User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 3

Adminship
Hey there, what's it like being an admin? :) Isopropyl 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still figuring it all out & trying not to make any mistakes. We'll see how it goes... -- JLaTondre 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, best of luck. Isopropyl 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing part of RFD archive from June 17
You'd want to know why this text was cut off unexpectedly:

* Delete per nom.--SomeStrange[[User:SomeStranger|

See the diff.

Are you using a Mozilla Firefox with a google toolbar? If so, I strongly recommend you to disable that toolbar, otherwise it's better that you uninstall that toolbar. Editing a very long page with it can cause the huge bottom part of text to be accidentally blanked. I'll find more details of this for you. -- ADNghiem501 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you go, you can read Article size regarding that problem. -- ADNghiem501 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I found out about that problem after a broken edit on a different article and I de-installed the Google toolbar last week. I tried to go back and check all my large edits for the last few weeks, but I must have missed that one. Thanks for fixing! -- JLaTondre 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you miss some of the text you're trying to archive intergrated contents you remove from Redirects for deletion, be sure to check the page history of that page, then find a version, and then edit that version to copy some source that is lost and paste it to the RFD archive. Simple! -- ADNghiem501 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your notification
Hi, I hope you're doing well. The incident to which you kindly notified me earlier in my talk page was a result of a broken edit and a minor mistake on my part, which I later amended, and the aforementioned entry itself was moved very soon after into Absolute Boy, which was subsequent to a requested move I had authored earlier. Thanks for fixing my mistake, and notifying me - I apologize for not having contacting you sooner. ~ Ganryuu (talk)  17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- JLaTondre 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful nightmare
Thanks for the personal notification... my bad for not checking the file history first, glad you did. I've gone ahead and listed it at afd. --W.marsh 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Raccoon
This page should not exist. I originated it as a redirect to Articles for deletion/Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. That article has been deleted.

There is no such thing as a Giant raccoon. Lou Sander 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006. The redirect was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus. Personally, I don't see much merit to keeping it, but consensus is needed for a deletion nomination to be successful. You can always re-nominate it, but you would need to provide rationale that overcomes the previous keep votes for it to be successful. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello,

It's me your computer-challenged friend. I am trying to figure out how to archive my Talk Page. I have stared at the Guidelines - and still can't figure it out. I'm afraid of doing something in the process that will completely mess things up. What procedure did you use to create your archives?

Help!


 * Michael David 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By Guidelines, do you mean How to archive a talk page? If not, I suggest you read that page. I use the move method described there. I move my current talk page to "User talk:JLaTondre/Archive#" (where # is the next number), add a archive to the moved page, and then edit "User talk:JLaTondre" to replace the redirect with the header box and links to the archives. If that's not enough, let me know what more questions you have. -- JLaTondre 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I was afraid I would, I screwed up somewhere. Would you please take a minute and look at my Talk Page and see what I did wrong. I really appreciate it.


 * Michael David 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- JLaTondre 23:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Beautiful!! Thank you very much. I did all of my college & grad. work on typewriters. The computers I learned to use for research, etc. were (and still is) an Apple Mac (the simplest) point & click. I'm still learning. I really appreciate your time & effort.


 * Be healthy,
 * Michael David 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD
I am extremely sorry for that. It was a careless mistake to me. I felt since it was already deleted that it didn't need to be on the page. I hope that didn't count as a warning because I want to try out for vandalproof and it would harm me. -ScotchMB 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was intended as being informative and not a warning. It was clear that you were acting in good faith. -- JLaTondre 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, if you look at the page history, you could see that it was tagged for speedy deletion and it was removed. I felt if I put that on afd instead of tagging it for speedy delete, I would expose it to more people who would take more action on it. -ScotchMB 01:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. In the long run, it's usually easier to just restore the tag. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

speedying and deleting at once
Something you said over at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy caught my eye - is it actually kosher to delete something as a CSD without a separate party first tagging it?? That strikes me as a little TOO speedy, especially in cases of possible progressive saves... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote the first paragraph of WP:CSD:
 * The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Non-admins can request deletion of such a page, either by listing it on speedy deletions, or by adding a template.
 * The "on sight" is pretty clear and the templates are called out for non-admin usage. The vast majority of CSD's are clear cut. The criteria is pretty narrow after all. I've seen more issues with overenthusiastic users tagging articles than I've seen overenthusiastic admins deleting them. Progressive saves are not really a problem as generally there will be something in the first version that provides an indication of more to come. An article talking about the cuteness of someone's girlfriend is unlikely to change into something notable. Are there sometimes wrong decisions made? Probably, but that's why there's DRV. Adding another layer of checking would simply make the process less efficient with little gain. -- JLaTondre 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'd always assumed speedies took two sets of eyes. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

T. Marshall Hahn
I finished adding some more details to the T. Marshall Hahn article. It just takes time to get the facts together and check them. Talk to Dr. M 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thank YOU
What should I change the for? And which one is the page where I should move my comment to?--T-man, the wise 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Redirects for deletion and Requested moves are separate process with differing procedures. What you listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion actually belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can follow the directions provided at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Does that help? -- JLaTondre 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks again, man.--T-man, the wise 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In Response to Harmonism Redirect
I hope the stub my friend and I wrote is sufficient? The blanked redirect was an error in my computer, and I never wished to rewrite it. Rayonne 02:39, 28 July 2006 (EST)
 * Mistakes happen so that's fine. However, I have deleted the contact information from the article as that is inappropriate. Also, you do not cite any verifiable sources. A quick Google search could not find anything relevant. Please include your sources or this will probably end up nominated for deletion as non-notable or unverifiable. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 10:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Misspelled Article Name
Hello.

It's me again. The Article "Hely Hutchison Almond" is misspelled. The Proper name of the person is "Hely Hutchinson Almond". How do you go about fixing something like that?

Wiki computer-challenged Michael David 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to the Hely Hutchison Almond page and at the top, there will be a tab titled "move". Select that and it will give you the option to rename the page. -- JLaTondre 22:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I fixed it (and didn't even crash the site). I learn each time something new like this comes up.


 * Be healthy.


 * Michael David 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'Redirects'
Hello JLaTondre, thank you for helping me. I answered your question(s) on my talk page. So please look there. VM 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking
Sorry, for that, I was going over lots of pages and did the wrong thing there. My bad. Thanks for the repair. Lincher 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RfD
Re - Thanks. I didn't know it was already deleted, despite contest in its talk page. &mdash; Instantnood 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Harmonism article
Hello, JLaTondre. I'm a contributer to the Harmonism entry which is currently being considered for deletion. I gather the main reason this is so is because there is no citing of sources, and no outside information. The reason for that shouldn't be hard to realize: as Harmonism is a discrete cult, there is no public information whatsoever aside from this Wikipedia article. We currently have no other medium of communication, beside word of mouth, and would greatly appreciate your consideration from our point of view; to expand our group, we need a home base which has information on our practice until we can successfully publish a book on the matter. We've spent much time and thought writing and organizing this article, prudent not to release too much information, and it would make sense that the only citation necessary is the simple fact that the clan (including Rayonne and I, the chief contributers) exists and have written this article on our practice. We also realize that there is much misinformation and missing citation already in the religion/philosophy field (see Darkside for an example of this) and it is hardly fair not to let our well-conceived and growing practice have a small corner of this massive reference site, when there are things like that around. Of course, it is ultimately to your judgement. All I ask is your understanding and consent to keep our information up so we can continue to draft new members and be successful; after all, every religion and spiritual practice today began with a single set of beliefs. Thank you for your time.

-- Lord Skye III 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Move page
Thanks for your help. I did the same mistake when I moved Technical Analysis Software (Finance) to technical analysis software. I'm afraid I'll mess things up again. Would you mind helping me fix that?--Wai Wai (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix. --Wai Wai (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- JLaTondre 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My preferences
Hello, again,

I really hope you don't mind my coming to you for technical questions, but I'm still trying to learn these aspects of Wikipedia.

The problem is, my Preferences keep changing on their own. Sometines, with some Articles, the font will change & the date preference keeps reverting to 'no preference'. Each time I have to go back and save them again. Is it Wikipedia or is it me. I hope you can help.

Thanks,


 * Michael David 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be causing that. I have seen issues with link formatting (underlines come back) that if I refresh the page, it returns to normal. Trying clearing your browser cache and reloading the page. If that doesn't work, it could be something with your cookies, try logging out and back in and make sure your browser cookies for this site are set to remain from session to session. If that doesn't work, try asking at Village pump (technical). A broader audience may give you a solution. -- JLaTondre 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your suggestions; I'll give them a try.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David


 * Hello, again,


 * I went to the Pump, and this is the message I got back: Everyone's having this problem. There's nothing we can do about it yet (check above for a few postings of this same problem). There are also several other posts and discussions on the page about this same problem. Although it's a pain, at least I don't feel alone on this one. Thanks again!


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Soyer Article
Hello, again.

This one's above my head. There are two Articles on the same person. One is Main Titled, 'Alexis Soyer', the other one is Main Titled, 'Alexis Benoit Soyer'. As you can see, the one Titled 'Alexis Soyer' is the most accurate & complete. How do you handle something like this?

Eager to learn,


 * Michael David 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is any worthwhile content in Alexis Benoît Soyer, edit Alexis Soyer and include that content. After that, or if there is no new content worth including, redirect Alexis Benoît Soyer to Alexis Soyer. Alexis Benoit Soyer (no caret over the I in Benoit) is a redirect to Alexis Benoît Soyer and it would need to be changed to Alexis Soyer. Does that make sense? There is a more detailed explanation at Merging and moving pages that also includes instructions on how to tag an article for potential merging in case one doesn't have the time to do it or if discussion would be needed. -- JLaTondre 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think I got it right. When you have time, please check it out.--Michael David 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Close, but not quite. :-) The redirect should replace the content (see ). Also, Alexis Benoit Soyer had to be fixed as it became as double redirect when its target was redirected (see ). But that was a good attempt for your first time. I also tagged the redirects with the appropriate category. -- JLaTondre 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Both I and Mr. Soyer thank you. He was starting to feel a bit schizophrenic having two separate Articles describing his life. Actually, that I could help him with. But lots of the technical aspects of Wikipedia are still a mystery to me. Thanks again.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

re: RFD
Good evening. Thanks for your polite note. Please don't worry that I'm taking it personally. I do understand that reasonable people can disagree. That said, I stand by my arguments. I'll admit that it's more nuanced than can easily be fit into a one-bullet RFD discussion in many cases. You raised two specific points. Permit me to try to explain. I hope that helps at least a bit. As I said, reasonable people can disagree, especially as these general principles apply to specific cases. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Page Move History: If a page has been properly moved, then the edit history of the page is moved along with the page. The history of who moved it is also shown at the new name. There is no GFDL violation caused by deleting the original title.
 * 2) * This is true for page-moves created since the most recent revision of the MediaWiki software. Now, the MediaWiki software does record the move in the pagehistory of both the origin and destination pages.  Prior to that release, the page's edit history was moved but the actual move itself was not recorded.  For older moves, you can only tell that the page was moved or who moved it by following "what links here" and checking the edit history of the redirect.
 * 3) * This leads to the more specific question "Is the pagemove 'content' for the purposes of the attribution requirement in GFDL. Wiser heads than mine have argued that yes, the title of an article is, itself, content and that changes to the title must also be preserved.  This was a specific discussion amongst the lawyers who argue the finer points of GFDL.
 * 4) * Let me add, though, that I don't think I said that the redirect had to be preserved in order to preserve the page-move history for those redirects which have been made since the change to the MediaWiki software. I said it aided in preserving it.  (And my apologies if I was sloppy in my language on a specific RFD discussion.)  I think it's still useful to keep the redirect because it helps when attempting to sort out complicated histories when a page has been moved (sometimes repeatedly) to different titles. Having a confirmation of the pagemove on the origin-page is helpfulin such cases.  Sometimes, the corresponding evidence in the destination page is quite hard to find or has become obscured by other edits.
 * 5) * It is not strictly necessary to preserve this history via the redirect. But as a practical matter, it's easier to preserve the redirect than to keep checking that someone properly documented the move with a manual comment on an article's Talk page somewhere.
 * 6) Contribution History: While contribution history has to be kept, many redirects are created by replacing the original content with a redirect and not by merging content into the target article. This happens often when someone feels a topic is not suitable for its own article. In those cases, there is no contribution history that needs to be saved.
 * 7) * Technically, this is true. If we can be sure that no content was reused in any article, then we have no obligation to preserve the contribution history.  As a practical matter, how do you know whether or not someone used content from the original version?  How, in fact, do you know that someone didn't open the edit history and reuse content from an old version even after the redirect was created?
 * 8) * This, by the way, is one of the strongest arguments against our deletion processes generally and the reason that several lawyers have argued that the deletion process for articles creates a risk of violating GFDL. Where the content is harmful, vandalism or utterly unencyclopedic, I believe that those costs outweigh the obligation to preserve GFDL.  As a practical matter, we have to be able to get rid of the bad content.  However, where the content is merely duplicative, I believe that it is best to err on the side of keeping the redirect and the associated history.  Redirects, after all, are cheap.
 * 9) I have to add a third point, though.  The most valuable reason I have for keeping redirects after a page-move is that they serve to direct the original author(s) to the new location so that they can contribute to the right article.  Without the redirect, the original contributors often get frustrated when they can not find their good-faith contributions in Wikipedia.  They either lash out at us for "deleting" (or worse, "censoring") their efforts or they recreate the article in ignorance of the pagemove.  The redirect, on the other hand, brings them into the fold so that they can join the community of other editors working on the topic.
 * 10) * Note: This applies not only to editors who actively edited the article prior to the move but also to everyone who read the article at the old title.  Readers can be equally confused when we move a title and leave no trace of the move behind.


 * We're on release 1.8 already.... I guess I'd lost track.  I'll concede I take a more conservative approach in this case.  Where the encyclopedia is clearly better off without a particular redirect, I'm all for deleting it.  Vandalism, fraud, attack pages, etc. all have to go.  But we've always said that "redirects are cheap".  And to a very large extent, that's true.  Deleting a page does not actually get us any server space back.  The only real cost we pay is in editor-time.  The redirect must be watchlisted for vandalism like all our other pages.  Now, that editor effort is not a negligible cost.  Good editors are in short supply.  On the other hand, unlike most of our articles a redirect is really easy to watch.  You can't really insert subtle vandalism or false facts into a redirect.  It's either pointing the same place as it was yesterday or not.  If there's essentially no cost to a good-faith redirect but there might be a benefit to someone - however small or theoretical a benefit, why not err on the side of conservatism?
 * You also had a thought about modifying the search engine. Personally, I use the search feature regularly and rarely find myself sorting through inappropriate redirects.  They are usually appropriate hits which take me to the article I really intended to find.  Or at least are no more irrelevant than many of the other hits on the list.  But that may be a function of the kinds of topics I search on.  What searches do you conduct that return high ratios of redirects? Thanks again for your polite question and comments, by the way.  Rossami (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL doesn't require us to preserve what is effectively the 'file name' of the document. The fact that there is no good record of old titles is immaterial. In the case where the redirect page has substantial unmerged history, in cases where that content exists elsewhere without the history we are already out of compliance. In such cases the history should either be merged or moved to an unobtrusive title and linked from the page's talk as well as mentioned in an edit summary (for example old_name gets blanked and moved to new_name/merge01). --Gmaxwell 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to nonexistent articles
When I make a redirect to a nonexistent article, I generally create the article immediately afterward. There are dozens of places where people use alternate capitalizations of words in song titles, and your alternative of going to every article with an irregular use of capitalization and editing that article is an unreasonable use of time. Don't delete the redirect; just wait a bit and the article will appear! -- BRG 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unicode redirects
In Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 29, I thought I withdrew the requests for deletion for 〡 (Chinese numberal 1), changing the target from Vertical bar to 1 (number) and Ⓐ (circled A), changing the target to A. They were deleted anyway, and I'm bringing it up on Deletion review. I'm informing you per policy, as I'm not sure which one of you deleted them. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blank redirects
I took out the redirect because it was creating confusion. i have updated the page. i din't have time to make a new page at the time. thanks for keeping an eye out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randywilliams1975 (talk • contribs).
 * For the blank redirecting, I took out the redirecting link since it goes to the main page. In other words, other than the redirection, there's no content in the page, and this looks awkward if you're already on the main page and you click on the link, the end up redirected to that same page. And in any case, I might need some help for the deletion. Joey80 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

yes the piercings are similer, but they are really very different none the less, i am trying to help reduce confusuion and meybe give people a place were they can elaborate on the subject further, isn't that the whole reson for this site. maybe instead of deleting info on the page all together maybe we can come up an agreement. have you seen the bmezine page Randywilliams1975 22:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Randywilliams1975 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!
Hello,

I may be completely dense, or else I've been asleep for awhile, but what on earth are the new references in the Category listings that show nothing but a + sign. I used to be able to find a list of subcategories there, but now, there is just the + signs; and when I click on it all I get is the word "loading".

Help!!


 * Michael David 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response.


 * Example: I went to the Category:Suicides by sharp instrument and when I clicked on the + for additional Categories all I got is the word "loading" and nothing else. The additional Category should be Category:Seppuku.


 * -- Michael David 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did as you suggested. However, when I go to …sharp instrument here is what I see:


 * S
 * [+]


 * When I click of the +


 * Here is what I get:


 * S
 * [-]
 * loading


 * Curious: When I copied the S * [-] loadingto my clipboard to paste it into this message, here is what I got:


 * S


 * [–] Seppuku
 * loading
 * loading


 * I'm stumped! ---Michael David 14:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Please keep in mind that I am severly computer challenged. I use Internet Explorer, and, as far as whether Javascript is working, I need to talk with my computer person first. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Thanks for your help & patience. I'll be back in touch as soon as I can.


 * Michael David 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't feel so dumb after all. I went to the Pump, and I seems I'm not the only one having problems with it.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Subcategories


 * Thanks again,
 * Michael David

Prod
If a prod has been removed from an article, you cannot re-prod it. The fact that Marudubshinki removed the prod from Human World without any explanation does not matter. You cannot re-prod it and you must take it to WP:AFD instead. Please see WP:PROD or ask me if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous what you have to go through to get something like this deleted around here. For 8 days I have been waiting for an admin to come along and see it. And now just because somebody (not you) decides to remove a tag without any explanation or changes whatsoever I have to go through more and more bureaucracy just to get shit wiped clean that has been hanging around here for months already. If you think a certain article merits deletion, help out, don't just delete tags and point me to more pages with names like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I don't speak in acronyms and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. I'm sorry if I seem to be ranting or attacking you (I can assure you I have nothing against you). But this is just very frustrating.--K-UNIT 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion
I wrote a link to my brother who recently passed away and it was deleted as irreveleant. it was lnked to my bio. Why was it deleted? If he is my blood relation it should be linked to my bio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerZee (talk • contribs).

AN TPS 43
BAD RADAR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.79.243.128 (talk • contribs).

alternat[iv]e
Thanks for the heads-up. I have responded. Snottygobble 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of interwiki links
Hello! Why did you mixed the interwiki links the way you did in the Euclidean algorithm article? They were sorted alphabetically by the language codes till then. --Knakts 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Interwiki sorting order. That is the standard for the English Wikipedia and the one WP:AWB uses. If you look at the "In other languages" box on the article, you will notice that the languages are in alphabetic order which makes it easier for readers to find. For example, the "fi" code is for "Suomi" so having it before "France" (which is "fr") doesn't make sense. It's better located between "Slovenščina" and "Svenska" as it is with the changed order. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link! --Knakts 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Hurteau
this guy recreated his bio (Dormantfascist 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)) and Terranism its a fake organization (Dormantfascist 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure of your point. The bio has been speedy delted twice (once by me) and the organization is on AFD. -- JLaTondre 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Orson Welles Article
Hello,

It's me again. I attempted to edit the Orson Welles Article & apparently somehow screwed it up. It now displays only a portion of the Article. Would you take a look at it and see where I went wrong?

Thanks,


 * Michael David 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Thanks for your response. The person who set up my computer, and I rely on to help me with problems, moved to Vermont. I contact him by e-mail with questions about my computer. My computer is a Power Mac G3 running Mac OS 8.6. My browser is Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.1.7. I will contact him and see if I have Firefox. I hope this helps. Thank you, as always, for your help.


 * Michael David

Jill Gascoine/Gascoigne Articles
Hi,

It's the trouble finder again. There seems to be two separate Articles on what appears to be the same person, but with different spellings of the last name: Jill Gascoine & Jill Gascoigne. The IMDB has her name as Gascoine. It looks like this needs a redirect. I'm still a bit gun shy when it comes to redirects, I always seem to screw them up somehow. Would you please take a look at this?

Thank you,


 * Michael David 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Very nice work with the Jill Gascoine Article.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

GTFO
Hiya. It was a good idea to redirect GTFO to the List of Internet Slang. In the future, could you please remember to actually include the text of the article in the list if it's something like that? :) --Kooky (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When I redirected it back in January, it was on the list . -- JLaTondre 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm sorry I assumed instead of checking the revision history (what I should have done). Live and learn. :) Instead of tracking down the user who removed it (there are many revisions to that page, apparently), I'll just add it again. Sorry to waste your time. --Kooky (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Children of Men(film)
Actually I did not nominate this. I removed the speedy tag since it appeared to be in the queue at RfD. Since it is not, I just deleted it as a speedy. Unlikely typo. Vegaswikian 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RfD
Thanks for the reminder, I've added the tags now. Mango juice talk 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP;-)
Thanks for bringing it to my attention - as you might imagine, it just managed to fall through the cracks. I'll finish the nomination today. Gavia immer (u|t|c)  16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What's new in the world of JLaTondre?
- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: DTB, you're freaking amazing! How did you find all those things? I love it! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Speech synthesis up for FAR
Hi there,

You're listed in the edit history of this article. I wonder whether you're able to help bring it up to FA standard again? Please see WP:FAR.

Tony 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitchel Forman
The talk page contains the e-mail from Mitchell Forman to me releasing the information for use on Wikipedia, and it was there prior to your tag. Please advise ASAP Tvccs 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sufficient. Sorry, but anybody can fake an email on a wiki page. Also, the permission needs to specifically state that the content is released under the GFDL. The instructions are provided on the template. I've converted to to a copyvio to give you time instead of outright deleting it. -- JLaTondre 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, I faked it. Ludicrous. Tvccs 00:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you faked it. If I had, I would have just deleted it. However, copyright is a serious issue and Wikipedia needs a legal right to distribute the content. Copying an email to a wiki page doesn't do it. The sender could deny having sent it and Wikipedia would have no proof to refute that claim. Also, that email is insufficient as it doesnt state the material is released under the GFDL. Please read the instructions provided on the template. I've given you time vs. deleting it. It's up to you to take advantage of it. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect copyright. However, by your standard, there is no way to meet it - the only possible clarifier I could get from Forman is related to GFDL, but if you assume the e-mail clarifiying said is essentially faked for these discussions, than that will not be sufficient either, and I believe I would have met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, as well the application of common sense.  Tvccs 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me also offer the following - Recently when I questioned the validity of a quote on a page, a quote I didn't especially like, I spent a few minutes tracking down the source of the quote and sending them an e-mail. They responded and provided background on the quote, even though it couldn't be totally verified, and I left it alone.  Forman can be contacted at either his MySpace page or his Web Site, which I provided the links for on the page.  If my provision of his e-mail isn't sufficient, what else can I do?  Tvccs 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As the e-mail indicates, Forman responds from his account to e-mail delivered to mitchelforman.com, and apparently doesn't send mail from a mitchelforman.com account, which is a very common practice among musicians. Therefore, that wouldn't work.  Again, what WOULD work?Tvccs 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not "my" standard. It's the Wikimedia Foundation's. Since you have met neither of the options listed in the template (1. Make a note permitting re-use under the GFDL at the site of the original publication.; 2. Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.), you have obviously not met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The email you posted did not specifically state publication under the GFDL was permitted. Posting the email to the talk page is not submitting it to the provided email address.
 * As to what you can do, I'd suggest drafting an email that specifically identifies the Wikipedia article name, his website, and states that he authorizes release of that content under the GFDL. Send it to him and ask him to forward it to the permissions address and to cc you. If he agrees & you receive the email, then state that the email was sent to the permissions address at such & such time with such & such subject on both the article's talk page & under the article's entry at Copyright problems/2006 October 26/Articles. The permissions office will validate the receipt of the email, remove the copyvio notice, and make the proper note in the records so it isn't thought to be a copyvio in the future.
 * His address in your email matches the address on his website so that's not a problem. -- JLaTondre 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and suggestion - which is a giant hassle for all of us involved, makes no common sense, and wastes large amounts of time and effort doing little or nothing constructive to add a simple article, which has the artists full permission, to Wikipedia. It now creates a six-layer approval process for the lack of the words GFDL, which was clearly understood by Forman in granting me permission.  To me, this is totally a waste of time.  Again, thanks for your clarifier. Tvccs 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exaggerating doesn't actually help your argument. How do you know Forman clearly understood it meant under the GFDL if he didn't say it? Does he know that means others can edit the article at will? Does he know that means there are companies that use Wikipedia content in commercial applications and they will make money off his work? He might very well, but without a specific referenece to the GFDL, it leaves the Wikimedia Foundation with a legal liability that they have said they will not accept. Given that there have been people who have actually contributed to Wikipedia and have been surprised by the answers to those two questions, I cannot blame them. The Foundation doesn't want a lawsuit they cannot win. If you want to copy material, then you need to go through the permissions process. If you don't want to go through the process, then write your own content. Since I've had people edit their websites to state "released under the GFDL" in response to copyvio queries from me, I know it's not as hard as you make it sound. -- JLaTondre 01:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, in this case the same content is also on Forman's MySpace page, which is where I orginally got it from - Forman is a friend of mine there. So it would potentially require posting a GFDL notice in both places. I hardly think Forman is concerned about someone somehow editing his Wiki page and turning it into something he didn't like - he could always change it himself, or drop me a note and ask me to do it, and that's about as likely to happen as Donald Rumsfeld advocating an immediate withdrawal from Iraq on the Today Show tomorrow morning.  The idea that there would be some sort of liability here, from a common sense standpoint, borders on the absurd.  I am in direct contact with a number of artists I've created and/or worked on Wiki pages for and they are universally thrilled with the results.  An in the meantime, the two of us are sitting here p*ssing into the proverbial wind debating something, and yes, I see your exact point, that in reality simply doesn't exist as a problem, but does from a standpoint of absolute protection from copyright liability, and again, Wikipedia's not that perfect, or perfectly edited, in that regard. In the meantime we are wasting a lot of time and energy both of us could have better spent elsewhere. Common sense should be trumping exreme legalise here, and it's not, which is a waste. Tvccs 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the time you have spent arguing over this, you could have drafted the suggested email several times over. You could probably even drafted a non-copied article in that time. What is going against common sense is arguing that Wikipedia should ignore copyright law because a third party says it's okay. Wikipedia is not perfect and I'm sure many copyvios go undetected, but once detected they cannot be brushed aside. Only the original copyright holder can release the content and it needs to be specifically released under the GFDL. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Copyrights and related pages. As far as the problem not existing, you are completely wrong. Wikipedia routinely receives copyvio complaints from people who are not happy about their content being used. I've seen several contributors claim to have permission and have it proved that they don't. It is a problem and the only way to be sure is to check each case that is found. -- JLaTondre 02:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your reply. For the record, I have sent the artist an e-mail, which it took well over an hour to properly compose.  I'm sure your likely answer would be I should just have rewritten the article, but there isn't a need to reinvent the wheel when editing is sufficient, and rewriting of something like that is actually a form of plagarism in and of itself in my book.  And also for the record, 98% of my stuff is original, as I write for a major US newspaper group.  Wikipedia needs a policy, and I'm not sure how to construct it, yet, where after a certain point you shouldn't be assumed as guilty out of the block and hit with CSD's, etc.  The original contentions that my permission e-mail was fake are simply absurd, but that was the assumption that generated this entire episode.  Tvccs 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (unindenting) You still don't get it. The issue is not whether it was fake, but whether it was sufficient and verifiable. It was neither. You should be taking the same care in your Wikipedia contributions as I would hope you do for your professional writings.
 * Also, on a tangential note, as a professional writer, I'd hope you recognize that copying someone's website doesn't meet the intent of Verifiability & Reliable sources (among other policies). You should be using third party sources to construct your articles. If you cannot find third party source, then you are probably going to run afoul of Notability. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for the unblock on AOL, unfortunately, I was hit with another autoblock as soon as I logged in this morning. If I didn't have a way of getting around the blocks, I could never enter anything on Wikipedia.  Actually...I get it to death...and as I stated, the was the first time, actually second (the other was from a press kit), that I've ever copied a bio, because most aren't good enough, and are too promotional and not factual.  I then add, supplement and change as needed.  And as for Notability, why not read what I wrote, visit the Web sites, listen to the music, etc.  I am intensely familar with the guidelines for Musician Notability, and this artist meets them coming and going.  Please.  And as for my care in Wikipedia submissions, well...I don't even want to dignify it with a response.

Back to the root issue, here's the response to my e-mail last night I found this morning when I awakened.

 

I hope this resolves the issue, and request you unblock the page and move the content on the temp page to the main. Thank you. Tvccs 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In following your instruction, I have posted the permissions e-mail timing, etc. at the copyrightvio page and on the discussion page. Tvccs 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt revison. Tvccs 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I have moved the subpage up to the main page. Also, I removed the email details above and obscured the email address on the article talk page per the standard method. Let's not make it easier for spammers. As far as notability, please do not confuse generic statements with this specific case. If I hadn't thought it passed, I would have deleted it as db-band. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the e-mail address in all cases, I would have done it as well, but you were right on that one in every instance. Tvccs 15:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

William Patterson
Hi,

I found another problem (what else is new?!?).

The entry for William Patterson (U.S. Politician) is actually two different people. Here is the entry from

The Political Graveyard showing both persons.

I'm not sure how to fix this. Would you please take a look at it when you have time? -- Michael David 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at it, and the input on how to deal with it. I'll do some more research (I won't spend too much time) and see if it's worth all the trouble. Thanks again --Michael David 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Use of User Warnings
Re:. The use of warning templates applied by editors on their own behalf has become a virtual epidemic in some areas. In my opinion and experience, this is most often used to irritate, bait, and annoy users involved in tense situations. I think somewhere there is a page WP:you _can_ be a dick, if you Salute Wikipedia policy while doing so. It's one thing to template a newbie, who you might actually be informing. It's another to repeatedly template someone with whom you are in dispute, particularly if it's not a clear-cut case. I'd prefer it if those templates came with guidance that they are not to be applied on your own behalf with an established editor. Nothing wrong with leaving a polite sentence on your own behalf asking the user to be civil or whatever; that has a totally different tone than repeated template spamming. Anyway, I'm just agreeing with you that it's harassment, and I'm glad to see it frowned on for once, rather than encouraged (although I do think Ben has more often been the victim of this). Derex 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment on leaving self-written, polite sentences over templates in such cases. To often, they have been used as a weapon and not for their intended purpose. It is far too easy to read the worst into an innocuous comment during a disagreement and decide it's an attack, etc. I'd prefer it was a guideline that editors could not use warning templates on established user's with whom they are actively engaged in a content dispute. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's processes (like WP:PAIN) are geared to a user being warned before they can be reported. Without that being changed, if someone found themselves in a dispute with a truly abusive user, they would have few official paths to utilize. -- JLaTondre 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough. On the other hand, if it's a truly abusive situation, it shouldn't be hard to find someone else uninvolved who'd be glad to place the required warning template. Cheers Derex 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments on link in Evergreen article
As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Evergreen_International_Aviation%2C_Inc. the corresponding SourceWatch article?] With thanks, --Neoconned 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter J. Turner article
Hi,

Would you please take a look at the latest edits to the Walter J. Turner article. I had simply added B & D dates, etc, but the latest anonymous edits really do stray from the usual Wiki style, and have no source. I'm not sure what to do in this case.

I wanted to go ahead and revert it, saying to the editor that they needed to sight sources, but I wasn't sure if that wasn't too bold. Perhaps I need to learn to be more assertive, and less polite? I need your thoughts on this.

Thanks for your time.

Be healthy,


 * Michael David 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to give the anonymous editor the benefit of the doubt and left the body of their edit intact. I did add the unreferenced tag, and a note on the article's Talk Page. Thanks, as always, for your help.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Altounyan article
Hi,

The Articles on Roger Edward Collingwood Altounyan & Roger Altounyan are the same person. The latter one is more complete. This seems a rather simple redirect, but every time I try to do a redirect I still seem to screw it up. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Would you please take at look at these articles when you have time?

Thanks,


 * Michael David 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice work! I'm going to do some more research and see if I can find his full dates of B&D (I have a self-admitted compulsion with that!). Thanks for your work.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Modern Latin
Before destroying my modest contribution, you could see what modern Latin is... Thank you for being honest and objective with our language ! alexandre.rousset@free.fr

change to WBFAN
Hi - The edit summary for this edit says "fixing links to disambig pages", but in addition it changed the star characters from &amp;#9733; to the Unicode ★ character. Unless I change the script that generates this page to use the Unicode ★ character rather than &amp;#9733; they'll all change back the next time I update the page. Do you have a strong preference for using the Unicode character directly? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I used WP:AWB to expedite the changes and it also converts to Unicode by default. I don't have a preference & probably should have disabled that setting. If I had noticed that list was generated via a script, I wouldn't have bothered to edit it. Hopefully, the fact that I piped the article title on the list page won't cause your script a problem? I didn't want to change the page appearance since it was originally nominated before it was moved for a disambig page, but I wanted the link to point to the actual article. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The pipe is not a problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup
Thanks for the refresher regarding RFD closures. I knew I'd missed something important along the way. Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading Progam
Why should we keep this article? Why don't we also create Readin Program, Readig Program, Reading Porgram, Margorp gnidaer, and the other 8 million misspellings? (written with sarcasm) &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Importance

 * My pleasure, but don't worry, various bots date such monthly maintenance templates. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 3 December 2006 (GMT).

Grumble-On this narrow decision
I've been off dealing with real life priorities, and now that I'm getting some time again for wiki's I found this questionable decision by seeing your edit in. Worse, I have not the time just now to puruse your history and evaluate how many other identical pages on other sisters may have been damaged (interwiki link orphaned). re: this action &mdash; I'm ALWAYS a little miffed that there is no requirement to directly involve an originating editor in a discussion/deletion decision, especially one to require an attempt to email and post a talk (both should be mandantory, imho). In this case with it's overwhelming numerical vote margin (Not! It's a tie if you automatically add one keep from the originator), no consideration seems to have been given as to how many equivilent uses on foundation sister projects may now be bad links. Robust Interwiki link's are problematic enough amongst the nine sister's without this discussion/decision which seems to have assumed the other foundation projects are somehow second class, or that interconnnectivity of those minor sister's is unimportant. What really bothers me here is that some of the logic deposed in the two following redirects discussed were similarly applicable to this interwiki shortcut, and it was clearly tagged as having interwiki scope, iirc. Any 'sister project' will necessarily be in the context of some other project like Wikimedia Foundation's Wiki encyclopedia, and hence is quite unlikely to have ever been used as an article title inandofitself. In sum, once I look at the impact of this over in depth (during the next week or so&mdash;I'm still awfully busy in RL), I may have to ask the matter be revisited. I would have preferred with such a narrow vote and no overwhelming urgency to clear the title line, in particular without a good understanding of what might be 'broken' elsewhere, you would have let this one stand&mdash;or at least emailed me for input. Hurry slower when you don't know! Best regards // Fra nkB 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing redirects
Hi, I have a question about closing redirects and I know you have quite a bit of experience with that. When I close a redirect, am I allowed to count a vote I would have put on the subject? Or is that a conflict of interest? (Specifically, I am talking about Bt homehub for which I would vote delete because the target article contains no mention of the product.) -- Renesis (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)