User talk:Lexein/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Crocs

Moved comment to article talk, where it belongs --Lexein (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mythpage88

In case you missed it, User:Mythpage88 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:LiteralKa. Expanding our earlier discussion, I'm questioning now if one of those other accounts that I previously dealt with might have also been the same as User:LiteralKa... The behaviour certainly fits anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

...and it looks like you already knew. Doh! ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I'm wondering about another with similar behavior. But every time I approach SPI I get told "not fishing." wtf. --Lexein (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the notice

I've replied. You might consider asking for participation more widely from WP:URBLP and WP:URBLPR participant lists, I think it would be interesting to see how that pans out, particularly given the relative grumpiness of my reply.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: WLNG

Moved Dave's reply to User talk:Radiodj63 --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nylon

Currently compiling any missing citations on the page. Will be fully updated today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.92.250 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Lex.... Thank you so very much.... I am glad that there are understanding people like yourself that are affilated with this website.... Maybe your could introduce yourself to NH, he seems to be lost :) .... Once again thank you for all that you have done ..... Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiodj63 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I respect NH's work, and I don't think NH is lost - please note that NH and I agreed that your edits were not a good idea, and were combative. Before NH got involved, other editors had reverted your edits without insisting on discussion - each of those were lost opportunities. And I'm not an altruist here: I'm a skeptic. I extended the olive branch for four reasons:

1. You did not step on that landmine: the 4th revert, which would have gotten you blocked. This indicated some intention to cooperate.
2. I dared to imagine the situation from the point of view of a radio station employee faced with an article not written by the station with some sketchy prose with only dead links supporting it.
3. I hatedislike the loss of articles on notable subjects due solely to poor writing.
4. I hatedislike it when people misunderstand our goal here.

Just FYI, remember to sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~.

--Lexein (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC) (Softened language --15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

RE: WLNG

Lex.... I apologize if something was taken inappropriately in my last response... I appreciate all that you have done to correct this matter... The two items that were incorrect on the page was the term Bonacker was used incorrectly, and our listening area was confined to the Hampton's... I thought that I was following the appropriate direction given to me by Dave Craven.... I was in no way trying to do your job or NH or any other editor... I have great respect for anyone doing the job of an editor... I like what you have done to the page... Thank you for your assistance... --24.45.145.161 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No biggie. Hey, we're all volunteer editors here. For future changes to WLNG, please feel free to discuss on Talk:WLNG. We will help. Also, please stick with the project and contribute at other articles too! --Lexein (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5Tb3lpN1NmMF9BNk0

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, found it on the author's website. Thanks again, though! --Lexein (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Zappa project proposal

Frank Zappa is going to get it's own project section. Go here to join it. We need involvement from as many users as possible so joining would be helpful to Zappa related articles all over Wikipedia. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Y and thanks. --Lexein (talk) 09:21, 18 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) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Linkrot

Hi Lexein, I noticed that you changed the links in Opera (web browser) to point to archive.org again. I understand the desire to fight linkrot, however only using links to archive.org is really not a good idea--pages load more slowly from archive.org, and in the case of news articles and blog posts we can usually be confident that the content will remain on the publisher's site. Also, if another equally good source can be found to replace the dead link, it's better to use that than an outdated and dead source.

I use the Checklinks tool to find dead and redirected links. Redirected links appear in green and it is important to fix these before they become dead links. If you have any further thoughts, please let me know. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion should be at WT:LINKROT; if you agree, let's move it there. You are flat wrong about "confidence" that articles will remain on publisher's website. Once they're gone, they're gone, and we don't know when they'll go. Chicago Tribune, San Jose Mercury News and others lose thousands of articles in the transition from free online to paid archive. The entire collection (thousands) of Rolling Stone articles cited here, disappeared in a single day; many (I don't know how many) have never been recovered: archive.org didn't have them, and nobody bothered to WebCite them, because we trusted Rolling Stone. Afterward, somebody at Rolling Stone tried to help restore some of them, but they got banned because they created a RollingStone-related username, and never came back. Is that what you want? All AP and UPI articles are mandated by agreement with the agencies to disappear within 30-365 days. Is that what you want - to perennially force editors to re-research verification content which is known to disappear?
• You are entitled to your opinion about "just use another source", but flat wrong that that's inherently better than a "dead" source. Nothing wrong with archived sources at all.
• Your preference of online sources vs online archived sources is yours to have, but WP:Verifiability doesn't say anything about speed of access. IMHO, speed matters not one little bit, as long as the verification content is secure, reliable, and accessible.
• Why does archiving matter? Because the loss of the verification content is avoidable, and stupid. The loss of verification content leads to pointless edit wars and loss of confidence in Wikipedia: there was a claim in Wendy Carlos that went unverifiable for years; I was beginning to think the whole thing was a fabrication. Now it has a link to an archive service, sadly not a free one, but that's something.
• There's no excuse for any current cited source not to be archived. There's no excuse for any citation which was verifiable online, not to be now verifiable, simply due to the logic: "wait for it to rot." Using Checklinks is all well and good, and too late. If archive.org missed them, and nobody manually archived them with WebCitation, and they're not in Google Cache (useless anyways), they're gone. The new service archive.is has not been around long enough to know if they'll really be stable and viable, so I'm not relying solely on them. But if an editor is industrious to add archive access to avoid the access loss issue entirely, then I'm not going to deprecate their work by reverting it.

Can we move this to WT:LINKROT? --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lexein, I looked around and found this discussion on adding |deadurl=no to preemptively archived links. If you make sure to add this parameter when preemptively archiving then I'm okay with it. Happy editing! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. So, shall we restore that page with all the fully archived refs? --Lexein (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Register article

Hi Lexein, I wanted to let you know that you were quoted in yesterday's Register article on Gibraltarpedia. Also, in case you are unaware of the Wikipediocracy forum (I am a moderator there), you're cordially invited to visit and join discussions there. Regards, --JN466 11:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Knyaginya Maria Luiza Metro Station

Hi, I talked to you earlier this week about an article that had Maria in the title spelled wrong. Well, I am done creating my page and put it through for submission. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Knyaginya_Maria_Luiza_Metro_Station

I am waiting for another review, but also what you suggested is you could rename the wrongfully named article to the correct name and then I could put my information as an improvement? So, what do I do next? Please let me know, your input has been very helpful so far.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verminclone (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Get the improvements that you're sure of into the mainspace article. I don't know what is standard about the track map. --Lexein (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Knyaginya Maria Luisa Metro Station is the wrong spelling. The right spelling has to be Knyaginya Maria Luiza Metro Station with Z instead of S. There is no need to create new article only moved page from Knyaginya Maria Luisa Metro Station to Knyaginya Maria Luiza Metro Station as a result of typo mistake.

Typesspitesro (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1 you destroyedsplit article history by not performing a move. I'm having an admin fix your error.

2 the spelling was wrong before I moved it; thanks for noticing that. As for "no need," hindsight is 20/20. New editor Verminclone was correct to develop expanded content out of main space. AfC might have been the wrong place but it really doesn't matter, except to you. --Lexein (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to say in my defense (although I don't really feel like I should be making excuses) when I started creating my article, there was no article in English associated with the original article in Bulgarian, there was no article with the exact spelling Knyaginya Maria Luiza Metro Station returning from the search query. An article named Knyaginya Mariya Luiza Metro Station was existant, but with completely bogus information, not linked in any way to any other article. The only two sentences in the body were a copy-paste of all other stations on the entire line of 11 stations (so, no particular info to that station and a lame attempt to just spam all stations with these two sentences coming from non-official sources of questionable authority). This station, being part of the second line, was linked to a Template:S-line of the first line and pointing to Wikimedia Commons media related to a completely different station, again on the first line. There was one External link that resulted in an ERROR 404 - Not Found! and another link that points to a website not updated in over 10 years that bears no information on the newly opened second line whatsoever. I tried to make some changes, at least link it to other stations and the bulgarian version, but all the false information made it unbearable. Hence, the creation of a "true" article. I probably should have gone a different way as an inexperienced editor here in Wikipaedia, but at least I tried to remain true to the objectives of this internet project and not let readers be left in dismay of all the nonsense that was listed prior.Verminclone (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I am still learning a lot about the possibilities of templates, so I am still improving on my track map, basically trying to make it as realistic as possible and adding on information that I have found to be useful on other pages in Wikipedia that contain track maps (learning from people that have already gone that way). I will be adding mileage markers as soon as I get official information on the right numbers (that way readers will get a better appreciation of the scale). I will be adding more tables and maps (in view of the articles on Wikipedia about London underground) and rolling stock in an attempt to make the article as functional as possible and cross-linking to a lot of knowledge articles. Thanks for the support, Lex. Verminclone (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Verminclone, tl;dr. I was not attacking you, so no need to defend. AfC was a good way to start, if the other mis-named article didn't exist. The other, misnamed article definitely needed work. Now. Please expand the mainspace one now, with the prose you have. Don't just wait. Improve the mainspace one now, now that it is correctly named. --Lexein (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lex, I know you are supporting my efforts, I was trying to explain myself to the other person in this talk. I did move my prose, I am still working on my maps, which is taking forever to learn, but once I'm done, I'll be able to do other maps in a jiffy. One of my other concerns is the naming of stations on Sofia Metro here in the English mainspace. All of them follow the concept of {Name} Metro Station and one station in particular is again a nonsense, because the station's original name is "Central Railway Station", so to avoid doubling of the word station the person who created the page named it Central Railway Metro Station, instead of Central Railway Station Metro Station. So, my idea is to completely change the paradigm of naming articles of stations on the Sofia Metro here in the English mainspace. I would rather see them as {Name} (Sofia Metro station), so that way one would see article titles like Central Railway Station (Sofia Metro station) or Knyaginya Maria Luiza (Sofia Metro station). Now, my question is what is the best way to do all this? How do I request a name change for all the 27 stations on the Sofia Metro (i.e. 27 articles in Wikipedia)? And where do I discuss it first? Is there a talk section on naming, particularly? PS: I forgot to mention that my main objective to the word Metro right after the name is that metro can be seen as metropolitan area, but it's all in the Sofia metropolitan area, so to avoid confusion with other metro areas I would rather have it in parenthesis as a clarification as being part of something larger, i.e. the Sofia Metro public transportation. Verminclone (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes naming conventions need exceptions. Other times, changing the convention helps. How about

"Central Railway Station (Sofia Metro)"

"Knyaginya Maria Luiza (Sofia Metro)"

where "Sofia Metro" uniformly refers to the system, not a collection of stations, or one type of station? --Lexein (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, that's even better! Now, how do I go about changing things around? Verminclone (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First, don't worry right now. After Luiza is finished, at the main page for the project, or Sofia Metro system page (meaning, pick ONLY ONE PLACE to have the following discussion):

• propose renaming all the articles at once, listing before and after names, and
• leave a tiny (20 word!) note on the Talk pages of all the Sofia Metro station pages, and
• notify the active editors (with a tiny note) of the other Sofia Metro articles to meet and discuss at the system page.

There may be resistance, and may even be some naming conventions used in train and subway projects which could be argued as taking precedence. The result: we're left with "Central Railway Station (Sofia Metro Station)", which might not be so very awful, compared with the effort of renaming. --Lexein (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All the names of the metro stations in the English Wikipedia follow the Bulgarian Wikipedia version, which is as follows: Метростанция „Княгиня Мария Луиза“ (translit. Metrostation "Knyaginya Maria Luiza"). Renaming them with long names will not add to the content of the articles. There is a need for more content not developing artificial names. More content to the articles is my suggestion.

TaakenluunchBG (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(indent normally! It's easy!)

I was merely answering the questions asked. The names listed at Sofia Metro such as Central Railway Metro Station all seem fine to me. The crisis has been averted. You're all welcome. --Lexein (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I hear someone mention resistance? ;-) I am not here to stir things around and make life difficult for everybody. I just noticed, while writing my first article on the Sofia Metro, that it is quite DISorganized. Names of categories at the Commons don't match names of articles in encyclopaedia, names of stations on the line map don't match names of stations' articles and so forth. It took 50% of my time to try to find and correct information on other articles, because I like my articles to be well cross-linked to other content in Wiki. My main concern with naming was for instance if we take the very first station to open that is named Slivnitsa one would go directly to the article about a city named Slivnitsa if one would search Wiki. Slivnitsa metro would be the metropolitan area of that city, hence Slivnitsa metro station would be a station in the metro area of that city (could be a bus or train station). To add to the confusion there are no disambiguation articles about that name. To me it would be nice to see something organized such as:

• Slivnitsa or Slivnitsa (city)
• Slivnitsa (village in {county})
• Slivnitsa (municipality) or Slivnitsa metro
• Slivnitsa (boulevard in Sofia)
• Slivnitsa (Sofia Metro)
• Slivnitsa (National Rail) or Slinvitsa (train station), etc.

For Luiza it would be nice to see:

• M. Luiza (princess consort of Bulgaria)
• M. Luiza (princess of Bulgaria) {this is her granddaughter}
• M. Luiza (boulevard in Sofia)
• M. Luiza (Sofia Metro)
• M. Luiza {all the other famous people that are already listed in the disambiguation article}, etc.

Quite frankly, I can go with what's on there right now, I am just thinking is it making it easy for visitors to Wiki to find all the info they want? Verminclone (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)