User talk:Auntof6/Archive01

Follicle
Hello,

You're doing a mighty fine job there, Aunty. My apologies for all those follicle links from Banksia articles; they're my bad.

Hesperian 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm pretty new at this, and it's fun to look at so many articles in diverse areas. Auntof6 05:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chao Phraya
Thanks for the assist. I'll try to get the rest of the geo-coordinates up soon for the rest of the tributaries soon. Working on villages in Phitsanulok for now.Kevin Borland, Esq. 08:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * in answer to your question...was just behind the scenes "loitering" and noticed your hard work. Cheers.  ♫ Cricket02 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

King Of Prussia
OK, here's what happened. The original article wasn't supposed to contain a disambiguation link. It was supposed to say just "King Of Prussia" and link to the "King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania" article. Like this -

King Of Prussia

However, somehow before you or I noticed there was anything wrong, the "King Of Prussia" and "King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania" parts of the link were transposed. When you attempted to correct the problem initially, you did not tranpose the links back to their proper place, but instead created a link to "King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania" without making the link say "King Of Prussia" so that is why I attempted to fix it. Nontheless, it's correct now and I apologize.

PanzaM22 07:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)  Mike

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab cleanup with AWB
Re this edit. That removed pipe links used for title formatting and blue links in the description of entries, both of which are needed and included in the disambiguation style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops -- thanks for helping keep me honest! I have reread the relevant sections of the dab style manual (as I'm sure I'll do more times in the future), and will proceed accordingly. Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I've noticed two separate pages (and I'm not tracking you specifically or anything) where your "cleanup" has involved taking entries where a link is included in the middle or end of a phrase, and removing the link so that the entry no longer includes any links at all. For example (just making something up), changing the entry:


 * A landmark in Boston, Massachusetts

to:


 * A landmark in Boston, Massachusetts

Since the whole point of a disambig page is to link to other articles, these edits make the page less useful and are definitely not suggested by the MOS. If the linked article doesn't actually discuss that meaning of the disambiguated term, and no other article discusses that meaning, it should be removed from the disambig page, not simply delinked. Propaniac (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my understanding, too. Can you point out those edits of mine?  I don't think I'd make any edits like that now, but I wonder if they were made before I learned more about dab page standards.  Thanks! Auntof6 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ones where I noticed it were at The Rock and Sepia. Propaniac (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I see what you're talking about and I understand what I did wrong.  I appreciate you pointing it out. :) Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Surname template move
On Camden, I see that you are moved the surname out of the surname section to the bottom of the page. That is unnecessary as the template specifically states that it can belong within a section, and on a broad disambiguation page, it is more relevant to have it in a surname section than wholly on the page. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for pointing it out! -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what: AWB did it. I didn't think I had done it on purpose, so I just checked, and AWB did it. It must put all dab templates at the bottom.  I'll have to be careful when editing pages with that kind of dab template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

piped links on dabs
Thanks for the work you're doing on cleaning up dab pages. But in general, WP:MOSDAB advises that Entries should not be pipe-linked—refer to the article name in full. For example in this edit, you created this entry: While there is an exception in MOSDAB for certain types of piped links, it is recommended that anchor links should be used in the description and not in the initial term. A better formulation of the entry might be: Cheers. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Columbia Center, a hamlet in Columbia, New York
 * Columbia Center, a hamlet in Columbia, New York

Babushkinsky District
When doing the revert, I failed to notice that the page was classified as a disambiguation instead of a set index. I've got that fixed now. The reason why sets use red links instead of the closest match as you suggested is in the project preferences which relies on backlinks to determine which red links have higher priority. It's also easier to update in the long run&mdash;if I were to create the article about the administrative okrug today, I wouldn't be able to catch the "Administrative divisions of Moscow#North-Eastern Administrative Okrug" link, so it would have remained like that possibly for quite a while. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What it looks like is quite irrelevant as the looks and formatting depend on the preferences of the WikiProject in the scope of which the set index falls; the important thing is that it complies with the technical requirements set forth in WP:SETINDEX: "Babushkinsky District" is a list article about a set of items of a specific type (districts in Russia) that share the same name (Babushkinsky District). A set index can have metadata and extra information about each entry, but it can just easily not have such metadata.  Renaming this set to "List of districts named Babushkinsky" makes as little sense as renaming Dodge Charger to "List of Dodge cars named Charger"&mdash;it makes the set cumbersome to link to, severely undermines WikiProject's efficiency as the inter-linking dependencies get obscured, and does absolutely nothing for the benefit of our readers.  The only good reason to rename this set would be if there were some other entities called "Babushkinsky District" (a ship, a mountain, a district outside Russia), but then it would have to be renamed "Babushkinsky District, Russia" (to comply with the naming requirements and practices used within WP:RUSSIA), and a link to it would be included on the "Babushkinsky District" disambiguation page, which would disambiguate it from the article about the other entity.
 * As for your example with WP:Multiple-place names (B) cleanup, this kind of idiotic sticking to each and every letter of MOSDAB (and please don't take this personally) is exactly why I disassociated myself with WP:DAB long ago. Do you seriously believe that readers perusing that list care one bit if after finding the entry they need they land in a set index instead of a disambiguation page?  Apart from not complying with some obscure point in some obscure disambiguation guide (I'd appreciate if you could point this rule out to me, by the way), what other harm is going to be done if you do in fact link to a set index from a multiple place names list?  I don't see it affecting readers' experience any; same goes for our editors.  When rules start being enforced for the sake of enforcing the rules instead of improving the encyclopedia, it should be a huge red flag that something is terribly wrong with the said rules.
 * Finally, on your last point ("if you make something into a set index page, please don't leave '(disambiguation)' as part of the title"), I am not quite sure I understand what you are talking about. Babushkinsky District does not mention the term "disambiguation" at all, neither in the title, nor in the body.  Could you, please, clarify?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the popup tool, but isn't it easier to fix the tool (so it includes the set indices as well, perhaps marking them differently so users don't confuse them with dabs proper), than to push for every suspiciosly-looking set to be re-branded as a dab? Tools, after all, exist to serve the needs of the editors, not the other way around.
 * As for my Akademgorodok edit, it was made in June, around the time when the concept of set indices was being discussed. At that time there was still a question of what to do with set indices, whether they are necessary, and in what way exactly they differ from the disambigs.  I don't recall the details around that particular edit, but I would guess at that (rather brief period of) time it wasn't much of a problem to have a page with "(disambiguation)" in its title to be marked as a set.  If you wish to fix that particular page, please go ahead, or feel free let me know if you want me to fix it myself.  I most certainly would not leave the "(disambiguation)" qualifier in a set index's title now (unless I accidentally overlook it, that is :))
 * Finally, regarding the reverts, mine are always done for a reason&mdash;you are very welcome to point me to any revert of mine and I'll happily explain what the reasoning behind it was. Before we started to switch from dabs to sets, I was asking for minor (and temporary) exceptions to MOSDAB in order to streamline the workflow of the project dealing with Russian inhabited localities.  At that time, unlike now, WP:DAB was run by reasonable people who understood that the needs of editors working on actual content are more important than blind enforcement of each and every letter of MOSDAB just for the sake of consistency.  So, if I needed to have two red links on a line, or to provide a description which is a few words longer than MOSDAB recommends, I was usually able to convince the folks who cleaned up the disambigs then that these needs were warranted (after all, it's not like I was asking for something outrageous).  At some point, however, WP:DAB became mostly an accumulation of cooks for whom "cleaning up the disambigs" and "stomping out dissent" seems to be the sole purpose in life and who forget that the rules are needed to make work easier, not harder.  In fact, MOSDAB became so overregulated that it pretty much became useless and actually impeding this project's progress.  Luckily, set indices provide just the outlet to continue productive working on the project without having to run into "cleaners" as often.  Now, I see, the set index article clause slowly becomes overregulated as well, and I personally find it hilarious that as a reaction to that there is now a "multi-stub" clause, which in effect allows for creation of disambig pages which are exempt from the MOSDAB/SIA requirements.  It will probably only last until someone actually decides to use this multi-stub clause in practice, but if it happens, something else will surely surface.  Truth is, MOSDAB worked just fine only a year ago, and now it is broken beyond repair.  I am sure the desired result (to have to clean up disambigs less often) was achieved (even though a lot of babies had been thrown with the water), and I can only hope that with reduced workload the MOSDAB cooks will eventually lose interest and more reasonable people will be able to restore it in the original state.
 * Sorry for the long rant (and, again, I would like to remind that it was not aimed at you personally), but I hope you'll be able to understand my actions a little better if you knew what my position was. I'll be more than happy to answer any follow-up questions you might have.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious about changes to USS Leonidas
I'm curious about this change to USS Leonidas. In what way were the previous links not "usable"? The template USS is a widely transcluded, stable template used as both an editor's shortcut—to reduce the number of keystrokes needed to properly italicize a ship name—and as a way to properly italicize the ship name only (as opposed to the prefix and hull symbol/pennant number or other disambiguation information). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have the popup tool activated, you can hover your cursor over a link to a dab page (yes, I see now that this is a set index page, but bear with me) and get a display that allows you to disambiguate that link with one click. (You may already be familiar with that.)  However, when I held my cursor over a link to this page, the links to the specific ships weren't visible, possibly because they're generated by the template instead of being hard coded on the page.  Still thinking in dab page mode, I changed the page so that the links were hardcoded and therefore usable by the popup tool.  I did understand the purpose of the USS/HMS/etc. templates, but I was still thinking in terms of making what I thought was a dab page as helpful as possible.


 * I just learned about set index pages (perhaps you saw my conversation with another Wikipedian above), and I will pay attention to which pages are that kind and which are dab pages before doing any more "dab cleanup". I do hate to see dab pages converted into set index pages, though, because we lose the ability to use the popup tool. Making the popups work with set index pages (as suggested by the other user above) would partly make up usable for disambiguation. for that, but the non-dab type links on sia pages would clutter the list of selectable links.


 * An interesting note: even though this is a set index page and not a dab page, the popup shows the links. It doesn't do that with all set index pages, so maybe the shipindex template has something in it that makes the tool think it's a dab page.


 * Thanks for your feedback. I'd be happy to discuss further. :) Auntof6 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what the "pop up" tool is? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one of the "gadgets" you can activate in your preferences. The documentation for it is at WP:POP. (Some of the screenshots are out of date.) I've only used a few of the functions so far -- mostly the one for disambiguating.
 * I don't see a screenshot for the dab function, but it works like this: when mousing over a link to a dab page, the popup has a section at the bottom saying "Click to disambiguate this link to:", followed by a list of all the links on the page. If you want to change the link on the page to point to one of the listed links, you click on that link in the dab section of the popup. That puts you into edit on the page, makes the change, and displays the changes as if you had clicked on "show changes".  Then you can decide to save or not.
 * Try it out and see what you think. I've found it quite useful, and I'm looking forward to learning about more of its features. Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ship set index pages
I've noticed that you have performed "dab cleanup" actions on several ship set index pages. Because these are set index pages and specifically not disambiguation pages (see the WikiProject Ships index page guideline here), please avoid removing relevant links, such as those to ship classes, navies, etc. I would also ask that you avoid removing any of the shortcut templates, such as USS (mentioned in my note above), HMS, HMAS, etc., that are used for proper formatting of ship names.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships set index pages are identifiable from the shipindex template that appears on the page and looks like this:

If you need any further assistance on this topic, please reply here, on my talk page, or at the discussion page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks for you feedback. I think my reply above explains what I was doing here.  If not, please let me know what further info you would like. Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

dab cleanup suggestions
Regarding edits such as this, per WP:ACCESS the TOC should go below the intro line; and per WP:MOSDAB, piped links to sections are acceptable in the description, but not as the initial linked term. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted, but next time would you please either fix just the actual problems, or point them out to me and let me fix them? When you revert an entire edit, you also revert other, unrelated changes. Not that there were lot of others in this particular edit, but in general.
 * Also, was there a particular reason you didn't also change the entry on the same page for the "Battle Arena Toshinden" character? Wasn't that also incorrect, according to WP:MOSDAB?  Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason other than I didn't notice it. I only saw the diffs and did not examine the entire page. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC) PS, though I'm not sure what you mean about other edits in that revert -- I don't see anything other than some white space, which as far as I'm concerned is irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell (surname)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mitchell (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Mitchell. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell
Hey Auntof6. I think your pages work, yes. I made the redirect because I saw that the content of your page was about the same as Mitchell, and perhaps you didn't know. But then I saw that you did know and were editing Mitchell as well, which seems consistent. So sorry about the trouble, and happy editing to you. :)  Flying  Toaster  06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Howdy. I did the division on the basis of anything using a surname of Mitchell went on the surname page; it didn't seem to me to be logical to leave surname entries on the Mitchell page when there is a "surname" page. The idea of fictional/non-fictional didn't enter my head! (No doubt there will be others who disagree with me, in which case there will probably be a "discussion" on the talk page ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Napier (surname)
Request for an opinion please. What do you think of this vs this? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer having the dab entries included in the main list rather than separate, because it's easier to scan down the page for the given name you're interested in.
 * Lately I've been working mostly with place name dab pages, and I don't always do that with those because 1) the place name lists are often organized by country or region, and 2) the dab pages can have entries for multiple countries/regions
 * If you prefer the other way, I'd be interested to hear your thinking. Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I had/have a preference for it - it was more a case thinking that, almost by definition, the dab pages are the more "common" names, so putting them at the start of the list would reduce the average "reader-search-time". (Not hard to spot the statistician, is it ... ) I'm beginning to think that it might be one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" situations. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

TOCright
Why don't you like ? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And while I have your attention, why do you remove ? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally like TOC right, but somewhere in one of the style guides, I saw that TOC right is a problem for people with disabilities (meaning, I supposed, blind people using reader software), and that it was discouraged. At that point, I started removing it and not using it myself.  Of course, I later found another style guide that recommended using it!
 * As for the include/noinclude, maybe I don't understand what that does. I was thinking that if you have a tag followed immediately by its closing tag, that essentially nothing is being done.  If that's not so, I'd love to be educated!
 * Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Of course ... " - Of course! (Murphy has an awful lot to answer for, doesn't he.)
 * Well yes, include/noinclude with nothing in between does nothing, but those that you are removing do not have "nothing in between them". (I have to admit, I'm not sure what it is that you think you might not understand.)


 * Changing topic completely, how many siblings and siblings-in-law do you have, and how many of those are responsible for the six nieces and nephews? I have one sister and one sister-in-law who have made me an Uncleof4. This, by-the-way, reminds me of a terrible joke:
 * A lady had twins, and for one reason or another, her not-very-reliable brother named the children and registered the births. The lady was worried that he would mess it up, but had no choice.
 * When she next saw him, she asked (rather suspiciously), "What did you name my daughter?"
 * "Denice" he replied. She was quite taken aback. "What a lovely name. And my son?".
 * "Denephew".
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is the purpose of include/noinclude. Do you happen to remember a specific article where I removed one that had nothing between the start and end tags?  I may have thought that whatever was between didn't belong on a dab page (if it was a dab page).


 * I have 2 sisters, no brothers. One of the sisters has 4 kids, and the other has 2.
 * Auntof6 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy!
 * What I don't understand is the purpose of include/noinclude. - They allow you to display different views of a page in different circumstances.

Shift-click on User talk:Pdfpdf/noinclude-example - you see: However, if I put   into the text of this page, what appears here is:
 * Illustrative example:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7

Why the difference? I put pairs around the contents of the even numbered lines. i.e. *2 *4 *6 So what? (i.e. What possible use is that?)
 * 1
 * 3
 * 5
 * 7
 * Well, on the Wells (name) page, an editor wanted the page to list ALL people called Wells.
 * Rather than duplicate the contents of all "XXX Wells (disambiguation)" pages onto the "Wells (name)", and hence double the maintenance workload, he "transcluded" (I think that's the correct name for it, but I could be wrong) the contents of the subordinate disambig pages into the "master" page.
 * However, the disambig pages have more on them than just the list of names (e.g. "See also" sections, templates, and sometimes categories.) You don't want all that on the "master" page. So you put pairs around the bits that you don't want to "transclude".
 * In theory, I think it's a great idea.
 * However, in practise, other editors independently randomly edit the subordinate pages, and although the sub-ordinate page may look great by itself, quite frequently they move and/or delete the and/or, resulting in the "master" page looking like excrement.

Do you happen to remember a specific article where I removed one that had nothing between the start and end tags?
 * next topic
 * No. I don't think you have. It would seem that I did not express myself very well. What I meant to say was:
 * You: "I was thinking that if you have a tag followed immediately by its closing tag, that essentially nothing is being done."
 * Me: "Yes, that's right. But the ones you have been deleting do NOT have "a tag followed immediately by its closing tag" - thay have "stuff" in-between the opening & closing tags."
 * Was any of that any use?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Qahtani_(surname)&curid=5232446&diff=267758254&oldid=267758125

fyi
WRT your recent change -- Al Qahtani is not really a surname. It is a tribal name, like Mohawk. Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks for telling me. Is that true for all (or most) other Arabic names that start with "al"? I guess I should have just changed the hndis tag to disambig. I'll change it back and ask the admins to delete the surname page. Sound good? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but it is true for many of them. Variations of Al Shihri are another instance.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of O'Name type names
I see you've been altering the sort on several names, changing e.g to. I don't think that is correct. From Categorization of people: "Punctuation, such as apostrophes and colons (but not hyphens) should be removed, and accented letters and ligatures should be replaced by their unaccented or separated counterparts." Hope that helps. Tassedethe (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does help, thanks. I'll go back and correct the ones I've done, and do them right after this. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirill Naryshkin
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kirill Naryshkin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * If it were to remain, it would be an orphaned multi-stub article. Its cause would be better served by creating RA entries for the three names, where at least some editors will occasionally see their names.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thanks for your appropriate edit. But i doubt this page will become viable soon. Jerzy•t 08:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Category removal
I'm not sure why you thought these categories were duplicates or redundant, but they are not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" wasn't, but "Latter Day Saint movement lists" was. I don't know why I removed that first one, either. I'll go back and remove just that second one. Sound good? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see—I thought you meant the two categories were redundant to each other. But yes, the lists one was on there twice. I've removed the duplicate one, so no worries on having to go back now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Yes, I meant that the second one was there twice. I'm working on Check Wikipedia error #17 where some articles have the same category specified more than once (sometimes even 3 or more times!). --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my confusion. Carry on—you're doing a good work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No Need To Worry
Oh, its just welcome message. I saw your name in new users list of Hindi Wikipedia, so I just pasted a Welcome message Template on your Hindi User Talk Page Rohit (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see! I was checking Interwiki links from an article I was looking at, and I looked at the related Hindi articles. Thanks for the welcome! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Gibson
I disagree that the category that you removed, "Cricket commentators", was a duplicate, so I've restored it. That he did live commentary on cricket matches on radio (and a little on TV) is not covered by any of the other categories, as far as I can see. JH (talk page) 08:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That exact category was in the list twice. Another user has reverted your change. No worries, though -- it can be hard to catch the duplicates when there is a long list of categories, especially if all you're going by is the "diff". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for having been so careless. JH (talk page) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
I don't use AWB often, or not enough to be familiar with all its cleanup possibilities. I was just wondering if you know, since I saw this edit, whether AWB automatically changes lowercase category sort options to uppercase (i.e. in that edit, was changed to  . Quite a few people in the tree of life project and specifically WP:PLANTS prefer the lowercase sorting since all the species epithets will be lowercase. Keeps out categories consistent, anyway. Just thought I'd ask! Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I made that change manually, because it's the standard to have the first letter of sort keys be capital. I've seen AWB make that kind of change for DEFAULTSORT values, but not the category-specific values. It's just a sort key, though, it doesn't affect what appears. If the category were to have an entry starting with B (or whatever letter) that wasn't a scientific name, I think the general population would rather the lower- and upper-case Bs were sorted together. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be standard some places, but the guideline on this is less than clear: WP:CAT. "Don't begin sort keys with lower case letters, unless you want to create a separate sublist..." Is that the only exception? Following a conversation with another editor, I think I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point. I agree on your point about upper and lowercase sorts being together, but we're only talking about taxonomic categories that typically won't have uppercase sorts. E.g. - this genus is complete with all species and subgenera/sections. When I open a discussion on the guideline, I'll let you know so you can weigh in. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

H. H. Asquith
You might like to be a little more careful before pressing save to edits like this. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? I've always thought the sort data should match the article title, since the title is what displays when one looks at the category. If the sort key doesn't match the title, the list could look out of order and make it hard to find things. Do you know if there's a policy on this somewhere? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am redoing the change that you reverted. It is supported by this section of the guideline on categorization of people, specifically the sentence says, "The sort key should mirror the article's title as closely as possible." I personally would prefer to see the person's full name, but that should be accomplished with the article title, not the sort key. The sort key doesn't appear anywhere: it just puts the article into the proper sequence in the list of articles in a category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Nadel Photo to upload
i have found 2 photos to share but i forgot how to upload direcly from the internet. i tried to upload to windows live, but i cannot locate them. can you assist and then provide a crash course for internet uploads on my talk page? thanx much.

http://news.puggal.com/arthur-nadel/missing-money-manager/

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have any experience with uploading photos! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Spinosa (coach)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Tony Spinosa (coach). Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

shamanic music
is there a way to have non-duplication of ref numbers AND refs grouped under appropriate paragraphs? Dungur (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could do it manually. However, the convention on Wikipedia is to have all the notes at the bottom, not after each section. That's why multiple reference tags is considered an error. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it may be the convention, but it's a great advantage for readers not to have to scroll down and back up again, specially where there are relevant quotations within the refs. Readers like me, that is, who might want to get an immediate idea of the field of reference that's being used in the article. If I wanted to buck the convention a) would you allow it and b) how would it be done manually?Dungur (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, but it's not up to just me. I found that article because it was listed at the WikiProject Check Wikipedia. (You won't find it listed on the current page, because I resolved all the articles with duplicate references tags and deleted the section from the page.) As long as they're scanning for that error, anyone could find Shamanic music and make the same change I did. I've asked here for the people doing the database scans to post the reference for "error 78" (reference list duplication) -- feel free to comment there if you like. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: checkwikipedia errors
FIY Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia - believe this concerns your edits. Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

need help saving an article
I am eliciting your help to save a wikipedia article that I see you helped on - the article in question is in danger of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_carson - this article I feel meets the significant coverage guidelines as well as others as the first 5 pages of a google search for "on a hill they call capital matt carson" are full of articles and source material, not to mention the book was favorably reviewed by the Washington Post's Joel Garreau. In addition - Mr. Carson is running for Virginia house of delegates, quite big news in our state, and this was recently added to his page but then removed, the articles below reference his run for office which I feel is significant coverage and notable as well.

http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/independent_files_to_run_against_scott_in_statehouse/37182/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_House_of_Delegates_elections,_2009

http://www.starexponent.com/cse/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/delegate_races_heating_up_across_state/37866/

he is also linked throughout wikipedia such as the missatributed section of: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution etc.

Eager to get your take and any help you can provide. Thank you for the work you do. Ron Ron20186 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron20186 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry to disappoint, but I'm going to decline. I have no particular interest in that article, I just edited it because it was in a list of articles that needed some cleanup.

IntelePeer is no longer an orphan!
Hi there, I created an inbound link to the IntelePeer article from the VantagePoint Venture Partners article. Is this sufficient for you to remove the flag? Thanks! Jinxynix (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's enough for me. Some editors like to see more than just one incoming link, but for an article this short I think one is enough. Do you want me to remove the orphan tag, or would you like to do it? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I got it. I'm adding more inbound links. Jinxynix (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Iris
Just wanted to let you know that I re-read the WP:PIPING instructions and went back and fixed the disambig page. The problem with using an automated cleaner, like Wiki-cleaner, is that it updates the redirects blanket-wise, not allowing the redirects to remain that might actually have an article sometime down the road. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

square end brackets
Hi. This is re. The insertion/movement of square end brackets changes the citation form from one that was (formerly) consistent and that I understood to be acceptable. If so, my understanding is that it should have been let be. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look here at what the page looked like before my changes, you'll see that the reference doesn't display correctly because the brackets weren't balanced. It looks like the change by SUL incorrectly fixed the missing-endbracket issue by removing one of the two brackets at the end of the internal link to "Edward Elgar Publishing". I don't think you can have an internal link inside an external link, so I shortened the text for the external link so as to preserve the internal link. The other possibility was to remove the brackets for the internal link. I personally like to include only the title and perhaps the author inside the internal link brackets in a quote like this, but it can be done either way as far as I know.
 * Let me know if I haven't explained this very well! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort for fictional characters
It's generally a bad idea to use Defaultsort in these cases, as another editor will most commonly be looking for the character as "Aerith", not "Gainsborough", or a better example of "Samus" instead of "Aran" first, per what's most typically presented to them in the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, even if you're referring just to game characters. Do you have a MOS reference for this? WP:NAMESORT doesn't mention treating fictional characters differently. The sort key is supposed to reflect the article title: if the title includes the surname, then the surname should be used in the sort key. You can always make a redirect page with just the first name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a guideline one way or another, other than common sense. Especially when you consider in many cases these articles don't have the character's full name shown due to an agreement awhile back requiring said name to be present in gameplay (i.e. Ivy (Soulcalibur), Sakura (Street Fighter), despite both characters having full names, respectively). And again, people are going to look for the character by the most common name even in cases where the article has the full one, as Aerith is a lot more prevalent to someone unfamiliar with a series than Gainsborough is. I would suggest asking at WT:MoS and see what they say. If they agree with you I'll gladly recede from this, just give me a shout if you do open a discussion so I can make my case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Soldier tragedy of 1877
Thank you for going over the article Buffalo Soldier tragedy of 1877. I really do appreciate what you do. If you get a chance would you be so kind to check over the follwoing articles? Nicholas M. Nolan and Louis H. Carpenter. Thank you again! Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do that. The changes I made there were mostly done by an automated tool. If you want, you can use a similar tool that's documented here. Let me know if you want to give that a try, or if you'd like me to do it -- either is OK with me! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do it yourself. I do not know enough about it ... yet! Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. :) I noticed that one of the references in the Carpenter article needs fixing, but I'm not sure what was intended, so I left it alone. It's the "cite book" reference in the paragraph that begins "The other two Kiowa were tried, found guilty, sentenced to death". It looks like it's talking about two different books. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Take was quick! Thanks for finding that messed up ref. I fixed it, but I don't know when it got messed up. I am going to study that neat tool! Thanks again! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Song titles
Hello - Regarding Elizabeth: Songs can be dab page material, but they're only definitely dab page material if there's an article written about the song. Otherwise, I consider them similar to red-linked people: is there likely to be a mis-linking to a particular song title, or are we just looking at a list of all possible songs named "Elizabeth"? I think I come down as more of a hardliner than many about not listing song names, but I'm trying to be more flexible. A year ago, I might have just deleted the song titles that had no articles associated with them. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Auntof6, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Why does (only) RoI remain in the main article? SimonTrew (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidy up, still struggling with links and redirects

Mary Moody Northen
I thought I would let you know that I've begun work on an entry for Mary Moody Northen, William Lewis Moody, Jr.'s daughter. Right now its pretty bare bones, but as time allows in the next few days, I will build upon it. Feel free to join in, if you have any interest and/or time. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'll take a look when I have time, but for now I'm sure it's in good hands. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2   Talk Autographs Contribs 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think the edits were vandalism. The first removed an entry that I considered to be a dictionary definition; the term isn't even mentioned in the linked Association football article. The second brought two entries into compliance with disambiguation page rules. In addition, I see that you later reverted your reversion of my edits; that being the case, I don't appreciate having the vandalism notice on my user page, or an edit summary indicating that my edits were vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My fault completely. I forgot to turn Coprolalia off, an add-on for adding blunt words to webpages and I thought you had inserted "For the fucking surname, see..." - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/images/p/36892/1252920966

How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2   Talk Autographs Contribs 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Red link recovery
I see you are also working on red link recovery. And I saw your exchange with EmanWilm. I have a bit of ADD so I tend to bounce about between pages. I do try to check whether someone has recently edited and leave that page alone for a while. I also try to do an entire section at a time. Anyway, feel free to drop me a line if I am getting in your way on a page.--Open2universe (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was more or less offering to stay out of EmanWilm's way, rather than the reverse, but I guess that wasn't understood. I certainly wasn't commenting on his/her work. I also tend to bounce around, so I know what you mean! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!
Thanks for your recent edits!! - People like you help to build the sum f all human knowledge. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: template
This new template looks useful, but could we have some documentation for it, please? For example, is there a way to have it ignore the "(disambiguation)" part of a dab page title, or even the parenthetical part of any title? Thanks!--Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am working on that as we speak. My plan actually is to make it so if you enter, it'll link to all pages starting with the desired start name, while if you leave that out, it'll default to the page name. I have never created a template like this before, and I am still experimenting. Hellno2 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for repairing the link
Thanks mate for fixing the link at UCB-Bahrain.

Twin towns or Sister cities?
Hi Auntof6, There is a current discussion open on the proposed name modification here if you wish to add your comments -- User:Marek69. 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)