Jump to content

User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
h t u s m g
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15


Please use this to leave me a new message:

The benefits of using the preview button


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

I fixed your typo on DQ's RfA. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Darn! And I thought he wanted to sue that blasted program! Now I have to kill the blasted critter before my ship sinks! D: —fetch·comms 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

This might be of interest to you. Bejinhan talks 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

John Ham

In answer to your question on my talk page; I do not re-create the redirect because in my opinion it is not appropriate to do so. If you wish to do so then feel free, and we will see if it raises objections. But I do not feel that editors would expect this redirect to be meaningful, or useful. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They obviously found it useful in the last AfD, but I can't be bothered to recreate it. —fetch·comms 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Works for me. The issue I see is that article is still on the "pending" list. I'm trying to get it to go to the "declined" list. Any other way of doing that? Manually perhaps? N419BH 03:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So the tags go backwards? newest at the top and previous declines lower down? Or is someone adding new templates rather than changing the paramaters on the original one? N419BH 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for your help. I see now that that one was recreated. If an article has an on hold tag and blank pending tag, is it permissible to remove the blank pending tag? or is there valuable information there too? N419BH 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for helping me get the hang of this. Now off to sort the backlog! N419BH 03:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian McCormack

Please justify your deletion of this page. You said it is not significantly different from what was posted before - this is untrue. It experienced substantial changes and input from user N419BH. He deleted most of the body and helped edit out a lot of the voice issues. He requested 4-5 addition citations which I provided and is still working on additional newscoverage. Any further "substantial" difference in the article now would make it a complete fabrication. You have hamstrung the discussion. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the page, but I can see what was deleted, and it does not pass the threshold of "substantially different". Much of the information is just reworded or moved around. Also, many of the sources are the same, and the article submission is actually smaller than the deleted version. To be considered substantially different, an article's contents must be almost completely different, not just saying the same thing in a different way, and must address all the issues mentioned in the deletion discussion. Please see WP:CSD#G4. —fetch·comms 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've copied the link you asked me to see:
G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).
What was needed to improve this article from the last AFD process? A third party source and additional sourcing of statments - no content issues! No issues with existing sources! And yet, I have been forthcoming in working with all the editor's suggestions, including voice change, additional sourcing, restructuring, deletion, and rewording to make "more encyclopedic". Whatever you say, there have been substantial changes to the article. I have the original stored on my computer and will gladly leave both for you to peruse. I responded to all N419BH's suggestions for improvement - that is what this process is for. Let me say again: at this point, how on earth can the article be re-written now? Its almost at it's bare minimum thanks to N419BH. So in the next round I'll be fighting an uphill battle because of you comment. Explain to me why the article should not be allowed - asside from your only ascertion that "it isn't substantially different" which doesn't fit the facts. Please view the discussion on my talk page before jumping the gun! Thanks for the reply ChildrenOfLight (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because you added some sources does not mean the content is completely different. The article may have received substantial changes, but it is not substantially different as a whole. I have compared the two versions side by side and they are quite similar. If you cannot rewrite it any more, you will likely just have to wait until additional sources appear so that you can add more new content. My only assertion, which does indeed fit the facts (remember: you cannot see the deleted version), is based on policy. Your assertions are not. —fetch·comms 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a big difference between your words of "a new article must be almost completely different from its old" one what WP says above articles that are "substantiall identical". Substantially identical does not equal completely different - it gives more slack. I am copying this dicussion to N419BH to get his take on it. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
The issue is, it is substantially identical to the old version! You cannot simply remove some material, shift the order around, and reword a few sentences, and call it different. it still qualifies to be deleted under G4. Want a side-by-side analysis too? Here: compare. Don't be fooled by the red parts, though; a lot of the wording is almost the same, like "After his experience, McCormack became a missionary and ministered to indigenous tribes in southeast Asia where he met his future wife and fellow missionary, Jane. After they were married, they worked in New Zealand revivals until they felt called to start a church in England." versus "He became a missionary and ministered to indigenous tribes in southeast Asia where he met his future wife and fellow missionary, Jane. After they were married, they worked in New Zealand revivals until they felt called to start a church in England." I would call that substantially identical, no? —fetch·comms 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You are wielding a technicality subjectively to get rid of an article. There was no concern with the body as it was when it was deleted by the previous AFD process. The editors and I have worked hard to make the article better. There is no point re-writting some sentences if there was nothing wrong with those sentences. If I rewrote them, that would not satisfy you. I am perfectly willing to re-write in different language what I have written - the content, however cannot change - so what is the point? You are simply wielding a technicality which does not hold up. Where does it say every sentence must be re-written? It says the article should not be SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL to the previous article - NOT every single sentence must be written differently. It doesn't say you can't change words and move things around. The concern in the last AFD process was SOURCING and TONE. - not content. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That "technicality" is written in policy. It specifically disallows the recreation of a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". Furthermore, you have left out some reasons for deletion in the AfD: no evidence of notability, for example. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means lack of notability, because notability is defined as having received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is not substantially different, as most of the material is almost exactly the same! Here is how much of the page is the same:
Comparison
What is new material and different?

While there, Ian states he experienced visions of heaven and hell, and felt Jesus empowering him to live so he might tell his story to others.

According to Ian's testimony, he came back to life on a slab in the morgue a full 15-20 minutes after he had been declared dead by the doctors. He was paralyzed from the neck down, but he prayed to be healed and walked out of the hospital the next day.

After his experience, Ian describes how he thought he was the only one in the world who knew God. He began reading a Bible and says he was amazed to find everything he had experienced detailed within its pages.

It will follow his early surfing days as he traveled the world searching for the meaning of life and catching some of surfing's most sought after waves. Near the end of the film, his supernatural experience will occur and during the credits, video of Ian telling his testimony will be run.

(The last one is unsourced, unfortunately).

Your sources are still lacking, as well, if you insist on arguing about that. This is his own website, not independent, and thus unreliable. This is the movie's website, also not independent and thus unreliable. Both those sites are cited as references twice. —fetch·comms 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should at least go back on hold, where you can voice your "substantially different" position and I can react. The article IS different. I'll ask N419BH to provide you with his changes. Let me remind you that your reason for deleting was "please make sure that the content is completely different from the deleted version". This is not accurate with the policy. I cannot change the content, nor does the article structure need to be "completely different". Your reason is inaccurate with policy.
However, what do you want to see? Every paragraph re-written but the content remains? This I can do - I just don't see how it makes any sense except to someone like you. Is this what you want? Let me know.
The discussion of notability was progressing and is ongoing - this, however, was not the reason for deletion. N419BH has said that Ian does have a claim on notability after doing some research. This requires discussion since it is subjective, not a unilateral deletion.
They are cited twice because the editors requested sourcing for that info which came from that site - explain how that is wrong. You point out the last one is unsourced - that is so I don't duplicate the sources! (its all at that site!). The sites you refer to that are associated with him (and you say are, therefore, unreliable) are to site where he lives, his policy on his copyright, and that a film is in preproduction. You obviously are now just throwing food, because your comment doesn't make any sense.


The article should at least go back on hold, where you can voice your "substantially different" position and I can react. Again, what do you want to see? ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's on hold or declined. We're having a discussion now, right? I repeat, I did not delete anything, so please do not say "your reason for deleting". I have no clue where on Earth you got that notion from. In either case, I never said "completely different", but substantially different. It is perfectly based in policy. The article needs to contain substantially different content, not just being reworded. I gave a few examples of new content above in the collapsed box. Again with the deletion, I never deleted anything, please stop claiming I did, as it is blatantly incorrect. If you can find more independent sources (try Google News archives), then please do. Primary sources (their own websites) are still unreliable. See this page. Also, you can use named references to remove duplicate refs (see WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once), but the point is that you shouldn't attribute so much, or any, really, information to a primary/non-indepedent source as it is unreliable. We need coverage in third-party publications. I am certainly not throwing food, and I would urge you to familiarise yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines before claiming that I am. Just because his own site says where he lives does not mean it is reliable according to Wikipedia standards; it should be mentioned in another source or removed, especially as this is a WP:BLP article. —fetch·comms 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This is rediculous! We're having a discussion now? Here are your own words taken from the deletion banner: "please make sure that the content is COMPLETELY different from the DELETED version". Delete/Decline I can see the difference - I'll change my language. What about yours: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian McCormack resulted in DELETE; this content is not substantially different" (taken again from your banner). Looks like I got the idea from you :). Primary sources: These are the DO NOTS:
Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.
Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.
This has not been done here. The use of these websites is not a problem. Once again, you have lobbed WP rules at me and they don't say what you say. It's rediculous that you can't use someone's own website to say where they live - that is a reach indeed.
There is no need for me to find additional sources in this discussion. That is not what is at issue here. You are not telling me what you would like to see in reference to the reason for declining the article. Please reinstate the article as on hold and lets have a real discussion not where you have all the power chips on your side of the table. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A talk page thread is a discussion... Articles for deletion is a deletion matter, but as you can see by reading it, I did not delete the article... I also suggest that you read WP:BLP#Reliable sources, where it says quite clearly "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." While the use of self-published sources is sometimes acceptable, you should have material backed up by secondary sources as well. I have told you quite clearly what I want to see in the new article: new content and information with new sources, particularly secondary sources. Rewording existing parts in addition to those two items may help, but it's not the only thing that needs to be done. You keep asking me to reinstate the article, but apparently you have not read the message saying "When ready, please add the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of the article to request a new review." I see no power chips on my side of the table, as you can resubmit the article at any time. Thanks, —fetch·comms 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Each time an article is declined, the chances that it will be accepted later are less. The point of Wikipedia is to make good articles and help people with their articles. NOT unilaterally delete them and force them to jump through all the hoops again - each time they're raised a little higher. This will happen, just as it did this time, by people like you who will say: "hmm, this article has been deleted before" - there is an inherent bias. I have lots of material backed up by secondary sources - I don't know what you are talking about. I want to produce a good article - you want to argue. I'm done arguing with you - I've gone to others for input. Thanks ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to argue, nor do I want to delete all your articles. I'm not sure what part of "a decline is no big deal" you don't get; the chances it will be accepted later is the same. Declining, again, is different from deletion; the chances for recreating after deletion are lesser. As I said before, just find a few more sources, add a bit more information, and it will be fine. —fetch·comms 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AntiRoomsWoodlands

May I call your attention to this: [1]. This guy is a prolific sockpuppeteer. Beyond the accounts listed on the AIV report, he's used dozens of IP and several other accounts. No amount of assurance from him that he'll "contribute constructively, heed all warnings, not create any new accounts" is worth a hill of beans - he's already under at least a dozen indefinite blocks. Majorclanger (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. —fetch·comms 21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he apparently has a strong commitment to vandalism! Majorclanger (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fetch. I noticed you blocked AntiRoomsWoodlands (talk · contribs). Can you also block 4.226.60.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as it is clearly the same individual? BOVINEBOY2008 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for the note. I did 24 hours because he switches IPs all the time; if he keeps using that one, I'll make it longer. —fetch·comms 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments on my RfA

I found your comment on my RfA to be rather insulting. I had reviewed the most recent RfA's prior to filing my own, and I concluded that based on those I had a chance of passing. Of the 2 most recent successful RfA's (in late July), two only had about 5000 edits, maybe a few hundred more, which wasn't that far off from mine. Of the 3 unsuccessful RfA's in August, one admitted that he was not a very active contributor, another only had a few hundred edits, and a third, although being a good contributor to Wikipedia, didn't have experience in areas where admin tools are needed. Of the unsuccessful RfA's in late July, two only had a few hundred edits, one had under 2000 edits and another, though a good candidate, had a few policy knowledge issues. Based on that information, I thought that I was in much better shape than the unsuccessful RfA's, and in just about as good shape as some of the most recent successful RfA's, maybe a little below their level. However, instead of noting that, you jumped to the conclusion that I don't pay attention to the RfA's, when I don't think that it's fair to put me on the same level as a person who only has a few hundred edits or only puts in a few dozen edits a month. --Slon02 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you comparing editcounts and activity? I also never said recent RfAs, but RfA as a general trend. RfA, as I'm sure you know, is a place for you to get insulted, abused, annoyed, angry, talked about, and you either survive or you don't. I am also quite sure you know that generally, only individuals held in extremely high regard by the community pass when they have under about 5000 edits, and that renominating yourself less than three months after a previous RfA is generally not a good idea. I certainly never put you on the same level as someone with only a few hundred edits (if you insist on comparing editcounts), and Jujutacular, who had about 5000 edits, also two FLs, one GA and fifteen DYKs. If you can't even take this measly little comment of mine, don't expect to be an admin any time soon. This isn't even close to insulting. —fetch·comms 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Professional wrestling in New Zealand

Good job with this article. I was surprised to see it expanded to GA. This is a very helpful expansion for the project. It is rare that those types of articles are even updated, let alone raised to GA status.--WillC 09:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! A wonderful IP user created via AfC, and I thought it would make a good GA. However, wrestling is not really my thing, and I'd like to see On the Mat as a GA, too, but I'm just not familiar enough with the sport and the various terms/events associated with it. I mentioned that article to GaryColemanFan, who seems to have done a lot of wrestling writing, and if you're interested, perhaps you can team up with him to get it to GA status? —fetch·comms 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after I get done with my current projects, I'll consult him about that if I have time..thanks.--WillC 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Made Changes suggested for article on Buzz Foto!

Hello FetchComms,

I made changes as requested. Can you please check and approve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Buzz_Foto . Can you please let me know if further changes are requested? Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you take one last look at the article on Buzz Foto. I think that I got it all fixed. Thanks, --Mambopolice (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the rest and I got it to be more prose-like. If you have a chance, can you please take a look at it. I might have it right by now. Thanks for all your help. --Mambopolice (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will let an uninvolved user review it, without bias either way. —fetch·comms 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

change of article names

Hi, Can you tell me why you changed the names of these two articles - 'WW1 Egyptian Labour Corps' and 'WW1 Egyptian Camel Transport Corps' because it seems to me that taking out 'WW1' cuts out the strong identity these corps had with that war. Neither of these corps operated outside that context.

)

--RoslynSKP (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Naming conventions. We want the common name, and I don't think they are always referred to as the "WWI Egyptian Labour Corps", but just the Egyptian Labour Corps. Just like we don't need to title an article "President Barack Obama" :) Also, as you said that neither of them operated outside of WWI, there should be no confusing them with any other war--so saying "Egyptian Labour Corps" automatically refers to the WWI group. The identity should be established in the article itself, not the title. If you want, you can create a redirect from the WWI title, but it shouldn't be changed to that. —fetch·comms 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean and agree. :) --RoslynSKP (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Egyptian Labour Corps

Hello Fetchcomms. I have left a note about a small concern at Did You Know regarding your nomination's entry. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astonish Results

OTRS permission has been verified for this copyrighted content. I have unblanked it and added the OTRS tag, but I am unfamiliar with AFC so I am informing you as the editor who denied the submission so that you can follow-up from here. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chzz re-declined it for other reasons. Thanks for the note, —fetch·comms 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevens

CNN now reports him dead. [2] Should it be added? Connormahtalk 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Ted Stevens. —fetch·comms 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you can handle my WP:RFPP request for PC for Stevens? Connormahtalk 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Excellent User Page Award
Just wanted to say I love the professional and sleek look of your userspage. Tommy! [message] 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 03:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May you please take a look at this when you have a minute? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And maybe the bottom of this discussion as well? Maybe you could offer a better explanation than I could. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my. The second one is complicated... I have no clue on which was taken where and what copyright laws that country had and whatnot. I suspect that he doesn't have a right to publish all of them, but this is beyond me to figure out . A picture taken 50 years ago might be copyrighted (and more likely so if it was in the US). Not all of the images have source links, so I can't tell where it was taken. Also, the web archive links don't actually say anything about the license from what I can tell, so I'm not sure where the images have been released. And even if he just asked a random person to take a photo in the office, there's still a copyright on it, unless they negotiated some quick deal about the photographer granting rights away and whatnot (I think). His cousin would the copyright holder of one, I think also. I still am not sure how he thinks he has the right to control the copyright, as he wasn't the author... :/ Again, most of this depends on exactly when and where it was taken. This, if taken in Chicago in 2003, is copyrighted. (Permission needs to be sent to OTRS if he said it's been granted in the upload summary). Uhhhh... I'd ask Blurpeace what to do for all of them, though; he knows this stuff inside out. —fetch·comms 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, fetchcomms :). Airplaneman ✈ 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fetchcomms. 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.
Airplaneman ✈ 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Auku

Looks like a valid speedy deletion tag to me. Why wait for the prod to expire for nonsense like this? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's comprehensible English. The tag placed was for something like "peaches submarine Godzilla ham" or "dihgas shgoashg hspkhdwgowh gpwihrgpw". —fetch·comms 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks incoherent to me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Bad English does not count. "Auku means something or somerandom word" is clearly understood to say "Auku means something or some random word". Just like "Bacon means meat from the back and sides of a pig", etc. —fetch·comms 02:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't read that like that at all. I read it like, "Auku is some word, but I don't know what it means", which verges on vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I read it as "Auku" is a synonym for "something" or a "random word". Obviously a neologism, but you never know if the author just wasn't done writing or not prepared to get it all down. It'll be deleted in due time, don't worry. —fetch·comms 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, except that it gives seven days for the nonsense to work its way into all of the search engines on the web and start a life of its own, making Wikipedia look ignorant. Oh, well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The search engines index it after 1 minute; it doesn't matter. I would rather give the user a chance. —fetch·comms 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

file:Paulfhenderson.jpg

Hi,

Yesterday I have sent the e-mail of Martha Henderson with the permission to use the file on wiki to the permissions-enwikimedia.org and put the {{OTRS pending}} in the file according to the instructions. Now the file is deleted anyhow. What now? Please advice? ThanksNED33 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Once the permission is verified, the file can be easily undeleted. However, there is a minor issue with the permissions email, and you (and/or Martha) should be getting a reply asking for clarification on who holds the image's copyright. Once that is sorted out, the image can be restored. —fetch·comms 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait a few day'sNED33 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fetchcomms, you removed the wikilink to mudra from the begining of the article but did not substitute another link later in the article. Omission or intention? Trev M  ~  08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Laziness. Add it back, if you haven't already. Just don't link words in the bold part of the first sentence, per the MOS. —fetch·comms 15:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

Thank you for making the edit to Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010. But could you make the protection template large, please? The small template is best used for pages with indefinite protection, because it does not display the reason for or duration of the protection. On a page that has been temporarily protected, editors may be less familiar with protection and the information provided by the large template is of greater concern to them. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —fetch·comms 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you much! --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A question, maybe for you

I see that Chzz is on wikibreak. A few months ago, he did some work at WP:FEED in which I played a small role. He was doing much of the heavy lifting, but he mentioned that some of the technical work was being done by someone else - and I have a vague recollection it was you.

Of course the background is irrelevant if you can answer my question.

I'm working on a possible proposal related to clerkship at RfPP (still very drafty). One of the aspects of the proposal is a desire to create a template with a button that would do nothing is pressed by an non-sysop editor, but would do something (specifically, Page protection or unprotection) if pushed by a sysop. I don't know whether this is technically easy or difficult. Do you have an opinion? It isn't a critical aspect of the proposal, the concept could work without it, but I think it would be a nice touch if it worked.

Of course, any comments you have on the overall proposal would be welcome.--SPhilbrickT 01:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Chzz is still "around" thankfully, just not as much for a bit.
The button (it would be a link, as the inputbox extension doesn't support anything except searching and making new sections on a page) would probably go to the {{FULLPAGENAME}}?action=protect, and only an admin could actually protect the page, obviously. There's no way without making a js script for pressing a link and making nothing happen at all or everything happening at once, depending on the userright.


Basically, what you want, has been implemented in similar places like XfD and SPI (in the line of links, there is one near the end that goes to a certain action like delete or checkuser, etc.) It's simple and could easily be implemented in RfPP, but isn't an instant protect (the admin still needs to pick the settings).
Other comments: sounds like a good idea; the only thing I have to say is that, as RfPP has updates much more often than SPI or ArbCom, clerking would probably limited in scope due to the fact that an admin would review the page anyway, and because admins would often (at least half the time) notice a request before a clerk and just protect the page. —fetch·comms 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt answer. I especially appreciate your other comments, as they may make the idea moot. I confess I've not been a regular at page protection, which gave me some pause about making a proposal, but I wanted to explore Dank's clerking idea and this seemed like a possibility. I should do a bit more homework on the timing - I thought I saw examples where there were several hours between request and fulfillment. If the time lag is much shorter, then the value is lower. I wouldn't be especially troubled if clerks only reviewed half the requests, but if they take 10 15 minutes to do an analysis, and they come back to find that a sysop has already made the call (party because the sysop may be familiar with the situation and can make the call in short order, or because they are simultaneously looking into it), then it will be discouraging. --SPhilbrickT 02:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

You recently !voted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD Reconsider: Observium

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Observium If the keep !vote from Klaver is discounted (it has no policy basis) this is clearly delete instead of no consensus. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hobit still !voted to keep. Citing coverage in other sources is policy based, so his stands. THE KING's delete !vote is not policy based either, as beta or not beta doesn't matter for notability. It'd then be 1–1 if you're counting, and even just 1 delete !vote wouldn't be much "consensus". I stand by my close. —fetch·comms 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding your rationale. Miami33139 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AfC tip

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that you don't add new templates to AfC articles...-- Sweet xxTalk 16:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, ExpandTemplates. You have new messages at Philippe (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This should be my meta talk page, btw :) Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Image upload

I am not the uploader of the image. I asked the uploader to upload the image to here, but he did not answer my reply, I assume he is not active. I want to upload an image that has {{PD-self}} licence (just translation of that licence to Turkish word by word) to English Wikipedia. Dizikaygisiz (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead. Try using this tool. —fetch·comms 22:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary

Thank you for you help, I have made the changes to the areas that you suggested... Can you please take a look at the changes and let me know if the article is now ok? I would like to upload a image if at all possible, how is this done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A few more issues: please copyedit for spelling and grammar errors. "carreer", "Septeber", "ths" are all misspelled (possibly more), contractions (it's) should be written out (it is), and things like 70's or 80's should not have an apostrophe. "Birthright Records was the start McCreary’s career in the late 60’s when hiring him in their radio promotions department." also is grammatically incorrect, should be "Birthright Records was the start of McCreary’s career when they hired him in the late 1960s for their radio promotions department." There does not need to be bold words other than the first time his name is mentioned at the beginning. Also, there are random instances of italicized text for seemingly no reason. See the Manual of Style if you dare, for the whole long list of style rules ;).
Still some tone issues: "McCreary’s exceptional promotion of these artists" exceptional is not needed, "McCreary wasted no time building his list of achievements as he signed an unknown artist named Rev. James Moore." wasted no time should just be removed, "Throughout the 80’s McCreary continued to establish himself as an industry leader and innovator by scouting, developing and producing unknown new artists" can just be removed altogether, "McCreary continued to showcase his talent" should be McCreary continued working as such and such, etc., "McCreary continues to blaze trails in the Gospel music industry as " should be removed.
On sources: Billboard Magazine is perfectly fine, but please try to find some more different publications to reference as well, for diversity of sources so as not to rely mostly on one publication. Blogs are not reliable, and one is cited.
For images, we can only use freely licensed ones (not "all rights reserved). That means, it's best if you took the picture yourself, because you can pick an appropriate copyright license. If you have a self-taken photo you wish to upload, please click here, then go to Wikimedia Commons and log in with the same username and password as you did for Wikipedia. Then, when you are logged in there, go to their upload page and follow the directions there. If you did not take the picture of him, we probably can't use it, unless the copyright license is compatible with Wikipedia. If that is the case, please reply with more details about the image (who took it, where you got it, etc.)
If you have more questions, please feel free to ask! Thanks, —fetch·comms 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Message to Thabishop1 re. Talk:Gentry McCreary and the above,
I've had a go at it; see my edits in the history. A bit 'ruthless' but hopefully it avoids it being deleted. You need to add neutral information from independent reliable sources. Please take note of all the [citation needed] - if these are not referenced, they can be removed as not verifiable, and this is particularly important for a biography of a living person. Information that cannot be verified through good reliable sources should be removed.
I've written this here, to avoid the discussions being spread out on different pages; in future, please use {{helpme}} on your own user talk page, not the article talk page. The talk page of the article is for discussing improvements to the article with other editors. Chzz  ►  00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WOW... you have taken quite alot out of all of the research and interviews that I have conducted to create his bio... If this is what it takes to not be deleted I am all for it... Thank you for your help in completing this project!!!! Is the photo that I have added approporiate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pic looks fine.
However, you removed lots of the [citation needed] tags, and you reinstated the list of associated acts without a reference; that isn't appropriate. Please do not add unreferenced information. The {{fact}} is to note a problem; you should only remove those if you fix the problem by either adding a reliable source, or removing the fact.
The thing about the research that you did, that's the problem, you see - it is not published in a newspaper or anything, so the person reading the article would be unable to check it; hence it is not WP:verifiable. If your interviews had been published in a newspaper, then it would probably be an acceptable reliable source, but we cannot accept original research.
In addition, please be wary of the conflict of interest guidelines, and have a read of WP:BESTCOI. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt the associated acts acceptable, when those were the artist what were affiliated/signed through him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Did it have a source/sources to back everything up? —fetch·comms 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It had no reference to a reliable source, therefore it was not verifiable.  Chzz  ►  01:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at what you were stating that needed references... and why are you making me cite his name, city of birth. All of the intext citations within the document support the first paragraph statment that you have entered citation references... I am a lil puzzled as to why you are requiring me to have so many references when half the pages I have come across barely have 1.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If other references in the text support a fact stated elsewhere, use "named references" (see User:Chzz/help/ref#Named references for how) and add the extra citation by the birth part. Other pages may be poorly sourced, but we also delete poor pages every day, and we want to prevent poorly referenced pages for the future. —fetch·comms 01:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


So by me puting all of these references in the document, whats preventing the next admin from erasing the page? I am a student and text books dont event have this many intext citations for a page of information... Thabishop1 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, an admin can't just delete a page with many references and which establishes notability. They'd have to take it to a discussion and then it'd be decided by other users. Text books are written by paid professionals and reviewed, etc. Wikipedia is not; we must be extra careful with citations, especially when dealing with living persons. —fetch·comms 01:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really beocoming more of a pain especially when some of the other pages make reference to the labels... There are no need to cite light records because onyx was a division of light... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop1 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as the page then has a citation that mentions Onyx, or whatnot. We just want all articles to be well-referenced. —fetch·comms 02:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thaibishop1 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely "Block evasion: (User:Thabishop)"
Thabishop (talk · contribs) was blocked 16 July 2010 "trolling, disruption or harassment"
Gentry McCreary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban"
 Chzz  ►  17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Galleries to be transwikied

You nominated a lot of galleries to be deleted in June, and they were closed as transwiki to commons, but they are still here. There's a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Old NAC AfD never transwikied. Fences&Windows 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Message

I usually wouldn't inform someone on their own talk page that I had responded to them on mine, but just in case you didn't add my IP to your watchlist. 67.136.117.132Also 174.52.141.13814:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

choice

Having a choice is always better. Emailing comments really cuts down discussion. Imagine ANI and RFA by emailing comments to bureaucrats?! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering what the procedure would be. I don't really care either way; all of the candidates are qualified and have been vetted by the ArbCom anyway. —fetch·comms 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful....

Regarding this, please note that I said that that account was a sockpuppet of Thabishop, not Thabishop1. Thabishop1 has no definitive ties to any other accounts, as noted in the original post. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Fetchcomms. 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.
Airplaneman ✈ 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted TimeSheet page

You deleted the TimeSheet page yesterday. Can you provide me some insight why? What do I have to do to have a page on this specific application? Onnop (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Per our deletion policy, I have deleted the page because the deletion discussion that occurred here resulted in a consensus to delete the article. In order to recreate the page, you must provide new material (that is, the content must not be substantially identical to the deleted version), make your tone more neutral, and add independent reliable sources to show how the product is notable or important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. —fetch·comms 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
There are currently
2,419 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

DYK for Egyptian Camel Transport Corps

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

F4 deletion spree

Nobody delete-conflicts me that many times and doesn't get recognition for it. Have a cookie and keep up the good work :)

Fastily 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}}!

-FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

:D! I know, I kept moving on the the files in the middle of the category to avoid viewing them only to see that they were already gone. —fetch·comms 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GeoCities cleanup worklists

I'm still awaiting your answers. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Should be non-controversial

Hey fetchcomms, I was reading Economies of scale and noticed the talk page redirects to Talk:Economy of scale. May you please move it back to Talk:Economies of scale for consistency with the article? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 03:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A histmerge needs to be done for the main article. Gah. —fetch·comms 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
All done, etc. —fetch·comms 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks . Props for spotting the copyvio I overlooked when I filed this. Airplaneman ✈ 03:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Steve Rickard

Courcelles 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Egyptian Labour Corps

Courcelles 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

Hi there, saw you deleted List of FC Barcelona legends, could you userfy it to sandman888/List of FC Barcelona legends ? cheers, Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —fetch·comms 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As you suggested, several links have been added to the Terain Gallery entry, so I have removed the orphan designation, although I will be adding more links in the future and hope others will. Is it appropriate for different users to link to their talk pages? (forgive me but I'm relatively new to WP). I have also corrected all references. I would like to get this entry upgraded and would appreciate any advice you might offer. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by linking to your talk page--you can link to it when discussing something (like here), and it is in your signature, but it should not be in an article. I have reassessed the article and it is now "B"-class, but any user may do this. I would advise finding some more references, still (the second paragraph of "Location changes" has no references, for example), and reference 14 ("Cavallero, Dani, The Gothic Vision, p. 121-2.") needs a date, still. Other than that, I think the article has indeed improved, so good job to you and everyone else who worked on it. —fetch·comms 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:TI 0111.jpg

Regarding this image, I mentioned it in my edit summary since I wasn't sure where else it should go, but we have a free and similar image available at File:SyedNazrul.jpg. Should I have just replaced the one use of this with the free one instead of tagging it replaceable? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except the Commons one is missing permission, so I'm assuming it's not PD-author right now. —fetch·comms 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that detail, thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! :) I'm glad you like my talk page design. If you ever want me to design a simple image background for your talk page, you are welcome to ask anytime. (Can't be too complex, I don't have very advanced graphics software.) Cheers, --Meaghan :) ≈ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Sunshine!
Hello Fetchcomms! Meaghan :) ≈ has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Meaghan :) ≈ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 02:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pure blood theory in Korea

Hello, I noticed Your judgment as "needs work to remove OR and this is anti-Korean", However, You seems to have overlooked one important fact I think.

You should have paid attention to these comments that "Most Korean regards that those cites and references are abnormal. There's no relation with Nazi." or "The whole racial purity of Koreans isn't even 100% approved by the today's public but as a reaction to Japanese racial purity in the past and today's political mentality stemmed from the Cold War.".

You should get rid of the prejudice that delete position just emphasized the anti-Korean.--Historiographer (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? My actual comment was "while the delete votes are more like "needs work to remove OR" and "this is anti-Korean"". I never personally said that the article "needs work to remove OR and this is anti-Korean", I said that other users cited that as a delete reason, and that reason is not a valid one for deletion. The comments about the article's specific content need to be addressed on the article's talk page. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. —fetch·comms 02:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Seeing this article. This article is a decrition full of sweeping hasty generalizations. In other word, Most Korean not regard this theory as a normality. Although, You said that "keep votes are more based in policy". However, Status-quoite's cites are not take a neutral attitude, and it is just clear sense of purpose. Thus, I think a judge must consider matters objectively, with dispassion. This problem needs an overall reappraisal. --Historiographer (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The delete votes are based on two main concepts: the article is OR/SYNTH, and the article is anti-Korean. The keep votes are based on the fact that there obviously has been coverage of this topic (it is not all made-up), and that, while it is acknowledged that there are some issues regarding specific content in the article, those issues need to be worked out on the article's talk page, not by deleting it. If you want to remove the "sweeping hasty generalizations", please do so. The consensus, however, is to keep the article, and no consensus (default to keep) if I was being extra conservative. "It is so unjust article based on anti-korean sentiment. Furthermore, most users of a supporting this article are known as a anti-koreans." is not a valid reason to delete an article. —fetch·comms 03:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Then, You think it is justifiable article? Many part of the article has been perverted by Japanese and chinese users. Was it a worthwhile in wikipedia?--Historiographer (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You say this is not the normality and I agree. However, does it matter whether or not this is the normality? Do you feel that White supremacy is a normality? It is not yet the article is still there. Derild4921☼ 16:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlike White supremacy in 19th century western, This theory is not pervasive in Korea.--Historiographer (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Historiographer, the subject has been established to be notable and encyclopedic. Just because you don't agree with the topic doesn't mean it should be deleted. If you think the article has been "perverted", maybe you should stop arguing here and go unpervert it. AKA, {{sofixit}}, not complain about it to me. —fetch·comms 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern didgeridoo designs

Thanks for closing the AfD discussion on the modern didgeridoo articles. I've kick-started the umbrella article on Modern didgeridoo designs, and of course it's well referenced with the necessary notability citations. I'm starting off with the didjeribone, and will work through the other modern didge designs over time. Any comments most welcome. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Premature deletion of File:DrLisaChristiansen.jpg and File:DonaldTrumpandDrLisaChristiansen.jpg

While I appreciate the work that you are doing on Wikipedia to ensure compliance with copyright requirements, two images have been prematurely deleted by this account using Twinkle. I'm assuming this is simply a random oversight. Deletion log states the following:

‎(Speedy deleted per CSD F11, uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed. using TW)

The policy clearly states:

If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, TV screenshots) should be speedily deleted per "Unambiguous copyright infringement" above, unless fair-use can be claimed.

The permission notes on the uploaded images clearly stated that a letter of permission is forthcoming, in compliance with Image policy. Additionally, notification has not been made to the uploader, nor has a period of seven days commenced since any possible notification. Accordingly, I am requesting that the deleted images noted above be restored. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies—I thought I had set Twinkle not to delete the files, only put a notice on them and notify you, but obviously I picked the opposite choice. Thank you for informing me of this mistake; I have since restored the files. I assume you have sent in the letter of permission to our OTRS team and are waiting for a response; for administrative/tracking reasons, please add {{OTRS pending}} to each file's page; this is a more visible notice that permission is forthcoming and puts the file in a category so all images waiting for permission verification can be easily kept track of. If you have not sent in the permission letter to our OTRS team, please email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as soon as you have it; this is for copyright verification.
Again, I am very sorry for mistakenly deleting the images, and they are back up now. Sincerely, —fetch·comms 01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey there Fetchcomms! The files above should probably be removed. The copyright holder never sent the letter of permission, and the article in which they were used was deleted. I'm not sure how to go about requesting deletion outside of contacting you. I was going to tag it with db-f5, but that indicated that the files were declared as fair use. Can you either delete the articles, let the current CSD tag run it's course, or let me know how to otherwise request deletion? Your help is appreciated. Thanks! Cindamuse (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Files deleted. For future reference, if you are the creator/uploader of something and no one has made substantial changes, request deletion by putting {{db-g7}}, which is "author requests deletion". —fetch·comms 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed Harbin

Why you deleted my article was good? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was horrible, frankly; all biographies on living people that do not have references are horrible. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. The message was up for a week and no sources were added. Therefore, it was deleted. —fetch·comms 02:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well I didn't know there was any notice of anything. Why didn't you tell me so I could do something? This is a violatin of my due process. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag was not placed on the article by me. But the tag had been in place for 7 days before I deleted it. So, whoever tagged it should have notified you (not my fault). But you should also watch articles, and you should not have created an unreferenced biography of a living person anyway. Anyway, a notice was left at this time. Obviously, you never bothered to pay attention and do what it said, so it's not my fault again. Anyway, blame JBsupreme for not notifying you, although the first notice should have been enough. —fetch·comms 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your supercilious tone. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I. —fetch·comms 03:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So you do not appreciate your own supercilious tone? Thank you. Knowing you have a problem is the first step in improving your people skills, sir. Have an enjoyable evening. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)!
Yay! I also hope you know that calling your work shit does not make it better or help the encyclopedia. Have a nice evening to you, too! :) —fetch·comms 03:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay Neal

There I add source for article you happy? Why you tagging my shit anyawy? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I tag per policy and because unsourced BLPs are shit. Happy? I certainly want less unreferenced BLPs and more verification. —fetch·comms 03:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Fetchcomms, Off2riorob is not being co-operative and insists that the Vote Comment guidelines remain unchanged even though they make no grammatical sense, he even went so far as to issue a 3RR warning even though the revert/undo function was not used. Please could you deal with it. I am not entirely blameless but he is just being a bit biased in not letting others edit "his page" since it is his "guidelines" there's a bit of I own the page going on about him. Thanks. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 03:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR is not just the revert function, it is when the same edit is changed in any manner back and forth within 24 hours. The tally doesn't matter either way, but you should not be changing his own words in the guidelines. If changes were needed, you should have discussed them on the talk page first. Either way, getting an admin to help isn't going to help. Either you two resolve it yourself or you'll both be blocked. —fetch·comms 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Right I just wanted to get that fixed, I wasn't changing his original words so much as fixing typos, I'll apologise to him, thanks Fetch! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 03:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Mmk—remember, talk pages are your friend. —fetch·comms 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Righto! Thanks :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 11:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fetch - need some help

Fetch I was wondering if you could give me some advice on a problem with the Modern didgeridoo designs article. I was mid-stride in the process of writing the article and someone did a AfD tag, not knowing where I was heading with it. It's prompted me to move a bit faster, and what I've done is taken a section on modern didgeridoo innovation in the original main Didgeridoo article, and merged it into the Modern didgeridoo designs article, and I've also changed the title of the Didgeridoo article to Didgeridoo (traditional) to reflect a delineation between authentic traditional and modern designs. This also helps delineate traditional Indigenous Australians cultural aspects of the didgeridoo, from some of the modern design features. I think it's a neat and technical solution to a problem. But I would appreciate any comments.John Moss (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an up-date on Talk:Didgeridoo, and also some comments on the AfD project page for Modern didgeridoo designs. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What a pity, as obviously the nominator did not see that the article had potential and was just created. I have left a comment at the deletion discussion in favor of keeping it, and explained why there. I'm sorry you've had to hit this bump; adding any more sources/information during the discussion will help in making a stronger case for keeping the article as it is independently notable and a separate subject from other didgeridoos. —fetch·comms 19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The AfD nominator has withdrawn his nomination. And if I can just take another minute of your time, just a editing query that you might be able to help me with: do you think I can put a musical instrument info box into this article, given that it represents multiple instruments? Thanks again. John Moss (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's good to hear. I'm not exactly sure how much the different types of modern didgeridoos have in common. If they have many similar characteristics, then one infobox may be fine at the top. But if each type is pretty different from the others, you might want to expand the sections for each type a little, then add a separate infobox for each type of modern didgeridoo in the sections. —fetch·comms 01:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The instruments seem fairly different from each other, as much as a horn is different from a trombone. So I will try your 2nd suggestion and put info boxes in each section as the expansion of each instrument description warrants it. Cheers. John Moss (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

you did not answer the question

i asked how to customize my signature not for a lecture from you about my activity on wikipedia so answer the question like you are supposed to do when you respond to a help me request. Inka 888 (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're talking to a volunteer. A volunteer who took time out of their life to answer your question: Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 5, 2007. First thing they did, they answered your question. They're not supposed to do anything: everything here is voluntary. That they provided advice over and above what you asked for was simply a bonus: like this one: read WP:CIVIL. Read WP:AGF. Do it now. TFOWR 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Fetchcomms. 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.
 Ⓢock  03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Fetchcomms. 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.
(again)  ℳono  23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Transparency

I think your page is too transparent. Imagine my suprise when I learned you are a seasoned admin! I think you should stick the admin identifier somewhere :) ResMar 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like white and black :( The contrast is pure. I have it linked under "info" and by "rights" as ⨜, which was the closest symbol to a broom or mop I could find :P Other than that, I like my pages plainish. Well, that's not strictly true... my next userpage update will probably be the best thing evah. —fetch·comms 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
h yes, because boxes are sooo descriptive to me :) ResMar 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Unicode font support fail :| —fetch·comms 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hehe <|:) ResMar 04:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Type message title here

umm.. the place where i put my link was where there was supposed to be links. the link was in "List of Konami Code Sites" and wikipedia said that it does not comply with the rules.


Compupro1 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I didn't remove it. And please read this page; your link was indeed not appropriate. —fetch·comms 02:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support and praise in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WildlifeofIndia

Could you please close the TfD discussion. Farjad0322 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it already has been. —fetch·comms 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

great user page

The Excellent User Page Award
Great user page. I'm impressed Inka 888 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. —fetch·comms 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the GOCE

Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

MfD nomination in my userspace.

I just don't understand nominating sections of my userspace for deletion, based solely on my inactivity. It was really disappointing to log in and discover that you had done so. In the past I have been a very productive editor, and have contributed anonymously to the encyclopedia over the past couple of years. The suggestion that I am some sort of deadweight to the project and using it for social networking purposes is extremely offensive.


aliasd·U·T 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much your inactivity as it is the existence of a secret page. I have made no such suggestion that you are a "deadweight"; I simply believe that secret pages should be deleted. There have been many similar MfDs recently, so it is not only you (I did not nominate the others). The nomination was not based solely on your inactivity, it was based on the fact that secret pages do not actively contribute to the encyclopedia. A recentish change was made to WP:UP, and currently discourages "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia"." While it is more common for less active users' secret pages to be deleted, it is by no means a statement on your own character, but serves to dispel other, newer users, from being overly distracted by many secret pages. Please also note that, in the MfD, at least one other user seemed to indicate that you were fairly inactive. However, this was not the main factor in my nomination.
I personally do not understand a need for secret pages anyway. I don't think you are MySpacing at all, or that you have not been unproductive, but consensus is toward the opinion that they are not needed, and that it may be more of a distraction for other users, who may see Wikipedia as MySpace. I'm very sorry that you are offended, as that was not my intent. It was more based on userpage guidelines and that secret pages really aren't that useful. —fetch·comms 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I share Fetchcomms' sentiments that secret pages should be deleted. In a recent community discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that WT:NOT discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network has no bearing on whether a secret page should be kept. Having reviewed your contributions, I consider you to be in the latter category. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Steel

Thank you for closing this difficult AfD. In your closing statement, you wrote "...the sources are particularly helpful in establishing notability or even just being particularly reliable". Shouldn't it be "...the sources are not particularly helpful in establishing notability or even just being particularly reliable"? Cunard (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, fixed. Thanks for catching that; I'm overloaded on work and kind of tired... the AfD close script I use needs a bigger text box :P. —fetch·comms 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I tend to make errors like that from time to time, even when I'm not tired. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(Just stalking by at this late hour:) Sounds like someone needs a hug and some reading glasses! Drmies (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
And someone must surely not have had a nice day. Well, with a straight face and in a sincere tone, I order you, Fetchcomms, to have a nice day. Cunard (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I hope I'll have a nice night when I go to sleep now. I have so much to do tomorrow... yawn. —fetch·comms 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Alison's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tree shaping article Needs help

Fetchcomms, You welcolmed me when I joined wikipedia and I tried to contact you previously. Chzz answered on your behalfand gave me the advice that I should get more experience with editting. That is fair enough and I thank them for their effort.

The issue is that Tree training is a hobby of mine and I have been trying to do it for several years with out much success so I was happy when I found the article on wiki.

1 In trying to get infomation, as an end user of wiki, I have been drawn into the wiki debate. I have been reading the article for months before I made a comment. The article has completely changed over that time. To me the article centres around the word arborsculpture and the creator of the word and other more important artists downgraded.

2. I believe Slowart/ Grisium and Richart Reams are the same person.

3. Photos have been removed and not put back.eg Becky's mirror, because one editor does not like the background. This fantastic piece of work is ignored when it is a world first as it has trained branches as well as roots.

4. A group of editors seem to ignore all the rules and edit as one.

5. I have asked questions and only receive scarcasism, and a sock puppet accusation. I have tried editing following admin editors advice only to have my edits reverted.I have been told to go away by Slowart and also told my talk page is not for discussion.

There is no actual name for this artform. It is just emerging. Richard reames brands other artists with his label No body in the English speaking world accepts this, as each artist has their individual methods and names. eg ChistopherCattle (Grown Up furniture) is far more significant than Arborsculpture as he can grow repeatedly even and balancedpieces . His citations have been removed. Arborsculpture is a marketing funnel that leads to Richard Reams, a book and other products.Google it and see. At present the Tree shaping title is locked. Blackash is having little success but has done excellent work and edits on content but is continually accused of COI What can I do ? Pleasegive me some advice. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC) What am I doing as these little boxes keep appearing.Sydney Bluegum (talk)

OK, here is what you need to do:
  • As it seems the article talk page is not working, you may wish to try mediation, as suggested at the bottom there. by Colincbn.
  • If you think that a single person is operating more than one user account without disclosing that, you may wish to file an investigation.
  • If a photo has been removed, you should follow this principle: discuss on the talk page whether this should be included.
  • If several individual editors are tag-teaming or something, mediation may be able to help as well.
  • Obviously, there is an issue with another issue. Mediation or another form of dispute resolution should be a good idea at this point.
—fetch·comms 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my enquires, I dont think mediation will help as it has been tried. Some of the editors are extremely hostile resulting in editors with opposing views going to easier editing. I followed your link to BRD which is fine except I dont know how to put up an image or how to even find it now. Could you put it up for me, please? It was on the article about 3 months ago.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You should propose that on the talk page first. Have you tried both the mediation cabal and the mediation committee? —fetch·comms 12:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Missouri Portal Banner

Greeting MetroFan, I just want to say that is a good banner that you have just put. I will keep in touch with you. (Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! I'm currently working on the portal and looking to see if I can bring it to featured portal status. —fetch·comms 01:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Soo...

my first non-easy TfD close. How'd I do? Any suggestions? Thanks :) `Airplaneman ✈ 05:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. IDK if Beeblebrox wants the category undeleted or what now that the template has been kept, but I doubt it'll be too much use if a user removes the template then. —fetch·comms 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
OK; I appreciate the feedback :). Airplaneman ✈ 04:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Martinez

Please don't remove citation needed tags. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a {{cn}} if I changed the tag at the top to {{unreferenced BLP}}? Is that not redundant? Or should we tag an article as completely unsourced, while also tagging each statement in it that is unsourced, which would be all of them?
This revert was blatantly incorrect; rollback is for blatant vandalism only. I also fixed a few other minor issues, which you neglected to change back. I suggest you undo yourself, unless you want an article that has redundant tags. The current one is not accurate; there are no sources at all. —fetch·comms 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You removed a cn tag, a reflist, an unsourced section tag, and did it all without so much as an edit summary, and I'm supposed to believe it was not vandalism? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB provides the information on her mother and some on her father. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is neither a reliable source, nor was it cited as one. Should not be used, especially in BLPs. —fetch·comms 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the tag at the top to say the whole article was unreferenced. The cn tag then becomes redundant. All of it is unsourced, right? Why use redundant tags? Please explain why the duplicate tags are needed. The reflist does nothing; there are no references. An empty section looks unprofessional. I'd really like to know why you think that using redundant tags are appropriate. —fetch·comms 22:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please use edit summaries, so disagreements like this don't happen again. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I did: "ce". I think that removing redundancy and unnecessary tag clutter is part of copyediting. Maybe you differ, but you still have not explained why duplicate tags are required. If you do not answer, I will assume that you have no good reason and undo your revert. Or, you can undo it yourself, and copyedit the article yourself. If yiou can't be bothered to do that, please do not revert me again. —fetch·comms 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you have explained, I won't revert again, but "ce" doesn't explain the removal of valid tags. copyediting is correcting spelling and grammar, etc. changing sourcing tags is not copyediting. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
However, the tags are not needed. Maybe "cleaning up" would be better, as I am removing cluttering tags, but oh well. —fetch·comms 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An inquiry. Active Banana removed the following sources of information: [3], [4]. They both contain information on the actress. My question is whether or not it was really worth of removing them? There is also another site associated with Zorro and have Ms.Martinez picture as well ([5]). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The company seems to be even wikified as well (see Zorro Productions, Inc.). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The first says at the bottom it is not an official site; I would call it unreliable. I think TV.com is also unreliable, as apparently anyone with an account can edit peoples' biographies there. The last site is an official site, but as a primary source, it shouldn't be used by itself.
I did find some a good source: news article in her early career. That should provide some good content. —fetch·comms 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The IMDB article of Benito Martinez gave me info of her being related to him. I know it is a vague source, but maybe wikipedia can include that information in reference to IMDB. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nice article. What about the reliability? What kind of a newspaper is that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB can be changed by its users, and is considered reliable unreliable by Wikipedia standards. The news article is from The Palm Beach Post, and should be reliable. It's a pretty big paper in Florida. —fetch·comms 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to "polish" out that article? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I included some of the info from that newspaper article in the article about Patrice Martinez. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for keeping on bugging you. However, there is one detail. The http://www.zorro.com/new_world.html directs to the unofficial site as it being claimed. I suspect that they do have some sort of association other than a fan site (please see http://www.zorrolegend.com/newworldzorro/new-world-zorro.html). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Even so, I would try to avoid using that as a source, as it would then still be a primary source and not independent. —fetch·comms 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about that Zorro (1990 TV series). I was not involved in creation of that article, at all. I already mentioned it on Patrice Martinez article if you're tracking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eeep, that one has no sources. I'd just try to look in Google News archives or something. —fetch·comms 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. But I assume it is OK for Patrice Martinez article mention that series, right? It also uses IMDB. Plus what about this mpeg file: http://www.zorro.com/NewWorldIntro.mpg. It clearly mentions and shows Patrice Martinez. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be used a general source just to prove that she was in the show. —fetch·comms 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly the RADA does not have any records of her whatsoever http://www.rada.org/alumni/directory.aspx?id=108&frm=y&sur=MartinezCamhi&nme=Patrice&sub=&ttl=&yr=. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Either they forgot to include her, or they called her Patricia instead. —fetch·comms 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very possible. If she enrolled in RADA at 18 being born in 1963, then according to curriculum she was supposed to graduate in 1984. I feel like a detective :) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is weird Screen Actors Guild Award also has nothing about her (http://www.sagawards.org/). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This says she won the Golden Eagle award thing. However, this showed nothing for the SAG award either. —fetch·comms 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Files for upload

Thanks for the reminder - I completely forgot about collapsing. – ukexpat (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Fetchcomms/Archive 10/Miscellany

Hi, Fetchcomms. Do you mind if I remove the banner at the top of that page for a while? It gets distracting. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it distracting? I'm not intending it as a page for everyone to use, just a personal collection of useful templates/links, etc. —fetch·comms 16:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it might show up on searches, and that it isn't used for any useful purposes. Can you add __NOINDEX__ to it? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no real difference. How will it showing up in a search stop anything? We don't noindex userspace by default, at any rate. —fetch·comms 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello! Could you please use your administration rights to remove the content of the revisions by TheBlackHawk11 to my userpage? The content is VERY insulting. Thanks! Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 03:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been up for five days... and then you inform the whole world by asking me here... I've revdeleted them, but in the future, please ask for it immediately, and preferably privately. —fetch·comms 03:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Will do. I just noticed it today. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 03:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

your mop?

Your an admin and why is you mop not on your user page. Inka 888 03:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If you're talking about the mop topicon, it's certainly not a requirement. Airplaneman ✈ 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not required and I don't want it on my userpage because topicons don't fit in the theme. I'm not sure why it matters to you, anyway. —fetch·comms 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

there is no reason to get offended about it. I was just wondering. I had no idea that you were an admin until last night. Inka 888 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Try popups. —fetch·comms 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Court seal

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

trout

I was not talking about the reviewer topican, i was talking about the trout me thing that always gets in the way when trying to put both of them on the page. The trout overlaps the reviewer topican no idea why. Inka 888 04:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll fix it, Fetchcomms. You don't need to. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and a follow-up question

Hi, Fetch! Thank you for your help at ani re my name-jumping band spam friend. I really appreciate it. I did want to ask a follow-up question to your post saying that SunHawken (contribs) created the first instance of the boomerang "Young Jonii" article. I'm posting my question here, rather than within the ANI thread because I expect there's a simple answer, and I don't want to clutter up the thread there if I can help it. Anyway, I don't understand how SunHawken could have created the article. I think I've set my interface to display all timestamps I see in UTC, and from what I'm seeing SunHawken's first-ever edit was at 15:59 25 August 2010 (UTC). From the deletion history box that I see at the top of this page I get the following:

13:35, 25 August 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Young Jonii" ‎ (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Unless my time displays aren't all showing up in UTC, it looks to me like SunHawken's first-ever edit occurred after the first instance of "Young Jonii" was deleted. I know you can see pages I can't, so the error's probably on my side, but can you help me figure out what's going on? Figure out what I might be missing? Now I really am going offline for awhile, but I'll watchlist this page and check back soon. Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his first non-deleted edit was at 15:59 UTC. His first edit altogether was to the now-deleted page, at 13:00 UTC. It was indeed deleted 35 minutes later by JamesBWatson at 13:35 UTC. Sunhawken left the message on JamesBWatson's talk page after the page was deleted, so you probably just didn't see the "real" first edit, which is now deleted. —fetch·comms 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I'd completely forgotten that reverted edits don't show up in edit history. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the above: I wonder if you'd be able to take a look back at this same ANI thread and use your browser search function to find the phrase "I've undertaken all the cleanup steps that I can". The section that phrase occurs in details what admin intervention is still needed to close the matter. No worries if you're too busy, but I thought you wouldn't mind if I asked. Also, I hope it was okay to post in this section; I thought it would clutter up your talk page a bit less. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

thank's

Thank you for responding to my helpme requests. I'm still getting to know the place and have a lot of stupid questions. Inka 888 02:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
thank's for helping me with my helpme requests. Inka 888 02:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I would still suggest that you use the search bar first. That's part of using common sense and figuring things out yourself (AKA clue). —fetch·comms 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah i know i should. I will do that more. I was thanking you for the help i got from you. Inka 888 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know i should and i will in the future. I was thanking you for the help you gave me. Inka 888 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Just a protip ;) —fetch·comms 02:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Did you do this by yourself:

Collapsed




Foo


Hazard-SJ 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you become the Supreme Leader of the Supreme Cabal?
Wikibreak
Third opinion
$220		Chance
?
Mediation
$220		Arbitration
$240		Jimbo Wales
$200		In the news
$260		On this day
$260		MediaWiki
$150		Did you know
$280
You are banned!
RFA
$200		WIKIOPOLYFPC
$300
PERM
$180		POTD
$300
Community discussionCommunity discussion
Editor review
$180		FAC
$320
Developers
$200		Rouge admin
$200
Deletion review
$160		Chance
?
AFD
$140		TFA
$350
Wikimedia Foundation
$150		Edit war
(pay $100)
CSD
$140		Main Page
$400
WP:BANNED
Just browsing
WikiProject Spam
$120		UAA
$100		Chance
?
AIV
$100		Admin cabal
$200		Teh Drahmaz
(pay $200)		AN
$60		Community discussionANI
$60
Go
Collect $200 salary as you pass

I'm impressed! Hazard-SJ Talk 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and please don't paste huge amounts of useless code into a talk page for no reason other than asking if I made it. We have wikilinks for a reason. —fetch·comms 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Also, please use {{talkback}}. Hazard-SJ Talk 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

  • Pool A's winner was Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
  • Pool B's winner was New South Wales Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
  • Pool A's close second was Hungary Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
  • Pool B's close second was Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
  • The first wildcard was New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
  • The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
  • The third wildcard was Connecticut Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
  • The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Alberta Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Toronto Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Finland Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Norway Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE drive has begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Against Pending Changes

Add this userbox to your userpage to advertise your opposition to WP:Pending Changes, and tell 10 like-minded users to do the same and vote!--Gniniv (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{User:Gniniv/Userboxes/NoPend}}
If you ignore this chain letter then large, sweating men who idolize Pamela Geller will sneak into your kitchen at night and sit on your dairy products. A college student in Florida ignored it, and she became lactose intolerant. A grandmother in California did too, and she could never watch Fox News again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of FIR_TEX

It's a pitty to see that people do bad research on the Internet, especially Wikipedia, which to me starts to look very strange in the way editors handle deletions. Why i say this? Well if editors (not you) find, amongst others, the Dutch Olympic Committee and the Dutch National Handbal Federation not impartial and say they are part of the company FIR-TEX i sincerely doubt their ability to judge anything. I would like to ask you on what grounds you decided to delete the article about FIR-TEX? Kind regards, Flying Dutchman 10:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicky747 (talk • contribs)
I deleted it per the outcome of this discussion. My reasoning is there. The consensus formed was clearly to delete the article. I have no personal opinion; I only deleted based on the arguments presented in the discussion. —fetch·comms 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your work successfully attaining Featured Portal status, for Portal:Barack Obama. With the promotion of this portal, this brings the total number of Featured Portals, to 150. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick note: Can you please add Portal:Barack Obama, to pages: Wikipedia:Portal/Directory and Portal:Contents/Portals? Thanks! -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks! 150 is a great milestone. —fetch·comms 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dominion Wrestling Union

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Thank you for calling me on WP:canvass, I was unaware of that policy and will cease my actions immediately.--Gniniv (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fetchcomms/Archive_10&oldid=1147982791"