User talk:Lexein/Archive 2

the talk page post that triggered the post below this one
(''(In response to this edit and this broken text and broken reference(#8) I wrote this on User:Wildhartlivie's talk page:)
 * ==Dennis Hopper==
 * Thanks for the enthusiastic editing, but
 * please don't uncomment and "deadlink" broken links without repairing them. Drive-by tagging disrespects other editors.
 * note that "deadlink" doesn't work if placed incorrectly.
 * please don't delete YouTube links without checking authorship first. The AP video cite you broke and deadlink tagged was published by the Associated Press under their long-established legitimate YouTube account.


 * I'm just saying, please slow down, respect the work of other editors, and visually examine the results of your edits. --Lexein (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Then User:Wildhartlivie deleted it from (her?) talk page, so I'm restoring it to my own, inviolate, talk page. Then User:Wildhartlivie wrote this:

Dennis Hopper
I had a long post typed out and my browser froze and I lost it. Essentially it said that I have been editing here for nearly 4 years, made in excess of 54,000 edits, co-wrote a featured article, wrote a featured list, and four good articles and I have never gotten a talk post like the one you left to me. It is completely improper to comment out incorrect or deadlinks and hide them from view - that prevents any other editors from fixing it since it hides it from scrutiny. That is precisely why we have and it is in no "disrespectful to other editors" to replace improperly commented out text with the dead link template. I have never seen any indication that deadlink tags "will not work". Commenting them out also hides them from being repaired when using the checklinks tool since the tool would pass right over them. Effectively, you are hiding it from repair. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "disrespecting editors" and it is no way "drive-by tagging." Editors work on this encyclopedia every day, run tools that tag deadlinks and do not, and do not intend to come back and fix them. The two chores are not interconnected, they are different tasks, both legitimate and I have never seen a comment, guideline or policy anywhere that tagging deadlinks is "disrespectful". And I would suggest rather than return a "reference" that requires the reader to access other computer software, such as using YouTube, is inappropriate, especially when running the Checklinks tool yields multiple replacement citations for the deadlink that you deleted. Sorry, I just don't see your point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my (deleted by you) post in its entirety. I did not write it to upset you. If you wish to replace the nonfunctional citations which I finally deleted with functional ones, good on you. Your bias against YouTube videos is noted, but insufficient justification for their deletion, if legal. Furthermore, I "replaced" nothing: I restored a pre-existing valid cite you damaged, and removed an invalid cite you restored. Thank you for discussing this. --Lexein (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deadlinks should not be deleted, as I've indicated in the above section.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopper 2
No, but when something valid happens to get stuck in with other edits which are not helpful, sometimes they get removed, much like dead links get ignored when commented out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. But it looks like there have been some useless anon edits and other such nonsense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

diverged conversation
At the risk of accidentally starting a third conversation, would you rather I reply to you at User talk:pd_THOR or Talk:Antitrust (film)? The former makes specific inquiries and statements to which I can reply, but the latter is more centralized and probably appropriate as the discussion is moreso about the article. I don't want to instigate yet another discussion here, but wanted to inquire so. That being said, I probably won't see your reply here or make mine wherever you request until morning/early afternoon CDT; I'm exhausted tonight (not the best time to conversate or edit), and its well past my bedtime. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SineBot
Do your duty. --Lexein (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Walk of Fame
No problema. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the "re-alphabetized after vandalism (or illiteracy) which results in names being misalphabetized (remember: R is before S, G is after F, etc.)" edit summary comment. I thought the last anonymous IP was back to his/her old tricks. Please accept my apologies for my rash and unprofessional comment. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No biggie. I've laid down a few scorchers myself, in my impetuous youth. --Lexein (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

LMAO
your profile is possibly even cooler than mine. wish I had Wikipedia stalkers. oh and thanks for the heads up on my talk page. Nobody else ever showed me that cool scratch-over-edit-with-line-thingy thing. Cheers, mate. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

POGO
My main involvement with Project on Government Oversight was in the AfD a couple of years ago. Like you, I think it's notable -- but I don't have a particular passion to improve the article.

I think the problems with this article are common to articles about NGOs and similar entities. Regardless of what Wikipedia contributors try to do to provide appropriate sources, wikify the article, etc., paid PR people from the organization show up and make non-Wikipedia-like changes. These PR people seldom seem to be interested in learning about Wikipedia policy or responding to communications. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater references
Normally, I don't go that drastic, but the references were too numerous to even get to the bottom of the page to see the external links. If people want to see the resulting references, they could simply read it on an individual basis like they were meant to anyway. I'm anxious to see the reference tool you are referring to, because it could really come in handy with some other articles.--Hourick (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK-Sigur Plateau
Citation(3 ) changed. No longer ambiguous.- Marcus334  (Talk)  22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Doomsday Gun
Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Query
Are you sure about this? It seems to restore some errors to the article. See WP:OVERLINK to learn more about why we don't need to link to countries and other near-universally understood terms. --John (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, now, with unlinking excessive links - thanks for the guideline.
 * But I prefer accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD and archivedate=YYYY-MM-DD format, because such dates are primarily of interest to editors, not readers, and administrivia should be visually de-emphasized. In fact, :
 * 1. Smith, John (May 1, 1938). Tragedy Common. New York: Example, p. 72. Retrieved 2011-20-19. Archived from the original on 2011-02-17.
 * is neater and less confusing to the reader than this:
 * 1. Smith, John (May 1, 1938). Tragedy Common. New York: Example, p. 72. Retrieved February 19, 2011. Archived from the original on February 17, 2011.


 * In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay edit
Thanks for your revision on The Pirate Bay article. I was glancing through the article earlier (after noticing that the site seemed to be temporarily down), but I knew that the claim of it going down in April was false as my roommate used it just last night.

What would have been a more proper way to deal with it? Should I have simply removed the erroneous portion and left my reasoning in the editing comments? Or is there a way to flag content to be reviewed (and mention why I'm flagging it)? Kuloch (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's proper to delete content which is not supported by an inline citation of a reliable source (after a source search, per WP:BURDEN), so yes, simply remove it.  Yep, always leave a short but clear edit summary.  (My overlong summary was advice to newcomers, and an alert that we, the "most interested editors" of this article typically deliberately ignore TPB up/down transients, per WP:NOTNEWS.)
 * At least add the template Citation needed; that's certainly a kind of request for review. Sadly, this is frequently ineffective: unsourced claims can persist and get echoed around the wiki-sphere, which could actually be wrong (see WP:BLP and these three false claims at Helena Christensen). Deletion is sadly the most effective blunt instrument to inspire the adding editor to cough up up a source. Non-rude edit summaries minimize the sting of the revert by explaining it.
 * --Lexein (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge
Hello! Your submission of Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2030 (novel)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Return (2011 film)
Apologies - I got the disambig term in the wrong place, then moved it to the correct place. I've fixed the double redirects.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For you...

 * Thanks. We're all on the lookout. Including the visitors, apparently (no pressure - heh). --Lexein (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)