User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2012/July

Talkback
Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Nancy J. Currie
I did miss that. Thank you. It got swept up in the cleanup of some overlooked, well, I can't quite call it vandalism but certainly an inappropriate enthusiasm by a single-purpose-account. Thanks for catching the error. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. When you recently edited NASA Social, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shorty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kevin Clash.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kevin Clash.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Tammar sudden death syndrome
I tried to garner more opinions for a consensus on the matter here. Unfortunately no-one has responded. You win by default. Axl ¤  [Talk]  18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thefuturechristinedaae
You requested someone block this editor. I looked and saw he (or she) had made just 3 edits and they looked like good-faith edits to me. Have you tried engaging with this editor to find out?

Take a look at:
 * WP:BITE
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NOTVANDAL

Thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the report of this user, several editors have warned this editor, each them the vandalism was reverted. They were not seen as good faith edits by the editors which reverted this vandalism.  This appears to be a single purpose account, given the fact that each of the edits since creation was reverted as vandalism and the fact that the username is related to the one and only article they have chosen to vandalize.--RadioFan (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's just one editor that warned the person 3 times and I think he was misguided, as I have expressed on his talk page.


 * Here are the three edits:


 * Can you demonstrate how each of these is deliberate, bad-faith vandalism? I can't. Can you show where anyone has tried to engage with this person after your initial welcome?
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That editor warned this person 3 separate times as you note. That was ignored.  I agree that the edits themselves are borderline unhelpful/vandalism, the account name tips it for me.  These appear to be made in bad faith.  If you disagree, feel free to engage with them.  I will be watching this editor's activity closely. --RadioFan (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't block editors for just 3 borderline unhelpful edits, especially if the only feedback they've been give on how to edit is to get bitten. We work with them to become more productive editors. You have the potential to be a good admin so it's important to understand how carefully we use the block tool in borderline situations. We need to develop all the good editors we can recruit; likewise we need to bring along as many good potential admins as we can. Our attrition of existing editors and admins exceeds our recruitment and development of new ones -- it's Wikipedia's biggest problem. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look at:
 * Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism
 * "Report only clear violations that do not require discussion or detailed explanations. If there is a reasonable chance that something may not be vandalism, it probably should be reported elsewhere, or not at all."


 * Vandalism
 * "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One final note: these 3 recent, widely-quoted articles explain some of what I was referring to above. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in becoming an admin. I've gone through the process before and it became very clear, very quickly that anyone who's views of the project stray from extreme inclusionism are not welcome among admin ranks. Even starting a discussion about a deletion or block is seen by many admins as indication that the editor under discussion would go on a deleting rampage should they be given the privilege. I see this "think like me or else" approach to adminship as unproductive and one of the many reasons that Wikipedia is losing admins and editors.

So thank you but no thank you. I find my place is best here, challenging admins to think before keeping articles whos quality only detracts from the project, hanging onto a hope that they will someday, somehow be improved as well as blindly extending olive branches to unproductive editors.

The editor in question has been warned, 3 times. You may see this editor as potentially productive, I dont. You continue to point to 3 edits but are not addressing the single purpose nature of this account. I say again, not only have all edits been unproductive, the account name matches the article they've been editing. Could this be a fan of the movie who is just a new editor that needs help? Maybe. It's more likely that this account was created with the sole purpose of adding their personal opinion. They've ignored all warnings. as well. A brief block will hopefully catch their attention a bit better.

I'll of course abide by whatever you decide here. I will be keeping an eye on this editor however. Should this continue, I'll be back to ask for a block again.--RadioFan (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WTBC logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:WTBC logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

the first band to have a website
Hello, RadioFan. Since I missed it, would you please point out the phrase in the sources supporting your edit? -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 22:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the reference immediately following the sentence in question, to an article in the Telegraph.--RadioFan (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "The Cernettes, founded in 1990 by Mrs de Gennaro, also claims to be the first band on the web". Not a word about "the first band to have a website", or I missed it. I guess "first band on the web" refers to the famous picture, not to the dedicated band website. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you find the claim to be too broad, then fix it. Dont just delete it.--RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I hope this variation is ok? -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I reworded a bit with more nuetral language.--RadioFan (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 06:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, thanks for your help here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish airport
Hello Radio Fan

Edremit Korfez Airport has changed name to Balikesir Koca Seyit Airport. I have managed to change the name to Balikesir Koca Seyit Airport on the article and also on the list of Turkish airports but I couldn't change the main name for the airport's article from Edremit Korfez to Balikesir Koca Seyit. Therefore, the header is still in old name. Can you please help? Thanks a lot. Cheers (Haksal (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Can you point to a reference for the name change?--RadioFan (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edremit_K%C3%B6rfez_Airport

I can't change the name of the airport on the header. I have updated the article to reflect the new name: Balikesir Koca Seyit Airport. The link for the article is above copied for you.

Also same thing in Airports in Turkey list under domestic airport listing trying to change from Edremit (EDO) to Balikesir Koca Seyit (EDO).

Thanks. (Haksal (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Without a reliable source documenting this name change, I'm sorry I cant help you.--RadioFan (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)