User talk:Gary/Archives/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfD nomination of Comedy workshop

An article that you have been involved in editing, Comedy workshop, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy workshop. Thank you. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Carmen Fratrum Arvalium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Easys, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Topbar logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Topbar logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup cats

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:16 30 January 2008 (GMT).

Speedy deletion of Union Square Ventures

A tag has been placed on Union Square Ventures 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pollytyred (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWIkiBrowser. You can get to work immediately (you can download it from here). Good luck!

  jj137 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to a more inclusive site

Hi Gary,

I see that you've been very active in Wikipedia, and as some of your articles are currently under review for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, I wanted to suggest that you consider transferring them to Wikipopuli, a wiki that I set up to host biographical articles without a notability requirement. Indeed, given your level of experience in the wiki world, I'd be grateful for any feedback you care to give on the site. Thanks TheYellowCabin (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't like my suggestion. I didn't mean to offend you or imply and denigration of your work. If you don't mind I'd like to explain myself in a little more detail. I created the Wikipopuli website to be a potential home for Wikipedia bio articles that fall afoul of WP:BIO. (As well as any biographical material that people would like to put up on their own.) I've been visiting the talk pages of users who have created articles undergoing AfD for non-notability and suggesting that they transwiki such articles to Wikipopuli. While I can see how you might perceive this as using Wikipedia to promote another site, I was hoping that my intentions would be seen as wiki-friendly in that I'm helping frustrated users find a new home for their content, while Wikipedia is kept free of material that editors deem unsuitable. In short, I'd value your advice and guidance on how best to proceed. I'd like to offer helpful suggestions to those who might benefit, without falling afoul of Wikipedia rules or generally creating a nuisance. TheYellowCabin (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Real Capital Analytics worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. <3 bunny 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you testing

Or do edits like this constitute the final version of the pages you're editing? Also, if you're going to use a semi-automatic tool, please use one that makes the change in one edit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase this. Your help is invaluable. But please stop using the tool for experimentation until you have it perfected. Use the sandbox if necessary. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! Bonchygeez (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Evermail, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Evermail is NOT an English word. It is a neologism, which is why I AfD's it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Hoosier Crossroads Conference, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. This is a conference in the sense of "group", not in the sense of "meeting". Are you reading the articles before tagging, or is this some kind of bot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Guild of Italian American Actors, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Italian-American is explicitly NOT Italian. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Graphics coordinator, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Not a TV series. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello. I see that you've become a categorization machine! Alai has promised to run his bot on the latest database dump so we'll probably get a few thousand new entries to play with. Now we know how Sisyphus felt. I sort of feel like a dick for pointing this out, but I feel that you're categorizing things too fast. For instance, make sure that when categorizing people you include them into the XXXX births, XXXX deaths or Living people categories. While these often seem useless, they are in fact routinely used by Wikipedia bots for various maintenance tasks. Also, in a few cases, you have used categories which are too high level like Category:Writers, Category:Albums, [Category:Hungarian people]. Of course, these are better than nothing but such articles are likely to remain in Wikipedia nowhere land until they are re-categorized down the road. If you're unsure about how to get more precise cats, you can add Category:Better category needed or put a question at WP:UNCAT. The objective is not to quickly get rid of the backlog (there will always be a backlog, no matter how fast we work: its limited size is in large part due to bot operators unwilling to dump a ton of articles in it) but rather to make sure that articles we categorize are sufficiently well classified to be accessible for bots and interested readers or writers. Again, sorry if it feels like I'm lecturing. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to General Treviño, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Not a ranch. Your bot doesn't work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding Inappropriate Categories

I'm not sure what you're doing, but it doesn't seem to be helpful. Some recent questionable changes:

  • Debbie Meyer Green Bags is an article about plastic bags, so why would you add (Category: Cooking appliance brands) to it?
  • Dave Celentano is indeed a guitarist, since he is a guitar instructor, but the article is clearly CSD#G11, so why wouldn't you tag it while you're in there?
  • Daraja Academy is a school in Kenya, so why tag it as (Category: Non-profit organizations based in the United States)?

If you are running a bot to do this, it needs to be shut down immediately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean those as rhetorical questions. Please respond. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Those were automatic edits. I have rectified the situation and will manually observe the edits before they are made from now on. --Gary King (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So you were running an unregistered bot to categorize articles? Is this a fair statement? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is indeed what is happening then a) please stop because it's hurting the project more than it's helping and b) please generate a list of all articles you categorized with the bot so that we can rectify the problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By my rough estimation you have made around 2000 edits related to categorization in the past two weeks, roughly 75% of these to distinct pages. That's still around 1500 pages and a quick spot check has me convinced that all of these need to be double-checked for improper categorization, insufficient categorization or clear candidates for deletion which have flown under the radar as a result of the bot. I cannot stress enough that categorization is most certainly not something that should be automated. I could not care less about whether or not the bot was authorized but this really, really needs to stop and you have to figure out a way to generate a list of articles so that the WP:UNCAT team can fix the problems. If you cannot do that, I'll have to request a bot to automatically rollback your edits of the past two weeks. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... How long have you been doing this? [1]? Pichpich (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I do care if it was an unauthorized bot. Gary, please give a clear answer to my earlier question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a bot. At the most, it was a Wikipedia edit form that wasn't on en.wiki.x.io and still requires a human to hit the Submit button for each change. --Gary King (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't reconcile your latest statement with your earlier statement "Those were automatic edits. I have rectified the situation and will manually observe the edits before they are made from now on". I would leave you and User:Pichpich to work out how to repair the damage you have done, except I see that you are still doing it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Hello. I am flabergasted that despite the complaints above you've decided to continue running a bot-like process that hurts the categorization process. Please stop now or I will request that your account be blocked. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bot; it returns the articles that require categories and I go through each one and give them a category. If you look at the latest articles that I have categorized, you'll see that they have appropriate categories added to them. --Gary King (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, the fact remains that you have categorized hundreds if not thousands of articles so carelessly that the work has to be redone. So please, help me and others find a solution. If need be, I'll manually revert all article changes you've made in that categorization blitz. I'm sure you meant no harm but the fact is you screwed up and the quicker we can fix this the better. Pichpich (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Man, the more I look into this the more absurd this gets. People have been telling you for at least 6 months that you're being too careless with categorization and your solution is to use a semi-automated process to do more careless work more quickly? What gives? You need to take a deep, deep breath and come clean so that we can repair the damage. Pichpich (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please follow various people's advice and stop doing this until its appropriateness can be reviewed. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident Report

Please see ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it would be very nice of you to comment on the ANI thread. Your unresponsiveness will leave no other choice but to block your account. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know I was supposed to respond to it; I'll do so immediately. --Gary King (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:American musical groups

Please be aware, that this is a parent category and should not be used to categorise articles. Please use more specific categories, which can be found within Category:American musical groups by genre. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing now? ARV notice

I've ARV'd you since you appear to be using a bot to reverse your previous edits, without having previously agreed this anywhere that I have seen. I doubt you will be blocked, but I wanted to let you know I'd done this. Your actions are very puzzling to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that this would be worked out with admins before proceeding, but you are right, User:Pichpich did say that. Personally, I think more caution is warranted, and given the trouble that has already been caused, I would still suggest waiting for more input. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should update the ANI with details of what you're doing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection templates

Please do not add protection templates to articles that are not protected as you did here and here. Nor should you remove protection templates to articles that are indeed protected as you did here. Normally, an admin who does an article protection will add the template themselves. For expired protection templates, there is a bot that handles that task so there is often no need for you to remove it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WOT

It's true, some people do use WOT to mean what... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.238.64 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Problem

Just want to let you know that something seems to have gone wrong with your archiving process. Archive 8 is empty (I think this diff is the relevant one). It's your talk page, but it may be helpful to have that info for anyone who is following the ANI entry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Porphyria's Lover

You reverted my edit, calling it "vandalism". Might i ask why? 81.140.99.185 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reference the claims that you make in your addition, otherwise it is simply speculation. Gary King (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot needed to repair mistakes of unauthorized bot. Feel free to comment. Pichpich (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Darfur Peace Agreement, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6PM57E?OpenDocument. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's public domain :) I mention this on your Talk page. Gary King (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cherepovets article. I didn't realize I need to put a reason for edit, and I don't know how to do this after the fact. Thanks for educating, I will do this next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.150.143 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read that... --Closedmouth (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware. I'll abide by that from now on.Gary King (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I don't mean to discourage you in any way, I just thought you might like to know. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart (band)

Thank you. (I couldn't work out if there was some perverse logic behind it, or if it was just simple vandalism! You have saved me from further mental effort ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding vandalism

Lupin's anti-vandal tool is very effective for filtering out bad edits. It can be hard to keep up with at times. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD

You passed comment in an AFD, but seem to have put your comment on the main AFD page rather than the appropriate subpage, it's not easy to see which AFD this relates to, so I've just removed it for now. Can you readd it to the appropriate place if still needed? Thanks. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just saying "Delete" with no reason attached to it is considered bad form. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just A Vote

Hi, I noticed most of your comments on the AfD pages are WP:JUSTAVOTE, let us know what you're thinking! Thanks -Kevinebaugh (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Account

Hi, thanks for the message. I do actually have an account (unused for 6 months or so), I just had to stop actively editing wikipedia for various personal reasons (Change of job, illness and various other bits and pieces). I still don't really have that much time to contribute so I'm just feeling the water so to speak. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Card

Delete of Brian Telestai

A tag has been placed on Brian Telestai, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I Am Ghost is notable, but he isn't outside of the band. Most of this article is about the band, in an attempt to assert notability.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~kevin talkemail 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Gary King, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

I can has thankspam?

Re: (User talk:ais523) User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js

Thanks for letting me know! It seems that there was a change in the API that removed the API call the script used to use, replacing it with a newer one. I think I've updated it to use the newer method; bypass your cache, and let me know whether it works now. --ais523 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New articles

Please help... its quite easy. Not sure adding a cleanup box to a one minute old article is very helpful. Victuallers (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Article Creation

Hello, you can find the discussion here. Icestorm815Talk 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to tag this for speedy under notability or even advertising. Google turns up nothing but a MySpace and another questionable source. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Could you possibly slow down with the AFDs? Many of those articles could probably be salvaged, but we don't have enough time to do the research if you're nominating several every hour. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zagalejo. I do, however, appreciate your comitment to clean up Wiki. Scipio Carthage (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, the majority are either deleted, on their way to being deleted, or are because I was not completely aware of the policies for certain types of articles, like radio stations or schools. Once I submitted an article for AFD and realized this mistake, I stopped submitting these types of articles. Look at my AFDs from my first ones and move forward through time and you will realize this. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Go To Berlin

We created this page today, and read the terms. We would like to dicuss this further as we feel that although we do not meet all the requirements in a short period of time we may manage to meet them all.

If you aren't sure about an article...

If you aren't sure whether an article should be kept or not, consider improving it youself, or tagging it as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Notability}}, or whatever the main problem seems to be, and perhaps another editor will be able to improve the article. Only take an article to AfD if you are sure that it should be deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

right. It helps to be able to say where you have looked for sources, ad failed to find them. See WP:Deletion policy. Eastmain & I certainly often dont agree about deletions, but we --and others-- do agree you are not doing this carefully enough. DGG (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I declined the CSD. A7 only applies to articles on people and organizations, not genres of music. Suggest AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your AfD notice on my talk page - actually I did not create the Dave best article - I just tidied it up a little. I see that someone has attempted to redirect to the band article -- I'll fix that and all should be good.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Glabrousness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

Confused

Hello. I'm confused by this edit and the edit summary that went with the edit. At first glance it seems like the edit summary and the edit are incongruous. Let me know what you think; thanks. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you closed the AFD as a non-admin on an AFD that wasn't obviously a keep or a delete. Can you please explain why you closed it as "keep"? Thanks. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I replied on my user talk page. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin Closures

Hi. I see you've been helping out on the AFD backlog. That's great, but you need to be a bit more careful with the process. As per WP:DELPRO (and echoed in WP:NAC), the removal of the AFD notice should not be marked with as a minor edit, and in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owner earnings, it also looks like you missed adding the AFD result to the talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'minor edit' edit summary was pre-populated, and I should have changed it to something more descriptive. You are right. I've also added the AFD result to that Talk page. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure of AFD for Martha Samuelson

Hi. It looks like you left out the addition of the closure notice on the talk pages for articles. I was going through and fixing them when I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Samuelson. You closed this as a keep, but there does not appear to be a clear concensus for keep. The nominator, and one other editor indicated Delete (2 !votes delete), and one other editor indicating a redirect or delete. There is one keep, and one weak keep from established editors. And there are two keeps from a single purpose account which should not hold much weight due to the conflict of interest noted with the IP address belonging to the company of the article subject. I don't see how this possibly be considered a clear concensus to delete. And as per WP:NAC, non-admins should leave these for an admin to close. Regards -- Whpq (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it back to normal. Gary King (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

redoing categorization

Hello Gary King. It's been agreed at Wikipedia:Bot requests that the simplest way to fix the unsatisfactory categorization that you performed automatically is for you to run AWB to tag these articles as Category:Categorization needs to be reviewed which I've just created for this purpose. Can you handle the tagging? Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've tweaked my message, but I'd also like to know if you'll do it or not. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on a few things right now, including a WP:FAC review, but I'll get right on it ASAP. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok great. There's no real rush if you're too busy with the FAC. I just want to know that you'll do it eventually. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Gary King (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman

I saw you tried to get Friedman through FA review. I too am interested in making this a featured article. Let me know if you need help working on this. I am pretty busy right now, but I will do what I can. Remember (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tips

Hi Gary, thanks for promptly addressing my comments. I tend to review FACs from a reference, citation, MOS point of view, so I've largely ignored the prose. The copyediting should take care of any outstanding MOS issues. There are four editors I recommend for review: Karanacs (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Qp10qp (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is excellent for MOS issues, and Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) can advise on the inclusion of fair use images. I've written a few featured articles, so if you want any advice on anything just drop me a line. I look forward to supporting this article, and I see you've got a few editors willing to give you a hand. Best of luck, PeterSymonds | talk 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've archived my comments. PS, Sandy is the Featured Article Director's (Raul654 (talk · contribs)) delegate, ie. she promotes/archives nominations. Therefore she doesn't like to comment on articles that haven't reached a consensus. She recommended Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to review against the MOS instead. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I will contact that person. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK with you if I bring Sri Lankan Student Short Film culture into the same AfD? It's the same author, same subject, same notability issues. I'm really not sure myself which way I'll vote - there just may be notability lurking under all the promotion (self-promotion, I'm sure), but somebody would have to do a lot of work to get an acceptable article; and the way he is behaving, continually removing the AfD template, he's liable to get blocked soon. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Gary King (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait and see how your speedy goes; if that's turned down, I'll add it to the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The account has been blocked, too, after I just reported it. Yay, one vandal down, many more to go! Gary King (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary! Interested to hear that I've been recommended as a reviewer, but glad to be of service where possible! I'm certainly no Nobel prize winning reviewer(!) but I'll definitely give it a go. May be a day or so before I can bring in the full damage but I'll do my best. It looks good from an overview but immediately I'd suggest merging the single sentence para's and using an en-dash to separate year ranges (per the WP:MOS). I'd also avoid bullet point lists as WP:FA tends to shy away from that sort of thing. Anyway, just a quick couple of pointers. As Arnie said.... "I'll be back....." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, they are all great suggestions. I will go through each one and make sure that they are carefully applied to the article. Gary King (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like things have taken a funny turn - a {{POV}} template has been added to the page which, until its resolution, means the FA is doomed. I suggest you work with the editor(s) who take objection to elements of the article as it currently stands and hopefully resurrect the chance of promotion. Otherwise I fear the worst.... Bearing in mind I'm no subject matter expert, let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you might have messed up in a recent WP:AIV report. Malaka Dewapriya, the account you reported, does not even exist. Please fix, and put the correct username. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Gary King (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good catch - reported the alternative account as well. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman

Gary. I'm afraid that article is well outside my area of knowledge (now if it had been Milton!). It looks like it has some reviewers now, so please forgive me if I pass. All the best with it. qp10qp (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You've just said delete in this debate, but it is not a vote, so you need to state your reasons for your position to be given weight. Tyrenius (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the comments in this debate? You might consider withdrawing your nom, so it can be closed as a speedy keep. Tyrenius (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gini coefficient

Thanks for assessing this from an economics perspective to add to my assessment from a statistics perspective. It appears you set higher standards for quality than me, or maybe we're judging different aspects, but either way that's fine! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing PHP or you will be blocked. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Good. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PHP review

No prob. I'm off out today so if I don't finish the review before I leave then I'll finish it tonight. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PR script

I've made a modified script in User:Jwanders/monobook.js that works for me. Just don't use the "Autoformat article per MOS" button. --jwandersTalk 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've copied it over to another page for now since yours is on your monobook.js page and you might change it later on. It works for me. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Girvetz redirect?

I noticed that you recently created a redirect page for Harry Girvetz, pointing to Milton Friedman. From what I can tell via Google, Harry Girvetz (1910-1974) was a professor of philosophy at UC Santa Barbara and a liberal activist. There is no mention of him on Milton Friedman's page. I'm puzzled by the redirect. Kestenbaum (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

His name must've been removed from the article, then. Anyways, I would consider the person non-notable enough to deserve his own article. It was a red link, so I redirected it back to the only article that linked to it. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Our friend is back, as Malakadew (talk · contribs). I have put {{uw-coi}} on his talk page, but haven't got time to do anything else about it just now. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Our friend is now blocked indefinitely (again). Nice catch on your part, once again. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
He has introduced another of his films Transference-short film which I have AfD-ed.JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

François-Marie de Bourbon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article François-Marie de Bourbon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of François-Marie de Bourbon. Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: No notification for deleted images

Hi, Gary! When you uploaded the image, you should have seen a large warning that looked like the text at {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. However, I've taken a closer look and decided to restore the image since Milton Friedman is deceased. Please write a fair use rationale for the image within the next week. Thanks! east.718 at 01:24, February 25, 2008

Done. Good luck with the article! east.718 at 01:29, February 25, 2008
Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Admin coaching match

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Sephiroth BCR as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Sephiroth BCR and explain to him why you want to be an admin.
2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for highly qualified, coached, editors. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz talk 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary. I would be happy to be your coach for your attempt to become an administrator. Due to the rather late hour here (US Pacific Time), we'll get into the finer points of your contributions and what you should start working on at another time. That said, I'll indulge in a brief review going off your post on my talk page concerning the areas you wish to focus on as an administrator. If you wish to be involved in administrator-related areas such as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and WP:CSD, my biggest recommendation is simply to start participating in them. Genuine interest and experience are what the people at WP:RFA are looking for, and participation is really the only way to achieve both. For vandal reporting, AfD reporting, and speedy deletion tagging, I've found WP:TWINKLE particularly useful, and would highly advise using it for the aforementioned tasks. How you wish to participate is ultimately up to you and how you wish to apply yourself in this regard. Watching a thread for recent edits, watching Special:Newpages for CSD tagging, or going down the lists of AfDs to participate are general ways to begin applying yourself. Firsthand experience instills more lessons than mere lecturing. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and I'll get to some other things I want to cover for your future run later. Do be aware that attempting to become an administrator is a time-intensive process, and it may take months and possibly multiple RfA tries (although the latter is what we're naturally trying to avoid here :p) before you actually become an administrator. Don't worry though, a brief look at your edits gives the appearance you're going in the right direction, but I'll delve a little deeper later. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound like a dick but I suggest that before spending time learning the ins and outs of adminship, your priority should be to repair the categorization problems. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Automonomous areas FLC

I'd be delighted to take a look. It may take me a few hours to get on with it but I'll do my best. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. I'm no expert, as I've never had any contact with FL or FLC. It appears to be good, and I've supported based on other lists seen, with some comments that may/may not be helpful. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, it looks good. I've struck my comments and left with support. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! Now only if more people would even bother to vote; I'm worried that not enough votes will be casted, period, and if it's only yours, then I don't think that's considered a consensus. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaka

I have been clearing up after Malaka and am in slight doubt at University of Colombo, List of Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation where, apart from inserting himself, he has also input other names and material. My instinct is that he is so untrustworthy a source that everything he has done should be reverted - if there are good names and material they can be added back later by someone with less COI; but I thought I would like to check with someone else before pressing the zap button. If you agree with my view above, I will happily go and do it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks - just the advice I wanted. I'll sort them out. I wonder how soon he'll pop up again? JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could be of assistance. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

uncategorized tagging has gone astray..

Please check your AWB session, you are double tagging, and tagging pages that are already categorized.. (some are fine, but I'm seeing a lot of errors) -- Versageek 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I realize that. It was the pattern I was using in AWB; I'm doing a second run to rectify the ones that were edited on first run. Gary King (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Redirect you broke by marking Uncategorized [2], redirects should not be in categories to begin with. MBisanz talk 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, whoopsie doodle! That one fell under the radar. Won't happen again. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Map creator

Good question, I'm not sure; there doesn't appear to be a WikiProject for maps. I suggest you ask User:Dark512 on the Wikimedia Commons, who made the map for the autonomous countries. PeterSymonds | talk 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps and I've requested for an image there, but I feel that it will just fall through the cracks. I was going to ask Dark512, but the user has not been active since mid-2007. I'll give it a shot, anyways. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I know you're busy with admin coaching, but I thought I might suggest one other thing. The maps WikiProject has a number of images by users, so it might be an idea to approach them directly (the talk page is, to say the least, backlogged). If you approach, say, 5, at least 1 might be able to do one. Thought I'd throw that into the melting pot as it were, but you may've already considered that. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I will give it a shot. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from your coach

Well, I promised you a more thorough review, so here you go. I'm primarily going to stick with the three points you set out at my talk page since you've set them as your primary targets, and with all three, you have all you need for an RfA. Anyways, here it is:

  • Category Tagging/Assessment
Your efforts here have been rather impressive to say the least. A lot of administrator-related work is clearing backlogs and other thankless jobs, and your ability to show willingness to attend to such widespread problems such as adding/fixing categories and assessing articles shows as such. I don't indulge in either very much, but I can point to the positive benefits of doing so. I can't really say anything than continue doing it. You might need a bit more care while going through a such a pace (adding categories to redirects for instance), but good job regardless.
  • Vandal fighting/AfD participation/CSD tagging
Per my above post, the best way to show interest in the above items is to participate in them. When you say at your RfA (required question 1 to be exact) that you want to participate at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and CAT:CSD, you want contributions to back it up. My primary and foremost recommendation here, however, is complete and utter dedication to civility. The easiest way for a RfA to be sunk is civility concerns, and a large majority of the people looking at your RfA will oppose if they feel you do not possess the proper "temperament" to be an administrator. Naturally, the opposite is true. Civility in the face of insults, threats, and otherwise stressful situations is an extremely nice item to have, and past sins, blunders, and whatnot are often forgiven if this is the case. I bring up civility here because it plays into all these activities, and goes along with the principle of assume good faith (another necessary item).
  • When vandal fighting (I'll assume you're using WP:TWINKLE), use the "rollback (vandalism)" item (or the rollback function you have) solely when dealing with blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're unsure, use the regular "rollback" function and leave an edit summary explaining the rationale for your revert. Do not ever, ever label a content dispute as "vandalism" unless it is blatant vandalism. Revert once, and if concerns persist, bring it to discussion. If the other editor is going to be an ass about it, then let WP:CONSENSUS sort him/her out. Having the page at the wrong or incorrect version for a short duration of time is not the end of the world by any means. In cases of genuine content disputes though, I would recommend discussion first, but if you do feel that you are correct, use the "rollback (AGF)" option (use it a lot, almost go out of your way to assume good faith). Naturally, this does not mean you have to be "soft" on vandalism by any means. Aggressively reverting vandalism is certainly nice, but taking special care with your edits, especially in cases of content disputes, is the thing you should be implementing. On the subject of edit summaries, try the best you can to keep 100% edit summaries. It's one of the reasons I like TWINKLE, and I do highly recommend keeping 100% edit summaries (you appear to be doing so anyways).
  • For AfD, the biggest two things you can show are civility and knowledge of policy. Adverse opinions are frequently present at AfD, and maintaining civility and an open mind are great things to have. For whatever discussion you're involved in, check the relevant notability guideline, its criteria, and make use of them in your opinions. For me, the most frequent guideline I am using due to the articles I commonly edit is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which stipulates that merging should be a venue sought before actual deletion is warranted. For instance, if a character of a work was given their own article while a character list existed for that work, and the character did not warrant an article, merging to the character list would be appropriate. Given your focus on Economics and Computer Science articles, you likely will rarely encounter this guideline in your AfD discussions, but it does illustrate using the nuances of guidelines in your opinion.
  • CSD tagging is more or less another way to show your knowledge of policy. Memorizing WP:CSD is largely in your best interests, and knowing how to apply them is necessary. For instance, check which articles you can tag with A7; you can't tag a fictional character, even if it asserts no notability, as it doesn't fall under A7's purview. In cases where it is uncertain whether speedy deletion is warranted, it's probably better to WP:AGF and move on. If you're really worried about the article, keep tabs on it, and prod or AfD it at a later date if you feel it is appropriate. Prodding is generally acceptable for new articles (for instance, that non-notable piece of fiction you couldn't get for A7), but never use an AfD on a very new article, as it is seen as an immediate assumption of bad faith, especially considering that the creator has had hardly enough time to flesh out a page. This applies to speedy tagging as well. You are naturally free to be bold in your tagging, but remember that the articles you're tagging should be fairly clear-cut. If an article asserts an iota of notability, don't tag it with A7. Civility also comes into play when you encounter users that use {{hangon}} and attempt to state a rationale for keeping their article. More often than not, you're dealing with a relatively new editor. Calmly explain why you are tagging the article, and if possible, suggest means of improvement. Administrators will not delete an article with a hangon tag unless it is blatantly in violation of policy (an attack page for instance). I stress that speedy deletion tagging is a double-edged sword much more than vandal fighting or AfD participation. While you can clearly demonstrate policy knowledge and the ability to properly converse with the editors creating the page, it can backfire if your tagging is consistently poor. That said, if you feel you know the criteria well, fire away. Experience gives you a better illustration of what I'm talking about then words. Don't feel discouraged though. This is one of the most difficult tasks for prospective administrators, but take it at the pace you feel you can.
  • Article Writing
Ah, something I'm rather experienced in, no? Article writing is what we're all here for, and nothing else shows a more comprehensive knowledge of guidelines or policy than writing decent articles because it's the reason we're all here and most of the aforementioned guidelines and policies are geared towards articles. If you look at my RfA, the biggest thing I was praised for was my article contributions. Even though my speedy tagging was a bit lacking at the time, I still received the support of a prominent editor (User:Pedro) for my article contributions (and answers to the questions, but that's another topic for another time). Again, my interests do not correlate with yours (anime, manga, and video games are my niche), but the general principles are still the same. What you chose to contribute to in terms of articles is up to you, but I can attest than out of all my article contributions, the FLs took the least amount of work, the GAs next, and the FAs were a royal pain. All of this is naturally subject to exceptions (Naruto: Clash of Ninja was rather easy to write and bring to GA for instance, and the difficulty of making an FL increases or decreases dramatically depending on what type of list you're creating. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was far more difficult to produce than say Soma Cruz), but it generally holds true. As you haven't brought a lot of articles through the relevant processes, I'll give a few pointers on each.
  • Good Articles - WP:WIAGA is the relevant criteria, and the biggest thing to be aware of is that the comprehensiveness, prose, and degree of referencing are much, much less stringent than the FA criteria, and you can often get away with some problems in the article's structure or prose (especially the latter). That said, my foremost recommendation is simply to get the content on the page, and start working from there. When working on articles, especially when it involves creating them or making major edits to them, I highly advise working on them in your userspace first (for instance, for Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I worked on the article at User:Sephiroth BCR/Aria of Sorrow Draft), where you are free to work on it at your leisure, and the stress level is much lower. Again, get the content on the page and then you can start working with the prose, WP:MOS issues, and other stuff. I will note that making sure that your references are properly formatted (using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} for instance) is a huge plus that will save you problems in the future. The thing about WP:GAN is that the difficulty ranges widely depending on the reviewer, but generally, most reviewers are pretty nice about their review, and if there are problems, they will give a nice list of what you need to address. Work with their suggestions, be nice to them, and they'll go your way.
  • Featured Lists - ah, my most numerous set of achievements (I currently rank second amongst all Wikipedians in terms of featured lists produced). The biggest two items with the list you're producing is that it has to be comprehensive (including all items), and the format has to be aesthetically pleasing, easy to navigate, and otherwise accessible to the reader (WP:WIAFL for the relevant criteria). The former item can be resolved through researching your subject and including all relevant information, and the latter often through looking at articles of similar status for how they did it. Most types of lists tend to have relatively consistent formats, and modeling lists after one another is commonplace. The reviewers at WP:FLC are quite knowledgeable about formatting issues, and you'll get them resolved if you follow their instructions. If you're ever confused, simply ask them for clarification or even for their aid. Practically all of them would be happy to oblige - they want to see your list be featured, but at the same time, they want to uphold standards. It's always in your interest to work with them.
  • Featured Articles - hell so to speak. WP:WIAFA is the criteria you're looking at, and I would highly recommend bringing the article through GA before FAC simply because you're getting another set of eyes on the article first. Peer review has largely deteriorated into nothing more than an automated bot giving suggestions (which is useful, but you want a live person reviewing your article). The most important criterion you're going to find you have to fulfill is 1a, which stresses that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." Your article can be perfect in every way but the prose (and have only one oppose over the matter) and still be sunk. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is the designated reading for 1a, but more often that not (unless you're a particularly good writer), you'll find yourself looking for a copy-editor to fix up your article. WP:LOCE is the relevant place, but its requests page is horrifically backlogged, and your request will never be reached before your FAC nomination concludes. As such, you should request a copy-edit by going to individual editors. The members list of LOCE are good people to get copy-editing from, or someone else you are familiar with. I stress 1a here more than the other concerns because generally, you have fulfilled all of them before coming to FAC via going through GA first (unless you had a rather easy reviewer), and if there are problems, you likely resolve them with little difficulty. The only one to note is 1b, as occasionally, GA reviewers will pass an article that is not fully comprehensive. Going to the relevant WikiProject or looking at similar articles of FA quality can resolve this. With all this said, my statements concerning WP:FLC are true here as well - your reviewers have a genuine desire to see your article pass. Work with them, act civilly to their objections, and you'll have no problems. Also note that after addressing an objection, leave a note on the talk page of that reviewer to come back and comment whether their concern was addressed. Having your FAC sunk (I've had it happen before) because the person who opposed or commented on some aspect of the text never came back is really annoying. This all said, FAs are more or less the easiest ways to gain prestige here, as they combine practically all elements of being an editor in the production of an article to the highest quality, and being heavily involved in the production of one is major kudos, especially at an RfA.
  • Featured Topics - I won't go here, likely because it's a rather lofty goal to produce a featured topic on your own, but if that does become the case, I'll be more than happy to show you through the nuances of the process. Again, I received significant amount of support during my RfA because I happened to have a pair of featured topics (Naruto manga chapters and Seasons of YuYu Hakusho), and it just illustrates how beneficial having significant article contributions is at RfA.

In any case, I'm rather tired at the moment, but I think I've addressed the major three points you want to become involved in. I am a firm believer in having a hands-off policy in terms of coaching and mentorship, and will largely leave you to your own devices in terms of how you wish to conduct yourself. Naturally, I am open to your concerns, questions, and thoughts of any kind, but I will not badger you to do anything, ask why you haven't cranked out an FA yet, or something similar. We're all volunteers here and your time is yours to use as you wish, and mine to respect. Anyhow, if you want clarification on any of the above, I will be more than happy to give it. Cheers and best of luck, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks =) A note on giving warnings for vandalism, generally try to start with {{Template:uw-test1}} or {{Template:uw-vandalism1}}, as they are generally "friendly warnings" to stop. If the vandalism is rather clear, then {{Template:uw-vandalism2}} is appropriate. Starting with higher levels generally isn't recommended, as it goes against the spirit of WP:AGF. There are cases where immediately giving {{Template:uw-vandalism4im}} is warranted (massive WP:BLP violation, en mass blanking, etc.) but they tend to be quite rare. Generally, work your way up from the smaller warnings to the larger ones.
As for your question, it depends greatly on the featured list or featured article you're trying to create. I tended to work on practically all my featured lists and featured articles in my userspace, where I could work at my leisure. Lists for me varied a lot. At times, I could crank one out in a day or two, while taking a week or so for others (nomination process is at minimum ten days, but almost always goes on longer). On average, about three to four days. On the other hand, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was a long, time intensive process that spanned practically my entire Wikipedia "career" to produce. Naturally, I wasn't working on it at all times, but I brought it through WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and finally WP:FLC (it was originally classified as an article, and then reclassified as a list at the FAC, hence why I went to FLC). Featured articles take quite a while. Remember that you're near-constantly working on the article even after getting the content on the page (ranges depending on the availability of your sources and content, anywhere from two weeks to a month or even two months is possible) due to copy-editing concerns, near-constant self-evaluation and reading of the article, and calling in others to help you with the article. For Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I finished my draft of the article in about a week (in actuality a month or so, but this was sporadic editing over this time). The draft went onto the article on December 18, I got it to GA on January 9 (varies depending how long it takes to get a reviewer, as WP:GAN tends to be rather backlogged), sent to FAC, which failed on February 1 due to the editors who commented not returning to confirm whether their concerns were addressed), and then passed on February 15 on the second FAC try. The major waiting is thus not in the article production (although this is where most of the effort is involved), but getting through the nomination process, which is time-consuming. If you go directly to FAC and pass, you're looking at best three to four weeks between start of production and your shiny featured star, but two months is more realistic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Map image for List of unrecognized countries Wikipedia article

Sorry, but i haven't time to do that.

Sorry for my poor english, i am spanish.

Dark512 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 2), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 3), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 4), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 1), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Map image for List of unrecognized countries Wikipedia article

OK then I'll create the map of the unrecognized countries, but I will do so if you tell me the countries in the world which arent recognised because I have no idea who are they are :), so please reply back to this message with the list of countries then I'll try to create the map, Thankyou. Moshino31 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick notice, what three colours do you want for your map then?

Moshino31 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- Sorry for the notice but I cannot seem to access the Paint software at the moment for some reason so I cannot create the map, may I suggest you to create yourself I'll give you the steps in order to create the map, yes?? Moshino31 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- OK then first go to, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: GH3 GA pass

No problem man. It was a great article. Mitch32contribs 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kingjames813

I'm just curious but did you block User:Kingjames813 because the user vandalized my User page? Gary King (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he was clearly a vandal only account. And it's not nice to replace peoples' talk pages with insults ;-) - Do you disagree with my block, friend? Take care! ScarianCall me Pat 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You've been here 3 years and you've never been vandalised before?! Hehe, if you wanna be a vandal hunter/admin, get used to it :-D Take care, friend! ScarianCall me Pat 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of countries without armed forces

Looks good. I did a little copy-editing. My only concern is that the statement concerning Haiti is confusing. Is the Haitian National Police viewed as too big, or the paramilitary forces? More clarification would be nice in the text. Other than that, it looks ready for a FLC nom. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine. Nominate it at your leisure. =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a look this morning but was away most of the day. It's great! Looks really good on the page as well. I like the references section in the separate column (providing all the information in the row is covered by the same reference). I'd be happy to support at FLC. Well done! PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How to create maps from blank world maps

OK then first go to, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint and paste it in, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks

Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VeblenBot for economics project

Sorry for the delay in responding to your note about VeblenBot. I don't mind setting up something for the economics project, but I think you might be satisfied with this table made by the WP 1.0 bot. If that isn't what you're looking for, let me know, and we can figure out how to implement it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I used the intersection categories you made as link destinations, and created this table: User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS. I don't currently have the option to hide the unassessed row and column when they are empty. I can hide them permanently, however, if you want. Also, unlike Oleg's code, I don't have an option to let users recreate the table on demand - it would get updated once per day. Will this work? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad this will work. Please feel free to tweak the formatting and width of the table. Your changes will get overwritten by the bot, but if you let me know how you would like it formatted, I can easily change the format that will be used for the table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For your excellent efforts

The Editor's Barnstar
For a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia articles and lists, I, PeterSymonds | talk, award Gary King with the Editor's Barnstar

Thank you for your continued efforts in featured list candidates. Featured content is never easy achieve, so I commend your efforts, and hope that you will soon have some featured material to add to your future RfA... Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've never gotten one of these before, so I don't know what to do with it. I guess I'll hang it somewhere on my User page, then? :) Gary King (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of subnational entities

I have created the page at User:Gary King/List of subnational entities. Good luck on restoring the article! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Malinaccier (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Looks like we're both changing colours. Will these greens never match? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one that can't color between the lines... :p Gary King (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed my green square colour to 00ff00 as you were changing your map to some mucky sort of a green. All yours; you get to decide which green you go with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Janurary

On "localize comments.js", you wrote "Janurary" instead of "January". Thought you might want to fix it. --Kakofonous (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although that script was copied from someone else who was no longer maintaining it, therefore not my error :) How did you know about it, anyways? Finding the script useful? Gary King (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I just took a glance at your contribs—wanted to see how the huge total was stacking up :). --Kakofonous (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, a lot of it is by tweaking my JavaScript files - but even that only takes up 100 edits at most. It's definitely not a few thousand :) Gary King (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Deletion of "Ralph Sperry, Ph.D."

Request for reconsideration of deletion:

Notability was in evidence by the following: Significant newsworthy actions noted in many reliable secondary sources for both hospital closures and for schizophrenia research; In addition there was competition at the highest level of amateur sailboat racing as noted in the NY Times. There were 3 people with arguements to keep plus the author The individuals "voting" for deletion gave no valid or specificly detailed explanations as to why there was not notability; they did not dispute the facts in the article which met notability according biography guidelines: For example one said sailing accomplishments were "grasping at straws" yet it was noteworthy according to guidelines; one person voting for deletion indicated there were no seconday sources which was not correct. You noted that the author "voted" three times, which was correct but done by mistake as acknowledged by the author in the disussion. In any case, notability for inclusion is not based on a vote but rather by the "merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" I don't understand the value of referring to votes when the mert of the arguements are what is determinative. The dimissing of notability out of hand, as some did, without clear arguements that either specifically refute the facts/arguements is not very persuasive especially if there is no reference to specific Wikipedia guidelines for deletion. --Waterwindsail (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's deletion was not up to me. It was a consensus vote; plus, I only nominated the article for deletion. If I didn't, then someone else most likely would have. Anyways, why are you so interested in keeping this article alive? It would appear that you have a personal interest in the article. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrecognised countries

Hi Gary, sorry I've taken so long to respond to your request. I made a list of things this morning, and went to type them up when I got back this afternoon, but they'd all been picked on! (As well as the more technical requirements about lists which I don't fully understand). I'll support when you've addressed the concerns; again, congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As soon as all my concerns are addressed I'll squish my comments into a show/hide section. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You also got to make sure to use the Show preview & when done, then Save page. Seems you kept saving the page every time a small clean-up was done in a very short period of time! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please use the Show preview button. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Tap, tap. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I try, but a lot of the edits are section edits because of long articles, and I save in order to see my changes reflected in the References section. Gary King (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
S'alright. Thanks for explaining. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf

excuse me but how is my edit on gh3 vandilism it was correct u douche bag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron hanlon (talkcontribs) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be a verified statement; source the statement or do not enter it. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of recessions

Oh sorry. Aw, that's half my review gone! :P My excuse is that it's early in the morning here (2:52 GMT). Apologies again (and great list) PeterSymonds | talk 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured list nominations

My apologies for the late response, I've been rather busy lately. Just to note for the type of lists you've been nominating, the primary issues you are going to find are in the table structure and content, both of which I can unfortunately be of little help to you. I can copy-edit, however, and point out things from an observer's point of view if you wish. The other users you are consulting tend to be more knowledgeable on the subject. This aside, great work. At this rate, you'll beat me in number of featured lists written (meaning I better get off my ass and start writing :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are only so many lists I make, though! (Although now that I think about it, there's a list for pretty much anything on here, and if not yet, then I'd just create it myself!) Gary King (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Lists of countries seems to have more than enough. And by all means, fire away. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm getting tired of geography-related articles by now. I want to write some that are more related to my fields of interest (although I would consider myself to be interested in pretty much anything Wikipedia has to offer), especially gaming as that is far more entertaining to edit and I haven't done enough of that. I'm curious to know if you have set your sights on any article for a