User talk:Genius101/Archive 4

Re: RfA
I personally don't think you're ready. Open an editor review, maybe (for more opinions)?  iMatthew //  talk  //  16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the advice,  Genius  101 Guestbook  16:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin Coaching
Well, I already have a couple coachees (I suppose I should update the coaching page), so I'm afraid I don't have the time for another at the moment. I'll be more than happy to answer any direct questions, however, so if you need any help, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all right, I can understand being overloaded. I just have one question: is admin coaching inactive or not? Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference of opinion regarding that, actually. I like to think it's still active, as and  are still actively participating. –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  23:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, thank you very much!  Genius  101 Guestbook  23:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Valentine
Thanks for helping out by expanding this article. I added a bit more content and posted a co-nomination for a DYK. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A little something for you...


Nz26 | Talk | Contribs has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for Johnny Valentine
Shubinator (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Alvin Powell
Hi there; I saw your question on the Help Desk. Are you still interested in moving earlier sandbox history out of Alvin Powell and back into your sandbox? If so, I can do the history split for you; I've done all sorts of history merging and splitting in the past. Let me know if you still care. — TKD:: {talk}  12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! That would be super! It's just a bit embarrassing! I think I know how to do it from other responses, but I might screw it up. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. In case you're interested, here's what I did:
 * I temporarily deleted Alvin Powell, explaining that it was momentary to split page history.
 * I restored the revisions that corresponded to your previous sandbox work.
 * I moved the restored sandbox revisions back to User:Genius101/Sandbox. Because you had made an edit to that page since moving it into main article space, I had to delete it temporarily to move the history over it.
 * I restored the remaining revisions of Alvin Powell (i.e., those that were truly for the article) in place. At this point, that page's history is all good.
 * Back to your sandbox, I restored the revisions that I had to delete in step 3. Your sandbox history was now intact.
 * Finally, because I was the last one to make an "edit" to the sandbox (moving the history back created an entry in the edit history), I reverted back to your most recent edit, "This is my sandbox."
 * It's a little complicated, but not terribly difficult compared to some scenarios. Let me know if I happened to make a mistake. — TKD:: {talk}  14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's perfect! Thanks a lot!  Genius  101 Guestbook  15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the rv on my user page. Keep up the good work.  Tide  rolls  23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You too, you're reverting so much, you should get a bot flag! Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just the novelty of HG. I'm still new to it.  I need to be careful anyway.  Too fast on the trigger is a bad thing.  Tide  rolls  23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, it's always good to be careful about rollback. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thackerville, Oklahoma
Yeah...that gets me every time. I gotta slow down. Thanks for the heads up.  Tide  rolls  18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==


 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ACC Tool
Someone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. Fun Pika  20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was me. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Fun  Pika  21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Raw Episodes
That sort of Information will be incorporated within the article as noted on the 1993, it will span the Match card column and Location column, thanks for contributing. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy
Can you please help protect Jeff Halevy]? It's being repeatedly vandalized. Thx. 206.53.153.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

How was Jess campion improperly tagged?
I can understand the iffyness of calling it an attack page, but there are specific hints of personal attacks in there - especially if the creator was not either one of them (not quoting names). It's a bit of a stretch to call it improperly tagged. Matty (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I assumed that the creator was one of them, but I might have been wrong. Either way, I probably shouldn't have removed your tag. Sorry,  Genius  101 Guestbook  13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on, sorry. I think I read it wrong at the start, its not too "attacky" looking actually - more of a love page haha. It's much too late for me to be up doing this :P it doesn't matter anyway as it falls under db-person better. Keep up the good work! Matty (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no problem: we all make mistakes! It's better that it was tagged under a semi-appropriate tag than not at all. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding this.
regarding this Jimmy has seen it now and it should be removed as it is not correct for an encyclopedia. I will do it if you want. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

== Wikipedia Signpost : 13 April 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Potential RfA
Hey Genius101. I personally think you need some more experience before RfA; namely, some recognized content (a GA/FA or two) and more participation in community discussions (RfA, XfD) would help. Nonetheless, it's great to see that you have some DYKs under your belt. I'm a bit short on time at the moment, so I wasn't able to fully review your contributions—perhaps an editor review would yield some useful criticism. Hope this helps, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, thank you very much! Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey, Genius, I tried to put a guestbook on my userpage, but it didn't work. Can you help me out? Thanks. --Thenachoman (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Guestbook
Hm? I'm confused. I never made any comment about a vandal. Most likely you mistook my comment for someone else.  Marlith  (Talk)   22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fatu
You didn't list this at GAN, so I went ahead and failed it seeing as you are taking a break. Not sure about this situation, though.-- Will C  06:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was wondering. I was removing all the WWC cats from bios and saw that it was a GAN since I have a thing clicked in my preferences that allows me to see the class and history of the article without going to the talk page. I didn't remember seeing it at GAN so I went ahead and failed it seeing as I didn't think it would pass anyway, no offense.-- Will C  21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good. No harm no foul.-- Will C  21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 22 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
I changed my name from "Thenachoman", to "GandalftheWise". How do i change my guestbook name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GandalftheWise (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I saw that you were listed on the admin coaching status page, and was wondering if you would coach me. If not, could you please update you status on the page? Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  19:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Genius,
 * Sadly, I do not have the time right now to coach. I apologize for the confusing status of my name on the coaching page, which I have now adjusted. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  00:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly all right, I understand. Thanks for updating your status!  Genius  101 Guestbook  12:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're still looking for an admin coach, I'm willing to serve as one for you. Just let me know either here or on my talk page. --Richard (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AWB Newsletter
I have permission to use AWB, and I was wondering if I need special permission to deliver a message with it. I'm assuming not, but it's best to be sure... Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the template, because I went ahead and delivered the message. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin Coaching
I think you're mistaken. My username is indeed on that page, but as a student. I am not an admin. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As am I. Sunderland06  (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my ****in God... That was a big mistake. Sorry,  Genius  101 Guestbook  22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and when you get a chance, please see User talk:TravisTX. Thanks — Travis talk  04:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I did register as an admin coach. I am not actively coaching anyone.  I am willing to serve as a coach if assigned to a candidate.  --Richard (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I edited my section, and will go back to active status aftre May 20. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note. I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia now to be an admin coach. I will update my status as pending or something like that. NCurse work 07:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to try to shoehorn traditional Arabic names into the European naming scheme of inherited surnames...
I just finished reverting someone else no douobt well-intentioned but poorly advised efforts to shoehorn articles about subjects with Arabbic names into the European surname style.

Please stop. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbdul_Ahmad&diff=286977799&oldid=286930108


 * All right, but instead of just reverting my changes, why not try putting the listas parameter as their full name? For example: "|listas=Abdul Ahmad". I also suggest that you read Template:WPBiography and Category talk:Biography articles without listas parameter. Also, rather than just reverting, discussion on WT:BIOGRAPHGY or other appropriate pages might be useful. Thanks,  Genius 101  Guestbook 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When reverting someone else's no doubt well-intentioned, but poorly advised attempts to shoehorn Arabic names into the European style of surnames I did start editing the "listas" parameter. I stopped doing that not because it was more work but because I decided it wasn't a good idea.  I have worked on about seven hundred article on individuals with Arabic names.  Easily half of them have been renamed, for one reason or other.  A very large number of them have multiple incompatible versions of their names.  No one has pointed me at the mandate for the listas parameter project.  It seems to me that if for individuals were the listas parameter is only going to add to the confusion and maintenance burden for that article it would be best if the article went without a listas parameter.


 * While I have learned quite a bit about Arabic names, I don't consider myself an expert, qualified to figure out what someone's real name is. There are a very small number of wikipedians capable of doing this -- in some cases.  But the one I know best is pretty busy, and I wouldn't ask him to settle any disputes.


 * Most of those who tried to change how articles were sorted have been gracious when I questioned them about it. Often they could point to the article having a DEFAULTSORT tag with the (wrong) sort order encoded into it.  I have been removing all those I come across that I know are incorrect.  One guy who wasn't capable of being civil claimed that since the robot editing-assistant he used recommended the sort order change he was justified in making it.  The articles you edited didn't have an (incorrect) DEFAULTSORT clue.  Were you also relying on the advice of a rogue robot editing assistant?  I suggested to that other guy that if the author of the program thought the program didn't require a human providing sanity checking the author would have made it a unassisted bot, not an editing assistant.


 * I had already recently checked Template:WPBiography. I didn't see anything useful there.  Is there some particular section you think I should look at?


 * I just went to Category talk:Biography articles without listas parameter. I did a search for "arabic".  Didn't find one.  As above, is there some particular section you think I should look at?


 * By WT:BIOGRAPHGY I presume you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography? Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, you are right. I apologize. I was using WP:AWB, but manually putting in the listas parameter. I didn't rely on any advice, which probably was a mistake. I did avoid most people with three or more names, which I would have no chance of decoding. Yes, I did mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. From now on, I'll stay away from changing Arabic names. Sorry,  Genius 101  Guestbook 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching
OK, let's get started.... I've created a page titled User:Genius101/Admin coaching.

Please read my comments on User talk:Genius101/Admin coaching. Let's use that page for future discussions regarding Admin Coaching.

--Richard (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Admin coaching
Sorry. I've been inactive for a long time (should probably clarify that on my userpage) and log in only once every couple of months, so I certainly wouldn't be interested in participating in admin coaching. WaltonOne 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Minority
Did you mean to annotate this edit as minor? A.K.Nole (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I was using Friendly, an automated tool, to do the tagging. Personally, I wouldn't have marked it minor, but I guess the tool did. Maybe something to bring up at the talk page? Thanks,  gENIUS 101  19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. A.K.Nole (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The response here suggests that it is "in the discretion of every user to change his Friendly configuration to not mark them as minor." Over to you.  A.K.Nole (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm off to change my Friendly configuration. Thanks for pointing this out.  gENIUS  101  19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image resizing
When resizing images, can you check to see that the resulting photo is not made so small that relative informative detail that the image is there to provide is getting lost?

That isn't to say that some of the images haven't needed to be downsized somewhat.

But I am concerned by examples like:
 * File:Administrative_Affairs.jpg
 * The non-free content is being included because we consider it is important fair use to show what the characters looked like. But the size reduction makes the size of the faces so small that the image no longer performs this function very well.


 * File:Ad-rr95.jpg
 * The image is now so small that much of the text is made unreadable, and it is difficult to see what is being shown at all in the smaller sub-images.

I am sure there are others: these were just the first two that I loked at.

Also, in general, note that WP is content to regard images less that 0.9 M pixels (ie the equivalent of 300 x 300) as being "low resolution". I see that you are resizing images to materially smaller than this. If you reduced only to the more standard 0.9 M pixels, you might find you were creating fewer problems; though some cases might still need (and appropriately be given) slightly higher resolution, for the reader still to be clearly able to make out detail that usefully furthers why we're including the image at all.

I'd be grateful, therefore, if you could review your recent image reductions, and check whether in some several cases you may not have overdone things. Jheald (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Once I get time, I'll fix the ones that I think need it. Again, thanks.  gENIUS 101  19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I only recently learned that MOS:IMAGES discourages forcing the size of an image.
 * As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to select a particular size, images should generally be no more than 300 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors.
 * I think the rationale is that some people want small images because they have a small screen and some people want larger images if they have a large, hi-res monitor. Forcing the image size takes those options away from the reader so it is preferable to leave the size unspecified and let the browser decide.  --Richard (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion relates to fair-use images, which per our policy, need to be low resolution. Thanks,  gENIUS 101  20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher
Hi,. I have granted you NPWatcher per your request here. After looking over a few of your contributions, your talk page, and your block log, I feel you can be trusted with the tool. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)