User talk:Iadmc/Archive 5

Advice
Hi. I recently discovered an article, 4 skeletons, which was made about an hour before I found it. Right now, it probably counts as patent nonense. How long shoudl I wait for it to be improved before I mark it for deletion?  Bramble  claw  x   23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it is "patent" nonsense. It appears to describe a band by naming the members and the location.  It may be a hoax of course but it isn't blatant.  Therefore, there's nothing obvious to mark this for WP:CSD, I'm afraid.  Watch it though: if it turns into an obvious advert or something contact me again and I'll review it.  Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone marked it for deletion.  Bramble  claw  x   23:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is on my watch list. Having googled on the band name and the name of one of the listed memebrs and only got Wikipedia as a hit I decided to for CSD on grounds A7. There is even a handy Template:band. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And User:4 skeletons has tried simply removing the deletion template rather than reading the instructions.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot A7. Thanks for that Peter! (The db-band template is probably produced by Friendly: I'll check it out some time!)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Brambleclaw, as one of JCs stalkers to another for your information and future reference, I didnt know the exact rule to use but just went to WP:DELETE which mentioned WP:CSD near the top. Once at that page it was fairly easy to find the correct tempalte to use.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Bramble  claw  x   00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know I have so many stalkers! :) --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you don't have more than 30 yet =)  Bramble  claw  x   00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the watchlisting editors... BTW, the article link just went red... BYEBYE 4 Skeletons...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the page was deleted about half an hour ago.  Bramble  claw  x   00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shows how much I pay attention! --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway now that's all over, I'm unwatching this page. Ive just changed my watchlist settings to the expanded option and am trying to prune things so that I get 24 hours covered with the max 1000 listing.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well... Just you and me then Brambleclawx!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolterding
I've spoken to Wolterding about the cleanup bot, see here. -- Klein zach  10:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Klein: I totally forgot about that. I had better put it on my things-to-check list.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for the heads-up on the new comments i had taken the pages off my watch list. Now about a portal, I wish to make you guys one so you guys get more editors..Do you have a recommendation on what articles should appear in the portal if you guys even want one?...Your new friend Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Buzz. No problem on the heads up.  I think we are getting quite a bashing!  Hold off creating the portal for now: the RfC needs to be resolved first.  The Composers editors may say "no" anyway.  I suspect Kleinzach, Eusebeus, User:Antandrus, User:Opus33, and the other longstanding participants there would, at least.  The others tend to follow their lead.  Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok i was waiting for you to approve a portal before i do one...Just i am feeling bad for you guys and would like to show there is no hard feelings on my part regardless of what was said in the debate. I have made many many portals..In fact i have re-done all the music portals. When you guys think things have calmed down let me know and we can pick a style and color you guys like... Some examples of different styles i have done 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.. ALSO I will be watching for your template and will replaces the 400+ articles we have a the Canada project (we have been using normal template) that overlap, many dont have your talkheader on them . I will do one show you guys and see if its ok to do the rest and at the same time i will add your composer/opera etc.. talkheader to the articles that you guys should have in your groups. Again only if you guys approve a template. I will follow your guidelines as much as possible. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please add composers and also if appropriate WikiProject Opera, contemporary music etc to the talk pages of Canadian composers. Just start class them all if they aren't obvious stubs. Thanks for the heads up on that!  BTW, we had to refactor the Canadian category tree recently: composers were under songwriters as were groups including orchestras etc!  You might wish to review all of that, too.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok i will look at that... we have people that all they do is categorizes Canada articles..OK so contemporary music or composers or WikiProject Opera ..should i overlap them if an artist is a composers of WikiProject Opera <--should i add both??..Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, overlap: one project takes care of, say libretti, another of genre, another of works lists etc, though all try to use a consistent style. Collabration is key...  BTW, do you know how these infoboxes actually work?  "Alias" becomes "Also known as" for no apparent reason and "Notable instruments" breaks off into a new section complete with coloured box thingy, also for no apparent reason . The documentation doesn't give me any clues nor does help:infobox, by my reading.  Thoughts?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i do not know how they work...like your doing now i could not figure it out when i made this, just had to do it by hand :( .Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I'll ask on the talk page at some point.  The img_size won't work for the old one created by User:Turangalila, either, so there's something not right somewhere.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok i see your sizing problem..we have had this come up before..Remove | Img_size = 120px and add size to main photo line like this-->| Img == Croce-Mozart-Detail.jpg|120px ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I actually found another way: use size rather that img_size. I'll try your way also. --Jubilee♫ clipman 21:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest
It is suspected—though not proven—that the Science projects (who also strongly objected to the use of Infoboxes) have fallen apart for this very reason.

I'd never heard of this before. Any links? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's something Kleinzach said to me in an email. I had neaver heard of it either but the biography project's sub-page makes it clear that the scientific community on WP do object to infoboxes: WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes.  Perhaps a scan through the archives at WP:Wikiproject Chemistry or WP:Wikiproject Physics would reveal more.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've had a quick look but I've yet to find anything. In my experience infoboxes have a tendency to create huge squabbles. The other day I was looking through the archives of Talk:World War II and there are pages and pages devoted to bickering over what should go in the infobox there (NB: it's not just the stuff listed as "Infobox" in the archive index). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything either... Looks like we're out in the cold on this one so I have had to refactor the main statement with a note explaining why (as you've noticed already). OWNM... --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Humor
Hi. Just to reiterate, please feel free to remove our whole tangent on redirects/humour, as it probably distracts from the actual discussion. I am very much interested in the actual topic under discussion. I simply assumed you would share the humor, as you had had a "ROFLMAO" moment from the spiderman page. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry about that!  The pagelinks seemed to be attempts at describing (obliquely) either me or the CM-group of projects...  So we are clear, anyway: I am neither Spider-Man nor a Pole!  Nor am I trying to create any MPOV nor anything else (That other one's quite homophobic, actually.  I doubt Hyacinth will see the joke there...)  Anyway thank for the input about the problems of hidden infoboxes: they could be rather messy now I think on.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those essays/humor are very tongue-in-cheek satire. The Friends of gays essay particularly. They tend to attract complaints from people who misinterpret(? not the right word, need more coffee.. ) the intent, much like the WP:5 Pillars gets occasional complaints from people who think we're insulting/stealing from Islam (whereas actual Muslims themselves are generally completely fine with it. See Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars for the latest batch).
 * Thanks for hiding the tangent :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: I've seen a fair few of these now. I usually bookmark them for a rainy day!  I thought I had better hide the tangent rather than remove it so that editors can understand why Duribald replied as he did...  The top bit is still meesy though I think Melodia's ascerbic comment (timestampted only) and Happy-Melon strikethrough will explain the gist of it between them.  Or editors can just check the history...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I have to commend you in your efforts to solve this long standing problem. I have gotten some email about all this as i am sure you have. Just would like to point out that all the emails i have gotten all point out how pleased they are with you moving this forward and wish you were there 3 years ago! They also tell me i sound like an ass hole and was way to aggressive :(  I am sorry for that!!...I watching all that is going on, but think its best i do not give my opinion in the "vote per-say" as i dont want to open any healing wounds. I do think, but did not want to write this in that long debate ..re-wording WikiProject_Composers to sound neutral before more see it and cast there opinions might be a good idea..but all up to you guys. Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They may be used, however consensus may be obtaining on  article talk page as to there merit in each situation. ....Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a note to say that I think your question and summary statement at WT:WikiProject Composers is well constructed, informative, and even-handed. Thanks for your significant efforts to move this recurring dispute towards resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I used the collapse template to hide the previous discussion.  We don't really expect people to wade through all that either I guess!  Hope we get some serious interest in this so it can be finally put to bed.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by a lot of required reading on this topic - too much for me at the moment. I dislike "boxing" of creative art in general (s. Toshio Hosokawa boxed "Neo-Impressionism") and redundancy as a cause of likely mistake, so would vote on both reasons against required boxes for composers - but don't oppose voluntary ones. Where would I put this comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore all the previous discussions. That's the point: make your own mind up according to 1. your own understanding of the way WP works 2. the questions asked and 3. (optional, IMO) the "pros", "cons and "other factors" set out at the head of the discussion.  Ignore all previous discussions.  Place your comment at the very end: I have refactored it to aid accessability.  Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked you a few questions at User:Quiddity/sandbox User talk:Quiddity/Archive 10. I think I also need to add a 2nd long example to the documentation page at User:Quiddity/composers/doc Template:Infobox classical composer/doc, probably Bradley Joseph. Sleep now though :) -- Quiddity (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comments are in your sandbox --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your wikiproject
Anything new about your wikiproject joining: User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects so all unreferenced BLPs will be listed on your wikiproject? Thanks for all your hard work. Okip  02:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may just want to glance at (or wade through if you are a masochist) this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers. Think it might be a while before we worry about BLPs...  (The most important appear to have been saved, in fact, by the sterling efforts of a few committed stalwarts like Deskford, Kleinzach, the Polish One (whose name I can never recreate!) etc  We probably need to review the cats banners etc, though, so your DASHbot is probably the best way do do that without using somewhat fickle tools like this and spending hours going through the results by hand to format it in any useful manner.  I'll be away for a short while (I am supposed t have gone now in fact but I saw one or two things that needed immeadiate response then saw the big orange flag thingy...  I couldn't resist! Arg! I'm a Wikipediholic! Noooooo........!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked again at the project. Hopefully someone there wil review it all with you and report back.  Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(I am still here?)

Scrub that: I'm back! I'll have a good look at it all with you and ask the project again once I understand how it all works. Looks good so far though. Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In every case one or two editor decided for themselves to sign up for User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.
 * For example, the rugby wikiproject has had a really stupid argument about flags for weeks, if the editor who decided to sign up for User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects had waited for the project to get around to a !vote, as you seem to be, nothing would have ever happened.
 * I think many of these editors in your wikiproject are sending a signal that they don't care, which you maybe interpreting as they maybe opposed.
 * I say sign up, and if there is any opposition (which there will not be) you can always remove yourself. Okip   12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's go for it.  Thanks Okip --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Belated PS: I can't really withdraw myself, as I am the coordinator of the project... Anyway, we've already had one dramatic resignation, another would be baaad.... --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you ♫ Cricket02. I appreciate the compliment --Jubilee♫ clipman 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, please don't take my remarks too personally - your efforts are welcome, but sometimes it is important to step back and disengage for a bit. I've learned that the hard way! Cheers, Eusebeus (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems I am too, now... ;-) Anyway, I really do have to leave all this for a while, for multiple reasons.  It would probably, by coincidence, be a good thing for the sake of everyone's sanity actually...!  Cheers, Eusebeus!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at Catholic Church
There is a lot of discussion going on around the desire to break the logjam at this article. I'm not sure your revert, without participation (that i have noticed, apologies in advance if I've missed) in the extensive consideration at the talk page, was helpful. Just for reflection. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit rolled by on recent changes and there was no edit summary. As I said on the talk page just now "(-77,947) unexplained tends to stick out like a sore thumb..."  I'll keep out of it from now on, anyway.  Thanks for the heads up, though  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your comment
Hi Jubileeclipman, Thanks for your comment on my page. I appreciate your saying "I hope you are not put off by this bad experience." I have been put off, and I'm a little amazed that these comments from Ukepat are regarded as acceptable:

"OK one more time, with feeling, there are no supervisors here and no one you can talk to by phone. To seek the views of other editors, please open a discussion at Editor assistance requests. – ukexpat (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You are missing the point. There is no one to refer you to."

In fact, Wikipedia has a Dispute Resolution page, and a Wikiquette alerts page, neither of which Ukepat referred me to. Best, Jim--James Cihlar (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We editors are only human and get it wrong at times: it's worth remembering that...! I still feel the best course of action is mentorship but I'll leave that to you.  Regards  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Although he could have put it better, ukexpat is correct: there is no central committee etc: we all work collaboratively, even Jimbo Wales! The Wikimedia Foundation looks after the servers and the coding, for example.  There are admins but these are just editors with extra features added to their user account: they don't have any greater or lesser authority that the rest of us, really.  There are certain emergency procedures that JW or the Foundation can activate at times (eg for certain copyrights issues or high profile attack pages etc) but otherwise we all go along as equals  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact WP:EAR is the first port of call, after talk pages, in a content dispute (not sure it even qualifies as that). I don't see how I could have been any clearer, and it was not I who left this message on another user's talk page, so maybe I should have posted a Wikiquette alert. Sometimes I wonder why I bother helping out at WP:HD, WP:NCHP, WP:RFF and WP:EAR, among others...no need to reply. – ukexpat (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... I saw that post and decided to pass it over. Perhaps the clarity from your end is not the problem but rather the understanding at the other end...  I feel that you (ukexpat) have done the very best you can to help this editor and have done no wrong.  James Cihlar needs to learn how to collaborate and accept positive criticism (like the banners and comments etc) in the manner they are intended ie as help-aids rather than patronising remarks.  Walk away, I say: if he's still arguing the toss even now (10 editors, by my count, have weighed in now) then I see no hope here...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for the above links: some of those are new to me viz EAR and NCHP. I'll look into those  --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. In fact we need a lot of help at WP:RFF - we have been working hard to clear the backlog, but can always use more assistance... – ukexpat (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I am coordinator for WP:CTM, mind, and am going on Wikibreak soon but I'll certainly help out as and when!  This was a weird sort of chance meeting...!  :P  --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if you have time, Project coordination is almost a full-time job! – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... I'll certainly see what I can do to help, though --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Francis (songwriter)‎
An article that you have been involved in editing, John Francis (songwriter)‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Novaseminary (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arad, oh yes
In case your blood pressure was extra too low today, guess what article just appeared? Yakob Arad. I've reported it to admin Gwen Gale, but I thought you'd like to know our opinion was justified about non-willingness to cooperate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that... I think. Kobi arad recently came and went again too: Deskford caught that one.  Hm...  kObI aRaD, kOBI aRAD, Jacob Arad, Jacob arad...  well you never know!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Splitting hairs and making uncivil comments does not  seem  to  conform  to the barnstars you've been collecting. Just what  is it here that make people stamp  their feet and tear their hair out at  the very  people who are just  genuinely  trying to  be helpful? As it happens it  was the RfC talk page that  had been unarchived for you, and it  was done by  Whitehorse1, also  trying  to  be helpful. Makes me wonder why we bother.--Kudpung (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. It just seemed we were being stonewalled with a "take a look at the RfC as it explans it all if you have a spare week to read it all and even figure out where to look in the first place; now go away".  Seems I was wrong and I apologise for that.  On a personal note, I have just been made redundant from work and am a little angry about that.  No excuse for taking it out on the editors here, though, I agree.  Maybe a nice can of cold beer and a little snooze afterwards?... yes sounds good to me.  Then I'll start over, if I may? :)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's OK Jube. In  fact  it was a kind of a "take a look at the RfC as it explans it all if you have a spare week to read it all and even figure out where to look in the first place" - but  without  the "now go away". Indeed, you  would probably  have been lucky  to  get  an answer at  all  if I  hadn't  replied, because nobody is really  interested in that  mammoth  RfC now. I wasn't  involved from  the start  either, and my  instant reaction  was: It  took  me three hours to  read, so  why shouldn't anyone else?
 * Sorry to  hear  about your redundancy; ironically  this means you  will have more time for working  on the Wikipedia and we really  would appreciate your help  on the things that still need to  be done ;) --Kudpung (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wonder if the foundation are recruiting... ;)  BTW, how does this look: User:Jubileeclipman/How to source an article?  It is an attempt to respond to this thread: Sticky_Prod_workshop.  Any good?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a look. Seems OK, but it might  not  be perfectly neutral as far as inclusionism/deletikonism are concerned. But that's up  to  you  -  I  never read the rules on  writing  essays for the encyclopedia. However, If I  were to  write an essay  for Wikipedia, It would be one of the neutral, informative kind - the kind that  makes sense out of all the confusing  blurb. I've been around for quite a long time, and although I'm  not  a completely  stupid person, there is a great  deal  that  I  either don't  understand, or just  simply  haven't  got  time to  read through and try  to  understand. You  have a grast  of the situation  already, and you  are able to  put it in terms that  we (idiots like me) can understand, even if we might  not  agree with it, and  that's what's needed here.
 * What's also needed (elsewhere) because you  understand these things, is your help  opinion  on the wording  of the Sticky  prod template at WT:STICKY, and a vote on the timelines at  WT:STICKY POLICY. You'll probably  need to  read the various sections on  both  pages because unlike a talk  page, they  treat  different parts of the work and are therefore are not  chronologically  consecutive.--Kudpung (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll reread the essay tomorrow and reread all the linked pages (...!) There are probably other pages that ought to be linked, also, so I'll have to hunt around.  I think the intention was to use it as a help page rather than an essay.  I opted to make it an essay for now as it only contains my understanding of the issues so far: it will need far more input before it can become a genuine help page...  I'll inform the workgroup and see what they come up with.
 * I'll have a look through the prod template etc. Tomorrow also, though, as it is now 23:20 here in the UK and I'm kn***ered...  (Been job hunting all day and editing all night!)  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call
. I don't think I explained myself very well, and people were quite justified in questioning my response; but I agree that the most important thing is to stay focused on the issue at hand. Especially since we seem to be doing so well towards a valid new consensus. Many thanks for all your input, BTW; keep up the good work! Happy ‑ melon 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably should have quietly ignored the issue in the first place, actually, but it seem too important to overlook, especially after... well y'know... Anyway: focus, indeed.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)