User talk:CJDOS/Archive 1

__NOINDEX__

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &oelig; &trade; 11:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Iridium
The image has been corrected to 2, 8, 18, 32, 15, 2. Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Using ClueBot III to Archive old threads: How to keep the original "Welcome" thread when page was created
Hello. This talk page is really outdated and should be archived. I believe I can follow the prescribed instructions for setting up ClueBot III to automatically archive this page, but I don't feel the need to archive the original post, the 'Welcome' that appears on newly created Talk Pages (i.e. when a user account is newly created). I wish to preserve it as is, but I want everything after it (older than 90 days per age=2160 parameter) to be archived. In short, what I need to know is will the headerlevel=2 parameter be enough to do what I want it to do, will I have to upgrade the Welcome header to level 1 and apply the headerlevel=2 parameter, or is there another parameter better suited to what I want to accomplish?

These are the parameters I plan to use, in sequence:
 * archiveprefix=User_talk:DeNoel/Archive
 * headerlevel=2
 * format= %%i
 * age=2160
 * maxarchsize=150000
 * numberstart=1
 * archivebox=yes
 * box-advert=yes

Aside from that I would need to complete the syntax for the ClueBot III to do it's thing, have I got everything right, or do I need to change something in order to keep the == Welcome == post on this page, and archive every post after it? Your assistance is greatly appreciated and most welcome; thank you. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To not archive the welcome template, just remove its headline, so it stays above the TOC. It's all that you need to do about it. Gryllida (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(Mind, the bot archives without preserving history, just by copy-paste. Flow is being developed by the WMF to make archiving easier, and I would encourage you to participate in testing it from time to time and provide feedback. --Gryllida (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Thank you for your assistance, Gryllida.
 * It seems that I read there is a delay from when ClueBot III archival is added to a page, and when it starts working, but I can't find that text anymore. I would have thought that it would begin archiving by now, but I don't see any changes. I read about the archivenow parameter, but even with the example I'm still not quite sure how it works, how to turn this parameter on/off. Do I add it to the syntax exactly as it's show...
 * archivenow= User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow
 * ... and then delete the parameter once it's done the job? View this page's editor to see what I've entered for ClueBot III archival.
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I understand the archivenow parameter, it's only meant to supersede the regular rules of archiving for threads that are marked "resolved" and shouldn't wait 90 days to get archived. It won't kick-start the bot into archiving if it wouldn't do so anyway, and some of your threads should be archived as soon as the bot takes a look. The bot isn't all that punctual, however, and at times may take more than 24 hours between two visits to a page. I've checked your archiving code and see nothing wrong with it; I'd wait another day or so. If the bot still doesn't archive the page by then, things get more interesting, and you may want to ask the bot operator, Cobi, for advice. Huon (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw that the bot is blocked at the moment. You may need to archive your talk page manually for now, or to use another archiving bot. Huon (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Commenting on users in edit summaries is rarely desirable. For one thing, an edit summary cannot be edited so a simple mistake might result in a permanent accusation against the wrong person. At any rate, this edit is good and has nothing to do with "vandalism", so your partial revert with an accusation is not correct. Just say the edit was mistaken, but the word vandalism has a specific meaning at Wikipedia and the term must not be used for good-faith edits; see WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had debated on the intent of the edit, and reviewed it carefully before changing it. While the rest of the edits on the page appeared to be in good faith, the partial edit we were referring to could not have been in good faith, and I made this judgement based upon the link that was substituted. First, the link didn't go to any new location, but just back to the page that I linked to (which technically it shouldn't have been able to do that), second, the link had absolutely no relation to Winnie-the-Pooh whatsoever. It simply looked like a child was screwing around, which is not a good faith edit.
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

MythBusters
You seem to be confused regarding some MythBusters episodes. Your first edit summary at MythBusters (2010 season) was Compact Compact was not a part of this episode. It was already Supersized in 2009, and has not been revisited because you can't ramp-up from the rocket sled track results. You are referring to "Compact Compact Supersized", which was not the subject of "Mythssion Control". The revisit in "Mythssion Control" was the result of a comment made by Jamie in the original "Compact Compact" myth. Your second edit summary included Compact Compact was only REFERENCED in this episode, which is not correct. The original 2005 episode was addressed in detail in "Mythssion Control", which included footage from the original episode. It was a comment by Jamie in that episode that was the entire reason for the revisit. I'm willing to continue discussion on this, but please do not continue to edit-war. When an edit is disputed, we follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and, while a disputed edit is under discussion, the staus quo reigns. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting your own statements, AussieLegend. This episode is about whether two cars coliding at 50 miles per hour is equal to the force of one car hitting a wall at 50 miles per hour, or 100 miles per hour. This does NOT make this a revisit of Compact Compact, but a separate myth altogether. They finished trying to pancake a compact car in 2009, and made no further attempt because they already ramped up the myth to find out what it would take to do so.
 * Additionally, you've only edited the Table of Contents, and not the Article, which also demonstrates that this episode was about the forces of impact and not one car being pancaked. Please read the article Section Episode 143 – Mythssion Control and refrain from engaging in an edit war until you can prove your edit is justified. Do NOT auto use the Undo feature to engage in childish behavior; this is your warning.
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct that the episode is about two cars colliding, but it is based on the Compact Compact myth, or more specifically Jamie's statement from that myth. For that reason it is referred to as a revisit, as it revisits the claim during the myth investigation by Jamie that two cars hitting each other at 50 mph is "equivalent to a single impact going into a solid wall at 100 miles an hour". I'm well aware of what the article says, I've been editing it since the day after it was created. What is there is irrelevant to what is in the episode table (note: NOT the table of contents). The episode list is there only to give the reader a guide as to what is covered in the episode which, in this case, is clearly about "Compact Compact". This is even supported by the official episode guide which says "Jamie and Adam take on "Compact Compact" ... again".
 * Please note that I already asked you not to edit-war over this, but you've clearly chosen to ignore that, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Since you are the editor making the disputed edit, the burden is on you to justifying content supported by the actual episode. Note that a separate citation is not required here, as the episode itself is considered a reliable source for content from the episode. However, I can certainly supply an appropriate citation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, by performing the first Undo, and repeatedly Undoing my first revision without making the proper edits required for the article, you would have been the one to have initiated an edit war.<BR />
 * However... I see that since my last revision, you have edited the article itself and not just the episode table (yes, I erroneously referred to the episode table as the table of contents). You have done that which is required for the article. You have edited well, AussieLegend, and I thank you for your contribution to the article.<BR />
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, by making this reversion, instead of discussing, you initiated the edit-war. Had you discussed instead of simply reverting again, we could have resolved this a lot earlier. This edit is a blatant abuse of the template warning system and warrants use of Uw-tempabuse2 here. You quite correctly received the warning below, after you chose not to discuss and instead edit-warred again. Leaving a warning on my talk page in response would not be looked on favourably if we ended up at WP:AN3. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Does this ring a bell? "Please read the article Section Episode 143 – Mythssion Control and refrain from engaging in an edit war until you can prove your edit is justified. Do NOT auto use the Undo feature to engage in childish behavior; this is your warning. ... 15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)"<BR />
 * I issued you the warning first -and quite correctly- because of your blatant use of Undo to generate an edit war by recreating the self-contradiction within the article (the difference between the article section, and the episode table) without correcting the contradiction first. I thought you would be more sensible and I couldn't see the use of the proper Warning template as necessary. Apparently I was wrong, and should not have allowed such lead way. However, the original issue was about the MythBusters (2010 season) article, of which has been resolved. Anything beyond that is just bickering, for which we are both guilty of.<BR />
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lamb Chop
I just found your edit to the Lamb Chop (puppet) article. I have a couple of questions. Does being labeled as a Democrat be called a value, because that wording seems awkward to me. (Honestly I am not discussing politics) Also, how can I correctly use the word "statement" in Wikipedia text in relation to the reference? TheGGoose (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, TheGGoose. This falls under the Wikipedia guidelines of original research. I'm not arguing the reference being cited in the article (thus the minimal changes I made). However, after slow and careful examination of the reference, I found the wording used in the article was making an authoritative statement of fact rather than relating the quoted opinion of the person in question. Because it was the Wikipedia article that made a declaration of the puppet's political preference by the use of the word 'is', while the cited reference was quoting the described "values" I placed more weight with the direct quotation than the implied opinion of a past Wikipedia editor.<BR />
 * <BR />
 * On a side note, a puppet can not have a political preference on its own, because it is an inanimate object. It is the puppeteer, and/or voice, that gives the puppet personality. This is why the creators of Bert and Ernie have insisted that the two are not gay: they have no sexual orientation because they're just puppets. I personally feel that too many people take things out of context to satisfy their own political agendas. "Liberal Jewish Democrat" as cited is being used to describe a personality type, not a political preference.<BR />
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. My accidental stumbling into original research territory according to your comment made my edit worse than I thought. Unfortunately, I believe it is hard for me to avoid it. TheGGoose (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I might had chose to use the word "stated" instead of "described" because it's close to plagiarism or a copyright violation to the source. TheGGoose (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

<BR />
 * You must be talking about a past edit that I'm not read up on. I didn't research any edits prior to the one I made, I only went by how the article read at the time of my edit. Your concern over accidental plagiarism is appreciated; I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems that the choice of wording is limited in this case, so unless you're prepared to write an entire paragraph on the subject of Lamb Chop having a personality comparable to a liberal Jewish democrat, I don't think anyone would fault you for referencing the source almost word for word - it is a quotation that's being cited.<BR />
 * Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Taking action against copyright infringement, when confirmed
Dear Admin,

Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue. This is what has transpired that I wish to bring to your attention, because if one user can do it, then others can, and I'd like to know the process for this particular type of violation.

KPTV Fox 12 Oregon shared a Facebook photo from their meteorologist, Mark Nelson, which shows an empty stretch of a Portland Metro highway. I humorously referenced 405 The Movie in the comments, and realizing I hadn't watched the video in a long time, proceeded to the 405 (film) Wikipedia page, assuming that the Youtube link listed would be quick access to the official video and not an uploaded bootleg.

I found the link at the bottom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ7ImM9Bys8, but then a strange thing happened - The video has been marked as "Unlisted." Furthermore, I don't recognize the Youtube user "Strange Engine," and this video I have not marked as 'Like' even though I had 'Liked' it in the past.

I looked and what I believe to be the official video is still available, 'Liked' and listed as Public https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpx6o4gvmXE by a User I recognize, "BranitFX and Lucamax Pictures," the obvious makers of the film.

I have gone to their official website, and have contacted the film's creators to ask if one or both of these Uploads are valid, and am presently waiting for a reply. This is where you, Admin, come into this.

I suspect that someone has made and uploaded an illegal copy of the movie 405, marking it as "Unlisted" so that it would go unnoticed by anyone who would take action. And then, someone has gone to the Wikipedia article, and changed the link to the "Unlisted" one in order to generate traffic to their upload. I don't know if this is the case, but it certainly seems viable. If the makers of the film confirm that this is what happened, then obviously the link will need to be reverted, and perhaps a warning issued to the editor who made the change (being that the link was "Unlisted," I doubt it was a good faith edit, but instead directly connected with the scam). Being as the makers of the film have been alerted, it would be up to them to take action against the copyright infringement.

Thus, I wanted to tell you about this, Admin, because I'm sure this is not the first time, nor would it be the last, that someone exploits such a scam.

Thank you Admin, for reviewing this report, and advising me on how to proceed should this be confirmed as a scam. <BR />Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "official" link was never in the article, see . That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. This is a wiki, anyone can fix it. I did so now but in future, just do it yourself and leave a short edit summary explaining your change. Regards  So Why  07:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to Virgo (astrology) and citations
I reverted your edit to Virgo (astrology) because consensus for the citation format was established. Also, it is within the bounds described in WP:Layout (see especially the sidebar in that section). Jc3s5h (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

P.P.S.: For some ideas on user page design, see WP:UPDC. -TT

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Interstellar travel, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really...<BR />
 * I'm not responsible for the large swaths of information you deleted. I added a little bit of scientific fact that I assumed if challenged, would only require a citation, which could easily be pulled from the Wiki article of similar topic. It's the mass deletion without reason that I objected to.<P>
 * Again, I had nothing to do with the large sections you chose to delete. I reverted your edit, because "tangential, OR" reads like Tangent, Oregon 97389 rather than a reason. While I disagree with your mass deletion, I appreciated that you explained your reasoning in your revised deletion.<BR />
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Willow 1988 DOS box art.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Willow 1988 DOS box art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Willow 1988 DOS story screenshot.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Willow 1988 DOS story screenshot.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Americium-241
In regards to your edit on Americium-241, I found a source that gives the exact values (they indeed weren't in the original source). Even if it did have the information, though, you should still cite a source regardless of how technical or straightforward it is. An abstruse source is better than none, and still counts for verifiability. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Xorcist promo 2019.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Xorcist promo 2019.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion: Propose article rename/move
As I understand it, it is preferable to place the template on my own talk page rather than the talk page in question. Have I got this right?

Coming to the point, there is a discussion on the Sulfur mustard article's talk page with someone proposing to rename the article to "Mustard gas". There are arguments against the renaming from myself, and arguments for the renaming from from A D Monroe III. Only one other user has chimed in to date, and none of us are moderators nor admins. 3 confirmed editors seems an insufficient number of votes. I would like your opinion on the discussion, and perhaps lay down a time frame and rules regarding how/when a final decision shall be made. I may disagree with the ultimate outcome, but I can't ask for anything more fair than that. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.<BR /> Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've made it into a proper requested move. The guidelines for such are outlined here. It probably should have been done like this from the beginning. One of the benefits of a RM is that it'll attract attention from users other than those that just happen to browse the talk page. — <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:red">IVORK</b> <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:Green; font-size:x-small">Talk</b> 02:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sports
Hi. Thanks for trying to clean up the article for Sports (Huey Lewis and the News album). Just FYI, the album was released in 1983 as it debuted on the Billboard pop albums chart in the October 8, 1983 issue at #113.. That would assume a September 1983 release, but I also couldn't find a source specifying an exact release date. In a 1986 article in Rolling Stone, the writer refers to Sports as "their smash 1983 album".. I didn't see any contradiction in the article for The Heart of Rock & Roll, as the song was released as the third single from the album in 1984. Thanks. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * for helping to clean up the article. I made one minor tweak to "The Heart of Rock & Roll" article following your edits, making it a bit more clear that while Sports was released in 1983, that song from the album was released as a single the following year (to help clear potential confusion over the single being released after the album it was featured in). Your expertise with providing the sources that verify the actual album release dates is greatly appreciated, and I see that while I did some good trying to resolve this dilemma, I also made things a bit of a mess in the process.<BR />
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the ping on Talk:Modern Sign Language communication. I had forgotten about that one. Meters (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)