User talk:Chris Ducat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there, Chris! Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, LUDRAMAN | T 19:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your note on the new user log. Glad to have you here. If you want ideas for what to write on, you can always check out Wikipedia:Requested articles. There's a big collection of ideas there.

By the way, I'm merging your info from Munfordville into Munfordville, Kentucky. Yes, amazingly, we did have an article on it already, thanks to a 'bot that automatically generated a ton of articles on US towns from US census data a couple years ago. There's no real user-entered information there yet, so yours will be the first. Isomorphic 04:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] sig

Hey, how's it going - actually, I just found out about that a few weeks ago... I found the info on some random metawiki site, but anyway, here's how it works. First, you change your sig in your preferences. The sig I have is Spangineer]] [[User talk:Spangineer|∞. The software fills in the rest... so you just have to type in your user name, and then the link to your talk page, and the symbol you want. You can play around with it too - add symbols between your user page and your talk page, for example. Let me know if you have more questions, and have a good one! Spangineer ∞ 01:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] number of contributions

There's really no way to easily check the number of edits. The way I do it and the way I've seen people do it is to change the link for contributions. For example, when I click "my contributions," the link I go to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Spangineer. To see my edits at 500 per page, the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Spangineer&limit=500&offset=0 . But to see if I have made 1000 edits, for example, I change that link to reflect an offset of 900 and a limit of 100 - that is, I want the offset and the limit to add up to 1000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Spangineer&limit=100&offset=900) If there is a "next page" link at the top of that list, then I know that I have made over 1000 edits. So then I go in and change the offset to 125 or something and keep changing it until I find the number where I don't have a "next page" link. Sorry if that's a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that that is the only way to calculate it... I remember seeing an explanation somewhere, but of course I don't remember where. --Spangineer ∞ 04:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I found something while looking over the village pump - it's an easy to use edit counter. Enjoy! --Spangineer ∞ 03:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

In all seriousness, I understand the point you were attempting to make (and please see my response). However, I would encourage you to direct your efforts towards improving Wikipedia, and not create further work for others. The goals of Wikipedia are positive, and thus are best served by positive efforts. Mackensen (talk) 05:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are four mechanisms for detecting vandalism on Wikipedia, that I am aware of:
  1. Recent changes patrol consists of many users, including some anons, who take a break from their normal activities by looking at the Special:Recent changes page. There isn't an organised roster, and not enough people do this, so not every edit gets scrutinised. If an edit is made by a logged in user, it is less likely to be checked, and more so if the user has something on their user page (so their name doesn't appear as a red link). If a user makes a doubtful edit which isn't obviously vandalism, then I check the user history; if they've made lots of good efforts in the past, then I'll let the edit go. I have been known to revert perfectly good edits (as it turned out) because I didn't understand them, and I've apologised to the user when appropriate. Your edit to carrot got past either because it wasn't checked or the checker decided you seemed genuine.
  2. Most vandals go on to edit more pages, and the chances of being picked up by RC patrol increases with each edit. When vandalism is picked up, it's standard practice to check other recent edits for vandalism. I've noticed that some people start with very subtle vandalism, then get more blatent. I've reverted even seemingly innocuous edits when they've been closely followed by blatent vandalism by the same user or ip. Since you only made the one bad edit, this mechanism didn't apply to you.
  3. Some proportion of articles, possibly most of them, are on someone's watchlist, and that someone probably knows a fair bit about that subject (not always, I have pages on my watchlist solely because I saw someone vandalise them in RC patrol, saw that they've been vandalised before, and so watch them in case of any recurrence). It's possible that no one is watching Carrot, but it's also quite likely that they were asleep or on holiday (especially at this time of year in the Southern hemisphere) when you made your edit. If you'd waited 24 hours, maybe they'd have checked their watchlist.
  4. Finally, other people will eventually read the article, possibly in the process of editing it. I've very rarely come across month-old vandalism because I'm adding a category to an article. I note that someone did exactly that after your edit, but they either didn't read the article in detail or didn't realise that your edit was false. I see that Evil Monkey has edited it since, possibly because of your post on Village pump, but possibly because he's active on New Zealand topics. He's a sensible user; the chances are good that he'd have noticed your edit. Indeed, his edit is correcting false information added earlier to the article, probably not with bad intentions but by someone who didn't express themselves well.
Wikipedia gets a couple of dozen edits a minute, and less than 10 percent are destructive edits. Almost all of these are easy to detect vandalism/user tests. I think it's most unlikely that we have many users who have gone to the trouble of building up a decent edit history and then used that credibility to slip a false fact in. There are greater problems with POV pushers and people who don't understand the subject they're writing about.
I hope this puts things in better perspective, and maybe even inspires you to do some RC patrol yourself.-gadfium 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grey Yoghurt

I suggest that you modify your request on both WP:RM and mirror of the words on Talk:Yoghurt to include a mention of how the "Primary Author" spelt it. I think you will summon more +ve interest from WP:RM readers.

See Talk:Grey#Requested Move: (There and back again...) for the type of wording I mean. BTW I had written the article I would have spelt it Yoghurt, but I pronounce it Yoghurt just as I do not use a hard C when saying "schedule" but do when saying "school". Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Chris Ducat - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ddrmax2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ddrmax2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of webcomics

We do not list deleted articles here, so you should remove the links to deleted articles that you have added. If those deleted articles are recreated, then you can add the link back. As it is, links to deleted and/or nonexistant articles make the list less useful. -- Dragonfiend 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyanide and Happiness

I think I could support a Cyanide and Happiness article, but before I unprotect it, it will have to go through deletion review. If that doesn't happen, another admin will just come along and delete it as recreated material (frequently abbreviated CSD G4 in edit summaries). If you do bring it to deletion review, I suggest working on the Comixpedia version at Comixpedia:Cyanide and Happiness. That version is a good start, and if you present a solid example of an article, it has a much greater chance of being revived. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree you could mostly likely make better article than me. But the Comixpedia version is a good start. It would crazy not to say that Cyanide and Happiness isnt notable, so try to convince them not to bias against it,again. When your done or whatever show me what you have and i'll see if i can help.--Nimrod1234 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the new Cyanide and Happiness article. You added the fact that it was removed from TopWebComics because of allegations of fraud. It would be much appreciated if you could find a Reliable Source for this, as it would add substantial notability to the article, which is especially important given it's AfD debate. Thanks! --TexasDex 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogurt move

I wonder if you would consider striking out the reason you gave for moving yoghurt to yogurt, and putting a different one in place. The fact that "yogurt" is more common is not a valid reason to move the page, and it puts off the voters who are aware of that fact. If you changed it to something like the following, people would be less likely to vote against the move in my opinion:

The article was improperly moved from its original spelling, "yogurt", to "yoghurt". The manual of style states that in the absence of specific reasons to prefer one dialect, the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor should be used. The first version used "yogurt".

--Yath 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops - I was looking at the old move from May. Ok, I've left this message at Koavf's page... please disregard... have a nice day --Yath 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gerber

Hey there, I noticed that you created the article for Michael Gerber. I've moved the article to be at Michael Gerber (fiction) because of the confusion with a prominent nonfiction writer also named Michael Gerber, and I created Michael Gerber (nonfiction) to lead people to the other writer by that name. "Michael Gerber" now leads to the disambiguation page. I've moved all the "what links here" links to the appropriate Barry Trotter creator where necessary. Just thought you should know! Cheers, Keeper | 76 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)