User talk:Mattarata/Archive 2007

Fashion blogs page -- advice please
Hi Mattarata,

I'd like to ask your advice on a referencing matter for the fashion blogs page. I'm editing it to remove material that uses other blogs as a reference.

There are two instances where blog references have been used to clarify or correct material that's been printed in reliable sources. (i.e. where the subject of a press article has corrected things that were said about them)

Does Wikipedia have a policy about this?

To give you the context, there have been a lot of press articles about the most financially successful blog in this space, Manolo's Shoe Blog. Two specific claims have been made in press articles that the blog's author disputes: firstly, that his was the first fashion blog, and secondly, that he makes US$700,000/year blogging (he confirms that he makes a six-figure amount, but not the amount stated).

Thank you in advance for any guidance you can provide on this matter.

PS: I've removed the "primarysources" template for now as all other material that used blogs for references has been removed. Hope this is OK.

Sara.g.goldstein 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice you left on my talk page.

I completely agree about the page being a spam magnet, but I guess there's not much that can be done beyond watching it closely?

Sara.g.goldstein 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mattarata! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lightwright
Your page looks much better. Thanks for adding the references. I noticed on your user page that one of your goals is to add and improve on theater articles relating to lighting. This is one of my goals too. Good luck!

Benjo 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco
Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page
Please do not tell me what to do on my talk page. 65.10.106.32 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There were no warnings on my talk page, so I am within my right to clear it. Please don't respond on my talk page or I will have to take this up with an administrator, consider this your first warning. Thank you. 65.10.106.32 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AYB
You're welcome to add that reference to the list if you like. Personally, I don't think it's significant enough to bother but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Orpheus 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Improv comedy references
I noticed you reverted an edit that removed a recently added references tag from Annoyance Theatre. The editor who did that has been removing or replacing these tags wholesale from comedy articles. Would you please take a look at his contribs? Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Future Fun Jumper (TIC) the changes that you are describing as having been made as "removing or replacing these tags wholesale from comedy articles" is a vast oversimplification and completely ignores your recent history wherein you yourself have taken it upon yourself to jump in out of nowhere, and arbitrarily tag many useful comedy articles for references or deletion. In fact, there's a clear pattern in your editing that seems to be very "slash and burn" wherin if it does not fit within your narrow view, the article should be deleted and that's it.  Since the Wiki is a collaborative effort, perhaps you should actually be discussing these changes before simply declaring articles deletion-worthy and dismissing practically any claim against it?  I've contributed to the Wiki in many respects and while I understand there are overriding concepts that dictate Wiki-style, I find the lack of true discussion/debate on your part coupled with your sudden appearance on the site less than a week ago to be quite dubious at best.SpyMagician 08:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
In a watch I got on the Morgan Webb article, it says "Revert to revision 110091304 dated 2007-02-22 16:27:22 by Punkalicious using popups". May I ask what did you meant with this? Punkalicious 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers
Hey Mattarata. I invite you to join and aid the WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, in our fight to provide complete and thorough knowledge of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, whether it be minor details or a complete revamp of an entire article. We aim to improve the quality and encyclopedic coverage on all articles within relation to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. The article's current state is improving drastically, and, with more widespread attention, GA status is not far away. Thanks for considering. Sincerely, NSR77 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I edited your discussion page a few times because I'm in the process of writing a proper invitational. Sorry if it came off as a bit odd =3. Thanks, NSR77 07:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for your help
No problem. Feel free to message if you need anything else. --Ann Stouter 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pligg undelete please
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pligg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter Vol. I, no. 1
The First Red Hot Chili Peppers Newsletter has been published. Please take the time to read and review any information. Thanks for being apart of the team! Regards, N SR 77  ( Talk 00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chad Smith.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chad Smith.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chad Smith.gif
Hello, Mattarata. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Chad Smith.gif) was found at the following location: User:Mattarata/Work Gallery. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lightwright logo.gif
Hello, Mattarata. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lightwright logo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Mattarata/Work Gallery. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lightwright screenshot.gif
Hello, Mattarata. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lightwright screenshot.gif) was found at the following location: User:Mattarata/Work Gallery. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2
The Second Red Hot Chili Peppers Newsletter has been published. Some interesting things have happened in the Wikipedia world of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, so please take the time to read and review any information. Thanks for being apart of the team! Regards, N SR 77  ( Talk 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Burstable billing
Don't know if you remember editing this article, but an anonymous user noticed that the same text is being used by a web server hosting company, see Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. — CharlotteWebb 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Mattarata 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

steve the noob
please see below:

11 September 2007 (diff) (hist). . N User talk:Mastny‎; 13:54. . (+1,521) . . Mattarata (Talk | contribs) (Welcome to wikipedia!) (diff) (hist). . m The Raven‎; 05:42. . (+1) . . Mastny (Talk | contribs) (→External links - - edited prairie home companion / garrison keillor audio link to include only poetry reading (old link included about 5 minutes of superfluous show material)) 9 September 2007 (diff) (hist). . Talk:The Raven‎; 12:08. . (+8) . . Midnightdreary (Talk | contribs) (FAC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist"

what does the green +(arbitrary seeming number) text mean?

p.s. man, you've got some pretty contentious stuff going on this talk page. good god man, but you've pissed a few people off! :)

p.p.s. is there a spell checker built into the wikipedia edit page? i did not see it on first glance. if there isn't, it really seems like there should be.

p.p.p.s. whew, that's a lot of p's.  i can't seem to get the above to show up in color, and i don't feel like looking into it right now. original questions still stands, the numbers simply aren't green at this point.

--Mastny 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * -The green number indicates the amount of characters that were added to the article. Conversely, that number is (red (-) negative) if the total number of characters for the article went down.Lots of wikipedians monitor their watchlists to looks for changes in the articles they are interested in. If an edit is made to an article, they can easily review the edit by accessing the change through the watchlist.


 * -The red/green number of characters helps to identify at a glance if the change that was made was very large, perhaps requiring closer inspection, or relatively minor and can probably not even reviewed.


 * -For example....if you saw an edit to your own talk page that had (red -1,521), that would mean that somebody removed a lot text from somewhere within the article...and to me would indicate vandalism, upon inspection I would probably revert the change. Typically users do not remove content from other people's talk pages without asking or without notifying the user. Conversely an addition of a large amount of characters to an established article might indicate that the editor is trying to insert some content that would be questionable.


 * Yeah, starting wikipedia wars with foreigners is fun


 * there is no built in spellchecker...however Firefox version 2 has built in spellchecker for all text form fields. It underlines words it thinks are mis-spelled and you can right click on them to pull up possible substitutions. Once again, Firefox is superior.


 * im sure there is a way to change the color of your text, you probably have to use standard html markup. --Mattarata 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)