User talk:Tesscass/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, HornandsoccerContribsTalk 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: October 8

Hey Tess, thank you for your message :). The reason I removed "screenwriter" from Matt Damon's description was probably in an effort to clean-up the page. A few editors, including myself, try to clean-up the Wikicalendar pages from time to time so that each person's description is as short and succint as possible - ideally, two words - their nationality (not ethnicity/cultural background) and their most noted role. Many people listed on these pages are notable for many reasons, but I try my best to pick out the one role for which they are most noted and list only that. If you disagree with my assignment of "American actor" to Matt Damon, feel free to change it, and I won't revert since I try my best to follow WP:1RR. However, it may be removed in a further clean-up effort of another editor or myself. To learn more about our project, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year I started a discussion several months ago on the project's talk page about the need to make entries succinct and uniform - feel free to join that discussion. Hope that answers your question :). Fabricationary 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Mozart Players

A tag has been placed on Oregon Mozart Players, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Philippe Beaudette 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for catching the Spain page vandal

Actually, there a separate History of Spain page. Thanks for thinking of us! EspanaViva 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for sorting out the mess at Lunar New Year, it was getting quite confusing with all the recent vandalism. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons: Picture of the Year 2006

I'm voting for # 2 --tess 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar New Year

Your recent edits on the Lunar New Year page were excellent, very easy to understand and factual and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions people seem to have that all asians celebrate based upon a Lunar Calendar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unsatisfied guest (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP:3RR

Actually, if you read the policy page you will see that reverting vandalism is never a violation of 3RR. Check the user's contribs, and you will see that his claims of copyright violations devolved into simple vandalism the minute he was challenged. He has also just been indef blocked. Natalie 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had that feeling that's it's useless before also, but I think it's better to revert until their blocked than let anything go, for a few reasons. Firstly, there's no guarantee who's going to stumble on the page while it's vandalized and freak out. Also, it gives the vandal the sense of having won, which can embolden them to go vandalize other pages. But most importantly, I've seen vandals give up and go home because they were reverted so fast. Sorry if it clogged up your watchlist, though. :) Natalie 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd revert every change he made. It seems pretty clear to me that the claims of copyright violations were bogus. The user either has absolutely no idea how US copyright law works (he cleared a list of books from an article as a supposed copyvio) or he was using it as a cover for maliciousness. Natalie 00:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Chinese

Oh, my…. I’m sorry, dude…. I did not even notice the second a… I glossed right over it. But, yeah; neither a should be there. Thanks.  :)    —Wiki Wikardo 09:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregorian v Julian dates

Hi Tesscass: I notice you are updating the Gregorian v Julian date overlaps and was wondering if you were using a 'bot? I liked that User:Jusjih added the original disambig but disagree with the language (but not quite enough to do something about it :-). (And Jusjih didn't use a 'bot (whew!). I already asked.)

The part I don't agree with is "10-day slower Julian calendar", because:

  • "earlier" or "later" (I still disagree with myself about that one) is more precise than "slower", and;
  • the Julian calendar is actually the "faster" of the two.

So it looks like you:

  • have the knowledge to determine whether it's "earlier" or "later" or something else entirely, and
  • might care, and
  • might be making the changes with a 'bot, so it would be easy.

If all the above aren't quite true, do you have a suggestion for some better wordage? Then I can ask somebody at the bot page to do it. (I was going to anyway when I figured out which to use.)

I'll be watching this page if you want to reply here. Thanks, Saintrain 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using a bot. The Julian v Gregorian thing wasn't my primary focus when I started helping with reformatting the year articles. See Talk:1650#Format - and a bot isn't useful for all that. I just happen to notice that the Julian weekday was incorrect right from 1583 and the problem just snowballed. Anyway, I agree that "slower" is a little awkward. Would "... the 10-days-behind Julian calendar" be a better term? --tess 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
16-March-2007: Hi, tesscass & Saintrain, this is User:Wikid77 here. I shifted the Julian weekday on perhaps 200 articles circa Jan. 2007, but noticed the concerns, and have also begun corrections (1600-1750 fixed 18Mar). Of course, a worse issue is: almost no events listed per year: this is something WP can do that Britannica or "Year in History" doesn't: list a range of important events each year, with illustrations.
Slower: The Julian date can be called "slower" because it is 10-13 days behind the Gregorian date, so yes "slower" is OK. The weekday shift is 4-days back (or 3-days ahead: 7 - 4 = 3), but I had edited Julian days as 4-days ahead, instead of 3-days. Of course, there should have been a few footnote citations verifying the weekday shift: I now have foot-noted key years 1601, 1610, 1620, 1699, etc. to link the Russian/Julian calendar as verification in the century. Listing the Julian weekday is luxurious information, but the years can thus apply to Russia's Julian dates (pre-1919), so it seems notable.
Hi Tesscass: sorry we're cluttering up your page. I responded at Talk:1650#Julian_slower. --Saintrain 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
More Events: Again, listing key events is the most important value-added activity, which few websites offer, although the Julian weekday should get fixed, soon enough. Of course, the Births/Deaths are okay, but clicking the "Category:16xx births" displays hundreds of names from live articles, many more than are listed in a yearly article. Instead, the listed events + images are typically the most notable aspect of a year's article.
Format Prerequisite: The formatting of the year articles over the past months has been fantastic, as a prelude to expansion. Remember, the previous formats limited events to 6 or 8 words-per-line: who would want to scan 100 events at 6 words-per-line? However, 100 events per year is the logical next step, including the progress of cities, industries, inventions, and social groups, rather than just major wars each year. The year, decade, and century articles provide a composite index into of the vast array of WP articles, with some potential for prioritizing subjects which are most notable, long-term.
So, let's continue with "10-day slower" but keep adding major events to each year, and, especially, reformat centuries from Medieval times forward, to allow easier expansion of their numerous events. -Wikid77 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠Tom@sBat 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dablinks

Hi Tesscass

Congrats on all your good work adding dab links. Just one thing I wanted to draw to your attention: WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages, which says "To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redir to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)". This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones, which may editors monitor and try to cleanup.

I have corrected this in some of your recent contributions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

The Invisible Barnstar
For your work in the background, tirelessly working on disambiguation pages and hatnotes, I award you this invisible barnstar!  

By the way, have you ever considered becoming an admin? It seems to me that you'd make a great candidate. Would you mind if I nominated you? All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like doing these maintenance tasks. But I feel I'm still too inexperienced and knew only enough to be dangerous as an administrator. tess (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you read up on administration and you think you might be ready, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. A long time ago, I'd asked here if there were changes that would have made the list easier to use. I have another batch of dab-needed names for when this first batch is done, but I'd like to make it as easy for our disambiguators as possible. So if you have suggestions, I'm all ears! – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your report on WP:AIV

Hi. I removed your report from WP:AIV as that page is specifically for swift response to vandalism, and your question didn't seem to fit that. What exactly is the problem, please? Tonywalton Talk 00:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that an image -> Image:Fireworks.jpg, has recented be overwritten with something that has nothing to do with the original description. I don't know how to fix it. tess (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have reverted it to the picture of fireworks in Hong Kong Harbour just fine. (No idea what that last thing was - it looked like Apple's newest iPod Huge or something). Tonywalton Talk 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Somehow its not showing that my revert was successful...wait, now it is. My cache didn't get cleaned that first few times I tried to refresh. Thanks! tess (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No problems. I've deleted the "iPod Huge" thing - that appeared to be a promo for somebody producing "skins" (which translates, presumably, as "very expensive sticky-backed-plastic") for games consoles. I've also reverted to the latest version - the rocket bursting - seems OK now. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's another problem. The original image is very specifically about fireworks over Hong Kong. That's the one I'm trying to revert to. I'm not sure whether the copyright stuff apply to the subsequent one, which is just a firework plume. What I would really like to see is a better named image file with the Hong Kong image. How do I do that? tess (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I se your problem (and Fireworks,jpg isn't a good title, I agree). Sadly I'm not too familiar with images - maybe you could try asking on the Village Pump? Tonywalton Talk 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary dab links

Hello Tesscass,

It's great to see you doing work on dab links, but I wanted to let you know that there's one situation in which you've been inserting dab links but they're not needed, namely when the page title already has a disambiguating word in brackets. For example, you put a dab link at the top of Frank Kelly (professor), but no dab link is needed there because no-one will reach that page when looking for the other Frank Kelly.

Wikipedia:DAB#Usage_guidelines puts it this way:

  • While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page.

Thanks, and thanks for your good work too.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name disambiguation

Thanks for cleaning up some of my oversights on dates, titles and such. btw I left a note for User:Quadell to ask if s/he wanted to rerun the bot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect in case of duplication

It's already been done, but for future reference when you come across two articles that duplicate the same topic under slightly different names the proper approach is to merge and redirect one of them into the other rather than deleting one. (this is in reference to Kelly Brownell). Thanks for noticing the duplication, though. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)