to list for each notability criteria or non-notability indicia a list of, respectively, articles meeting these criteria and AfD pages where the argument centered against one of these. Pascal.Tesson 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be very useful indeed, but it may be very difficult to locate such exemplars for each criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

There were several links in the "Billiards" page that you have removed, stating that they were commercial or not appropriate. I went to this page specifically find a link that I remember seeing there. The link, while perhaps slightly commercial, lead to a site with information I wanted.

I'm not criticizing your good work in editing many of the pages here at wiki, at which you do a great job, i'd just like to understand your resoning for removing some of the links that you do.

Some commercial links get removed, while most of the remaining links are commercial as well? Why some, and not others?

It is my position that not every user will find the information they are looking for solely on the wikipedia site, and thus, having external links at the end of the page offers them some choices for further research.

24.222.179.156 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the remaining links may need to go as well. In short, they fail WP:EL on multiple grounds and violate WP:SPAM. My failure to remove all improper links should not be taken as a basis to revive other improper links. That being said, you can look at past versions of any page simply by going to its history tab and clicking on a previous date. In this case click on the date previous to my removal--Fuhghettaboutit 19:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and for the info, and the links to the policy. Keep up the good work.

[edit] advertising the proposal

I think we already have a very decent proposal here. I have tried to advertise it a bit by putting a comment on the talk pages of projects like "books" and "novels" but I'm not sure anyone actually watches those pages... I've also mentioned it (I think) in one or two AfD debates, but you're right, we should make a more formal announcement to the community. Pascal.Tesson 21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RRSMONDO

I feel bad following this guy around and reverting all of his edits, but someone needs to remove his links, right? [1] [2]

I'm not sure what to do. Ideas? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel bad at all. We are building an encyclopedia and he's come here to subvert it for dishonorable purposes--it's patent spam so don't feel a bit hesitant. It's probably also a copyvio (note that one of the entries on his list has a doubled definition, making it likely to be a copy and paste job from somewhere) and to top it all off, I am an attorney and I can tell you that those definitions are very, very poor. If he continues, continue to warn--that's important because if it doesn't make him stop, it's also the way to properly ask for him to be blocked (reverting vandalism without warning is a pet peeve of mine). It works like this, after a series of warning has been given up through a final warning, in this case I would use {{spam2-n}}, {{spam3-n}} {{spam4-n}} (each of which which you would type like this: {{subst:spam2/3/4-n|NAME OF SPAMMED ARTICLE}}, if an additional transgression occurs after a final warning that was given within week, and the new edit was within the last one or two hours, you can ask for a block over at WP:AIAV. By the way, note that WP:3RR does not apply to reversions of simple vandalism, which includes spam.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys win. I will not post * - Glossary of legal terms anymore. I would like to thank you for finding that mistake on my page, I have fixed it. If you can answer one question for me, Why is ACA International] - The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals. acceptable to have as an external link? They are spamming for companies to give them $1000 to sign up to be a member. I believe that sites that want money to sign up is against the rules. Am I right?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RRSMONDO (talk • contribs) .

I'm not 100% sure that that link is proper, but it certainly doesn't have all the hallmarks of spam that the link you *were* inserting does. Actually having studied that site, I think it's spam also and am going to remove it though it's not nearly as clear a violation as is yours. It's the equivalent of, in our article on paint, saying a link to a nationwide paint company is the same as a link to "Bob's corner paint store".
It is not a powerful argument, by the way, to say this other thing is against policy therefore, I too should be allowed to violate—I hope that doesn't require further explanation. Note that the link you have provided fails the following policy considerations at Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid: 1 "A website that you own or maintain..." ( it's obvious that you own or are personally involved with the site); 2) "...factually inaccurate material" (multiple poor or improper definitions and errors--random example: you can appeal any judgment or order from any lower court--while bankruptcy is certainly relevant to the collections area (I argued a lift stay motion this morning) the word is strangely misdefined as implicitly only applying to district court appeals from the bankrupcty court; or, let's see, the numerous mistakes in the definition of a bankruptcy ("This is what a company files..." no, not just companies; "local court"--no, bankruptcies can only be filed in a bankrupcty court; I suppose a chapter 7 could be defined as a liquidation action, but much more relevantly as a discharge of all non-exempt assets, etc.; "payout of" should be "payout to"; it's secured; I suppose # is a typo of $;) Then there's the definition of bona fade (it's bona fide); I could go on for pages. 4) "Links that are added to promote a site"--self-explanatory. 5) "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"... I could go on. Finally, your site appears to violate the copyright of http://www.commercialbar.com/mainpage.htm. Linking to a site which violates another's copyright is also barred. By the by, If I haven't made it abundantly clear, their definitions suck.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My two cents ---> I am fairly familiar with the collection industry and I will say that ACA is clearly the leading trade organization for collection agencies. Personally, I would think that a link to the leading US trade organization for collection agencies would be appropriate in an article about collection agencies. This seems analagous to having an article about trade unions and not including a link to the AFL/CIO. If a link to AFL/CIO would be spam, then so is a link to ACA. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't claim to fully understand the linking rules. By way of full disclosure, I believe my firm may be a member of ACA, though we are not active with them - and I certainly am not. I just know who they are and what their role in the industry is. --Qball6 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, and if you read the above you'll see that I acknowledged this, saying that the link to ACA may be inappropriate, but is not clearly inappropriate as the link he was inserting was. If it's the largest in the country, a unique resource etc., your analogy is apt and it is not improper and should be added back in. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. On reflection, I don't know that I really feel strongly that the ACA link needs to be part of the article. I was just more annoyed that he was comparing blatant spam to clear (at least to me) non-spam.--Qball6 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BK talk page

Hi. If you don't mind can I (for the sake of clarity) cut and paste that last part of your last comment right after my last comment? Yeah yeah, this sentence doesn't make much sense but hopefully you understand what I mean. Pascal.Tesson 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think my recent note (I was typing while you were typing this) allows you to respond without pasting, but if you'd like to, you can copy and paste, and attribute that you duplicated my comment with my permission. Lol! By the way, I wanted to send you a private email yesterday but yours is not enabled.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Your academic section is (no surpise there) real good. I think switching the any institution to a number of is likely to avoid debates on how reputable a particular institution is. It's almost impossible to have a textbook used in a sole quality university, unless for some reason that book is written in Swahili. Given that I have followed the development of the proposal quite closely, I don't have much criticism and I truly think it will be consensual, especially given its clarity and the quality of the writing. The feedback we have gotten so far has been mostly constructive and hopfully only absolute inclusionists will oppose it. Pascal.Tesson 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad you approve and thanks for the kind words! The change to "a number of" is good. The only thing I think could use improvement (which may change if many people hopefully comment) is the deletion debate examples. I would love it (and I know you expressed the same sentiment in the past) if we had clear deletion debate examples for each listed (modern era) criterion, as well as each core WP policy. I may bite the bullet and comb through the AFD archives in an attempt but it's a daunting task.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not quite sure but I believe we started this whole business in light of this particularly absurd debate. I'll add it in if only for historical significance! :-) Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Have you seen this AfD? Just curious. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Buell_Anderson

Ste4k 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest test to list of billionaires

selftest redirected me to test-self (I found test-self-n too). I changed my warning. Thanks! I agree with you regarding sprotected. It's not often that page needs to change anyways. ~a (user • talk • contribs)

I wonder why they move it. I think selftest is more intutitive than test-self. Doesn't matter I guess, it'll still provide the same warning.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if needed

Sorry if you took something I wrote as an attack. My 'disgust' is for the proliferation of yet another guideline, not personal. Things are becoming far too much like government proceedings to my likings. One can't get any work done without consulting fifteen or twenty reference guidelines which don't always agree.

I just left a response on your proposal.[3] I haven't spent much time in these forums as they take too much time and I'd rather do what I can to add and expand and explain. So sorry if you feel it was a diatribe or overlong or (obvious from your rejoiners) used arguement forms you feel are 'off point' or whatever. My practice is to put forth my views as clear as I can, perhaps visit and clarify once, then let things go. I certainly won't be so involved in somesuch as to be rebutting continually as you are doing. That's just a different style and philosophy, but not a slam. I just learned in mediating an edit war last year not to get too worked up, nor overinvolved with anything on this community. Call it my survival mechanism. Once in a while the demoans I've chained within sneak out and let heat into a statement or five. This was such a case. Apologies for the unguarded moment. (Having spent some years on various SF slushpiles, some personal experiences snuck out!) Best regards. // FrankB 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand your reasons given at...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food topics, and have presented a reply and a query for you there.

--Transhumanist

[edit] What's the point?

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I have a question I don't know who to ask. I'm asking you because you previously had told me that adding warnings was important so I took it to heart. So, my question is: what's the point in adding warnings to user pages? Every time I go to WP:AIAV they come up with some excuse not to do anything. Both times I was reporting an obvious blatant vandal and both times their user talk pages were filled with warnings. Both times the admin excuse was lame, like the vandal hadn't been vandalizing recently enough. If warning people means nothing then why warn people? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well first, after they receive a final warning ("you will be blocked"), many vandals do stop. Even if it's only one out of ten, the warning has been useful. Second, while it's true that WP:AIAV is very strict on the vandalism being recent, and continuing in nature, it does work sometlmes to obtain a block. Like you, though, I have little experience with it working, as most of the vandals I warn are drive-bys, discovered later, rather than caught in the middle of a spree vandalism. WP:AIAV is much more suited to recent changes patrollers than to new page patrollers and reversions of vandalism after the fact from your watchlist. Third, Even if you don't succeed in getting a block, someone may in the future. The only way to set that process in motion is to have that vandals page full of warnings already when the "straw that broke the vandals back vandalism and final warning" occurs and the vandal is finally blocked. Note that it's much harder to get a shared IP page blocked than it is a single ip page. There really is little choice. If we don't warn process cannot go forward, even if the process may be frustrating.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I understand your points. Thanks! I have another related question. What about when test4 is reached? Should I keep stacking up test4s? (like here: User_talk:212.85.0.1#Your edit to Gene) The only reason I ask is it seems kind of silly to keep saying "This is your last warning" "This is your last warning" "This is your last warning" when it really isn't their last warning.
I think this issue deserves more discussion and in a more public forum; I am not an expert. I just did various searches to attempt to see whether this issue has been discussed (i'm sure it has) without finding anything. I too find it disconcerting to go through a warning series, right up through a "you will be blocked," knowing that that very likely is not true. For that reason, I am and suggest you be more circumspect about using a test4 (or equivalent) warning level when the user is not actively engaged in a vandalism spree at the time of warning. Multiple test3s, or better yet, {{bv-n}}s, seem to make more sense than jumping to the fourth level. Blocking is used sparingly as you can see, which makes some sense; if we gain one good editor by not jumping the gun into blocking, that's a good thing. I have never witnessed it, but apparently there are multiple good editors who started out as vandals. You might post something to this effect at the helpdesk. As predominantly an articlespace contributor and new pages patroller, I have far less experience with these issues than do many editors who spend most of their time dealing with vandals and thus vandal issues.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grenadier Guards Footnotes and Refs

I refer to your actions on my recent Help Desk query. Thanks very much for using the advanced formats to improve my footnote. That's exactly what I wanted. However, from my understanding of the 2 formats you used, they both appear incredibly advanced and may require software I don't have. Have you any info as to how I can use them? Also, why did my formatting NOT work originally? And what about the other issues I raised regarding my confusion on WP:IC? I hope to contribute to more articles in the future and need to know how to do footnotes and references properly - can you offer any guidance? Please reply here or to my talk page. Thanks again. -- FClef (Talk) 01:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey FClef. No, no esoteric software is needed. There are a number of templates which are intended to help format references—{{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} etc. (see Category:Citation templates). One thing very counterintuitive about these templates is that you don't see the template on the template page, but on its talk page (I've never understood this). So let's look at cite book, which is what I used to format the article. Like all templates, it starts with {{ and ends with }} In between those are many different categories of information you can put in: title, last (name) first (name) etc. These are are done by placing a pipe before them ( | ←one of these) and formatted for ease of reading vertically (but they don't need to be), like this
| first =
| last =
| title =
You can simply copy the template from the talk page, mix and match categories and fill in your information. Note that, for the most part, you don't put periods in, nor italic markup, it automatically formats the entries. Now forget all this for the moment. Let's talk about the <ref></ref> format as a separate topic (we'll combine later).
First a note on the form. Many html tags work in this form: a < then a > some text being formatted by that tag and then to end it, the same thing again but with a forward slash before it (</>). So, for instance if you want to make something boldface in html, you would type <b>text you want boldfaced</b>. With <ref>(text)</ref> it gets slightly more complicated. First you have to place the following text under the references section: <references/>. After doing so, whatever you place in between the <ref></ref> tags will automatically show up in the references section and where the ref tags are placed, when not in edit mode, will be the footnote markup ([1] for example).
Now combining the two different sections, all I did was place between the ref tags the cite book template, but anything you placed between the tags would have shown up. This is the reason I wanted to explain the two markups separately. They really are not part of each other but may appear so if you are unfamiliar.
Finally, you may have noticed some stuff I did that looked like this in the references section: <div class="references-small">. This is simply markup telling the software to reduce the size of the references. It is a fairly accepted style, especially for reference sections that have many entries. You'll notice that this follows the same form we've been discussing (i.e. <> followed by </> but it nests the <references/> markup inside of it and uses <div> and ends with </div>. Just copy it from the Grenadier Guards article if you want to use it.
Regarding the formatting you used, I'm not sure where you were taking it from (and I am not familiar with all citation formats) so I can't tell you exactly why it didn't work. I hope this is not confusing for you.
Note: I just realized that you typed the note below while I was typing the above. I haven't responded to that nor looked at it. I better post before I lose it:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afterthought re the above

I think I've got this straight. Do I do the "References" section using Citation Templates - WP:CITET - ?

And do I use [1] tags within the text, containing between them the footnote, followed by a Notes section with

  1. ^ and

for "Footnotes"? as described at WP:FN

  • Please confirm that my understanding of this is correct. Thanks for your forbearance. It's a steep learning curve.


Only two remaining questions:

  • what's the "small-references" bit in your citation used for? Please can you refer me to a page on this?
  • what's the "div" bit for?

Thanks again. -- FClef (Talk) 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITET shows various examples from the citation styles that now you know you can see on specific templates' talk pages (again, I don't understand why these have been written so that going to the template explains nothing, and you have to stumble on the talk page to realize that's where the information is). I think all other questions here are obviated by the preceding explanation. If you need any further explanation regarding the above (this stuff is tough if you are not familiar with it!), or any other wikipedia formatting or other issues, do not hesitate to call on me.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, one more note. I think you intended with the last post to show what you would type to get certain effects, but as you can see it formatted into footnotes, etc., rather than showing what you typed. A very useful tag is <nowiki></nowiki>. Placing this around any text will tell the software to not render the wikimarkup. This means that you can type, for instance ~~~~ and instead of formatting to your signature, it will show up as four tildes. The same for the <ref> tags you typed above, or any other markup.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million for very helpful explanations. The bit about having to stumble on the enlightening talk pages is incredibly dispiriting but typical of humankind: we are an imperfect species, Wikipedia notwithstanding. As you see, this has kept me up all night!  :o)-- FClef (Talk) 03:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original - unsatisfactory - formatting (FYI)

Incidentally, the formatting I originally used was at shortcut WP:IC in their section 2 and 2.1 - that was the article that I was ORIGINALLY moaning about on Helpdesk. I found that formatting unsatisfactory for the reasons I gave there. What do you think? (no need for immediate reply, I insist on at least 3 hrs sleep and bid you goodnight - but a reply at some stage would be nifty) -- FClef (Talk) 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha. That format breaks if there are any spaces between words. If you had typed {{Ref|BritishGrenadiers1}} instead of {{ref|British Grenadiers1}} it would have worked.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh....ok then!  :o) -- FClef (Talk) 12:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underwater panthers

Thanks for the nomination for "Did You Know?" Your toolbox is a really spiff set of useful links, mind if I steal it? :) Bookgrrl 19:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome and please steal away.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, note that in the "policy/useful" section of the toolbox are links to certain edit count tools that are specific to my name--you should replace your name in those sections (just do a search for my name with control + f and replace), and also note that those tools are broken right now--have been for about three months following a change in the sitewide software; they may be fixed in the future.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the Living Dead Note

Note 21 covered the whole paragraph, but to avoid confusion I put another note after the first O'Dea quote. Thanks for pointing this out. Dmoon1 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the confusing grammar things. Children is an irregular plural noun; it's already plural so there is no need to add an s to make it such. Another example would be men's and women's. See this site. The Chicago Manual of Style also uses children's. Thanks for the proofreading, by the way. Dmoon1 05:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Learn something new every day! You're welcome. It's an incredible article. It's not a matter of if but when it will achieve featured status.--Fuhghettaboutit

[edit] Amazon ranking

Hi, you asked me about Amazon ranking. Ideally one would want to know, if a book has 10,000 rank, how many copies had it sold in total, or per year, etc. Well, here is one sample discussion. It is definitely not a hard one-to-one correlation, but you do have some ballpark order-of-magnitude ideas of what is 1M, 100K, 10K, 1K etc. Note that Amazon keeps its actual ranking algorithm secret for business reasons, although in theory 10th rank is 10th bestseller, etc. You could google around on your own and maybe find other articles about the ranking correlations. Crum375 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation by e-mail

Check your email please! // FrankB 04:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps

Just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Billiards Glossary

You wrote: Thanks for all the additions. The article has been sorely lacking in commonwealth definitions. Although I added some when I initially drafted it—"screw," etc.—it's generally outside my expertise as an American who plays little snooker.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I just had a quick browse whilst I was bored at work, I noticed a few other terms I could have added and I will do soon. Cheers, Kris 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On July 19, a fact from the article Underwater panthers, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surveys

Just curious. Do you participate in straw polls? Ste4k 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian

That's twice you've corrected my spelling of this word. I promise not to make that mistake again! Thanks. Precis 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was'nt snigling yu out and you ahr not allone; I halve coreccted that perticular ward...let's see...63 times:-)
All 63 were mine, under different accounts. (Just kidding.) I'm surprised "weird" isn't on your list. Here are some other words I commonly misspell: aficionado bellwether barbecue coliseum guttural inoculate minuscule pharaoh sacrilegious septuagenarian shish-kebab Precis 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You realize what you've done? You just created hours of work for me. Damn you!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Being mischievous, I have an irresistible urge to add two more words to the list. But I'll fight it, because you made me laugh. Precis 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Billiards Glossary

You wrote: Regarding a few of the recent additions, I am against a separate definition for felt, and of the use of that word in any definition to describe table cloth. At least in the U.S., it's very much a no-no to call it felt, and experienced players/table mechanics, correct new players whenever they do so, in similar manner to the way an English teacher might chide a student for a terrible but common grammar gaff. Similiarly, though english is used to refer to draw and follow by some, it is highly looked down by most experience players, who use it only for sidespin.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I agree with you about the draw definition, the way I've written it implies draw being in the core sense of the word "english" when in fact it is a less common usage, so I've changed it to a type of spin. On that subject I think it should be capitalized to read "English", but it's actually quite a rare term over here in the UK so you'd know more about that I guess.
However, I would like to keep the felt entry in. I haven't said it is a valid variant of cloth, I've only told the reader to "See cloth", because in its definition the spurious usage of the word "felt" in that context is explained. People may only have heard it called felt and can be enlightened in this way. It's up to you though, I always respect the page founder's opinions and leave the final decision with them. I will continue to contribute to the page as there are quite a few additions that can be made, and value your feedback. Kris 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks fer encouragement

Appreciate the contact. Still so far down on the learning curve I have nowhere to go but up! Love your "handle". Good one. --Here.it.comes.again 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome. This place does have a steep learning curve. If you have any problems/questions, please feel free to ask me anything. I'll help if I can.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harpies in market-driven culture

User:Kappa has deprodded the above article. You may wish to consider placing it on AFD. BigE1977 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will do so now.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hooked/Snookered

I don't know if you created the definitions for Hook(ed), Snooker and Snookered, but they need some attention. I thought the terms "hook" and "snooker" were wholly interchangeable in their basic sense, although you'd never call it "hooking" in snooker or UK eight ball. In which case I have no problems just tidying the entries up, but if there is a subtle difference could you elucidate matters on this? If there is a difference I'd suggest having just the verb form for each as an entry, with their definitions followed by a line like "A player is commonly referred to as "hooked/snookered" in such a situation." Then as an extra cross-reference finish with "Compare with ...." What do you think? Kris 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I created the definition of hooked, and of snookered, but my definition of snookered was, as far as I remember, the same or near the same as hooked. Someone came along and added all the present text for snookered, and I left it alone because snooker is not a game I play and I am only passingly familiar with the terms. Please feel free to rewrite. By the way, in another online incarnation, I answer questions at allexperts under the name Pool_Teacher, here.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My additions

Hi, I agree with your tweaks, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and it's better if someone looks at the style I use then augments it accordingly. With regard to the use of colour names to describe pool balls, that's pretty common in the UK, and is perhaps an artefact of our 8-ball game being based on sets of colours, i.e. reds and yellows. I don't have much exposure to American terminology but we do also use the number names, so I'll have a look at all those and make the appropriate changes. Another reason I used the colour names as a base was just to simplify the number of entries, instead of going up to fifteen. To be honest, I just didn't think about the multitude of different billiards games that use the "spots and stripes", so you're definitely right, there should be some all-encompassing definition without the need to specify the ball's role in a particular game.

We do also commonly call games 8-ball pool, 9-ball pool, etc., probably mainly for disambiguation from the actual ball name that is the crux of the game. I was obviously aware that combinations can be played in 9-ball as long as the correct ball is hit first, perhaps those definitions talking about "sequences" should elaborate a little - as I'm sure you will have inferred I meant the sequence during a run of straight pots - it's a bit complicated to talk about all possible routes to the 9-ball.

A message I was going to send you was one on the matter of an appropriate amount of content for a glossary. I deliberately put loads in and was then going to discuss how we might pare the definitions down, and perhaps some of the more wishy-washy entries - it's just better to start with too much.

In a nutshell, there is clearly a considerable linguistic dichotomy between our two landmasses, and it will simply take a bit of time to muddle through it all so that we can get some sort of union on the page. I don't mean to mess up the flow of it, I just wanted to introduce a bit of our terminology and any changes you make to what I enter are fine with me. It's impossible from my perspective to tell what is exclusively UK, there are also many, many terms that are exclusively US but don't mention that because they were written by Americans. It's up to us to let each other know I guess. Cheers, Kris 10:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. We could implement a defining system for those entries which are specific to particular regions—possibly something along the lines of a legend at the top of the article with a note, and each non-universal entry could get a country code in parenthesese ((US), (UK), etc.). Many are already defined as either one or the other--admittedly, more have been classified by me as UK only, but mainly that is an artifact of that I am on the outside looking in; I can easily tell which are not used here but can't know which aren't, although I also changed some which you thought were UK specific to show that they are used here.
The big problem though is that that Canada uses both some US expressions that no Brit would ever, and also some UK expressions that no American would ever. Probably the same for Australia and New Zealand so such a legend could be seen as very biased.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, the way I see it is you're US and I'm UK, so all we can do is start off by establishing which terms are used in our respective countries. There will be an inherent bias in this but that's unavoidable at this stage, short of doing a lot of research (which, in my case, would probably only ever extend to renting out the film "Stickmen", a low-budget Aussie film). If another cue sports nut from Australia or Canada is able to contribute then all the better, they can continue along the lines we started in. Some of the bias could be removed, at least from the point of view of offending non-US/UK players, if some sort of note at the top was introduced explaining this, if that's within Wikipedia etiquette. Kris 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anik Disambig

I've disambiguated most of the links referring to Anik, but how to handle the link to an Iranian national by that name considering that the disambig is currently the main article continues to elude me. I did the best I could with the existing data, but please help to finish the job. Orethrius 05:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Anik_(satellite) should redirect to Anik, the disambig should be moved to Anik_(disambig), and the existing Anik_(satellite) data should be moved up to Anik (in some order) as Anik_(satellite) seems to be the most common usage? Would Anik_(satellite) then need to be deleted? Orethrius 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Dever

Oops, I thought you had removed content. Would you add back your corrections? :) Sorry about that. Both of our corrections should get this GA status! Judgesurreal777 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Yes, I removed nothing but the ugly "It should be noted that" fluff and copyedited the text. Kind of discouraging; yes I know you thought in good faith that I had blanked content, but it would take me almost as long to add the content back in by hand as it was to copyedit it in the first place. You're the main contributor--if you like the changes I made please add them back in.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

we dont care if ken thompson is dead ; his son will inherit. his wealth is always there so please dont delete it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Didimos (talk • contribs) .

Hi Didimos. I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're referring to. On the list of billionnaires article, an anonymous user made multiple edits, each one adding more nonsense to the article. As far as I can tell from studying the article's history, You came along and performed the very valuable service of attempting to revert one instance of that vandalism. However, that did not fix the numerous other places where the vandalism appeared. I then reverted the article back to a prior version where none of the vandalism appears. Since your only contribution was to replace Bill Gates back on the list, in place of Alex Cooper who had been improperly added, I don't know what you are referring to regarding Ken Thompson.--21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why dont u delete ken from the other list also ;the list without picture?

I dont see any reason why it is on the other list if it is delted from " the pictured list"

[edit] Thanks,!

Haha, all right thanks for explaining to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olive Garden Guild (talk • contribs) .

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree-kangaroo

Just checked out your article. It was very good, except for the first paragraph. The sentence was way too long, and contained info which was meant for the family and genus articles. Other than that, great work! --liquidGhoul 00:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about it; it reads much better now. Still just a stub of course and pretty chaotically organized. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your advice

Thanks for you advice over at AfD:Tim O'Dwyer about copyvio pages. I recently found another one (French Affair) and was able to put your advice to work. EVula 19:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. I personally find copyvios offensive and when I do new pages patrolling, notice that many articles by new users with large blocks of unformatted text are cut and paste jobs that a simply google search would reveal. Many editors ignore such posts, only tagging nonsense/empty/bios with speedy tags but don't realize what a constant barrage of plagiarized text we are subject to. A few notes: If you do blank and tag an article with {{copyvio}}, be sure to warn the user with {{nothanks-drm}} (a template I created for this purpose). If, as in in the French Affair, you are able to revert to a prior version, tag the author who added the material's talk page with {{nothanks}} with the article name in a section header. Also, in the interests of informing other editors of where the copyvio came from and which user added it, it's a good idea in the edit summary to state something like "Reverted edits by ____ adding copyvio text, to last by ____; copyvio from http://www.example.com." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harbor Cruises

Whatever gets rid of them is fine with me. Actually, I've been on these cruises in Boston Harbor. Very nice, but I've also taken the cruises on Lake Michigan. Don't want to start listing those companies, too. We're not a directory or the Yellow Pages. Fan-1967 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some editors get antsy when someone else tags an article with a different tag. You're preaching to the choir with us not being a directory or the yellow pages, but boy I wish the majority of editors felt likewise.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It just got speedied and they recreated it. Be my guest. Fan-1967 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha! okay, i'll db-repost it.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to Boston Harbor Cruises Article

I am still formatting this page. I just started it, and it's a work in progress. So sorry for utilizing copywritten information, I was trying to start writing my own text reflecting the company's image. I was getting placemarkers ready because I am new to Wiki-Editing. I hit save page to just "save it"/preview with no intention to publish it yet. It is way to early of a draft. I do work for the company, and thought it would be interesting to write about America's largest ferry operation. It's a work in progress.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattyt2006 (talk • contribs) .

Hey Matty. Why don't you create the article in word, wordperfect or even a wordpad document, or at least, if you must do so here to see the formatting, don't click save until it is definitively not a copyvio? We take copyright violations very seriously here. Please also note that while not absolutely forbidden, it is discouraged for parties with a conflict of interest to create article. See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Thanks for your understanding and your civil note.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nubio username + password

Sure, Fuhghettaboutit. Just send me an e-mail with a password of your choice (make sure it's not used elsewhere :P) and I'll make an account for you. Cheers, Tangotango 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your toolbox

I liked your toolbox so much, I made a template of it! If you think adding anything would be benefical, you're more than welcome. However, now that it's a template, it may effect anyone that's using it.

Just use {{toolbox}} for an easier way of putting in your page. Go here to access it. Somerset219 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Glad you like the toobox. I have moved it to my namespace--similar to the personalized welcome template. While I appreciate that you think it's good for general purposes, there are many areas that are personalized to my interests, edit tools specific to my name (just search the code for "fuhghettaboutit") etc. plus a sprinkling of vanity which in this case I decided to go with since it's not in the articlespace. I'm going to write some notes also about how to modify without messing up the parameters. You can still use {{toolbox}}, as a redirect was created when I moved it.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Much appreciated.--Holdenhurst 12:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. An immediate, signed reply on my talk page shows you're already far more sophisticated than the average newcomer.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there!

Thanks for the welcome message. It's a good thing you're doing and will undoubtedly help ease many folks into the community, providing handy reference and whatnot. Thanks for making it a friendlier place!--Ben iarwain 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Again, any problems as a new editor (or otherwise), do not hesitate.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/h/User_talk%7EFuhghettaboutit_Archive_9_56d7.html"