User talk:Steve Crossin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Steve Crossin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Statuses

Statuses were removed sometime ago and if you feel that they are necessarry to be re-introduced please start an apropriate discussion on the tv project talk page. The statuses are nothing more than fan cruft and the it dosen't hurt argument dosen't stack up. As information how many sips of coffee a person has per episode dosen't hurt. That though is not included as it cruft information. The statuses could also be considered original research. You are welcome to initate discussions on this issue but please be aware of previous agreements on issues.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lynne Kresge

• I agree with you, word for word copying is not ok editorial-wise. My own opinion is that every character section should be a few sentences long, with a tag explaining to go to the 24 wiki for more information. Copyright wise, copy pasting from this wiki is ok as long as we credit the source (which is, most of the time, not done :x). Wikipedia and most of wikia content are under the same license the GFDL. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry I won't be able to officially mentor you (I can't spend much time on Wikipedia these days) but if you have a specific question don't hesitate to ask on my talk page, or to use the {{helpme}} template. I fixed the section linking problem, that's a technical issue due to the hidden table of contents. But I guess someone will revert it because he think this is ugly (and it is!). I couldn't find who reverted your edits, but if you dig into the History tab, you should be able to check if he left an edit summary or ask him directly. Reverting someone's edits without a proper edit summary is not good practice but it unfortunately happens. Miscommunication is a big problem in all Internet projects... I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nope I won't. We don't protect page if there is no edit war (the pages belong to the community, not to a single editor or group), and I obviously can't use my tools to gain an advantage aver the other side. Wikipedia works by discussion, and assuming the others are not dumb. This assumption sometimes fails of course, but most of the articles are safe. I don't think crackpots come and read the 24 articles! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi SC -- Good work on the Minor characters on 24 page. A couple of things.
  1. One, I did reply on the Minor characters talk page & said that I thought organizing by season would be fine. I don't have an opinion on splitting the article yet; I'd like to see what it looks like once it's cleaned up.
  2. Two, I'd suggest you read carefully some of the policies and guidelines relating to fiction on Wikipedia. There's a lot of contention over whether fictional characters and individual episodes should be placed in separate articles or grouped into lists, and you'll certainly run into the discussions some time. One of the main problems that shows up on fictional characters, fictional objects, episodes, etc., is that people write lengthy plot summaries, lengthy character descriptions, and so on, based on watching the episode. Unfortunately, this violates Wikipedia's policy against original research -- everything published on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and published in a reliable source. Fictional concepts are supposed to be notable, and in the fiction guideline, that means "real-world notability", not "in-universe notability". All of those links are important policies (mandatory rules) and guidelines (consensus-based interpretations of the various policies and how they apply to specific topic).
• Feel free to drop a question on my talk page any time. --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of follow-ups:

• Internal link or anchor: It'll be easier for me to just type in the anchor code than to explain it. I'm sure there's some help in wikipedia on it, too. Basically each of the section heads becomes an internal anchor, and a pound sign (aka hash sign, aka #) at the beginning of that title will designate that as an internal link. E.g., Minor characters in 24#Lynn Kresge should jump directly to that section.
• I listed the policies & guidelines above that I think are particularly relevant. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are all about making sure we have third-party sources for material. WP:N is the general notability guideline, and third-party independent reliable sources that provide significant treatment of the subject is the lynchpin of determining notability. The same is true for WP:FICT, the fictional guideline, but that is being revamped right now.
• How to determine notability is the $64,000 question, but it's not really all that hard. There's an objective guideline -- if there's substantial independent coverage of the topic in published sources, versus if there's not. Fictional characters and objects are notable based on real world notability -- if the real world has talked about them -- not based on in-universe notability. In other words the various presidents in the 24 universe are only notable if there has been real-world coverage of them. Whoever was president before David Palmer is not notable; David Palmer is notable.
• Participate in the talk pages for WP:FICT or the various proposed related guidelines, e.g., WP:EPISODE, if you have thoughts about them. My own take on participating is that it is MOST IMPORTANT to comment only on the substance of other people's discussions, and not make any assumptions or comments about them as people. It's hard to stay calm in such discussions, so taking a break of a day or two is always a fine idea. : Hope this helps. --Lquilter (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• About internal anchors, I personally simply click on the appropriate link in the Table of Contents and look at the generated URL, that way you always have the correct naming. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that's a good idea. I do this sometimes, too, especially if the heading is long or strangely spelled. The generated URLs have underscores instead of spaces, which works just as well in the link, but I usually replace the underscores with spaces just to make it look (and wrap) better. --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• A couple of other points --
  • I am more than happy to let you do the URL anchors -- go for it!
  • When you're doing conversations, you can indent your responses -- that's very helpful in making the thread of the conversation clear. Play around in your sandbox to experiment with combining * (bulleted list items), # (numbered list items), and : (indents) to see the different effects.
  • On the notability of independent characters -- I would resist making proposals about them right now until all the current kerfluffle settles down. In a couple of months, hopefully, the policies/guidelines will have stabilized, the edit wars will be over, and the current arbitration decisions will be settled and accepted. Then everyone's tempers will be easier and it will be easier to get objective opinions from all concerned about whether characters are notable or not. Right now I fear there will be a lot of cross kneejerk responses about it, based on the larger editing decisions. In the meantime, do go ahead and add new real-world content where it is referenced. That will definitely help make everyone's opinions better informed when these things come up for discussion. There's no rush; as my friend tries to remind me, the Internet (and Wikipedia) will still be here tomorrow.
• --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

• In fact someone linked me this decision a few minutes after our conversation (the 2 events are of course unrelated ;)). That means that we are asked not do delete (and probably merge) any article based on Episodes or Fictional Characters for the time being. This is of course temporary (there is an investigation going on on the behavior of some editors). Split should be okay if you keep everything. Note that oversplitting articles is often a bad idea. But being bold and trying never hurts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Considering this is an arbcom restriction, the editor not following it faces a block (if he's aware of the restriction, of course). I guess that'll keep people away. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• I can't find where Lucy is requesting the merge of these articles but if she performs it, simply revert her change and point her to the arbcom case. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• yup don't hesitate to update the tag if necessary. Good luck on the referencing! -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cites & policing injunctions

I responded to your question about cites on my talk page, User talk:Lquilter. Also, with respect to policing the injunction, I'm afraid I can't help you. I've been a party to the various disputes and so it would be improper for me to use my admin powers in this issue. I'm sure you can post it on the talk page of the relevant discussion, and someone will pick it up. --Lquilter (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, thanks for your help about cites, it's something I will extensively work on, once the URL anchors are done, but I will work on the articles when I know I can edit them without fear that they will be merged, even though an injunction has been put into effect. Then I will do all I can to add more citations. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Theresa Knott has been sympathetic to my queries in the past. Try leaving a note on her page. TunaSushi (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Even if they are merged, useful referenced work will still be retained. Original research can't stay in an article, whether it's a stand-alone or a list. So your work will be helpful in any case. --Lquilter (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh

Oh I see; well, thanks to both of you, it's very nice now and probably took a lot of your time, which you wanted to spare anyway. :) Now... if someone is trying to find a specific name, say for example: Abu Fayed, it doesn't redirect yet to his name section on that page. Are you going to do all those redirects too individually? (I wonder if you can do hasjhsajhadjhdsh#yryryr for example if the yryryr is a === ______ === section?) I can help with those some if you want ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Yassir

Steve Crossin and I have been working together to improve the article. We all know that many articles of fictional characters are crap, but we've been adding sources to Nadia Yassir (good sources like NYT and NY mag that does not show her interviews). I believe that Nadia Yassir definitely meets WP:N now and the debate be closed. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviated notability guidelines for your convenience

• "Presumed" without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.
• "Significant coverage" as in there are sources; OR not needed
• "Reliable" verifiable, published
• "Sources," as in secondary sources
• "Independent of the subject" as in sources not affiliated to the subject миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said before, I don't think we should remove or add any notability or merge-related tags until things settle down. It doesn't really matter, except for aesthetics. Personally, I would just post a note to the talk page that this appears to be settled; do most people agree; will the notability tag be lifted once the injunction is over with. Build consensus, but be aware that some people may not be watching the discussion because of the injunction, so we have to wait for a little while. The whole point of the injunction is to avoid churn, confusion, and unnecessary argument while people are working, but instead to permit people to work together peacefully. So I wouldn't go asking for exceptions -- it sort of defeats the point. It's only a couple more weeks, anyway. Just my 2c. (cross-posted to Talk:Nadia Yassir). --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, Steve Crossin! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! Tiptoety ^talk 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what are you interested in learning? Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the first thing I really want to learn is about the Wikipedia policies. I generally work on fictional articles, see my contribution list. [1]. Also, some articles I'm working on, such as Karen Hayes, is mostly a plot summary, which contains a lot of in-universe information. My concern is, what sections on these sort of articles should I delete, and what should be kept. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, great! I love the show 24, so this will be fun. I will get to reading and give you my thoughts on it later. On the topic of warnings, if you go here and scroll down the page about 1/4 the way there is a grid of all the warnings, for this situation i would use a level 2 warning: {{uw-vandalism2}}. Let me know if you have anymore questions! Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Actually that template is only to be used on WP:AFD discussion pages for articles whose subject is a fictional character or episode of a television series. So no, you could not use it, unless you nominated the article for deletion. Tiptoety ^talk 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Here is a complete list of the policies, there is a whole bunch so do not get overwhelmed. If you have questions about a specific one feel free to ask. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• See here, I think this answers the question pretty clearly, if not i will try and explain. Your contributions will not be merged, due to the fact that currently all articles related to television series episode or character are restricted from redirecting, merging, or deleting at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm....how to enforce it. I guess the best way is to warn the user who violates the injunction, revert their edit, and if they continue report to WP:AN/I like you did before. Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Doing..., reading up on some policies myself, will also check the sources you mentioned. Meanwhile, you should read WP:RS to find out what good sources are. All of this may take me a little while, I am going to call it a night and pick up in the morning. (And its your userspace, if you like bulletsdo what you want, I don't mind) :p Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Y Done Okay, so on the topic of Lucy and the conversation you had with her on her talk is really not my place to step in seeing as this has been going on for a while, and I am not familiar enough with the issue at large, might I ask that someone more involved step in? Maybe you should drop User:lucasbfr a line and ask him to comment? I also reviewed the sources on the talk page. My comments can be found there. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• The article needs a whole lot of work. I would be willing to help you work on it, by my job is to not do the work for you, but to teach you how to do it. BUT like i said before, I am willing and would be happy to help with more of the minor changes and guide you through the larger ones. I would also recommend that you contact some other users from wikiproject:24 and see if any of them would be interested in helping you, it will make everything go faster. Tiptoety ^talk 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My main concern is that, I'm not sure on what to delete, and what to keep. Obviously, I don't want to delete too much, however I don't want to have the article as a plot summary. That's my main concern. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah....I would merge day 5 and day 6 together to more specifically deal with the character of Karen Hayes apposed to what happens in general on those days. Instead of breaking down each day, do an section that includes all of her notable actions within the series. Make sure to explain your edits very clearly in you edit summary's, so that someone on recent changes patrol does not revert it thinking it is vandalism. Tiptoety ^talk 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

24 articles

Any articles with no referencing should be tagged as having no references until references are found. If you have no references in an article, you can't prove anything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is disputed. It seems in the past you have targeted 24 articles before. Have all the other articles with no references been tagged before? If you really insist, I will go on Google, I'm sure there are thousands of pages that say thinks along the lines of "Jack Bauer played by Kiefer Sutherland", and the other characters, as well. I just think it's a little petty. However, don't think I'm biased. I saw your AfD for hyoscine-penothal, it should be either merged, or deleted, it doesn't deserve it's own article. As a matter of fact, I'll support you on that article. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's good to know we agree on that point! :) On the 24 articles, I have always just assumed that all articles should have references. As to those specific points, like Jack being played by Sutherland, that probably doesn't need to be referenced, but it would be nice to have some referencing and also a lot more content in the article. We can dream about Featured Lists if we start adding content, and I wanted to highlight the lack of it by marking it for improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I'm currently working on the Karen Hayes article, with some help with my mentor, I'm hoping to rewrite it completely, I worked with someone on the Nadia Yassir article, and theres little evidence that article is no longer notable, and has been rewritten to wipe out all the original research and in-universe information. However, I'm not sure on what else there really is to add to that page. It's really just a cast listing, and who they play. Is IMDB an OK source to use for citations, eg, to show that they really do portray that character, example: [2]

And on another note, I see you heavily edit Square Enix articles. This is something I would do as well, however, I just don't know where to find those sort of sources.

And, finally, I added my support on that AfD. [3] Steve Crossin (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the 24 character list article is daunting, that's why I said "dream" about Featured List status. :) A best sources have been reliable video gaming websites, particularly IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, and also Gamasutra, RPGamer, Next Generation Magazine. Also, you can look up interviews by important creators of the game, such as developers and composers. That's why I do. If you have a specific article or piece of information your looking for, let me know, I can try to help out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I think I'm right, there has been a general move away from IMDB as they have allowed trivia to be added by users that has not necessarily been checked out as factual. You may be able to make an argument that this use is unquestionable, but it might be easier to use another source (and there are many) that list him as the actor behind Jack Bauer.

Also, what specifically do you want to improve about Final Fantasy X? I am intrigued, since it is already an FA, and not a particularly old one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't specifically mean that article, I meant all the articles branching out from that. I saw one article that was tagged in some way, needed improving.

I will try to avoid using IMDB, but if I can't find any other sources for a character, eg Leslie Hope-Teri Bauer, I will use that site. It's only an example.

Cool, let me know if you need help on that one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The first two things we need to do is 1), find interviews with the actress and the show creators where they talk about her. Second, we need to format the article like a featured article of this type, so a fictional character. Perhaps Jack Sparrow, though much more famous, would be helpful. See what sections we need, what type of information we should have. Then once we have those interviews, we can fill the new sections with that information and delete what is currently here. That's how I do it anyway. Once you have references, you know what is content and what is OR or needless detail. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, the article is clearly notable, there are many sources from many different places, and the creation section is well sized, and that is a good indicator of notability. The article needs a reception section, to see what critics and perhaps fans thought of her character, and perhaps some bulking up all around, but I think it could stand on its own and not be merged into the CTU agents article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to head to bed, it's almost midnight in my timezone, but I'll help you tomorrow :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC

• So, what is it you would like to talk about with me? I assume this has something to do with the 24 characters, so what do you need?--Lan Di (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that is correct. I've spoken to a member of the Mediation Cabal, and they suggested a RFC/UC (Request For Comment/User Conduct) regarding Lucy. Would you agree her actions could warrant an RFC? I'll respond to your reply in about 10 mins, I'm needed by someone (see user page) Steve Crossin (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely, but I wasn't the only person, have you talked with User_talk:Angelriver, User_talk:MiB-24, User_talk:TunaSushi or any of the other people on angelriver's talk page? I recently started working with lucy, but there were some things that went over the line with her. However, I was starting to work with her, after she started being rational once I reported her to my friend. I could explain what happened, but I'll be accused of attacking if I describe what the problem was and the underlying reasons behind the problem we had/have with her.--Lan Di (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Could I suggest a discussion via email? I'd like the full story, without being criticised. Or an IM client. Whatever suits you best. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, either one is fine to me, my college's firewall will block IMs, but I can bypass that without being detected. Email when I send it, I like to use a false domain to make it untraceable without advanced equipment. But I could email you from one of my dummy accounts that I use.--Lan Di (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• IM's suit me better. I have AIM, Yahoo, and MSN. Whichever suits you best. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I use AIM a lot, I don't use Yahoo, and I sometimes use MSN with my Xbox Live service, but I don't have the touchpad. Just give me a time and I'll be there.--Lan Di (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I got your info and deleted it. My college must have changed their software config because I can't create a bypass that I've used in the past. Also, my home computer isn't on, which I use as a secondary bypass, I'll keep trying to get through but it looks like the Panda Firewall is going to win this round.--Lan Di (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bummer, have you tried just email? Or Web MSN? Panda...i've never hacked that before..Steve Crossin (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I can do email, but I'm still trying to break through the firewall. I'm using some more advanced techniques, as they finally patched the vulnerabilities. I forgot my notebook at home, with which I created a hack to effectively turn off the firewall, which would require a reboot of their mainframe, which they hate to do. Using the computer I'm on, I'm trying to emulate what that software did, but I've forgotten how to do it. My major is computers, and I've bypassed and hacked before to break through, but it appears they put in new protocols that I need to bypass. Panda Security is what my school uses. It's a pain to get through, but I'm still scanning their system to see if they left a backdoor open which I can use on an encrypted link so I can't be traced and kicked out.I also need to set up a relay system to make sure attention is diverted from me.--Lan Di (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just replying to your message on my talk page. It's almost 2:00 a.m. here so I'll respond in the morning. --MiB-24 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Karen Hayes

Steve Crossin, sorry for the late reply. I will be going on a wikibreak for a short time and I will only check once in a while to make minor edits. Meanwhile I suggest cutting down a bulk of the plot. I recommend that you just mention that she marries Bill Buchanan and that her views often conflict with those of Tom Lennox with brevity. Be sure to put in the sources that you found because they look really good. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption requirements

Please see User:Tiptoety/Adoption. You may start the lessons when ever you wish, and can take as long as you want to complete them. I am still willing to work with you on other things, but as an adopter need to make sure you get the fundamentals down. If you have any questions let me know. Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Complete the classes, all the required ones and two optional. Once you have completed those and have proven to me that you clearly understand the course, there will be a test. Each test is different depending on what optional classes you chose to take. Tiptoety ^talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• questions. Tiptoety ^talk 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, your experience with fair use is fine. Just make sure to have it covered good enough to pass a test on it. Cheers Tiptoety ^talk 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, the test is one test once you have completed all of the courses, meaning that you are unable to take the test right now. As for the supage, if you go to the bottom of this page there is a subpage creation box, where it says "YOURUSERNAME" put in Cro0016 and then click create page. Hope that answers your questions, cheers , Tiptoety ^talk 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, I took a quick glance at the article about Chloe O’Brien, the first thing that i noticed was a lack of sources, which in articles about people fictional or not sources are the most important aspect to them, and ultimately will save them from deletion. Statements such as "Chloe continues to grow as a person with the introduction of a love interest" are on the verge of WP:POV and need to have a very sting source to verify that type of statement. Overall I think the article looks good, with good pictures and layout. Though it may be to wordy, including things she does that are not quite......notable, but you are the author, I will let you be a judge of that. I will take a look at the other article in a bit. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, that article looks to be a pretty good one to base it off of. On the topic of removing content from an article and when you are not sure what to remove, discuss it on the articles talk page, so that other users involved in editing that page can put their 2 cents in. Remember when discussing removing content from an article do not use the term "delete" but instead merge sections or remove unhelpful content....it sounds better to users who do not like to remove content. Also when it comes to cleanup, my hope is that you will cleanup the article to the point that you would feel comfortable removing the {{cleanup}} tag. The purpose is to show you real life hands on stuff, not just what I want you to do. SO, clean the page up to the fullest extent possible, see Wikipedia:Cleanup process for the proper way to cleanup a page. Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Welcome back! I do hope that your wedding was nice! You are most certainly able to cast your opinion on anyones request for adminship, you do not have to be a admin to do so! Also you are able to chose any 15 articles that you think need cleanup, the goal is just to benefit the project! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• When reading an article, if you notice it looks bad, has a typo or two, could be placed in a better category, could do with an image, has a copyvio that needs fixing, than fix it. All i am really asking you to do is improve the quality of the article by doing more tedious behind the scenes type of work, not add content, but just fix minor issues. Hope that helps. The navigation bar code can be found here, if you would like to have one i know a few users who can create one for you lickedy split! Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that would constitute cleanup, but if you see other issues such as articles in wrong category's, or see a tag on an article that says it has no sources when it does fix those too. Let me get back to you on the navigation bar, i got to ask a few other editors. Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, than it looks like you are off to a good start, but remember you need 15 articles to pass the assignment. That lesson is also optional, so if you want to skip it you can :). I will talk to some users about it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• My suggestion is that you just start right now, instead of counting the ones you did in the past. That way you will gain more experience. Though i can go through your contribs and add them up if you like. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yep, you can count those as your 15, that is fine. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Naw, just go ahead and answer them, I trust you. And anyways, you will still have to take a test on it, so even if you cheat (i know you did not) it will show on your test. Tiptoety ^talk 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• You can see how you did on my talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sure! (I am still working on getting you someone who is better at wiki code than me to create one for you). Tiptoety ^talk 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Create a sub page with a list of all your sub pages on it (if that makes sense).Then place a link from your userpage to it. Tiptoety ^talk 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hm, well it is an improvement. It may be helpful to read: WP:NOT#PLOT. Also there are a whole lot of under or un sourced statements withing the article. But like I said, it is an improvement from before :) Tiptoety ^talk 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Good work! I had actually already taken a peek at it :p . I like that you are using it to make something constructive opposed to "just getting the assignment done". Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, I saw your message, I am just rather busy right now. The whole "table" thing is not my expertises, but i can help you if you want. Also the article needs to just talk about the actions the person did that are notable, not a step by step play of the whole show. And yes you are able to use external sources to cite the article. Tiptoety ^talk 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, no, please do not take it the wrong way. I want to help you, and always want you to ask questions, I was just letting you know my responses may not be the quickest due to other issues I am also involved in. So, ware where we..... :)Tiptoety ^talk 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overall it looks really good, here are a few things i would like to see: external links, a Strike through, font size (small and big), and an in text reference.Tiptoety ^talk 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Like how they do it here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Y Done. Good work, looks great! Tiptoety ^talk 05:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yep, consider that assignment complete. You are more than welcome to continue using it, that was the point of the assignment. Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Well any of the optional courses, or you could do the next required assignment which is Vandalism 1.1. Tiptoety ^talk 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, so when you get to a section titled "revert" make sure that it states underneath that it relates to IE, and not firefox. Simple as that, :) Tiptoety ^talk 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I already replied once. Please reply to this as I’m going to be archiving the old material on my talk page. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but I didn't know when you would be back on. Anyway, I don't think it will really be an issue anymore. As lucy-marie is now taking a long wiki-break, I don't think we really need an RFC about her conduct. However, some articles do need improvement, such as Chloe O'Brian, it really should be similar to Nadia Yassir. Would you agree? We can't just have plot summarries for the characters, unfortunately. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the break talk fool you. TunaSushi (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I often wonder why it is even worth it. After all, someone can always find a Wiki-rule and get away with merger/deletion of a page. I just had a page I’ve worked on for months jacked by someone who spewed a Wiki-rule as his excuse. (Typical) My free time is fairly limited (MA programs suck up a lot of time) so I don’t really have it to spend on dozens of pages. I can help when a page is threatened, but the amount of time needed to do proper researching is more than I have right now. As for Lucy, she’ll be back and right back to her merger-mania again. Whether it is next week or 6 months, it doesn’t matter. She won’t drop it. Sadly, she is not the only threat. There are a lot of people who believe Wikipedia should not have any pages about fictional characters/events and constantly try to get rid of them. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I definetly know the Mike Doyle (24 character) page is threatened, and personally, I think that page will be merged. I've moved a copy of the Chloe O'Brian article to my sandbox, so I can work on it myself, without worry of it being reverted constantly. Agreed, ive just fininshed a Degree in Computer Engineering, it takes up a massive amount of time. Some of the current 24 characters, whether we like it or not, simply are not notable, however merging them into one article is not solving any problems. I think the Mike Doyle article probably won't survive, if the Nadia Yassir article is merged, I'll explode. Have you seen the article? It shoulfn't be merged. Actually, I'm going to update the merge proposal, on the talk page, get opinions. I'd appreciate your input on that too, thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously most characters don’t need their own page as they just are not important and I doubt anyone, even the most ardent supporters of having more “24” related pages, supports that idea. As for the page on Doyle, I don’t see how it can be notable. This isn’t to say that someone else might be able to find the needed material, but I haven’t seen it and I looked. When there is a character who I either do not believe is notable or I do not have an opinion on, I simply stay out of the debate. I refuse to back up the merger/deletion crowd, even once, because most of them act like jerks, but I won’t take a position I actually don’t support so I prefer to stay quiet. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mizrabot etc

I'm having trouble setting up MizaBotIII on my talk page, to automatically archive my talk page. I've set up the wiki code, its in my talk page, however I cannot get it to appear. Can someone help me? Steve Crossin (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cro0016. I have read through the instructions, and fixed anything that I consider might prevent it from working properly (I put things in the right order, and removed spaces in the archive address)

Please give it some time for results, and if it still doesn't work, ask again. Thanks

Rfwoolf (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Cro0016. If you look at the history of this page you'll see the Mizbot seems to have done some archiving for you. Go to the archive page mentioned and you should see the archives there. I suppose you would want to now provide a link to them? Rfwoolf (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link: User_talk:Cro0016/Archive_2008_FebruaryRfwoolf (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning removed

Apologies, you appear to have inadvertently restored vandalism. I've removed my warning from your page. SMC (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I actually thought the large removal of content from the article was vandalism, that was the reason I reverted it. My apologies. Steve Crossin (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though the content appears to be completely unsourced (and maybe even a copyvio). I've reverted it to a previous good (when it was a stub) and given the user an unsourced warning. Easy mistake to make (you are actually correct - heavy removal/blanking is vandalism, except when the content is unsourced and the user keeps re-adding it), so no worries. SMC (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ocanter (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• That mistake happens t all of us, don't worry to much about it. Just make sure to do a reall good job checking to see if the content is indeed vandalism. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, all of that looks fine to me. Good work, and I know twinkle is a great tool, thats why I was hoping you would be able to use FireFox. As for the vandalism to your usertalk page, don't get to worried about it, it happens very often when you are working recent changes patrol. Just revert it and give the user a proper warning, (I am not saying you did) but never reply to them with an attack or uncivil message, it only makes it worse. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Huh, I have never used any other skin than "monobook". To my knowledge that is the only one that works with WP:TW, you could always ask that question at WP:HELPDESK, there may be someone there better suited to answer that question. Tiptoety ^talk 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• You may also be interested in: User:Tiptoety/Adoption/Cro0016. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the reason I beat you was because I have the technical ability to rollback, but you know all about that...you passed that lesson. Actually for the vandalism 1.1 lesson, you are not required to actually preform recent change patrols, but I am glad to see you doing so! :) There are a list of questions at the bottom of the assignment that you must answer to pass the lesson. (I hope you like your knew userpage) Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• No....you do not have rollback which is a user permission that must be given to you by a administrator. Remember your permissions lesson? Twinkle does kind of the same thing but slower. And yes, cluebot is fast :). Huh, the logos...not sure...have you asked User:The Chronic? Tiptoety ^talk 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hm, that is a very poor question....okay let me re-phrase:

1. What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes? Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, you can answer the questions gradually. Tiptoety ^talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Soverign Grace Ministries

Yes, I would agree. The article needs some work with references. Thanks for tagging it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sovereign Grace Ministries

The page has now been written up with a full range of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• So it has. However, how many of those references are third-party references? See WP:PSTS. Or possibly, ask for an RFC on the article. And, who does the SGM Uncovered website belong to, anyway? Steve Crossin (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who runs the website - it is, though former members; the posts make that clear. All the references in the article are news websites, church/SGM websites or well-known authors/leaders with first-hand experience of SGM. No hearsay involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2008 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

reverting my user page

Think nothing of it--I am just pleased that you were on the ball! Cheers --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Kalindoscopy

they reverted your warning from their page, and keep repeatedly deleting things... both from their page and in fact mine. I think something is going on with this user... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

the fact that they removed your warning is unnallowed, and counts as vandalism. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed my comments from the above user's page after reading the allegations against them. Hopefully all the edits they've made will be screened. As for my own user:talk page... I'll edit it as I please. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello. Your adopter, Tiptoety, asked me to redo your userpage for him. I've done so, and I hope you like it. If you want any aspect of it fixed, don't hesitate to ask! The Chronic 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A whole list of icons can be found at Commons:Category:Nuvola icons. The Chronic 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTOC disabled the table of contents on your page, and the NOEDITSECTION disabled the section editing function. If you prefer the former preferences, just revert it. The Chronic 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, thanks for your interest in vandal fighting, good job. Before I set you the bit, I'd just like one issue clarified. I saw you rvv'ing people for removing warnings from their own user talk pages, and in one case even adding another warning-about-removing-warnings on top of it. Please don't do that, that's not our policy. Maybe somebody told you something misleading about this, but current policy consensus is people are generally free to remove warnings (or other posts for that matter) from their own talk pages. Removing them is a sign they've read them.

Another (unrelated) thing, I have to ask you not to keep non-free images on your user page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, done. Keep up the good work. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You should be seeing the rollback links when you open a page history now, they are to the right of each edit line. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

before you accuse me of vandalism actually have the desence to look at what in reverting, --Realist2 (talk) 11:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tools

Hi Steve, I use WP:HUGGLE :-) - The guy who runs it is actually online at the moment so you might be able to get it today. If you do get it, word of advice: Don't go too fast with it; it's incredibly easy to make mistakes as it's very fast. Hope that helps! Take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you very much for the barnstar! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking to him right now. Just e-mail him requesting to use Huggle... say something like "I'm interested in using Huggle and I think it could really help me out" - Keep it short. Have you done the other thing(s) it tells you to? (Something to do with a monobook or something). And yes, right now he's just told me to get you to mail him :-) He should let you have it no worries. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you need to use the monobook thingy. But you should have done this: [4]. And I've just told him that you've e-mailed him. All the best! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He said he received it. I've asked him when he will send it and he kind of avoided the question. But I'm sure it will be today :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i dont care if its my opinion its what i think but go and put my comment back you rude man !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10sh10 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I will not restore your comment. End of story. And refrain from personal attacks Steve Crossin (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw you rv to 156.34X - I told you Huggle was dangerous didn't I? ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[5] - Here you go. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal

Please don't accuse me of vandalism; that was not very nice. I was just trying to do something constructive. Did you even look at my edit? It made sense to put the two sentences together. 71.249.255.91 (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The software I am using flagged it as vandalism. However, after reviewing the edit, it does not appear to be vandalism. You have vandalised other pages before, so maybe this is why the software flagged you. Anyway, feel free to keep editing articles, apologies for any mistake I or my program made. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, but truth be told, I am not a vandal. Please don't classify me as such. Thank you. 71.249.255.91 (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)