User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

...

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

ATT HD NC EAR HM AH AIV CSD NEW PER ESP RM VPR TSD AFD

????
/template testing spot /Release to us
/Welker Cochran
/Mingaud
Translation
Useful language dump
/sandbox
/Wikipedia:Time machine
/List of pocket billiards games
Archive 1: March 27, 2006
Archive 2: June 26, 2006
Archive 3: August 11, 2006
Archive 4: November 1, 2006
Archive 5: March 30, 2007
Archive 6: June 24, 2007
Archive 7: September 13, 2007
Archive 8: December 22, 2007
Archive 9: June 16, 2007
Archive 10: March 27, 2009
Archive 11: December 20, 2009
Archive 12: November 23, 2010
Archive 13: January 9, 2012
Archive 14: October 3, 2012
Archive 15: August 18, 2013
Archive 16: March 10, 2014
Archive 17: September 8, 2015
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly
/Reisman
/Giant nuthatch
/list of userfications

---

If you leave a comment for me below I will likely comment back here as well, but I might also duplicate on your talk page, depending on context or if you request. Please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end and note that new posts belong at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Alan Kurdi

Would you mind looking at the AfD for the above article and seeing if it warrants an early close under WP:SNOW ? There is also an AfD at Photographs of Alan Kurdi that I feel could be closed. In addition to the 2 AfDs there 3 separate merge discussions and a request for renaming all going on at once and I am concerned it is descending into a mess. Best Flat Out (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: Okay, I've looked at both discussions. I know exactly what the result would be if I were to close them today. However, a typical condition precedent for a snow close is near overwhelming consensus – such that there isn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that a different result will obtain from continued discussion. I would deem the AfD as to Photographs of Alan Kurdi to meet that standard — for a merge into Alan Kurdi (whatever that is to become). However, the same cannot be said of the other AfD. I am not saying that the state of the discussion at the Alan Kurdi AfD right now, were it at seven days, could not be closed in a specific direction (keep and move to Death of... as the title and topical scope definer). I am rather saying that it isn't so one-sided that a snow close would be at all safe from challenge – and why would I want to invite that? This is especially true where a procedural issue with a close (here, "only" two day's of discussion) would give strong ammunition to anyone who objected. My experience is that a challenge becomes more and more likely, the more a topic is controversial and has strong emotions attached; this is exactly that. In short, it fails both parts of the "snowball test". And even though the photographs article does meet the test now in my estimation, I think both discussions should be closed together. So I'm not going to close either now. But I'm on alert if they're still open on the 13th.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Please get another admin to place an interaction ban between myself and User:Anniepoo. Also, please remember I am trying to help here rather than publicly criticising tiny things I did wrong, as you did at ANI. I already told her I was taking it to ANI at my user talk page, I explained my revert on her user talk the first time and I did not want to continue communicating with this editor for obvious reasons. Rubbish computer 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snappy and I think you're a great admin. Rubbish computer 23:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey RC. I appreciate that. I stand by my edits here but I'm sorry you feel I publicly and unfairly criticized you. As to informing the user, I looked at your edits to her talk page and did not see you had informed her of the specific discussion. I do see you informed her of taking her "to ANI", in a response at your talk page, which is not very specific, and sorry, not trying to rub salt into the wound, but you should know the requirement, just for future reference: It states at the top of ANI that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Anyway, I am incapable of issuing an interaction ban as they cannot be imposed by "individual editors, including administrators". Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban. If she interacts with you again in an unbecoming manner, I suggest you then ask the community to issue an iban. But I also suggest doing your best not to interact with her! I of course looked just now before posting this to make sure she has not interacted with you in the interim.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely won't interact with her. It's policy to leave the ANI notice and I should have done that, but didn't because I panicked. Leaving the notice would have helped, I guess, so fair enough. I thought maybe there should be an iban in response to that communication between us in the first place, but to be honest I know nothing about this. Thanks anyway. Rubbish computer 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

MESQUITE AND SLOW GRILLED

--Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

You gotta be kidding' me!!! Thanks for all your great help on the petunia article... it would have taken me another two days!!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

A pleasure to help out with an article starting out like that!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring musical.ly page

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I wanted to create a page for the app muscial.ly, and I saw that the page for the app was deleted this past July for lack of significance. Since that time, the popularity and significance of the application has been mentioned in a number of news articles published by credible sources such as the Miami Herald , The Guardian , and Billboard . Specifically mentioned in these articles is that the app has become a platform for up and coming musicians to promote their songs to the app’s large user base, as well as being one of the faster growing and more popular free apps out there.

Given this press coverage, as well as the app’s successful performance on both the Apple App Store as well as the Google Play store, I was hoping you could help me out in restoring the page. If there is something else I need to demonstrate the apps significance, let me know and I'd be more than happy to oblige. Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back from you soon!

Workingasianguy (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi Workingasianguy. The version I deleted was very promotional. All other versions were just one sentence sub-stubs, with no markup and no sourcing. In short, to re-create what was there in any of its various versions should take you all of two minutes—and what you should be creating would properly look much different than what was there before anyway. The page is not protected from creation, so if you were to recreate this, it can just be done anew. However, I suggest you do not try to create anything.

Forgive me if this is inaccurate but I believe it very likely you are connected with this product—which is your motivation for wanting to create an article on it. It's possible it's otherwise, but it's usually the case when someone seeks to create an article on something commercial, new, very specific and seemingly non-notable (in the special sense Wikipedia uses that word). Where this applies, the person has a conflict of interest, is usually incapable of writing in a manner suitable for Wikipedia, has all the wrong motivations, and is manifestly here for promotional purposes. Also note the mandatory disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use for anyone who is receiving compensation for their edits, broadly construed, to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page with the template {{Paid}}.

Anyway, the sources you've raised here are worth very little. The first and third are mere passing mentions – not detailed write-ups that demonstrate notability and on which an article with verifiable content could be based. The second is the only one that's useful at all, and it's just a small blurb. I don't think any article can be sustained, and it would be a disservice to you to not tell you so, so you don't waste your own valuable time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit!

Thank you for your copyedit of forensic anthropology! I appreciate the help. For the "today" issue regarding Todd's skeleton collection, I was trying to get across that his collection is still studied by anthropologists as a way of learning the potential differences between individuals. Also, the measurements and general formulas he created are still in use (if not updated for the modern age). So even, today, his contributions continue to make an impact in the field. As for the other comment, the source made it seem like an exact number. He collected 3,300 skulls, etc., before his death in 1938. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: Anytime. Please feel free to remove any commented out notes. I only meant them for you as the person actively shepherding it, and once read, they've served their purpose. As always when I do so, I am only hoping they will inform and help. The issue of using language that will date can be hard to deal with. Well, it's sometimes easy – when you can just say "as of 2015" instead – but that sometimes doesn't fit. It didn't seem to here, which is why I switched it to "in the modern era" though I don't really like that either. The problem with "today" is that it's true only from the perspective of ... well ... today. The problem is that it may very well not be true in ten years when that word is still in an article. I had only just begun the copyedit and will be going back to take a look at the balance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Simon Dinnerstein Article

Thank you for your response in regards to the images. I apologize for posting this request in the wrong section. I did not realize that a discussion of this article had closed. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and unfortunately, I do not understand all the protocol regarding administration, where to post requests, who to get in touch with, etc. I am not even sure that I am writing this request in the right place. If there is an administrator I should contact directly, please let me know the name and how I can reach him or her. Jupiter3000 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jupiter3000. The administrator who closed the discussion was Peripitus whose name I also linked in my message to you at the requests for undeletions post. Not only can you contact him or her by clicking that link and leaving a post on the talk page, just as you did here for me, but they have been pinged by my linking of their username both here and there (just as you will get a ping in this response, because I linked your name at the beginning of this post). However, I'm not sure what further there is to do here. I agree with the people in the discussion and the close of that discussion. As I stated more fully at the undeletion page, there is no way we could host all these images here and include them in the article without violating copyright. Fair use cannot sustain this. It does not appear to be a close call at all. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks for your kind help. I've learned much from you in these two days. All the best to you also!Jupiter3000 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome Jupiter. Believe me I understand the hurdle copyright presents in frustrating an article from having the content it might in a perfect world.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly was a beautiful page when the images were up. But I understand so much more now about fair use. And now I know how to communicate on Wikipedia with other users. So the experience has, in it's own way, been a positive one.Jupiter3000 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for completing edits to Brown Brothers Harriman Wikipedia page

Fuhghettaboutit, many thanks for your recent edits to the Brown Brothers Harriman Wikipedia page. It is extremely helpful to set the record straight regarding who has (and has not) worked for the firm. Thank you also for your guidance regarding the need for more secondary sources supporting the information regarding the service of various BBHers during World War II. Working with Wikipedia is very new for me, so I will work to ensure more secondary information is used when suggesting new information for a page. Nicholas C Schmid 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Research4Insight

@Research4Insight: Anytime Nicholas. As you can see there's a tension here, a sort of delicate balancing act between getting it right, making sure content to be added is verifiable in reliable published sources (or removed because it is not), mining the reservoir of people who actually know a subject intimately so they can immediately recognize wrong content, but who also may have a conflict of interest in editing directly, and so on. Fortunately you did exactly what was needed. Please feel free to drop a note here directly to alert me to any more suggestions on the talk page. However, the page may not have a lot of watchers so if you do make more suggestions there, you can attempt to draw a person to it by posting the template {{Request edit}} (just copy that and place it right above any post on the talk page seeking a response). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful guidance - much appreciated!! Nicholas C Schmid 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Research4Insight

Pelva Naik

Hello. On May 10, 2015, you deleted the page on Pelva Naik. She has performed at some rather well known venues for Indian classical music, such as the Darbar Festival in London earlier this month. The festival brochure <ref>http://darbar.org/uploads/pdf_file/Darbar-Festival-2015-Broucher.pdf</ref> gives information about her performance on page 14. I don't know anything about her except that I came across a video of her on YouTube and was impressed enough to want to learn more. I was surprised to discover that her Wikipedia page was deleted. She is certainly accomplished enough to warrant one, and if she has performed at Darbar, she's well known enough too. Please undelete the page.

Psurajit (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psurajit. You misunderstand. The speedy deletion of the page here was in no wise an assessment of whether an appropriate article could be created, or whether the topic warrants an eventual article, but only that what was posted was not appropriate. This will not be undeleted because it was not the content of a proper article. In particular it failed to indicate the topic had any significance in the manner it was written, and much more importantly, was an illegal copyright violation. Again, that does not mean a proper article on her cannot be created, but this wasn't it. That potential proper article, if it's possible, would not infringe on copyright, would naturally state significance, and would demonstrate notability and verifiability by citing to reliable sources that are secondary in nature and entirely unconnected to her and be written in a neutral manner and contain no original research.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranviir The Marshal

Hi, Thankyou for your help. But i dont understand how it is a 'copyright infringement'. What do you suggest i do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankita Petiwale (talk • contribs)

Copy no one else's writing. Write in your own words only.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou! Will Do!Anki 13:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cant find 'New Section' tab

Thankyou Fuhghettaboutit for your help. But I cant find the 'New Section' Tab in the bar above. The 'edit' tab simply allows you to add more text to the already existing section in the article. However I want to create a new section within the article not just add more text. How do I do that? Please help. Anki 13:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankita Petiwale (talk • contribs)

@Ankita Petiwale: Click edit at the top of the page. New sections are just headings, which are created by enclosing some text in sentence case in (typically) doubled equal signs. Lower level headings are created by additonal equal signs. So, for example, if I wanted to make a new section header below, I would type

== Name of section (note how only the first word is capitalized ==

If, say, I wanted to create a section with lower level subsections, I might do something like this:

== Name of overarching section ==

=== Subsection name ===

I think you would get a lot of benefit by taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. See also the cheatsheet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Figured it out yesterday but thanks anyway. Will go through the tutorial. Still dont know why the tab is hidden though.Anki 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A Gentle Reminder

Just wanted to let you know that I added "-helped" to the end of Template:Admin help for you here. Please ping me if you need to reach me. --JustBerry (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the discussion may be on-going. --JustBerry (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

photos of Scottsdale Museum of the West

I responded in media commons but am not sure if I followed correct protocol. To reiterate: the sculpture outside the museum is an example of public art. Public art is treated as nature: open/free to the public to enjoy, take photos of, sometimes even climb upon. There is no copyright violation in shooting public art. In fact, public art often becomes a major tourist attraction. The museum allowed photography indoors with no flash so I assumed I could post my photo of the buffalo head. I am persuaded that this photo infringes on copyright so do not request its return to the page.PamMcP (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pam. I've responded to you at the deletion discussion. In short, that is not at all correct, unfortunately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Look over my new article?

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I'm seeking you out because you have been so helpful to me in the past. Check over my latest article User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming, if you will. In my research, I found a book reference that clearly stated my (female) subject and this book author (also female and openly gay) were "in love" and went on to tell about it freely. I put this in my article and clearly attributed it. I read the Wiki guidelines on defamation, etc. and got cold feet, even though I feel I am on solid ground. Anyway, I removed the reference. Please look at the revision history to see the 2 versions. Look in the 4th section entitled "Branching Out" (second sentence) and reference #11. Your thoughts? I am ready to move the article to draft status, depending on your answer. Eagledj (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. I'm a bit torn on this. I'll get to that. Let me first just clear up some citation issues.

Mainly, after you name a citation on its first use, say <ref name=cmhof>{{cite web|last1=McCall|first1=... etc. etc. etc.}}</ref>, the next time you want to use it it's just <ref name=cmhof /> – just that – Not "<ref name=cmhof>{{cite web}}</ref>".

If that cite has a date associated with it, it's |date=, not |archivedate=. The archivedate parameter is for websites that have actually been archived – where you're referencing the date that the URL of an archived copy of a web page was created, such as at the Internet Archive.

Paper citations, such as a books, don't take |accessdate=

Back to the issue. Ian is very famous and I do think it's a notable detail, from a public, published work. If we found this same thing about her relationship at a time with a famous male artist, we would not hesitate. But I think we both recognize that even though society has become much more open about these matters, many, many people are stigmatized by gay relationships and are closeted because of it. You would not be "outing" in any true sense, because it's already "out" by that published book by a famous person. So it can't be a deep dark secret. But it may very well be something most people don't know and that she'd very much rather not be made much better known. A Wikipedia article has much greater power to publicize it. It's the go-to place to look up anyone. It would publicize that detail many times more effectively by being in an article here, directly about her, than it does as a mention in the far interior of someone else's book. If we knew she was openly gay, then we would not be having this conversation. So, even though I agree that you would be on solid ground in including it, since we don't know, it's best to keep it out. We should bend over backwards when its comes to living persons, where we perceive even a potential for harm. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

RE Arlene Francis

Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you are online

Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Wikipedia on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Wikipedia which never mentions G12 violation. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Wikipedia material in new Wikipedia articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase as it is largely applied at Wikipedia. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Wikipedia articles into new Wikipedia articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Wikipedia editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Wikipedia side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) It seems that since G12 is currently not discussed on WP:CWW, then it should be edited and added into the discussion on the page about WP:CWW for completeness. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The text to which you refer, User:MusicAngels, is describing instances of what we call a "{{backwardscopy}}" - when content that already exists in Article A is mirrored on Website B, leading for Article A to be marked as copy of Website B. This comes up routinely at WP:CP. This is not an exclusion for using content from one Wikipedia article in another, which is a copyvio (a violation of copyright policy), but one that can be repaired through the process described at WP:CWW. Cases of copying within Wikipedia will generally not meet WP:CSD#G12 because the resultant articles are not generally going to be "unsalvageably corrupt" and the license is inherently compatible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl; The question above comes with some history from a very generous offer made by User:Fuhghettaboutit to me which I hope he recalls, for him to answer the question below. MusicAngels (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey MusicAngels. I agree with what Moonriddengirl has said (thank you!), which I actually addressed in the deletion discussion to an extent. (Moon: see here for context.) In short, it is not a term of art, not a special Wikipedia use of the phrase, but such copying from article to article without attribution really is a "copyright violation" and is "copyright infringement" of other's work. And comparing this to backwards copyvios is pure apples and oranges. That is simply a recognition that what was thought to be a copyright violation of an outside source, was not, because it was them copying us.

Anyway, G12 is usually inapplicable; rarely applied to copying within Wikipedia, because the attribution can be fixed on site, and it's also usually not all that difficult. I'm stressing "usually/rare[ly]" for a reason. What I think is partly motivating you is that you actually had content deleted under CSD G12 when it was "just" a copying-within-Wikipedia issue. But it was not the usual situation. The problem there was that the copying was from many different articles, and it was intertwined over numerous edits, such that fixing it in the normal manner presented a serious hurdle.

Why is that important? Because we don't generally contour our guidelines and policies to address the rare or one-off situation – and I'm telling you that in my experience, this comes up very rarely indeed. So, maybe there's a place in policy or guideline to mention this. Something like "While copying within Wikipedia without proper attribution is a copyright violation, it can usually be fixed easily, so CSD G12 is generally considered inapplicable. Rare cases may arise where the edits are so intertwined that attribution is too difficult and deletion as a copyright violation is warranted", but maybe it's just too rare a situation to take up guideline/policy real estate. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit; Your answer above is really a comprehensive answer. User:DGG also had the thought that those three articles may have been deleted because they were merely "C"-class articles; and even though they were designated as "High Importance" by WikiProjects Poetry, it is a truism at Wikipedia that peer review articles get more attention and more respect than "C"-class articles. My question is really very simple. After your very gracious offer at Drv, and before the Drv was suddenly closed, I actually did compile the full list of edits which you asked for and which were used to construct the articles. I was about to type them all in, when the Drv discussion was unexpectedly and suddenly closed. My concern for WP:CWW is that I did fully identify the material used by linking in the Lead section which is the actual minimum requirement on the current version of WP:CWW for valid forking of Wikipedia material; the other notifications and dummy edits indicated on WP:CWW are presented as optional and "nice to have". Anyway, the fork in the road now is; Option A -- alter/revise the current WP:CWW wording to indicate what the real minimum requirements for CWW are in order to avoid G12 violations, and do it concisely in so many words, or, Option B -- @Moonriddengirl: suggestion is actually very strong commenting that since the license is inherently compatible for all three articles, and since I have already compiled the complete CWW lists which you had originally requested, is it worth getting all three (3) High Importance articles back into Wikipedia all at once. @Fuhghettaboutit, if this was only one article then I see your point about it just being so much water under the bridge. However, since I already have compiled the complete CWW lists for all three High Importance articles, then is it worth it to get all three High Importance articles back at once since the license is inherently compatible? MusicAngels (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding only to your comment about doing the minimal, MusicAngels, I need to note that a link from within the article is not sufficient under WP:CWW. I can link to apple here, but it would not tell people if I have copied content from that article; the page's history function is used for this. This is why WP:CWW requires that a note be made in edit summary. It's the only way to get attribution into the history. There have been cases where I have deleted content from articles that has been copied from other Wikipedia pages - especially where it is not possible to provide attribution for everything. If the terms of the license aren't met, it's a violation of copyright policy and likely a copyright infringement even if the license is compatible. If there are too many sources to identify, then the history of the page becomes unsalvageably corrupt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels, since you're trying to figure out a method of copying chunks of other articles into new articles while complying with copyright, let me offer you a simple piece of advice: don't waste your time. This isn't some dictate from on high, or some statement of "do this and you'll be blocked"; this is just advice from someone who's been here a while. If you're using chunks of other articles and you attribute everything properly, the attribution list will be extremely large and complicated, and proper attribution will require a ton of work. You will have a significantly easier time if you don't copy text from other articles; find the text you'd like to copy, use its sources to rewrite it in your own words, and dump the resulting new text into the page you're creating. No attribution list is needed, no requirement that reusers include the attribution history of other pages, no "oops I forgot to include something", no risk of deletion as a copyvio. These topics were obviously encyclopedic; if not for the copyright concerns, there wouldn't have been any reason to delete them, so written-in-your-own-words editions of these poetry articles will be quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend and @Moonriddengirl:, Much appreciated for that comment which I will give you a partially unexpected answer to. First, if it was an "extremely large and complicated" list then I would not do it or request it in any way. It is, however, only 13 names for the Poetry in the early 21st century article: Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Gwedolyn Brooks, James Dickey, W. S. Merwin, Anne Carson, Henri Cole, Rosanna Warren, John Ashberry, Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, Mark Strand, and Jay Wright. Period. Same for the other two deleted companion articles with their poets. But more to the point is, second option, that if an administrator asks me on my Talk page to do the written-in-your-own-words version, as you very aptly call it, then I'll likely agree to it, following all the respective advantages you just pointed out. It would be nice to hear, however, from User:Fuhghettaboutit about whether a 13-item list is excessive, and if he thinks that it is still in the realm of being practical rather than "extremely large and complex". The nice thing about keeping the 13-item list option is that we get all three High Importance articles back all-at-once without waiting, rather than the written-in-your-own-words option requiring weeks-and-weeks. Is it worth getting all three High Importance encyclopedic articles back with 13-item lists all at once, since the license is inherently compatible and the "support" list is only 13-items? MusicAngels (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay so we're on another issue:-) Restoring the article, with me providing the attribution. I really feel like we're missing each other on a number of issues in order for me to do this. I wish to be very clear. Please don't take this as harsh, but I feel in order to lay it out I need to explore some misunderstandings I think you must have based on what you've said.

Providing a list of the names of the article you copied from is not what I want to fix the attribution in full, and not what I asked for at the deletion discussion to do so. You say you had already prepared the list and were just about to post it when the discussion was closed. That's appears impossible – if you understood what I actually asked for, because compiling the list for me to fix it required you to have access to the page history, and the article was deleted at that time, so I don't see how you could have done that. Coupling this with your misunderstanding above of what is needed for minimum attribution****, makes me think that you think all you need is to provide me the names of the articles copied from. I am not willing to provide such an undetailed fix. Let me quote myself, from the deletion discussion:

If you agree you have the ability and will provide to me a comprehensive and detailed list of where every line that comes from another article came from (listed by each revision in the page history, e.g., "In this diff I took the first sentence from X, and the rest of the paragraph from Y, and the next paragraph from Z; and in this diff, I took...), and will do so upon a conditional overturn within a short time period, I am offering to undertake providing the attribution fixes.

I then later said:

That's a start but not what I need and asked for (see where I wrote about the need for diffs, with you stating exactly what parts of the content were taken from where). I know you can't provide that now because you can't access the diffs while it's deleted, but I would need you to state that you understand what I will need and that you will provide it, were it deleted. More specifically, proper attribution would not be provided by dummy edits stating "some content came from link". It would be multiple dummy edits, with edit summaries in a form like "Copyright attribution note: the revision as of 16:46, April 18, 2015 included content from the existing article on Octavio Paz, from this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octavio_Paz&oldid=664470227; see its history for attribution."

Do you now understand what I would have needed and would still need if the article is undeleted, and why I am thinking you must not have understood what I asked for, since you could not provide this material without access to the page history?

Since the article was not undeleted, the only way it could be fixed is if it were undeleted, and then you dug through the diffs and provides the list, in the detailed form I've asked for it.

But it's more complicated now because the page was not conditionally undeleted. It would have to be for you to access the diffs, provide me the list based upon them, only after which could I fix the attribution—but it's deletion was upheld.

If User:Nyttend agreed, as the deleting admin, for me to undelete this and userfy it in my userspace, pending MusicAngels providing me the list (within a relatively short time period), that might work. Otherwise, I don't see any way forward.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

****Please read what Moonriddengirl wrote above about minimum attribution. When you say "My concern for WP:CWW is that I did fully identify the material used by linking in the Lead section..." WP:CWW says nothing of the sort. What it does say is that "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page" (emphasis added). Linking things in the interior of an article in no wise meets this standard. (You might also note that my offer, conditioned on you providing the detail so I can, in turn, provide detailed dummy edits attribution, means I am not satisfied with the bare minimum.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit; This is the list as you've requested it of the diffs for each one of the WP:CWW edits for your approach. These were all summarized in the Edit history comment field as well. Please note that I have tried to be completely accurate here and that this is well beyond the minimum requirement, but that is the only way you prefer for it. Also, I cannot link directly to the articles which were deleted from Drv, although these are accessible from your account for further verification. I would have done this myself but I just cannot access them from my own account as you can. Here is the list of diffs:

[1]: Paz

[2]: Dickey

[3]: Brooks

[4]: Ashbery

[5]: Merwin

[6]: Walcott

[7]: Hill

[8]: Strand

[9]: Wright

[10]: Carson

[11]: Heaney

[12]: Cole

[13]: Warren

Please note that alot of these were only start and stub articles in their original form for WP:CWW and that it often took me extra time to adapt them for the High Importance article "Poetry in the early 21st century". If anything needs even further information then I'll provide what you list for me. MusicAngels (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:. Aha, I see. You you worked up the first content at your user talk page, and then pasted it into the article. That is not a problem, though it requires a selective history merge (which I'm experienced in). Only then would I be able to refer to prior version and where it came from. But once again, I cannot do this unless and until it is undeleted. And I cannot do that without dispensation from Nyttend since he was the deleting admin. Nyttend, if you say nay, I'll abide by that. If you say yay, I'll take care of the attribution, in detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Please go ahead and do what you think best. I'm not saying yea or nay; I'm saying "I'm on the road and don't have enough time to review this stuff carefully, so I'll trust that you'll do the right thing." Of course, I won't re-delete these pages if I think it's not been done well; doing so would be approaching a WP:INVOLVED violation at best and an outright violation at worst. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding! MusicAngels, I will work on it in a few days when I have a chunk of time to do it right. As the deleted version has additional edits, I may need to ask you for information (I'll do so at your talk page).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels: Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. It happened yesterday, between the time they asked for your help and the time the page got restored. [14]. Please please please please don't let MusicAngels use the restored page as an argument for getting unblocked in order to work on it. User:Nyttend knows all about the history of all this. Please please please please. || AvianObserver (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey. AvianObserver I'll have to go look at the block basis but even before I do so I can say that I have never seen a block reason (and my imagination fails when trying to think of any theoretical block basis) that would be properly lifted because of such a restoration.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Okay I've looked. AFAICT the restoration interfaces not at all with the block grounds, and asking for it to be lifted on its basis would be not just ineffective but a non sequitur.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you thank you! I was getting really worried that we would see a sequel to the horror movie that you read about at the Administrators' Noticeboard. A sequel would--as you said--be a blockbuster non sequitur! So thank you thank you thank you thank you. || AvianObserver (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Magic pipes &c.

I just wanted to thank you for your thoroughly-detailed explanation of piping in category tags (and the purpose of DEFAULTSORT metadata) at the Teahouse the other day. By the time I saw it, ithe edit was too far back in the edit history for me to be arsed to find it and thank you that way. I hadn't known most of that. Thanks for making me a better editor! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! A post like yours makes my day. Thanks for telling me and for being a great new voice here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for the compliment. It's nice to feel appreciated. By the way, I apologize if my "talk erudite to me" comment the other day was out of line. As an autist I sometimes struggle with appropriateness. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft Bell State Bank & Trust Page

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I'm new to Wikipedia so hopefully this is the proper way to contact you. Anyways, I've been struggling to get the Bell State Bank & Trust page approved and noticed that you deleted it. I thought it was doing well once other people started pitching in and correcting some of the issues with it but I guess it wasn't up to par yet. I'd still like to create this page, can you let me know what I should do differently so that I can rewrite and resubmit? Thank you!

Impala66 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Impala66. I deleted the draft article as a blatant copyright violation under section G12 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. In short, you cannot take previously written, copyrighted text and paste it here. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." Specifically, you copied and pasted content that appeared in this draft (from its very first revision) from here and here if not from other places. Being a copy of the Bank's own material, it also read as extremely promotional. Yes, you still can create it, but you will have to do so anew, this time writing only in your own words (to be clear, you can use short quotes, marked as such with quote marks, cited using an inline citation and in-text attribution). However, please be aware that such a draft will never be accepted if you do not cite to sufficient reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the bank. You can read more about that standard at Wikipedia:Notability. At the time of deletion, it had been rejected on that basis, though no one had yet noticed it was a copyright violation (though they should have). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Fuhghettaboutit. I'll use it in when I work on the rewrite.

Impala66 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

For helping with Ronen Shilo BC1278 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278 BC1278 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating new article which was previously deleted ( Akshay Agrawal )

Hi I am re writing a page which was previosuly deleted and rightly so. It read like an advert. Ill be done with itsoon and ill send it in for submission. I am writing this only because other similar have a Wikipedia Page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddharth_Shetty) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrhad_Acidwalla) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varun_Agarwal)

So let me know if theres something that needs to be chnged when the page is done.

Cheers. Space.mountain9 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Space.mountain9. A few things. As a draft in the draft namespace, this was deleted by me just as abandoned, i.e., a page marked for Articles for creation review, which had not been accepted, and had not been edited in over six months. See CSD G13. But looking at the history of what you pasted, that content comes from Akshay Agrawal (which is a copyright problem, by the way; you did not create that text, others did but it's falsely credited to you in the page history), and that older content was deleted multiple times, and significantly, after discussion – on the merits – at an articles for deletion debate, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshay Agrawal. That means that the content has already been found wanting. I see you've added a few sources but it's really not significantly different from when it was deleted, and could be subject to WP:CSD#G4 – a repost of an article that there was consensus to delete after a deletion debate. Finally, note that pointing to other articles as a basis for the existence of another is generally a flawed argument. Please see WP:WAX. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your user page toolbox

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to let you know I'm using a modified version of the T O O L B O X on your user page on my own user page — if you don't mind. I left the HTML comment intact in the code, but if you want a visible credit, or for me not to use it at all, I'll be happy to comply with your wishes. Thanks for building such a useful and attractive table! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Great. Hope you find it useful. It certainly could do with some updating (I'll probably get around to that eventually). Need I say of course, with a foolish number of exclamation points after it, you are welcome to use it. In fact, if you click edit on my userpage, look at the commented out note above it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how I possibly missed the note above it in the code. Pobody's nerfect, I guess... Thanks again, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Claude "Pop" Laval

RM still ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aun or Anu ?

Greetings,

First of all thanks for your recent support edits to article Ceremonial pole. Please do refere to your this edit after sentence part, "tree and pole reverence to" you have added word " Aun in ancient Babylonia-Assyria"; please do confirm that what is intended change and not Anu .

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mahitgar. Of course that's a typo!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Fuhghettaboutit:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Thanks North!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once again for "Tree of Transmission" chart

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, just wanted to quickly express my thanks once again for your creation of the chart used in this article section. It would've taken me a long time to figure out how to make one on my own! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Some coder will probably come along and think of some more elegant way to do it, but it does the job.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What to do about a nonconstructive editor

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I've been talking with a new editor who came to my attention at the Teahouse, BlusteryBlowers. I initially went to their talk page at the end of October because their signature seemingly includes stub templates and winds up being three lines long. I explained the issue and pointed them to help fixing it, and they replied "ok" seeming to indicate that they would fix the signature. It remains three lines long.

The following day, in checking back, I checked BlusteryBlowers's contribution history, where I learned that on all five of the articles they have edited, their edits had been reverted as unconstructive by other editors. None of those editors had followed up with an unconstructive-editing warning on BlusteryBlowers's talk page, however, so I added one.

I next discovered that they were making inappropriate claims on their user page, including claiming to be an administrator. I listed all the problems with the user page as it then existed and asked them to make changes. They again replied "ok" and I gave them some time to complete their revisions. That was October 31.

A week passed without any changes to the page, so I left another message saying that if the claims were not removed within 24 hours, I would do it myself. This did get a response, and the claims have been removed. My message on their talk page outlining what the problems with the page were has also been edited by BlusteryBlowers, completely changing the sense of what I actually said. I have now left a message thanking them for editing their user page but warning them against editing other users' comments in a way that changes the meaning. I've left their changes to my comments in place for now.

I'm concerned that I may be coming across to BlusteryBlowers as a lone bully trying to hassle them rather than a concerned editor wanting to help them understand and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. On the other hand I'm starting to wonder if I haven't been too soft-hearted and gentle with BlusteryBlowers, considering this exchange at the Teahouse. Do you think I should take this to AN/I, solicit other editors to talk to BlusteryBlowers, let it drop, or do something else? Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey GR! I'll take a look tonight as I am in the salt mines right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, Fuhghettaboutit. I guess we'll see whether there has really been reform in coming days, though the fact that BlusteryBlowers has fixed their signature already is an encouraging sign. (Incidentally, I used {{noping}} earlier, though maybe I shouldn't have?) As a side note, I'm actually not a "he" and prefer to be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns, but I'm not grievously offended by what I'm sure was an honest mistake. Thanks again! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Anytime. Didn't realize you'd used noping. Yes, probably not. Transparency when talking about others is good IMO. I've fixed the pronouns:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My thought had been to spare you from potentially being targeted for comment revision or other shenanigans, since I was only asking for advice (not that I mind you intervening, especially as your approach yielded such good results), but you're right: transparency is best. I'll prioritize transparency in similar situations in the future. Thanks again! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the edits, it just seemed like an easy place for me to step in. Often having been issued a final warning is a necessary step for a next stage escalation. I do hope the user'll just fly right from now on, but if not, now there can be no claim of insufficient notice before blocking/ topic banning etc. if taken to ANI of wherever. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Template protections

See [15] (scroll down). Were you aware of the cascading protection and going to adjust it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

?needs additional citations for verification?

Howdy, Fuhghettaboutit. The heading above refers to this article: Laurier Brantford which was totally inadequate. However, I spent a lot of time on it today and turned it into a decent article with lots of valid citations. How/when will Wikipedia ever find out that citations are no longer needed? (P.S. Yes, I still need to fix some of my raw URL citations, using the templates you kindly provided ... I did fix some but will also fix the others tomorrow. Otherwise it looks like a finished product to me.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 00:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peter. Maintenance tags like {{refimprove}} in articles are not automatically removed, but are removed by editors like you or me when the issues they flag have been addressed. However, there's still swaths of unsourced text in the article so that tag still belongs. Another issue is that most of the sources cited are primary sources (rather than secondary sources). Third, you're still using naked links in citations, which I hoped you would not be doing after the discussions of that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Userified pages

I figure let's discuss it here. Since most userified pages would be named the original title, we could possibly have a bot pull up all userpages in Category:Stale userspace drafts (ignore "sandbox" and "write your article here"), check if a blue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/... page exists and then create a list of those? It would save a mountain of time as there's plenty that were also created separately, not just userified backwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ricky. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. That sounds like a good idea but it would only cover a small part of the problem in my view.

The first limitation is that I'm guessing that even if we're focused only on AfD'd articles, a large number of them that were userfied were never tagged with {{Userspace draft}}. This would also miss all those where the userfied basepagename does not exactly match the mainspace name when taken to AfD.

More fundamentally, while I agree that AfD'd articles that were userfied and then sat forever are of particular concern, don't you think speedied/prodded articles, and even those just considered inappropriate for the mainspace but never tagged for deletion under any process, are of concern too? I hate poking holes if I don't have an offer of a solution (part of the reason I did not respond quickly is that I've been hoping a brilliant ray of light would strike me as to a comprehensive and feasible way to find the broader class I thought we were talking about).

The other day, preliminary to responding (and because I was wondering how many others I should do something about), I attempted to find all my userfications. I hope I've found most of them (I searched my edit summaries for "userf"). I've culled those that are still userfied: here, and just starting looking at them to see what needs doing. The thing is, it appears many of them a) did not result from an AfD impetus, and b) are not tagged with Userspace draft (even if that's my fault). Thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We can only take on bits at a time. We're talking maybe thousands of pages out there for all admins (which may be high) and that's ignoring the pages that were userified to active users (even if not worked on, people will dispute deletion on that basis). I've gotten through just roughly 3% at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts so any angles that help cull it is helpful. People create pages all the time: there's a host of pages from around 2009 about small video games when those were up for deletion, I had to MFD five separate user's articles on Spider Man 4 when it was made into a redirect, this is all typical. Unless someone plans on just going through userspace on its own, we'll never find it all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Okay, perspective. This would be a first bite and a fine place to start. I suppose the bot should ignore any pages tagged with AfC templates, since they're going to end up G13ed anyway? Want to work on a joint bot request here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Some initial language thoughts:

After an Articles for Deletion debate results in delete, it is not uncommon for there to be a granted request for userfication of the page and its history to allow further work to address the deletion basis, i.e., make the topic no longer subject to CSD G4 upon a move back to the mainspace. However, many such requests are made and lie fallow – for years – often with the requesting user having long since become inactive. There is no easy way to track userfied articles that have this condition. While there may be a larger question of uncounted userfied articles originally deleted through other processes, formerly Afd'd articles are of particular concern. We are looking for a bot to:

1. Look at all articles in Category:Stale userspace drafts by their {{SUBPAGENAME}}, i.e., without the "user:" "user talk:", "sandbox/" "draft:", etc.; and
2. Match them against all AfD targets.
3. It would also be good if the bot ignored pages that are tagged with {{AFC submission}}, as these will be subject to CSD G13;
4. ???

There shouldn't be any AFC submissions on those anyways. I think if it can just look to see if an AFD page exists and post a table of the draft page and blue-linked AFD pages, that would be a start. There's already a bot page for old draftspace articles without AFC submissions, the project on stale drafts, G13s, old dated AFC wizard drafts and a host of other ways of finding old userpages. It's just a matter of figuring out an efficient way to do all this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tonight's the Night (1934 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tonight's the Night (1934 film). Since you had some involvement with the Tonight's the Night (1934 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: User:Bullettunion

see Special:Contributions/Bullettunion. Did it again at List оf dесеаsеd hiр hор аrtists and Тhе Gаmе (rарреr). Ignatzmice•talk 15:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

PS how in hell are they doing it? If I open up both pages as separate tabs and go back and forth, the titles don't change at all but the URL in the browser bar seems to change size slightly. Crazy. Ignatzmice•talk 15:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ignatz. Thanks for the heads up. As I'm sure you saw, JamesBWatson took care of it. Real life intervened for me. As for how this was being done, I am assuming one or more of the letters is some kind of different character that looks just like the regular character to the naked eye but not to a program looking at ones and zeros. As I'm curious just what it is, and how to examine it, I've asked: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Disguised characters? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ignatzmice: The editor was using a couple of letters from the Cyrillic alphabet mixed in with the Latin alphabet. A few Cyrillic letters look the same as Latin ones, such as capital Т = T (but not lower case т ≠ t) and both capital and lower case Е = E and е = e. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please critique my article

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, I have written a new article, my third, and I’d like you to look it over before I put it up: User:Eagledj/sandbox/Tom Collins The subject has a common name, and there will be disambiguation issues. Should I title it "Tom Collins (music publisher/producer)"? Also I'm having trouble with reference #24, which is from Billboard Magazine. The article is found in a Billboard insert called "A Billboard Spotlight: The World of Country Music". The page numbers are WOCM 1, WOCM 2...etc. so it is unusual. Your thoughts? And finally, after you review it can I skip draft and go to mainspace? You have been great help in the past . Best regards Eagledj (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. Looks good! I've fixed most of what I might have critiqued. My initial comment is that there are a few sources that are possibly questionable. What makes slipcue.com a reliable source – a high quality reference with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? (and not some random website by some random person)? There are a few specific issues to note, just for future reference, and one that you should take action on. Let's start there.

• You must produce quotations with exacting fidelity. You can fix truly ministerial typos but other than that, must be true to the original. The quote I fixed about Mandrell was not true to the original in a number of ways, the most important of which is that all omissions must be indicated with ellipses. Please check whether there are any other quotes that similarly need fixing.
• After you give a citation a name, the next time you use it, it's just <ref name="Name" /> (i.e., not: <ref name="name"></ref> nor <ref name="name"{{cite web}}></ref> both of which I found).
• Be careful of statements that will age or that are meta-references – that break the fourth wall, in the vein of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid.
• No need for |accessdate= for paper sources. Their purpose is for sources that can change – so if they change or 'go dark', we have a date reference point for when it purported to verify information. A true paper source is not subject to this. For quasi-paper sources, like a magazine's electronic version of an article that probably appeared in paper form but there's no sure way to know (unlike a scan of a paper article from 1979, or of a book image from Google Books), you should probably keep them in—which is why I did not remove the accessdate from Rolling Stone, for example.
• You can usually use just the first part of any Google Books URL: up to where the page number is listed, and that is preferable to a search URL, e.g., just https://books.google.com/books?id=tLZz02EzmBYC&pg=PA96
• Yeah, sometimes it's not easy to figure out the URL to the page in the interior of a Goole Book source you find. The trick I used here was to go to the page of the Billboard source, find a short quote from that page, then go back to Google books and search for that in quotes together with Billboard as part of the search but outside the quotes. That found a different link to the actual interior page.

As to your other issues, since Tom Collins is the primary topic, you should name this Tom Collins (producer). Parenthetical disambiguators are not supposed to list every possible thing a person is know for, but to allow someone trying to reach a topic to land on their topic – so just enough for them to pick the article they're looking for from a list is what we want, and he's mainly known as a producer. As for how they would find it, at the top of the article on Tom Collins is a hatnote to Tom Collins (disambiguation). As soon as this hits the mainspace, this article should be added to that DAB page (do not pipe the link to "Tom Collins", keep the disambiguator showing there). Yes I think this is certainly good enough to go directly to the mainspace, do not pass go. Have you considered nominating this for the did you know... section of the mainpage? I am glad to help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As I'm sure you saw, I broke up the entire article into paragraphs of relatively equal length. I don't think you need much explanation for why that is what we normally do and how giant blocks of text are difficult for readers:-)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks & I don't get it

Hi Fugeddaboutit, 1)Thanks a lot for the edit of the Pepi Litman article in my Sandbox but I don't see what you changed. I compared the top two edits in the history & couldn't see any difference. 2)Just to clarify, I typed in that long section from google books for my own reference, so I can use it in writing the article. That's why i headed it "Notes." 3)Also, sadly, I had copied a lot of other info from the YIVO online encyclopedia into the sandbox for the same purpose, but forgot to save. Any way to retrieve? It was done between 7-9am PST today, Dec 7, 2015. 4) I hope this appears at the bottom of your Talk page, as you requested. Not sure how to make that happen. Again, thanks for your patience with my rather steep learning curve. Nadnie (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nadnie. You must not have looked at the diff view correctly. The first edit was this, the second this. No, there's no way to retrieve it, sorry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Nadnie (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to fix this article

Hi Fughettaboutit, I have found a poorly written article about a notable subject who deserves a decent Wiki article, Steve Buckingham. I am cleaning it up and adding references, but I suspect copyvio, where copies of the Wiki article appear elsewhere. My question is about what is going on with "Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press, "http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/steve_buckingham_(record_producer). I also found it at "Blair School of Music", http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham. Is he handing out copies of his Wiki article as as a resume or vice versa ? Thanks for your help as always, Eagledj (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj The World Heritage Encyclopedia is largely a Wikipedia Mirror., i.e., what you find there generally is taken from here. It does look like the article is a copyright violation and plagiarism of http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham not because I found a pre-dating version in the Internet Archive a/k/a the Wayback Machine, which only goes back to 2012 for this page but because of other hallmarks. And a bit deeper, it looks like the real source is this. Almost the entire article needs to go. If it wasn't for your interest I would delete it entirely. It you want to pursue this then the best option is to do a complete rewrite (brutally pare it down and rewrite anything pre-existing), tell me when your done with the initial phase of tearing it down, and I will hide all revisions in the history up to your last edit. Then start building it up again. Or, of course, tell me that you have saved your recent additions offline, and maybe some of the skeleton, e.g., categories, and I will just delete and you can start from scratch. Probably even better but I'm open to whatever you think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, Fughettaboutit, I have brutally pared the Buckingham article, ready for re-write without copyvio. Offline, I have saved my own edits and references. I am ready to tackle the task from scratch, which as you said may be easier than fighting through the muck. Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagledj: Done! Edit away!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have rewritten the Steve Buckingham article. I'm discouraged to find that, even before it's finished, it's already been stolen HERE. Please go through it and do what you can to help it. Does it need some subheadings or paragraph breaks? Please copy to my talk page. Best regards and thanks, Eagledj (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagledj: As usual, it looks great. I've made some minor changes. Since you personally own the copyright (we each own the copyright to what we write on Wikipedia, even though it's under certain free copyright licenses), you could send a violation letter, and ultimately a DMCA takedown notice, but this is one of those opaque sites, with no contact information I can find (and it would not surprise me if they were outside the U.S. and would not care one bit). Life in the twenty first century. If you can be bothered, I'm sure those at the computing reference desk know many times over how to track down their information than I do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013

Many thanks for your help. I will try to continue!

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The teahouse is probably not the right place to continue this

My firm impression, which is always subject to correction, is that a copyvio which is broadly up to 50% of an article, with the remainder redeemable, may be flagged as such, with the copyvio remaining visible for a reasonable time, by which is meant a short time. Editors like Diannaa tend to arrive if one does that, "as if by magic" and revdel the offending material whether or not it has been removed by the contributing editor.

On that basis I consider that, on balance of probabilities, my custom of flagging and leaving these particular items is right. I am content simply to disagree, more content still be to shown either to be correct or incorrect. One of the two of us is more right than the other, probably. At this stage I think we both think it is ourselves. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What we don't want to have happen is for drafts with copyvio material that is visible to the public to be left languishing in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations for any period of time. When Fuhghettaboutit made this post at WP:AN back in August, there were still 232 articles left to be cleaned up. After months of daily effort (mostly by me), we now have only four, three of which I am pretty sure are copied from PD material and the fourth where we're no longer able to access the source (which was never scanned into the wayback machine) and thus I am unable to prove it's copyvio any more. There's nothing magical about these drafts disappearing from the cat; it's the result of daily checking and work on my part. The best way to handle copyvio drafts (in my opinion) is for people like yourself, Timtrent, to (1) decline the draft as copyvio and (2) if you think the article is salvageable and could be made mainspace-worthy, immediately remove the violating material from the article, mark it as cv-cleaned, and add a {{copyvio-revdel}} request; or if the copyvio is total and there's nothing that can be salvaged, tagging immediately for G12 deletion. I routinely check the Category:Requested RD1 redactions and clean it out as soon as we have 5 or 10, or at a minimum once a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that approach. I undertake to do my best to implement it with drafts I review from now on. Thank you Diannaa Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tim. I am not trying to convince you I'm right. The only reason I followed-up as I did was that your response was was directed at the speedy deletion, and read as you thinking I was saying you should have tagged it under G12, which I wasn't saying at all; I was clarifying that that wasn't the basis for my post, but was the issue of leaving them visible, rather than following the cleanup procedures at the quick fail instructions. There are generally no hidebound rules, you don't have to follow anything. It is true I don't agree with you but that's where we can leave it. Just so you know, earlier this year there were ... at this point I previewed my post and realized I was going to edit conflict with Diannaa (and her post makes the rest of what I was going to say incredibly redundant). Thank you Diannaa, for all your great hard work on these copyvio matters! And now I see I was going to edit conflict a second time; Tim, again, thank you for all your hard work at AfC!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Heavens, I never mind learning something new I thought I was right, and found I was wrong. At the teahouse we were at cross purposes. All is fine. I came here because the teahouse became the wrong venue . Latterly I have been less hard working at AfC, for the same reason that I had to withdraw from the ArbCom elections (There was a genuine chance that I might poll sufficient to be appointed). My time has become unexpectedly limited. So I am trying a rifle target approach on a limited pool of "stuff". Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

• News and notes: ArbCom election results announced

• Op-ed: Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view

• In the media: Political editing in the context of the US presidential primaries

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners

• Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?

• Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

• In focus: Drone photography: New possibilities and new challenges

• In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015

• Arbitration report: GMO case decided

• Featured content: An unusually slow week

• WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations

• Traffic report: A feast of Spam

• Gallery: WikiConference USA 2015: images, slide decks, and videos

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Fuhghettaboutit: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays!

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!

Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

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.

HazelAB (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

• News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee

• Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended

• Featured content: The post-Christmas edition

• Traffic report: The Force we expected

• Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015

• In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"

• Gallery: It's that time of year again

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Questia note

As of right now, you cannot renew an existing account. So you will have to sign up again with a different email. Sorry, but that is something that has been a concern of mine for some time, but it is how Questia has it set up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)