User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner/Archive 6

Schools
Hi Pesky, just thought I'd let you know that I've declined your nomination of Jebel Ali Primary School & GEMS Winchester School for speedy deletion under the importance criteria because they are about schools (which aren't covered by A7). Obviously you can nominate them under any other deletion process. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, bummer. A school is not an "organisation"?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not... It says on the criteria "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions)" as a result of lots of discussion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. What can I say but effffitt!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it might be possible to get consensus to remove the educational institutions exemption; I would certainly support such a proposal. However I have no idea whether general opinion has altered that much since 2008/2009. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * General opinion has changed quite a lot since 2008/2009; in fact, the statement by Jimbo which materially inspired the consensus at the time, is now a statement that Jimbo has, effectively, retracted. Or, depending on interpretation, he was misunderstood in the first place. (I can't remember where the centralised discussion of this was, probably because there wasn't much. Some of it is in Jimbo's talk page archives, though.)


 * However, there are two other options;


 * Any school article can be taken to AfD.


 * It is common practice to redirect articles on primary schools (not secondary schools) to the article about the area, or, preferably, the local school district, unless there is readily available evidence of significant secondary coverage. Personally, I have quite a few misgivings about this, but it does make things simpler (in that it avoids having several thousand extra AfDs per year). Some more info is somewhere near WikiProject Schools. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've PRODded them both. :D Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The most recent discussion  was here. Petered out to  nothing, APU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

join the bar
Please read edit summary. Even if you feel it is a copyright violation, please dont delete the entire article. delete the portion which is disputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.218.190 (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things here; The "entire article" wasn't deleted, just the copyrighted section, and if you read the edit summary just above yours, in the history, you'll see it says "source states "© 2010-2011. All rights reserved OnGraph Technologies Private Limited""! So, unfortunately, yes it is a copyright violation.  Sorry about that.  I see that this has already been explained on your talk page by Dennis.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 05:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Gianfelice_Rocca
Hello,

I have seen you've marked the page with the "notability" tag. I have read the guidelines, but still I don't understand exactly why the article does not satisfy the guidelines. The note means that the person is not notable enough to have its own page ? Or it's a problem with how the article it's written ? Some refernces with external links are included so that the information written there are verifiable.

After all that person is the Chairman of a worldwide organization, the Techint Group, which employs a lot of people, so one might be interested to know more about the people which are behind the organization. And the Techint Group have its own page in WIkipedia, so why its chairman should have not ?

Thanks L. --Lorendanza (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's always a bit complex - and we don't even get agreement among ourselves - one person may judge things differently from another, as guidelines aren't hard and fast things. The fact that the Techint Group have an article at present doesn't mean that its senior management are, in themselves' "notable enough" for their own articles.  Maybe it would be better to incorporate the information on Gianfelice Rocca into the Techint article?  That would seem to be a sensible place for it, probably.  In order for an individual person to be notable, we really need to have information about him(and not just passing comments) in reliable, independent sources - such as news stories in quality papers, and so on.  We have to be especially careful with articles about living  people, as I'm sure you'll understand.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Horsey stuff for the stalkers
Two year old Rocket had his first-ever lead / lunge lesson today - he was brilliant! Didn't get a vid today, but will try for one on lesson 2 tomorrow :D Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Videos - better late than never!


 * Part 1
 * Part 2
 * Part 3


 * Enjoy! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome?
Why did you welcome me although I've been editing Wikipedia for months and have almost 1000 edits? Thanks for welcoming me anyway, I guess. SalfEnergy 10:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Must have been a senior moment! I tend to bung a welcome onto any totally empty talk page before I put anything else on it, if possible! Forgive me, I've been awake too long already!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did that to me too. I deleted the post. No harm no foul. --Mblumber (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry! I hope any other info I posted for you was helpful :D  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page "audio:ware" Deleted
I'd like to know why you recommended my page for deletion. You stated it was due to a copyright violation, yet there was no copyright material on the page which was used without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire58294 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "there was no copyright material on the page which was used without permission" (yes, I know that sounds daft, but bear with me!) Being given "permission" to use materials is a bit more complex than it sounds; the permission has to be given "officially" if it's your own previously-published work that you're using (see information here), and if you've been given permission by someone else, that also has to be "official" (see this page here).  Anything that anyone writes, paints, records, or creates in any other way, has automatic copyright from the moment it's created, unless they've specifically released it for use (and Wikipedia needs to have proof that this is the case). I hope this reply is helpful to you.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 03:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of copyright laws and licensing permissions, by virtue of the fact that all the material subject to copyright on this page belongs to me. Please explain which part of the page you believe to be a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire58294 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (TPS Comment) Unless you want to release your copyright and release the material under a free use license, it's still copyrighted. Wikipedia material is freely copies and distributed ll over the place, hence we cannot accept ANY copyrighted material, even if you say it's OK unless you are also OK with the whole planet using if for free, in which case, you need to chnge the licensing on the underlying page to a free license, even then we still aren't supposed to copy it verbatim.   Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for all the information you provided!--Mimi C. (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, and when I was a newbie I was so glad to find someone who explained a few things in plain English for me! Happy editing :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 03:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mimi C., thanks for the information, you rocks!!! --Elekimante (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Article about William Clancey
Hi, I don't understand what I should do in order for you to put the article on William Clancey back. Bill Clancey is just a very well-known and respected researcher in cognitive science. I had a list on another page and only his name had no link yet, so I just made the article in order for him to have at least a page. You said something about adding references or something? What kind of references, like the tons of articles he wrote? Or his university website? Kind regards. Jelle. Jelle1975 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC) So things go fast. I guess you have did it yourself already. Thanks Jelle1975 (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jelle - no need to panic! The article is still there William Clancey, and some work has been done on expanding it.  When we have articles on living people, it's incredibly important that we get our information from reliable sources, in order to make sure that nobody puts anything in there that's libellous etc., so we have special rules for biographies.  Basically, any biography without sources has to be viewed as suspect.  However, EncMstr has been doing a little bit of work there for you, which will undoubtedly help.  What your article needs now is for you to find more independent sources to 'beef it up', and it should be just fine.  I'm going to drop a few hints and tips and so on onto your talk page, which will help you along.  All the best,  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yay!
The queue is near 18 days! Thanks for your help! I work on it a little (while you are offline). I remember when i first started NPPIng, I worked in the front, and left a gap of non-patrolled articles of about 12 hours or so. That was on the 1st of the month, and now we came across that gap, and it helped the queue go under 20 days (permanently?). Keep up the good work, Bar Code Symmetry  (Talk) 00:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aiming to get it to about a week ... Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Accessory genome
I didn't delete this, because after removing copyright material there was a little left for which I didn't find an obvious source. I have put a cclean notice on the article talk page, and given the author some advice. This Indian Education Program is a real pain, and I hope lessons are learned from it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If only they'd learn to rephrase stuff in their own words, instead of copy-pasting .... I really think it needed to be G12'd - I couldn't find a single thing in there which wasn't a straight copy paste (which is the G12 thingie, really .....). I'm unsure as to why you didn't think it should be speedy-deleted as copyvio?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find a source for the introductory three lines, which is all that remain after I trimmed it - if you can show me a source I will certainly G12 it. Those line are poorly enough written that I think they probably are his own words. (One of the major problems with the IEP, which should have prevented it ever starting, is that the students are not confident enough in English to write it clearly, so they feel they have to copy). JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, if you go "digging" in the genetics articles, you'll very probably find that there's more than that amount (and much better written!) already in one of the other articles - so not even worth merging. I'll see if I can take a look when I take my next break from NPP ...  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I found the relevant place, and turned this into a redirect. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Mead & Tomkinson racing
Hi, I note that you have place a "copy edit tag" on this page. I removed this tag as there appear to be no identified problems of grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. The tag has been reinstated; but if you or any editor has a "copy edit" criticism of the text, perhaps it should be addressed and corrected, rather than leaving a general tag. Cheers Arrivisto (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see there have been a couple of improvements in there already; breaking into a couple of sections would be good to see, too, though it may require a tweak or two in the prose - and as I'm no expert on this subject I'm not the best judge as to how / where to split into lede and sections. I do leap in and deal with some issues with articles when I'm working on new page patrol, but I just can't do them all!  We have (a lot of!) unpatrolled pages months old which have "dropped off the list", and I've come across some blatant copyright violations in some older articles, so my main focus at the moment is ensuring that the backlog gets down to about a week old (to stop this problem happening again) before I get into the older stuff and try to clear that down, too.  I'm also working on the backlog of pages with linkrot problems (several months old now), and I'm only human!  There are only so many hours in my day, and while I do sincerely wish that I had a magic wand that I could wave across t'wiki and clear it all in the blink of an eye, the only solution to these problems is dedicated hard graft; this means, at the moment, I'm mainly leaving tags so that whoever's already been working on the article (and presumnable is interested in the subject) has a few pointers for improving it.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying; but I note that you fail to identify any problems in "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling ". You say (of yourself)  "I'm no expert on this subject".  Well, I am still not an expert on Wikipedia, but I am fully competent in language and grammar, and I am very familiar with M&T Racing.  So, I propose to remove the tag again, and leave it to others to edit when faults are found. Arrivisto (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the re-instatement of the tag was done by someone who shared my concerns. Tags should not be removed without discussion. Your edit summary: See:  Talk: Pesky Commoner.  He fails to identify a single "copy edit" problem Although I know the majority of Wikipedia editors (according to surveys) are young males,  that's not always the case! I also found that edit summary just a little on the derogatory side - you need to be careful with that, an also with wanting to take control of an article.  Wikipedia articles don't "belong" to anyone.  One of my initial concerns (the inappropriate use of bolding within the article) was addressed by another editor.  It would be helpful if you were to assume good faith, rahter than incompetence, on the part of other editors.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please note that the re-instatement of the tag was done by someone who shared my concerns." Not necessarily so! The reinstatement was done by someone for his own reasons, since your "concerns" are not apparent.  I do, generally, assume good faith, and I certainly don't impute bad faith without good reason.  Clearly there was no bad faith here.  Although I am the original author, I am fully aware that I do not own the page, nor do I want to; and  I completely accept the right of other editors to edit.  That is the essence of Wikipedia.  But I do observe sometimes a tendency to indulge in blanket tagging against potential (rather than actual) faults.  I don't think my edit summary was derogatory; but if you took offence, I apologise.   I shall try to be diplomatic in future, but diplomacy is not always easy when one is used to calling a spade a spade! Arrivisto (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My style concerns included, as said, things like inappropriate bolding and so on. Copy-editing for things including style doesn't just mean spelling and grammar - it includes bringing an article into line with the manual of style throughout. I thought I had already made this apparent, above? I apologise if I wasn't clear about my concerns with, for example, things like inappropriate bolding of text. Just adding - things like lede, sections and so on, all come under "style", too. I accept your apology; I wasn't offended so much as slightly hurt, but we can put that behind us and move on. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 14:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

speedies
I removed the speedy of Studio of art designing--it seems to be a significant arts association.

I also removed the speedy on Transporte Colectivo Urbano de Luanda == the article on the raid transit system of a significant city is certainly notable. Another admin removed your extremely odd tagging for multple reasons, none of them correct on Casalotti

Yet another admin --and a very experienced conservative one at that -- removed the tagging on The University News (University of Missouri). saying "AfD at the very least," meaning it might well hold   there.

I decided to remove the one on google Chrome version history also,as rewritable by proper non copyvio writing from the extensive refs given

In other words, your speedy tagging seems unreasonable and excessive. The ciriterion for a7 is merely some indication or claim to importance, not the notability that would hold at AfD, but you seem to be removing articles that would actually hold at AfD , apparently on the basis that they lack third party sources. This is not a reason for speedy. Its not even a reason for deletion at all, because the criterion is unsourceable, not merely currently unsourced.

I urge to you read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion Policy before doing any addition new page patrolling or tagging for speedy. The criteria are meant to be applied narrowly and literally. It would also help to go slower--nobody can judge proper tat a rate of 2 a minute.  DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy removed from Transmission curve - the remote web page clearly shows it uses Wikipedia data.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the whole, bearing in mind just how many pages I actually patrol, I think I generally get it right. I don't think I've ever manage two a minute - one every two minutes, sometimes, if I'm lucky enough to find a whole load that I can "send on through" without having to Fix bare urls and so on.  Fing is, though, fing is ... as I'm not an admin, and never want to be an admin, when I tag somethign with a speedy it always gets a second opinion, from the admin (which is what they're there for :D)  I know I'm not perfect (nobody's perfect), but as I'm sometimes patrolling 250 or more pages in a day, you're gonna come across a few more mistakes even if the percentage of errors is the same as other people's.


 * The Google chrome thing - yes, it was re-writable - but I thought the G12 copyvio tag was specifically for blatant copyvios? Which it was, as it stood. Being re-writable doesn't mean it's not a copyvio.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just adding - everything on that page was a straight lift from the sources I stated, verbatim, mostly from the release notes; removing all the copyrighted material would have left nothing but a list of version numbers with absolutely no information about any of those versions. Even though I'n not (and never want to be) an admin, I'm pretty sure that the tag was compliant with these guidelines.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, numbers.  As at this morning, I've patrolled nearly 3000 new pages (from the back of the queue), since I started NPPing at the end of August (about 7 weeks?).  With those kinds of numbers, it's reasonable to expect a few mistakes.  I do my best. Please don't just bite me  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Egads, 3,000... Think of your ponies. They miss you.
 * The NPP queue has been running around 30 days for what seems like forever. However, it has dramatically declined the past couple of months,  probably do to your good work.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to point this out - but "around 30" is accounted for by those that drop off the end into the "older pages" bit - it's been running at months. I'm just working on the current list; then I'll start on the older pages, once I've got the current backlog down to a week or so. That'sll probably take me another couple of weeks.
 * I miss my ponies! But, due to my duties as a full-time carer, I'm tied to the house a lot anyway, so I might as well be useful while I'm here!
 * I think my current "mistakes rate" is probably less than 1%. No, I'm not perfect. Anyone who's perfect is welcome to take over.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG, with respect, you cannot expect 100% levels of perfection. If you can only find those "faults" out of the 3,000 pages Pesky has tagged then she must be doing something right. Firstly, copyright violations are nuked on sight. There is no "this might be rewritten" about it, we need to get rid of them as we see them. This is basic stuff. As for notability, some of the articles you have pointed out as bad deletion tags have, shockingly, been deleted, implying that your own opinion on A7-worthiness isn't shared by every sysop on this site. I would also note that your comment on this page is virtually unreadable and would advise touching it up. &mdash; Joseph Fox 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To start off with, Fox, I appreciate your good intentions. I am aware of the variation between admins, and therefor I generally do not leave a message of the sort I left unless other admins also have said the same thing previously. Here, I see at least 4 of them. My practice in criticizing people is to be very conservative.


 * As for some specific policies, Copyvio is NOT automatically nuked on site. The relevant policy is WP:COPYRIGHT section 1: Dealing with copyright violations, whose very first sentence is "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depend on the particulars of a given case."   In general, if an article can be reduced or rewritten to   a stub, that is often preferable if the subject appears encyclopedia-worthy. (It depends on judgement: if its borderline material from a spammer, nobody here would   even attempt to rescue it; if it's an error by a regular contributor, we normally do ask them to correct it; if it's apparently a good faith new contributor, we at least ought to explain things gently and try to save the skeleton of the article to give them a chance to rewrite. In practice, with spam increasing at the rate it is, I delete about 9/10 of the G12 copyvios I see at CSD, and stubbify the others. That does not represent the % submitted, because many of the rescuable ones that experienced editors see have been edited or dealt with otherwise rather than G12'd. It's admittedly a guess, but I guess about 20% of the apparent copyvio is rescuable.


 * As another policy, there is a considerable difference between notability and passing A7. About half of what I see and pass as A7 ultimately is and ought to be deleted. Some I nominate myself, some I tag & wait to see if it's improved. All that is necessary to pass A7 is a good faith indication of importance. This is a very week criterion. It's intended to be very weak, and consult the voluminous archives of WT:CSD for repeated explanations of that. It is much weaker than actual notability.  My normal edit summary when I decline an A7 is some variation of: passes A7, but not necessarily actually notable.  (or  possibly, or probably, or almost certainly, not actually notable, as the case may be).  And some cases are equivocal--WT:CSD is right now discussing an example which I speedy deleted, but some others think what was said to be a clear assertion of importance; as the same type of assertion occurs every few days,  I shall go for future instances whatever the consensus decides, there or at del rev or wherever the discussion ends up.


 * More generally, nobody is expected to be perfect. Good thing too, because I'm not, & I doubt anybody else here is either. In point of fact, I know a few people usually more careful than I, & I have learnt from them and expect to continue learning indefinitely. I also know my level of carefulness varies, and when I recognize I'm acting impatiently, I switch to something else or get away from Wikipedia for a bit.  It helps to have a realistic view of one's limits. What I think is the required attitude  is to at least try to avoid errors , to learn from them , and not to get angry at criticism. As for me, I  should have mentioned in my original message that I too read WP:CSD and Del Policy every once in a while, to make sure I'm  not drifting from the actual statements. Everyone doing this work should. Though nobody can follow every policy discussion here, I follow at least WT:CSD and Deletion Review to see the trend of current interpretation, since dealing with new articles and teaching new users are the main things I do here.  I care very much about removing spam, which is a ganger to the encyclopedia, but easily dealt with; I care even more about losing potentially good editors, which is an even greater danger and much more complicated to deal with.   DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear your points, DGG, but, to be quite fair the very least that should have been done with it is what has been done now - i.e. removing all the copyvio material. Leaving two lines of text.  Which I suspect already appear in the ordinary Chrome article in any event ... so what's left is duplication, and not encyclopedia-worthy.
 * Also, to be scrupulously fair, I would remind you that you're quoting "at least 4" mistakes. Well, that's from (now over) 3000 patrolled pages, and (again to be fair) a couple of those mistakes were made within my first week or so of patrolling, when I was (obviously) a lot less experienced.  We all learn more as we go along.
 * A blatant copyvio is supposed to be deleted (or, at the very least, blanked) on sight. No questions.  It's a legal thing.  If someone's going to do a re-write, the stuff has first to be entirely stripped from the article or we're in  breach of copyright law.  I'm all for blanking just one section, if it's only one section that's a problem - and I've done this myself on several occasions.
 * With the A7's, I'm still learning (and it's a bit hard when the rules on notability vary so much from one area to another; obscure footballers from Eastern Europe, who most people have never heard of, are apparently "notable" if they've played for the right kind of team, but a gymnast isn't notable unless they've won a national championship or a medal at a really major event - go figure!). But the subject of the article has to at least have some kind of a claim to notability, and it's not up to the tagger to go hunting around to see if there's anything anywhere else, not already in the article, to show notability.  No claim, A7. At least that's the way I've always understood it.  I do try to avoid errors, and I do learn fast - but do, please consider the percentage of errors that you're judging on, rather than the number. Common sense dictates that someone who's patrolled 3000 new pages is likely to make 10 times the number of errors as someone who's only patrolled 300 in the same period. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG's attitude is part of why I quit bothering with NPP. You do good work, and then just get criticized.  Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers, just let them all in, no matter how stupid they are.  (Sorry for the cynicism, you ARE doing great work!)   Montanabw (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
FYI: Our Lady of Fatima School (Courtland). Don't waste time tagging  articles like this for maintenance even if they  are schools. Do some basic research  then PROD :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did that one get my paws on it? I can't see me in its history!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See: PL :)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, it's one I ticked, having seen that someone else had tagged it. If someone else's tags look kinda reasonable, I don;t always go and double-check them! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never hesitate to double check a tagged page. Our problem is that  unfortunately  the majority  of NPP  is done by  users with  the least  experience of all. It's like giving  kids loaded guns to  play  with. It  takes at  least  3 minutes or more to  properly  patrol a page and do  all  the required checks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall attempt to remember! But you know I'm a Wrinkly ... Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 06:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your neat instructions and suggestions, I'll keep that in mind whenever citing the references and editing the articles. cheers... Gunkarta (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! When you're relatively inexperienced here, it can seem as though there are so many pages and pages of stuff to plough through, and it can feel as though it's just impossible to get going.  Loads of people have real trouble with referencing, in particular, but once you have a few basic tips to hand (on your talk page, so you don't have to go "wandering around the wiki" trying to find them), things suddenly get so much more clear and easy.  And Reflinks is just magic! I really hope you enjoy your time here - but be warned!  Wikipedia is highly addictive, lol!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

help in editing
thanks ! פארוק (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unpatrollable pages
I'm not sure whether you saw my response on Kudpung's talk page, so I just wanted to point out the "Magic spell" for dealing with deleted pages that haven't been patrolled. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha! No, I haven't been back to Kudpung's page yet - way too busy! Thanks! Now I come to think of it, I;m sure Tom Morris told me how to do that one; but I'd forgotten where! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 10:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

About Ek Hazaaron Mein Meri Behna Hai
O HAI, IM IN UR PEDIA, PATRLOLOLIN UR NUW PAJIZ! I was just about to list the numerous WP:COPYVIOs on the article's talk page, and then add refs. Could we possibly avoid excess teh dramahxors, chop the copyvios out and get the article back to a little stub?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Has to be done with the proper template, I'm afraid! Or Moonriddengirl will hack me to death with a blunt teaspoon; likewise beat me to a pulp with a used cotton bud.  The Hexperts will get onto it pretty soon, revdel as appropriate, and stub it :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a feeling it'll have to be zapped and re-created as a stub, coz the copyvio was in on the first edit :o( Can't revdel the entire history! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey
✅ Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ✅

"Be careful what you ask for, you might get it!" Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Solutions for new users
Hi Pesky. I just  saw the suff on  your  up. We are currently  wodeveloping  a completely  new solution that  may  interest  you here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC) (school-age granddad).


 * Hey there granddad! I posted a comment to that discussion a little while back, but it's grown since then! I am overflowing with ideas on how to reduce problem-page and unready-page creation, and retain new editors ... there's just so much that could be done (coded in to the software, really, at the page creation level), which would have both effects.  At the moment, while I'm working on NPP, I've  now started to drop my own short how-to guide onto all newbies' talk pages as I finish working on the article(s) they've created.  It starts with a really basic how-to on article writing (including a redlink to create their own sandbox area for practising / working in), then includes Chzz's own how-to guide on referencing, and then gives them a suggestion to (install and) use Reflinks to make their lives easier.  I think it's vitally important to keep the introductory instructions as short and sweet as possible, as there's just an absolute ton of stuff to plough through, otherwise, and unless you're an obsessive-compulsive reader it's overwhelming, it really is!


 * Fing is, though, fing is .... I could write a vast essay on my own ideas for new-page-creation tweaks, and I don't know if it would be listened to! I put a couple of very brief suggestions on the article creation workflow talk; I think the simplest thing of all to make a huge difference would some automatic software-blocks for saving into mainspace - for example, if it has no inline citations, it can't be saved into mainspace - but what it then does is give the editor some feedback then and there about what it needs, then saves it into an automatically-generated user workspace for them, and drops a note onto their talk page giving them a link straight to their new work-in-progress with a couple of relevant links to info related to whichever problem(s) the article-creation wossname picked up on, etc. There could easily be a list of veto-for-mainspace criteria.  This would work.  An automated really decent user-friendly interactive tutorial would be a brilliant way to go, as well.


 * We have some serious problems (as I'm sure you know!) with our policy and guideline pages; IMHO they need a total re-write in much plainer English and much shorter! But that's a whole new project ....  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your valuable comments. Many of your ideas have been preempted and the development  of  the new landing  page is well  under way.   Such  physical  software blocks may  however possibly  be ruled out as they would probably  require community  consensus and the proposals would likely  meet the same fate as WP:ACTRIAL. Instead, by  making  new creators  pass  over  the stepping  stones of the new UI, it  is assumed that  they  will  be encouraged to  create new pages properly,  while at  the same time deter the creators of vandal,  spam, attack, and nonsense from  completing  the process. In  contrast  to  most  other open  collaborative Internet  projects, the WMF appears to  strongly  maintain  their principle that  all pages (from  registered users) should be  allowed to  go  live immediately, rather than held for review for a few minutes. The only  concession  I  see coming eventually  is that  new pages might  not  be referenced and indexed by  Google until they  have been patrolled.  Whatever solutions are chosen, there is going  to  be more work for patrollers, who  might  be required to  obtain  a user right (a very  good idea).  I am  working  very  closely  with  the WMF  to  develop the completely  new NPP  control  panel, which is  partly  in  development   and waiting  for  further coding. My  first  project  was to  develop the NPP  survey. More progress  will  take place when the results of the survey  are in, and have been analysed. I  am  also currently  working  on  a video  tutorial  for NPP. Do  keep  your eye on the MediaWiki  pages, and don't  hesitate to  chime in  on  anything   that  has not  yet  been discussed in  depth,  or share your ideas with  me.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What, you want me to take time off from NPP to go and read stuff, huh? :P I want an interactive video tutorial on article creation! Like a game, with points and bonus points awarded for things like adding cats, refs, sections, lead .... see how many points you can collect! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All said and done, I  think  the most  valuable work  you  are doing  at  the moment  is NPP - you'll  really  like the new tools when we release them, but  for the moment  we need as many  grannys and grandads on  the job as possible. I've been checking  NPP  this morning and there's one who  is patrolling  at  the rate of 1 per minute with  an error rate of 25% -  basically  either patrolling  as OK and not  tagging, or adding  'Wikify'  tags to  one-sentence stubs (::sigh::). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ZOMG! The only time I can average one a minute is if I hit a string of redirects of pages that can obviously fly right through! I shall continue to work the back end of the NPP backlog until it's less than a week old, and then strivew to keep it at about that.  I reckon a week gives people enough time to have got an article to the stage where it should have already not needed ref tags, for instance, so it's not too bitey.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! I don't know if you ever use IRC, but we have a wonderful teacher (whose guide to referencing I gave you) who is there almost all the time, and is quite brilliant at real-time teaching, if you're interested!  Here's how to get hold of him in IRC.


 * Happy editing. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for Chzz, I would not be here. First real page I did, I had an admin after me on anything right or wrong I did.  After several 3rd opinions and other users telling him to go away, I finished the article.  On my second article, if I was given any grief, I'd leave.  But, Chzz showed up to help me... birds sang, lions slept with sheep, dogs played with cats, I loved horses and my wife said nice things to me.  Chzz was a life saver. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I "discovered" Chzz very shortly after my come-back (after an extensive WikiBreak!) Having discovered him, he then joined my (very short) short-list of hand-picked mentors.  He is one of the most brilliant teachers, in any sphere, that I have ever encountered (and I've been a professional instructor myself, and trained others to become professional instructors!) And he's very undervalued and under-appreciated by a lot of people!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reference Stuff
Hi Pesky, Thanks a lot for the reference stuff. It is really useful for me. But i don't know how did you find that i was struggling Inline Citation stuff. Whether any edit that i made is not good, Please let me know. so that i can correct myself in future. Thanks Abdul raja (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Abdul raja! I spend a lot of my time patrolling recently created pages, which basically means just checking them over, seeing if there's anything which needs to be done to tidy them up, noticing if the creator's had difficulty with any particular aspect of making an article, and so on.  I would have come across one of yours while I was doing this, and just noticed that you could do with a bit of help and information about referencing.  It's one of the things which most new editors find a bit tricky to begin with; don't worry!  It gets easier as you go along.  Keep those tips in mind, and do plenty of practice in your own sandbox area. We were all new once! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Consulting the Oracle
It would help to have a link for the forum - you've obviously been there.... Peridon (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehe! (>**)> Hugz! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Even more thanks for the Reference Stuff
I don't know what I was messing up, but you noticed and I thank you for coming and explaining! Some extremely useful suggestions and helpful hints, and a real encouragement to do things better: thanks again, Pesky! Safebreaker (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. We were all newbies once, and I remember how daunted I was myself when I first started looking at referencing things! Chzz helped me out immensely, and I will always be grateful for his patience and encouragment.  Just keep practising!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Muchos gracias
Muchos gracias Drift chambers (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your notes.I will use them when I want to write an article.If it is possible for you please help me here, these users , , want to make Iranian and Azerbaijani-related articles a place to propagandize Pan-Iranist views, Azerbaijani people of Iran are exposed to many discriminations in Iran, I think wikipedia must consider the catastrophic situation of minorities in some countries, and at least in the case of these minorities let using all resources that can be achieved With respect--Orartu (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Side note, I've noticed that articles on Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani culture in general seem to be the site of controversy all over the place (WPEQ has been touched by this). The whole Naborno-Karabakh thing also a factor.   Montanabw (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the tips, you're welcome! As for the rest, unfortunately, as I'm always so busy patrolling new pages, I'm not your best bet! See if you can take your problems to dispute resolution, that's really the best place to get all these kinds of problems sorted out.  Sadly, Wikipedia does occasionally get used for propaganda purposes - on both sides - but we need to ensure that all our articles are written from a neutral point of view.  If you're having trouble getting other people to write neutrally, then you need help from editors who are more expert in that field than I am.  Good luck!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [scrunch, scrunch, scrunch] Mmmmm ... yummy!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you like seconds? I have heaps heaps more! :D --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any minus-calorie varieties, that would be incredibly useful! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Scotty Brand
Hi Thanks for your comments on editing a new page - I've only done a couple of pages, so I'm grateful for that.

You have tagged the page I made on Scotty Brand for notability.

Reading the guidelines, they talk about using references, but I have 6 references which cover pretty much every statement from a number of sources including a national newspaper, so can you please clarify what else I need to add to the article, and how do I get the notability tag removed (I assume if I delete it then you would put in back again...)

thanks

Nextraterly (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's looking pretty good, really, but a bit borderline. I just wasn't sure whether perhaps you could find more information about the brand (especially its history, and ideally anything which could "back up" a claim to fame). "Notability" is always a hard thing to quantify!  Try hunting around some news archive sources to see if you can find any older news articles about Scotty; use Google Book search to see if you can find any mention in published books - in short, the more you can dig out which talks about it (not just in specialist sources), the better.  If you leave the notability tag on there, and ask for some help on the article's talk page (in finding more good sources), others may come along and help out with it.  A tag is far more of a request for improvement than a criticism (it's a bit of a shame that the wording in the tags doesn't always reflect this!) Happy hunting!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments
Thank you for your helpful comments regarding how to write articles. Additional knowledge and tips are always useful and I appreciate your having taken the time to post them. On the other hand, I hope you realize that I am not a totally naive editor. On the whole, I do know how to write articles, even if I don't always take the time and trouble for all the niceties. Regarding Meermin, you are correct, but, in my view, overly pedantic. I was unable to find (with reasonable effort) any sources other than the ones cited. So the choice is pretty much between no article at all and what is there now. Surely what is there now is better than nothing?--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Yes, I had gathered you're not a complete newbie! Google Books and Google Scholar may (or may not) help you out with getting more inline citations in there; if that fails, it's question of trawling through Amazon to find good titles, and then getting your local library to order them in for you (a pain, yes, I know, but sometimes the only way).  I'm having similar trouble finding enough really decent sources for an article that I've been wanting to write for months, now, and I never seem to get the time to go source-hunting, either.
 * I can't for the life of me remember where it is one goes in WikiLand to request researchers to come up with more sources (I'm sure my stalkers can assist, here), but that would also be an excellent idea to try.


 * Meermin struck me as an article which could, actually, be worked up to GA standard with several more sources found for it, and a little bit of extra work - it would be very nice to see it there! (Any illustrations would be wonderful to find, too.) Maybe Jane's might have something in their archives? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I went hunting for you! Try these:
 * page 204
 * page 32
 * page 1246
 * pages 44, 174
 * pages 96-97, 273
 * pages 218, 233
 * page 1246
 * pages 44, 174
 * pages 96-97, 273
 * pages 218, 233
 * pages 218, 233

Cheers, Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. That took me three quarters of an hour, including getting them formatted as citations. Ummm - that's an average of one every three minutes ... Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

✅
Fixed that up. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You did a great job, and this is a perfect example of constructive cooperation to improve Wikipedia. I thank you very much.  Also, I note that you are very efficient and productive.  I spent more than 45 minutes to find the references that I used (and I had found 2 or 3 of the additional ones that you found, but chose not to use them).  To be honest, I was just too lazy to format the article as well as you have done, so I thank you for having done that, and for reminding all of us that laziness is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aww, thank you! Actually, I have to thank you twice over - for the past several months I've been really uninspired to do any creative writing at all (way too much going on in Real Life, ya know!) so coming across your Meermin article, and seeing how close it was to being GA-able (and wow! such a fascinating story, too!) I got stuck in. So, thanks for the inspiration :o) I'm now pacing with impatience for a reviewer!  Once I actually get inspired to take something on, it kinda takes over; the only other thing I've created recently was a new userbox and linked essay, which might amuse you!  Once something triggers the obsessive-compulsive response, it's amazing what can come of it!  I'd never heard of the Meermin before I read your article, and it's been great fun writing it up.  I wanted to find some more updates on the archaeological work, but I can't find anything really new about it at all.  I shall attempt to remember to keep my eyes peeled for progress reports!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)