User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 5

imdb-sourced articles
Hi SunCreator, by this edit i just removed BLP unsourced and BLP PROD which you had added yesterday to Diana Pang article. Hey, the screen credits and the birth date and perhaps more are sourced in the IMDB external link in the article. Don't you agree? I am worried that we might possibly work at cross-purposes, as I am more and more planning to sweep through BLP unsourced to remove tags for IMDB supported articles, but i don't want to be cancelling another editor's efforts or vice versa. I wonder if your PROD was because you judge IMDB not to be a reliable source (in which case an IMDB-specific tag might be used) or because you judge External links as not references (in which case there's some tag saying sources aren't clear due to lack of inline references). Or was it just a mistake? I'll watch here, but please also see and consider commenting in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider IMDB a reliable source due to it's ease of hoaxing. If I thought the external link was a reference I'd move it into a reference section accordingly (example), either inline or not. The brns source does look okay, so looks like I prodded that article in error. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, and i appreciate how you handled the Pedro Mu one for example. I don't deeply understand the IMDB reliability issue, but i have been understanding that at least many editors believe IMDB is reliable for some information, such as for screen credits, which are apparently entered/controlled centrally.  There are links to past IMDB discussions reachable from the discussion i point to.  It seems to me confusing and possibly wrong then to tag an article for BLP unsourced, or to advance a BLP prod with partial reason that it is unsourced, when in fact there is IMDB source present.  Seems to me an "IMDB refimprove" tag is needed (like being discussed), or some other reason for PRODing needs to be given.  Or at least that would be better for clarifying the issues to new contributors and avoiding rehashing old arguments with experienced editors.  I am just thinking out loud here, would like to get help in getting a more specific IMDB tag up to speed.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of IMDB (which could be wrong as that is not an area I hang out on) is like Wikipedia in that some entries are editorial checked, think of GA or FA articles on Wikipedia, but the majority of entries are user submitted/updated and maybe incorrect or an attempted hoax, the equivalent of a Stub on Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

N.I.N.A
Given the discussion under Dream Focus's oppose, what part of my behaviour did you find a sign of unlevelheadedness?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, you are good at stating your reasoning when it had to be provided but that you don't allow another options or agreement to develop. It's like you are bashing people into submission rather then encouraging a mutual way forward. In doing so you potentially making enemies of others rather then getting them on your side. It's the same thing with CharlieJS13, you didn't have to edit war him into a ban. You could of taken up the discussion with him or explained he didn't have consensus. In both cases you now have others who are less likely to support you later. While this is okay to a degree, the problem I have in a RFA situation is that a Sysop doing this sets examples to others and the more you do this the more it encourages others to do the same. A long way from a Wikipedia that is 'calm and civil' which I would like to see. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your RFA by the way - pretty much a done thing now. Although I hope you will see where I'm coming from and that you work towards 'calm and civil' in your own way. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish things had gone better with Silver Seren: I was honestly taken by surprise by the strength of her reaction after a no-consensus, especially when she had agreed on the talk page during the first AFD that there was no album titled "N.I.N.A.". As for CharlieJS13, I'm open to suggestion as to what I should have done differently. By the time I got involved, he had already been blocked once for erasing the user pages of editors that he disagreed with. My first interaction was leaving an explanation on his talk page as to why the credits are like they are: no warnings, no threats. I put a 3RR warning on his page after the next revert, and filed the 3RR report after he reverted once again. I removed that 3RR report as soon as he began to talk at the project page, and wasn't involved in that block: another editor put the articles back to the BMI version, and CharlieJS13 was blocked for reverting that editor. When he came back, his first edits were to go to ANI and delete statements from other editors before taking back off on the edit war. I agree that the net result of this is that he is basically being clubbed into submission, but I haven't seen any sign that he has listened to anything the people he is disagreeing with are saying at any point.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With SilverSeren there was opportunities to find a solution,after Ginsengbomb had given agreement and again when the SilverSeren's option of 'relist it' became open. Taking it to AFD2 and pointing out the relist option was somewhat like adding salt to the wounds I feel.
 * For CharlieJS13 replying to the unchallenged talk pages Talk:Bad_Romance, Talk:Poker_Face_(Lady_Gaga_song) may of helped. At first they did not write (and most likely didn't read) edit summaries and therefore article talk page was the expected method of communication. Since the block of course(and perhaps before) this newbie has gone into covering up things, most like not realising that a pages history can be accessed and hence removal of stuff from ANI and talk pages. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 singles
Hi mate, I wanted to get your opinion on an issue to do with the top 10 singles articles. Do you think that the "Entries by artist" table should only include singles that peaked in that year or should it also include songs that remained in the top 10 for a couple of weeks into that year but peaked in the previous year? My reason for asking is that I have just finished the 2005 list and have included members of Band Aid 20 in the figures for multiple number-ones, even though the song did not peak that year? Any thoughts appreciated. Cheers. 03 md  09:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello? 03  md  23:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't have much time to deal with things at the moment. So pass by for 30 secs and gone again. In my view such things as 2004 peaks/2006 peaks should not be covered at all in a 2005 list. The lists should show the peak for that year in question and leave it at that. If you did a list for 1982 would you say Don't Stop Believin' peaked at #6 when it didn't do that until 18 years later? I think not. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Airplay, Billboard & Digital Charts review
Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. |A.B.D Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy? I think it will be a guideline. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help
as English is not my native language, and I do not have a big experinece of particp[ation in English wiki, as well as I am from the country that has expensive inetrnet connection (so I could allow my slef to visit wiki only few times a week) may you help me to organize Talk:Deletion Wars ? (Idot (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
 * It is not a topic that has my interest. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Это не тема, которая имеет свою заинтересованность. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kade Weston
Thanks for the heads up. I have added more info and some sources. I hope that means it will no longer be up for deletion. --Tocino 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a reference. BLP prod now removed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: References and External links
Thanks for that! I usually thought that the two sections were more or less one in the same. Patken4 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Sandbox
Hi - creating a Sandbox page for a fully protected article is fairly standard practice - it will be deleted again when the page is unprotected. Best, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixing
Hello Suncreator, I noticed this edit to a FA I wrote. Were you just looking for those two typos, or are there others you can look for? My work can be typo-prone, so if you could check for other mistakes, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, in progress. Will look at your last 5000 contributions and this list of articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way RegExTypoFix is checking for about 3500 plus different typos. Yesterday I checked the FA North Carolina class battleship as I ran the check through all the current Featured articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 54 unique articles checked, two articles found with typos that are now fixed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears that my typing is better than I thought. :) Thanks very much, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  17:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnolfini
Hi. I reverted your edit as the festival is called the "Inbetween Time Festival of Live Art and Intrigue", not "In between", as per the reference. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
– xeno talk 13:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo Fixing
I'm doing a Typo Fix with AWB. It involves creating a list in AWB of articles with potential typos and then manually checking before applying each change. Due to the number of edits it's likely I'll make a mistake or two. If I have, feel free to revert the edit. It would be nice if you let me know what the issue is also so I don't repeat the mistake. Many of the edits involve changing 'etc' to 'etc.' as recommended by Manual of Style (abbreviations), although I do them with caution as many times it tends to break a sentence. If that is the issue consider rewording the sentence.
 * Progress:
 * ~ 3400 Chess articles ✅ 27-28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ~ 2850 FA-Class articles ✅ 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ~ 4350 A-Class articles ✅ 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ~ 9100 GA-Class articles ✅ 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 67489 B-Class articles Current task in progress(Started 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod removal
Hi, I've just done a merge that you deserve an explanation about as you've recently edited the article. See Talk:Uluç Bayraktar. Cheers  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see one of the articles merged is prior to the 18 March WP:STICKY date. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Raquel Horton
Please see the history of the article: one edit before you added an unreferenced BLP tag, a rather inexperienced newbie IP editor removed the one source which verified the one statement I had left in the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out; I saw the categories you added. I have little hope for Ms. Horton's long-term wiki career, but at least I wanted to let her have a fair shot. I don't think a speedy A7 applies anymore either, but if you wanted to prod it I couldn't disagree. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, looks good now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixes: "ie"
Watch out with this one: "ie" is the country code for Ireland, and a lot of their websites use that as the domain. "Fixing" that could break the link. Just a heads up. f o x 10:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB should avoid those if it's in an http string / template. Shadowjams (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does wokr okay for any www.like.ie because of the dot in front of the ie. I only had only time ie was an issue and that was on an article about domain names. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you using...
What script are you using to add ‎ ( template added)  to all of those articles? Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No script, good old copy & paste, i.e pressing Ctrl-v! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an interest I'm using AWB to locate articles, then mass opening them(with (ctrl-A), right click - open in browser) then they all get loaded into Firefox tabs. Then checking each page - and dis-guarding some(close tab), select edit and past and same in the edit summary which Firefox thankfully suggests is ' add template' from a previous save. All rather simple but effective none the less. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. That's interesting. I'm considering working on a few API related projects so I'm asking around if I see something similar to try and pick people's brain for ideas. Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just make sure you check the article completely - this edit was to an article with a reference clearly listed. Not inline, not online, but a reference none-the-less.The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right, a reference after the end of page template. I do check the whole page, but that one I missed. Thanks for correcting. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rashmi Bansal
Hi, Quite a few reference are available on article. Do you still think it is still it should contain  ? Viral sachde (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine now :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Viral sachde (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dupes
Hi Suncreator, great work on tagging, but two things about this one. Firstly you wound creating a duplicate tag, when you looked at it in preview both tags would have looked the same. But more importantly if you change unreferenced to unreferencedBLP its important to tag it with the current month and year - otherwise you could wind up adding articles into the backlog.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, sorry. when I made that edit I thought and  where two different tags. I was thinking that  was  i.e  for BLPs. But the wording is not reference improve but total unsourced. More then a bit confusing, and I got confused. Since late May 1, I been using  see => here. Regarding the date I understand the categorisation problem but not sure it's correct to remove the date. If a living person has been incorrectly tagged as  to change it to  and then let it be labelled  is in itself somewhat problematic. Because it would indicate the article is unreferenced since May 2010, but in fact it's unreferenced since July 2007. Anyway to resolve that issue I am no longer amending, but adding a second  only instead. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There were some discussions about this earlier this year, the consensus that emerged was that as certain editors are targeting the backlog of unreferenced BLPs it is inappropriate to add to the earlier months, and the date should mean this article has been tagged as both unreferenced and a BLP since this particular month.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A list
Hey SunCreator. I know you are active with UBLPs so I thought you would be best to talk to. I made a list of WP:BLPs that are referenced only by myspace. I don't know if it will be of any use to you, but the list is here. Tim 1357  talk  05:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of PRODs & AfDs in your future, SunCreator :) --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very useful, a few were already tagged as refimproveBLP, I've tagged the rest, and tagged them as self-published.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim! Really useful. Real life getting in the way for me at the moment, but I posted the list up on WT:URBLP so everyone can process it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to know I can help. I tried this for a few other websites, (such as facebook.com) but few returned as many as myspace. If you think of any others let me know and I'll make another list. Tim  1357  talk  01:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Birds WikiProject ! As you've probably guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bird-related topics.

A few features that you may find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, outreach, and other tasks.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
 * Read our current newsletter, and sign up for (or opt out) of future issues.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project; we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) FAC
Thanks for doing some cleanup on Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) this morning. You may be interested to know that the article is a current FAC candidate in need of further feedback. Please come by and comment on its candidacy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

GA nominee
..:CK:.. ( talk 2 me ) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward Otho Cresap Ord, II
Hello,

Thank you for the cleanup on Edward Otho Cresap Ord, II. You were correct that the article had few links and being an orphan. I added a few more. Is this adequate to remove the orphan tag?

Thanks for your efforts! Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for cleaning up my work.Mzk1 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I am happy to hear my small changes are helpful. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics Task Force
Bib (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two points: "the the" and AWB edit summaries

 * 1) I spotted your question on "the the" at the help desk. By co-incidence I'm working through a "the the" list at the moment, so perhaps you should wait a week or two for Google to re-index the pages I'm fixing.
 * 2) The edit summary you have configured within AWB has a red link - the page is WP:AWB/T not AWBT

It's good to see someone else fixing typos on an industrial scale! -- John of Reading (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Great you are doing 'the the', I couldn't work out a decent way of doing it, so left it for now. Even with Google I'm unsure of how that helps. Did you make a list and import it into AWB? Anyway, sounds like you have it covered and I'll leave it to you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the "Google Search" option in the drop-down list of "Make a list" options within AWB. It's better than nothing... -- John of Reading (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey SunCreator, let me ask you something. Is their something wrong with the graphics lab? Are they overwhelmed at the moment?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not look active at the moment. Remember everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, thus they do what interests them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for the speedy response (people just need money for motivation, huh?!).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could ask over at or consider doing your own. Blanks here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already established that I cannot make my own. The Commons graphic lab looks good and active, I'll try them.  Thanks for the help.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this
but I was about to award you a Barnstar!


 * Thanks! It's actually nice to share a little from what I've learnt via the Biology group. Although a long way from Chess you might like to join us to help Loggerhead sea turtle get to FA. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually FA editoring or reviewing (the only time was for a buddy) because I strongly disagree with parts of MOS. I'll go to Loggerhead sea turtle's Talk page and ask what may be useful. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions received on the loggerhead page
I was wondering if you could tell me how to put Philcha's suggested tool bar to use. I'm a little slow when it comes to formatting on wikipedia.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WebCite
I noticed that the WebCite link for reference 60 on the loggerhead sea turtle is not working. How would I go about fixing this?--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin America
Hi! I am having a little problem in the article Latin America with editor SamEV about Brazilian demographics. The main article about Brazil explains that the "Pardo" population is a a broad category that includes sub-categories such as the Mullattoes, Caboclos (known as "Mestizos" in Hispanic-America) and Cafuzos (known as "Zambo" in Hispanic America). In the Latin America article there is a table that says that 39.1% of Brazilian population are "mulatto" when the correct should be "Pardo". I explained that carefully in the talk page (See Talk:Latin America) but editor SamEV not only ignored my remarks but insist on reverting all my edits. I also tried to reach his in his own talk page but he simply erased my message. That is not a helpful behavior of his. I should had simply requested to an administrator to block him per the 3 eevert rules and asked for an arbitration since his behaving as his owns the article. However, I want to avoid that since the issue is something very simple, that is, nothing more than to clarify the table that present Brazilian demographics. As it is know, it says that there are 0% Caboclos or Mestizos (the majority of the population in Northern Region, Brazil, Northeast Region, Brazil and Central-West Region, Brazil) and 0% Cafuzos or Zambos. Could you, please, share your thoughts about it in the article talk page? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphan
You have labeled Environmental issues in Brevard County‎ an "orphan". I suppose it is technically, but it was part of Brevard County article once upon a time. We had to jettison some material because the county article got too large and this sub-article was created. I don't see why this would automatically create an orphan. On the other hand, I don't see how a regular patroller would automatically realize this either. I don't know if we can comment start of articles to reflect this state of forked material or not. I'm asking on a policy forum. In the meantime, I think the "orphan" tag should really be removed. There are lots of articles like this, mostly municipalities whose information has just become too large and is only referenced from the main article. Student7 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the orphan tag should be removed. This is my mistake. Sorry. I will investigate further how this mistake came about. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)