User talk:Col tom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
[edit] Mammern
If you see a "real place" article tagged as speedy (usually because it's a one liner), by all means remove the notice and put {{expand}} on the talk page. Location articles are slightly above people and things in terms of how much "notability" has to be asserted - if the place exists, it's generally in, and will be expanded in the future. Nice one, Deizio talk 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portal:Australia/Anniversaries
Hello Tom. I have created this new section, which hopefully will become a new daily section on Australia portal. If you think this is useful, you can say so at Portal talk:Australia, or simply start adding notable events to the subpages for the respective days. If it is enacted, then we have code, similar to Portal:Germany, which will change the daily subpage automatically. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Dab redlinks
Whoa! check out WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks. John (Jwy) 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the short first note. It looks you were over-eager with at least Rafael Trujillo (disambiguation) and Ragnarok (disambiguation) and I wanted to make sure you knew about this part of the MOSDAB. . . John (Jwy) 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I hadn't read carefully the section you quoted. I operate under the assumption that a blue link related to the subject is useful, even if it doesn't directly mention the topic. The reason NOT to have them is to make it easier to "eye navigate" to the item you are looking for. I don't think an extra dab (pardon the pun) of blue here or there makes too much difference in that. But I might be too liberal about it. I completely support removing blue links when the dab term is blue!
- My initial alarm was because on the only two articles on my watchlist that you changed, you removed all the bluelinks and I started thinking you were doing it automatically without regard to the MOSDAB redlink paragraph. Then I looked at your home page and contribution list and thought "oh my god, he's got a bot just removing all the bluelinks," so I was bit shorter and ruder in my hurry. I see you are thinking it through - so please resume your good work - and again apologies for being alarmist. And MAYBE consider being a little more liberal in keeping some blue links
- ...oh, and my 13:58 reply above - was actually a clarification of my 13:44 msg, I hadn't seen your message yet. Turns out it worked fine as an answer! John (Jwy) 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- All cool. But your response made me realize that I should have qualified it:
- And MAYBE consider being a little more liberal in keeping some blue links when that dab line's article name is redlinked
- I completely support getting rid of them elsewhere on the page. Cheers John (Jwy) 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- You hit another dab page (Ream) on my watchlist. I usually leave a bluelink with each entry, so I would have left caulk. I was about to say leave a link for borer as well, but I clicked the link. . . Just food for thought, not a demand for action on your part. John (Jwy) 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- All cool. But your response made me realize that I should have qualified it:
-
-
-
-
-
- I didn't feel strongly enough about Ream to change it. Since we are both MOSDABing, I'm mainly bouncing ideas off you about things in general rather than quibbling about individual pages. . . John (Jwy) 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] wikilinks on disambig page per Manual of Style ????
Why do you remove the links? At least in this case [1] it made the info much less useful (too complicated to explain). The reason of Wikipedia is to provide as much useful and exact information as possible, not to dance by the song of the day. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since we just had a similar discussion just above, I thought I'd pipe in: I think the changes made the page more useful as a disambiguation page, while it might have reduced the amount of information. Disambiguation pages are intended to get you to the page you want quickly. As such it provides what information it is necessary to know which link to click and not more. WP:MOSDAB explains things pretty well, I think. John (Jwy) 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. I've copied the above to, and answered on, Pavel's talk page. Colonel Tom 05:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!
|
Hi there Colonel (are you SURE you've never been to Graceland?), and thank you for your supportive comment in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I'll do my best to make good on your trust! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?... |
[edit] Please help on Ancient Egypt
Posted by Pruneau 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team
[edit] Desk holiday
In case you hadn't noticed, Desk holiday has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Red-FM and WP:MOSDAB
Thanks for the info - wasn't aware of WP:MOSDAB. --Ckatz 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- hey, topic heading already here!
- The mindless answer would be "I'm just following orders" in WP:MOSDAB#Piping. But I've read somewhere (and believe) that having the article links un-piped makes it easier to understand what is happening when you deal with the dab page and why you ended up on the page you do. For example [[CKYE-FM|Red-FM]] might be disorienting. The other thing is that the blue (and red) are easier to pick up, and if they include the useful dab information, navigation is quicker. You'll see (India) quicker than India. John (Jwy) 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mining in Australia is the new ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Mining in Australia for Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve the article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MoS
You changed 1981 to 1981, but the latter is specifically warned against elsewhere in the MoS (as an "Easter Egg link"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AID
[edit] Stuart Brisley
Hi, thanks for kind words and getting in touch re. the above. The statement "widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art" is true and he is well known in the field, certainly needing an article. I've added a link to his work in the Tate gallery. The article undersells him, to say the least. He gets over 11,000 google hits and, although this isn't infallible, there are, for example, shows at the ICA and South London Gallery, which assert credibility.
In general re. artists WP:BIO states "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". It then becomes a question of interpreting "widely recognised", which is problematic as most artits are not widely recognised by definition, reputations are often being known only within the field and not outside (Brisley being a case in point). The problem is compounded on Wiki by what appears to be a very small number of people editing articles on contemporary artists. I've started a number of articles on contemporary UK art figures that I thought needed to be covered, and have been amazed that they have largely remained exactly as I've left them.
Another drawback is the cultural difference between writing about art in the wider world and wiki requirements, so , for example, new editors often get clobbered for making statements without verifiable references, e.g. the Brisley ""widely regarded as the godfather of British performance art", which would be taken for granted in art writing, and yet possibly end up as AfD on wiki. The new editor then thinks wiki is an amateur shambles and leaves it. For these reasons, I advocate a certain caution, and think in the first instance that an attempt at patient dialogue with the article's originating/main editor would be beneficial. I have done this with several articles, and something which was a bit shambolic in wiki terms has ended up as a viable article. It wasn't the original editor's fault, just the initial difficulty of mastering a huge amount of wiki requirements.
Also artists don't have fans in the way that bands do, for example, when a fan is likely to start an article. Artists have galleries, collectors and art critics, who are all too busy making money to want to contribute to wiki. It may well be that the only person who contributes about an artist, certainly to begin with, is the artist, which falls foul of VANITY, though it should be noted this in itself is not a reason for deletion, if the subject is sufficiently notable. This brings us back to the original question of how to judge this. What wiki really needs is more people knowledgeable in the field, or editors willing to gain a greater knowledge of it. (I've certainly learnt a lot from through researching for articles.) This needs to be encouraged, and will only happen if there is an intelligent, tolerant and communicative stance from existing editors, certainly not by a knee-jerk and sometimes blatantly ignorant and insulting comments that I have seen in some AfDs on artists, such as "a way that can be replicated by any kid" [2] and "something kindergarden kids do"[3]. Your approach to Stuart Brisley is a good example of proceeding with caution and seeking more research, which should be encouraged.
It would be good also to liaise with WikiProject Visual arts and WikiProject Contemporary Art to contact people with a declared interest in this area.
Tyrenius 14:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] division of Coburg, Victorian Greens
Hi there, I noticed that you removed the redlink to the division of Coburg on the Victorian Greens article because the seat no longer exists. Is not it irrelevant whether the seat still exists or not? It was an historical seat and many historical things no longer in existance in WP have articles about them such as the Third Reich and Ned Kelly.
Things happened in that seat, it was held by various people, votes were recorded. All of these are relevant facts for an encyclopedia. Grumpyyoungman01 00:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "eagerness to quickly delete new articles"
Hello. I saw your headline about "General wiki eagerness to quickly delete new articles" (as you wrote at a user's talk page).
I thought you may want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band), which now have a large body of external evidence (All Music Guide, articles in Mojo, Melody Maker, NME, etc.) and only my vote for "Keep", despite having paged the deleters about my providing the demanded evidence. Regards, -- 62.147.37.227 11:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Andrew Jackson Jihad
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia. Good job! Sharkface217 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Princess Superstar.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Princess Superstar.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of 2004 Australian Greens candidates
The 2004 Australian Greens candidates has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Australian Greens candidates. Thank you. Peter Campbell 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pop Goes the Weasel cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pop Goes the Weasel cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Subliminal JWYTIWO cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Subliminal JWYTIWO cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)