User talk:Bellerophon/Archive 2

Goldgenie
Hi Good evening, im kinda new to this stuff, so i dont really know how or where to post. how can we speak about the "Goldgenie"page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydergold (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On the Goldgenie talk page would seem the best place. Pol430  talk to me 12:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, my name is Laban Roomes from Goldgenie, user name Goldgenieofficial we have a situation where a fradulant company Goldgenie Asia is trying to make changes to our page Goldgenie on wikipedia, please can you not allow them to post any comments as they are trying to add false domain names and information such as goldgenieasia.com which has no connection with us. Can you help?

Laban Roomes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldgenieofficial (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Firstly, nobody owns Wikipedia pages even if they are about you or your company. Anyone is free to edit the article but must do so in a constructive fashion and adhere to our policies and guidelines. You have been engaged in an edit war with User:Spydergold over which external links should feature in the article. Having looked at the article it would seem that both links are relevant to the articles subject matter, and just about meet our guidelines for external links, therefore they are both included. If you continue to edit war over links you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. Additionally your username violates Wikipedia policy because it is promotional and a report has been filled at WP:UAA. Pol430  talk to me 13:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As stated before goldgenieasia.com is a fraudulent web site and has no connection with us. I was not aware my name user name is a violation so I will change this after your reply to me. The correct site to use if any is the original posted which is goldgenieasia.asia or goldgenieasia.co.uk please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldgenieofficial (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed all external links except for goldgenie.com. That seems the fairest resolution to me, and in very much in keeping with WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Pol430  talk to me 13:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this is much appreciated. I will make sure we create another username to abide by your policies. Have a great day. Laban Roomes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldgenieofficial (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Make consensus on the template i'm trying to form
Hi, I want to form consensus for my template i'm trying to form over here. —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC).


 * If you are looking for consensus to create a new template, then WT:UTM would be a better place to do it than your userspace Pol430  talk to me 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not moving my page to WT:UTM, but, can you pass my message on for me, please? Also notice my new signature. Thanks! Hope you are not asleep! Aerosprite the Legendary Leave me a message! 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aerosprite, before customizing your signature, be sure to read the guidelines at Signatures (shortcut → WP:CUSTOMSIG). I think yours may be a little too long. Plus, your account name is not Aerosprite the Legendary. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Winter olympics
Stop Modifying my page about the winter olympics it is a joke between my friends now stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.251.128 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits were vandalism, they have been reverted. Pol430  talk to me 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback2: SpikeToronto
—  Spike Toronto  06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Aerosprite
—  Spike Toronto  23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work
Thank you for your excellent work and constructive comments at the uw-3rr template discussion. It was very nice meeting you. Take care. (Cool edit notice BTW :)) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words, there is a serious shortage of regular contributors to WT:UTM, so I try to fly the flag as best I can. The edit notice was mercilessly stolen from User:Kudpung's talk page (along with plenty of other markup - he is aware of this) :) Pol430  talk to me 10:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You.
Hello there.I am Damirgraffiti.Thank you for reminding me about the user boxes that I am not entitled for.It was nice meeting my talk page.And by the way, how did you make those boxes?How did you do it?Could you please tell me?Damirgraffiti (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Massoud Barzani
Hi Pol430! You reverted a few changes on this page citing WP:OR. I'm a little confused. User:Bawki did make a lot of unsourced edits but I eventually added a source that confirmed most of the changes(1). In my opinion it shouldn't have been fully reverted. ~ Zirguezi 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies I failed to see your edit in amongst User:Bawki's. Unfortunately when rejecting an edit, the reviewers interface bundles all unreviewed edits together. In this case that included your edit&mdash;I failed to notice it in the list. I can not revert that edit now because there are newer edits that conflict with it. Please feel free to make your edit again and accept my humble apologies. Pol430  talk to me 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's easily overlooked. ~ Zirguezi 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.
Hello there.I read your post, read the instructions for beginners, and knowing about vandalism and reporting to users.

By the way, do i select Rollback:Vandal on the right side on the latest version or select the previous version?Can you tell me?Damirgraffiti (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Rollback:Vandalism link will rollback all edits made by the current editor. 'Restore this version' will... restore that version. Pol430  talk to me 09:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

user warning
Hi Pol. I've had a look again  at  your draft. It seems OK - I've added just  one Wikilink to  it. Now I've got something that  might interst you. As you know, I'm on a drive to improve new page patrolling. Since I was given that mop thingy  last  week I've been taking  a more critical look  at  some warnings that  are not  'warnings'. If you have a moment, take a look  at this example. I don't  think  it  sounds friendly  enough. We need NPPers, but we want  them to  take more care - currently  there is a spate of extremely  fast  tagging. I've put a suggested new draft for the template here. Let me know what  you  think, because I'm  no  expert on  programming  templates, and I don't  really  want  to  get  involved in  the good work you guys do  at the uw project. --Kudpung (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, congrats on the mop, you got my !vote :) About this template, the current template is Template:uw-csd I have looked at this and agree it could be worded in a more friendly manner. I have added a revised version based on your suggested wording to your sandbox. I had to retain some of the original wording because this template contains some fairly complex parser functions that are beyond my expertise to re-program. Let me know what you think? Pol430  talk to me 09:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the congrats and the !vote - it  was much  appreciated (and necessary)! I think  I  prefer the shorter version, but  it  depends on  the bit  in  the middle that  appears to  be an options parameter that  Twinkle is not  showing in  the menu. Now that  you've located the actual syntax for me, it  doesn't  look so  difficult. I've just  tagged myself here using  Twinkle. I'll  have another look  at  the syntax  in  a moment. However, someone else has also  brought  up  a salient  point at Template talk:Uw-csd that  hasn't  been addressed. I'll reword that  in  my  draft  too when I've figured out the syntax. --Kudpung (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, good work, I agree - shorter is better! I've just noticed that talk page for the template does not re-direct to WT:UTM which is where all uw template talks should (according to the theory of Project UW) redirect to, i'll copy the full convo to the centralized talk page and redirect the template one. Pol430  talk to me 10:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added some more and moved the whole thing to  a new sandbox at  User:Kudpung/Sandbox2. --Kudpung (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: I'm at  the end of my  knwledge of Wiki template code, becase it  embeds all  sorts of other templates. Wr  need someone to  find out  why  Twinkle is not  using the other stuff, and to  reprogramme it. --Kudpung (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That extra code is explained in the template documentation at Template:Uw-csd/doc. I think the reason twinkle does not use it, is that this is one of the few&mdash;possibly the only&mdash;template to use those extra functions. It was either to much hassle to add support for them to Twinkle, or nobody even noticed the extra code when integrating the template with Twinkle. Personally I think those extra functions could be removed and the template would still be perfectly useful. Question is, are we going to upset any old school non twinklers by doing that? This string of code: 1 is also not supported by twinkle, it inserts an optional level 2 header of 'Wrong tagging for speedy deletion' Pol430  talk to me 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this version? I have got rid of all the extra params and included an optional article/page link, the template will continue to work with twinkle but if someone adds it to a talk page without specifying an article/page then it wont look broken. I've also tidied up the wording slightly. Pol430 talk to me 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as you kept the code that still allows Twinkle to offer a comment box, I think it's OK. Anyone can enter the appropriate CSD criteia into it if they want to. Main thing is that the accusatory note has gone and that the whole thing is no longer TLDR. I'm going to be away in Laos for the next 2 days as of tomorrow morning my time UTC+7. Take care :) Kudpung (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll run the code past a twinkle bofin to make sure i've not broken anything. I wish I was in Laos, or anywhere other than the UK for that matter seeing as I managed to crash my car yesterday... Anyway, take care also :) Pol430  talk to me 12:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: For the old school manual use, it's probably best to leave enough code in so that this page name still works for them even if Twinkle doesn't pick it all up.Kudpung (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA
I noticed your opposition to my RfA. I acknowledge the reasons for why you did so, and understand how you can see that my answers were suboptimal. However, I ask you to take into consideration actions and results (although I see that you did, seeing as you mentioned WSC's oppose), and I would like to bring your attention to a convenient log of CSD tags that I have been keeping for a couple of days. Even with that, I understand the reasons for your view. --Slon02 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Slon02, plenty of good work on your CSD log there, my oppose was based partly on WSC's concerns about your CSD tagging, but also on a lack of confidence I perceived in your answers to question 6. In so much as, your answers seemed to consist of a rewording of the existing CSD criteria. What I was hoping for, was a more confident insight into your views of the more debatable aspects of CSD policy. For example, your definition of a credible assertion of significance or importance. Your definition of patent nonsense and unambiguous advertising that would provide me with an insight into your judgement. Unfortunately your answers did not seem to hit the mark for me, hence my oppose. Please note that there is no personal malice or ill will in my opposition to your candidacy, I have never had a negative interaction with you before and therefore have no axe to grind. I think you are an extremely valuable editor who has done, and continues to do, a lot of good work on this encyclopedia. This is your third RfA and having to run that gauntlet three times takes a lot of courage. I still don't have enough confidence in the finer points of your policy knowledge to swing to support unfortunately, and it would be two-faced of me to wish you success with this RfA because I don't believe you are quite ready for the mop yet. Notwithstanding this, I do believe you can address the concerns that have been listed by the 'opposers' over the next 6 months, and if you were to do that and apply again, I would very likely support - you meet my criteria in most other respects. TL;DR is probably kicking in now but I would like to leave you with one final thought: It is easy go go away from a failed RfA feeling dejected and upset, I takes great strength of character to pick yourself up and carry on; you have done this twice before and I'm sure you can do it again. Sincerely Pol430  talk to me 10:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to make a StatusTemplate?
I read about what Status Template is, read the instructions, and it didn't appear at all!I don't know what I am supposed to do in order to put it into my talk page.If you know, tell me.--Damirgraffiti (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Copy this code: importScript('User:Henrik/js/automod.js'); into this page: User:Damirgraffiti/vector.js and save the page. Then copy this code to your user talk page Then create this page with your status. I.e. online or offline you have to update your status page manually each time, it is not automatic.  Pol430  talk to me 10:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your criteria
Just a query, re User:Pol430/RfA Criteria - which I came across when looking at the current RfAs... it indicates that they absolutely must have a clean block log. I, for example, was blocked - but only for an hour, and it was 3 years (and 70,000 contribs) ago. Does that mean you'd never be able to support me? Or perhaps you need to change your criteria a little, to say something like "no recent blocks"?  Chzz  ► 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My criteria begins with: Generally speaking I expect RfA candidates to fulfil most of the following criteria:... the bolding and wording is deliberate; I expect editors to have a completely clean block log 'generally speaking'. I may make exceptions if the candidate was blocked a long time ago and is now evidenceably a good editor. I would also make exceptions for candidates that were blocked in error. In short there is every chance I would support your RfA. Pol430  talk to me 10:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, fair enough. It wasn't entirely regarding my own possible future RfA, it was more of a comment; these are the sort of things that discourage me from doing RfA, and therefore I suspect they're the sort of things that may deter other potential candidates - and I'm sure you are aware of the 'admin drought'.  Chzz  ► 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I keep hearing about the admin drought but not really sure what to make of it. I certainly don't think it should mean relaxing the standards. For what it's worth, based on a quick look at your contribs, permissions, and user page I would support your candidacy. I'm pretty sure I've seen you around AN/I, and other places, before and have always thought you to be clueful. Pol430  talk to me 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without breaking confidence, I can only say that, sometimes/recently I have spoken to RfA applicants during their RfA, and they've been very personally affected by things. They've not slept properly; they've fretted over the questions and opposes, they've been traumatized.
 * So maybe, if they can't handle that, they're not good candidates for admin? I'm not so sure.
 * RfA is scary. And if it scares *me* then, there is something very wrong. why should I put myself through hell?
 * "Because it would be a net gain"? Not if I failed - again - which is quite possible. Some digs up 1 out of my 80,000 contribs that don't sit well; and others jump on the band-wagon  - AND at same time, someone who disagrees w/ me - which is inevitable for someone who edits as I do - digs up shit
 * If I failed again, I'm pretty sure I'd be off-wiki for months; and maybe forever. So that, for the project, is not a net+
 * Number of new admins, by year: In 2007, 408; in 2008, 201; in 2009, 119; in 2010, 75
 * This year - it is mid March. We have 12 new ones, so far. So, about 3-4 per month?  4 x 12 = 48
 * I see a pattern. 2012, 25. 2013, 12. 2014, 6. 2015, 3.   So I reckon, by 2016 - if we don't wake up - the admin will have to !vote for herself  Chzz  ►  04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (applogies for butting in). If it's any consolation, my own recent RfA (one of the most contentious in recent times) was absolute sheer  bloody  hell - right  up  until  the last  minute, and I'm  generally  made of strong  stuff. Whether candidates have to  be opposed or not, considering  that  Wikipedia is a purely voluntary  activity, it's ridiculous to  put  the candidates through  such  a traumatising  process. It's definitely  the mainreason  why  many  are staying  away. Anyone interested in  getting  the system improved or changed, please consider contributing  regularly  to  WT:RfA. --Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You both make valid points, that is the first time I had seen those year by year admin stats. In terms of how to fix the problem, I really don't have a clue where to begin. However, it would appear RfA is not the only venue where there are contentious divides about giving out 'flags' See here and here. Pol430 talk to me 10:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; it's been a hugely contentious issue for a very long time. Despite lots and lots of discussion though, RfA has just got more and more arduous.
 * I have an opinion. I think the key problem is, adminhood becomes a big deal because it is so hard to take away the flag. If someone is vandalising, we give a couple of warnings and then block them - pending sorting it out. Same could be applied to sysop - ie, if one made a few bad CSD-calls, their admin status could simply be removed for a time ('coz it's no big deal), and they could explain they recognized their errors, or whatever...and quickly get it back. I'd also love to see it renamed from "admin" to "janitor" or something, to remove a little of the mystique. The term frequently confuses newer users, who assume admins have special authority.
 * I think that we (including myself) feel obliged to be so very careful in our !vote on candidates because we know, once they have this exalted status, if they make errors they'll not have their status removed - short of lengthy AN discussions which frequently only result in mild admonishment, or even more lengthy arbcom cases - but they only happen in extreme instances. I think we need to concentrate on making it "no big deal". just my 10¢  Chzz  ►  19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it has become a bit of a 'big deal' also. In terms of taking away the flag I think it's fine to leave that permission with stewards, possibly delegate it to bureaucrats also (maybe). But desysoping should only happen as the result of community consensus (IMO). The biggest problem with taking the flag away is Arbcom; I work in law enforcement and I am used to bureaucracy, but Arbcom is honestly the most bureaucratic process I have ever encountered. I was looking the other day at the case of the sysop (name withheld) who was recently desysoped for going off the rails a bit; I almost fell asleep, it must have taken the case nominator two days to write that spiel. Anyway, I have been here since 2008 but only been editing actively since late last year, in the past week I have seen the darker side of Wikipedia and I don't like it. I thought Wikipedia was different from other online communities&mdash;I have previously been an admin at several online forums but left when the clique-ness became to much&mdash;but I see that it really is just the same... Pol430  talk to me 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal, welcome to the dark side etc. (all very tongue-in-cheek) - the latter link not being ever-so-related, but it does show the underbelly a bit.  Chzz  ►  04:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits are not vandalism, nor is it engaging in edit war
In regards to the 2011 China protests article, I have merely included some facts related to those cited sources to clarify what the meaning of those citations actually reveal. Although it may be you practice to do so, you should not collude with the others to block me for editing in these simple facts that help guide the readers upon as much pertinent facts as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.168.122 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you added controversial content and provided some sources. Whether they are fact or not is entirely the debate the other editors are trying to engage you in. Try discussing this content with the other editors on the article talk page. Wikipedia operates on the principal of collegiality, POV pushing and tendentious editing is not acceptable and if you revert again I'll hand the matter over the admins at 3rr. If you are not able to reach any common ground with the other two editors then seek WP:Dispute resolution. Pol430  talk to me 21:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did much more than just provide "some sources" to counter the systematic biased behavior of the number of contributors, including your own bias in supporting the article in it's depletive and politically slanted state. What I wrote about what Eunice Yoon's words is EXACTLY what SHE STATED. Who I named in making the "claims of victory or success" in the subjective commentary is exactly who and what publisher made those claims. You cannot stand this because your are seriously prejudiced and biased in your POV and against people who disseminate controversial information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.168.122 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because you were completely out of line to revert an edit made on a talk page. It is the complete right of a user to express themselves and there concerns on a talk page. If you did not want to hear it then you could simply IGNORE THE COMMENT!! Gabesta449  edits  ♦  chat  22:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How was I out of line to revert an edit that contains a personal attack on me. I can tolerate personal attacks on my talk page, I'm used to it from vandals, but to post archive discussions from my talk page onto an article talk page is not appropriate. It is perfectly acceptable to revert edits on talk pages if they are inappropriate per the WP:Talk page guidelines. Please take some time to look at the overall situation and you will see that the IP is on a campaign of harassment against me ever since I tried to stop their tendentious edit war, they have been reported to 3rr and now AIV. Please reconsider, there is also no need to shout at me (caps) it's not very civil. Pol430  talk to me 23:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * O well in that case I have a friend that knows me in the non wikipedia world and is an administrator if you could give me the IP address Im pretty sure I could help you out. Cheers. Gabesta449   edits  ♦  chat  23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I will pay closer attention to these things and investigate a little more. Gabesta449   edits  ♦  chat  23:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the IP is 66.214.168.122 I have already messaged to Diannaa at her talk page Pol430  talk to me 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Submission of article has been declined
Hello Pol430,

I have submitted the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spanos_Industries, but it failed to be published. I followed the instructions of previous comments in order to modify it, and also I was at online chat. Before summiting it again, I gave to one of the participants in Help online chat center to review it in order not to make some mistake. As it is written in your comment I have to provide more information on why the organization is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please can you help me regarding this, and assist me in what direction I should go, i.e. what exactly I need to write down, so the article is OK for publishing. I am trying to publish it for a long time, and every time the comments are different, so I would really appreciate your help, in order with this task.

Many thanks in advance. Best, Kala kala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kala Kala, This article was declined because the company/organization it concerns does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for companies. You can see our guidelines covering notability for companies at Notability (organizations and companies). Actually, there are a few problems with the article that are preventing it from being created, these are:


 * 1) The article is written in an 'adverty' style. Wikipedia does not allow articles that seem only to advertise a companies, individuals, or organizations existence; or to promote their products or services. See NOTADVERTISING for more info.
 * 2) The article's writing style does not meet our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. See WP:NPOV for more info.
 * 3) The article appears to be referenced using mainly primary sources. See WP:RS for more information on what we consider reliable sources.
 * 4) Because the article relies mostly on primary sources and lacks reliable sources, the content of the article is not verifiable. See WP:V for more info on our policy of verifiability.


 * In summary, based on the way the article is at the moment, I don't think any amount of re-writing will address all the concerns listed above. You need to find multiple, independent, reliable sources, so that the content of the article can be verified. These reliable sources need to feature significant coverage of Spanos Industries, and detail why the company is important and therefore notable. I hope that has answered your question? If not, please contact me again. Pol430  talk to me 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome banner
Hi

No problem to you using it, hell the whole of Wiki can :¬)

Just one thing to note is that it was from a Spanish Wikipedia welcome I received when I went over there to ask some one a translation question - I merely wiped the Spanish, put the English in, did the signature picture and linked it all up.

Feel free to distribute it as much as possible, I used to call it "The lovely welcome message from the Spanish Wiki one" for the first year or so that I used it, it really was pleasing to the eye!

Thanks for letting me know :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thank you. I've saved it to my userspace and I'm just giving it a little copy edit. Hopefully it will get positive feedback on the welcome committee talk page, I think it could really benefit new editors. Pol430  talk to me 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete???
symphonicify (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2011 THXS for letting me know about my upoald. I understand that it doesnt fit the policies. I'm sorry. It was just my first Upload and was excited to put it up. I worked hard on it, however you can delete it. It doesnt really matter.

THXS!!!! ^^


 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for your message, I understand it is disappointing when your hard work is listed for deletion; however, it is important that Wikipedia articles are notable and verifiable. I've sent you a welcome message to guide you in understanding how Wikipedia works and assist you in creating more articles in the future. If you have any questions that the welcome message does not answer, please feel free to contact me again. Best wishes Pol430  talk to me 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Off the mark
I did misunderstand your original comment. Thanks for clearing that up. My76Strat (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, all is forgiven Pol430  talk to me 07:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Template messages/User talk namespace
Hi.

Regarding this edit to Template messages/User talk namespace, it causes some problems.

My screen is 1024x768 - the same as a great many users - and all tabs beyond "View all block templates" vanish off the screen, to the right.

I know some people have lovely huge screens, but large numbers of us are stuck in the stone-age.

Could you possibly look at that, and see if it can be shortened, or make it 'wrap' the tabs, or something?

Cheers,  Chzz  ► 14:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Chzz, thanks for the heads up, I had not considered that, and you are quite right that I do have a wide screen. I'm working on a solution and will resolve the matter as quickly as possible. Pol430  talk to me 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has that remedied the problem? I checked the Page tabs docs and there is no 'wrap' param. However, the only tab after block templates was a tab link to&mdash;this page which hardly seems worth linking to. It is possible to add an additional row of tabs and should any more be needed in the future I shall endeavor to see that this happens. Pol430  talk to me 21:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As of now, on my screen - it does show all the tabs, but it still creates an awkard right-scroll thing.
 * Can't you folks just temporarily switch your res to 1024 to check?
 * If not, ask me, and I'll make a screen-dump.
 * Cheers,  Chzz  ► 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did switch to 1024 x 768 and it displayed fine&mdash;without a scroll bar. I assume you experience the same problem with this page? Pol430  talk to me 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Both still break. I made screenys; see - which shows both.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heya - FYI it goes off on my screen too (1680 x 1050 20" iMac) - have to scroll. So does your other example. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I use a 20" monitor and display at 1680 x 1050 as well and I use Safari. I'm actually quite shocked that the page creates a scroll bar for you at that resolution because the pages tabs don't even reach the half way point on my screen :-S Pol430  talk to me 22:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

CSDs in RfA criteria
Hello, Pol430. I have a brief question regarding your RfA criteria.

In your criteria, you state that candidates should have "No more than 10% of CSD's declined." My question is: How can you determine the percentage of CSDs that are declined? I admit that I have done little work with CSDs, but I do not believe there to be any way to precisely calculate the percentage of a user's declined CSDs. It's not like nominating a page for CSD is a logged action like patrolling or moving pages.

I'm just curious how you make a determination. Thank you, and hopefully I can learn something. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, there are two ways in which you can gauge how many CSD noms, that an editor has made, have been declined. Firstly there is a Javascript bolt-on&mdash;which I think was written by User:AzaToth and can be found at User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js. This automatically logs all CSD nom'ed articles, obviously ones that have been deleted will show as a redlink. For users that do not make use of these scripts, I tend to look through their contribs for edit summaries that show CSD tagging and then look to see if the article was deleted and if the criteria match. I can then calculate a rough percentage of declines. It's not a particularly exact calculation, but then my enforcement of that part of my criteria is not particularly exact either. Generally I expect users not to have much more than 10% of the CSD noms that I examine, declined. Hope that makes sense? Pol430  talk to me 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, you've answered my question well. Unfortunately, I cannot use Twinkle because I am an Internet Explorer user, but perhaps someday it will be made available to us or I'll start using another browser. Thanks again. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, well if you are looking for another browser, I use Safari on a Windows Pc and I find it very compatible with the Wiki interface. Pol430  talk to me 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Interface Focus
Hello you have just reviewed my article INterface Focus and rejected it citing that the material is copywrited. I am the author of the material from which I have taken the text. I wrote the external webpage it is this text I used to write the wiki page. In yesterdays talk session I was told to ammend some of the text so it was no copied directly I did this. However appently I am still infringing copy write (of my own words). I am an employee of the journal for which I am trying to create this page. Please can you tell me exactly how I can prove to you that I wrote the text it is not copied from anywhere other than the extenal home page that I wrote.

thanks

Tuesday13 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, for legal reasons, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and infringements are speedily deleted or otherwise redacted. If you are the copyright owner, it is possible to authorise Wikipedia to use the material, but this authority must be formally given before the article is created. Please visit the page Contact us/Permit for more information on how to do this. You may also wish to read Requesting copyright permission. Pol430  talk to me 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help enabling me to get my first article posted, (on Sarah Raphael). Much appreciated.

David Buckden 16:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckden (talk • contribs)


 * You are very welcome :) Pol430  talk to me 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, I'll be there shortly, just reviewing some AFC's presently Pol430  talk to me 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing......
Sorry I did wrong reverts on Twinkle as vandalism.It was a mistake that I did.I apologize for this mistake.-- Damirgraffiti  ☺Say Yo to Me!☺   23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the ones I questioned you about over a month ago? No problem, you seem to be getting the hang of things Pol430  talk to me 09:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and since now I have Twinkle, Huggle, and the rollback rights, I can revert vandalism quickly and the rightful way.-- Damirgraffiti  ☺Say Yo to Me!☺   16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Example
I must have put  20 or so of these (or similar)  custom messages over the last  24 hours. Perhaps we should modify the current  template to  something  like it,  or pmake an extra one.

Hi. Thank you  for patrolling new pages. Patrolling is an essential  function at  Wikipedia, not only  to  prevent the wrong  kind of pages staying  online, but  also  to  do  some basic research  and  tag them  for attention. The article you tagged CSD-A7 at  XXXXXX was clearly  an attack page and should have been blanked and tagged CSD-G10 for very fast  deletion - attack  pages raise a red alert  on  administrator's control  panels. There is currently a drive to  improve the quality  of patrolling - you  can help! Please read these pages, preferably in this order: WP:NPP (recently  updated), WP:DELETION, WP:CSD, WP:10CSD, WP:FIELD, and  WP:A7M, and if there's anything  that  is not  clear, don't  hesitate to  ask  me on  my  talk page. You may  even wish to  make your own suggestions for improvement of the NPP  page. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, forgive my ignorance but which existing template are you alluding too? Pol430  talk to me 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Submission of article has been declined
Hi there. Thanks for taking the time to read this, I admit I'm new and though trying to comply with Wiki Rules, I seem to be having a tough time of it. I've been trying to publish an article on the Cinema for Peace Foundation. I am an unpaid volunteer of the organization and realize that this creates an inherent conflict of interest. However, the article seems to be neutral in just listing what the organization does. I've recently added quite a few third party references to articles (from the NY Times, documents from the UN) etc. to include inline citations to verify the content. In fact, I think my submissions have more documentation than many other charities (such as the Shoah Foundation, for example). I've also deleted sections that I know to be true, but can't verify by other third party sources. Is there anything else I can do to help my chances at publishing??Dreyfus113 (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the message, it was not that the references you have supplied are no good, rather that they were not properly formatted. I have added the reflist template so that your references display properly as footnotes. Please take a look at your other references and format them as inline citations. Inline citations means that your references should be placed after the line of text they support. You should not manually place them in the references section. The only thing that should be edited into the references section is the reflist template (which I have already done for you). See WP:CITE for instructions. You will need to cite a source for the funding section. I have removed some un-encyclopedic sections about the board of directors etc. It is acceptable to list a couple of key people in info boxes but not to have individual sections about them. If you can cite a source for the funding section and tidy up your references per the guidelines at WP:CITE and WP:REFB I will publish the article. Best wishes Pol430  talk to me 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help
Hi Pol430, thank you very much for taking so much time to fix my online citation issues. It was really helpful to this Wiki beginner. I've gone back, found even more references and properly formatted them. I think I fixed up my article on Cinema for Peace Foundation to Wiki standards and hope that you will consider publishing it. As for the board of directors, I included the list for more transparency about the organization, certainly not to promote any particular individuals. However, if you feel it's not appropriate to include, then by all means thank you for making the edit. Dreyfus113 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC) - A very grateful beginner.
 * You are most welcome, the article is now live in the encyclopedia Pol430  talk to me 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to two votes
Dear Pol430, I have noticed that you have spent some time helping with the article "2011 Chinese protests". Therefore I would like to inform you about two votes going on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Chinese_protests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China's_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents#China.27s_2011_crackdown_on_dissidents
 * "Vote for renaming article to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution"" at the bottom of the page
 * AfD for the article

Thank you very much for your valued opinion! Best, Waikiki lwt (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Aerodynamic Mudflap Article for Review
I appreciate the interest you've taken on reviewing the article. As you likely have discovered I'm new to Wikipedia. As you can imagine, I've spent a lot of time on this already and have made numerous adjustment including the last edits. No doubt you have too in reviewing and appreciate your time. I've come to realise "understandably" the adjustments have been necessary to ensure neutrality. I appologise to you and anyone else for any appearance of my initial lack of understanding and corresponding expression of frustration relating of the protocol set out by Wickipedia. Wondering if you or anyone else you know, might graciously consider mentoring me along with this article. I'm convinced The aerodynamic mudflap and Albert Morin is indeed an essential revolutionary piece of history that needs to be told. I value time, please be assured the last thing I want to do is waste anyone elses time. Would be forever grateful Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Uw-warnings
Hi Pol. Thanks for chiming in (I thought  you  were on  an extended Wikileave). I just  need to  know where to  locate the text  and I'll BRD and change the thing. BTW, I can't  remember if I  ever thanked you personally for your kind support at  my  RfA - I didn't  send any  thank spam,  but  I  did send just a few personal  appreciations. Best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, yep! I am still semi-retired. I became disillusioned after a somewhat ridiculously circular RFC back in April &mdash; it finished me off... I still use WP as a reference tool and reserve the right to come back and chime into discussions where I sense fatal levels of bureaucracy are stopping the wheels turning. I popped in last night to do some patchwork on the grotesquely bad Hong Kong Police Force article. It's still full of potential copyvio and needs plenty of other work. Whilst I was here I thought I would pop into UTM and see what was happening. I too, have searched hi and low for the body text of that template and can not find it. I'm afraid the way in which it is being transcluded is beyond my technical knowhow. You are most welcome for the support, as predicted, you have turned out to be a cracking admin (IMO). Pol430  talk to me 08:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Anything I  can do  to  convince you  to stick around more?  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm quite happy in my semi-retired state; although, out of respect for your sentiment, I will endeavor to 'up' my monthly edit count from 'Zero' to 'a handful' :) Pol430  talk to me 08:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing Oligopeptidase
Dear Pol430, you revised my first article (oligopeptidase) in March 2011. I attempted to overcome the points you raised, and I would like to know if I am on the right track. Sincerely, yours Acmargo Acmargo (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply, I'm semi retired now... The article's content is substantial enough, and it appears to be well referenced. The main problem with the article is that a person who has little, or no knowledge, of biology can not easily understand it. The prose needs to altered such, that the average person can more readily grasp what Oligopeptidase are... I have removed the orphan tag as this problem has now been addressed and made a couple of format fixes for you. Pol430  talk to me 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pol430, please do not fully retire!! Please, have a look at the first paragraph of Oligopeptidase, and see if the test is becoming intelligible to non-biologists.Acmargo (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead text is much better now, I have removed the remaining tags. One thing... You use the symbol: Å quite a lot; does this refer to Angstrom? Pol430  talk to me 16:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for deletion
I changed my minds! Please, cancel the deletion at Bulgy the Double Decker Bus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.170.173 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pol430  talk to me 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: AfC Edward Thomas William Galpin
Hello,

In reviewing my article for creation 'Edward Thomas William Galpin, OBE' you stated that some of the references do not seem to refer to the subject matter, such as ''Mr. T.G. Moore is appointed a director’ (1962), The Evening News, Saturday 28th July 1962'. The article about Mr. T.G. Moore also discusses the appointment of a new General Manager, Edward Galpin and contains some of the facts cited in this article. Unfortunately I don't know what I can do about this - would the articles need to be scanned to prove they relate to the subject?

Regarding NPOV, I will re-write some things and resubmit.

Judygarland11 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, in regard to the references, what I ment was, that footnote number 5 supports some text that talks about his military service, yet the reference is to a newspaper story about someone being made a director; the two don't seem to support each other&mdash;You have perhaps just placed the wrong footnote in the wrong place? As for NPOV, yes, it's not bad (believe me I do see many terrible submissions) but a little NPOV tidy up wouldn't do it any harm. If you need any more help just ask. Pol430  talk to me 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article refers to his military background when discussing his appointment to General Manager, but I have changed the reference to a different article that uses the same facts, just so it's clearer. Regarding NPOV, is there anything in particular you think I should change? Thanks!

Judygarland11 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, this edit fixed most of my NPOV concerns. From the refs I get the impression he was commonly known as 'Ted Galpin' is that correct? Pol430  talk to me 12:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, do you think it's ok to resubmit now or anything else you would suggest? He was known informally as Ted, yes. I'm not sure I would list him as that though?

Judygarland11 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have created the article now. As far as names go, its Wikipedia policy to create the article in the common name of a person not their formal style. According to the refs he was known as Ted Galpin. See WP:UCN. Pol430  talk to me 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you!

Judygarland11 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)