User:Rklawton/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorted by topic:


Contents

[edit] Welcome from Ravedave

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions (the lizard images are great!). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles or images you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome. -Ravedave 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

[edit] Parameter

Re: Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter?
Hello there. You have proposed the article Hanson Field for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's really cool! I had no clue (a common state). I'll see what I can do about implementing your suggestion. Rklawton 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNOW

Hi,

Just so you know, being prodded does not mean we "assumes there's something to fix." A page can be prodded if one assumes the deletion would go virtually uncontested. This gives five days for improvement without clogging AfD. AfD also gives five days for improvement, but cost the added effort of a debate. You shouldn't AfD items unless you believe there is something to debate about whether or not they are deletable. Prod is for likely deletable stuff that happens not to fall under a CSD. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is nothing to contest, then it should have been speedied. Neologisms are not fixable. If you want to end a needless debate, you may speedy the article yourself. Rklawton 05:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Neologisms do not fit under any CSD. Any speedy would be plainly out of process. Xoloz 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, the reason they do not is that there is always a question of fact as to whether the matter is neologistic, or simply jargon. That question fact can be resolved in silence, by waiting (through Prod); or through debate with waiting (AfD). Xoloz 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the speedy template I used permits the editor to fill in the blank - so common sense speedies must indeed be allowed. Neologisms are never permitted in Wikipedia, so it makes perfect sense to speedy the article. Even if it's jargon or slang or whatever you want to call it, if an index of a few billion web pages fails to turn up any instance of the word, then it simply doesn't exist. Above all, use common sense. There is no hope for this article, it isn't worth the wasted AfD time, but you want to hold out for what? Speedy the article and get it over with or be responsible for wasting people's time. Use some common sense for Pete's sake. Rklawton 05:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL, Mr. Lawton. I hold out for the very good reason that world is not entirely made by Google and the internet, and evidence for the term may exist elsewhere. It is unlikely, but it is possible; and being thorough and judicious in every case is best practice, supported by policy, and good common sense. There is a reason the CSDs are narrow. Meanwhile, getting sufficiently riled over this article to lose patience with an admin is not common sense, in my view. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that asking an admin to use common sense demonstrates lack of patience? That's a rather hard connection to make. It's also interesting to note that you actually agree that this word likely does not exist. We use speedies to rid Wikipedia of crap, and in all my time reviewing neologisms, this is the first one that has turned up zero hits outside of Google. Given this word's political taint, the likelihood of it not appearing on at least one political blog is remote. You certainly aren't going to find it in some musty old text in a dusty old library. If CSDs are as narrow as you say, then "db|because" would not exist. A clearer case for deletion would be hard to make. Rklawton 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Busy wiki-day, so I only have time to correct the most glaring of your several misapprehensions: "db|because" exists for those editors who, quite understandably, would rather not memorize the CSDs, and would simply like to write free-hand their rationale. It is not, as you seem to suggest, an invitation to extend CSDs willy-nilly. And, while I'm here, I'm suggesting that you assume good faith, realize that I use my common sense (which, it appears, is not equivalent to yours), and avoid the accusatory tone of your previous post : "Speedy the article and get it over with or be responsible for wasting people's time. Use some common sense for Pete's sake." Best wishes, Xoloz 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's one interpretation of "because" but not the only one. If you review the RfD page, you'll see it's 100% delete. It was a no brainer from the start - and that's where common sense kicks in. Rklawton 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I already knew deletion was very likely; however, my common sense builds in fail-safes to prevent unintended mistakes, fail-safes echoed in wiki-process: among these are the five-day window. It is unfortunate for all that you seem incapable of grasping the wisdom in these, but those who do understand will always be around to forestall overly hasty choices. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
An occasional apology is a small price to pay in exchange for both efficiency and effectiveness. As it stands, we've got an article online that's a discredit to Wikipedia. We have volunteers performing redundant reviews. And we have you to thank for it. Rklawton 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that under WP:SNOW, I was quite correct in my thinking above. Rklawton 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps n Categories

Where do I go to find/edit those really nice geographic maps? You know, the ones of the world or of a country where the appropriate state/region is colored red? I'd like to add one to an article I started on the Ryazan Oblast.

Could you take a look at the chain of categories for Ryazan? I think I screwed the pooch on this one trying to figure out how categories work. The political divisions work like this: Russia->Ryazan Oblast->Ryazan. (Country, State, City). However, that's just the polical side. To specify political divisions, I think political categories might go something like this: Russia->Oblasts in Russia->Ryazan Oblast->Cities in Ryazan Oblast. In this case, Ryazan Oblast would include two items: 1) an article about the oblast, and 2) category for the oblast. Have I got this right? In this way, the Ryazan Oblast category would list subcategories like "Cities in..." as well as "Industries in...", "Ethnic groups in...", etc. Am I catching on?

Robert, FYI the best way to ask questions is on my message page so I get the "you have a message" banner. I took the liberty of splitting this into a new section too for clarity. Also dont forget to sign your name with the four tildes so it puts in the date.
Ok maps. Maps can be a pain in the ass. Anything that is a work of the US government is free to use so the CIA factbook is one place to start. Its sort of a crapshoot when it comes to other countries. Poke around in the russia articles, if you find one with the right liscence you should be able to edit it and fill in the area you need. Good luck on that one.
Categories can be a pain in the ass. They are sort of confusing when you are making them becuase you can put text at the top but the bottom part is automatic etc. I think you might be overcomplicating the categories thing. I didn't quite follow you. I woldnt make too specific of a category unless there are a couple of articles. So go ahead and leave all the artlces about cities, stuff in cities in the Ryazan oblast in the ryazan oblast category. Also when categorizing as articles that is are same name as the category do it as such: Category:blah|* so that the article shows up at the top of the category. -Ravedave 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh and I forgot. The article looks like it is categoried correctly as of now... -Ravedave 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
...and I forgot again. If you want to get rid of the little table ofcontents box at the top of short pages such as Ryazan & your talk page use __NOTOC__ -Ravedave 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pavlov's dog picture

Hi, I replied to you on my talk page. /skagedal[talk] 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

External links often make excellent additional resources and references. When clicked on, however, the user receives no notice that they are leaving Wikipedia. While I am opposed to any notice system that requires even one additional user-click, I strongly favor opening external links in a new browser window (or tab).

There are approximately two schools of though on that subject, and I'm of the other one. I don't want new windows/tabs opened for me as I'm quite capable of opening them myself when needed. Anyway, external links do warn the user even before the click; there's the "external link icon" like this: http://dropzone.com. Skydiver 09:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I've delisted User:Franklinpierce1, but please feel free to readd if vandalism reoccurs. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And No, you won't have to wait 3 more times. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filenames

My 2c: How would you search for pictures of anything if all pictures were named like 12335.jpg? Also people with the same camera would run into overlapping file name issues, Ex: my cannon s500 uses names like "IMG_1721.JPG" and so does everyone elses. Your use case and wikipedias use cases are not the same. Relinking files should not be a big deal, assuming it gets done correctly. -Ravedave 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My filing system renames photos as I download them, so that's not much of an issue for me. However, I can see how it would be an issue for others. I'm not sure I understand your point about searching, though. I search by file number at home. I don't think the wiki software pays any attention to file names on searches, but I could be wrong about that. I think the wiki software searches only associated text. Rklawton 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Image search for "Iguana" notice how only the file name is shown. By default Wikimedia commons looks at files names as well. -Ravedave 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I looked, but I also saw summary information immediately under the file name. I'm still open minded about this, though. My workaround would be to add the "real" file name in the image's talk page for my own reference. I tested the search, and you are right, both summary and file names are searched. Rklawton 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given this additional consideration. The workaround for me is to add the original file name to the image's talk page. Given the number of images I post in any given week, that's not too inconvenient. The other disadvantages I listed don't seem to be too big a deal - and the search engine really does use file names. Therefore, I've changed my position and fully support (and will use) descriptive file names as recommended. Rklawton 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template substitution by MarkSweep

Because this is being done by many people (it's a process know as subst'ing, if you don't know) in preparation for the removal of userboxes from Template: space Cynical 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply to categories, too? 'Cause MarkSweep deleted a category from my user page, too. Rklawton 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, POV-related user categories are frowned upon for the same reason as templates - they allow 'vote stuffing' in discussions (e.g. if a Freemasonry-related article comes up for deletion, a user could look up a list of all the users in [[Category:Freemason Wikipedians]] and email them all asking them to vote in the deletion discussion (resulting in a flood of people simply voting 'Keep' without actually considering the merits of the article or offering any reasons for keeping it Cynical 15:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Main Stream Media is currently debating whether or not to publish reporter's/editors affiliations (other than just stock ownership) in order to maintain transparency in reporting. In short, consumers should know who is providing the spin on an article. This is considered a good idea by all except the reporters themselves who want to maintain the illusion they are fair and balanced. It's curious that many of our editors wish to self-identify, but then there's vote stuffing. Rather than force people to hide and maintain secret lists (knowledge is preferable to ignorance), a simple policy change that requires self-identified POV editors to recuse themselves from votes in their area of interest would accomplish your worthy objectives. First, it would discourage user boxes, and second, it would reduce vote stuffing; 50 POV votes would count as 0. On a related note, I avoid the freemasonry related articles for these very reasons. I'd rather have a neutral person edit these articles to ensure fair and thorough treatment. Rklawton 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Displaying POVs via userboxes will still be allowed - for the valid 'identification of bias' reasons you indentified - they just won't be allowed as TEMPLATES (ie using the underlying formatting would be allowed, but calling a template [the 'what links here' can be used for the same vote-stuffing as a category) Cynical 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Won't user categories cause the same problem? Rklawton 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's why user categories will also go, or at least the POV-related ones will (stuff like Wikipedians by Location or Wikipedians by birth year will stay) Cynical 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And you know this for a fact?--Vidkun 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converters

I just thunk of something really cool, and I thought you might know if it has been discussed yet. How about an automatic "converter" for measurements so that all measures appear in the user's preferred format? Currency converters would also be interesting, too, though we might limit them to Pounds, Dollars, Yen, and Euros. The currency converter should be able to show the contemporary amount or today's equivalent (user's preference). Rklawton 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here and here. Rich Farmbrough 20:50 25 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Newbie's Guide ???

Hello. I have been thinking about this for some time now, mainly since I started RC patrolling some time ago . . . there are a lot of policies that Wikipedia enforces that most new people here have no clue about. I looked through the welcome messages that I put on new users' pages but they don't seem to address these problems. they tell you to "be bold" and tell you how to edit and make redirects and stuff . . . all necessary as they are simple . . . but none seem to tell you what you can't or aren't supposed to do.

I think it stinks when a new user comes here and goes to the trouble of writing an article only to have it deleted or under attack for rules that he/she never knew existed. Do you think there could be a way of creating a template that in a friendly way can welcome someone while also emphasizing what they are not allowed to do? In particular, I can think of several "no no's" that are repeatedly vilated by people unaware that they did anything wrong. Among the things that I was thinking of adding was stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

The material in these pages seems to me to be the most relevant as to what *not* to add and what newbies screw up on most (this semi-newbie not excepted) and the code of conduct expected out of people. I can't think of a way to force people to read this, but having a new article written with a good intention coming under fire at once will seem a lot more odious to me than showing rules in a welcome message.

Also, there is some content unsuitable for Wikipedia, but that *may* be suitable for other Wiki-sources, sich as Wiktionary, or Wikibooks, that the user may be able to make use of.

What do you think about this? Although there are some ill-intentioned people, there has really got to be a fun, non-abrasive way of getting this across. I would like to avoid situations in the future like the one with User:Softcraft if it can be avoided.

Copyrights on photos is something that still confuses me and I have been here six months.

Am I just trying too hard to be too nice or is this an idea worth pursuing?

(Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was waiting to see how this went over before talking about semi-newbies like yours truly . . . but I think that if there was a way for people like me to try to help out well-meaning newbies then it would leave the real experts like you free to do more constructive work. Now I don't know everything Wiki -- far from it -- but I know a ton more than I did two months ago! That "medium area" I think might be more helpful in training new people in the basics than the epxerts might be since we recently went through the same things. Let me know your ideas on this. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting

About deleted articles, articles that are reposted near, exactly or don't address concerns noted can be deleted as reposts. However, if the article is completly revamped it can stay up, I think you know that, but just telling you in case. Yanksox 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminders are always good. In this case, that proviso doesn't apply, so I didn't mention it. It's not like the subject is a porn star or pro-wrestler... he just doesn't rate an article. Rklawton 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, I've been following the article was prepared to PROD, it isn't deserving of a page. Yanksox 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete repost

Re your message: Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Reading the relevant section is quite confusing. I changed the speedy delete tag in question. -- Gogo Dodo 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I found out the same way recently. Cheers Rklawton 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM

[edit] Commercial Link Spammer

I think a proper course of action given this scenario is to start adding vandalism warnings to the user's talk page, as I have just begun doing. Your reverts are justified, to the best of my knowledge, since Wikipedia's vandalism policy prominently lists spam, as in adding commercial links, as a type of vandalism. The three revert rule does not apply to editors trying to fix this issue :). I'll keep an eye on this user as well. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Fabricationary 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Delete

[edit] Criteria

Thanks for clarifying some of the CSD's for me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone clarified that one for me just a week or two ago *grins* Rklawton 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SD & WP:CORP

Hi - I didn't realize that failing WP:CORP was an acceptable criteria for speedy deletions. I know lack of notability for people, clubs or bands all have their own SD tag, but we can speedy NN companies or websites as well? --mtz206 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Crap is crap. Why should corporations be any different? Rklawton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. I guess I assumed something was different due to the lack of a {{db-corp}} tag or explicit description in WP:SD. --mtz206 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

hi- just a note to say that buildings dont get geo-stub and architecture-stub combinations - they're for geographical features and architecture styles. buildings get struct-stub or (in the case of Madison Theater) US-struct-stub. cheers :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I created four building articles today, and when someone added those stubs to one, I assumed it was a good idea. All four are on the national registry, so I'm guessing they'll all get the US-struct-stub. I'll revisit them in a few minutes. Thanks again for the heads up. It's building-shooting season... Rklawton 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

[edit] Template:NowCommons

Re: Image:Boy meets barber.JPG I think the tag to use is {{NowCommons}}. The commons file name needs to go in there too. — getcrunk what?! 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rklawton 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)