User talk:TParis/Archive 2

I believe your category Category:Characters in The Faerie Path is not truly a valid Wikipedia character, as it contains only 1 page, and that is a user page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just started working on it. Wasn't sure where to put the category while I put it together.  Still learning.  Working on The Faerie Path and trying to build out some character pages.  Found Wiki Character Article Template and it's taking a little longer than I expected to get the first page up.  --TParis00ap (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Db-norat and the 7 day part
Howdy. With regards to, you added an invalid template. The file could not be deleted due to that template for 2 reasons. The first is that the file was just uploaded today. F6 applies to files that are at least 7 days old. Also, F6 only applies to files where fair use is claimed. There was no license applied to the file nor was there a text claim of fair use being made. All that being said, I do agree that the file should deleted, but you may want to be a bit more careful of your F6 tagging in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger. I normally don't tag files but I saw "Nude" in the recent changes and then saw the photo.  Thanks for letting me know for next time.--TParis00ap (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

concerning article 'physician'
Hallo from Sydney, Australia (hence the odd time stamp). Thank you for your talk page comment about avoiding editing wars with anonymous editors. I've been editing this page in particular for over a year now; I've added a lot including references, and I try to make some explanatory note on the talk page. Unfortunately, another couple of IP-address-only editors have again been deleting material, without leaving any explanation as to why. To me this seems close to vandalism. Both of these IPs are in the US, using the geolocate tool; I don't know if they're on campuses or private. Would you be able to consider rolling back to your own last edited version, please. --DavidB 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator "Shii" has reverted the article and blocked vandalism for a week, apparently at your request. Many thanks. --DavidB 04:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuh Wuz  Dat  13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

speedies
When you place a speedy deletion request, you must include in the edit summary that you are doing so,to help us admins see things quickly when we check. (ah, I see someone else mentioned it to you--Twinkle does help that. Just ignore the features you don't want to use). Incidentally, the bar for speedy A7 is not notability, but the much lower standard of having any indication of significance or importance, & to assert that someone has written several published books is such an indication.  DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger. I cant seem to get Twinkle to work for me, not sure why.  I've enabled it and added it to moonbrook.js as well bt niether method does anything for me.  I'll try to remember that in the future though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wuh Wuz  Dat  21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Biological Functionalism
Hi mate, I do not understand why my Biological Functionalism article is tagged as requiring more references or sources for verification. My article is composed of 7 sentences, yet it has 5 references. Surely this is enough. I do not understand what more I need to do for this tag to be removed. My references are from reputable academic sources. Could you please explain to me what is wrong with the article? Cheers!Higginson21 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be expanded. That is why I put on the expert tag.  It's not a subject I am familar with though and if you feel it is expanded as much as it can be, by all means seek a third party to remove it.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The expansion tag is a different issue. I still do not understand why there is a tag claiming that more references are needed. There are 7 sentences in the article, 5 of which have a citation after them. Surely this is enough. I believe that the tag should be removed. Cheers.Higginson21 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really not a big deal. I think the article needs to expand and include more references.  However, apparently you view the expand tag to include this and the refimprove tag to be limited to the existing material, so I've removed the tag.  It's a decent article and I don't want it to start off with an argument especially since I have no background in psychology.  Good luck with the article and let me know how I can help.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag! I hope I didn't come across as aggressive; this was not my intention. I appreciate your comments on the article. Thanks!.Higginson21 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reba
No, I have no idea where it came from. It's not really needed, but if you can find one, that might work. I'm really only concerned on fixing her main article for right now, I apologize. =( Dottiewest1fan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, you may use that source if you would like, I have personally used it in the past for other artists. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If would like to, it's kind of a requirement for each award program to have separate tables, so if you would like to do that for her, you may, if not I'll just leave it. I just had to move it off the page because it was much to extensive for the main article. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I would be glad to explain. Every award program has to go in a different table. For example, separate awards Reba won from the Grammys should go into one table, CMA's in other, ACM's, etc. For really good examples of award articles that look like this, here is the List of awards received by Alison Krauss article. It was featured Wiki article. And don't worry about what time you have to do it, I understand, take your time =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD A3
Thank you for patrolling new pages. However, you recently flagged Classic Dance of Love as CSD A3, which is meant for pages without content. That was not the case, as the page contained an infobox at the time you flagged it. I therefore removed the CSD template. Please, therefore, and study our Criteria for speedy deletion more carefully to avoid premature deletion of the wrong pages. &mdash; Sebastian 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel an infobox was content. That's like having a book with a nice cover but blank pages.  But fair enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and notification. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that you put the CSD note on the article only 2 minutes after it was created. No book is created in two minutes, and you can't expect an article to be full of content after such a short time, either. Please give editors more time to create their articles before you judge them as "without content". &mdash; Sebastian 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally patrol new edits/pages and mark pages for deletion if they dont meet criteria. Pages should be developed in a user's userspace.  Article space is not a sandbox.  A book isn't published and then filled in later.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "should" part is your opinion, but you are in contradiction with the reality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is and always has been published and then filled in later. That's the way it works. There's a reason why clicking on a red link automatically creates a new page in article space, not in userspace or the sandbox. &mdash; Sebastian 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) See also User talk:Balloonman/Why I hate Speedy Deleters.
 * Replied, thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to compliment you on your diplomatic reply on that page. I might continue the discussion there some time; if I do so I will let you know. &mdash; Sebastian 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I just mentioned that discussion here. &mdash; Sebastian 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate the compliment.  I wasn't sure if I was being too aggressive and defensive.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean when you wrote "I feel slightly accused and targetted by Sebastian which is why I took a stance opposite of the subject"? No worries about that! I really appreciate that openness. It was the perfect explanation to help me better understand you. I, too, was somewhat emotional, which probably didn't help. The reason for me is related to your reason: I feel their pain of the page creator. I imagine how attacked they must feel, when an article which they created as a labor of love, such as Classic Dance of Love, suddenly is under threat of immediate deletion, and all they can cling to is an impersonal, automatically added template. While I certainly did not mean to make you feel accused and targetted, it may be a blessing in disguise: It gives us an occasion to connect with those feelings of being under attack. I recently started giving people personalized recommendations, such as which WikiProject they may want to join. I would be happy if everybody who proposes a page for speedy deletion would make a habit out of doing that, at least for newbies. &mdash; Sebastian 06:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I always use the welcome template when I notify someone of a deletion. I didn't get my first welcome template until a few months ago (I've been an editor for a year) after I was in a disagreement with another editor.  At first I was insulted by the welcome template because I felt he was calling me a newbie, which I am but it was kind of a slap in the face.  Then when I thought about it I wished I had received it sooner because 1) It would have saved me a lot of disagreement and heartache if I had easier access to policy, and 2) I would have felt welcomed.  It seems like Wikipedia is easy to use as long as you know how to use it.  For example, below my disagreement about quotes, I didn't know there was a policy (essay) about proper quoting, but doing a search for "WP:Quote" I found it.  I never knew you could do "WP:(search)" until I knew that policies existed and they could be found by searching like that.  The welcome message definitely helped me and I make it priority to add it.  When I do newpage watching/recent edit, I also look for editors that have empty talk pages; to be honest though, it's been awhile since I've done that.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that welcome messages help. I'm not too concerned about such messages to be taken the wrong way; it does happen, but we can only go so far. If a person has takes a well intended personal message so bad that he or she stops contributing here, then he or she is probably not the right person to participate in a collaboration like this anyway. We can not do more than to give them a fair, appropriate chance. However, people are different, and one size doesn't fit all. You are a senior airman; it is probably your second nature to quickly understand complex instructions. For many newbie-page-creators (there should be a term for people whose first action here is creating a new page), especially for some from third-world countries, the sheer amount of text, with all the references to things that might be interesting, can be overwhelming and off-putting. Partly for that reason, I developed welcomeshort and welcomeshorter. Instead of slapping a big chunk of text on the newbie's talk page, I personalize the message, such as by pointing them to an appropriate Wikiproject, or sometimes even tell them what they can do instead of posting their text on Wikipedia (e.g. here). &mdash; Sebastian 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also found this which is awesome for new page creators: Article_wizard2.0--TParis00ap (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I noticed that link in some messages, but I haven't gotten around to try it out myself. So you feel it works well? &mdash; Sebastian 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually really good. It takes you through the entire decision making process of how to create an article.  I just played with different options and I found the information to be very useful for newbies.  If you say you want to create an article about yourself, it points you to RfC and information about conflicts of interest.  If you say you want to make one for your business, it asks if it is notable based on a short list of criteria and also points the user to WP:Company for more information.  It's great.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll recommend it to people, where appropriate. (BTW, I hope you didn't overlook my reply above your mention of the wizard, which could easily happen due to the mixed indent style of this conversation.) &mdash; Sebastian 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did see it and completely agree with it. If I knew more about WikiProjects I might do the same.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for saying that! I realize that more people may feel like you, and I just added a little how-to text at Welcoming committee. I also included the Article Wizard - thanks for your recommendation! &mdash; Sebastian 05:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cindy is a wood
Thanks for fixing my typo here :). Edit conflicted with you. - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no problem. I was actually about to post on your talkpage Template_messages/Deletion which lists all the speedy templates and I use it all the time when I can't remember the exact template name.  Infact, I had to add  because I thought it was  but couldn't find it anywhere.  Also, if you have some CSD history, you can request NPWatcher privillges.  It's a small application that really makes tagging easy.  It automatically notifies users and does all the work for AfD noms.  Really great tool.  Anyway, happy nominating.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He, already have NPWather thanks :), I'm currently trying to cut down on my automated edits, because I failed an RfA, and one of the concerns was over use of automated tools. So now I have the CSD I use memorised, in this case, I meant to type G10 but hit "2" instead of "1" by accident. - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I know a few admins that turn down CSDers for using automated tools.  Infact, I've been in a discussion here about CSD tagging and this essay is a fairly good essay about how we can hurt the encyclopedia as speedy taggers.  You might find it interresting.  Has other links to several other good essays that really openned my mind to the criteria for speedy delete that I never realized I didn't understand so well.  Hopefully it helps you on your next RfA maybe.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, I was looking at that essay just earlier on today :D, I'll read through it properly since you recommend it. I know what you're saying about thinking you understand CSD, and then realising you don't ;), doesn't help that it's always changing, I've embarrassed myself a couple of times by quoting old policies which have since been changed :D. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna Hassan
With all due respect, could you point out the relevant rule or stipulation in Wikipedia which states that first-person quotes are "unencyclopedic". Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello and good morning. WP:Quote states these three things:


 * "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation."
 * "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed. If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
 * "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. "
 * I felt the quotations in your article were both excessive and didn't flow with the article. They were just...there.  Also, the first quote is herself tooting her own horn.  She is not a reliable source on her own changes.  She is not a third party source.  To avoid the WP:3RR, I'll ask for a third party to take a look at the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thanks for the apology. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't get into trouble at work over Wikipedia. It's not worth it. Whatever it is can usually wait. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jasper Becker

 * Thank you for helping me with the coding on the Jasper Becker page, and being so quick with it! It looks much better now that the references are at at the bottom. :) Pumpkin.
 * No problem--TParis00ap (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A stupid question -- but how did you do it? I looked back on the Becer page, and the coding looks exactly the same. All I do is highlight the bit I want footnoted and click on the "reference" icon, but that doesn't seem to do it. Pumpkin888 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the following code to the end:

==References==

Good luck and happy editting!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job
hello my friend, just visited your talk page. I see you are doing the same job as i do, new pages and recent changes patrolling. They seem to be some familiarity in characters you deal with and those i deal with. Most characters or contributors whose articles are deleted are new contributors, with nothing on their pages, poor contributing history and so on. please continue doing this vital job in defending credible knowledge. Well done. Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you!--TParis00ap (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Change
Hi, I only changed it because I thought it was about the "accomplishments" of a person, not a hoax. I can see how this is a major COI. You were not in error in any way, I just read it differently. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused you, Tarheel95 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat
I started a report about it on WP:ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)