User talk:OSborn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hustlers Convention

The history of the page Hustlers Convention contains two completely different articles - the one that was recently un-deleted and the one you created. I have requested that your edits be moved to Hustlers Convention (Lightnin' Rod album), after which time I will need to do some cleanup. Please avoid editing the article until it is moved and I have removed the "inuse" template. Both articles should be cleaned up and available for editing within a day or two, possibly much sooner.

As a general rule, if you want to write about a topic and an article with the name you want to use already exists, create a new page with either a different form of the name or with some "distinguisher" in parenthesis after it. Then put a hatnote on the top of both pages pointing to the other. I will do this as part of the cleanup process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, you intend to separate the two articles, correct? The Hustlers Convention article was only undeleted per my request as I initially believed it to be about the subject I wrote about. I am somewhat confused, as unless you wish to re/undelete the previous history, there does not seem to be any reason to change the situation. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there will be two articles. Having a single page that covers two different things in its article history is generally considered A Bad Thing™ in Wikipedia. The common thing to do in a case like this is to split it into two articles, with the edits about the previous contents staying at their current location and the newer edits going to a new page, in this case named Hustlers Convention (Lightnin' Rod album) (if you can think of a better name, the page can be renamed later). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The history split and cleanup are finished for both articles. Edit away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Apache License may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Apache License''' ({{IPAc-en|ə|ˈ|p|æ|tʃ|i}})) is a [[free software license]] written by the [[Apache Software Foundation]] (ASF). The Apache

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

my edit

I'm not sure why you deleted my edit . It was perfectly good info about a book that critiques Rush's logic. I linked to the Amazon page because it contains a description of the book. If you have any specific problems, please clarify. If not, I'm going to revert back to my edit in a day or so. Thanx. Costatitanica (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted your link because it appeared to be spam. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs to be included: what is the grander significance of the book? Is the book itself notable, as with ... Is a Big Fat Idiot? Why does it merit inclusion? Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view requires that topics are given due weight- the Limbaugh page does not exist to catalog critics of Limbaugh (or to laud Limbaugh.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the "Limbaugh page does not exist to catalog critics of Limbaugh". And I don't think I've given it due weight. I do think that a book by a professor that is devoted to critiquing Limbaugh's logic merits two lines in a section of a page about a person. It's hardly likely to change the POV of the whole article. People who are interested will follow the link, and people who aren't will ignore it. If we limited pages to things that a have a 'grand significance', we could probably delete 75% percent of Wikipedia. Costatitanica (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello OSborn. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello OSborn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

February 2015 Wikification drive

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)