User talk:Feezo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(Username or IP removed)
Line 164: Line 164:
The license is not listed in Commons.Thanks. So for this reason you can't list it as copyright violation till I get the e-mail from them.--[[User:Ankit Maity|Ankit Maity]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The license is not listed in Commons.Thanks. So for this reason you can't list it as copyright violation till I get the e-mail from them.--[[User:Ankit Maity|Ankit Maity]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. [[:Commons:File:Pl-perl.png]] claims the license "CC BY-SA 3.0" and yourself as the author. The image came from an external website that does not, by default, license its content under CC BY-SA 3.0. So unless you are the author of the image (in which case you do not need to wait to hear from anyone) then I'm afraid until you receive a positive affirmation of the actual license, and correctly attribute the author on the file, then yes it ''is'' a copyright violation. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. [[:Commons:File:Pl-perl.png]] claims the license "CC BY-SA 3.0" and yourself as the author. The image came from an external website that does not, by default, license its content under CC BY-SA 3.0. So unless you are the author of the image (in which case you do not need to wait to hear from anyone) then I'm afraid until you receive a positive affirmation of the actual license, and correctly attribute the author on the file, then yes it ''is'' a copyright violation. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I have e-mailed them for the permission. Got it???

Revision as of 03:45, 1 March 2011

Re: Image = Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg (moved from user page)

Dear Feezo, I wanted to upload File:Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg just once with this name. I acted twice, because first I did not know the licence tag for something that is free and open to all (self made in 2002 and unpublished). Can I see it? Somehow I got on an image editing page of my sandbox, but the picture did not show. I intend to add a missing chapter to the (well written) article "Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis". Thank you for your help. Walter Baltensperger 5:19 am, 1 January 2011, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

Wiki ettiquette notice

Hello, Feezo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Hi. Just to let you know - I blocked that chap you CSD'd for Jacob Mathai and deleted the article again! I'd only deleted it a short while before. All he's done so far here is create hoax pages - all now deleted. His long winter evenings must just fly by. Fainites barleyscribs 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Kathy

Category:Category needed ("Hints and tips" section). The thing is, stub categories are temporary in nature, because at least in theory, the template is supposed to be removed as soon as the article has expanded beyond stub length — so it needs to have at least one permanent topic category on it which isn't meant to ever be removed. Categories that are grouping articles by characteristics of the article (e.g. "(anything)-stubs", "articles created by the article wizard", etc.) aren't meant for user browsing; they're meant for internal maintenance, and every article has to be in at least one category that's meant for actual user browsing. Bearcat (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it also says that it's "not considered necessary to add the {{uncategorized}} template to stub-sorted articles". Anyway, it might just be better to create Category:Norwegian television programming. Feezo (Talk) 09:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's never appropriate to leave any article both untagged and uncategorized. The category for Norwegian television programs already exists, but AWB doesn't offer a way to verify the exact/correct name of a category if you don't know it right off the top of your head. So one really can't use AWB to add categories on the fly; if you already don't know the exact wording of the correct category's name, tagging is the only option. AWB is good for batch jobs, but it really doesn't facilitate editing of the "add X category to this article, add Y category to the next one, add Z category to the one after that" type. Bearcat (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's it called? It should be added to Category:Television programming by country. And if it's true that it's "never appropriate to leave any article both untagged and uncategorized" you might consider correcting the hints and tips section at Category:Category needed, since it doesn't give that impression at all. Feezo (Talk) 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My whole point is that if I knew exactly what it was called, I could have categorized it. It's at one of "Norwegian television (programmes/programs/series)", I can tell you that, but AWB doesn't offer me a way to have checked that while doing a batch run. At any rate, individual television series don't go in "television programming" categories — those are catchalls for several different types of programming, including ongoing series, television films, one-off specials, commercials (on the rare occasion that such are independently notable), etc., so individual programs are subcategorized at least one level past "programming". Well, they're supposed to be, anyway; I can't speak to whether somebody's filed a few articles incorrectly or not. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell it exists if you don't know what it's called? I found it by the way: it's Category:Norwegian television series.Feezo (Talk) 10:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it existed because I've used it in the past — but given that there are variations from country to country over whether "series" or "programs" or "programmes" is the most idiomatically correct term in the particular dialect of English most familiar to that country, that doesn't mean that I necessarily remember which form is applied to which country if it's not a category I actually use that often.
At any rate, the reason uncategorization tagging is important is that there's a policy which explicitly requires every article on Wikipedia to be properly categorized — which is why there's a whole cleanup queue specifically devoted to fixing the problem articles. The tag itself is what puts any given article into that queue so that people can deal with it; if the article isn't tagged, then people working on that project aren't likely to see it so that it can be.
And as for changing {{nn}} to {{notability}}, AWB (a software tool that some heavy users and administrators use for heavy batch jobs) did that by itself. It doesn't really matter that much, you're right, but I didn't tell it to do that — it's programmed to automatically apply that "fix" all by itself. I don't really know why, but it is. So if you see that again, know that it's a software autofix that happens when an AWB user is in the process of doing something else, and almost never an editor or administrator actually applying that change on purpose. And generally it isn't important enough to be worth reverting over, either. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that's not entirely true — edits made using AWB are still the responsibility of the editor or admin who makes them. But to be clear, I didn't revert the nn->notability change specifically; it was changed when I reverted to the version without the {{uncategorized}} tag, which I did based on the advice at Category:Category needed. If it's true that that stub sorted tags don't count, then that page should be changed since it currently says that it's "not considered necessary to add the {{uncategorized}} template to stub-sorted articles". By the way, could you elaborate on the list you mentioned here? It sounds like there's a bit of a story there. Feezo (Talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Frantz Paillant

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Frantz Paillant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Phearson (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my article; I just moved it to articles for creation. I was about to tag it G6 when you tagged it A7, which doesn't apply. I see you retracted your nomination, so I've tagged it G6. Feezo (Talk) 02:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Phearson (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Kyle Truby

You tagged this G10, but when I read it, it did not attack this person. I think it would have worked better with an A7 tag. (Actually if you look at the user talk who made it, it shows that I added a warning (using Twinkle), but you probably added it right when Twinkle was running.) Bluefist talk 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version I tagged said something like "he is known to regularly attack people", as well as several other disparaging remarks. I always prefer to err on the side of caution when tagging a potential attack page, as there is little downside to courtesy blanking. Feezo (Talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, Mentifisto deleted it as an attack page, and Daniel Case blocked the user who created it as an "apparent single-purpose attack account". It's often a good idea to look at the page history of articles you tag for speedy deletion in case the content has changed since creation. Feezo (Talk) 06:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling

To the best of my knowledge, AWB actually doesn't offer a way to mark an article as having been "patrolled". Even if I were doing a comprehensive scan for all of the potential issues with a new article and not just the one particular one when I'm doing a batch tagging run, a way to mark the article as having been reviewed doesn't exist within AWB anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's not surprising. But if you're not reviewing the articles you tag, it seems like a job better suited for a bot. Feezo (Talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think probably the last thing we want is a bot patrolling and passing new pages. Even the humans get it hopelessly wrong, thus duplicating the efforts of those who are more experienced and who look in from time to time. We just need to recruit more NPPers who can carry out this task a bit more thoroughly in the correct spirit than those new and younger editors who use it as an exercise to rack up their edit counts and exchange barnstars for the tally of their CSD notices at the close of each day. --Kudpung (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about a bot to tag pages {{uncategorized}}, not mark them patrolled — the point is that Bearcat spends a lot of time on the former task without reviewing the other issues in the article. It doesn't take a judgement call to determine whether a page is categorized or not, which makes it the kind of job a bot can do. Feezo (Talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncat

Yes, you're right, that article should have remained labelled uncatted. I have added some little information to it (and de-prodded it, and moved it), and made it at least a worthwhile stub. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 6 February 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Actually, I'm not sure I see why we have categories at all. I don't think people use them much, although that's just a hunch. They seem to be something for editors to play with rather than a useful tool. But, as I say, I'm speaking only from personal experience; I find that wikilinks and see-also's within articles are more than useful enough for finding related and similar material. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you should take it up with Bearcat (see this section) — categories are serious business to some people. That said, since we do have a category system, I'd rather not have it cluttered with ambiguous, unwieldy, and hard to define categories. If you have an opinion on the specific categories I mentioned, I would like to hear it. Feezo (Talk) 07:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through some of the discussions, this tidbit from Bearcat makes me see that categories do have some value: "if you already know that a brydioside is a Category:curcubitanes, then it isn't particularly critical that the article be properly categorized, because you can type "brydioside" in the search box. But if you don't already know about brydiosides, and are trying to learn about biochemical compounds by navigating Category:Organic compounds ..." - I guess that's a search-type procedure I hadn't thought of. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Among the Echoes

If certain assertions of notability are not made, how long does it generally take for the article to be speedily deleted from Wikipedia? Also, which assertions of notability must be made and where can I learn how to do this? Markdashney (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the twelve items under Criteria for musicians and ensembles are sufficient to show notability. Simply state on the article a criterion that it meets, ideally with a reference to a reliable source. Since the page has a {{hang on}} template, it shouldn't be deleted as long as there is an ongoing discussion here about how to meet the notability requirements. It depends on the administrator, but I would expect at least a few days to be given to address the issue. If it does get deleted and you still plan to show notability, you can file a request for undeletion. Feezo (Talk) 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references to the page. What other assertions of notability are required to be added in order to ensure the page will not be deleted from Wikipedia? Markdashney (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references is not enough; you must assert that the group meets at least one of the twelve criteria in WP:BAND. Additionally, self-published sources such as Myspace and Facebook are not considered reliable, and may not be used for corroboration. Feezo (Talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hi Feezo: I need help with my footnotes. I can't seem to make the text show and the references are now a bit out of order. Hope you can help me! Thanks, Elainem2 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic format for the reference system is to put the references inline with the text, enclosed by a <ref>. So, for example, you would put "...then went on to become president of international operations.<ref>http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architects/100/timothy_corrigan/timothy_corrigan_profile</ref>. Then, to make the reference list appear, you add {{Reflist}} to the references section. Adding information about the source, e.g., title, author, publisher, is also encouraged, and can be done within the <ref> tag. The syntax is a little tricky, but can be automatically generated with http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php. Let me know if you have more questions. Feezo (Talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

COMMONS

Hi Feezo, The license is not listed in Commons.Thanks. So for this reason you can't list it as copyright violation till I get the e-mail from them.--Ankit Maity 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Commons:File:Pl-perl.png claims the license "CC BY-SA 3.0" and yourself as the author. The image came from an external website that does not, by default, license its content under CC BY-SA 3.0. So unless you are the author of the image (in which case you do not need to wait to hear from anyone) then I'm afraid until you receive a positive affirmation of the actual license, and correctly attribute the author on the file, then yes it is a copyright violation. Feezo (Talk) 03:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed them for the permission. Got it???
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feezo&oldid=416500788"