This is an archive of past discussions with User:Unbroken Chain. 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.
You know that you were mentioned in the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN). I wrote something in support of you. I wrote that I didn't like you at first but after some communication, things resolved. Therefore, others should try to work with you first before saying that you are bad. You should also look at your own behavior to make sure that you aren't doing things to make others dislike you. In the end, I think you are reasonable so if everyone, you and them, work positively, things will be ok! User F203 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please Note: I have spcecifically indicated in the text of the article, that THERE ARE TWO VIEPOINTS.
Regardless of the fact that I can definitely see why THE CURRENT, SINGLE, DESCTIBED VIEWPOINT, IS NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT RATHER ALSO - ABUSIVE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE WHO HOLD THE OTHER (UNMENTIONED) VIEPOINT, I specifically took the trouble to mention BOTH, whereas NOBODY ELSE HAS BOTHERED.
I request that all involved shall calm down, out of their own volition, any emotional reflexes of tantrums, and of abuse towards other people's views, provoking war related to an ARTICLE ABOUT A MOVIE (!!!), NOT ABOUT SRVIVAL OF MANKIND.
There is one valid reason that your viewpoint isn't covered. There isn't a reliable source that supports it. The other one does, i included a link to it on the talk page. If you can't find a source as is approved by wp:rs then it is original research and thus not allowed. FYI, asking us to calm down when you SHOUT with caps doesn't help your arguement. Please review the policies before you proceed, it might help avoid blocks and such. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thaks for your disappointing reply. I do not reject the dubious, other viewpoint. Please note that (NOT CITING) AN EPISODE OF "THE NEXT GENERATION" television series, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE a "serious" "reference source" for the single viewpoint that is (mis) represented in the article, whereas, I constantly hear voices who are shouting "foul" about the sense that their (much more sensible, peaceful, non-emotional) interpretation is being abused, and their voices - stiflled by bullies. Please Note that the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie, does not qualify as "original research"! Any further stifling, or bullying, shall constitute a reason for a drastic measures. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You really need to stop typing in capital letters (in what can only be perceived as a veiled attempt to instigate something more), and read Wikipedia's essays on original research carefully. It doesn't matter whether billions of people agree with you. Without proper documentation that this viewpoint exists in verifiable, reliable sources, it cannot be presented here on Wikpedia. Period. - CobaltBlueTony™talk16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say you shot your arguement in the fooot with the verbage, "the interpretation of millions of people who have seen this movie" without a backup to say this is true then this is unreliable and original research.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read carefully: Alternate Reality is defined as: "Parallel universe or alternative reality is a self-contained separate reality coexisting with, or replacing, one's own" Now, there is nothing in that movie, which constitutes either "separeteness", nor "replacement", nor even "coexistence", since the entire unfolding of events is entirely contained in (i.e. consistent with) only ONE reality. Now, since I don't know who you are, what you age is (I am 50, BTW), nor what your background is (Ph.D, here), (personal attack and veiled threat removed by Theresa Knott | token threats)Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, sir, if you don't have a reliable independent source saying that "millions of viewers" think something, it is original research.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
For future ref, to file a 3RR you need the first version reverted to, then 2 reverts, a 3RR warning, an attempt to discuss the revert on the talkpage, the third revert (4th edit) then the fourth revert. The fourth revert (fifth edit) is the point at which a report is filed, and you have to avoid making more than three edits yourself. Shimon Yanowitz never got to the fifth edit, so could not have a 3RR report filed, however his edits were disruptive anyway. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, not to some admins, certainly not. But to take it to the noticeboard, the user has to have reverted again after their final warning for 3. So, sort of. It's 5 if they're adding the content (since the addition isn't a revert), 4 if they're trying to revert someone else's addition. --King ÖÖmieIII14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
One note -- you can warn about imminent 3RR violations before the 3rd revert, so that might slightly affect the timing here. Still, the 4th revert is required for there to be a violation. It doesn't have to be the fourth revert of the same information, just the same page, and consecutive reverts are generally counted as a single one (iow, if someone undoes 6 edits, someone else edits, and then they undo that one as well, that's two reverts, not seven). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks go out to Darrenhusted for his good-will and civil peace-making efforts on this.
You reverted before I could reply on the talk page, but what sources contradict aMoL being a trilogy/series/whatever title? Every source I found says it will be, including Tor's press release, and multiple comments by Sanderson. Rehevkor✉21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I stepped away for a minute. The Source I'm referring to is Brian Sanderson's Blog at [[1]] I argued this poorly when I first started on Wikipedia but I do believe that the Official Blog of the Author is considered reliable as per wr:rd. I will be opening a merge discussion for the health section to his main article as I think the coverage it has vs the actual 3rd book is disproportionate.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There'll have to be more than a "likely" before we go against already published and fully reliable sources. Give it time, if and when it's been confirmed it can be acted upon. Rehevkor✉23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I had hoped you had not acted on this until a 3rd party source had turned up, as we'd need as such to contradict the current sources. There's no rush on this, but apparently you disagree. I hope to act on this later. Cheers Rehevkor✉04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen these discussions many times on films that have big fan bases, like with superhero films. :) Hope the template helps somewhat! We can point to it in the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sock Puppet is when one user has multiple accounts. I suggest reading thet article about it. If it isn't the case I would apologize before hand but the tactics used with that article is strongly reminiscent of a sock. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
to be honest, i dont know how to supply you with a reliable source as this is only a small budget book in rural irelandButchre (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Small-budget book only available in rural Ireland, that no reliable sources have reported on? Then it's not notable enough to be included. By the way, you're not supposed to create articles about book that you wrote. The idea being, if it's notable enough, someone who's READ it will want to create an article. Wikipedia does not publish new information- it simply reports information already available through primary sources. This isn't the place to promote something you created. --King ♣Talk13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Lansing Mall
Please tell me how you think this mall isn't notable. The first version of the article, deleted via the first AFD, had no sources at all. There was also a second, unsourced version which was deleted by PROD (yeah, shouldn't have happened). This version has plenty of sources. Oh yeah, and the last AFD was over 2 years ago. AFDs that old don't usually hold up in G4-ish discussions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
And now you've tagged Meridian Mall for speedy too when it obviously isn't (the article has six non-trivial sources, which is clearly enough). I seriously think that you should read WP:CSD before tagging another article for speedy deletion or AFD, because your taggings are way off the mark. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How have you made yourself known? All you said was "It's not notable" without backing yourself up (see WP:JNN). Your editing seems very fishy right now, and in fact I've opened up an WP:AN thread on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Bucket, I've speedily kept both AFDs. You really should familiarize yourself more with WP:N as well as the deletion policy, and you shouldn't use Twinkle--especially for speedy deletions or AFDs--until you do. The next deletion nomination of any sort that is deemed to be pointy may result in you being blocked. Blueboy9619:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow a grocery trip before camping is evading question? I find the above "warning" unwarranted, and disagree in the strongest terms. That being said the malls in my opinion are non notable. The mall in Minnesota the Great american mall is notable, these buildings are not. Will anyone care about these buildings in 100 years, more then likely not. They are nondescript and not worth including in the encyclopedia. Afds are for debates in which the community can weigh in, I raised a concern and if the community disagrees fine but I still raised the concern in the community. I'm sorry if you disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So you admit you're totally throwing WP:N out the window? Is anyone gonna care about, say, Lady Antebellum 100 years from now? Probably not, but does that mean they don't meet WP:N? Hell no. Your whole attitude seems to be WP:WHOCARES, which totally goes against WP policy. Yes, someone could write about an individual ma and pa store, but if it meets notability, it'll stay, end of story. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You are a thick one aren't you? I'm using my time to talk about the issue, doesn't seem like I don't care. Maybe you are just wereing glasses with a different shade of color then I am? Well since you only want to troll on my page and make baseless accusations kindly stay off of it unless you plan on talking out an issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
From the AfDs, it was unclear why you felt the malls were not notable. It's all well and good to have a bold opinion, but if you don't present a reasonable argument using Wikipedia's notability criteria as a starting point, no one's going to take your AfDs seriously. Did you, in fact, have a line of reasoning we could discuss? You may very well have valid points, but if you get tied up in complaining about how other editors react to you instead of focusing on content, those valid points could be lost, and Wikipedia could theoretically suffer. So, do we have something of substance to discuss, or what is going on here? - CobaltBlueTony™talk14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
response, In my own opinion the malls are non notable. What sets them apart from any other set of plaza shopping centers? To my mind nothing. My opinion is a stae of the art building like the Great American Mall was made is notable, It sets it apart and above other malls. To me the article is only a real estate advertisement. I hope it clarifys why I did what I did.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but what rationale are you using to form your opinion? Wikipedia is consensus-based, and we build policy, or even change it, based on logical and rational discussion. Simply saying, "I don't think they are notable" is not a rationale. It's simply an opinion. This is why we have the notability criteria. We as a community have decided what minimum requirements must be met for an article to be considered notable (not notable). Since both of these malls met those criteria, you must have a compelling counterargument to bring to the table, or you're missing point, and wasting our time: the articles were speedily kept.
It isn't just the structure that is relevant here: independent, nontrivial coverage of these two entities gives them their notability. Their impact on the local and regional economy, and their documented first or significant milestones or qualities may imbue further notability, even as the Great American Mall has its own claims to fame. This is why we have criteria: so that "random editors who've never heard of something before" aren't the measure of notability; the community-accepted set of criteria is. Am I making sense here? - CobaltBlueTony™talk15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Cobalt, on this one I do disagree with you. I do take exception being classified as "random editors who've never heard of something before" This is not an opinion based on the fact I haven't heard of them, this is based on the fact that in 100 years it's highly doubtful anyone will remember this mall. In my mind there is nothing to make this mall stand out. Sorry, on this we will have to agree to disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) No, sorry, we can't "agree to disagree". Neither you nor I have any overwhelming sway on the community's criteria. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't simply get to act all willy-nilly on this site without any regard for the entire community's will. If an article meets those criteria, especially overwhelmingly, your continued nominations of such articles based on your own opinion and nothing else is disruptive. I strongly recommend that you refrain from participating in AfD nominations and other deletion procedures unless and until you accept the community's criteria over your own. 15:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You read too much into what I said there and have been saying over this entire thread. You should re-review all of it on all pages and strike your comments. I have clearly stated that I can be wrong and am willing to review the situation. There is always two sides to every coin. Mistakes will be made if you don't like that remove all human contributions from the encycllopedia. This isn't realistic but the fact is mistakes will be made, it's how they are responded to that is key and my attitude has been open to constructive criticisms but your borderline personal attacks need to stop NOW.If you'd like to talk out an issue I'll gladly do so but when you come here in a confrontational way I will not allow that on my talk page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am, in fact, asking you to review the criteria and if the article meets them before you nominate anything. I'm not attacking you personally, and I don't have any reservations that you're smart enough to be here. My sense of aggravation (which is evidently seeping through here) comes from what seems to be a complete disregard (without assumptions of bad faith) for the criteria. I can't for the life of me understand why you nominated the articles, and I'm more than simply dissatisfied with your response that "mistakes will be made". I'm confused, befuddled. This is why I'm pressing you for a more concise reasoning: because you can't simply present an AfD with "not notable" without any logic or rationale. Ten separate editors had to stop more pressing work to express their complete disapproval of the nominations, and if this is how you're going to proceed here, it's an utter waste of our time, and yes, disruptive. Without any enlightening on your part as to why you genuinely felt these two articles did not meet the notability criteria, the rest of us can only wonder if you actually grasp how the site works (if not, there is tutelage available to you), or are really acting in bad faith. Please keep in mind that whether or not this were true, the result of AfD nominations like this has an unwelcome impact on the project, and editors and administrators alike will continue to react as they have, evidenced on your talk page, for example. You might not like this reaction, but until you see the point behind even snarky messages, and revise your efforts, it will only get worse. That's not a threat; based on my five years of editing here, it's a foregone conclusion, and I will be happy to have nothing to do with it so that you can see that it's not some personal vendetta on my part. - CobaltBlueTony™talk16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should step back then if you are aggravated. I would suggest that because it detracts from your arguement. You asked why I did what I did in this case, I answered truthfully, then you jump on me like a wounded animal. I think my whole viewpoint on this has been very indulgent, I have readily admitted my views do not always fit with everyone elses, but to throw out unless I go to a coaching thing it "would be bad faith" thats ridiculous. I will be the first to admit mistakes where made, but maybe you would like to look at your responses and consider if being aggravated and letting it show isn't going to garner a listening ear. I would like to point out there are several examples if one looks where I have had good conversations with people regarding my taggins and some even posted at the ANI board in my support. As far as teh nominations go I am trying to get the criteria all down and will continue to learn more, sorry if that has caused you grief. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Meridian Mall has about a million square feet of retail space, and was a very early mall to be of that super-regional size. It was not a good candidate for AFD. Read Shopping mall and take a look at the essay/failed notability guideline for malls, Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). There is an archive on the talk page of that proposed guideline that tracks a great many mall AFDs and notes the size and other attributes, as well as the outcome of the AFD. Edison (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have somewhat defended your actions on the AN thread, but I will offer you same advice here as I did in that thread: it might be in your own best interests to concentrate on areas outside of deletion until he gets a better handle on our policies (or are willing to accept them for what they are if you are, in fact, ignoring them in favor of what you believe to be best as others have asserted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As always a candid opinion for which I thank you. I'm slightly miffed over the thread, however believe that ultimately the encyclopedia is better off without those articles. It does seem that ultimately others don't agree, not unfimiliar territory I suppose. Oh well I'm off to go fishing and camping for a weekend in an hour and a half so cheers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
there are tens of thousands of active people here, and they all have individual standards of what is good for the encyclopedia . they overlap a good deal, but they do not coincide. That's why it's not a good idea to simply take action based on your own view of this. "good for the encyclopedia" has to mean, what people here agree is good for the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes you stir a pot without really meaning to. I am trying to get better too so I'll take everything said with a grain of salt and take what I can from it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell, AfD can be a pretty unpleasant place sometimes. In fact, so can other areas of Wikipedia when there is passion or emotional attachment. The editors who last here and enjoy their working tend to be able to let stuff go and to realize early on that many goo dfaith efforts will fail. Right and wrong don't always matter here. You will win some battles you lose others. Sometimes the pendulum of views here swings one way, sometimes another.
Particularly on the side of deleting other people's work you can expect to receive criticism, and I think some of the criticism should be taken seriously and considered carefully. What is notable to one person may not be notable to another. I think our policies generally favor inclusion and preservation when in doubt, because we are paperless and serve a wide variety of people with diverse interests. That's not to say that there isn't an awful lot of that can be appropriately deleted, but there's also a lot of stuff that just needs trimming, merging, tweaking or redirecting.
I'm just offering my two cents. Have fun. And please add content and help build the encyclopedia wherever possible. :) I know clean-up counts too, but it's fun and rewarding sometimes to plant flowers instead of always trying to pull up the weeds (which sometimes flower too). Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Evaluating articles for deletion
I thought I was rather clear as to my own personal expectations from the average user, that one would read things carefully, but perhaps my response fits under the category of "tl;dr". That makes this exercise difficult, don't you think? If I offer my concise thoughts and you don't really read it all? This is at least how it appears to me because of my expectation of your intelligence; even in more strenuous editing in the past I could tell that you were an intelligent person, so why some things slip your grasp is something I can't comprehend. So I am trying to be patient and not bite.
Let's take Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall. Your argument for deletion was basically "Who cares?", because, when asked to clarify based on Wikipedia's general notability criteria, you didn't seem to have a response. (If you had a more concise response, I can't find it.) The articles were discussed in a non-trivial way by the Greater Lansing Business Monthly, The State News, and the Lansing State Journal; two of those references actually having their own articles, which lends to their general credibility and reliability. Now if those references didn't actually clearly discuss the Malls in a non-trivial (meaning not in passing, or a short blurb) way, you could have brought those points up, and the AfDs would have been a means for you to learn how terms like "nontrivial" and "reliable" are interpreted by the Wikipedia community.
Now let's discuss this "Who cares?" argument. Just because you've never heard of it, or it seems like some run-of-the-mill whatever, doesn't mean that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. And it's the notability criteria, not a single user's awareness or tastes, that dictate what we include. For example, McDonald's is the world's largest chain of fast-food restaurants, but individual McDonald's locations may not be notable, unless they are a historic structure, or events of some significance have occurred there, or similar crtieria searchable and verifiable. Similarly, random crime events are not likely notable unless they are recognized in a special way by relevant elements of society in a way that we can verify. This means that reproduction of the story (identical or nearly identical copy) in different news outlets is not the same thing as different notable or reliable sources discussing it in their own ways.
Malls are not just articles about structures or random shopping centers. There usually needs to be some significance to the region, either economically or historically (which includes past economic impact). Since notability doesn't expire, a relatively unknown subject can still be a good article if there's reliable and verifiable evidence that it met the criteria during its presumed notable presence.
Now if you're examining the references of an article and you find obviously negligible mentions in its sourcing, you can always tag with {{refimprove}} or similar. Our goal here is not strict deletionism (consistant rigorous application of strict standards for inclusion); nor is it inclusionism (add everything now; fix it later). It's a healthy balance of the two, which helps pare down excessive and trivial details in some more well-covered subjects and encourages improved sourcing on lesser known but still notable subjects.
Bottom line: if there's a chance or salvage or improvement, try to work on that, instead of judging based on your own criteria or deleting something just because you're unclear on how the subject meets the community-based criteria. When I first started, I went after a lot of things that were poorly sourced because I didn't know they were significant. It takes time, practice, and careful, careful reading — a lot of it!!! — to get a handle on AfD nominations. If you have more concise questions, I'll be glad to try and tackle them. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™talk17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
re: your question
Hello Hellinabucket. No, there was a missing character < in one of your refs.
Your version: <ref>http://www.sangres.com/features/johnmartin.htm/ref>
So that is an allowable inclusion? I can understand how it would be but thought it would be a good question to understand the why of it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The why is covered by the recommended size for any given article. Basically the community decides how big is too big (factoring in the server load, etc.), especially if some of the subtopics could be easily broken out. I'm not much for these individual state speed limit articles, though, and it appears it's only been attempted twice. They definitely need clean-up; I'm not sure how much more could be added to them, though. Perhaps there is too much information in them and they should be pared down and re-merged. Just my passing opinion, though. - CobaltBlueTony™talk17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with a merge back, most of the detail is unreferenced, and the main article doesn't even have a summary of the separate article. Your original questions was on AfD tagging for this one, and I'd suggest 'Places and transportation.' I guess there are people who love to maintain this sort of road stuff, but it's not exactly my cup of tea. Best regards. --Stephen23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Usernames
PS. On an unrelated issue in this edit [2], you can give a reason why the name is not suitable by {{usernameconcern|It is a promotional username}}, and that replaces NO REASON GIVEN. Most admin/patrolling templates have up to 28 parameters, with a specific and defined order, that you must memorise before you are allowed to use them! --Stephen00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to do it manually. There should be a big edit box at the bottom of the pop-up that you can put your concerns in.—C45207 | Talk02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for stomping out that IP who was trying to troll me. Here are some new enforcer boots for you in case yours got dirty. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you would please explain why you have left this here. I have reviewed all usertalk comments made today and no where do I see where anyone was even close to being "bit".Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) As you probably know by now, having your support means a lot to me given our past history. I appreciated your kind words about my honesty and policy knowledge. If you need some admin assistance in the future, don't hesitate to ask as I will be glad to help.
Would you mind photographing the Frontier Airlines headquarters, Frontier Center One, at
7001 Tower Road in Denver? The article needs a photograph of its headquarters. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
i'm sorry but I live two hours away and I'm currently unemployed I'm bit exactly in a position to do so but I will see if I know someone in the area that can.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably first person to speak to me with any respect.
I dont know you so nothing personal but the other admin people I spoke to have been very ignorant, anyway
I have asked for my account to be removed now.
I feel that no one is interested in the truth and no matter what I say I get deleted called a vandal and when I complain that get deleted as well!
so whats the point.
I am a little amazed that so many of the admin team do not care about the actual articles though.
I've been in the position you are currently in. I too thought that the Admin were being abusive and I daresay I had a meltdown much worse then yours. I guess my first question is are you new? Sometimes an entry like this is common for new users because there is a shit ton of policies and procedures to learn and so it can definitly be confusing. I am not an admin but I might be able to assist you in making some of your changes you desire and show you the correct way to get those added. Would you like to provide me a cliffnote version of what you are trying to accomplish? Make sure whatever it is that it follows wp:rs and is not WP:ORIGINAL. Like I say more then happy to try and assist to get what you want added on there.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I think the admin are so blinded by their own hate and some users are just abusive that I do not see the point in putting myself through all that just to correct an article that everyone is fighting to keep incorrect!
That's up to you but as you acknowledge you are a new user here, if you can be shown the correct way for change I think it will be a huge difference and it may open up some doors you are unaware of previously. Anyways I'll leave that up to you, but a helpful FYI one of my previous blocks was Admin bashing so you might want to tone it done a bit.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect CSD tagging
Hi. I saw that you had tagged One and Only "T" with CSD A7. Just a heads up - A7 is explicit that it does not apply to albums. I think you wanted CSD A9 instead. A minor point, but incorrect tagging does slow down the deletion process. However, thanks for bringing the article to my attention; I have a feeling it probably will qualify for A9. Stephen!Coming...13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate your wanting to get involved, and while the information was edit warred into the article, it was properly cited [3] to ABC news. The article very clearly identifies her as qualifying for that list.--Crossmr (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
neither, this is an issue that is really dumb. I've seen much worse attacks or insults, the editor is just calling things like they see it. We aren't perfect so sometimes the way we see things are wrong or inaccurate. if the shoe fits wear it if not walk away.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I was saying it as I see it. So only established editors and admins can state their beliefs no matter if it includes name calling, removing comments from AFDs, and telling someone to leave Wikipedia? What policy supports that belief? Joe Chill (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If everyone did that, then there should be no WP:ANI or any other form of dispute resolution. Doing those three things to one user is a big issue (which I have seen it treated as many times). Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
So when did you request a comment or involve a third party before going to ANI? You didn't follow the process because if you did it would have been squashed then.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I must warn you that if you continue to direct abusive remarks at me or continue to try and stir trouble deliberately you will be reported for personal attacks which are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please heed this warning. Thank you. UkFaith (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the notability guidelines by heart. I am not a new user. I have been a member for a year, but under a different account which I won't mention per my right to vanish. My main work on my other account was speedy deletes and AFDs and I did very good at that. But even though I did it correctly, people constantly acted like dicks to me. There was this one time when all I did was ask someone for sources in AFD and they harassed me like crazy which including insulting me because of my articles and nominating multiple articles of mine for deletion (which all ended up as keeps). There was even an admin that nominated an article of mine for deletion and said that I was attracted to poop because I created an article about a book that had to do with it (the result was keep). Another time, I nominated a book article for deletion and the creator kept on jumping to rude conclusions about me (the result was delete). The harassment caused me to create this account. I created a secondary account (see user page) for me to use to edit under when editing gets heated, but I still want to edit. Joe Chill (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at the definition of trivia "unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information.". "X likes shoes" is trivia, "X is left handed" is trivia. When X is a professional athlete, "X won a race in the Olympics" is most definitely not trivia. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
ANI Notice
Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, and for your comments on the ANI page. I'm rather surprised at the knee jerk reaction that quickly followed. David Tombe (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Without delving into the history on that issue (which I haven't done so), I think that it looked like a firing squad pretty much, there wasn't much of a consensus there just an edict laid down. Again though I am not versed with the history so that's just what it looks like from the surface.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that it is not. It's not the kind of edit that I would have made. I am interested in experimental measurements of permittivity. I am not interested in direct measurements of the speed of light and I've abandoned the article. An anonymous with a number like that does tend to monitor edits that I make. He has appeared on quite a few occasions before. I'm not planning on making any more physics edits at speed of light. I've left my final statement on the matter at the wiki-physics page. My position on the matter is summed up by the simple statement that c^2 = 1/(εμ) reads from right to left, and not from left to right. David Tombe (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD for Neil Cusack
Hi, Hell in a Bucket!
Please could you not remove the AfD template from the top of a page unless you've closed the AfD as well? It makes things more difficult for the closer.
I do appreciate your integrity in withdrawing the AfD and recognise your good intentions in removing the template, though.
Hi, I see that you put a COI note on User talk:Michaelhfreeman, when he hadn't edited any article in userspace but had only put a note on my userpage asking about correcting/expanding the article about himself. It would have been more appropriate to have given him a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help - an anon had changed his date of birth by 15 years, for a start. PamD (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I can understand that and will remember for the future. However it also goes to say he should ne aware self editing an article anout yourself is discouraged, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
OK.
I'm still a little iffy on the copyright factor, but I'll go ahead and restore it since you're willing to make the effort. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
np. I'll try and eliminate any copyright issues there may be.
Wow, much better. It still needs a bit of wikifying and formatting, but it's a darn sight better than it was. Nice save. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
UAA
Thank you for your work in reporting username violations. Just as a note, it is not necessary to use the {{Uw-username}} warning template on a user's talkpage if you intend to report them to WP:UAA, as the template implies that the user will have an opportunity to discuss the concern prior to any action being taken. Using both that warning template and then reporting the username sends the wrong message. Thanks, Shereth15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the intent of your question -- I can only guess why the article wasn't deleted. Presumably, people ran notability checks and concluded it wasn't a vanity article.
For what it's worth, I heard Corcoran interviewed on the radio and he seemed notable so I created a basic page, figuring it would be polished over time, as it has been. Thanks for chipping in.
That's an external tool, and looks like it's down. There's nothing an admin can do about that though. You can use something else (like this) if you want. ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That information is provided by the Toolserver, and currently there are some problems with it. I'll try to find out more about it, and let you know later. In the meantime, another tool that is working and provides similar info is here. Chzz ► 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I did not revert your change because you had done anything wrong, but because the page you had given the warning for was actually a misplaced user page and I had moved it instead of deleting it. It was therefore inappropriate to leave the message behind. Maybe I should have undone it instead of rolling it back. Deb (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say it is never appropriate to template an experienced editor (admin) with seven years of experience and over 60 000 beneficial and exemplary edits with a warning template designed for a new user, also dropping messages attwelve admins pages asking then to go there and comment is also nothing but escalating the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is escalating the issue. However policy is policy, I politely advisd her of her violition (I probably shouldn't have templated a regular) however number of contribs and tenure doesn't excuse them from following the rules and if having other people confirm something is what it will take... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, policy is policy you say..there is no policy that says you should act in this way, and requesting twelve other admins to go there and comment is very poor judgement. I would say an apology is in order. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you can suggest a different course of action? I do not believe my actions are any less accountable then hers are if against the policy.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a reason for asking fo r that many opinions. A couple of those admin have blocked me (possibly biased viewpoint) a couple I've had positive interactions (Biased on my behalf possibly), and the third category were those that I have only interacted with on deletions and such (nuetral). I was doing this for "3rd" comment resolution. I am not aware of a appropriate venue or method for doing that, maybe you can help if I did it wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk)
My issue- isn't the refactoring the talk page, that by itself is minor. The main concern is Discounting an well thought (backed by policiy) opinion completely solely for Grammer errors and a colorful history is very disturbing.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict, ::A different course of action? We can ill aford to lose such valuable editors. Go there and apologise for being a bit hasty and then go a bit slower, about one quarter of the speed you are going now.Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict.It is considered rude to template an experienced editors talkpage, also being polite whilst you stomp around in big boots does not make you correct. I just think you were a bit hasty, one look at her edits and length of service would have shown you that this was someone you should not have templated and that a discussion was in order, which would have been an opportunity to learn what was going on and imo you should not have left the other messages requesting comment from all the admins, I find here, that as far as feedback goes, if it is quiet you are doing ok.
The expression is another way of putting across my feeling that you are rushing around and perhaps not taking enough time to consider your actions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not actually an admin, although I'm always willing to provide advice. I don't see any question of your past record, merely your attitude and style of writing. I'd say the warning is inappropriate since we have a general rule about templating the regular users; a polite query would've worked better, since a templated warning to an established user can seem facetious or patronising. Where exactly did she refactor a talkpage comment? Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not particularly, but I get the general drift. You're pissy because she failed to heed your warning, and you think this would somehow make the wiki look bad to new users. I can give you 100 users who would react in a similar way if, after 60,000 edits, they got templated, myself included. Besides which, if she responds angrily to a fool warning like that, what exactly did you think would happen when you complained about her response? Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not so much. Sometimes we all need reminders regardless how experienced we are. Maybe you can point me to the policy that says I can do what I want if I make over so many contribs? The don't template the regulars one I can understand, but for the exemption of standards on a edit count would be helpful. My point is not self centered to myself only, I'm not the only one with the issue of a rough start but if we start allowing an attitude like that to anyone we open pandora's box.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
We need reminders, yes - not templated ones, though. I honestly couldn't give a fig about what your "rough start" was like, and neither could Deb - I can't see a single bit of her reply to your warning that was based on your past record, more on your attitude and language use. Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I nowhere even near bite the persons page she refactored. I left a notice after csd a A.B. and left a lvl one warning for creating innappropriate page. I am assuming that she looked t my talk page history where I received a warning for templating a nebie with a high level template. I may be personally touchy when it comes to comments about my typing. I have worn glasses since I was nine months old and I live with double vision, with all these problems I still manage to live on my own and Contribute here but somehow because of this my opinion matters less? I've never mentioned this and shouldn't have had to here but it's another good example of why we should watch our comments and attitudes.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
When I was nine months old my eyes rolled back into my head and I had to have corrective surgery, but somehow I still manage to spell" level" correctly and remember that "at" includes an a. Regardless, I didn't accuse you of biting, I said that your attitude in templating a regular was what she had a problem with, from her comments. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish my eye problems had been that simple. I've had 5 surgeries on them the last being when I was 15. I can understand her being upset with being templated as a regular. However that isn't what she said....."I'll be ready to accept your warnings when you...." that is what she said. Warnings templated or otherwise are warnings and she is effectivily saying she was right and I was wrong because of previously mentioned reasons.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Jake, it is time for you to do the adult thing and back off. You made a mistake in warning an editor over what was a good faith action - the editor made a mistake in biting back; long term editors are supposed to remember what it is to be new and enthusiastic and not 100% familiar with the rules, and explain themselves so there is better understanding in the future. You did not react well to the biting and went and asked a few people to look into the matter (which, notwithstanding the language, is a reasonable thing to do) and got replies which focussed on the errors on your part and not the long standing contributor. You got a bit of a crap deal, but this is going to happen from time to time and the best solution is just to accept it, learn whatever lessons you can find, and move on.
A couple of things - and this is just my personal opinion here - I would like to comment on; firstly, I think that established editors who do something wrong should get exactly the same response as a newbie, and anyone who gets pissy because they were templated need to remove their digit from where the sun don't shine and learn to breathe. It would at least remind them of the likely response of all the new accounts that they template, and anyway everyone is supposed to AGF so a template is just someone saying "careful" and everyone gets it wrong now and then. Secondly, if your contributions to article space are correctly spelled and formatted then who cares what your spelling is like in talkpages - as long as you are understood then it is fine; they are pages to facilitate communication, not a sodding literacy class.
Yup, you are not the editor I blocked and I am pretty impressed in how hard you have since worked in building the encyclopedia - and I think you deserve just as much consideration as a long time contributor. That said, try and spend more time reviewing matters before acting - when going to warn/advise an editor remember to look at their contrib history; look at the current page and see how many and what type of edits there are today (this gives an indication of how active they are) and then look at the earliest contrib and find out how long they have been here. If they are doing lots of edits in the same manner to a lot of articles, or many edits to one, and they have been here for a couple of years then they are likely a regular editor and you should interact with them appropriately (like, don't give them a newbie warning - try to discuss why they made a possibly non policy compliant edit). All this will come in time, so accept the knockbacks and the fact you will make mistakes because... it happens to experienced editors the same.
I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I think you are right in your assessment. Everyone makes mistakes and I think that at at least on person agrees with me at least in part. As far as advancing this further you are more then likely right that at this point it is becoming a tad counter productive. I hope that the message is recvd and all this hasn't been for nothing. Thank you for your time and assessment.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Some unsolicited advice
Dear Jake,
I saw your name pop up on a few of my watched pages and got intrigued. I notice on your user page you've placed a box that says you'd like to be an admin one day. Now spending alot of time in areas where tempers can get frayed, such as WP:AFD runs a risk of annoying someone sooner or later, by the nature of the place rather than your own input into it. I am an inclusionist but more are deletion-minded and we all argue with those that can't see our points of view (hehehe).
A great way to edit more harmoniously is help out at some desperately needed areas - e.g. peer review. Here editors are hanging out for some input, any input on how their editing on an article is going. Anything helpful is good - e.g. if a technical article is hard to understand, just say so as us writers who like the technical stuff should be able to make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible. Another thing to do is try and write some Good articles, about something that you are interested in. Anyway, these places in general are alot more cooperative - folks will hugely appreciate any input at Peer Review.
Think about it, I'd rather trust someone with admin tools who appears helpful and cooperative. Anyway, take it or leave it, I just thought I'd drop a note :)
Thank you for taking your time to comment here. I am always interested in improving my editing. The admin tag is more then likely far off in the future but hey a goal is a goal. Now the peer review board is that for reviews on myself or reviews on other editors? I'm trying to branch out from working deletions to recovering the articles that can be and sourcing but as a thread above shows, I'm not the strongest writer so the 20 or so articles I've created have mostly been stubs. Again thank you for stopping by.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to apologise for being rude to you earlier. I am quite prepared for us to start again, and will try to help you in any way I can. But I would also like to say that I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to new users. If they have created something that looks like an attempt at a user page, I assume that this is what they are trying to do and I move it accordingly. If I am wrong, then at least it helps them get the message without any need for warnings.
I would say, from looking at your contributions, that you are too ready to give warnings to others. This won't make you friends or help you get support to become an admin, and I agree with the advice given above by User:Casliber. Deb (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any specific examples, but I will keep a look out for you from now on. Incidentally, I wouldn't want you to interpret what I said as meaning that you don't have a right to give any warnings to anybody. Of course there are situations when it is sensible. An example of that would be when you are faced with what looks like vandalism but you are not 100% sure. (Like, for example, something that looks like it's a schoolkid trying to be funny and not recognising the damage they are doing to the project.) In any situation where there was a likelihood of a user being blocked, I would give them a warning first unless the vandalism was very serious (eg. racism or obscenity). Deb (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) if you scroll down on the Peer Review page, you'll see lots of articles listed - the editors who placed them there are very grateful if folks can make a few observations. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Bouchard
How is it goin? I like your user name, I am also a deadhead. I have recently gotten into the transportation industry and saw that the articles on tug and barge companies were lacking. I was going to do K-Sea Transportation next. How can I fix the Bouchard article to get it up to snuff? There are numerous Tugboat companies that in my opinion deserve to be included. I saw that Crowley Maritime has an article and they are in the same field. Email me at andrewmfortunato@gmail.com if you can spare the time to lend me a hand. Thanks.
I've had to flag this up as a copyvio. I'd say that the company probably is notable enough to support an article, but not in its current form. The individual ships certainly will be notable too. I've given my opinion in the AfD debate too. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't template a regular again. I forget just how I ended up on the talk page, but I saw you're previous discussion, and was amused by the irony of the "Don't template the regulars" template and thought you would appreciate it. Sorry for the confusion. Cmiych (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was seriously bummed there and thought I screwed up again. Now I know the difference it is a bit funny.....Ot certainly was a duh moment for me.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood
The phrase I shall euphemize as "FUE" is the name of the unstaged play the s.p.a. is unhappy about seeing deleted. It was neither trolling nor vandalism. I'd suggest you do a null edit and throw in an apologetic edit summary. --Orange Mike | Talk16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
How do I perform a null edit? I did leave a note allready. I'll be at work for a few but will return in a fw hours and will attend to this then.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A null edit can be done by, say, deleting a blank space, then typing in a replacement blank space in the same spot; then saving the "change." The point is to leave the article unchanged, but take the opportunity to leave a meaningful edit summary in the permanent record of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
hi hell in a bucket a quick question(s)
sorry i have not been on in a long time, but i have had modular science exams at school, and english and maths coming up as a GCSE a year early. I wish to know if i would be able to use my forensic book, general, as a sitation for creating an entire wiki page on a subject. I do not know what it is called, but i will relay the name when i get home. Also i wish to make a lot of changes to the "serology" page with this book as a citation, as there is a lot missing from it. please get back to me in the next week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry jake, i forgot to Stakingsin (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) havn't been on in a loong time.
P.S why is everyone having a go at you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
sometimes it may seem they are having a go at someone but in reality it is not quite so extreme. The vast majority of the text here was a issue I had with an Admin. It boiled down to a communication error. Besides there was only one or two that were a little out there with their assssments. Anything that is thirdy prty and reliable can be used as a references. I am understanding you want to a school book, that sounds lfine but make sure you support what you write with sources, there is a fine line in Original Research and properly sourced. When you have the name drop me a line and I will review.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Got the names of the one i was on about, and another one. (both owned by me, i take a deep interest in forensics myself) One is called "crime investigation" and the other is called "hidden evidence" Stakingsin (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to do an end run around your nomination, so I left word on the talk page. Thanks for the note; I'll go ahead and remove the nomination. Keep on tagging and bagging! :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Socks & stuff
Thanks for the heads up on the AN/I discussion started by Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?. As for sock-puppet suspicions, I would not be surprised if that editor has a history under other account names. His very first edit was to revert an edit of mine, which indicates to me he has had a past editing conflict with me. His second edit was a comment that started with, "I agree with 66.184.134.26 ...". That User:66.184.134.26 IP editor has also had editing conflicts with me, and edits the exact same articles - so either they are the same person, or Mr. Bias has decided to team up with him. Fight the bias's very first edit was to remove an edit of mine on the Susan Roesgen article, too. Users Jmcnamera and Jm131284 have also warred with me on the Roesgen article, with Jm131284 ending up perma-blocked for it. Perhaps some of the above editors are a reincarnation of Jm131284.
I see that you have started an SPI page on Mr. Bias. I haven't studied these editors very closely, but one comment I would make about your current notes: I doubt Jimintheatl is related; he edits some of the same articles as the above editors, but usually from an opposite point of view. Let me know if there is any way I can help, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify to you, I didn't pick your name from a list willy nilly. I had done research on an extensive sock farm and there were three articles everyone nominated had in common. They all edited a specific genre and had 3 articles in common Glenn BeckTea Party protests and Susan Roesgen. one of the hallmarks in WP:SIGN is Editing identical articles I understand that 3 articles is a little rough however I did base my premise of my understanding of the policy. I would suggest in the future to ask for the reasons before blowing up with crap like "wtf", "Chucklehead"[[4]], or "Buckethead" [[5]]. This is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and are also a minor form of personal attack. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess you should read more about the policy regrding civility then because nothing in my actions were uncivil. If you can't accept a simple explanation you are lost and there is no further point to this dialogue. Sorry you chose to act like a little kid. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Putting crap on my userpage falsely accusing me of being a scckpuppet of some user I've never even heard of is vandalism in my book. -- Evans1982 (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, so this other user and I edited three of the same articles! LOL. Dude, something's wrong with you! Please, don't waste anymore of my time or anyone else's with crap like that! -- Evans1982 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Embedded Options
the article listed 4 types of embedded options, each of which already has a page to itself, where detailed references are available. your editing reduces the article to a stub; it would have been prudent to simply put up a notice that it needs referencing. kindly undo the edit. sandy (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
i intend to add the treatment of embedded options for financial reporting purposes there, so i suppose the article needs to stand. do go ahead with categories, that may be helpful too. take care
sandy (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Chhajjusandeep has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
None of the production team call it a reboot, none of the cast call it a reboot. The cast and crew did hundreds of interviews. I'm not going to spend all day reverting so make your case on the talk page, and look through the history of the page, as reboot has been added before and removed before. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with reboot being put into context, I just felt that "Star Trek is a reboot science fiction film" was a clumsy way to do it, but the sentence explaining that others consider it a reboot is fine. It should be noted that on the Wikipedia reboot page Star Trek is not listed. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the page and I'm happy with the wording. Of course there may be other editors who may want changes, but I'm fine with the wording. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I did make one minor change inbetween and denoted that only the outside media is calling it a reboot. I think this addresses concerns that the producer's didn't classify it as such specifically. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Help Me
{{helpme}}
I'd like to create a collapsable box on my user page for the section on articles I created. I do not know how to. Would someone help me get it set up,? You have my permission to modify my user page if you do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added a collapsible box around the list of articles on your user page. I did it by putting {{collapse top}} where the box starts and {{collapse bottom}} where it ends. You can find more options on the templates' pages. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to help you with. Thanks! --Mysdaaotalk16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy tag. There is some implication of notability and meeting WP:BAND, if you feel that they do not meet the criteria, consider sending the article to AfD, since this isn't a clear cut deletions in my opinion.--Terrillja talk19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Spam accounts
Hi... your latest report to AIV was someone who (although certainly a spammer) had only one edit. Couldn't warnings be used instead and if they persist then they'd be blocked? Blocking is just a technical measure to stop someone from continuing to edit, but with only one edit we don't even know whether they'll make another one. -- Mentifisto15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I was under the understanding when finding people who were writing articles for promotional reasons to report immediately. I can definitely hold back if that is what is called for in that case. I do try not to bite noobs. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if there's a general consensus on this or not but I don't think spam is any worse than vandalism, which in fact may be more damaging, and we do give warnings to vandals (too many, some say) so I don't think giving spammers a chance to stop and become better contributors could be any worse. -- Mentifisto16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand that logic. I could've easily been someone hastily indef blocked myself, and I managed to make a few contribs. I'll give it some serious thought, I think you make a good point.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Star Trek
I informed you of the three-revert rule because judging from the page history, you reverted three times in a 24-hour period: 17:08, September 16, 2009, 15:06, September 17, 2009, and 15:13, September 17, 2009. Preceding these reverts, there was light edit warring with Darrenhusted. This is why I asked you to discuss without editing. The back-and-forth, even if keeping it to three reverts per 24-hour period, is not conducive to Wikipedia nor this article. I hope you understand. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks for that.
Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out.Hell In A Bucket
No sweat. Thanks for the cookie! I'm holding on to it until ChildofMidnight gets me a nice cold glass of milk. I guess it takes a village to keep that troublemaker on the straight and narrow. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I support a strict regimen of sanctions against Drmies. He's highly disruptive and his latest article work is particularly difficult to swallow. Thank you for your good faith efforts to keep him in check. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Cracker Barrel
OK, I'll withdraw that comment but I find it curious that my edit was removed by one editor and then practically immediately removed by another with the same so-called finding. I think the edit is absolutely relevant to and appropriate for the Cracker Barrel page. I explained why and the edit was written in a very factual manner without personal commentary.Rlang5990 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean this in no offense but usually that is a sign they recognize it isn't within policy. One thing to consider about the user you questioned. He's one of our Admin and has the highest levels you can hold here [[6]]so let's assume he understands our policies(this doesn't mean he gets to do things willy nilly either. his actions must be within policy). Have you tried asking him how you can improve the article or what he saw in it that made it outside of policy. Sometimes deletions can be undone or the person who originally nom'd it in the first place is able to help you get the changes needed to be made. Either way try and keep cool, would you explain to me in a cliffnote version what your page was about? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hell, I have to log out now (and don't have time to figure out how to do a cliffnote) but if you check the history on the Cracker
Barrel page with my signin, it's there.Rlang5990 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Mick MacNee
WP:NOTVAND is quite clear on what is and isn't vandalism. "There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as ... inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently." Mick's comment was uncivil but it wasn't gross personal harassment that crosses the line into the "Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate" section of WP:VAND. Whilst you're right that the guidelines might be clearer, I always counsel that a better course of action is not to label anything as vandalism unless it is utterly blatant, as this may cause further issues with the editor whose edits are being classed as such. To be honest, I don't think it's such a big deal here; Mick was going to be blocked anyway for the (mild) personal attack and edit-warring, given his history on such things. Black Kite19:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The exact procedure depends a lot on the exact nature of the images. If at all possible it would be best if you could join us in the Wikipedia help chat by visiting here or here, and I will talk you through the process. If you can't do so, just place another {{helpme}} below, and I'll try and give you all the relevant info here. ∙ AJCham(talk)17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Kudos
I meant to let you know that your comment at the Arbcom proceeding is the most insightful and on target one I've read. It also has the merit of being concise and still covering all the bases, which is a wonderful feat in and of itself. You obviously grasped the situation, cut to the chase, and were fair in suggesting an appropriate resolution to end the silly and needless drama. I apologize for being too lazy to dig up an approptiate barnstar, so you'll have to settle for my thanks and congratulations on having a clue.
The only part I differ on is the last bit where you seem to indicate some support for my original topic ban. The history is that at Wizardman's request I participated in the proceeding and spent hours providing dozens of diffs of the incivility and hostile atmosphere at the Obama articles. So I was shocked when the decision came down that the editors at the receiving end of the abuse should be restricted. I suppose that's an expedient way to sweep the problem under the rug and appease the mob, but in addition to being morally wrong it seems a very shortsighted way to end a dispute without getting to its root cause. And, in fact, I think it's gone a long way in feeding the beast. But it's hard to follow along on all these complicated dispute histories, so I'll try to forgive you. I'm certainly nitpicking and I know that nobody is perfect. :) Haha. Take care.
daMN THEM MONKEYS.....well as to your topic ban I couldn't honestly say if it was or wasn't as I never researched the fact. If it seemed that way I apoligize. I was saying the rationale was out of whack and way to broad as he is a current president even editing national or state park articles could've been nitpicked apart.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, first it will depend on whether this is a free or non-free image you want to upload - is it one you created yourself, or did you get from somewhere else? If it is your own, you can upload it at Wikimedia Commons, here. The form should be relatively self-explanatory, but buzz me if anything is unclear. If it is not your own image, things are a little more complicated, and it would help if you could give me as much information as possible about it, and possibly a link if it is already online somewhere. Also, if you weren't aware, you can refer to Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. Regards, ∙ AJCham(talk)14:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, then just follow the link I gave you above to upload at Commons.
You will need a Commons account - the easiest way is to go to your preferences (on Wikipedia) and enable the Global Account, which will allow you to log into Commons with the same username and password as on Wikipedia. (You could just upload the image on Wikipedia, but it is more useful to put it on Commons as all projects can use it that way).
As I say, the form at Commons is relatively straightforward (just remember to include proper licence info from the drop-down box). Once you've done that, tell me where the image is and I'll check to make sure everything is in order. Cheers, ∙ AJCham(talk)14:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Just add the file inside brackets as a link..easy.. In a bit I will move the pic to commons where it can be used by anyone, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, the place look intersting, you can also learn by changing the sizes of the pics on the Bishops Castle page and moving them around to see how it works, you won't make the wheels drop off, hehe. By the way Bishops Castle is also a place in England on the border with Wales and a very nice place that BC is too. Later. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it's the only castle I've seen in real life. Smack dab in the middle of Colorado. Would you believe one man made it? He;s been on it for 40 years and crazy as batshit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ang Mey - a page you tagged - because: I have identified the subject, and will properly establish context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you found sources however I fail to see any reason to re-review the csd policies. That was a one line statement that didn't explain it's relevance or even attempt to explain how it was notable, but thanks for letting me know you found something.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a standardised message from the CSD helper script so it may not always apply. I agree that there was no context, that's why I worded the text in bold the way I did. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. If you read through the article, you'll see that it is written in a very objective way, complete with references, links, AllMusic discography, etc. Thanks for your time. Brentmwatkins (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)brentmwatkins
A link to Honors and Awards page has been removed to eliminate the appearance of promotion.
Links to two articles in major U.S. newspapers have been added.
A link to an interview with a PRIMES alumna has been removed, and replaced with a link to an MIT News report.
The list of references includes a detailed article about PRIMES in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a peer-reviewed publication of the main U.S. professional society of mathematicians. PRIMES is the only research program for high school students ever featured in a separate article in the Notices of the AMS.
You also mention the article as a possible "redirect", but I am not sure what you meant specifically.
I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Blueboy96 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
