User talk:Buchanan-Hermit/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Buchanan-Hermit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 28 |
Unifinished articles
By putting them up there, I was just hoping somebody else could add more information. Well anyways, my plan is to get all the episodes for Season 1 done, and then I can work on the other ones one by one without having to create empty pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xallium (talk • contribs).
- Ok. I'm going to sleep now but I'll get to making articles for all of season one for tommorrow. What do you suggest we do in the meantime tho? Thanks for the tip btw, I'll keep it in mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xallium (talk • contribs).
- Wow You're an admin? I did not know that. I thought they were like faceless bots who patrolled around wikipedia. Anyways, about the manual of style, does that apply to the episode title names too? Oh and btw, beware of 69.118.184.115 He's like some sort of crazy psycho noob who like vandalizes or something. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xallium (talk • contribs).
Blast it.
User:Midnight 7/userspace/main
Alright, the problem is that,
- I want the quote box to look like [1].
- I would like the two images at the top to not link to their image, and also have roll-over captions.
- That section in the middle is a bunch of images, and I would like them to link to my userspace pages, not the images.
![[1]](http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2918/hmm5tb.png){kind=link}
Compare to User:Buchanan-Hermit. Thanks. --真夜中(talk)(contrib)7 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the swear, but dammit, you rock. --真夜中(talk)(contrib)7 07:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A few questions
Ok I've added some basic information to each of the season one episode pages, which will probably prevent them from getting deleted. Its missing some information, and may have errors, but those will all be fixed when I write the Expanded Overviews for each one, one by one.
Anyways, about your admin thing. Do you get like paid or something?
And I also have a question about deleted articles. If somebody puts copyrighted information up, will the page its on be completly deleted and unable to be retrieved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xallium (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Ty
Oh ok... I was just thinking about what would happen if the format for the tables were deleted or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xallium (talk • contribs).
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Edits to Autism article on Wikipedia--feedback requested
Hello Buchanan-Hermit From your interaction with the Autism article in the recent past I infer you wish to see that it complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines as do I.
I am writing to you about an edit to the introduction section of Autism made by Q0 (whom I believe to be a valuable contributor) and I have no wish to get into a edit war with that person). In my opinion, the altered text presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction').
It may be a minor change from one POV, however it reads as amateurish and clumsy (a matter of style which may or may not be a POV). It is also an alteration of published fact from the reputable sources cited. I have proposed a change to carry the factual original statement to acknowledge the balance that may be needed --which is absolutely ethical in science to be sure. I readily concede that the DSM and the ICD do represent a theoretical perspective, which must be questioned to remain scientific.
There is also the issue of POV versus NPOV. Science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary, is still riddled with POV and much of the debate can be rendered as simply politics. The original Introduction statement in Autism can be considered POV but ironically has been altered to another POV. Technically we may only be able to be fair by providing a balance. My POV anyway.
If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta. Malangthon 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Declined speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedian Chilliwack Bruins fans
I see you declined to delete this category. Being a category populated by a userbox does not exempt a category from the speedy deletion criteria. This category has been empty for more than for days and has nothing in the category, so speedy deletion criteria applies. VegaDark 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the userboxen shouldn't have noinclude in them, once that is fixed, well, voila the category has stuff in it again. -- Tawker 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see he has now populated all the categories. Regardless, its probably not a good idea to create a ton of user categories and have them only populated by a userbox template, that defeats the entire purpose of having user categories in the first place, which is for collaborative purposes. VegaDark 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I would appreciate it if you would use an edit summary that doesn't make it seem like I made a mistake. doesn't qualify for speedy: ubx category and category isn't empty. It DID qualify for speedy deletion when I tagged it, the way you write that makes it seem as if I didn't know what I was doing. VegaDark 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. The reasoning behind it the userboxes are really new, and by deleting the categories, I don't think you're giving the categories a fair chance to populate; it takes more than a week for that to really start happening in most cases, especially for these ultra-specific categories. (Next time, I think you should check the userboxes page to make sure there is a userbox for the category, before nominating the category for speedy deletion.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are categories that have userboxes associated with them that are speedy deleted every day for being empty, so I'm not quite sure about what you mean by saying I should check the userboxes page first. I don't really think it is reasonable to ask someone to go looking into userbox coding to see if there is a problem with automatically populating users into said category before tagging, which this was the case of. Although I admit, I did think it was strange that some of the NHL team categories were unpopulated and I probably would have looked in the userbox code had I thought that might be the problem, unfortunately that didn't occur to me. I believe the four day grace period for categories is for the very purpose of giving it a chance to populate, if you believe it takes longer than that then perhaps you should try and get the speedy deletion criteria changed to wait longer than that. VegaDark 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. The reasoning behind it the userboxes are really new, and by deleting the categories, I don't think you're giving the categories a fair chance to populate; it takes more than a week for that to really start happening in most cases, especially for these ultra-specific categories. (Next time, I think you should check the userboxes page to make sure there is a userbox for the category, before nominating the category for speedy deletion.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I would appreciate it if you would use an edit summary that doesn't make it seem like I made a mistake. doesn't qualify for speedy: ubx category and category isn't empty. It DID qualify for speedy deletion when I tagged it, the way you write that makes it seem as if I didn't know what I was doing. VegaDark 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see he has now populated all the categories. Regardless, its probably not a good idea to create a ton of user categories and have them only populated by a userbox template, that defeats the entire purpose of having user categories in the first place, which is for collaborative purposes. VegaDark 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a head's up
It looks like it was taken care of, but you'll want to be aware of this ANI. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Haha. Well, I am awaiting the day that someone does it to me. :) :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on
This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent AFD comment
Your recent comment in this AFD said the article needs improvement for POV. Please feel free to work on it now; improving an article is always a good idea. GRBerry 20:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Aberdeen Centre
I restored the image, but it does still need a fair use rationale. —Angr 07:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shawn-redphantom-screencap.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shawn-redphantom-screencap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
WP:SOCAL
Welcome to the Southern California WikiProject. If you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact me. BlankVerse 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)