User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] db-userreq

{{db-userreq}} isn't on your userpage for reference! (I cheat and look there for easy quickie CSD tags, lol) I probably should make one of those for myself to put on my cheatsheet, but for some reason I haven't, ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 13:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! Added it and got rid of a redundant template to make room. Glad my huge cheatsheet is useful. Just so you know, it also exists as a template at {{User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox}}--Fuhghettaboutit 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I should put it on my cheatsheet, I just hate to scroll, so I created Top, Top2, and Links2, and transclude them on my cheatsheet. It is a bit disorganized though, and I kinda like yours a bit better. I might nick that from you, because I come here a LOT to check on stuff. Thanks for updating it, hee hee. lol. Ariel♥Gold 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is a ridicuously huge template, I know, so I see the scrolling issue. I'm so used to it though, my mouse automatically goes to links I'm looking for with barely a thought.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking I might make the table wider, and maybe shrink the font, and then maybe it won't scroll at all. Going to play around with it later tonight I think, but I still want to thank you for making it at all, because truly, I use it all the time, and haven't really properly thanked you for what a great resource it is! Ariel♥Gold 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hrmm, I can't find a way to make the table wider, lol. It is already 100%. Strange. It only shows up at about 2/3 the width of the screen for me, aligned to the left. Ariel♥Gold 14:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the template's alignment to center. As for the width, its hardcoded, done with breaks to keep it from stretching across the screen. If you want to change the width, you would have to take out those breaks (<br>s). You would then need to do some reformatting; since the bullets between entries don't appear at the end of lines, you would have to add some and remove others depending on where the text for each lines ended. Not sure how to shrink down the text. Again, glad you like it.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, figured it out, check out my "Ariel Girlie Version" and tell me what you think! I alphabetized all the article cleanup tags, and added some other fun pages like WP:BEANS and WP:TIGER, etc. that I think I got from... hrmm, I think Alison, I'm not sure. It is still big, but not as bit, I put it on my cheatsheet page, we'll see how I like it, lol. The page is already long as all get-out! Ariel♥Gold 15:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Saw this and decided to copy eclectically from the two of you--thanks!.DGG (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay you two, let's get down to brass tacks. I take Visa, Mastercard or American Express. No personal checks!--Fuhghettaboutit 07:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee. How about if DGG and I chip in together and buy you a giant cup of "Thank you Fuhghettaboutit!"? Ariel♥Gold 07:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You would make me very happy if that comes in Glenlivet.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Schickard

No worries. Crimson30 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two tablespoons of G12?

Until I saw this, I had no idea how much article deletion and baking brownies had in common.--Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well not very good brownies; they always supply only half the baking required.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you got a minute to look at something?

If you're around, that is? Ariel♥Gold 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work, and just stopped by to loaf off for a minute and then got embroiled in fixing a vandalism spree. I'd be happy to look at...well you didn't say:-) but I may not have time right now. I will be free in about three hours; can you tell me what it is anyway?--Fuhghettaboutit 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I saw, the issue below, actually lol. It is pretty quick, I ran across this, a standing redirect for three years, that just recently had the redirect removed, and in its place is a very advertisement-toned replacement for an Italian trademark, Rioni. There are several links that go to the page, from "places" articles (previous redirect was to Rioni River). Would it be appropriate to make a disambiguation page, or to simply remove the advertisement, and not have an article on the Italian brand. (Note that I haven't researched to see how notable this Italian brand is). Ariel♥Gold 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me look at it later, three years...what's three more hours. Getting fired is not my plan for the day;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a most wise plan! And yes, this is nothing urgent, by any means, lol. Talk to you tonight! Ariel♥Gold 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the first thing to note is that the current page is an unquestionably a copyright violation of this page, so that has to go. I have looked at the previous versions and none of them assert importance; they are all proper speedy candidates under CSD A7 in my opinion (and possibly G11 as well). All this resolves to the fact that I see nothing wrong with reverting back to the redirect and I am doing so now. Of course, if this company is notable, and a suitable article for it is created, that can simply get a hat note such as {{for|the Georgian river|Rioni River}}, since there doesn't seem to be enough similiarly name articles to make a disambiguation page necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I admit that I didn't bother to check for copyvio, I should have done that, I often run into a great many of those, and I guess just oversight on my part for not checking that one today. And yes, since there are only 2 items, I guess disambig page is pointless, hatnotes work fine. So, all that being said, thanks for taking the time to look at it it for me, and for fixing it. Have a wonderfully spiffy evening! Ariel♥Gold 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Spiffy? How'd you know I was wearing my tux? Wait a sec...oh my god your posts are coming from inside my house...aiyeee.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

~*Giggle*~ Hey if you have another minute, I have a rather... interesting situation I've never come across before... lol. I'd call it an "attack page", but instead of it being towards a person, it is aimed at a place, <removed>, and while I removed the image that was obviously not the area, (editor put a ghost town from Montana picture up there lol) it still is... well, here are some of the phrases in the article: "shoddy storefronts and high vendor-turnover-rate, are inevitably and justifiably stricken by feelings of hopelessness, dread, and foreboding.", and "as if in warning to those foolhardy enough to consider entering the 10th circle of hell, aka: <removed>." So, okay, I know "places" are notable, but this isn't a town or even a village, it is an "intersection", and the article doesn't seem to really have much useful content. What are your thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Simply put, it was an attack page. CSD G10 is not limited to persons but applicable to all pages which appear to be primarily created to disparage the subject, notwithstanding the rather amusing and well written rhetoric you quoted above. Because of the earnest writing (not usually seen on a typical attack page), I left a tailored message for the creator, far less harsh than {{uw-attack}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL Thank you. Yes, that was quite the creative endeavor, to be sure. I figured it was a deletable page, but I wanted to make sure that attacks covered all things, not just people, companies, etc., so thanks so much for taking care of this for me, as well! Ariel♥Gold 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Anytime (I mean that).--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Engineering Law

Hi there, our vandal moved this page from Environmental engineering law which by my understanding of naming conventions is actually the correct article name. I'm not sure if, as a non-admin, I can move it back, and if I can, how. Can you let me know? Thanks. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much!

Thank you for indefinitely blocking Smuschiano215. He seems to have gone completely off his rocker today. He listed my user page for speedy deletion and then he completely messed up the Sour gas article which I had partcipated in quite a bit.

I assume that he did those things because at one time I dared to make some edits of the article he created on Environmental engineering law. I tried explaining to him what he had done wrong on his Talk page as well as the Environmental engineering law Talk page. I also advised him to please study more Wikipedia tutorials and policies to get better acquainted with editing. But to no avail.

Timotab reverted his listing of my user page for speedy deletion and I am going to revert his edits that messed up the Sour gas article. So all will be well again.

However, I did want to express my thanks for your having blocked him. - mbeychok 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure what the impetus was but the vandalism was to about 20 pages all in the course of about 20 minutes. It's a shame because the user did make some good edits early on.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still have problems with Environmental engineering law article

About 10 minutes ago, I reverted Environmental engineering law back to where it stood before User:68.109.226.179 re-instated a number of vandalisms that had been deleted and before the confusion caused by User:Smuschiano re-naming the article which you subsequently reverted.

No sooner than I had finished my reverting the article, anonymous User:72.221.100.24 reverted my reversion. I suspect that User:72.221.100.24 is simply the blocked User:Smuschiano or a friend of his. What can be done about this? I don't want to get involved in a "reversion war". Please help. - mbeychok 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, probably the same person. Another editor already reverted. The thing is, the blocked user did create that article. If he/she is evading the block, as it appears, that's not a good thing, but the edit itself is not vandalism per se (though from an editor's standpoint, it looks like a vanity edit and I would want a very good reliable source). I think just letting it stew for a while is the right course, see if the edittign pattern becomes persistent, and if so, revisit.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] snooze buttons deleted

Kfuzzk 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

hello fuhghettaboutit,

i wanted to ask, why my article about Snooze Buttons was deleted. I do have the rights for the band. Why A7? Is Wikipedia forbidden for bands? Hope, you can help me.

kfuzzk

Kfuzzk 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kfuzzk. Wikipedia has lots of articles on bands and many other things, but all such articles must be on notable topics because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which means it is not many things). Notable here means the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the general notability criteria. There is a specific criteria for bands: Wikipedia:Notability (music), As you can see, it repeats the general criteria and provides various other criteria to look to. The band you wrote about does not appear to meet any of these criteria.
With that background in place, the speedy deletion criteria provide various bases under which articles can be deleted without debate. One of those criteria ("A7") provides that articles about people, bands, companies, etc. can be speedily deleted if they do not assert importance. I saw no assertion of importance in your article. What the band appears to be is a new, unsigned band having a self-released album. That is not a criticism. Every band was unknown and unwritten about at one time. However, that does not mean that your band can have an encyclopedia article. You should also be aware of our general prohibition on people writing articles about themselves and their projects. If a subject is notable, some third party, not having a conflict of interest, should eventually write an article about the subject. You are far too close to the subject to write the article from a neutral point of view (another policy requirement).
All this is to say that I hope you aren't too discouraged by this, but the article does not appear to an appropriate topic for Wikipedia—at least not at this time. If the band gains fame and others write about it in reliable sources, then those sources can be used to write the article. I know I've thrown a lot of links at you, but there's one more you might check out for a better understanding and which speaks to this point. Because an encyclopedia synthesizes already publshed sources (since it is by definition a tertiary source), articles must not be publishers of original thought. Nothing new should ever be announced in an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smuschiano215, who you blockrd indefinitely, is back as 72.221.100.24

You indefinitely blocked Smuschiano215 for reversion warring over Environmental engineering law and for a vandalism spree of other articles.

Smuschiano215 re-appeared as 72.221.100.24 and again started reversion warring over Environmental engineering law. User Scientizzle then blocked 72.221.100.24 for 48 hours. After the 48 hours, 72.221.100.24 has again reverted Environmental engineering law and Scientizzle is on a Wiki break. Would you please indefinitely block 72.221.100 also? Thanks, - mbeychok 15:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected which takes care of the issue. If that ip continues warring elsewhere or after protection is lifted, I will block, but not indefinitely as it appears to be non-static (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Open or anonymous proxies). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack page on Feeli

It wasn't meant to be an attack page, as Feeli is my friend and actually wanted me to make an article about her. We joke about the topics I put in the article a lot; it wasn't serious. I apologize for making a non-sensical aritcle though.. but it was not an attack page. Sorry, and it won't happen again. If you check my contribution history, I have contributed a lot to some articles, especially the levomethamphetamine article. I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not defame it. Again, I apologize. Thanks. -- John Cho 11:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Termination request

Is there a way for me to terminate my account on Wikipedia? I wish for my account terminated for personal reasons. Enoch08 09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user pages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)
Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come out, come out, where ever you are...

Just a comment from the corner (pocket?): You've been missed in the pool articlesphere. I know that the admin stuff has been cool, but WP has over 1000 admins at this point, so if you, eh, randomly happened to want to spend some time on your articular focus I don't think anyone would mind or other-than-positively notice. Vandals will not destroy WP in your absence from the front lines. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It's nice to be missed:-) You're right that I've been less article-writing-productive lately (you know I did post Jimmy Wetch not that long ago, wrote seven ball, added a few sourced paragraphs to Buddy Hall and have continued to source the glossary). It has nothing to do with admin activities; they're just equivalent to my past newpages patrol and other pre-admin, adminlike activities. I go through phases of writing interest and real life has left me less time recently. You realize when I post these fully sourced articles in one edit, that represents many, many hours of work offline (what I wish more people would do instead of writing unsourced stubs). I also find biographies more difficult than game articles and since I pretty much finished rounding out our catologue of major game additions, that slowed me down as well. I have, though, been slowly working on Cowboy Jimmy Moore which should be done in not too long.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually can you give me some input on the name that should be used? Unlike most pool players who have a nichkname, Jimmy Moore was known almost exclusively as "Cowboy Jimmy Moore". Still it's slightly different than say, deciding whether the aricle on Samuel Clemens should be named Mark Twain; here it's not an alter ego or a nom de plume. Do you think the article should be at Cowboy Jimmy Moore, "Cowboy" Jimmy Moore or Jimmy Moore (pool player)?--Fuhghettaboutit 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk

With regards to Wikipedia:Help_desk#Who_is_this_boy.3F: <community approval>well done. "Good on you", as they say.</community approval> :D --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks:-) The smell that was coming off that was all wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rancour

With regards to your deletion of the subject "Rancour - the English heavy metal band"

I wish to dispute the claim that the Rancour wiki was "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

1. Every single posting on our wiki was true 2. Every singlke posting was relevant and about the band 3. The wiki was made because of demand from our fans.


Luke rancour 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

None of your points speak to the bases for deletion. The article asserted no importance whatever. It stated the band exists, when it was formed, who the members are, their influences and a few gigs played. No one disputed this was true or that the information wasn't relevant to this band. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means the subject of articles must be notable, and that word here means the subject of significant treatment in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a blog or social networking site, it is not a forum for soapboxing or advertizing and it is not a place to announce new things. Every local band can write a true article about themselves (in violation of our conflict of interest guidelines). That does not mean they merit an encyclopedia article. If you wish to dispute the deletion, you can take it to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Religion of Kenarchism

I have a question, I made an entry on wikipedia about the religion i follow, and literally seconds later wikipedia deletes my entry. Why did it delete my entry? Did i do something wrong? please explain to me the reasoning behind wikipedias actions, thank you. Stiff.Nipples 12:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I could find no information about this religion whatever. Another user then deleted the entry under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. To exist on Wikipedia, the subject of articles must be significantly written about in reliable sources, per our notability guidelines. As the article stated that there is almost no information about this topic, I do not think it can be the proper subject of a tertiary source, encyclopedia article. I would be willing to restore as it appears I was wrong that it may be a hoax, and for that I apologize. However, as another administraotr deleted the article after me, I suggest you talk to him or her, here.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B5 (band)

Fuhghettaboutit said:
If this was just an error, consider slowing down on tagging. If not an error, please better familiarize yourself with WP:CSD#A7, which requires a mere assertion of importance. While there are articles that fall into a grey area as to whether they have asserted importance, this article is not even close.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. I've had a look back at the article and, for some reason, what Wikipedia displayed as the current revision is actually this old version. God alone knows why. I accept now that there are no grounds for a speedy deletion.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [ Blue Star Camp]]

I am amazed that this article was deleted! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_summer_camps lists about 45 Jewish Summer camps. Do they all need to be deleted? If needed, I can certainly muster someone to expand and develop the article.

John Bob 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They should be deleted if they aren't sufficiently notable, which in Wikipedia means they they have been the subject of significant treatment in independent, reliable sources. Note that the fact that there are existing articles that do not meet our policies for encyclopedia content, maybe in a more extreme way, is not a proper argument for keeping this article (see What about article x?). It is crucial that you understand how policies mesh with the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not some other type of place or thing). You stated in the deletion discussion that "Blue star is one of the older Jewish oriented camps in the region. As such, it is an important part of Jewish culture in the Southeast." That might be a good argument if keeping the article depended on such considerations; it doesn't. What matters is whether a tertiary source entry can be written using reliable, independent sources, because that is what an encyclopedia article must be written from. So by all means, expand and develop articles, but understand that what that should mean is writing/expanding/adding to entries with citation for every fact added to reliable, independent sources. Anything not cited is presumptively improper original research.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FUHGHETTABOUTIT, FORGIVE MY TOTAL IGNORANCE...

FUHGETTABOUTIT, forgive my total ignorance, I have spent approximately an hour looking for the place where I could write to you to thank you for alerting INTO THE FRAY about a message I -incorrectly- sent him/her to the HELP DESK. So, yes, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Although I learned -from you- to properly sign a message. And, although I think I now know where to go to write to INTO THE FRAY, when I went to your USER PAGE, I was not able to find where I could write to you from there, so here I am writing you at the HELP DESK. Obviously I need a lot more than just HELP, perhaps a BRAIN TRANSPLANT, but I know that is not available through WIKIPEDIA'S HELP DESK. Will you be so kind as to -again- alert or forward the last 2 messages I wrote to INTO THE FRAY earlier, like about 2 hours ago??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? It is just past 3AM now and I feel totally WASTED in addition to IGNORANT & STUPID!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, if that is asking too much, I understand, and will try writing to INTO THE FRAY when I have a BRAIN TRANSFUSION, or something that will get my INTELLIGENCE level up... THANKS, THANKS, THANKS... --Labs1950 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Labs1950

I like to think that we do a good job at the help desk, but you're right, brain surgery is not yet on offer. Fortunately, in my absence another user forwarded your messages to me and to Into the Fray:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A particularly heartfelt thanks from yours truly as well. That nonsense posted by Eskimoking888 was just beyond the pale of anything I've seen here. Most attack pages are written by those who can barely write a coherent sentence in English; this individual's poor attempt at wit just made me see red, leading to my extra comment. Keep on keepin' on, O Administrator.  :) Regards, --PMDrive1061 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would likely have given him an indef block after reading that puerile little screed of his and attached the permanent block template for attacks, assuming it still exists. Things have changed around here since my last go-round under the old username. However, three months is a long time. I doubt he'll be back. If he does return, I have a feeling he'll be a bit more contrite. Gotta hold out some hope. Take care. --PMDrive1061 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, I thought something was weird! Proof positive that great minds think alike. Mind well your mop and bucket. You're a credit to the site. --PMDrive1061 05:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think three months oughta do it...most of that ilk don't return anyway.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gogmandley

Just wondering, but did you really mean to block the user for 1 year? I noticed the 1 year option is right above indefinite, so I'm guessing it might have been a mistake. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these vandalism accounts are children. I figure give 'em a year to mature. Do you see a problem with this type of long but not indefinite block?--Fuhghettaboutit 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with that. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam warning tag

Thanks. I didn't know there was a tag for that warning. Michaelbusch 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helpme reply

One of your replies seems like it is cut off.[1] Cheers! Vassyana 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page translation

Thanks very much for all the information you provided on translating an article from a different language version of Wikipedia. You answered almost every concern I had. One minor new issue, though, has now turned up. I'm certain the answer is simple, but how does one generate a reference for a single version (probably soon to be a past version) of an article, as in

Hey again. Let me explain how versions work. Every page has an edit history accessible by clicking on the history tab at the top of the article (in German, "Versionen/Autoren"). Each date listed represents a discrete version of the page at a certain time. Clicking on the times listed takes you to that version. In order to get the hardcode for a prior version or a current version you need only find the URL (the webpage address) of the historical version. So, for example, if I wanted to get today's version of this page, I would click history, then click on the latest time listed, and then get the URL of that page, which is the hardcoded version. If, on the other hand I simply found the url of this page without going through the history function, it wouldn't have the url that contains the version ID.
In order to find the URL listing—well it depends on the browser one is using. Many have them automatically listed in an address bar at the top of the browser. But if that's not available (for instance in Internet Explorer) you can right click, choose properties from the drop down menu, and copy the address that is provided (this can also be done in IE by clicking on the file tab in the browser menu and choosing properties). So if you wanted to find find today's hardcoded address for de:Henry Nash Smith it would be http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Nash_Smith&oldid=25298203 as opposed to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Nash_Smith, which just takes you to the current version no matter when you click the link. You can see the difference in the URL: the time coded version has an "oldid=number." So for that template, just find the URL of the version of the article you are translating, copy the number listed in the url after "oldid=" and place that in the template.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a really remarkably thorough and useful answer! I had no trouble at all generating the needed reference. I'm extremely grateful for your time spent educating me. Tim Ross 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for Twinkle

The Working Man's Barnstar
For helping to ensure that Twinkle notices on CSD are specific and all the work inherent in implementing that. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD for CSD-DB-Notice

I have closed the TfD as "suspended," but intend to delete the template when it is rendered obsolete by these new customized templates and their addition to Twinkle. Please inform me when this occurs so I may delete the template. Also, if I could kindly ask you to reply on my talk page, I prefer to keep my watchlist very short. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rye House Stadium Question

Thanks for the help .It worked. Northmetpit 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helpdesk Username

Thanks for the heads up. Given the nature of the enquiry by the editor at the Helpdesk and your useful insight I think I'm going to block based on WP:U —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balkline

As I read some lists of those who became UMB world champions in some disciplines, it shows in them that the game of balkline is being called "cadre." I assume that one of the previous edits in the carom billiards article is correct. FoxLad 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Foxlad. How's everything? It may very well be correct that it is used in Europe or parts of Europe as a synonym for balkline, but a quick bit of research hasn't provided me a reliable source stating this is so. Shamos (The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards) says that it is French, literally means "square", and refers to a balkspace (balk space), meaning one of the eight quadrilateral spaces of the table that are subject to count restrictions. I will look further or if you find a good source, tell me. Meanwhile, every single fact in the article is sourced, so adding that fact without sourcing doesnlt work. I will, of course, ask a few players who play in Europe the next time I am in Carom Cafe for confirmation. Michael Kang will surely know. Oh, and thanks for all the edits and photograph uploads for pool and billiard articles! Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Atlee Yarrow

I was making a sweep through the unsorted and uncertain catagories for AfD's, and didn't realize you were in the middle of posting that one. That's what I get for not checking the timestamp. Sorry! ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, not my day, is it? Funny how these things go. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The last edit conflict was just the Wikipedia gods playing a joke on both of us.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Cua article

Thanks so much for your help with the infoboxes and defaultsort. I always wondered to what the latter term referred. Now, I know. Keep on with your elucidations for the WP community! --Wordy1 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Non-free use rationale

Thanks for explaining what other templates I could also use.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End Oil Aid

Hi, I was new page patrolling and noticed the G12 tag on the page. I also noticed the creative commons tag on the source page. As I was trying to decide what to do you declined the G12. I am somewhat ignorant on the various copy-left liscences. Would I be correct in concluding that any source page that has the Creative Commons logo is compatiable with our GFDL? I had the vague impression that there were different creative commons liscences and that some were compatiable anf that some were not. Thanks for your help. Dsmdgold 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was an expert and give you a definitive answer but alas.... It may very well be that the creative commons license is not fully GFDL compliant (this indicates it wasn't at one time but was moving closer). I think the right thing to do is mark that page as a possible copyright problem and send it to WP:CP for some experts to look at. I always attempt to err at CAT:CSD patrol on the side of not deleting when something is on the bubble. I'm going to do so now. Maybe we'll both learn what to do in the future by seeing what is done!--Fuhghettaboutit 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I apreciate your policy of trying to err on the side of not deleting. Dsmdgold 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be watching too. There's always something new to learn, it seems, and I learned what the Creative Commons logo looks like which is a good start, but it will be interesting to see what the experts say too --Slp1 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I was actually startled to find those tags. I don't know how many copyvios I have tagged before becoming an admin, and deleted thereafter, but it's a lot, and this is the first time anything like this has come up; every single non-government site has been copyrighted. It must be pretty rare.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making me feeling a bit less foolish! I agree it seems to be pretty rare, but then, I haven't been looking for that kind of permission-giving in the past Slp1 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Making people feel less foolish via my own ignorance is always a pleasure! I would just note that since there's always a possibility that a page tagged as a copyvio is GFDL compliant, I think it's prudent to always check.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

Didn't know what to do about the double sections. So I tried them both out and they both seemed to work. The directions say to post the RfC at the bottom so I removed the one in the middle. Sorry if I screwed something up. Mattisse 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meg Campbell (poet)

Hi Fuhgettaboutit. I ran across the article while patrolling new pages. It appears there were five edits between the time I posted the speedy A7 and the time you reviewed the article. If you look at the original version (the one immediately prior to the speedy A7), there were no references listed, nor were any of the "six books" listed. Anyone can create an article about a person stating that the person published any number of books. However, if the user doesn't cite sources or list major works, the user hasn't established notability. The books and citations were added later. While I understand that new articles are normally works-in-progress, notability should be clear from the outset.

Lastly, I must admit my judgment may have been slightly affected. I had just recently finished creating José Puyet, where I had to translate all the sources from Spanish (and listed them in the first pass). Thus, I may not have been as tolerant of a no-citation article as perhaps I could have been. Thanks for the critique. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Username Reporting

got it, but:

[edit] Notice of request for deletion of editor Fuhghettaboutit :)

Fuhghettaboutit, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#Fuhghettaboutit and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). -Goodshoped 04:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll close your editor deletion debate. -Goodshoped 04:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm reopening. I thought it was a mistaken post to me userpage, which has happended many times before.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought you took that as if I vandalized your userpage, which I didn't! Anyway, I'm reopening. :) Cheers, -Goodshoped 04:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for tip on CSD G4

Thanks for the tip on G4. I was using popups and the short description was all I was going by. I'm usually vandal patrol but I got bored with that so I though I would get new page patrolling a stab for a while. :-) --ZacBowlingtalk 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Yozons

The page on "Yozons" mirrored the content on the company ARX, but was updated to include accurate, factual information about Yozons. You rejected it because you said it was "blatant advertising" but this is clearly not the case as it did not use superlatives, customer references, pricing or any other information. It stated facts about the company and should be included just like ARX is included. If there is a quibble with some particular wording, that is fine, but it was a work in progress and can be changed. Plans to included patents and other facts were to be forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozons (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy vs. AfD

Hi, point taken on claim of notability vs. established notability. No, I didn't notice the already declined speedy, my fault :) --Raistlin (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone's been harassing me...

...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G4

I not not know that. I have tagged other pages in the past the same way and they have always been deleted. But, having reread the criteria I see you are correct. Thanks for the info. KnightLago (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know those. I tagged it recreation and then realized the article title's spelling had changed so I just wanted to make a note of the copy-vio to be sure that it was deleted. Thanks again. KnightLago (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No , in category dates

I have removed the , between month and year in [2] and other edits. They give category redlinks. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually saw those fixes and updated my cheat sheet where I keep all kinds of codes like this I don't want to type by hand. Actually, right before you made those fixes, Smackbot came along and capitalized the templates. I don't think that matters as to these template or their categories' functionality, but I made that change too; no reason to have a bot making addiitonal edits, whether necessary or not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

[edit] User:TheBlazikenMaster

Note that the user login wikt:User:TheBlazikenMaster is not blocked, and there is no issue with the user account. The edit warring by an (unknown to us) IP-anon was. I could unblock the IP, but what's the point? It is blocked anon-only, and TheBlazikenMaster is free to log in. (FYI: no reply required ;-) Robert Ullmann (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Giant Buddhas.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Giant Buddhas.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I've replied on the talk page thread. Just a note to let you know in case you did not see it. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 01:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me get a response...

Hello. I am in the middle of some sort of attrition with User:Betacommand, which began with the tagging of multiple images that I had uploaded, which were then tagged as orphans. The comments were duplicated on my talk page. While this is a known issue, and the problem is allegedly being taken care of (so say other people, but not User:Betacommand), my concerns in the form of comments to the talk page are not being addressed, but are being summarily removed. Even comments made in reply to my first comment have been removed. They are also being undone as vandalism. My cheif concern is that the BetacommandBot has clearly malfunctioned. If it is functioning normally, then the comments placed on my talk page should be removed, otherwise, it is still malfunctioning. However, my concerns about this have not once been addressed by User:Betacommand. This is very upsetting to me, as I feel that my concerns should be addressed rather than deleted. I appeal to your objectivity. Please help me find a solution. The € • T/C 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi €. My ultimate conclusion, after studying the whole situation and writing all of the text below while I was figuring it out, is that Betacommand should have been more diplomatic, and could have deescalated instead of reverted your posts marking them as vandalism when they weren't clearly so, but you gave him a lot of justification to be aggravated wih you; it's something of a wash. See below for the details.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot, which is a very useful bot, normally performing tasks that are necessary and would be incredibly tedious and require many man hours to do in its absence, had or has a serious malfunction (in fact, of you look up two posts, that is a tag placed incorrectly by it!), that has affected many users and generated many posts. See, for example, here and here, where the bot was blocked. Betacommand also gets a lot of complaints from users for his bots proper tagging. and there was recently a dustup regarding what the bot should and should not be doing under the fair use policy (see here). Unsurprisingly, the user who operates bettacommandbot, betacommand, has been fielding numerous complaints about it, and many more in the past week.

Okay with that summary in place. Your first post was to the bot's talk page on November 27, where you asked for the bot to stop tagging euro coin images [3]. Betacommand responded that they must comply with our fair use policy (I agree, though there appears to be some dispute among users over what needs to be done to comply with policy and how bureaucratic we are going to be with fair use policy enforcement; that's beyond our scope here). I'm not sure that discussion, which went no further, figures in this mess at all.

On November 30 you posted to the bot talk page asking that it tag less verbosely; I understand where you were coming from but at the end of that post you were quite definitely gratuitously antagonistic when you wrote: "No wonder this robot is still BETA" [4].

Your first post to Betacommand's talk page on December 1 was quite over the top. You stated: "If this bot does not revert it's [sic] own edit to my talk page as vandalism within 48 hours, I will pursue a block" [5]. The bot was not committing vandalism by posting generic notices to your page informing you of its tagging, even if you found it annoying and even if the underlying reason it was placing the notices was the result of a malfunction. The bot would need to be reprogrammed to do a revert, and you were apparently making apoint, as simply removing the notices is far too easy for you to have needed the bot's help. By the way, are you aware of the templates {{nobots}} and the various versions of {{bots|deny}}? I digress.

Betacommand's response to that was far from ideal: rolling back your edit (usually used for vandalism only) and then reverting it while identifying it expressly as vandalism in the edit summary. And then, of course, matters escalated. So there is no black and white here. Your post disparaging the bot wholesale was quite insulting to its creator. Your ultimatum-block post was little better. But Betacommand reacted in a manner sure to escalate rather than quell tensions. Nobody is in the right here. I will inform Betacommand of this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the time you have taken to help me see this situation from outside the box. While my initial post was, admittedly antagonistic, I'm satisfied that you thought that the response was not warranted. After a few glasses of wine and a nice, relaxing evening away from the situation, it has, quite perplexedly, become less of an issue than I thought it was. I'm pretty sure I was just anxious to point out a flaw in the bot, since I have received nearly 100 posts to my talk page about images that I have uploaded, each asking for more information than the last, so I was all too eager to point out and ultimately exploit a flaw. That was probably not the best reaction. Thank you for putting this into perspective and for your objectivity in this matter. Kindest regards... The € • T/C 05:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
PS- I was not aware of the templates you mentioned- nor the fact that the bot was already blocked. Thank you for that. The € • T/C 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. P.S. Please note a 'two edged sword' issue. If you direct bots to not post to your talk page regarding issues, and they properly tag an image as having a problem and it gets deleted, you will in a very poor position to protest that you never received a warning prior to deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have the same problem as above

What the heck is going on with that bettacomand bot rubbish? Why cant I post on bettacomand's talk page? I would particularly like to repeat what the above user stated "This is very upsetting to me, as I feel that my concerns should be addressed rather than deleted" --Trounce 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trounce. Your first post was regarding the bot's malfunction. It never got responded to and Betacommand did not revert but archived the whole page. Sure, it would be better if he had responded, but he was receiving a lot of posts. We can't say why he didn't respond then. His next two removals, however, contained messages in the edit summary directing you to the bot's talk page ([6]&[7]). Certainly this was not a transparent way of informing you—much better to say something along the lines of "the bot is malfunctioning; I am well aware of the issue and am working on it"—but at least he responded in some way and directed you somewhere. By your next post regarding your "dissappearing posts", I think he should have been aware that the edit summary manner of informing you, was not. I can almost feel his frustration level however; trying to fix the bot while multiple users were clamoring for his attention or discussing the bot in multiple fora. I think, under the circumstances, you should just let this drop. Of course, just as above, I will inform Betacommand about this discussion's existence.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I do understand he may have been inundated with queries etc. and I do appreciate that Betacommand might have been a bit overwhelmed by it all but how am I suppose to know that unless he communicates clearly with me. After some time I was able to find out there was a bot issue.But for me, a not particularly "Wiki-savy" user, communicating through the Edit summaries seems the most obtuse way to reply to a post on a Talk page and definitely a hindrance to clear communication.
On bettacomand bot's page it clearly states :
Issues with this bot
If you have a comment or suggestion please feel free to leave it on User talk:Betacommand.
So I did. When the posts on his talk page didn't appear, I thought it was due to an error on my part, being not particularly "Wiki-savy".Not in a million years would I have checked the Edit summaries on the Talk page's history to see Bettacomand's reply to my questions. If he simply replied on the talk page with some kind of reply like you suggested all would be fine.
What really irked me was the threat which betacommand posted on my talk page that claimed I was in an edit war with him and that there would be consequences if I persisted. That really set my blood boiling... his bot makes a mistake, I try to query that mistake and then he threatens me.Classy! I think thats where betacommand crossed the line from being a user under siege to a user causing offense by making warranted threats.
Thanks for helping me with this issue, I do appreciate it. I think user betacomand needs to take some communication lessons.--Trounce 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. The thing is for matters like this there is not solution,; no ribbon to wrap things up. Let's both go improve the encyclopedia in some manner and put this behind us:-) --Fuhghettaboutit 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the friendly welcome you left on my talk page :) --Monorail Cat 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Feel free to drop by for any reason, or if you have any question or problem I might be able to help with.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Million Thanks

You have just earned my forever gratitude. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means it worked .--Fuhghettaboutit 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's to wrapping things up...

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For devoting your time and being objective and un-biased and for providing helpful and, in the end, problem solving advise to a hot-under-the-collar editor in his time of need. We're all better off because of your help.The € • T/C 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help issues

Fuhghettaboutit: I'm not sure if this is how you communicate in Wikipedia, but if you read this, thanks many tons for posting my article and improving its format. I had no clue on how to post the article, or where to find editorial assistance and technical guidance.

I have several issues on which I need help. 1. I'm obviously doing something basically wrong with footnotes. I added several paragraphs and saved them. The paragraphs came out okay, but the nice formatting of citations in the reference sections is now all jumbled up again. How do I get the references to come back out in numeric order like your editing did. 2. I need to get into the first paragraph to do some edits and to complete the first citation [which will used the first two sources from the first footnote in the second paragraph, which I will then edit down to use op. cit. Unfortunately, I don't see an edit button for the first paragraph. How do I access it? 3. I saw a request that I sign my notes. Where do I do that, and how do I do that? WDB35—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdb35 (talk • contribs)

Replied on talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fuhghettaboutit: Many thanks, again, and perhaps this is the right place to respond -- I'm still trying to get the hang of the Wikipedia structure. Your reformatting of the references was great. I made an editorial pass through the document this morning, correcting several items, completing the citation for the quotation in the first paragraph, and doing some minor edits. I've also saved to a word document, per your wise advice -- I gather that losing wikipedia text is an occupational hazard. Now I can turn to completing the descriptions of the various courts and writing the last two or three paragraphs of the article. By the way, do you ever sleep?—Preceding unsigned comment added by WDB35 (talk • contribs)
Replied on talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your explanation...

...regarding the strikeouts on the Time Magazine discussion page.
--Nbahn (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (talk) in sigs

I guess I'm asking you because you participated the topic in (Talk) on your talk page.

Do you have any idea how I find out what the "thing" is that was changed so I can change it on my own Mediawiki powered wikis? I've run myself ragged on Mediawiki and obviously not searched for the right thing.

If you prefer to answer there since this is not a WP topic That's cool, though you will need a login. The thread there is hereFiddle Faddle (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fiddle Faddle. I'd be happy to help but if you read that thread you'll see that I was the one who was technically challenged and asking the programming gurus what they meant. In short, I haven't a clue. However, I think your best bet is to post a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/computing. The reference desk is for questions about all manner of things and don't need to be related to Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
See, I was right to ask you. You aimed me at what may well be the right place :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
And...you already got a reply there. Hope it works out.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

Dear Fuhgettaboutit, wherever you are -- Many thanks for your assistance in helping me get the paper completed and posted. I wrapped it up this morning, and wouldn't have gotten it done without your expert and patient advice. There's a lot of things to learn and remember in handling the wiki technology, and I'm a real duffer at that sort of thing. The paper was a law school class requirement, and the requirement has now been met. wdb35—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdb35 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thank s for the help!! Cheers!! Ninetywazup? ( r t ) sign here! 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the tip!

Thanks for taking the time to educate a newbie.

Userafw (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Shir-El too...

Regarding the infobox request at [8], I see Fuhghettaboutit has changed to using {{Infobox Artist}} here. See that link for the documentation. And see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes for many but not all infoboxes ({{Infobox Artist}} appears to be missing there). There is no infobox specific to painters. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I rejected Infobox Artist after a trial because it actively suppressed too much relevant data. From a quick look (i.e. Turner) it seems Infobox Person is also acceptable. I'll be working on this article for several days yet in case anything new crops up. Thank you again, Shir-El too (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fire Kings

Hi! it has been recreated for round two! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript --- I always clear the cache.... I just had to remove the data, and put it back in.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 13:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your suggestions on use of {{Ref harvard}} in combination with {{Note label}}

Seems promising: I'll check it out. Many thanks for your help. --Marc Goossens (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)