User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013/January

President's Cup (chess)

I'm willing to add refs, but I'm not sure of the syntax. If you could provide an example on the page, I'll fill in the details and rest Alantheodoresherman (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ontario Genealogical Society

Dear Ahnoneemoos: Aside from the empty section, which will take some time, I have tried to correct the problems with my "Ontario Genealogical Society" page which you pointed out. (I thought that I had a little more time before the page would be reviewed; my page about the Toronto Light Opera Association is still in the queue after a week). I'll work on the empty section later in the week. Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for approving my new article.

Purple Pants (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For assuming an account with the number "11" in its name must be run by an eleven-year-old, and for then posting your safety concerns on WP:AN. Fortunately, it seems highly unlikely that the account actually was run by an 11-year-old, making any Streisand effect issues essentially moot. You didn't break any policies, but you definitely did do something silly, and for that I see no choice but to slap you with this trout. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the WP:AFC posted on his sandbox: <redacted>. The '11' was not the only thing considered for this concern. I had rather err on the cautionary side on this matter but to each his own I guess. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not have started this thread if I'd been aware there were any evidence to support your assumption; I made a mistake when I looked over his contribs, and failed to notice it, so I thought this would be an innocuous thing to bring up. I apologize for overlooking the self-disclosure, and for risking perpetuation of the aforementioned Streisand effect. I've redacted your above comment; could someone please suppress it? Thanks, and sorry once again. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get your email, are you sure it was sent to me? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I sent it to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org -- got a reply from User:Fluffernutter. Ticket # 2013010110005038. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikify has been deprecated

Hi Nlu! Just a friendly note that {{Wikify}} has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates. Therefore, I removed {{Wikify section}} from Matthew Locricchio. Happy editing, and happy new year! GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Puerto Ricans/FAQ

A tag has been placed on List of Puerto Ricans/FAQ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DASHBot (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page protocol

Dear Ahnoneemoos: I want to discuss a comment that was left in my talk page with the writer. Do I add my comments underneath on my own page, or do I go to the other user's talk page and type there? Confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD of Victoria Leigh Soto

Joseph, Victoria Leigh Soto is up to an WP:AFD once again after the recent WP:DRV determined that due process was not followed. Please make sure that you participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto and express your opinion whatever it may be. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't have strong feelings, one way or the other, on this. So, I will be happy with whatever consensus is arrived at. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:List of Puerto Ricans RFC

Thank you for the message. Yours is my first message of 2013. I hope that you do not take my stand on the issue personally. You know that I value you a lot, but even the best of friends sometimes disagree on minor things. Cuidate, que de los buenos quedan poco. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi. I see you've been setting up the archiving bot on a lot of pages. A couple of things....

On pages which aren't habitually active, I don't see the need for monthly – or even yearly – archives. In a lot of cases that just gives you a bunch of tiny archive pages, e.g. Talk:Politics of Puerto Rico.

Also, for the first pass on pages that have never been archived before, I generally set the bot to leave all sections that have gotten comments in the previous year or so. After that, I check for sections that didn't get archived for lack of datestamps, and reset the bot to three months (90 days). Or even shorter, if that would still leave 100k or so of stuff.

Happy New Year! —WWoods (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving on Talk:Cydia

Hi Ahnoneemoos! Thanks for configuring archiving for Talk:Cydia, since that page definitely included a number of older threads that were no longer active. However, setting it to 15 days also removed a large chunk of unresolved discussion - I consider almost all of Talk:Cydia/Archives/2012/December still under dispute. Would it be OK with you if I moved that material back to the talk page and changed the archiving settings to 90 days? Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your changes - thanks for taking care of that. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the review, I appreciate it, Middle More (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi, Ahnoneemoos! I am the current Maitre D' at Teahouse and I wanted to ask you a favor. One of the most important guidelines at Teahouse is that we give each and every editor each and every time a pleasant greeting (Like, "Hi, Ahnoneemoos! Welcome to the Teahouse!). You should probably give Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations a read. One thing everyone at WER has noticed, to quote my dad, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." The question that raised my concern was the one from the guy with the article at AfC on Saddles. Not only were you very abrupt with your reply at Teahouse, but your review was unnecessarily harsh. Rather than bluntly saying, "Your article must have a lede", perhaps something like "Please add a lede, as that makes an article easier for the reader to follow." Sweetness keeps people, abruptness runs them off. This guy is a new editor, and since he is writing about a historical company, it is doubtful he is a WP:SPA. He is exactly the kind of editor we really need to encourage. When you are reviewing an article, there is nothing wrong with coming back to it and making a couple of example edits and dropping a nice note on the editor's talk page explaining what you did and why and encouraging him to continue with the example you left. Don't worry, you are not in trouble; we all learn the most by making mistakes and learning from them. Thanks for listening. If I can ever be of any help, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read every single page on Wikipedia. I treat each page the same—wether they are Teahouse or not. I was unaware that Teahouse had such a guideline. I won't be participating at Teahouse then since that's not my style and personality. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Leigh Soto talk page

Just wanted to let you know that I have restored User:Marine 69-71's post to its original appearance, the post you subsequently altered with this edit. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He made a mistake and the wiki is rendering it as if the comment was mine. I have fixed it to keep it in line with what he intended. Please do not revert it to its previous state as it would look as if it was my comment, which is not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? When looking at the edit history Marine 69-71 originally stated Comment here which you then refactored to Agree here and which I then restored to his original post here. I now see what you mean about the indenting or 'break' issue, but when I looked at the edit history all I saw was that you had changed Comment to Agree, which is not what he originally wrote. I have no intention of changing his post again. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

About Pandit Anokhelal 'Mishra'

sorry to misspell His surname. For Anokhelal Mishra it is 'Mishra' . In India many use Misra also. But Anokhelal Mishra used 'Mishra'. He was given 'Pandit' Title like many more famous Indian Classical Hindu Musicians. So I dont think Pandit is not necessary to use in first word . It should be like this:

Anokhelal Misra (Hindi: अनोखेलाल मिश्रा) (1914 - March 10, 1958) also known as Pandit Anokhelalji Maharaj was an Indian Tablā Artist who belonged to the Banaras Gharana of Hindustani classical music.

---change it like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packmania (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Locricchio article

1. Article is no longer an orphan as links have been added. 2. Additional citations have been added to biographical section RichardKFarley (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Teahouse inquiry

Hi! I've moved your question from my talk page to the host lounge talk page where the keepers of the bots will see it. Good idea! heather walls (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Messerli

You accepted this article from AfC, and rated it "B" class on the AfC project scale (and maybe by effect on the WikiProject Poetry scale). The issue is the article only has one really good source, and two other so-so ones. That means it definitally fails the B class criteria. I'd like to ask that you go take another look, and downgrade the article. More than likely this should be a Start class, as it is longer than a stub but still seriously lacking in sources. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just WP:BEBOLD and change it yourself bro. I do not WP:OWN that article or any other for that matter. :] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just notifying you first, I'll go change it. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Middlemores Saddles article

Hello, The article is intended to inform in the same sort of way as the Brooks England article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_England .The references are all checkable, I only have a tablet pc and no subcription to anything but was able to get this information. Middle More (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer your last question, except to say that as with the millions of companies that exist or existed in the world they produced a product which people wanted to buy, enough to keep them in business for well over a century from when they were Richard Middlemore until they were Middlemores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added the additional info to the lead that you mentioned and have resubmitted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the article, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle More (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did some work on the references, adding details of what each one refers to for those that had no details. Can any of the Issues template now be removed? If you added the template can you tell me which references you think may not be reliable? Thanks. Middle More (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing a bit of work on adding links to the references. Middle More (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Middle More (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have now added info box Middle More (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this would be an advantagous thing to do, after hours researching the info and references from a starting point of knowing nothing apart from the fact they once existed. I don't thing anyone could appreciate the article as much without doing this much research. Middle More (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for all your help. Middle More (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Being bold and list of people who have been called a polymath

Hi Ahnoneemoos, you are correct that Wikipedia has a guideline telling us to be bold. While not a guideline, we also have the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Although it is not a guideline, adherence to this cycle has become common practice on Wikipedia. The best way to take care of a discussion like the one at List of people who have been called a polymath is to make your edit, and when your edit is disputed, to discuss on the talk page with the previous version of the article live. Ryan Vesey 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your user page

Just wanted to say that I found your user page amusing. I've been trying to figure out what to say on mine and I may steal a few concepts.

On Soto: I'm new to Wikipedia and find the rules confusing. It's amazing to me how much overlap there is between the various rules and policies. I wonder if there has been any attempt to quantify that? Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you need help with or clarified? I'm very familiar with our policies so I can help you on that. If you have more technical questions or need a broader set of opinions you can always ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE! :]

The problem with our policies is that they were created by the community itself rather than by a legal professional. That leaves us with many policies that are subject to interpretation. For example, in Soto's case, what does it constitute to have a "large role"? How do we quantify what a "large role" is? That's when disputes rise. For some people having a "large role" might mean: "being the perpetrator" while for others (like myself) would look at it within the context of the event itself. But once again, since it's subject to interpretation you will have differing opinions and interpretations.

If you find the rules confusing, just remember that you should not take Wikipedia so seriously since you don't get paid to do so. ;) If at any moment you need help with them just ask on the WP:TEAHOUSE like I said above.

In this particular case, what exactly do you need help with or clarified?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks. First I'm hearing about "teahouse," I think I may wander by. That's just a general observation. In the case of Soto, and previously in the main article (which I was involved in from day one), I found that policies had a way of overlapping and clashing. There's a lot of wiggle room.

On Soto, I found myself torn between those who argued that she was a Victim, per WP:VICTIM, and hence not deserving of an article, and those who felt that she stood out as a heroine and therefore should get one. On balance I leaned toward the latter point of view. As in medicine, I think that "do no harm" should be the general guideline when there is a conflict. What causes the least harm? I suggest that having an article on Soto is that path, and that we should wait and revisit the subject later. On the other hand, if the article in some way disparaged her, if it had that general tone, my feeling would be to redirect as a default position. Does that make sense?

More generally, I think it would be interesting if someone had the time, to chart out the policies and come up with a flow chart on how they conflict. But I don't have the time and as you point out, I'm just a part time volunteer! Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the thing is that Soto is one of those difficult cases because the policy, rather than the article in question, is what is vague and subject to interpretation. Wether she was a heroine or not is irrelevant to the case.

We have an important policy called WP:NOTPAPER which states that Wikipedia is not limited by what it can host, as long as hosting such thing does not violate the law or causes Wikipedia of being at risk of libel.

We also have two other policies: WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In Soto's case we have to establish wether she is notable and wether the article someone created about her is verifiable. Verifiability is easy since you only need to provide reliable sources. The problem is WP:NOTABILITY because, once again, the policies use terms that are vague and broad rather than specific.

Now, regarding what causes harm. That's another issue. If you look at it from within Wikipedia, sure, not creating the article would be the most harmless route, for Wikipedians. But we don't write articles for Wikipedians; we write articles for the people that donate to Wikipedia since, without them, Wikipedia wouldn't exist. If you look at it from the perspective of the general public, then creating an article on her makes the most sense. You see, Soto's article has been visited considerably by the general public (see [1] it had 8,283 visits on Dec 21 and about 28,000 visits in total). That's why we create articles, for people that are looking for information since Wikipedia is a non-profit organization that depends on THEIR donations. If they find what they are looking for they are more likely to donate to Wikipedia. If they don't, they go somewhere else with their money. For example, Soto's article is right now the top link on a search on Google for the parameters: Victoria Soto. All this tells you something: people EXPECT Wikipedia to have an article on her. So our job is simply to create an encyclopedic article on her with reliable sources—wether we like it or not.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, those are good points. The complexity of Wikipedia can sometimes be overwhelming. That's why, for a new editor like me, I sometimes have difficulty finding a role that suits me. Coretheapple (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: Toronto Light Opera Association

Hello, Ahnoneemoos. You have new messages at Talk:Toronto Light Opera Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Thank you for your help on Toronto Light Opera Association

Dear Ahnoneemoos:

I want to thank you for your help over the last week or two. You really got things stirred up! The Toronto Light Opera Association page certainly developed in a hurry, and by your example I now know how to get others interested should I start in on another topic. Again, thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome Anne. Thanks to you and your contributions! As we both go on our separate ways now I would like you to read about another project at Wikipedia called WP:ADOPT. It's similar to the WP:TEAHOUSE (of which you are familiar already) except that you will have a mentor on a one-to-one basis. I'm not a member of that project, so I can't adopt you, but I tend to help new editors coming from WP:AFC. If this interests you just add the code:

{{subst:dated adoptme}}

to your user page and someone will contact you and serve as your mentor. I highly recommend it.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Almon Harris Thompson page edits

You recently reviewed the article I created on Almon Harris Thompson. I think I've corrected all of the errors that you identified. I included summaries in my edits to detail the changes.

I wanted to know how I go about getting the issues block removed from the top of the page. If there are additional issues I need to address please let me know what needs to be done.

Thanks! Eduscapes (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You can remove them yourself by removing the code at the very top of the page. In this case, you need to remove the following:

{{multiple issues|
{{cite check|date=January 2013}}
{{format footnotes|date=January 2013}}
{{citation style|date=January 2013}}
}}

Then just save the page and it will be gone.

However, I noticed that you still need to fix some issues. For example, not all references state who the publisher of said reference is nor the date you accessed the URL to the reference. Others still display a bare URL. Same thing happens with the Further Reading section. Make sure that you read WP:REFB, WP:CITE, and WP:CITEQR.

They are what we call "cleanup templates" (see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup) and they can be added or removed by anyone, including yourself. Ask these questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE from now on by the way, that's what they are for! :]

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your assistance and have made the corrections. I'll use the WP:TEAHOUSE from now on. Eduscapes (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Eduscapes

Thanks; I'll see what I can do. Curiously, despite her location, her website notes that she teaches online classes for a branch campus of my university! I'll probably put her in contact with the campus ambassador here. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, but your request doesn't make much sense for me. I live almost 3000 km from Utah and almost 600 km from Bloomington. WVhybrid (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? This was related to User:Eduscapes, about whom Ahnoneemoos spoke to me; she lives in Utah and teaches classes for Indiana University. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. I teach in the School of Library and Information Science at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis. However I teach entirely online, so I live in the mountains of southern Utah rather than in Indianapolis or Bloomington. Eduscapes (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DJDonkey

Please don't take it upon you to advise new editors unilaterally to ignore other editors comments made in good faith as well as your own. More specifically, your take on COI editing as exposed there is not uncontroversial and you should better be aware of it and secondly I specifically advised DJDonkey to not revert themselves AFC reviews of their articles, so telling them twice to igenore that isn't helpful. Moreover, retention of editors working is as much a problem as accommodating new ones and whist we admittedly didn't start of very coherently here you now just added to the mess. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Open IPTV Forum

Ahnoneemoos, I removed the section of "Current members" per WP:NOTDIR, as we are not a directory of members. I know we have had current discussions, however I wanted to thank you for restarting the page in a neutral and encyclopedic manor. I appreciate all you do at AFC and we both want the same thing for Wikipedia and that's neutrality. I think that's a common ground we can work collaboratively together on. I and must see alot good and bad. Please be aware that this organization is actively attempting to edit their own topic. Please don't encourage that and keep an eye out for new WP:SPA accounts editing that page as they have a history of WP:SOCKING. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, brah. WP:AGF on my part and I will do the same for ya. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to create a list or index page for my students' biographical entries

Thanks for taking a look at my first attempt to create a list page. This was a suggestion given to me during a long debate last year over my category Women in Kentucky History... all my students' biographical entries were removed from the category and we continue to build out subcategies by theme instead... However, the idea of seeing the bios all in one place (and continuing to create more each semester) is - I hope - being addressed by this index article. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this for title? Kentucky Women in Civil Rights Era Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Randolph, can you take this matter to WP:TEAHOUSE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, or meta:WikiWomen's Collaborative? I'm merely a reviewer, not an advisor. An index is definitely justified per Index of women scientists articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Compliant bonding

Hi Ahnoneemooss First let me first… say that this 80 year older appreciates the work that all of you editors are doing…in behalf of wikipedia…..I have often given some modest contributions as a way of thanks Though it was at first disappointing that my “compliant bonding “ article was declined….I decided redo the article is some version that you have suggested…when I get to that point I will probably resubmit the article…for you next comments With regards to your question about copyright….all of the figures and photos are my personnel collection that I have prepared and used about 40 to 50 years ago…..in various presentations….though the subject is part of the history of science it is still very relevant today….since these silicon integrated circuit “Chips”…are still the brains of the computers that most of us are using today…and therefore there would be interest in how they are reliably packaged in the various computer devices that are used today Finally I notice that you put my figures at the bottom of the article….can I do it either way or some modification of the way I had it and the way you put it at the bottom…(gallery wise) .. Take care …yield3 Yield3 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Hackley

Hi thanks for your helpful advice on my page entry for chris hackley bio. I've resubmitted it for review after re-doing the links using the citation template- still not quite sure if I've done it correctly. Best wishes Vic329 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic329 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		For your template and banner work. Amadscientist (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for The Mind of a Chef

Thank you for publishing The Mind of a Chef !-96.237.4.73 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Wslaughter, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Kalmus article

Hello Ahnoneemoos,

Many thanks for creating my Peter Kalmus article last week and for tidying up some of my newbie errors and pointing me in the right direction to correct some others.

Now - being new here - I'm not entirely sure which bits of your page to take completely seriously and which are areas that I should be careful to attend to. I'm sure I'll pick up experience. but this is my first effort on Wiki.

If you have a spare moment, could I please ask if you would mind giving the current iteration of my article a health check and see if I've really attended to everything properly. I've addressed categories, and have found and listed more resilient references and hopefully sorted out the citations. I guess I should be bold and assume it is OK - but I'd like make sure I've addressed anything which could compromise the article and that I'm not messing up a bunch of Wiki rules.

Anyway... thank you again for your assistance, and kind regards to you Admiralquirk (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My first try at an essay/WikiProject -Tell me what you think

The main idea is similar to WP:OUTREACH but this is about the editors than the WikiProjects themselves.

User:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball.

Do leave your feedback on the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:OUTREACH focuses on the editors, but through the different WikiProjects since they are already well established and renowned. In other words: it makes sure that critical WikiProjects are working in unison to lure, develop, and retain editors. About the essay: you have good intentions, but you failed to get a call to action. What exactly am I supposed to do after reading that? What do you want the reader to do? Join the project? Do what? Regarding humor, while it's welcomed by some, you should keep the tone serious as the dwindle on editors and administrators is actually a very serious matter that threatens both Wikipedia and the Foundation. So, if you want to be taken seriously, portray yourself as taking the problem as serious as it is. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability (fictional characters) in wrong category

I have removed Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) after seeing it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) has been marked as a guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahnoneemoos. You have new messages at Wwoods's talk page.
Message added 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please fix the talk page?

It looks like you messed up the archiving. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not. Archiving was being performed manually until 2009, then nobody else continued doing so. I restored the old archives and set automatic archiving so that it could be properly archived into month-year format. Unfortunately, User:Intelligentsium removed the archive navigation on the page, set the archiving to incremental instead of month-year, and then performed a full revert. You can see what's going on at User talk:Intelligentsium. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to the issue. FYI, I posted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver about it. Biosthmors (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ahnoneemoos. You have new messages at Intelligentsium's talk page.
Message added 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Intelligentsium 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)