User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 3

=2010=

Promise theory page
I apologize, I don't really know how to reply to you about change. However, you are incorrect in undoing the previous change. OUC is the copyright holder for the page you mention, and the edit was a significant technical correction for the rather inadequate and misleading information that you replaced. Promise Theory is mainly the work of Professor Mark Burgess, a professor at our college, and we have been asked to improve the information posted by others who have only a partial understanding of this. We would appreciate the change being replaced for everyone's benefit. We have been careful to add references. Thank you. Ouc (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if you are the copyright holder, you must still grant Wikipedia permission to use your material. The procedures for accomplishing this can be found at Donating copyrighted materials. And thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia; I apologize if my warning seemed abrupt. I hope this situation can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Regards,-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the necessary text on the source pages, and will endeavour to put the text back into the article. Thank you. 90.152.67.76 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Caps?
Why caps for Every Word in a book title? A bit bizarre, isn't it? Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not bizarre at all, and usual Wikipedia capitalisation, per WP:CAPS (third paragraph). In library catalogs, of course, they often capitalize only the first letter of the first word and proper nouns in the title, but this isn't the practice followed by Wikipedia, or by most (I'm tempted to say "all") publications I can think of. And this does not reflect a UK English vs. American English difference, as far as I know. Capitalisation of the first and last words, and significant words in between, is standard in both countries.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:35, 5 January 2010


 * Yeah - Title_case. I can think of many better ways to spend my life than arguing across the Atlantic.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly seems I was mistaken about the differences between UK and U.S. norms, and I sincerely appreciate having learned something from the article you cited. But the controlling guideline here is the one agreed upon for Wikipedia, which I cited above. And I didn't think we arguing: I thought we were discussing. Regards,-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You changed The Biographical Dictionary of British Quakers in Commerce and Industry 1775-1920 to make it relatively illegible (to British eyes]. Complaining about americanisation of spelling, grammar, date formats or non-American notability, usually produces an argument, in my experience. Heavy snow here in Cornwall, UK - need to get on with shovelling our path and bringing in logs. Love and Peace  Vernon White  . . . Talk 09:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much
for your cleanup of the Jordan Galland table, could you please fix the other table if you get a chance, I can't appear to make it look the right way. Pumkinhead001 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I worked on the other table, and it looks okay now. If there's something you want to change, let me know. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci Beacoup
thanks again, looks lovely! I am working on a couple of other articles..Geminolais one... Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Films
Good point, went back and made dab pages. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, but typically separate pages aren't maintained for different types of uses of the same ambiguous term. So the pages you created should be redirects to the main dab pages--i.e. Wall Street (film) should be a redirect to Wall Street (disambiguation) and Stagecoach (film) should be a redirect to Stagecoach (disambiguation), and the redirects should be tagged with R from incomplete disambiguation.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  08:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, I hadn't read you closely enough (redirect being the keyword I missed). Sigh. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A hazard of late-night (or in this case wee-hours-of-the-morning) editing. I may have made a similar mistake or two under the same circumstances, but I'm too tired to remember right now... Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  08:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Giambarba


The article Paul Giambarba has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced BLP for almost 3 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy (disambiguation)
Thanks for your educational reversion of my edit to Happy (disambiguation). Though I did go back and redo the other part of my edit (namely replacing the hyphen), I've read through the deep dark depths of MOSDAB and found that you're correct. I have therefore made this same change to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (disambiguation), am contemplating sweeping changes to SAD, and have only you to blame for this new wiki-nitpickery. :-) -- Perey (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That guideline is fairly frequently discussed/debated and hardly universally followed. The point, as I'm sure you've surmised, is to show the primary topic associated with the term. But as long as users end up at the desired article, either through the redirect or the direct link, the dab page is doing its job, so it's not a big deal. Being a nitpicker, myself, though, I do try to keep the link in the right place. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It also has the convenient side effect of always going to "the primary topic associated with the term", even if the redirect is later modified because something else is deemed "primary". Which is what sold me on the idea -- because nitpicking is so much more satisfying when you can justify it. -- Perey (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For this --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Inspector (disambiguation)
This page is nearly perfect given Manual of style edits. Thank you for making such a concise and useful page. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. I just noticed that there were more uses than were covered in the hatnotes, so it needed to be done, and I'm glad you found it useful. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hidden anchors
Hi! I know, there are some false positives, but it is not easy to account for any possible way to create an anchor. I'm doing my best, but as you can see for example in List of Castle episodes, there is no section named ep18 neither a standard anchor template like anchor. No standard html anchor nor a ref with that name: the anchor is generated by the template Episode list from the parameter episode number. WildBot will remove any false positive box within minutes. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now FrescoBot will skip also section links to "ep1", "ep2", ..., "epxx". -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Survivor links
Can you discuss this on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kiss
A simple solution, but for some reason it never occurred to me! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was surprised to see that article gone myself, since it was blue not too long ago. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Josh Klein
It's a hoax. I listed it for speedy deletion. Woogee (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I noticed. I'm pretty sure it is a hoax, but I thought I'd AfD it in case somebody else knew something I didn't. But speedy works for me.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The maverick thing
I'm going to stay kind of quiet on this one to avoid my usual penchant for throwing fat on the fire, but I happen to agree with your position on the matter, so if you need a hand for a comment, vote, or whatever, I have the maverick page watchlisted, but if something pops up elsewhere, let me know and I'll take a peek. Montanabw (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know--thank you.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Galland
hi you did a great job with the table some time ago...I seemed to have goofed it up..can you help with this? thanks! Pumkinhead001 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
thanks! looks great!!

have a puppy! --Pumkinhead001 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Better feed the little rascal...-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Vamps
Hello! here is something else I created, but it got "incubated" feel freey to pretty this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Vamps_(film)

Pumkinhead001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

Awards chart
Hello again! also if you get a chance...can you do up a little chart for the awards section of Jordan Galland I can't seem to get it right..

thanks, Pumkinhead001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

disamb templates
Hello ShelfSkewed, can you please explain why this template would be pointless? I can think of a couple of good reasons to use it. Giuliopp (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you would share those reasons with me, because I suppose I take the opposite position: I can't think of a single reason to use that template. The correct format for the top of a disambiguation page is straightforward and easy to learn, and I don't see how the template makes it any easier. But my primary objection to templates for introductions and entries on disambiguation pages--particularly on (disambiguation)-titled pages, with a primary topic--is that enclosing the link in a template can make it inaccessible to some of the tools (including the one I use, Popups) used by editors when they are disambiguating incoming links. In fairness, I think that that happens not to be the case for this particular template, but I still don't see that the template is useful.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The advantages I see with disamb templates are that they automatically ensure consistency across all pages, and all pages can be changed at the touch of a button - e.g. if in future a new style/format of the opening line is introduced - instead of manually having to update hundreds of individual pages. I was not aware of the argument against, regarding editing tools. I guess the whole question has already been debated somewhere (maybe you can point me to it?). Assuming then that there is a consensus on not using templates in disamb pages, why do such specific templates exist in the first place? --Giuliopp (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They exist because most of them were created by the same editor, who probably didn't/doesn't spend much time disambiguating incoming links. As far as the templates simplifying a transition from one format to another, I could argue that it's just as likely that a new format could be completely incompatible with the existing template syntax. The issue has not been extensively discussed; I could find only one recent discussion. You are certainly welcome to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and solicit more points of view. Perhaps I am in the minority.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The ease of maintainability I mentioned refers more to the wording, in case one day, for example, it is agreed that the words "may refer to" should change to "can refer to". That is by itself a significant advantage of templates, in my view. In any case, I thought that templates were more part of WP guidelines (or even part of the wikisoftware), rather than a particular editor's own initiative. I also gather that templates are not particularly popular, at least on disamb pages, so won't bother to raise the issue for now. --Giuliopp (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm not sure if I'll use the feature a lot, since I do tend to be pretty cautious about reverting too quickly or too much. But it is nice to know I'm a trusted user. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  13:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
I should have added that bit myself. Thanks for catching it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A (Kannada film)
Hi, can you explain why you moved A (Kannada film) to A (1998 Indian film)? Your edit summary was "Standard disambiguation by year, and by country to distinguish from Japanese film". What standard is this, and is always having to include the year a rule or just a guideline? (Why is it crucial to have the year in the title?) How does "A (Kannada film)" fail to distinguish from the Japanese film? Why must the title contain the country rather than the language? Shreevatsa (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant guidelines are Naming conventions (films). Primary disambiguation is done by year; if there are two films with the same title in the same year, then another descriptive term is added, usually the country of origin or the type of film (feature, short, documentary, animated). But the guidelines do not require that the country be used; if you would prefer to disambiguate to A (1998 Kannada film) that would be fine. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I'll follow up on the page you linked. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect fix
Thanks for this. I was, erm, not thinking straight :) — Huntster (t @ c) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Articles about that song do keep bouncing up and moving around. I wonder if there's a way to make a game out of it. Gooooal! Regards-- Shelf Skewed   Talk  20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I rofl'd a bit at that one. I'm no good at coming up with rules, so you'll need to organise the event. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DuPont
Please explain how this edit is supported by MOS:DABRL. I am not trying to be difficult, but I just don't see it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the article's edit history. I mistakenly linked to the wrong section of the guidelines in my first edit summary, but provided a followup blank edit with the summary linking to the correct section, WP:INTDABLINK, which reads, in part: "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect.... This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones."-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I give up, the reasoning for link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect.... makes absolutely no sense to me, but what do I know... – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones." For editors who fix incoming links to disambiguation pages, it is useful to know which links are accidental and require fixing, and which are intentional and can be left alone.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Good Enough (disambiguation)"
Hi, ShelfSkewed. Forgive my recent reversion of the Good Enough (song) article. I saw your first notation directing attention to WP:INTDABLINK and read the section carefully before reverting and I saw nothing in the hatnote area requiring the addition of "(disambiguation)" to a link, only that an article with a common name should contain a link to the disambiguation page (which was directly done already). I saw that you had restored your edit today but with only the same link to WP:INTDABLINK with no further comment or explanation. Re-reading the section, perhaps you meant to link to WP:FURTHERDAB which directly defines exactly what you were doing: "Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page."

Anyway. I just wanted to comment that further explanation in an edit summary (or perhaps a message on the article's, or editor's talk page) could prevent an edit war in the future with someone who doesn't go to such lengths as I did to try understanding what it is you meant.

Thanks for understanding.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies to you for linking to the wrong explanation. The section linked to by WP:INTDABLINK used to lead with the information that is now further down under WP:FURTHERDAB, but I didn't keep up with the change and so sent you to a section that didn't match the situation. Thanks for persevering and figuring out what I meant. And you're right: I should have expanded on my explanation rather than repeating it. Regards,-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  02:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

wilco
I believe we should keep the main meaning (the voice procedure call) as the opening entry in the disambiguation page. Lwyx (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:DAB, the topic for which a (disambiguation)-titled page is named always goes at the top, the point being that this is the use visitors to the dab page are least likely to want, probably just having come from the main article, so putting it at the top keeps it out of the list of other meanings, one of which the user probably does want. This separation also serves users who arrive at the dab page by another path, since they will find the use they are most likely to want right at the top.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger that. Wilco. :o) Lwyx (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page
With the multiple unstated reversions recently with this page, i am of the mind to ask for page protection, what do you think? I have left a message here for said user. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempting to start a conversation as you have is a good first step. If the editor continues to refuse to discuss or explain, but also continues to make the same edit, then, yes, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask for protection. At the very least we'd get an admin's eyeball on the situation and perhaps another perspective on how to proceed.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Missiles
Bud Webster here. Humph. I don't believe for a minute that you even have missiles, Shelfskewed, but for the sake of my books I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I bet I have more than you do, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.247.126 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! I stockpiled quite a few before giving up on RCB (hint, hint). But I vowed to use them only for good, so I wouldn't really aim them at you. Regards -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Whoops. Didn't even notice your comment. Okay, I'll leave the links alone on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the pages already contain links to the relevant season and/or episode list anyway. I was mainly using unlink to remove the links from the episode lists so that they don't create circular linkage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for beating me to this. I went to revert it and saw that you'd already taken care of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. You were just giving the new thing a tryout...which probably means you're more open-minded than I am. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hudson Ford - Revelations
Wgy did you delete this reference? The Group was real, the album is real and the song is real! So there isn't a page on Wiki at the momeny. Take a look at the Deaths page. The lack of a page does not nullify the existence of something. On top of that I have just written a novel based on the ideas behind the song. Can we please leave this reference in until someone writes a page about it? Williamgeorgefraser 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)


 * Disambiguation pages are not indexes of every possible use of a term, however valid. They are navigation pages dependent on Wikipedia article content. If a topic is the subject of, or is mentioned in, a Wikipedia article, it should be listed on the dab page; if not, not. There is currently no information about the Hudson Ford song in Wikipedia, not even a passing mention in any related article, so there is nothing for a user to navigate to for further information about the song. The solution is simple: Add a mention of the song to the Hudson Ford article, if there is some reason it is worth mentioning separately; or write an article about the album, with a track listing; or write an article about the song, if it meets the notability requirements at WP:SONG. If you don't wish to write the album or song article yourself, you may add one or the other at the requested articles page.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19
In light of your previous participation in this conversation, you may wish to opine in the deletion discussion for Delirious (disambiguation) and The Choir (disambiguation) now underway at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Supafest Article
Dear ShelfSkewed, Don't you think that the article needs an inbox photo? The official poster is on google look up "Supafest Poster".11:01, 12 November 2010 User:K.M.D1994 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any particular interest in the Supafest article; all I did was disambiguate a link there. I think the place to raise this issue is at Talk:Supafest, or discuss with Ozurbanmusic, who seems to have the most sustained interest in the article. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MOS DAB
Thanks for revert at Aftermath. It's a while since I read WP:MOSDAB, and I'd not seen that bit – it makes good sense. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to Untitled Books
(Original message copied from Talk:ShelfSkewed)

I have been complementing writers' pages with links for Untitled Books website, where they have been featured or contributed.

My contributions have been consistently erased by the user ShelfSkewed under the banner of spam. Untitled Books is a serious publication, of the likes of The Paris Review or McSweeney. I don't see other users erasing links to these websites or others, such as The Guardian or The Times.

I have been warned that if I keep adding contributions my account will be cancelled. I tried to contact ShelfSkewed and the only reply I have received was more threats of being banned.

Mfceia (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly adding links to a site with which you are affiliated is spamming. The seriousness or relevance of your publication is not an issue. There are a lot publications out there, and if all of them added all their links to every related article, Wikipedia articles would all be trailing huge linkfarms, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. If you feel that a link to your publication would be a useful addition to an article, the way to go about it is to suggest it on the Talk page of the article. If another editor agrees with you, the link might be added to the article. But adding the links yourself is a conflict of interest and inconsistent with the aims of Wikipedia.


 * In addition to (and I note here that the blog editor of Untitled Books is Miguel Fernandes Ceia) links to Untitled Books have been spammed by:
 * (the editor of Untitled Books is Farhana Gani)


 * -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional users spamming these links:




 * -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  11:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd not call these links spam as such, which I'd restrict to links trying to sell something. However, I think the links do fail WP:ELNO: external links should only be for sites including information which could not be included in the article.  If there is good info in the link, that material should be included in the article, giving the link as a ref.


 * These editors do need to be extremely careful not to violate WP:COI. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming Home (Iron Maiden song)
Hi there. I was wondering if you had any references for the chart figures in that article. I couldn't find any, and specific figures like that need sources. Without the charts section, there's really no point in maintaining it as a seperate article, so if you had references for that it'd be helpful. Cheers, C628 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the numbers from the Iron Maiden discography page--lazy of me, I know--and it appears that those were added by this editor with a history of adding unreferenced and suspect chart info. I couldn't confirm any of those numbers at the sites used for referencing on the discog page, so I guess it should all go.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Lethem
Thanks for restorng my edits to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Sometimes good bots do bad things, I guess. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  06:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The good doctor (phrase)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The good doctor (phrase), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Good Doctor. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for putting me straight re DAB inclusion criteria here.

That's a mistake for me not to repeat!

I know you're just the messenger, & you rightly pointed me to the place to discuss the issue.

I won't go that far, although I am rather astonished at the policy.

After all, it means that if one's a barely-notable musician, one can possibly get loads of links to one's article. For every album where one's not had the inventiveness to think of a unique name, that's one link for each.

Then, let's say your article provides all the tracks listings for each album you've been involved with. If your lack of invention extends to the song titles, too, then each song could get you another link. Multiply this by the no. of all such musicians, and WP becomes one very cluttered encyclopaedia!

End of rant - please excuse me. But you do see where I was coming from, don't you?

Not to worry, we can't fix everything (& I lack the stomach to campaign for a policy-change!).

But thanks again for correcting my changes, showing me the policies & where I could take it further. You did a good job. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In one area, at least, I agree with you. I've long thought that it would be great if some Wikipedia editor could come up with a better song indexing system (a template, perhaps, that could be used on all album pages) and all those non-articled songs could be replaced with a single pointer to an index page. In the meantime, however, what I've found is that if you try to remove those songs, they will keep coming back. Users really seem to want them there, and the best you can do is to try to keep the entries neat & organized. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of the Blue
Hello, I see that you have edited my entry for Elton John's instrumental "Out of the Blue". I'm not sure that removing the links for the sake of being neat and tidy provides any clarity to the entry. If an article exists in Wikipedia about Elton John or the Top Gear series, why not link to it? Is there a specific code of conduct regarding linking to other articles? Also, I'm not sure why you moved the entry to the bottom of the list. As far as I can tell, the list is in alphabetical order, by band or the first name of artist. If the object of Wikipedia is to educate, I'm not convinced that your edit provides a justifiable contribution to this cause. Only allowing one link per entry may be aesthetically pleasing, to you, but is rather limiting. Unless you can convince me or point towards a policy regarding linking in articles, I propose to re-edit, adding the links, but keeping your general edit. Thanks, and in good faith. 96.248.139.183 (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a general policy limiting the number of blue links in each entry to one; see MOS:DABENTRIES. The policy is also stated in a notice at the top of the "edit this page" page for every dab page. The bullet-point version of disambiguation-page style is at WP:DDD. As for the order of the entries, yes, I did that partly for esthetics. If you'd like to move the entry back to where it was, I won't kick. Happy editing!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen many articles with numerous irrelevant blue links, and would agree that we should limit them to what is relevant to the subject matter, allowing the reader to navigate easily to articles that are related to the primary search result rather than using an overkill of blue linking, which only serves to make it more difficult to find what is most pertinent for further reading. In this instance I feel that Elton John and Blue Moves are relevant as blue links and help the reader navigate to further relevant reading.  However, I am happy to bow to consensus, and if it has been decided to limit blue links to exactly one in disambiguation articles, it is not for me to fight this policy. Thanks for your guidance on this matter.96.248.139.183 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Driven (American magazine)


The article Driven (American magazine) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable magazine lacking Ghits and GNEWS. Appears to fail lWP:NOTBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ttonyb (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)