Jump to content

User talk:Feezo/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Re: Image = Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg (moved from user page)

Dear Feezo, I wanted to upload File:Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg just once with this name. I acted twice, because first I did not know the licence tag for something that is free and open to all (self made in 2002 and unpublished). Can I see it? Somehow I got on an image editing page of my sandbox, but the picture did not show. I intend to add a missing chapter to the (well written) article "Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis". Thank you for your help. Walter Baltensperger 5:19 am, 1 January 2011, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

Wiki ettiquette notice

Hello, Feezo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete

Hi. Just to let you know - I blocked that chap you CSD'd for Jacob Mathai and deleted the article again! I'd only deleted it a short while before. All he's done so far here is create hoax pages - all now deleted. His long winter evenings must just fly by. Fainites barleyscribs 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sunshine Kathy

Category:Category needed ("Hints and tips" section). The thing is, stub categories are temporary in nature, because at least in theory, the template is supposed to be removed as soon as the article has expanded beyond stub length — so it needs to have at least one permanent topic category on it which isn't meant to ever be removed. Categories that are grouping articles by characteristics of the article (e.g. "(anything)-stubs", "articles created by the article wizard", etc.) aren't meant for user browsing; they're meant for internal maintenance, and every article has to be in at least one category that's meant for actual user browsing. Bearcat (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it also says that it's "not considered necessary to add the {{uncategorized}} template to stub-sorted articles". Anyway, it might just be better to create Category:Norwegian television programming. Feezo (Talk) 09:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's never appropriate to leave any article both untagged and uncategorized. The category for Norwegian television programs already exists, but AWB doesn't offer a way to verify the exact/correct name of a category if you don't know it right off the top of your head. So one really can't use AWB to add categories on the fly; if you already don't know the exact wording of the correct category's name, tagging is the only option. AWB is good for batch jobs, but it really doesn't facilitate editing of the "add X category to this article, add Y category to the next one, add Z category to the one after that" type. Bearcat (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What's it called? It should be added to Category:Television programming by country. And if it's true that it's "never appropriate to leave any article both untagged and uncategorized" you might consider correcting the hints and tips section at Category:Category needed, since it doesn't give that impression at all. Feezo (Talk) 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My whole point is that if I knew exactly what it was called, I could have categorized it. It's at one of "Norwegian television (programmes/programs/series)", I can tell you that, but AWB doesn't offer me a way to have checked that while doing a batch run. At any rate, individual television series don't go in "television programming" categories — those are catchalls for several different types of programming, including ongoing series, television films, one-off specials, commercials (on the rare occasion that such are independently notable), etc., so individual programs are subcategorized at least one level past "programming". Well, they're supposed to be, anyway; I can't speak to whether somebody's filed a few articles incorrectly or not. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How can you tell it exists if you don't know what it's called? I found it by the way: it's Category:Norwegian television series.Feezo (Talk) 10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I knew it existed because I've used it in the past — but given that there are variations from country to country over whether "series" or "programs" or "programmes" is the most idiomatically correct term in the particular dialect of English most familiar to that country, that doesn't mean that I necessarily remember which form is applied to which country if it's not a category I actually use that often.
At any rate, the reason uncategorization tagging is important is that there's a policy which explicitly requires every article on Wikipedia to be properly categorized — which is why there's a whole cleanup queue specifically devoted to fixing the problem articles. The tag itself is what puts any given article into that queue so that people can deal with it; if the article isn't tagged, then people working on that project aren't likely to see it so that it can be.
And as for changing {{nn}} to {{notability}}, AWB (a software tool that some heavy users and administrators use for heavy batch jobs) did that by itself. It doesn't really matter that much, you're right, but I didn't tell it to do that — it's programmed to automatically apply that "fix" all by itself. I don't really know why, but it is. So if you see that again, know that it's a software autofix that happens when an AWB user is in the process of doing something else, and almost never an editor or administrator actually applying that change on purpose. And generally it isn't important enough to be worth reverting over, either. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, that's not entirely true — edits made using AWB are still the responsibility of the editor or admin who makes them. But to be clear, I didn't revert the nn->notability change specifically; it was changed when I reverted to the version without the {{uncategorized}} tag, which I did based on the advice at Category:Category needed. If it's true that that stub sorted tags don't count, then that page should be changed since it currently says that it's "not considered necessary to add the {{uncategorized}} template to stub-sorted articles". By the way, could you elaborate on the list you mentioned here? It sounds like there's a bit of a story there. Feezo (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Frantz Paillant

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Frantz Paillant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Phearson (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not my article; I just moved it to articles for creation. I was about to tag it G6 when you tagged it A7, which doesn't apply. I see you retracted your nomination, so I've tagged it G6. Feezo (Talk) 02:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Phearson (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Kyle Truby

You tagged this G10, but when I read it, it did not attack this person. I think it would have worked better with an A7 tag. (Actually if you look at the user talk who made it, it shows that I added a warning (using Twinkle), but you probably added it right when Twinkle was running.) Bluefist talk 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The version I tagged said something like "he is known to regularly attack people", as well as several other disparaging remarks. I always prefer to err on the side of caution when tagging a potential attack page, as there is little downside to courtesy blanking. Feezo (Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As an additional note, Mentifisto deleted it as an attack page, and Daniel Case blocked the user who created it as an "apparent single-purpose attack account". It's often a good idea to look at the page history of articles you tag for speedy deletion in case the content has changed since creation. Feezo (Talk) 06:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling

To the best of my knowledge, AWB actually doesn't offer a way to mark an article as having been "patrolled". Even if I were doing a comprehensive scan for all of the potential issues with a new article and not just the one particular one when I'm doing a batch tagging run, a way to mark the article as having been reviewed doesn't exist within AWB anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's not surprising. But if you're not reviewing the articles you tag, it seems like a job better suited for a bot. Feezo (Talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think probably the last thing we want is a bot patrolling and passing new pages. Even the humans get it hopelessly wrong, thus duplicating the efforts of those who are more experienced and who look in from time to time. We just need to recruit more NPPers who can carry out this task a bit more thoroughly in the correct spirit than those new and younger editors who use it as an exercise to rack up their edit counts and exchange barnstars for the tally of their CSD notices at the close of each day. --Kudpung (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about a bot to tag pages {{uncategorized}}, not mark them patrolled — the point is that Bearcat spends a lot of time on the former task without reviewing the other issues in the article. It doesn't take a judgement call to determine whether a page is categorized or not, which makes it the kind of job a bot can do. Feezo (Talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncat

Yes, you're right, that article should have remained labelled uncatted. I have added some little information to it (and de-prodded it, and moved it), and made it at least a worthwhile stub. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 6 February 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Categories

Actually, I'm not sure I see why we have categories at all. I don't think people use them much, although that's just a hunch. They seem to be something for editors to play with rather than a useful tool. But, as I say, I'm speaking only from personal experience; I find that wikilinks and see-also's within articles are more than useful enough for finding related and similar material. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you should take it up with Bearcat (see this section) — categories are serious business to some people. That said, since we do have a category system, I'd rather not have it cluttered with ambiguous, unwieldy, and hard to define categories. If you have an opinion on the specific categories I mentioned, I would like to hear it. Feezo (Talk) 07:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Reading through some of the discussions, this tidbit from Bearcat makes me see that categories do have some value: "if you already know that a brydioside is a Category:curcubitanes, then it isn't particularly critical that the article be properly categorized, because you can type "brydioside" in the search box. But if you don't already know about brydiosides, and are trying to learn about biochemical compounds by navigating Category:Organic compounds ..." - I guess that's a search-type procedure I hadn't thought of. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Speedy deletion nomination of Among the Echoes

If certain assertions of notability are not made, how long does it generally take for the article to be speedily deleted from Wikipedia? Also, which assertions of notability must be made and where can I learn how to do this? Markdashney (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Any of the twelve items under Criteria for musicians and ensembles are sufficient to show notability. Simply state on the article a criterion that it meets, ideally with a reference to a reliable source. Since the page has a {{hang on}} template, it shouldn't be deleted as long as there is an ongoing discussion here about how to meet the notability requirements. It depends on the administrator, but I would expect at least a few days to be given to address the issue. If it does get deleted and you still plan to show notability, you can file a request for undeletion. Feezo (Talk) 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added some references to the page. What other assertions of notability are required to be added in order to ensure the page will not be deleted from Wikipedia? Markdashney (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding references is not enough; you must assert that the group meets at least one of the twelve criteria in WP:BAND. Additionally, self-published sources such as Myspace and Facebook are not considered reliable, and may not be used for corroboration. Feezo (Talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi Feezo: I need help with my footnotes. I can't seem to make the text show and the references are now a bit out of order. Hope you can help me! Thanks, Elainem2 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The basic format for the reference system is to put the references inline with the text, enclosed by a <ref>. So, for example, you would put "...then went on to become president of international operations.<ref>http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architects/100/timothy_corrigan/timothy_corrigan_profile</ref>. Then, to make the reference list appear, you add {{Reflist}} to the references section. Adding information about the source, e.g., title, author, publisher, is also encouraged, and can be done within the <ref> tag. The syntax is a little tricky, but can be automatically generated with http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php. Let me know if you have more questions. Feezo (Talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

COMMONS

Hi Feezo, The license is not listed in Commons.Thanks. So for this reason you can't list it as copyright violation till I get the e-mail from them.--Ankit Maity 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Commons:File:Pl-perl.png claims the license "CC BY-SA 3.0" and yourself as the author. The image came from an external website that does not, by default, license its content under CC BY-SA 3.0. So unless you are the author of the image (in which case you do not need to wait to hear from anyone) then I'm afraid until you receive a positive affirmation of the actual license, and correctly attribute the author on the file, then yes it is a copyright violation. Feezo (Talk) 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have e-mailed them for the permission. Got it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit Maity (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Please calm down. If the image is user-provided content, which you appear to claim in Talk:Perl/GA2, then the company may not have the right to relicense it under Creative Commons or any other license. They claim the right to republish content, but not to relicense it for use by third parties. (I am not a copyright lawyer, so I can't be sure about this.) If and when it becomes properly licensed, you must change the author field at Commons:File:Pl-perl.png to refer to the creator of the image, instead of the uploader of the file. Once both requirements are met, the image will no longer by in violation.
In any event, I have no desire for conflict with you over this issue; I am simply exercising due diligence in the GA review process. If this review has become unduly stressful for you (which seems to have, judging by your shouting and incivil comment) then you are free, and I encourage you, to turn over the review to someone else. Feezo (Talk) 04:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, I am not angry by saying got it?? it only means understood. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 05:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello — I'm glad you're not angry. I notice on your user page that English isn't your native language. In that case, you should know that a "Got it???" as you wrote is generally considered curt to the point of rudeness. I see on your talk page that you've used it before; you might want to drop that particular idiom. In any case, I've added a few more images to Perl and am eager to get on with the review. Feezo (Talk) 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

List of countries name

You requested speedy deletion of List of countries name as a copyright violation of http://mymind100.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html. However, looking at that page, it was pretty easy to figure out that it was itself a direct copy-paste of the Wikipedia article List of country name etymologies. JIP | Talk 06:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, a copy of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation? :) Seriously though, thanks for catching my mistake. It was deleted anyway about a week ago, since it was an obviously inappropriate page. Did you just happen to see this? Feezo (Talk) 07:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I was browsing the User:AlexNewArtBot/FinlandSearchResult page after having created Club act!one, and found a link to the deleted article. JIP | Talk 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#WP:GAN reviews by User:Ankit Maity.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at ErikHaugen's talk page.
Message added 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can you please show me how this doesn't run afoul of this section of WP:CANVAS? It looks to me like you're sending this message to everyone who has posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, whether or not they have a connection to the topic. You're an administrator, so I'm hoping there's another explanation, but I also observe that you've been chastised for similar activity in the past (User talk:Nightscream#List of Suicides). If you responded to this somewhere, I would like to know. Thanks, Feezo (Talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you read those past accusations, then maybe you could've read my responses, since they are identical to my response this time: There are four criteria explicitly given at WP:CANVAS that need to be met in order for that policy to be violated, each of which is explained in detail. The number that have been met is precisely zero. Your acknowledgment that I contacted people connected with WikiProject Comics, in fact, actually serves to disprove one of them. Is there some reason why my accusers not only never explain how any of these criteria are ever met, but seem to be completely ignorant of them? Or does your reading of policy pages never descend below the title line? Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Please look at my post again: I politely asked where you have responded to this, as you do not appear to have done so on your talk page. You might also want to take another look at WP:CANVAS, in which "Spamming" is defined as Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. There is nothing about how all four criteria that must be met: indeed, "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" is described as one of the "common types of inappropriate notification" (my emphasis) which clearly distinguishes it from other behaviors. Comparing Special:Contributions/Nightscream with https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Beth_Sotelo&action=history, I have to wonder: what do you consider Erik's, Luminum's, BOZ's, David A's, ThuranX's, Spidey104, Tenebrae's, Bibliomaniac15's, DrBat's, Cirt's, Mutant Raccoon's WesleyDodd's, Jhenderson 777's or indeed my "significant connection" to the topic, considering that none of us has ever edited Beth Sotelo?
Finally, I respectfully request that you refrain from statements such as "Or does your reading of policy pages never descend below the title line?" Your sarcasm is completely uncalled for and unhelpful for productive discussion. Regards, Feezo (Talk) 03:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You did not ask me where I ever responded to it. As to where I would've done so, that would've been either on the talk page of the accuser, or on the discussion page where the consensus discussion took place.

The messages with which I invited others to participate in the discussion--a perfectly reasonable thing to do, given that it began six days ago and had only attracted three votes (the very reason I decided to solicit opinions)--number 17, which is not "excessive". As for the connection, the users I contacted have participated in editing comic book-related articles, which is logical, since people may demure if the article in question does not pertain to a general topic on which they concentrate their editing. I could've contacted just the editors in the article's edit history, but there are only seven others, and besides, one could argue that they'd be biased in favor keeping the article. Selecting editors with comics experience by going to the Project Page makes it less likely that their votes will be predictable, thus avoiding yet another criterion of WP:CANVAS (though I now see that J Greb edited the article back in October). Thus, none of the criteria have been met. Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you responded to this somewhere, I would like to know

— Feezo, User talk:Feezo

In any case, it does not seem as though this discussion is getting anywhere, so I have opened a request for a third opinion. Feezo (Talk) 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Feezo/Archive 4 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.
Opinion: Let me begin with a clarification: this opinion is about the proper interpretation of WP:CANVAS. It is not about whether that policy would apply or would not apply to Nightscream's behavior in this or any prior incident. Wikipedia:CANVAS#How to respond to inappropriate canvassing clearly states what an editor should do in the event that he/she believes that another editor has engaged in inappropriate canvassing: If the matter cannot be resolved with a simple request, then it should be taken to WP:AN.
My opinion about the policy is this: Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate notification defines what is "appropriate canvassing". Wikipedia:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification says:

Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive. ... The following behaviours are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):

The introductory comment "Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive" and, especially, the phrase "characteristic of" make it clear that all canvassing which does not come within the parameters set out in Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate notification is inappropriate canvassing and the five types of canvassing which follow, spamming, campaigning, vote-stacking, stealth canvassing, and custom signatures, are just examples and specific indicators of inappropriate canvassing not criteria which must be met or must exist before canvassing becomes inappropriate. (As such they are similar, though not exactly the same as the three revert rule which provides a bright-line test for edit warring even though edit warring can exist and can be sanctioned through blocks and other means even if the three revert rule has not been violated, see WP:3RR.) These specific behaviors may also define and carve out some additional, specific areas as inappropriate canvassing which might otherwise come within the general terms of what is appropriate notification but they are not, in any event, intended to individually or collectively constitute, state, or define the only behaviors which can constitute inappropriate notification. In short, WP:CANVAS was clearly not intended to create a gray area or no–man's–land between appropriate notification and inappropriate notification: every kind of canvassing which is not appropriate notification is inappropriate and subject to being sanctioned if it continues, with some kinds and indications of inappropriate notification being clearly identified by the policy.
As noted above, I express no opinion on whether the actions of Nightscream do or do not come within the parameters set out in Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate notification. If Feezo believes that they do not, he/she should take the question to WP:AN.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure — I have just discovered that I have issued a prior Third Opinion in a dispute in which Nightscream was one of the disputants. If either disputant feels that my opinion in that dispute affects my neutrality in this case they should feel free to disregard my foregoing opinion (which they have the right to do anyway, of course, see the caveat above) and request a new opinion at the Third Opinion Project. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion my failure to see this earlier may cause. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this opinion. Nightscream, do you? Feezo (Talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents, he did seem to be Mass posting just a little. (if not just about) Which can be considered as spamming. The question therein lies why did he choose those particular editors to decipher if it's canvassing. Even still I would just prefer assuming good faith over anything else. Jhenderson 777 23:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Feezo. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RahulText me 05:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tak Sun Secondary School

The article 'Tak Sun Secondary School' was created and submitted by the Tak Sun Secondary School web master, who is myself. Hence all information posted are original and official materials and there should be no copyright infringement. Besides, we will be happy to have the information posted to be shared with other. So can you please un-delete the article please. Thanks a lot. Tssswebmaster (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there — I thought that might be the case when I saw your username; I'd be happy to help but unfortunately I'm not an administrator, so I can't actually undelete the page. Since the work has been previously published, you can follow the procedure here to license the material. Once this is done, feel free to contact anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to have the page restored. Let me know if you have any questions, Feezo (Talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Joplin Police Department article

Thank you for your assistance in creating the Joplin Police Department article. I created that article from a Wiki link on the List of law enforcement agencies in Missouri which generally suggests using the naming format I selected in creating that article and was therefore unaware of the title's implausability. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The article title you used would be only necessary as disambiguation, in other words, if there were other Joplin Police Departments. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more info on naming conventions. Feezo (Talk) 04:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's Forane Church and other new page patrol grumbles

Hey, Feezo,
There's currently a discussion going on at the Village Pump about how the project needs more New Page Patrollers. Eh, by gum, but it's a thankless task. Jump in too soon, and one gets (well justified, I must add) messages about not giving the article a chance. Try to tidy the new article, and in all good faith we still end up treading on each others toes, as happened at St Mary's Forane Church. Grrr - I just moved the page, dammit! How annoying is that for the both of us... and most everyone else.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And the more new patrollers we attract to help, the worse those problems all become! :) Seriously, though, thanks for the heads up — I'll give my thoughts at the village pump. Feezo (Talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at User_talk:SDPatrolBot/ErrorReports.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Kingpin13 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Raze

Hang on a second, I am expanding this article as we speak. There is no need to try to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkrawkr (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've added {{hang on}} to the page, which should give you time to explain how the subject meets the inclusion criteria for websites. Feezo (Talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I WAS expanding it, you sort of ruined that for me, and I lost the whole article. Thanks, Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been lost. As of now, the content in its entirety is:

Raze is a Flash Gamemade by Addison Games. The game takes place in the somewhat near future. Players are often allowed to use both alien weapons ( such as ice Chainguns or bio Uzis or experimental human weapons such as flame shotguns or Rocket launchers.

Even if it is deleted, you can request a copy from anyone in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles — your accusatory tone is not warranted. This is a wiki, and contributions are freely editable by almost anyone. This includes determining which articles do not appear to meet the inclusion criteria. Feezo (Talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a lot of information that was lost, and will not have time to rewrite it until some time next week. Can you give me until about a week from now? It would be very much appreciated. Thank you.Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about content you haven't submitted yet, we are unfortunately not responsible for that. You might want to work on your pages in an external editor, so you can save them in the event of an edit conflict or other issue. As for the actual page, it is likely to be deleted very soon (whether or not I do anything.) You might want to create a Userspace draft, where your work is much less likely to be disturbed until it's ready for the mainspace. Alternatively you can use Articles for creation to get help on creating the article itself. Feezo (Talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding me correctly. When you marked my page for speedy deletion, all of them work that I was putting in at the time was lost, about two pages worth. This is my first page, and I am a little confused as to why this happened. By the way, how did you find my page so quickly? What was up had only been up for about 10 minutes when you marked it.Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're describing is an Edit conflict. Your material is likely still accessible through your browser's "back" button unless you closed the page. I came across your page while on New page patrol, reading articles as they were created. Feezo (Talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wind turbines

Hello, Although I patrolled all of them, that process was automatically done by AWB. Nima1024 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

AWB edits are still the responsibility of editors who make them. It would be great if you could find a way to mark the pages, since that's part of the New pages patrol process and not doing so requires another editor to review the page as well. Feezo (Talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue Egg Media

I had posted Blue Egg Media and it was deleted. i'd like to repost, but need your help as it if not "up to snuff". Please give me your input as it is greatly appreciated.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksarasy (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Don't worry too much if your first article is deleted. Creating a new article can be a daunting task, but there are plenty of places to get help. For starters, check out Wikipedia:Your first article or Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which will help you get up to speed in no time. Good luck! Feezo (Talk) 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Stickee's talk page.
Message added 11:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue egg Media

I did all of the tutorials and don't understand WHY I got deleted. Someone posted that it looked like advertisement, but I disagree. Where specifically is the problem?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksarasy (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Google's cache, [1] the main problems are that it reads like a corporate press release — that is, it is not written from a neutral point of view — and it does not sufficiently explain the company's notability. According to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Company notability, less than one tenth of one percent of the world's corporations meet this threshold, so it is possible that this company does not. Let me know if you have any further questions, Feezo (Talk) 01:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Licensing status of File:RQ3-sheet.jpg and File:RQ3-shipsheet.jpg

Hi, Feezo. For those images I just choosed the licences that seemed apropriated. Role-playing games are copyrighted books... except for their character or vehicle sheets. Those sheets are conceived to be photocopied or printed, very often with a special authorized mention, like in File:RQ3-sheet.jpg. So, they are the only free content in a role-playing game. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Copyright is automatically granted to all creative works, which includes character sheets. The file you linked in fact claims copyright by Chaosium and states "Permission is granted to photocopy this sheet for personal use only." Feezo (Talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Alice and Bob

...you mean like the consensus you established _with yourself_ on the talk page before you wiped half the list? You can't just go around unilaterally deleting others' contributions simply because you don't think they're up to scratch. I've formed a consensus: your revision is vandalism and has been reverted (again) as such. 72.2.50.3 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're unclear on what vandalism actually means on Wikipedia. Once you've caught up, I hope you'll understand that what is going on is a content dispute. We can then discuss the issue and reach a consensus amicably. Feezo (Talk) 04:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

I don't know how it's going to go or if it's going to pass this time around, but I'm happy to lend my support. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've had to oppose - your enthusiasm is in the right place, but I do feel you need to demonstrate that you are up to date on policies other than deletions, and to take part in a lot of AfD and perhaps ANI and a few other areas that your assistance will be needed in as a sysop. Do that, and I'm sure you can count on my support next time if you don't pass this time round. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, no hard feelings. :) Thanks for participating, and I'll see you around, probably in Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace again. Feezo (Talk) 03:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved to support. When this is over I will talk to you about a project where your recent page patrolling experience and template work will be invaluable. Good luck with RfA! --Kudpung (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is getting off to a very slow start. Have you considered placing the allowable banners on your user pages to attract more traffic to your RfA?--Kudpung (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Feezo (Talk) 04:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, it's looking good. 23 supports against 1 oppose and 5 neutrals seems like it's heading for a good outcome. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Italicized episode names: reply

Sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier, but just now got the chance. It seems that the two rules there are for different components of the articles: titles, and actual articles. The WP:ITALICS (referring to article text) says "Television series and serials" should be italicized, but makes no mention of individual episodes. However, WP:MOSTITLE#Italics (referring to article titles) says "Radio or television series and serials (but not individual episodes)" should be italicized. MLA style guidelines (found here) also say that episodes should be in quotes, and the series should be italicized. A few years ago, I got this backwards and changed almost all of the titles on all USA Network pages, and then realized my mistake and had to go back and fix everything.

Anyway, I went ahead and changed the text at WP:ITALICS to include "(but not individual episodes, see below)." I think that should clear some things up. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Congratulations!

I think the crats decision is a mere formality and you now need to start pondering such weighty matters as your classification here. Feel free to raid my monobook.js for useful scripts, especially the dropdown menu for blocking. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Congratulations! While I may have been neutral on your run, my main concern was your lengthy gap in your edit history, not any real technical issue, so I have no doubt that you will make a fine administrator! Strikerforce (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Good luck! I knew you would make a fine admin ever since I reviewed you :) ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Congrats!!! What will be your first admin action? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Congrats!!! --joe deckertalk to me 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA, Feezo! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Feezo has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!


Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Oh my, thank you everyone! I see it's open season in the scriptorium, so I've raided your monobook, ϢereSpielChequers, as suggested. :) And Armbrust, that truly is a hideous T-shirt. :) I'll wear it proudly. As for that list, it looks like I'm unclassifiable at the moment. Time to go stalk deleted pages and look for a suitable inaugural action! Feezo (Talk) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Kudpung (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hey Feezo, I read the message about the Waltons and I just wanted to know how to add sources. I know for a fact that my piece of information about The Waltons was right, as it was on Kami Cotler's Official Facebook, I just don't know how to add the source.

I hope I've done this right and please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parawhore123 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are generally preferred to primary sources, such as Facebook pages, although for uncontroversial material about a TV show, primary sources can be acceptable. To cite a source, just enclose the details in <ref>(citation)</ref> tags, where (citation) is an episode number, URL, book title and author, etc. The article has to have the {{Reflist}} template somewhere in it, which List of The Waltons characters does. For more details, see WP:CITE. Let me know if you have more questions. Feezo (Talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feezo/Archive_4&oldid=1138289230"