User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 14

Thank you very much from Japal1950

Fuhghettabouitit, I thank your help and also your advises. I will read the links you recommend me in order to improve my editing capacity. Happy Sunday. --Japal1950 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Chicago (pool)

In the last year+ quite a lot of material has been added, most of it unsourced. You know a lot more about that game than I do. I think the article needs an overhaul. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked for sources and they are unfortunately sparse. I will keep it in mind but I am not feeling very motivated. Too many back projects calling me. When I get into a groove on a subject I then want to do it whole hog, or not really at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

DanoTheDinosaur

I posted a reply to what you said on my talk page, but obviously you don't go around looking at everybody's talk page that you have previously commented on. If you don't mind, I would like to continue our conversation. Aviationfrk9 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if you could take a look

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I saw your work on Hadji Ali and was really impressed that you got that article up to featured quality. I've been working on a short article about an eccentric fellow from the 1800s, Elias Abraham Rosenberg. It's currently up for peer review at the moment, I'd love if you could take a look at it if you get the time, no rush of course. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked Hadji Ali! Worked damn hard on it. Unfortunately, it's not going to get featured, at least this time around as it's about to drop off the FAC page with too few reviews to achieve consensus. I started a copyedit of the article. More to come. Please take a look and revert as you see fit. I just checked newspaperarchive.com (more than a billion newspaper articles scanned, or so they claim) and nothing under his full name, nor using it with his middle initial or without the middle name. Nothing at Google News Archive either. Sources are not easy to come by I can see. I deal with this a lot: subjects for which there's just not enough sources out there for a complete feeling article to be written. I'm not much of a peer reviewer. First, when I see grammar/syntax/punctuation etc. that I would change, I always feel weird suggesting the change instead of just doing it to the best of my ability. Second, I'm not much good at thinking about what's missing from a developed article, nor is article organization my forte, so I really don't have much to offer in the way of doing a peer review. But as I said, more to come on the copyedit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, copyediting is more than enough! I pinged someone else about a possible PR too. Your changes looked fine at first glance, I'll be sure to check again. Searching for this was real tricky, I think for one or two sources I turned them us by searching for ["Rosenberg" "Kalakaua"] or ["Rosenberg" "Hawaii" "Torah"] since some sources just used his last name. I was pretty happy (and a little surprised) when I got it to GA successfully, so I figured why not try for FA? It certainly can't hurt, and who knows, maybe I'll get it there. Hope the rest of the Ali review goes well, I guess there really has been a shortage of reviewers lately at FAC (in part because of an Arbcom case, I think). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Greed Dice Game - Avalon Hill Deletion

Why did you delete the Greed Game by Avalon Hill? We play that game all of the time. It is a great family game to teach math and probability to children. We have to search long and hard to find the game in it's original format in the tube with the mat. Love this game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.17.71 (talk • contribs)

You haven't provided the information necessary for me to answer your question. There was never an article by the exact name you've provided. In order to find a title in the deletion log I need the exact title including its exact capitalization. Without such a link or ability to see the deletion, the possibilities are legion. It may have been deleted after community consensus to do so at articles for deletion on various grounds such as lack of substantive treatment in reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Notability). It may have been a copyright violation. It may have been an attack page. Obviously you must have seen its deletion entry to know I performed the deletion so if you want an answer, provide a link to the actual deleted title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be the expired {{prod}}, Greed (game), a stub about a computer simulation of the real game (?). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

help needed with scientist/engineers biographies

please look at my user page - i have created many biographies of scientists. I would appreciate any help - particularly with photos. Standard2211 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Standard2211. You've done a great job in creating sourced stubs. I would now focus on depth and quality for their expansion. If you have a specific request, or want specific advice about aspects of improvement, please ask and I will help if I can, as I did with Rufus Cole and Franklin C. McLean. However, I have my own projects and areas of interest. I do not have the time to dive into the list of 159 articles you've created on a general request. Sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Replies

Hello. You have a new message about article titles capitalization at SMcCandlish's talk page. Hello. You have a new message about the tools at SMcCandlish's talk page. I forked the topics and refactored them out of the ArbCom legalese topic, which I'm going to archive as annoying noise shortly; didn't want to nuke ongoing convos in the process. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Suitable Inclusion for Rio Hamasaki

I was preparing to add an article about the Japanese AV idol Rio Hamasaki, whose exclusion from an otherwise reasonable survey of notable AV idols seemed conspicuous. You deemed the previous deleted article as not meeting guidelines for inclusion back in 2008 and I was hoping you could elaborate. Was the article itself insufficient or was it the idol herself? Thanks! Ode2joy (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ode2joy. (Beethoven fan?). The reason for the deletion was section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which is not a determination on the merits that the topic (nothing to do with the name) is unworthy for inclusion, but only that the content that was posted did not contain any credible indication of importance. If you post an article indicating importance, especially one that contains citations to reliable sources, then you should have no problems. In point of fact, the content previously posted basically said nothing but that she is a Japanese AV busty idol. No detail on her notability and no references. If you'd like, I can undelete the prior article and move it to a sandbox in your userspace so that you can work it up prior to posting. Once you are ready to "go live" you would then move the article to the main space.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for deleting the redirects! :) Just one thing: I'd like the User:B.wilson and User talk:B.wilson deleted as well, although you seemed to have undeleted it, could you please delete them again, or is that against policy? Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Regarding the other two pages, here's the problem as I see it. Signatures are substituted. You have about 4,700 edits to pages where people normally sign. It would seem to me a bad idea to break the links in those 4,700 signatures. It's not as if you have exercised your right to vanish, but have just changed usernames. By implication, it is against policy. WP:SIGLINK provides "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." It does not say specifically words to the effect that you can't act to break the links at a later time, but I think the implication is pretty hard to avoid as in the spirit of the policy, and I agree with it. People coming across your posts should be easily able to follow who left the post and not be frustrated by such broken connections. Please do feel free to ask for a second opinion anywhere you'd like but I am not going to delete them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:B.wilson

Hi, you previously undeleted User talk:B.wilson. The pages have been deleted again under U1. Your input would be appreciated at User_talk:Bmusician#Admin_help.... Yoenit (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Fuhghettaboutit,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Generating on-demand archives for at-risk sources

Dunno if you've seen WP:WebCite and http://WebCitation.org yet. For any source that is reasonably likely to at risk of disappearing, like any Web site that isn't really huge with a lot of money behind it, you don't have to wait for Archive.org to generate an archive (you hope) for |archiveurl= purposes in citations. This newer site will generate one on the fly. Of course, we have to trust that their own funding is enough to keep them going, but since their archival is on-demand the storage spaces costs are only a tiny fraction of those incurred by Archive.org. I've already used it to "save" most of the sources for Three-ball (crappy as they are, they're all we've got, and one's already been lost irretrievably because Archive.org never got it and now it's owned by a cybersquatter who blanked it with a dummy page). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They're great—I've been using them for a long time:-) See e.g. here—it's basically required for proper citation in an FA to a source that is web-based only. I created {{Text release}} a while back (see its documentation) which utilizes web citation to provide a link to a page where a free copyright release has been posted so there's a permanent record that the release actually occurred, even after the page goes down or the copyright notice is removed. The sad part is how hard it is to come by good sources for so many billiards things that we must turn to web sources. You know how little there is out there on Chicago?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. Try sourcing three-ball! Everyone and their granny knows how to play it, so no one bothered writing the rules down. D'oh! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Hadji Ali

This is a note to let the main editors of Hadji Ali know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hadji Ali (c. 1888–92 –1937) was a vaudeville performance artist famous for acts of controlled regurgitation. Thought to be of Egyptian extraction, his best known feats included water spouting, smoke swallowing and nut and handkerchief swallowing followed by disgorgement in an order chosen by the audience. Ali's most famous stunt, and the highlight of his act, was drinking copious amounts of water followed by kerosene, and then acting by turns as a human flamethrower and fire extinguisher as he expelled the two liquids onto a theatrical prop. While these stunts were performed, a panel of audience members was invited to watch the show up close to verify that no trickery was employed. Although never gaining wide fame, Ali had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. He performed for heads of state including Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Judy Garland named him her favorite vaudevillian and David Blaine identified Ali as his favorite magician. Ali's unusual gastric abilities led to rumors that the Rockefeller Institute had offered a large sum of money to obtain his stomach post-mortem. After he died in England his body was offered to Johns Hopkins for study, though the offer was declined. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anchors

I've no idea if that's the only place you can put them, or indeed why it broke the headings, as rather than go and spend ages trying to find some obscure documentation somewhere I just did trial and error until it no longer broke them! So, yes that's one way to get them working properly but there may be other ways. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the other half of this conversation... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish - It's on my talk page although this diff probably explains it all and isn't actually mentioned there either.

Fuhghettaboutit - I'm also not sure the anchors are needed but as I wasn't sure why you added them I thought I'd just correct the headers as I assumed you had a good reason. Dpmuk (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I was in anchorfest mode (Stanton, the full diff is this); they were needed for section of the page that didn't have headers and I was just anchoring everything in sight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping there was something I didn't know about, like a way to add anchors headings that wasn't ugly in the edit summary, like maybe some new MediaWiki feature. Wishful thinking! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cuegloss2

Fixed! Dumb typo in the code, sorry. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	For your help in finding sources for Dow Brain. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged Yunshui.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Adelaide 36ers roster template

Sorry man, shouldn't have deleted it. I just wanted to be able to edit the roster without having to edit the template. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gauss' Pythagorean right triangle proposal

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the semi-protect on Chardon High School shooting. It probably wasn't the wisest thing for me to have started that article so soon. I have been off Wikipedia pretty much for a couple of years. I just started back in full swing a a few weeks ago. It has really changed. I wasn't even going to ask for protection on that page because back in the day there would have been at least three admins on the case by the time I figured out there was a problem. It seems like a lot of people have left and everything is backlogged. Nice to "see" you. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been so much easier to edit today. I should have requested the protection sooner. What a way for a teacher to spend February vacation. Anyway, thanks again.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a third time, for your edits. I was glad that the onslaught of ID editors did not return after the protection was lifted. Take care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Much obliged for your prompt reply, explanation, and bot correction, as well as your patience with a wiki noob. 69.135.171.176 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I took your advice. BJMccoy (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

PS thank you for all the helpful links as well! BJMccoy (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pam-Crash article

Dear Fuhghettaboutit,

I was wondering if you might be able to help me. An article I wrote ("Pam-Crash") had a "may be written like an advertisement" template placed on it in November that I believe is no longer necessary. I have since revised the article and eliminated (I think) any excessive use of the product name as well as any jargon, backlinks, etc. When you have a chance, could you possibly look at the article and let me know if my changes have been sufficient to warrant removal of the template? Thank you!Michael Leeman (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tbrandley

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at TBrandley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hghyux (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, I'm done commenting there. I understand what you're saying but I don't think you're taking into account the time drain and disruption this user has caused. I would estimate an entire week of labor, 40 hours of time has been wasted by volunteers here on this user, whose most recent message appears to be is in bad faith, and this is someone who was in the past blocked, unblocked under a promise to stop, and went right back to their ways. Second chances are good where they're warranted. I don't think this is worth your or my time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thanks for timely assist on move

Thanks for the speedy delete/move on "So You Think You Can Dance (Poland) (season 7)" -> "You Can Dance - Po Prostu Tańcz (season 7)". I was the idiot who moved the article to the (inaccurate) English title a while back, as I mistakenly thought this was the format used for the previous seasons. Just caught the error yesterday. Anyway, thanks for helping me correct the mistake. Snow (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anytime Snow. If you need assistance in the future, please feel free to contact me directly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit for the guidance posted on the Human Genome Project article. Your help is much appreciated. A1dumbiryani (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anytime A1dumbiryani.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote box

Is it possible to create a page here http://finaldestination.wikia.com/wiki/ and make the page "Template:Quote box" cause I would like for there t be one. If not atleast show me here how it should be written to make it. --84.169.204.116 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That is a Wikia page. It has no association whatever with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia and many sister sites. I would nevertheless answer your question if I had any idea, but I don't, sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources?

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I've been working on William S. Sadler (he founded a new religious movement--think Scientology without all the movie stars and lawsuits) lately and am almost done adding what I've found for reliable sources (though there are plenty of unreliable sources about him). I found a few old newspaper articles that I haven't accessed yet, do you have access to any of the articles in User talk:Mark Arsten/sandbox 2 or should I go to WP:RX? If you have time/interest, any help with the article/sources would be appreciated. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez

Hi, Fughghettaboutit. Can you post your additional citations for Lopez's birthdate? Your source has been called into question by what I and others are convinced is a sock puppet for someone close to the subject. The birthdate issue is sensitive with some Hollywood "actresses," but is that a valid encyclopedic concern? Georgenancy (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also - is the language of the source a valid reason to discredit it? Georgenancy (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The language of the source couldn't be more irrelevant! Okay, I will go add more sources, after I see what's brewing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question on Chesterfieldman's talk page - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Chesterfieldman. I'm concerned the following may be facially libelous?? "02:33, 17 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-830)‎ . . Kamala Lopez ‎ (this is obviously the work of someone with a personal vendetta. If you look at the history here, you'll see that Jeanmarie Simpson has been trying to vandalize this biography. take a look at the history. This kind of abuse gives wikipedia a bad name.)" Georgenancy (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Responded to you there. By the way, you can link to any Wikipedia page just be enclosing in double brackets, so the link above would be place by [[User talk:Chesterfieldman]] Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I expected that you'd delete the content - I fear we're in the middle of a family thing, but I don't think Simpson belongs in it. I think she is being scapegoated for lots of edits by different users. Josiewarvelle (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to take some time to look at the edit history of the article and the redirect and I may need to get some other admins on board to take a look. I am unfortunately very time constrained right now. It does appear that there may be a glimmer of truth behind Chesterfieldman's complaints, though his actions have utterly failed to focus the issue in a cogent way, nor does flailing around accusing everyone of being one person make sense in the situation. But yes, there is some history in the article of bad faith attacks; some sot of family squabble. I may need to do quite a bit of revdeletion to take care of the content, some blocks may be needed and yes, protection may be warranted. I need to have an hour to dig through the history and decide on what to do and I canlt do it tonight. Meanwhile, as I said in my edit summary, your edit I reverted and revdeleted here was obviously made in good faith, but please don't repeat such material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think fans of Simpson's might be behind it, and people who aren't crazy about Lopez. I have followed JM and her work for a long time and I don't believe she had anything to do with it. I think her name needs to be taken out of the equation. Innocent until proven, and all that. Josiewarvelle (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and I know you don't have time to deal with this now. But I think this edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Lopez&oldid=482303139 makes a pretty good case for being the relative Simpson thought to be Chesterfieldman. At any rate, it's clear that the person behind that username is close to the subject, and shouldn't be editing the page. Josiewarvelle (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hasty

Template:Hasty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Elcap/Film capacitor

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I saw, that you try to move my draft to a real "Wiki" and change it back. Because up to now I never move a draft to a Wiki article I kindly would ask you to do it for me. I think, the corrections done during the last days now make a readeable article out of this. Thanks so much for helping me. --Elcap (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Rosenberg

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, since you helped me with it a couple months back, I thought I'd let you know that Elias Abraham Rosenberg is now at FAC. Any comments/suggestions/derision would be appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the everything!!! Regards, Muhammad Mukhriz Wanna talk? 10:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Graicunas formula

To be fair, the previous request for clarification has been there 3 years, with no clarification; although I hadn't checked if the hyperlinks were added later, the wording hasn't been addressed, and I don't know enough about it to do so, either. Dru of Id (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some talk pages are just sparsely watched. Still, a helpme request doesn't fit. How about directing the user to the WP:RD/M? Or even moving their question there with an explanatory note (in both locations)? I'll go do that if you don't respond shortly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dynasphere

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD: Pages which have survived deletion discussions

Hi. You participated in the G4 RfC, including the last section WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4: Moving forward, and WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages which have survived deletion discussions, which removed "generally". Does your comment mean that you wish to move the footnote from G4 to the sentence in the lead? Looking over the old discussion, Cunard's initial footnote proposal was on G4 – to which I agreed after reading "G4 does not apply" in your proposed text – and most participants didn't specify. Do you object to any of the other changes (diff including a few unrelated edits)? Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, though I can see why my comment might be puzzling. I looked at the diff at the recent post of the implementation and failed to notice the <ref> </ref> tags and so thought incorrectly that the note I had drafted to be placed as a footnote was directly in G4 when it was already placed as a footnote (D'oh!). I thus redundantly requested it be made a footnote when it already was. Sorry for the confusion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy of article

Hi! I recently wrote an article on Susan Foster, a jewelry designer that was rapidly deleted. I am happy to rewrite it as requested however is there any way i can have a copy of it emailed to me or something??? The footnoting took me forever!

Replied at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Susan Foster

It appears that the user who wanted to have a copy of her deleted article just went and recreated it. Should it be deleted again? --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 01:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think Alison is confused. I hope she's seeing my messages and my most recent one helps clarify matters. We sometimes forget how confusing the interface can be for neophytes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping that she gets the idea soon, or this might get ugly. Regards --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

SORRY! I am definitely a neophyte! Once I revise it in the userspace, how do I move it? Sorry, I'm very confused. :(

FYI: User talk:Alisonpollack#Help request. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Fuhghettaboutit a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!! LET ME KNOW WHEN AND HOW TO RESUBMIT! :) Alisonpollack (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The proper thank you!

"He profits most who serves best." - International Rotary motto - Pendright (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam Research account

Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications#Applicants_for_round_2.2C_post-April_16th_open_period — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gracias señor. ¡Con mucho gusto!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi-- A few months ago you were kind enough to help me get a confusion straightened out, and now I have a new one.

Two days ago I came across a page that's an obvious (to me) candidate for speedy deletion, for a number of reasons, and I tagged it with the db-multiple template, but apparently formatted incorrectly, because it isn't showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The page in question is Minchunochong Gang Rape. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Milkunderwood. Speedy deletion is strictly construed. For the most part, if an article does not meet any criterion it should not be speedy deleted. Alternatives are proposed deletion and articles for deletion for consideration on the merits. For that reason, the speedy deletion templates are targeted at the letter of specific criterion, and db-multiple allows you to choose multiple criterion that actually exist, not a string of text, as you used. There is a way to place an explanation: use, {{db|your reason}}. Db-multiple requires you to use the letter codes of the criteria you are invoking, for example {{db-multiple|A7|G11}} would be for deletion under CSD A7 (no indication of importance) and CSD G11 (blatant advertising). Since you did not supply any criteria but used prose, the template did not recognize your nomination. Meanwhile, there was a perfectly applicable criterion to tag it under: CSD G10, for attack pages or negative unsourced content on living persons, which you could have placed using {{db-g10}}. The reasons you gave were not valid speedy deletion bases in any event. You should really go look at the criteria carefully so you can easily go through the list from memory to see if one applies. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and for taking care of that situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Page move question

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, hope things are going well with you. I just expanded lower back tattoo, probably going to be a dyk. I bet it will get hit pretty hard by vandals if I can get the top spot... But anyway, I wanted to move the article to lower-back tattoo but it's move protected. Is this non-controversial enough that I can just ask you to do it or do I have to go through a move request discussion on the talk page? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark. In the normal exercise of being bold you would be able to do this without impediment; there has been no controversy over the title which is only protected because of a prediction of likelihood of move vandalism. Accordingly, doing it now. Question: Shouldn't "tramp stamp" appear bolded be in the first sentence with a citation given how common this alternative name is?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! It took me a minute of trying to click move to figure out it was protected. I'm a bit slow sometimes... Good point, added the citation. I'm always surprised how often pages on well-known topics are so small, although this page had been expanded a number of time with nonconstructive information, actually, my attention was drawn to it by an ANI report. So that board is useful sometimes, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hiram Evans

Hey, it's me again. I'm trying to find an obituary of Hiram Wesley Evans, he died in 1966--I haven't been able to find an obit though. He ran the KKK for a while, but there's very little information about him after he retired from it, although he lived another 26 years or so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, good find with the DOB/death date there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And having the DOD is pretty key in finding an obit, though I really don't know one exists. Do you want a copy of his actual World War I draft registration card?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that would be interesting. RE: your edit summary, the {{sfn}} system is geared toward book sources--I think it makes them easier than the standard ref template. Sfn is sort of tricky with web and newspaper sources, most of the articles I work on are primarily sourced to books, so I don't usually have much of a problem with it. There was one user here who was a lot of help fixing templates and refs, I think he's blocked at the moment though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete request

Hey Fugh, could I get you to do a delete on another SYTYCD article? Specifically, this article: So You Think You Can Dance (Lithuania TV series). It is a recently created redundancy of Tu gali šokti which, aside from employing the correct show title and logo image, also has more content and more accurate and up-to-date information. The new article also seems to be a bad bot translation, but it's too short to say for certain. I've already merged the one fact to be gained from the new version, the identity of a producer that I will validate (hopefully with a cite-able source as the page is light on them) or remove. If you can help, thanks in advance! Edited to add: Also, should I throw a fast delete request tag on there beforehand, just for documentation purposes? Snow (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Snow Rise. This is a different situation than the last one. The prior was a move issue and I see no speedy deletion necessary here. Rather, one just needs to be redirected to the other. I've done a few things. First, So You Think You Can Dance (Lithuania TV series) was not recently created, it preexisted from 2010, and the article you created at Tu gali šokti is the new one. Second, you merged content from the former into the latter but did not provide mandatory copyright attribution when you did so. I have taken care of that by two attribution notes, one in each article (see this and this) I then simply redirected the former to the latter. I have also tagged the page as entirely unreferenced. The best thing you could do for the article is find some reliable sources that verify the content, add a references section, and cite to those sources uses inline citations. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why I didn't just redirect it myself; I really have no idea why I was thinking a delete was in order -- but that was the end of a long day. Anyway, as to the tagging and the rest of your efforts, thank you for the assistance there as well. As to the citation deficiency, yeah, I know -- it's a real problem. I'm going to make a major effort in the coming weeks to research references not just for that article but for all the articles for shows in the franchise which require more than they currently have -- which is the majority. It's a tall order, owing to the fact that Wikipedia-appropriate sources concerning the format and production of this type of show are difficult to scare up -- even before you throw in the complications of having to work with over 20 different languages. But it needs to be done for the stability of the pages; the content is non-controversial (and easily confirmed by viewing the subject matter in question), which I presume is why there have never been major issues with people challenging it, but we can't count on that always being the case. Anyway, thanks again for the assist!

On a separate note, I'm trying to broaden my horizons a bit as an editor and provide assistance to others in areas that some have trouble with -- specifically, I have a background in comparative linguistics so I'm good with generating or cleaning up translations. I've also become quite good, over the last year, at formulating involved tables and other format elements that require a more detailed than average use of the wiki markup syntax. So, if you ever see anything along either of those lines which you don't care to deal with yourself, throw it my way! Or if you know of projects/request pages where those particular talents can find use, let me know if its not too much trouble? (I'll check back here so you don't have to trouble yourself with my talk page); despite being a contributor to Wikipedia for years, I've only in the last few months begun to explore the user space and collaborative tools in real detail, so I'm still working out how to put offers for help out there, outside of my talk page. But I'd be pleased to return the favour of assistance in any way I can. Snow (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline to discuss?

After the failure of Talk:Trollhunter#Moving back to Trolljegeren?, must I discuss one policy or guideline in either a talk page or WP:village pump (miscellaneous)? I admit that this is one unsuccessful proposal, but why are proposal and supports baffling? --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the proposal conflicts with Wikipedia:Article titles, which is a collection of related policies, and so specifically within it, with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and WP:NCF#Foreign-language films. It is baffling because there was no logical connection between these relevant policies and the rationale for moving it to a name that bucked each of them. Or to put it another way, the fact that there is a recognizable title to readers that is natural and is common in English language sources means we should use that title. The separate issue of that there are four variations in the English spelling, means only that we need to choose one, and that had already occurred in the prior, closed discussion. There is no clear logical connection that because we had to choose one, instead we should go against all the naming criteria policies to use a foreign title. It was also highly confusing that a bunch of other policies, such as notability and original research, were invoked when they had nothing to do with the issue. No, you do not need to limit yourself to discussion of one policy in a talk page or village pump discussion, but you do have to understand which policies are relevant and their meaning in order to make a logical argument how to apply them, as well as when we should make an exception to their application. Sorry, but I do not believe that was the case here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, dan dan you qing conflicts, as well? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is where you need to study the policy more intensely. Let me present you with a bunch of examples to illustrate, with each resulting in a different result from the policy, because of different circumstances.

• Some form of Trollhunter (do not get hung up on the different spellings of it), and not its foreign language title, has an established usage in English language sources so instead of using the foreign title, we use the English form. Another example: Fantastic Planet, a French film was originally under the title La Planète Sauvage but has an established usage in English sources as Fantastic Planet so that's what we title it. Make sure you note that it is not us here at Wikipedia, but the English speaking world, that uses an English title for both these films.
• By contrast, the well known French film Ma vie en rose is not generally translated in English sources to "My Life in Pink" but rather remains referred to as Ma vie en rose—so that foreign title remains its proper title here. Note that the use in English language reliable sources is the key again, not whether the title is or is not in English.
• But what happens when there is no real presence in English language sources at all? Then we use the foreign title (this rarely happens with films). Example: the album Tavo sielos vagiz by Lithuanian hip hop group G&G Sindikatas is not used in English Language sources so we do not translate it but leave it in its original foreign title.
• Okay, so what happens when the title has no established usage in English language sources but is also not in the Latin alphabet? Then we transliterate the foreign name and use that. That appears to be the proper result for dan dan you qing (though I have no idea if the current title is a proper transliteration).

Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I get that, if one English name exists in a reliable source, one English title must be used for English readers. For instance, The Wandering Songstress rather than tian ya ge nü (song) is used because the English name exists in reliable sources. Let me get this straight: Trollhunter follows guideline that makes "The" optional and policy that is common by reliable source, correct? If so, how does the previous discussion on the English variations not violate "Wikipedia is not a battlefield" policy? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You're back to this again? What does the one have anything to do with the other? What is the remedy for a battle? Well, it's calming people down; it's structured, formal discussion such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, possibly an ANI report, possibly the issuance of blocks to stop the battle. What if the battle is a move war (though there was no true move war here, just one move and a heated discussion)? The remedy is to establish a consensus for a name through a formal move discussion. What in the world does any of that have to do with choosing a non-English title for a topic that has an English name with established usage in contravention of naming policies? Where are you making this connection between WP:BATTLE and not applying our naming conventions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone complained about it in WT:RM#Strange move closure?, so WP:BATTLE has nothing to do with it? No policies or guidelines have been violated? --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone complained that of the English variations, there was insufficient consensus for the move to the English variation that the closer did rather than another. Again, what in the world does that have to do with moving it to a foreign title against all the applicable naming polices involved? How do you get from a complaint that the wrong English title was chosen to "let's move it to something else entirely"? If someone wishes to revisit that close, they could make a new request saying the last one got it wrong, by analyzing that the consensus and applicable polices should have resulted in Troll Hunter, not Trollhunter (or whatever). Please note that I am in no way suggesting that should be done, and I think it would look very pointy if you did so at this point.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So what else can I do if I won't use Talk:Trollhunter as an example any longer? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Use it as an example of what?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

...Well... an example of how loopy and screwed the translation policies and guidelines are, such as WP:naming conventions (use English) and "faithful" translation stuff, in some specific cases. We have four variations verified by reliable sources, but the edit warring occured, and the result of prior discussion on English variations was criticized. Well, I was trying to ease tensions by proposing a foreign name against translation rules, but it did not work. I mean, under WP:THE, the use of (in)definite article varies on works, people, and things; also, in some cases, the use of the, an, or a is optional. If translation rules are working, then which other rule is not working well? --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I agree you can't use it as any sort of good example of that because the issue is not our translation at all. Translation is not by us for the name of this movie, the world did that, and the particulars of what occurred is unusual because it's not common that English language sources will have multiple different versions of the same form of a topic's name. Anomalies are bad examples because the very fact that they are anomalies makes them bad examples to generalize from.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So does the use of Trollhunter not break any rule? No rule is broken, right? --George Ho (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know of no rules broken. We had to choose one of four forms. We chose one in a closed discussion. The only policy I can think of under which there might be some legitimate claim of being "broken", is WP:CONSENSUS. I am not saying that I agree with the person who asserts the consensus was for another form. But that is the only policy that I think might legitimately be at issue on the prior close. Meanwhile, it is dangerous to look at the list of policies and think about them as statutes that can be broken. Try not to think of policies this way. Try to think of the logic behind the policy and ask yourself whether the application of the policy reaches a result that is good for the encyclopedia, in the particular context it is being applied.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your decision so clearly at Talk:Trollhunter [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. And much more importantly, than you for not letting Dicklyon, Noetica, et al. force through that pre-disambiguation/descriptive names for things with titles and so on horrorshow. Every time in the past few months I've looked at the WT:AT my bloodpressure's gone up and I click off fast but not before seeing that you're there as a voice of reason. I actually feel guilty that I haven't waded in, but I haven't had a lot of time and I just feel apathetic about the psychic pain I know it would cause me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with posting an article

Hi

I have written an article as a Word document, but am completely dumfounded about getting up as a Wikipedia article. I have spent hours going in circles. Tried the sandbox, but it will take muiltiple sessions to get something in a finished form and it looks like every time you save your work... it is immediately published. How can I find someone who would be willing to take my article and do the magic required to turn it into a Wiklipedia article?

Flindiva (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Linda Chamberlain linda@boundlesslife.com

Hi Flindiva. What you should do is post the text from the document not to the Wikipedia Sandbox but to a personal sandbox. All you need to do is create the article at a subpage of your user or user talk namespace. This would be in the form User:Flindiva/NAME OF PROPOSED ARTICLE or User talk:Flindiva/NAME OF PROPOSED ARTICLE. Once you post that, it will generally be left alone until you're ready to "go live" by moving it to the article namespace. Once you post it, I or others can help you. You can perform the creation by typing out the name in doubled quotes, that is type [[User:Flindiva/NAME OF PROPOSED ARTICLE]], then hit the show preview button to see a red link (like the example names shown above) click on the red link, post your content and then click save page, or you can enter the title below and follow the instructions, then, where you see "You may create the page "NAME OF PAGE", click on the red name, paste your text, and save.

Type the name of the subpage (per above) here: Then click here:

Once posted, I can certainly help you with formatting and much more, but I I have no idea if what you have written is: suitable as an article; if it's a notable topic; if it's written like an advertisement, as opposed to from a neutral point of view; whether you have included references or not etc., so it's difficult for me to predict, in the hypothetical, whether I will be able to truly help or not. Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for responding and offering to help. Can I email the draft article to you so you can evaluate it for appropriateness?

Flindiva (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Because of what I see day-to-day, I'm wondering in advance if you are here to create an article on an independent topic you happen to be interested in, or if the email address you've provided is the clue that you're a person with a conflict of interest looking to create a self-promotional article for your organization? Anyway, yes, you can email it, but please understand that even if I think its suitable, I wouldn't make changes and then post it because this would introduce a copyright attribution mess. Instead, you would need to post it, and then others can make changes, which is why a subpage is a better route. But I can certainly do a quick evaluation, along the lines of "yes post it at a subpage, this can be fixed" or "no way, don't even bother, this is not a notable topic" or something in between. I really do hope you have identified published, reliable sources that are independent of the subject which discuss the topic in some detail, and even if you haven't, that they exist. That is the lifeblood of suitability to have an article. You can fix tone, style, formatting, bias, but you can't fix Notability and verifiability—they exist or they don't.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I have posted my article on Bina48 to User:Flindiva/Sandbox. I tried to block and edit "Sandbox" to "Bina48" (the title of the proposed article) but it would not change. I have tried to follow all the guidelines to the best of my ability. Please let me know if you find the draft article worth your time to assist with.Flindiva (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

THANKS!! :)

Thank you for your helping this worm of an newbie editor with redirecting the Class Struggle to the article I needed it redirected to Class conflict. That helps a lot with teaching people hungry for more information about the global situation, both historically and current. Please leave a link on my talk page so I can nominate you for another Barn-star. :) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey XB70Valyrie! You're most welcome. I am literally in the middle of writing a detailed post to you at the help desk. Glad to see you saw the edits. Look for it there in a few minutes:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For not only helping with technical aspects of merging redundant articles, but teaching others how to improve their own wiki-skills XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. These copyright issues can be slippery and a surprise to people because they're not something many people encounter in their everyday lives.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Aaron Wolfson 1

User talk:Aaron Wolfson 1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Aaron Wolfson 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Aaron Wolfson 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 03:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to post this for you specifically. Twinkle did it automatically. I was just cleaning house. Thanks for taking care of it quickly. ;0)

Anytime. After I read your post I said "Twinkle!" the same way Seinfeld would say "Newman!":-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A7 explanation

• I am quite impressed by your explanation of A7 in the discussion on film A7s. Perhaps clearer than anything I've said in trying to explain it. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I added a section header. Glad you liked that take on it. The point has been occurring to me more and more lately as what all the things within A7's reach have in common (besides plain old frequency). I hoped I was getting under the surface as I was writing it. I think that point is one of the reasons calls for a criterion for products come up over and over—they fit that profile, which people intuitively feel, even if it's not articulated in that way (though we're agreed, I think, that it appears impossible to come up with an objective, discrete criterion that would work for them, and it doesn't work to just add them to A7's list).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yank Adams

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article, please feel free to revert or correct me if I'm doing something I shouldn't be. I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long for the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! It's been so long I actually forgot about it—I don't mean that now that you've reminded me I don't remember making the request, but I haven't thought of it and checked where it was in the queue in months. Anyway, we're all volunteers. Thing happen when they happen, though the decline in membership does place a strain everywhere. Thank you for working on it!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it looks like an interesting article to copy-edit. The GOCE queue has been a little busier because of the 'drive' - hopefully that will continue but I doubt it. The backlog is now at March 2012, so we've made inroads but the list just keeps growing! :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. There are quite a lot of redlinks to non-existent articles; I left these alone but I can remove them if you wish. I replaced the {{Cuegloss}} templates with standard wikilinks because the former create underlines, which looked a little odd. Finally I've chosen to use the serial comma throughout because that was the dominant style. I hope that's okay. I'd be happy to return to the article if there are further outstanding issues. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Baffle gab. I'm going to look at it carefully (but not today). I can tell you I am not a fan of the Oxford comma but that's just a style issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's an interesting article. I'm no Oxford comma fan either - feel free to convert it back if you wish. :-) Good luck with your FA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Found the diff button![2] Wow. What a difference. I can finally see every change, even removal of a period ".". It would be nice for that to be a gadgets option. Thank for the assistance. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Web Searches

Hello again, re: those links for searches that you shared with me, specifically the sac bee ones, when you go to them they are not complete articles because you have to purchase them to see the full article. Are you telling me that its okay to link to information like those as long as you are pointing to them for the information they are showing and not assuming anything about the remainder of the article? And as far as the books go, most books you find might show a few pages but not the entire book. Do editors here use that kind of references too? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

When I am researching a subject that has lots of sources available, I usually only look at the news articles and books that provide "full view", at least at first. But I think you may be under the misimpression that everything you cite is required to be online, which is why you're balking at using information provided in an article or book where you can't read the whole thing and provide a link to the whole thing. If I have a book in my hand that's not available at all online, it is perfectly fine to cite that source—many of the most reliable sources in fact are not online. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. You might also mosey over to WP:Featured articles and look at a bunch, not only because its' educational to see what we consider our best work, and many are wonderful, but because numerous ones are based on a mix of sources available and unavailable online but some are made up entirely of citations to books and the like that are offline only. So, if I can see half of a newspaper article or page from a book (i.e., Google Books' and News Archive' "snippet view") and it has information I want to cite, I sure can use it and cite to that source because I've seen it, even if not the whole thing. But again, It's just easier to first look at all the full view search results first. Now, say you come across an article that appears really useful from what little you see, but you want to see the rest. You can go over to WP:RX and request someone who has free access to provide you a copy of the article (obviously, this doesn't work so well for books). Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S., Google new and books are a good place to start but there are lots of other places to get sources online, for example 19,648,000 Old New York State Historical Newspaper Pages free and full view (thouhg I ust ran a search there and found nothing on Colleen Stan). If you run into a dead end, I have access to a subscription service that provides over a billion newspaper articles (newspaperarchive.com) and may be able to email you the pdfs of some of the ones you find on Google News that you can't access in full.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not edible

I'm afraid your comment on the help desk now looks strange. We're not really supposed to just remove comments but someone did after I told them.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right – it looks bizarre after what it referred to was removed. I hope that comment didn't cause the removal, it was very much meant in fun. I have removed my post as well from the archive. Thanks for the heads up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Participation in a discussion

You are invited to participate in this discussion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You deleted the articles as well on my page !!

Hi You updated my article Omar al-Muqdad .. saying you don't list every interview the journalist gives, that's fine , but you deleted his written articles as well !! With CNN .. these were articles not interviews— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona L'abeille (talk • contribs)

We write about a person, what they've accomplished what they've done what they are noted for, their life—as written about them in reliable sources (i.e. not youtube), citing to the sources for the text we wrote. We do not list every article they've written either. I was speaking in shorthand in the edit summary. Take a look at a substantial article on a famous reporter, for example, Edward R. Murrow: do you see a list of articles he wrote? By the way, you are the article's creator but it is not "your article". I am trying to help and I understand that you must have spent a lot of time gathering together those lists with sources and placing the markup for the citations and that it may be very frustrating to feel all that work has been quickly removed (and I also appreciate the fact that you were obviously trying hard to comply with our requirements for reliable sources, as so many people do not, even if you had a misunderstanding as to what goes into an article and is cited), but that material was not proper in the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you .. anyway I might still need to update the article, would this be still possible, I still need some more time ..

You have all the time in the world. It has two reliable source listed and properly cited. It is a valid stub, not listed in any way for deletion, nor do I see any reason it would be nominated for deletion. Keep adding to the text, citing to reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am Sorry

I didn't mean to "steal" your advice and put it on my page. I tried to leave all the formatting intact but when I copied and pasted it, it wouldn't save it exactly as it was. It made it one big long sentence that ran off the page so I had to scroll way to the right (not up and down)to read it. So many people have been telling me how to do stuff that there is no possible way for me to remember it all so I just wanted to keep it for future ref because i thought maybe you would delete it from your page since it was specifically for me and not just something you posted, and then I wouldn't be able to refer back to it. Again I apologize if I did anything wrong. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo, I did not for a moment think you had anything but the best intentions and was only acting to correct the issue—I figured you didn't know how to keep the formatting (you had to go into "edit mode" and copy my raw original text) and even thought something like "I hope she understands and won't take this as me being perturbed in any way". By the way, the reason you were seeing it as one long sentence running off the page was because you tried to paste it with a space before it. All text must be flushed left or you get that annoying dotted box that runs off the page. This post, as with those prior, is indented by prefixing a colon before it, more indents the more colons you use. Take a look at this post in edit mode as well to see. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh okay thanks, no hard feelings. I am sensitive and just want to make as few mistakes as possible so thank you for explaining. It helps. =) Tattoodwaitress (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at RudolfRed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RudolfRed (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Search report

Hi, FYI, it was about this report. It will still need work, but needed to get started. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied to your reply...

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 14. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Tlqk56 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

And this is the only tag I know how to use...

DYK Hook

I like it. Do you think it should say Newbery Honor book, or something, for people who might know that's the biggest prize a kid's book can win? I had wondered about something like "...that [Allen W. Eckert]] claimed his [Newbery Honor]] novel [Incident at Hawk's Hill]], about a six-year-old boy who survives on the Canadian prairie for several months with help from a mother [badger]], was based on a real event?" But that might not be the right style. You've done this before, I'll be happy with whatever you think is best. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing DYKs

I know someone who submits a DYK is also supposed to review one, but I'd rather go through the process at least once before I do that, and according to what I read people with less than five are exempt. Does that mean you will need to review one, or do we put some kind of note there to let people know this is my first one? Sorry to bother you -- I'm sure you have nothing else going on, haha. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First, ask me anything anytime. The quid pro pro requirement as you note, is only for people who have done five or more past dyks. But it is also only applies to self-nominations. So, you are exempt and I am exempt since as to me it's not a self-nomination. If I was nominating my own creation, I would be required to do a review. No note is needed because if you look at the nomination, you'll see that it says that you are the creator and I am the nominator. Hope that clears it up.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal clear, thank you. While I'm here, maybe you could help me out with something else. I followed this discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Saving work thats not ready to publish, and didn't understand enough of it. I have several sandboxes, and I do sometimes copy stubs or parts of them to work on. So when I do that I should make a note before I save that says where I copied it from, right? What confused me was the stuff about Template:User sandbox. I've not seen it before. I went there and read the page and it made about 0 sense, so I tried just playing with it and got nowhere. What am I supposed to put where, to keep my sandboxes from looking like articles and appearing on Google? (I know they do, I've seen them.) I wonder why they don't just automatically get created with the right wording, since the purpose is for you to play around in them? Anyway, if you have time at some point to just tell me in English what to do, I'd appreciate it. Finally, if one of the ways to get an article on DYK is improve it five-fold all at once, doesn't that assume you'll be basically pasting a longer article on top of a short one? So why do they discourage cutting and pasting? Sorry to ask so many questions, but I have a bunch of them rolling around in here and sometimes they drive me a bit buggy. Thanks for your help. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. You have been a big help.

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Tattoodwaitress's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 03:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up!

Is there any minor error in formatting? If you see my talk you'll understand. I (also?) don't use talkbak template, BTW, I have replied in both my talk and Wikipedia help! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Film capacitor DYK issues

Hello! Your submission of Film capacitor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Incident update

Thanks for pointing that out. I believe I've fixed it, if you don't mind taking a look. Upon rereading, I also noticed under Editions that I hadn't italicized any part of Reader's Digest Condensed Books. Of course, RD is a magazine, so I should italicize that, but do you think I should the whole thing? I did, because it's kind of the name of all the books. But I'm not sure. Feel free to change it if you have a different opinion. I appreciate your help. Tlqk56 (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph looks much better. Regarding Readers Digest, When in doubt look at what a cross section of other articles do. It's italicized in our article on Reader's Digest Condensed Books itself (which I've added as a piped link in the article), and in a number of other articles, so the italics appear correct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Incident at Hawk's Hill

I am accepting the DYK nomination; however, before I do so, I would like to hear your thoughts on a slightly modified hook. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The new, redundant automatic edit summary on page moves should be reverted

Hey, what happened to this proposal? There appeared to be a consensus to remove the redundancy, however nothing happened. Till I Go Home ^{talk stalk} 12:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Till I Go Home. I am glad someone saw that. It is so frustrating. Unanimous support and no action. What happened, sadly, is unilateral, high-handed refusal by one person, the developer assigned, and there's apparently no oversight body to appeal to. Please see Bug 34961 You may register your support there but I don't know that it will do any good. The whole lack of communication between developers and the community is a problem. It's what led to the malfeasance (not a word I throw around lightly) that resulted in the switch to the Vector skin and many other cock-ups, though that one looms large in my mind.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fuh

Hi Fuh! Thanks for helping out at the Teahouse. Have you thought about becoming an official Teahouse host? Aside from answering questions, Hosts also help contribute to the development of the Teahouse into phase 2, and also help in the number one thing we desperately need at this time (as we enter phase 2): invites!! Right now we have too many hosts and not enough questions coming in :( So any help with that would rock! Thanks for considering it! Sarah (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the invite (if you remember, you invited me by email some time ago, but you were probably sending out many, while you were in 'recruitment mode'. I declined at that time because of the time obligation to which I could not commit. I don't see that in the stated requirements any longer. I really do appreciate the invite. Thank you. But I am going to decline at this time. I have many tongs in many fires and I like welcoming users in my own manner. This does not mean I might not take you up on it in the future. But I will likely continue answering questions at the question page—something I have done for years at the help desk, WP:NCHD, WP:VPA (defunct), through helpme requests and elsewhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Great news that you can help you in anyway. Please be sure to read the tips page. We ask that people who answer questions keep things as easy as possible (no jargon, not linking to excessive policies), and they keep a friendly tone ( say hi, etc, as we all like to be welcomed when we enter a new place - online or offline), and keep positive. Thanks again, and I hope you'll consider reviewing the tips and thanks for being a part of the Teahouse! Sarah (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please check on my page to see if the addition I made are fine?

I don't want to build on something then to discover that you delete that again :)

DYK for Incident at Hawk's Hill

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK has arrived!

Well, it's there thanks to you. I wouldn't have tried it on my own. Thanks so much, it was fun, and painless. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More help -- How do I add the Reflinks tool (Toolserver) to my Toolbox menu?

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I copied the code and clicked on "Special:MyPage/skin:js" but didn't know where to paste.

How do I "clear cache"? I tried to read about it but got lost immediately.

I am asking too many questions and that makes me feel that I shouldn't be doing this!

sofiabrampton

````

Hi again Sofia. Let's break it down into discrete chunks.

1. Highlight the text I provided before for you at WP:TH/Q and copy it;
2. Click this link Special:MyPage/skin.js;
3. Click "Edit" at the top of the page;
4. Paste the copied code;
5. Click "Save page";
6. Now you need to bypass your cache I can't tell you exactly how to do that until you tell me what browser you are using, e.g., Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, etc., and whether your computer is a mac or a PC. Alternatively, if you go to the instruction page I linked before, just look for the instructions specific to your browser and computer. For example, in Firefox on a PC, hold down both the Ctrl and ⇧ Shift keys and then press R. Alternatively, hold down the Ctrl key and then press F5. On a Mac, use the ⌘ Cmd key instead of Ctrl.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you.... tweissberg 03:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It was no problem at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	A barnstar for you! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 07:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Titodutta. I hope the follow-up explanation I gave was helpful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Question you might be able to help with

Hey, Ryan followed it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility# Media wiki software for bold and italics, where I responded. Graham87 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer-anon

Thank you. It took me two hours to get a response on IRC just before posting that, so 2 1/2 days was comparable. While it's helpful to think outside the box, we shouldn't be claiming something is in it when it might not be. Your text was more concise. Dru of Id (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I indicated I would have used your text, except that I was afraid it would make the page lengthen or wrap across every page it appears in. I think the timing is one more indication of the lack of active admins.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

William S. Sadler

Was just promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help finding sources for it a while back! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. What better way could there be to help the encyclopedia than to play a part in helping articles achieve featured quality?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Help! Need to prep my Wikipedia article to be published!

Hi, You had previously replied to one of my message posts regarding how to publish my newly created page from a User page to a Live page. Since your comment, I have gone back and made edits to my content and made it more objective. I would really like to get my page ready to go so that it may be published in the very near future, but I am very new to Wikipedia and unsure on how to do a variety of things. What exactly do I need to fix so that my article will stick? All of the information provided is 100% accurate, as it is a bio. Any information or guidance you can give me so that my page can be published would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you, BaseverBasever (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Eureqa

What was I doing? Very simple, just creating a stub to start working on. I did not realize anyone would even notice the article existed at this early stage, so I thought I had some time to copy edit it into new prose so it wasn't a word for word copy, and begin building up a new article with references and perhaps pictures. If there is a problem I'll try to copy edit it In the next hour, and add some references in case there is any doubt as to notability. Best, Judgesurreal777

You cannot start articles with infringed, copyrighted content, even if you later change it. We don't allow copyright infringement of content in any versions of articles. If that's the extent of it, please don't do this from now on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I'll be more careful in the future. Could you put the article back now? I would like to clean it of infringing material and build it up a bit. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No I cannot. I would never undelete a page with a copyvio on it. It could be created afresh with none of the lifted content, but I have bigger fish to fry. See my next message at your talk page regarding Jan Assmann.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Dear Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for your eagle-eyed diligence! Sofiabrampton (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:RM#Move without redirect

Ping. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some assistance required on deleting and moving a page

Hi, I just posted on the help page. Find the discussion here.

Someone suggested I contact you to help with the issue raised.

Thanks for help in advance

--RodrigoRaviera (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I just replied to your comments at User_talk:NJ_Wine#Unblock_Request

TheIrishWarden

Oh. thanks a million for that, you're great help! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FiverFan65 asks for help re article "The Ivy Tree"

Hello, wonderful Fuhghettaboutit!

A couple of nights ago I glanced at The Ivy Tree, an article about a novel by Mary Stewart.

I saw a number of errors, which are mentioned in my "Edit Summary" notes (visible, of course, on the History page). My goals chiefly were to Wikify, correct the grammar, add a bit about plot and characters, and link the article to Josephine Tey's novel Brat Farrar, because THAT article refers to this Ivy novel.

Okay, NOW I have learned to keep using "Show Preview" (remember, I'm practically a WP virgin), but, at the time, what I did was to make a few passes through the earlier text, saving my edits each time, and then, a little later, I found that some of my edits had been undone. The one I felt most strongly about was returning the link to Brat Farrar, but that part of what I wrote has vanished.

I felt cheerful about discussing the novel with the apparent UNDO-er, MaggieButler (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC), but MaggieButler doesn't exist:

"Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:MaggieButler."

I also saw this: "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Thehelpfulbot(talk | contribs) at 07:00, 26 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version."

I don't know what this means, and I always want to learn. Will you help me, Mr. Fuhghetta Holmes?

As a librarian, should I try to fill out the References that the original creator put in there? I know Anthony Boucher well enough to KNOW that he would have had a title on his column in the NYT Book Review, and I imagine the other reviewers, would, too (even if it were only something as simple as "Reviews"). I could probably even find page numbers. Hell, without those, neither I nor my journal editors would consider it a full reference.

These are a lot of questions! And if you can't answer them all at once, that's fine. Any answers that I get from experts, I always put into a file where I can find it - say, in the case of WP, a file of precedents.

Hugs from a rainy place,

FiverFan65 (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

And if you'll put up with me again, I have another question.

I know about race-horses and racing; I read a lot about them, and have watched a lot of races.

Please look at Secretariat. I added a section which I entitled "A Sportswriter's Account of Secretariat's Derby Race." I feel awkward because this should be a subsection of the Derby, but I didn't know how to caption it in smaller type. The sportswriter whom I quoted is notable, but before I add a page for him, I do think this quote is worthy.

I'll be grateful for any comments! FiverFan65 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

And there's always another question: I'm quoting this:

"That was...just beauty, you know?"

The elipses were in the book from which I quoted. Should I insert a [sic] or is that understood?

Thanks again!

Hi again Fiverfan65, Regarding the first part of your question, I see you know about page histories but you're not reading it by date apparently, It's top down: most recent edit, followed by older edits. I say this because MaggieButler's last edit to the article is before your first edit to the article, so she did not and could not have undone anything you did (and all she did was move around some text). Regarding her not existing, what you saw is that her user page does not exist (it's a red link), not that her account doesn't exist. If you click on her name in the page history, your taken to her not-yet-created userpage and from there can access her contributions in the toolbox drop down menu on the left hand side of the page. Here try it: User:MaggieButler. In fact, this message you saw is the same I see when I click on your user name because you have not yet created a user page.

Regarding the next part about Thehelpfulbot, if you'll bear with me I'd ask you to go do little reading to learn about diffs (differences between revisions). Now go to the edit history of The Ivy Tree and look at the diff of Thehelpfulbot's edit and you'll see that the only change it (it is not a person but a bot, so it's an it) made was to add a missing {{reflist}} tag to the references section. So, not even one of your edits was undone.

I don't know what happened to your edit to the article that included a link to Brat Farrar, because it was never made. Users sometimes believe they made edits but they never saved for various reasons. Most commonly it's because they never actually clicked save but only previewed, but other times, for example, they may have the edit window open for a long time, and get a "loss of session data" error message when they click save. It's an error message that appears at the top of the page but it can look a bit like a save because it previews the text, but it says at the top "we're sorry but you edit could not be save because of a loss of session data" or words similar. Anyway, I don't know what happened there but the edit never occurred.

Regarding the references, oh yes, we ideally want full attribution for every citation. For a book, for example, we normally want title, author, year of publication, publisher, page number, ISBN (or OCLC if none) location and a URL if it exists. For newspapers, we certainly want page numbers, title, etc. But the references are also not ideal because they are general references, rather than inline citations that pinpoint where the material came from. There's lots I could say on that subject about how to do them, citation templates and the like but it's a large subject. For the moment, have a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Regarding Secretariat (I assume actually Secretariat (horse)), you never made the edit. You must have only previewed but the edit was never made so I can't look at it.

Regarding [sic], while it means so in original ("thus was it written"), it is in practice almost always used for a mistake, "not my error", so I'm not sure it would not be misconstrued if placed there and I don't think it's necessary in any event, but I'm not really sure on this. By the way, I responded to your follow-up at WP:NCHD#Punctuation question and Formatting question. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're acting as my guardian angel. I'll certainly be more careful and not make rash assumptions, after reading what you've so helpfully written.

To expand: I understand re MaggieButler, and that I didn't add info I thought I had; and can't believe I haven't actually created my own User Page! What an embarrassing oversight - I'll work on that.

I really do understand everything you wrote, and I've proven myself to be a newbie. Which I am. But will soon improve! (Easy to do, as I'm between jobs and have plenty of time.)

Thanks so much, and I'll go check out your other answer. You're terrific.

FiverFan65 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

P.S. I went to the Secretariat (horse) page, and realized at once that I hadn't saved it, because I was waiting to hear what you'd suggest re the elipses or "sic." I compromised by adding spaces between the elipses (meaning there was a gap in the text), and no spaces to keep the original text as it was. Thanks again! FiverFan65 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

P.P.S. I've added a skeletal User Page. Hope you're not sick of the sight of my name at this point. I am so very grateful! FiverFan65 (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

Technical requests

Just a heads up, we're now supposed to 'archive' technical requests to the selection below in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, rather than just blanking. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks! I expressed my opinion on this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Archiving move requests?, which appears to be the only place this was discussed before it was implemented by George Ho unilaterally, with me and Javeluv both implicitly opposing and no one else participating. I think it is a utterly useless extra layer of bureaucracy on top of a process that is for technically-barred moves that are nevertheless no different from the hundreds of bold moves made every day by users of all stripes without any archiving, and other technical requests that are implemented through {{db-move}}. I do not have plans at this time to archive any technical requests I perform. How's admin life treating you? Anticlimactic?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. I recalled that some people objected to archiving, but I forgot you were one of them. My opinion's pretty similar to yours, I think it's a waste of time because there's no real benefit, but I'm too much of a sheep so I just go along with what everyone else is doing. Yeah, admin life's been interesting, getting quite a few more orange bars than I used to, but I don't seem to have blown anything up yet. On a related a note, I'm not sure I explained myself very well at User talk:Jenks24#Musical scale. Would you mind looking over what I wrote and seeing if it seemed reasonable? Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

here are some brownies for u and thx for all your great amazing and awesome hard work when u get this it would be in my honer if u would message me back cause i am as i recall i am also a newbee and i need some friends to talk to on here thx and once again thx for all your hard and good work wwecenarules 01:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being so helpful resolving the issue with Ssimmons01. Athleek 01:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

David Robert Daniel

You are quite right, of course. I've apologised to him, and apologies to you too for creating an extra unnecessary task. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theopolisme <sub>TALK</sub> 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's Article for Improvement

I don't know how much work is left to be done on the project page, but I would think that perhaps our biggest task early on will be to recruit new members of the project. If you would like, I could try my hand at creating an invitation template. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was thinking that one of the biggest hurdles would be finding a place on the main page, so I was thinking of creating a subpage, say, Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/main page placement where we could mock up the mainpage and then work on where on it, and in what form the WP:TAFI (I'm going to use that as a working name) will appear. By the way, I really do think this is a good idea, but I am not at all sure this will succeed. People are very protective and conservative about the main page, and I do remember similar proposals in the past and that there was opposition, though I can't remember what the basis was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That sounds like a good plan. By the way, do you happen to know if there is a place that lists the different number and letter combinations and the color they correspond to? I am having trouble with the color scheme. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, see Web colors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is what I have. I will let you make any adjustments you wish, and I'll leave the image to your discretion. I don't know how to do the documentation, so I'll leave that to someone who does. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems sort of geared for joining a Wikiproject rather than helping out with a process. Maybe it should say something like "we are in the early stages of initiating a '''[[Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement|project]]''' to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the [[main page]] wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement..." and I haven't thought it through fully (and I'm very tired right now) but that's more along the lines of what I would expect the invitation to say. We will definitely need others because I'm definitely not the person to design the mainpage add-on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that one day is too short an amount of time? I have seen a suggestion that we simply revive Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week and consider a more frequent cycle when articles are gaining GA status in the first half of the week. Does that sound more feasible to you? Or is what we have started the best option? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi <sup>t | c</sup> 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Amazingness

Hello! I wanted to thank you for advice about the pictures, and have since figured out how to upload them. I do have questions as to why you are trying to delete the page I just made. I admit that I'm new to wikipedia, and that my first page-attempt is a work in progress, but I'm confused as to why you would want to delete it? Your thoughts would be appreciated. 2xDoubleHelix (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again 2xDoubleHelix. It's nothing personal. This is an encyclopedia. The page you created is fine for your blog, your facebook page, other places. but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. What would you think if you opened up encyclopedia Britannica and saw an article on a random person's car? Their stereo system? Their DVD player? Wikipedia may look like a social networking site where you can post whatever you want but it really is an encyclopedia with all that that implies. Have you read the two pages I linked in the nomination, on notability and verifiability? Please also also look a Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on this topic. Like I edited into the article, this is an article in progress. It may look like 'some random person's car,' but in fact it is becoming a very popular sight in Washington. It is more than a stereo system or a DVD player. I did read the pages prior to your posting them, and as I stated before, it's a work in progress, as it takes more than one editing to cite all sources of an article. I'm just asking that you understand that not everything can be done in an instant, and as I see no option to save it in a non-public setting, it was posted publically. It will continue to be revised and I hope you will not continue to persecute the article for deletion. Sincerely 2XDH.

The deletion discussion will last one week (unless snow closed). Topics of encyclopedia articles must have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Are there real, published newspaper stories about your car? Magazine articles? Published books that cover it? Of course not. You can choose to see this as "persecution" but it would be better if you delved into what Wikipedia is and our requirements and voluntarily agreed with its deletion, realizing that you really had not thought enough about what is necessary for a topic to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's not a matter of opinion. The deletion is fairly inevitable. It's up to you to choose to try to understand better why that's going to happen, why that should happen, despite yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather amusing that you assume it's my vehicle under discussion. Magazine articles? Not yet, they will be published in the next few months. Newspaper articles? Again, such take time and are in progress. Television coverage? Yes. I understand that you may not be able to wrap your head around something known as "folk art," but these types of artistic ventures are fairly common to many. And while I appreciate that you have nothing better to do than troll Wikipedia, you can come off of your soapbox, as there are plenty of articles that have far less merit than the one in question. "Our requirements" offers nothing more than the obvious mental picture of a self-obsessed, socially awkward person sitting in his mother's basement eating cheetos and drinking redbull. YOU are not Wikipedia, honey, so go get a real job. 67.138.87.94 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll fix all the facts, and then you can go bother some other person. I hope you have a good day. Don't forget to get some sunlight. Vitamin D is known to increase positive moods (Don't believe me? Search for it on Wikipedia) 2xDoubleHelix (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That tells me everything I need to know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I appear to be being nosy but I couldn't help but see these comments and was wondering, since I am rather new here and trying to learn the proper process of creating articles myself, i thought I would ask a question about your comment. If (after thinking about this for a few long minutes) that when you want to write an article but the topic may be in dispute, such as this one appears to be, would it be a good idea to maybe write the article in your sandbox until it reaches the point where it has been edited and referenced well enough to be an encyclopedia type of article before putting up for the world to see? Just curious. I am unable to see the article that you two are talking about because it wasn't named in this particular section and the user page for 2xdouble appears to be non existent at this time. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 05:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't tell you much about the deleted article but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn Jeep. Tattoo, yes it's often better to develop articles in one's sandbox—especially if your first posting is not ready for DKY and you plan on nominating it—but this is not a good example of anything for you because you're a good faith editor earnestly trying to learn the ropes and I don't imagine the first article you create will be a promotional and nonsensical piece of drivel that violates all of our inclusion policies. This was a troll editing in bad faith. You're not, so there's no take away for you. Actually, maybe there is. Notice how I responded to the attack, immediately above? There are many ways to handle that, but almost all involve engaging with the person in some way—Don't attack me! I'll report you!; You're wrong about me!; Fuck you! here's an insult back!—all of them, it's what they want, what they feed off of. Resist the temptation and Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. I meant everything I said in my short response: "That tells me everything I need to know", because I really had learned everything I needed to know. They are a troll, not worth my time; not editing in good faith; not going to listen to anything I say or have a real discussion, and so I'm not going to waste my time further in any substantive response because that engagement would not be useful and is what they want. It can be quite difficult for people to do this. Anyway, spending too much time at the teahouse may insulate you from the darker side, the tons of crap we get everyday from people, the vandals the trolls and POV warriors. These too have to be dealt with. We delete a few thousand new articles everyday as we must. If you want to see why, hang out for a while at Special:NewPages and open up many new pages as they come along. It's an eye-opener.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for opening my eyes to that. I will check out the link you suggested and I do have plans to stick around for awhile. I am very slow getting started with much editing because I am really wanting to do things right and not the wrong way. This chick is not gonna be a fly by night, fly in fly out, wiki editor. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I like what you said about that change in the "synthetic" link. I had linked to the disambiguation page without realizing it. I could understand your wording. Thank you. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested...

...in nominating another of my articles for DYK? (If not it's OK. I won't be insulted.) If you might, it's here:User:Tlqk56/John R Tunis. I was just going to spruce up the article about the author who turned my son into a reader, and found out there was a lot more to him than I thought! Honestly, I could write a book about him, no problem. But I think I've done what I can for the article and I'm feeling ready to move on. I'm sure it's bigger by at least 5, (Maybe 50?? Is it too big? Sometimes I felt I was creating a monster.) I was thinking of a tag like "DYK ...that John R. Tunis, who has been called the inventor of the modern sports story, took part in the first trans-Atlantic Wimbledon broadcast to the United States?" or maybe "was part of the first trans-Atlantic sports broadcast?" When you have a chance let me know what you think. Thanks for considering it. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to! This is just a quick note to say YES while I'm running out the door. More later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the hook, it seem to me you can fit in both facts. How about this for the hook:

...that John R. Tunis, who has been called the 'inventor of the modern sports story', took part in the first trans-Atlantic sports cast and the first broadcast of the Wimbledon Championship to the U.S.?

But cart before horse. Before this can get started you will need to replace the content of the existing article with the content you wrote in the sandbox. You realize that the history of the sandbox can't be merged into the article? You will need to replace the content with the content you wrote and YOU must do it for copyright attribution. There should be no problem on the expansion front – I just checked, and its more than an eleven times expansion! Regarding its length, no it's not too long at all. It may be that there's a way to break it up with some lower level section headers though. I haven't looked at the content yet in any detail except to note that it appears at a glance very well referenced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! I didn't want to post it until you'd had a chance to look at it and see if you wanted to mess with it, and thought it was OK. Should I do it now? Using both facts for the hook is a good idea, for some reason it didn't occur to me to try it. (Just one reason I think it helps to have someone else involved.) Thanks bunches. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Stealing a moment from work. You can add the material right away. Remember that we have five days from the moment you add it to make the DYK nomination, so the timing of when you replace the material in the existing article is not important. On the issue of "messing with it" I do, but I can't until it's added to the article because that would cause a copyright problem. Specifically, there would be a big problem if you weren't the only substantial contributor to the sandbox because the article already exists. If other people had substantively added to the sandbox, when you transferred the material over their copyright attribution for their part would be lost, and as I said, this is not eligible for a history merge, both because it has a separate origin, and it has an overlapping timeline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I has now been moved to John R. Tunis. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you found the NYT obit -- great. One of my frustrations is that I can rarely access obits for the people I write about. :( Thanks for the nice CE job. After looking at it for so long, nothing registers. I left you a message on my talk page, too, in case you didn't see it. Have a great day, and stay cool. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding I found one other photo here, http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1941sep20-00003. It's not very good and not much earlier, though. Published in 1941. Frustrating to keep seeing that nice photo of his father as a younger man, but none of him! (My best friend is expecting her first grandchild in a week, and I still need to finish the baby quilt, so I'm off to do sew for a while.) Tlqk56 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not a great photo, though it looks like it was taken about twenty-five years earlier than the one I found at least. I've just copyedited the last two sections which I had not gotten to the other day. Once again, it's really good. Two minor notes. There a few places where I think in text attribution is needed, i.e., you have a quote from someone editorializing about him, which I think should say something like "according to ____ in _______...." I added that in in one or two places but for others I did not have access to the source and it's unclear whether the quote should be attributed to the source you use in the citation, or possibly whether the source itself is quoting someone else. Anyway, no need for hurry on a lead (or a photograph). Neither are needed in any way for DYK or course, and a good article nomination, if made today, wouldn't likely be looked at for a few months. The DYK is now posted at {{Did you know nominations/John R. Tunis}} and can be viewed as transcluded on the nominations page at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 18.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! I'm about to go out but will have time later today to work on those attributions. I learn so much whenever I work with you, I really appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. I must admit that I despise writing leads and find it very difficult. Maybe I'll go post a reward bounty for doing so and get someone else to do the dirty work!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be one way. :) Maybe I'll look for some similar GAs and check out their leads, then try my hand at it in my sandbox. Most of the articles I write are so short I've never really worried about leads... I think I fixed the in-text attributions. I may have messed up tenses some when I added the info, but I tried to keep it straight. (In my head, since a book still says something, all refs to content should be present tense, but I think WP does it otherwise.) Let me know if there's a problem or something else I should be doing in the mean time. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could go write some more good articles. I'll make you a standing offer: until such time as you feel comfortable and want to do a DYK yourself, every article you create, you need but drop me a note, suggest a hook, and I'll do the DYK. Deal? And really it's no imposition at all. The copyedit, which you didn't ask for but I volunteered to do, took a few hours. The DYK nomination literally took me less than five minutes. There is one more issue with the article but it's something others might object to but I actually like. Your use of {{rp}} may be objectionable to some (I don't think it would fly at WP:FAC) for example. The reason is that it's use is geared toward a single citation that you are going to use many, many times with a wide range of page numbers and even then people think shortened footnotes are the way to go. It was actually created by a friend of mine to stop my whining, its genesis is from this conversation and it's more for the problem it solved there. Anyway, I don't know that you need to do anything about it. I just wanted you to have full information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have several more articles in the works -- whether they'll qualify as GA I don't know. I like your DYK proposal --it lets me concentrate on learning to do one thing well before I start something else. But I'd like to understand the rp footnoting issue better. Am I using it wrong? I guess I don't know what a shortened footnote is. Is there a page you can point me to so I can read more about them? I might not change what I'm doing, but I would like to know the options and issues involved. Thanks for everything. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nah, I think there's nothing wrong with using {{rp}} (and no, you're not using them wrong at all). Some purists just don't like them. I actually like them a lot. Read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Barbera as an example. About halfway down the page there is a discussion of the template's use that carries through to the end of the page, with FAC regulars commenting. The alternative is shortened footnotes. A fairly recently promoted feature article using them is William S. Sadler.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the pages and looked at the examples. Personally I still like the {{rp}} format, it's so easy to use, and I don't have any problem overlooking those little numbers floating above the print when I read. The shortened footnotes make everything look like a term paper, which is fine, I guess, but kind of stuffy-looking to me. I suspect that academic-oriented folks prefer them because they see them all the time. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. It's good to know some people might object to the form I'm using, but I don't think I'll change unless it becomes necessary. (In 50 years someone will invent a newer method and some folks will protest about dropping {{rp}} for it.) Tlqk56 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Cattell

I am not obsessed with Hannah Cattell but is it not true that all Hannah Cattell's are related, though they are not the same person, and she was Laura Bogart. I take it we don't want to sexually harass the Sheffield Hallam University scholar. I know that if I were her I'd be feeling harassed too if my name was famous or if Joe does one too many favors for me too. Frances Shaw is the University of Sheffield scholar. CallieMacPherson (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Callie. You have a confusion. I deleted an attack page posted at Hannah Cattell on November 8, 2007. The disambiguation page you posted earlier today at that title was not deleted by me but by administrator Hut 8.5.

However, I agree with that deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate. Note the sentence: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (emphasis added). Thus we only need to provide disambiguation for articles already in existence that people might have a confusion between. For that reason, since the disambiguation page you created was for two topics neither of which has existing articles, such a page was not warranted.

Meanwhile, I have to admit that I can't really make heads or tails out of much of your post. What does any of this have to do with sexual harassment, the university and these other people you mention?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Fuhghettaboutit, there's no need to have a disambiguation page unless we have articles to disambiguate. I don't know what CallieMacPherson is talking about either. Hut 8.5 12:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Barfüßiger Februar

Regarding the sources your search turned up, I can have a look at them and see what I can do with them to improve the Barfüßiger Februar article, if you wish. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you speak German? I think you will find it very difficult, as I did, unless you do. The Google Books search is just an indication. There's lots more places to look, like Highbeam, JSTOR, etc. However, when you say "if you wish", please note that I have no attachment to this particular article whatever. I just happened across it one day and decided to fix it up a bit. It's unfortunately one of the hundreds of thousands of stubs sitting around gathering dust. Sure go for it! but it makes no difference to me if you focus on this article or another in the mountains of them that are sitting around.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed speak German. I still feel WP:NOT#DICDEF#1 applies to an article such as Angekommen wie nicht da. Or is the fact that the article says "It was first published in 1994." (which is already mentioned at Herta Müller#Works) enough for DICDEF#1 not to apply to this article? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. WP:DICDEF and/or WP:NOT#DICDEF have no applicability whatsoever to this subject since they cover dictionary definitions and this is a book. Books are not books or phrases that can have dictionary entries, ever. It's like saying "X does not meet WP:BIO" when the article is about an inanimate object.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by your second sentence. In which way is the content of Angekommen wie nicht da more than a definition? Sure, one could argue now that the sentence "It was first published in 1994." makes it more than just a definition, but I question whether DICDEF#1 really is to be interpreted in such a narrow way. But I can agree to the view that if the article can be expanded, it should be expanded instead of being deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DICDEF is for words and phrases – things that could be in a dictionary. A book could never be in a dictionary. It's not a word or phrase it's a book. This is a threshold for WP:DICDEF to even come into play. As I said in my analogy, it's like you're trying to apply the notability criterion for biographies to a topic that's not about a person. Another analogy might be saying an article fails some criterion of a guideline about WP:TRAINS when the topic is a tree; fails article naming conventions when you're not talking about an article title, and so on. WP:DICDEF applies to words and phrases that appear to be things that are really just dictionary entries and could not be expanded to become encyclopedic. Books are never the topic of dictionary entries. It's a non sequitur to even talk about WP:DICDEF in the context of its application to a book stub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the name of a book is a proper noun, so wouldn't be in a dictionary. Did you find anything on JSTOR or HighBeam? I found this review on JSTOR. I think I am going to drop a request at WP:RX and check whether that contains something. Still, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use that information to expand Herta Müller#Works and split that into a separate article only if it becomes too long for that section? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New Lead for Tunis

Hi. I wrote a new lead for John R. Tunis. I don't know if it's right, but it should be better. Feel free to tinker if you like. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's great and with the in-text attribution you added, I think this would sail through a good article nomination and I will do so after the DYK (unless you tell me you'd rather). As I indicated, once I do the good article nomination, expect nothing to happen for two months or so, while it glacially moves up the backlog list of article to be reviewed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate it yourself. I appreciate the help. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

TAfI

Are you still planning to work on the Article for Improvement project or is that likely to not come together after all? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do plan to work on it. It just needs to brew a while in my brain and then I need a i period of time where I can focus, and I need a procrastination period. I can't explain my own psychology. I will take it further if no one else does, but I'm slow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fine to me. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at SwisterTwister's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anarchy

ENLogic (talk · contribs), who you blocked for edit warring, seems to be at it again using 75.85.176.10 (75.25.175.118 seems to have been their previous address). See this AN/EW thread. benzband (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tootsie roll

You're somewhere in the center, i believe (^__^) ~ benzband (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Why thank you Mr. Cow! I'm amazed you were able to make an account and type this message, what, with the lack of thumbs and all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

That is not very pollically correct of you >.< benzband (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You have news moos. And BTW, pollical is an adjective meaning "of the thumb". benzband (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John R. Tunis

Orlady (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New DYK article, Secret River

OK, the new article, not an expansion, is here: The Secret River (Rawlings book). Of course any changes and suggestions are welcome. There is already another book by the same name but by a different author, so it needs a DAB page. Am I allowed to just create one, or is there a particular process for that? I will go through and add the link to appropriate articles once it's made. Also, I'm adding an image of the first edition cover to the infobox. Since the later edition had different illustrators and garnered a significant amount of coverage do you think fair use would allow an image from that book, too? Either the cover or an interior illustration?

I thought this might work for a hook: "…that Leonard Weisgard illustrated Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' children's book The Secret River in cream on dark brown paper because publishing conventions in 1955 did not allow the characters to be shown with dark skin?" (Cited at the beginning of Editions, awards.)

BTW, do you have JSTOR access? I don't and there's an article here [3] I'd love to be able to read. I think there's a good chance it would have more info to add to the article. Thanks again for everything. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. I don't have time right now to look at the article in any depth, but I made a quick request for the JSTOR article on your behalf here (try to remember this, because it comes in very handy: the shortcut is "WP:RX" [I've always wondered if Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology is jealous]). Some other quick notes: does it need a DAB page or just a hatnote? – see WP:TWODABS. Regarding the illustrations, I think any further fair use images would only qualify if the images themselves were part of the sourced commentary on the book appearing in the article, and not just as relevant decoration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a hatnote was what it needed, so I added one. Have copied down WP:RX for future ref. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just finished a small copyedit. Great work. I like the hook but it's 217 character (200 is the outside limit) so has to be pruned somehow (by the way, this is a tool you can use for this, use readable prose, without the wikimarkup). Unfortunately, I think something essential needs to be taken out because no matter how I try to condense it, I can't get the current information in. The best I can come up with is to remove the illustrator's name entirely:

…that Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' children's book The Secret River was illustrated in cream on dark brown paper because 1955 publishing conventions did not allow characters to be shown with dark skin?"

Do you have a different reworking?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the article. Sorry about the hook, I thought I'd checked it. How about "...that Leonard Weisgard illustrated Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' The Secret River in cream on dark brown paper because publishers in 1955 did not allow characters to be shown with dark skin?" While not quite as precise I think it's still accurate, and it comes out at 189. BTW, when I start typing The Secret River in the search bar, why doesn't the new article come up as an option? I have to add (Rawlings book) myself and click on it to get there. That doesn't seem right to me. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll go do the nomination. I think the search issue is just because it hasn't been indexed yet, having been moved to the mainspace yesterday. Give it a day. Tiny tip from my copyedit of this and the prior article: When you have a nested quote, one that ends with an apostrophe followed by a quotation mark, if you just use it in that form it formats as <'"> but if you place curly brackets around it {{'"}} it formats like this: <'"> The same thing is true for the opposite, i.e., if at the start of a quote you would be typing quotation mark followed by an apostrophe, place that in curly braces as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. See {{Did you know nominations/The Secret River (Rawlings book)}}, transcluded here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've saved it and will try to remember to use it. I had wondered what those changes meant, but didn't actually understand them. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi Fuh! Just a reminder about a few things at the Teahouse - first, thank you so much for participating. If you have interest, it'd be great to have you add your profile to the Host page! You practically are one. :) You can find that page here. Second, please familiarize yourself with our host tips and the host responsibilities page. There you can learn a bit more about what makes us different - we greet each visitor (everyone likes to be welcomed when they visit a new place!), use as little wiki jargon and links to policies as possible and keep it friendly and simple. That's one of the things that makes the Teahouse so successful - we avoid links when necessary and just give our visitors the answers straight up - it's a proven winning cup of tea :) Also, I encourage you to invite other editors to the Teahouse to find help. Right now we have more people answering questions than we do visiting, so we can use all the help we can get. Thanks so much for all you do on Wikipedia! :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You would think (HD carryover)

You would think, after all the digging I did looking at {{astray}}, I would have read your name at one point or another! Haha, egg on my face I suppose. BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 05:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit humorous! I was chuckling as I read your post, not at you but thinking about what your reaction was going to be when you saw my response.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Talkback 2

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's article for improvement.
Message added 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Now for the inevitable

Since I've already dragged you into it, can you check Template talk:Ln#redirect=no again please? I made a couple mistakes of omission, one of which requires a protected edit to fix. BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you've stepped away; I'll make a general protected edit request there. BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 04:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how long sometimes edit protected requests remain open. Not enough people monitor the category (I have it on my category watclist).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. There are many areas that often backlog if one knows where to look. BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 04:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Message

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I'm not sure if you follow messages deeper into the thread at the Teahouse - I left a brief new message for you there. (I've used the blue colored "you have new messages" template once, unable to locate it now - I will find it again, just tired) Take care. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Expansion_Tag Albeit27 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:La et al.

Since you've recently edited {{lx}} I thought you might be the one to address my question to.

CorenSearchBot and VWBot (and maybe some other that I've forgotten about) list new articles with possible copyright problems at WP:SCV using {{la}}. I haven't been active there recently, but it used to be that articles which were deleted showed as redlinks as normal links. When I looked at it today, however every article link is colored blue instead whether it has already been deleted or not. Is that related to the change you made? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how the changes I made would have that result. It sounds like a purging issue (sometimes you need you make a null edit to a template to get it to actually purge certain inclusions). However, I was implementing edit protected requests of another user who may be able to shed light one way or another. I will drop a note on his talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret River

Hi, I hope things are going well with you. I've responded at DYK, but the guy hasn't gotten back to me, and as you'll see there my computer time is restricted right now. Would you mind stopping by and doing whatever you think needs to be done to get it moving again? I really appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright v plagiarism

Thank you so much for your help and explanation. I chose to rewrite some of the work with improved references and learned in the process.Mdscottis (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Secret River (Rawlings book)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Slender Man

I don't care what cyber-sad case has been trying to push this meme on Wikipedia, so you can keep the page protected if you want. But it should NOT be redirecting to Bogeyman. So please redirect it to List of Internet phenomena or something similar. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC):

Hi Serendipodous. I'm assuming there's a rationale behind your request but you haven't provided one and I have no personal interest in this topic nor familiarity. I have no idea from what you've said why it's objectionable that the redirect point where it is presently pointing, nor why it would be better if it pointed elsewhere, especially since the redirect target is currently a sourced section of the bogeyman article dedicated to this particular topic with its own section header, whereas, the article you suggest it might be better pointed has an unsourced and much less detailed passing mention. There's a cart before horse issue here. Maybe the detail from Bogeyman, doesn't belong there at all and the sourced detail should be merged to the other page, or maybe the source is insufficient and this belongs no where on Wikipedia at all (in which case maybe the redirect should be deleted and creation protected [note, I haven't looked and imply no judgement by saying this either way]). But none of this is first a redirect issue. Until such time as the article issue is dealt with, it makes little sense to me that the redirect would point elsewhere than at the only place any sourced and detailed information appears on this topic. I will drop a note at the talk page of the user who added the detail about the subject and requested the redirect, as he is an active user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • There's nothing in the cited source that connects it with the bogeyman. The bogeyman is a legendary creature whereas the cited source makes it clear that Slenderman is a fictional character with a very definite author. The source also depicts the Slenderman largely as a Freddy Kreuger-type slasher, whereas the bogeyman is a monster who hides in closets, under beds etc and is aimed specifically at children. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember what bit of wiki history or discussion led me to think that bogeyman was the right place for this to be mentioned, but I agree that the source does not make that connection, so it should go. Whether it gets included somewhere else or not I don't much care. I didn't realize it was going to be such a crap-magnet, but it sure is a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care where it goes either, as long as it goes away from Bogeyman. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects follow article content, not the other way around; your request was backwards. Since for reasons I'm not sure of you haven't removed or merged out the content from Bogeyman in advance of this, I'll go do so, so that changing the redirect makes sense.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I've never been in the situation before of having to request a redirect from an administrator. It seemed more logical to me to fix the redirects before removing the content, since otherwise any reader looking for "Slender Man" would simply have added it back in again. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to dredge this up again but I think I've found a better home for the Slender Man; I've created a larger subsection in the article Fakelore; a small enough article so that the topic has room to grow. Serendi<sup>pod</sup>ous 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this should have been discussed on the redirect talk page instead of here. I think it should redirect to the Creepypasta/Slender Man section because it is more relevant there and provides a better context than a redirect to Fakelore would. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TAFI

There hasn't been much activity here for awhile. I was wondering what you think might be the next step? AutomaticStrikeout 20:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you explained in the edit summary

Well, I'm definitely glad for your edit summary. I was manually checking the citations and converting them to {{cite web}} (I hadn't gotten very far before I noticed your edit). I went to double-check the current version's references section. Lo and behold, they were all gone. Hah, so yeah I'm grateful for that edit summary, or I'd have been very confused and probably pretty annoyed too. I'm going to assume the references are in your capable hands though, and divert my attention elsewhere. BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check right now:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hardly necessary now! BigNate37<sub>(T)</sub> 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Talk:Chelsea Charms.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I hope I am doing this template right. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For your information...

Thanks to Ryan Vesey we have our first nomination in the WP:TAFI project, so I'm notifying all the project members. AutomaticStrikeout 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello... critque please?

Hello again, hope you are having a great day, I have been working religiously on this article today and am at a point where I would love some "critiquing". I have added sections and expanded on quite a bit of information. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and question

Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, thanks that was a quick response re: the Woodmansee article. I have a question about using full names. I thought that it was proper etiquette while editing articles with the use of names to use the full name ie: Michael Woodmansee or Jason Foreman the first time and then after that it is proper to use last name only? Thanks again for helping to improve the article. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh and i was also wondering when you put the new ref's in place do they need to go in order like 1,2, 3 or can they be out of order such as 6, 3, 7? I have seen them mostly in order and I tried to do that way but with the fixes they are out of order. It became rather confusing to try and keep them in order (because some of them were there already) so just wondering. The previous editor/s when adding the ref's had not expanded them and they were essentially just links, I went and improved upon the ref's adding pertinent information such as date time author and ref name was this a good thing to do?Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did use a full name of the victim later because something about the fact it was a child and the sentence it appeared in made it feel right to use the first name as well. Normally you do try to make references appear in order and not doing so would be a criticism at FAC. They're mostly in order now, though I think there's one or two places where multiple cites are used next to each other and the order just needs to be tweaked. Oh yes, definitely, full attribution of citations is always desirable. We want people to be able to look at the citation and have full information so that they can most easily verify for themselves the source and fuller attribution fosters that goal. So yes, definitely a good thing to do. Ref names though are only needed if the reference is to be used again, but it doesn't hurt to provide a ref name even if a ref is only used once, since it then makes it easier to use again if someone comes along who is seeking to expand the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Another free account for usually-paid research access

I'm pretty sure you already have the Highbeam stuff, but you can also apply for Credo access through WP. I just got approved. Haven't used it yet, but anything like this can't be non-useful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Stanton! I have applied for them all (including JSTOR). I am so busy (and lazy) though that unfortunately, my writing is now virtually nonexistent--mostly just helping out others and using these services for verification. Hope everything is going well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks much for your help with this template which helped me to improve this article. You were quite diligent in responding to my request for help. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret River (Rawlings book)

The article The Secret River (Rawlings book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Secret River (Rawlings book) for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret River (Rawlings book)

The article The Secret River (Rawlings book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Secret River (Rawlings book) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Kürbis. Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth and all that but, I am confused. I still hadn't addressed your main criticism regarding the lead, which I was going to tackle when I had more time (and responding to two other criticisms has not been possible because the main author of the article is on a wikibreak and I nominated it on her behalf).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I decided that the lead is ok for the article's length, although it could be expanded a bit. The other two points were nitpicks. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well great and thanks again! I still plan on tweaking the lead:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles

Saying that WP:RM "should" be used is just plain wrong. This in non-controversial to anyone who knows very much about the subject. You will notice that there is an ongoing request to change "should" to "must", and they always get very quickly shot down, always the same way, by pointing out the WP:RM is not mandatory. The article should reflect that consensus. I will try to see how it even got there and revert that, but no matter what, the article should reflect consensus. It is not necessary to make any proposal on the talk page for the change because it is a long standing understanding that WP:RM is a convenience, not a necessity. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to revert. It was just a very poorly worded major change.[4] followed by[5] Apteva (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "article". Anyway, your point is addressed to a strawman. Please read my edit summary. There is right now a massive discussion on the talk page, with numerous people participating, regarding this language: whether it should be kept, whether it should be changed, people opposing and supporting various language suggestions followed by an unclosed RFC on the issue. You obviously are aware of that discussion since you participated in it, but you nevertheless changed that very language under discussion to the form you prefer. It didn't matter how you changed the language—for, against, mandatory, completely optional—all irrelevant. The point is that while such discussion is under way seeking consensus, a unilateral change to a preferred version you think is "non-controversial to anyone who knows very much about the subject" is patently improper.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Ars Nova (Theater)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your edits to my pending submission on Ars Nova. I've been working very hard to get the page up to Wikipedia's standards for publication, so the fact that you went in and edited things like that while I'm waiting for the article to be reviewed was extremely helpful and selfless, IMHO. Thank you very much. RunnerOnIce (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I often copyedit random articles and since I contribute at help forums, my eye caught your post at the Teahouse. The reason I said "start copyedit" is that I was planning on going back and fixing the references formatting. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	It was either this or copyeditors. Pretend I did both. :-p RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Article requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TNHZ4WjI5b0VXak0

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, much appreciated. Unfortunately, It only has the one line I could already see see through the Google News snippet. I was hoping it might actually say something about the history. It is near impossible to find substantive sources on this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper clippings are a rich source. Trouble is, not much of it is encyclopedic; sifting through is hard work. Here is a sample of newspaper clips on the subject largely from the early 1900s. Most of it is public domain. Also, a New York times reviewer once called David Mamet's language an exploding cigar for its ability to turn back and bite you: March 23, 1996. Note the "The Stranger" article: it refers to a book "Life of the Party: A Visual History of the S.S. Adams Company Makers of Pranks & Magic for 100 Years" which might have something to help you. Churn and change (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on references.

Many thanks for the help you gave me on fixing broken references. It worked a treat and was explained clearly! My apologies for not thanking you earlier. I quite simply forgot, how rude of me! --Elekebia (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer not Police community support officer

The Association of Chief Police officers refers to PCSOs in capitals as does the Home Office this takes precedent over an unofficial quango advertisement site or the BBC who are a private corporation and have no allegiance to the Crown see http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/LPpartnerships/2007/200709LPPGonPCSO.pdf and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/002-2009/--T9062856 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of organizations will capitalize non-proper nouns – especially those most closely connected to them. What matters is our house style, and following from that, whether it is or is not a proper noun, and it's not. You're citing that source to say "see, this more official source capitalizes it" but I didn't cite those two sources as official anything to compete, I cited them as examples, where numerous others exist, to show it's not a proper noun. That's really the only question of relevance, and we look to third party sources for answers to such questions, not internal documents of the very organization at question, meaning a BBC source, for example, is actually much better in this arena.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)