User talk:Guy1890/Archive 3

Voter ID laws in the United States
REPLY

Thank you for your personal opinion. I will discuss on the Talk:Voter ID laws in_the United_States. "Photo ID Required" is a better, direct reference for Voter ID laws in the United States. It is a statement of fact instead of your editorial of "Strict". Since you value fact over ideology, I have to assume opinion as well but when you use the word strict, you are projecting an opinion. When that happens, who is really the vandal? Not retired (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, you have very few edits to Wikipedia so far "Not retired", and it has appeared, so far, that you are out to edit Wikipedia from a non-neutral point-of-view, which really isn't looked too favorably on here. The concept of a "strict photo ID" law isn't very controversial at all (and is supported by more than one editor), since it's referenced in many areas online and in the article in question. Whining here isn't going to help your case...discussing the matter on the talk page in question (which you haven't done yet I might note) might in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeley Hazell etc.
Thanks for your message. Yes that was my doing. The whole issue of Page 3, lads mags, internet pornography etc. is very much in the news within the UK at the moment, (some of it is fall-out after the Leveson Inquiry), and I was flicking through various articles to see what Wikipedia had on it.

I was made a few mental notes such as:
 * a lot of the lads mags models come from "Girl Management Ltd", "Samantha Bond Ltd" and "Mode Model Management" and none of them have WP articles;
 * the Lose the Lads Mags campaign does not have an article;
 * the No More Page 3 campaign needs an infobox and some more content;
 * the head of the No More Page 3 campaign, Lucy-Ann Holmes is noteworthy enough to have her own article;
 * former Page 3 model and now official Page 3 photographer Alison Webster could do with an article;
 * and her husband Geoff Webster, former Deputy Editor of the Sun, who is currently awaiting trail on conspiracy charges could also do with his own article (I currently have two drafts on the go for the Websters).

During all of this I noticed that the Page 3 girls section of the article on Page 3 consisted of one long list of names for the 40+ years that the feature has been going, so I broke them down into when were they born. After that I went onto the names of the models born from 1981 onwards and added the pornography portal, because they're Page 3 girls. I considered this to be nothing more than a touch of housekeeping and I don't regard the case for removing the portal as having been made.

The Sun has always pitched Page 3 as being cut from the same cloth as saucy seaside postcards, Carry On films, Confessions of a Window Cleaner. A typical way of advertising it looks like this. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a follow-up, the remaining 26 articles listed here are all Page 3 girls that don't appear to have any other "claim to fame" in the pornography field other than appearing on Page 3 in the past. I'm going to leave them there for the time being until whatever "controversy" over Page 3 girls being involved in softcore pornography is resolved somewhere else.


 * As an aside, I've been working on clearing the backlog of "Unassessed" and "???" Pornography Project articles over the last few months. We're down to just a few sets of re-directs and some mostly categories & templates left, which I'm also going to mostly leave alone for now as well. Guy1890 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FGM
Hi Guy, just wondering whether you meant to do this, or whether it was an error to do with the script you're using. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what the Reflinks script did. If it was in error, I'll take responsibility for it and apologize. Guy1890 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French postcard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).


 * It was intentional. Guy1890 (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571849308 your edit] to Shock site may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed, I think. Guy1890 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for tornado outbreaks
There is currently a discussion ongoing regarding altering the naming conventions for tornado outbreak and tornado outbreak sequence articles. Please feel free to view and comment on the discussion here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) via User:Ks0awb 22:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) You are receiving this notice because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Severe Weather. If you would not like to receive future WikiProject Severe Weather notifications, please add your signature at User:Ks0stm/Notify list.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

-- SuggestBot (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply about User Caffeyw
It's not that unusual (maybe a little lazy). All of the articles are about similar topics, with similar problems. (We do have a multi-page deletion nomination procedure, but the pages are different enough that separate discussions seem appropriate.) The long comment also pasted onto each AfD by User:FlugKerl illustrates this nicely. Of course, since AfD is not a vote, these copy-pased !votes add little to the discussion and will likely be discounted by the closing admin.. Mysterious Whisper 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the limited editing history of the user in question (a 96% AfD vote record, little to almost no article content editing, etc.), I think something is almost certainly awry. It didn't just bother me that the content that was posted was obviously cut-and-pasted over a very, very short period of time, but it was also frequently, apparently not correct in its "analysis" either. I've seen more than a couple of deletionists in action on Wikipedia (which is neither here nor there really), but this kind of behavior is new to me. The real reason that I added my comments in the first place was exactly to make sure that these comments will "likely be discounted by the closing admin.". BTW, it really doesn't matter to me whether any of the articles in question are deleted. Guy1890 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to document this situation further (in lieu of taking any action at this time), the user in question here does not appear to be learning, and their behavior appears to be accelerating, not diminishing. So far, most of their nominated AfDs are being closed as Keeps (too be fair, a bunch of them are still open as well), and they don't even appear to be noticing or even caring about their behavior. Luckily, I'm not the only one that's noticed this behavior recently. Guy1890 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The conduct of this user is unfortunately actually accelerating even more now, with AfDs filed by this user being 1.5 times more likely to be closed as Keep and many of the more recently-filed AfDs (that aren't yet closed) by this same user also on a path to likely Keeps. A few more other users have noted some concerns about this user's behavior on their talk page and at various AfDs, but this user just seems to prefer to delete those notifications from their own talk page in favor of trying to canvas one particular administrator over time. It's pretty much classic IDHT behavior IMHO. I'm not sure if mentoring would help out or not. Guy1890 (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

response
Yes, it's not going to end well, and the project will be what suffers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marc Stevens (pornographic actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).


 * Fixed. Guy1890 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

converting bare references
Thanks for grouping the two Wavell refs in the Battle of Megiddo (1918) article. However, I've changed these "autogenerated" things to English as they don't identify the source in edit mode, and can create a great deal of confusion particularly when there are lots of them. I've seen them used in mass and they can be a real problem. Could you please not add them in Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles as it makes future editing very difficult. Thanks a lot. :) --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning on editing the second article that you mention above. The Reflinks tool does add those "autogenerated" tags sometimes, and I usually just leave them be. It's no big deal to me, and, if someone else wants to change them, then that's fine by me as well. Guy1890 (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've seen other editors grouping duplicate quotes while still identifying the sources. I have no idea how they do it, but I think it might be a tool. In any case, not a problem. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have edited Jack Kirby in 2013 that there is a discussion on its talk page regarding the article's infobox image: Talk:Jack Kirby. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that I made only a very minor edit to this article long ago, which may have been due to a disambiguation error. I don't have any other interest in this article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)