User talk:Shearonink/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Shearonink. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ようこそ You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes. Play in your user area. For example, create User:Shearonink/test. Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009. When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! -- Chzz  ►  22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Talkback

If you need the code to make a pic appear... ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·_Talkback_· 04:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re. Classic book

Re. Classic book

Please monitor the Did You Know submission, on Template talk:Did you know#Classic book.  Chzz  ►  18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Imprimaturs

Re. User:Shearonink/test 2

Yes, sure, add it in - just one thing - please give the specific URLs, not just 'company website', and say WHICH company in the ref. Also, you must have a reference directly after a quotation. Neatest way is like this - using a 'named reference' and a citation template. See User:Chzz/help/ref and User:Chzz/help/refs.

So, please try and tidy it just a little more, and then whack it in to the article, add a note on the DYK suggestions page, and let the person who queried the size know it's been sorted out, on their talk page.

Obviously, as always, ask me for help with it all if needed. See you soon,  Chzz  ►  18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Classic book

Just leaving some notes for anyone happening by...

Classic book has gone live! Feel free to take a look and to leave notes here on my Talk Page or on the article's TalkPage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Classic_book .

-->>For comparison, this is the old/original/previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classic_book&oldid=364595019 .

Shearonink (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Classic book

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

An expanded copy of the main page on that day is in User:Shearonink/Main page 2010 June 21.  Chzz  ►  14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Those tips

• WP:CHEATSHEET
• WP:TMM - The Missing Manual

 Chzz  ►  14:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

—fetch·comms 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page. —fetch·comms 17:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cite templates

OK, so I think you have used {{cite web}} before--basically, you have something that looks like

{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=}}

and you want to fill in the details for each bit. That might produce something like

Doe, John (30 April 2005). "My Favorite Things, Part II". Encyclopedia of Things. Open Publishing. http://www.example.org/. Retrieved 6 July 2005.

So, {{cite book}} is similar--you plug in whatever information about a book, and it generates a reference. For example, instead of writing out

Bloggs, Joe (1974). Book of Bloggs (1st ed.). http://en.wikipedia.org/. Retrieved 2006-02-17.

I can use {{cite book}} to create it, using the code:

{{cite book | last=Bloggs | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Bloggs | year=1974 | title=Book of Bloggs | edition=1st | url=http://en.wikipedia.org/ | accessdate=2006-02-17 }}

That creates:

Bloggs, Joe (1974). Book of Bloggs (1st ed.). Retrieved 2006-02-17.

Basically, it's just an easy way to make sure each reference is in a consistent style. In classic book, you used {{citation}}, which is sort of like {{cite book}}--you can keep using that one instead, if you wish. The benefit of a citation template is just to keep everything looking consistent. —fetch·comms 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm starting to get it... Shearonink (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamburg Concerto new article created by Francesco Malipiero

Thanks for your feedback. I decided to be bold and have moved the article to the mainspace. I added the external link you provided, and will keep trying to improve the article. Now it is in the mainspace, I hope some contributors will help to expand and improve it. Thanks again. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hudson Utility Coupe

Re. Hudson Utility Coupe

Yes, that could be submitted as a [[WP:DYK|did you know?

To qualify, articles have to be at least 1500B long (of prose), and that one is about 2000B.

So- you could submit it at WP:DYKS. If you need help with it, let me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Chevymontecarlo 11:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther's Diary (film)

Your concerns at the AFD and your work in trying to fix problems with Esther's Diary (film) are noted and appreciated. I also share these concerns, as the current article uses too much fluff and hyperbole improperly sourced back to production or youtube videos. Through available sources, it is clear that in its original release as Forgiveness it had the coverage and awards for which notability might be ascertained. As the re-release as Esther's Diary is essentially a director's special cut of the the earlier film, I used my clean-up work on the article as guide in creating an new article. Please review User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Forgiveness (2008 film). What I think should be done is to A) move the current version to the film's original name of Forgiveness (2008 film) and then B) edit the article so it matches my improved, and far less spammy version. This preserves the histories, sets a better version, and leaves a redirect of new name to old as a reasonable search term. Or... I could simply edit the existing article as it sits, and then suggest the move to the new name. What'cha think? --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have concerns about the original article, but your re-write might have enough notability/verifiability to be in Wikipedia. On its own, the subject of 'Esther's Diary' does not seem to have enough notability. And I'd like to mention something about 'awards' (of any kind). 'Forgiveness' and/or "Esther's Diary" *might* have had enough coverage or it might not...just because a film has won an award at a film festival doesn't necessarily equal notability, I think of the subject as much more of a multi-pronged approach - awards + multiple reviews + involvement by notable professionals + box-office and so on. Awards are kind of tricky - I seem to remember that one of the festivals cited in the article supposedly gives out awards to 25% of the entrants? And *enough* (3, I think?) reliable third-party references don't really exist for the original subject, most of the citations used were from press releases/youtube/blogs (ie - 'polanegri.com' is a writer's blog, don't know how many hits it gets/month <--how notable it is). I do understand that people connected with the film (as perhaps the article-writer might be) would wish the film to have a Wikipedia article, but they have to understand that nothing personal is meant regardless of what happens (delete/keep/change/whatever) with the article. Verifiable truth... Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I notified everyone who has commented at the AFD about my suggested rewrite and linked to it, as I did for you. The article author is now seeking a poster from the Forgiveness release, and is agreeable with my suggested edit and move. Based upon my sandbox, I will begin the major cleanup to the article so that it has its best chance of survival. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Shearonink, so, MQS has rewritten Esther's Diary (film) focused on Forgiveness, with a nod to the re-release in a few lines — but didn't want to move it, of course, while the AFD was ongoing. It now looks like a legit article to me, so I'm hoping the AFD can be closed and the article moved to Forgiveness (2008 film) — but, probably after another day, when the 7 day AfD time has elapsed.

In light of that, you might wish to strike and switch your !vote. Chzz  ►  13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Shearonink, I wanted to thank you for your help on those sources in the hudson utility coupe article. Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I also wanted to let you know that just about any of the facts that was found on those lexis Nexis sites could be found under under the canadiandriver.com reference. I tried to find as many sources as i could so it would show that my information was reliable, but I did not think about the fact that not everyone has access to lexis nexis. Again I am apologize for not getting back to you sooner, and I really do appreciate the help.Matengl1101 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks Shearonink. I appreciate you comments about sourcing. I started out a few years ago and helped create a couple of pages for an artist and label. I've done some minor editing along the way to a couple other pages, but other than using Wiki as a resource, that was the extent of my efforts. In the past few days, I have had a couple pages listed in the AfD section. So, I appreciate and understand better your comments on sourcing. I plan to start my research and source those other pages ASAP. I may ask you to review them if that's ok? This whole notable, sourcing, AfD accusations, etc. has me confused as I have never run into any of this before. And it's frustrating, for sure. Thanks for reaching out to try to help me. Sometimes Wiki seems like a sea with no shoreline. Lrcee (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at them when you're done. Remember, a vote for deletion doesn't necessarily mean the article will never be on Wikipedia, sometimes it means that things need to be fixed - additional references/sources are needed, or that the 'tone' of the article should be adjusted to be more neutral and *then* it can be re-submitted....something along those lines. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added reference sources to the two older articles. Take a look when you can. Another user (Yvoro) had marked the page "Unreferenced" and suggested places for citations which was helpful. Still feel a little bullied in the other AfD discussions as the nominator has now apparently tagged me a SPA based on an email I sent to someone else asking a question. That user completely sold me out to the nominator. WOW. You try to reach out for help, and they bite your hand off? Frustrating this editing thing... If you can help with those new articles too and/or the AfD discussions, that would be appreciated. Thanks again! Lrcee (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need the AfD links posted here please so I can take a look. (I was able to figure out that 'SPA' means Single Purpose Account. I'm not that familiar with the term, only what I just read here: WIkipedia:Single-purpose account). I know it's hard but I think you need to try to think about your 'tone' in any communications concerning the articles. Yes, I know you've invested a lot of time in writing and gathering information, yes I know you are feeling blindsided but everything you write here in Wikpedia lives forever on the Wikipedia servers (an e-mail can live forever as well). Please consider the inflammatory nature of possible word-choices (even if you consider it to be true) of using phrases like "sold out". Wikipedia editors are supposed to assume good faith and think the best of each other...unless or until we are proven wrong.

By the way, if the 'user' you are referring to is VernoWhitney, are you aware that any Wikipedia editor can see everything you write in Wikipedia, to *any* Wikipedia editor or on any WIkipedia page (including Archives?) Assuming good faith, I don't understand how any editor can be accused of 'selling someone out' when practically everyone has access to almost everything ever written on a Wikipedia page. Remember, *nothing* is really private on Wikipedia (or on the Internet).

If my assumption about any of this is in error, I apologize. I do hope everything can be worked out. Shearonink (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Verno was very helpful with his response. I had reached out to another person however BroadcastRadio, who immediately took what I wrote to Verno which he got from our Talk session, copied and pasted one single line (in a way out of context) as I referred to the wiki film page we were working on and the original AfD complaint as "picking on our film." So Broadcast Radio then immediately sent a copy of that in a Talk message to the AfD originator (Christopher Connor) and he tagged me SPA. Anyway, thanks for your help. You've been a help. I realize now nothing is private, not even your talk to other editors. The reference to the AfD pages are Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Limit_Kids and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elevating_Entertainment Lrcee (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Classic book

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hudson Utility Coupe

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FEED talkbacks

Hey, I have a bit of advice with WP:FEED. Now, I have no idea whether you've been working there longer than me or not, but if I can I would like to suggest that you place talkback notifications on the talk pages of the users that you reply to on there. It's just so the feedback is put to good use and you're not wasting your time (people can forget they've made a request, etc). Of course you don't have to do this but it would be great if you could. It can also help to increase the turnaround time of the requests being answered. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo - alt 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you don't have to do it but it'd be great if you could. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo 05:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neterra article

Hi, thank you for your quick response. I read a lot about writing an article in Wikipedia, especially about how to add sources to the materials. You wrote about Neterra article that it is "completely unsourced", but what about all the articles in the media that I have linked the material to. Could you be more specific which media Wikipedia considers as reliable source of information. I have read about .gov, .edu and .org, are there any other?

My concern is that there is a problem with non-English sources I have used, but I read on the Wikipedia:Citing sources that "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources..., though the latter are allowed where appropriate." It also says, "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." As far as I understand the statement above, I have to do authorized translations of the articles and upload them somewhere on Wikipedia. I am right? Could you please give me some more information on the topic.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaela Stoilkova (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no inline citations in the article and the specific asserted facts are not backed-up by outside, verifiable references. Also the copyright to the company logo is unclear, the image was originally uploaded by a now-blocked (for a commercial-name) user. Please study citing sources and referencing for beginners. I do not know what you should do about the different-language websites that appear in your article, perhaps post in the Help-channel with those particular Wikipedia-editing/language questions.

Shearonink (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink,

I am writing to you again about Neterra article. I added more sources and below you will find a further explanation why I used those resources and why I consider them reliable. If you think that some of them still do not work, could please be so kind to explain why.

[1] Here are few words about Neven Dilkov written by the IPTV Forum Eastern Europe, which is a professional forum that brings together operators, technology partners and content providers to explore and define the IPTV evolution.

[2] Here the reader could find more info about the company performance in English. They can find the same data uploaded on the website of the commercial register of the Registry Agency, but it is going to in Bulgarian. So I considered that for such an information Neterra website would work better as a resource.

[3] An article about Neven Dilkov, the company Managing Director, for his election as Chairman of Society for Electronic Communications. The article takes place in Dnevnik, which is business-oriented Bulgarian daily newspaper, publishing since 2001 and I certainly consider it as a reliable resource.

[4] This is a link to the World Teleport Directory, where you can find Sofia Teleport.

[5] DE-CIX Customers List and Neterra is in the list as well. DE-CIX is the largest exchange point in terms of peak traffic with a maximum throughput of 1994 Gbit/s.

[6] An article about Neterra.TV, the IPTV offered by Neterra. Again published in Dnevnik.

[7] [8]An article Neterra Fiber Optic Ring, published by Fiber Optics Weekly Updates, which is a newspaper specializing in telecommunications topics. The same article published by econ.bg, which is online business news portal.

[9] An article about Neterra and SES Astra partnership, published by Satellite Spotlight, which I am sure is a reliable resource, because I have already noticed it, used as resource linked to “In Touch Ministries” wiki page.

[10] Neterra is a member of BIX-BG – First Bulgarian Neutral Internet Exchange Point. And everyone can see it in BIX-BG members list.

[11] An article written about a IPTV service offered by M-tel, Bulgarian largest mobile operator and Neterra. The article is written by Capital, which is a Bulgarian newspaper, published since 1992 and preferred mainly by the business community.

[14] One more article about neterra.tv, published by Capital.

[15] Neterra exist on the European telecom market and the Europe Wholesale Map proves that.

[16] Нетера участва в международно изследване за Етернет от телекомуникационен клас Neterra taking part in the research about Carrier Ethernet Global Interconnect, done by EANTC which is an internationally recognized neutral test center. The article is published in PC World magazine which is a global computer magazine published monthly. An article from PC World magazine is used as a resource in a wikipedia article about Jimmy Wales, so I consider PC World magazine as a provider of reliable sources.

[17] The article is about Neterra building a new Data Center. The article is posted on technews.bg, online news portal, again used as a source in Jimmy Wales wiki article.

I know my message is a little longer that you have expected, but I would be very thankful if you could be more specific about the issue on the article resources as I have been. I would highly appreciate your further help.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration spend on this article.

Kind regards,
Mihaela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaela Stoilkova (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Mihaela Stoilkova (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest Talkback

Another editor has adjusted the reference-style to Wikipedia standards. The next thing to work for you to work on is the general tone of Neterra, (I'd say it's mostly word-choices). Please look at and use the following articles: your first article, The perfect article and article development. Don't worry, your article is no longer up for speedy delete, you're working on it and sometimes these things just take time.

Oh, please remember to sign all your posts on Talkpages with the four tildes, put 4 of these things ~ in a row at the end of your posts and your Wiki-name will be automatically signed for you. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink,

I highly appreciate your help with giving me assistance in the article improvement process. I did some changes on the content and cleared it up from the adjectives that made it sound subjectively. I think it is far more neutral now. I would be very thankful if you could go through it real quick and write to me if I need to work on it further to get the "written like an advertisement" label removed.

Thank you in advance! Have a wonderful weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaela Stoilkova (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I am the media

It looked pretty bad whan sent to AFD.[1] But it is looking much better now tha I have found and begun translations of sources in my efforts to expand and improve I Am the Media. Might you have any time to assist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks much-improved but I can't tell if the sources cited are actually blogs or not, especially www.20minutes.fr. And I cannot find any English-language coverage...I don't know Michael Q, I'll see if I can find anything. Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

20 Minuten is is an acceptable RS... a quick-news digest, as the name implies, intended for rail passengers. Their online formats in Gernan and French are set up to give readers that same news-in-brief and then offer the opportunity to give immediate feedback to articles. Not a blog... but a marketing ploy that give a "friendly" and similar appearance. Then Les Inrockuptibles seems suitable as a source as well. And yes... we prefer English sources when available... but as this new documentary has no release yet in an English speaking country, an English language review its gonna be hard to find. Obstacles known, any help would be apreciated. I figured to at least give the article its best chance to remain and be improved through regular editing as more becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris Sanders

Hi Shearonink,

I came across your deletion thingy for Chris Sanders (musician) in an aimless trawl around Wiki. It's a remarkable article that should be used as a Wiki template for "how not to do it". I couldn't help being drawn in, and have added my thoughts in Talk:Chris Sanders (musician). Please take a look.

Acabashi (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

signature

I was using the 4, but hadnt correctly configured the signature. How's this?--S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's better, it is now linking to your 'Talkpage".

Shearonink (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Someday I will reach the end of Wikipedia and the end of the Internet. Right now I'm still exploring!--S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa

Thought you should know that an apparent AGF edit has in effect removed the semi-protection template from Wiz Khalifa. I have left a note on their talkpage for the Wikipedian (User talk:Andrewlp1991) who did this edit so they can revert the template back to its 'live' status. Shearonink (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

He did not remove the semi-protection template. When you put small=yes in the template, it puts a silver lock, indicating semi-protection, in the top-right corner of the page so that the template isn't obtrusive. That's generally done for longer protections, so the template doesn't constantly appear within the text of the article, but it's a matter of preference. Andrew didn't do anything wrong, and there's no need for him to revert his edit. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest you change your signature (or your writing style?) so that it doesn't appear indented. As you can see above, when people reply to your comments, they are supposed to indent in. But then it appears your signature is part of their comment. -- tariqabjotu 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyclist list

I apologize, but I am about 5 days behinds schedule in my WP:CUP editorial strategy. I will be unable to assist you with your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

PROD of Rafal Wnuk

Re this prod [2] - I've added some sources to the article and expanded it somewhat. I will probably add some more to it in the next few days. Do you think there is sufficient sources now to remove the PROD? Thanks!radek (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied to editor on their Talkpage :-). Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

All the References

I can assure you, that Nicola54 is a great author with profound knowledge and almost unlimted sources regarding track cyclists. Sometimes I read an article of hers on de:WP, where User Nicola is highly esteemed and most respected, that leaves me just in awe. You will be proud to make the List of professional cyclists who died during a race better and better together with her. --Goodgirl - talk to me 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

You talkbacked me?--Talktome^(Intelati) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're too fast for me, hold on (sorry). Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(I left the Talkback before I wrote the message, anyway...) Hey there, I know that you're mentoring Inka888 these days and I know that the Warning templates don't have to have the articles attached, but it would make things easier for other editors if he would put the article-names into the Warnings. I've run into a couple of Inka's edits and they almost never have the articles imbedded within the Warning templates, it makes it harder to do research on the errant editors. I left a post on Inka's Talkpage but he hasn't responded. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Tell him. Thanks. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

First, you make a mistake I think about saying the project banner is a category; I placed the project banner on each of the articles because those articles are already contained within one or more categories which are within the range of that project. Whether those articles really should contain those categories is another, possibly more relevant, question. In the case of Elvis, he is categorized in Category:American Pentecostals, and the Charismatic WikiProject deals with the charismatic and pentecostal movements. Now, there is always a question whether given articles should be included in given categories, and that is another matter. Placement of the banner also allows that project, and its parent project, to know whether the articles are being considered for deletion, merging, GA or FA status or removal of same, etc. through the "Article Alerts" function. Basically, adding the banner makes it possible for any editors who see alerts to know if the article is being considered for any of those things. Also, I have recently begun the tagging for that project in earnest because I am considering creating a portal for that project, and to do that I would need to know what the relevant articles are that could be included, their level of development, etc. And, of course, there is always the possibility probability of someone creating Lists of individuals who are or have been adherents of a given church or movement, and this helps editors find them as well. But, like I said, whether those articles belong in the specific categories they are currently included in, or perhaps in a different category, is another matter. I hope that answers your question. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...thanks for pointing out my mistake? Ok, so what you were doing was adding articles to a WikiProject by adding project banners to the articles' Talkpages. I am not a 'member' of any WikiProjects, my main concerns are if there is any discussion on a WikiProject page about if an article should be included before adding it to that Project and also if any editor can add (or even delist) articles from a Project? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion per se, generally not. Most WikiProjects state on the project page though something to the effect that articles contained in the main category of their project, or any of its subcategories, are, basically, within the scope of that project. So, in effect, any editor, with good cause, like, for instance, the article being in a given category or, whether in a given category or not, being located in a region which is the specific scope of a given geographic project (so Reunion Arena, for instance, is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth). Regarding the articles that began this discussion, I think the main concern, like I said, is possibly whether the categories themselves are really relevant to the given article. The relevant guideline there is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion, and for living people Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates which says and I quote, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I was, basically, assuming that whoever placed those articles in those categories did so for good reason, and acted on that assumption. If that isn't the case regarding any individual, then the category should be removed, and the banner would then be redundant as well. There are questions about several banners being in place in some articles' talk pages and possibly taking up too much physical space there (which is why the banner shell is often used). But, yeah, basically, anyone can tag article talk pages with a given project's banner provided there is good reason to think that the article is relevant and could, at least potentially, be improved or maintained by that group. Regarding removal of banners, that can be done, and in some cases it is done, but, I think in general, the more people who are at least potentially interested in and aware of a given article, and may be willing to help improve it, the better.

By the way, if you were assuming, as some do, that the placement of the banner means that there is any intention of altering the content of the article to emphasize the material relevant to that subject in a given article, I can't speak for everybody, but that is not and never has been my purpose in doing so for any of the projects I have assessed and tagged for. Some individual editors are serious POV pushers, but just about every project is primarily interested in developing and maintaining all articles in an NPOV banner. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shearonink. You have new messages at Inka 888's talk page.
Message added 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Joseph Tehawehron David

Hello! Your submission of Joseph Tehawehron David at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Christopher Connor (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Vandal edit Warnings

Okay, I will do that. I had thought that the link to the Contribs was sufficient so others could see all the edits the person in question had made though. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I also have a question for you, I've figured out how to warn them (+ that little word of advice you gave for the templates), but if they keep vandalising, where can I report them? ZamorakO o (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious link, each incidence of vandalism can(sometimes should) get the perpetrator a Warning. Take a look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace...all the templates have a place to put the article-name.

For instance, if giving a warning for vandalism use: "subst:Uw-vandalism1|article" (just replace the quote marks with two parentheses) and you'll get the "Welcome to WIkipedia..." message + the vandalized article's name. If someone is being persistent in their vandalism maybe they've gotten 4 Warnings then look up at the top under the "TW", highlight that and there will be an "ARV" - use that to report the editor. If you're not sure what to do, then go to the IRC Wikipedia Help Channel and ask one of the volunteer helpers there. Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Tehawehron David

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Hi Shearonink, It occurs to me that you might think that my reversion of your edit to Characters of Shakespear's Plays was a bit abrupt. I know you made your edit in good faith, and I see that you are a responsible and capable editor, so I feel obliged to explain why I did what I did. If you consider Hazlitt's views in this book as a whole, you'll see that he actually argued both sides. At times he did claim not to like to see Shakespeare's plays acted. Yet at other times he claimed that actors are the best interpreters of Shakespeare. And some plays, he thought, were especially suited for acting on stage. That he goes back and forth about this is one of the major points I have tried to bring out in this article, but maybe that doesn't come across if you focus only on this quotation from Hazlitt on Hamlet. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will add that you have made me think about this, and I am reminded that the lead, which I have not yet edited (I have been engaged for over a year in reworking this whole article), doesn't really bring out this important point, so I can see better now why you would have made the edit you made. I will soon extend my revisions to the lead (and elsewhere), so Hazlitt's apparent self-contradiction about the suitability for acting of Shakespeare's plays will be brought out much sooner (it is now explained at length way down the page, in "Themes"). Thanks! --Alan W (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan W - I see your point about Hazlitt's changeable opinion of productions vs. text. In any case, the next sentence in the article is a direct quote from Hazlitt, but don't worry...I have adjusted the sentence to reflect Hazlitt's actual (and somewhat critically schizophrenic) attitude towards reverencing Shakespeare's text and towards the plays being produced onstage. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. But I think your edit can still be shortened a bit and the other side of what Hazlitt thought brought out together with it. As it happens, I have just got back to my extensive work on this article, and you caught me in the middle of it. I will look at that sentence again now. Also, later I intend to revise the lead, and you will see that the point of his arguing both sides is brought out much sooner. Regards, Alan W (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that, yes, you could say that Hazlitt's attitude was somewhat schizophrenic. :-) That has made this a tough book to represent fairly. I've been wrestling with these issues for over a year now (it's been by far my major Wikipedia project for all that time). I think it's really coming together now, though. It's good that you noticed that first sentence. Nothing like a second pair of eyes to bring out certain things. As you say, it is a direct quotation of Hazlitt, and leaving it without qualification was very misleading with respect to Hazlitt's overall views of Shakespeare's plays. --Alan W (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind your edit - it's fine - just don't quite understand why you felt it was necessary to completely re-work my only contribution to the article. I see that you've done quite a bit of editing on the article and care passionately about the subject, but I'm one of the few editors who has made an edit on it within the past several months. Frankly, if you'd appreciate another set of eyes to work on the content then you might want to think about not completely re-working other editors' contributions. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Shearonink, I think I see where you're coming from. But please try to understand my viewpoint also. As you acknowledge, I do care passionately about the article and I have done quite a bit of editing. And if you look more carefully at the history, you will see how much I have been adding and revising, over the past year, pretty much recasting the whole thing. I have learned an enormous amount about this topic, reading book after book, so I think it is only natural that I would be better able to judge how a particular sentence fits into the whole context. I apologize if I seemed to stomp on your contribution, but I think that all the labor I have put into this to understand every nuance of Hazlitt's thinking has enabled me to word a particular passage better. By no means do I mean to suggest that what you did was bad in itself. In fact, as I said, I do appreciate your contribution, as you made me realize how bad that quotation looks by itself, unqualified. Even though I further reworded things, you still by your intervention made a valuable contribution, and I acknowledge that. If you look at my contributions and history on Wikipedia, you'll see that I always bend over backwards to work cooperatively. I hate to get into unpleasant tiffs, try to avoid all the kinds of conflict we see around here too often, and, believe me when I assure you that my editing of your edit was not meant as a criticism of your editing capabilities, or anything like that. Regards, Alan W (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. No unpleasant tiffs here. Good luck with the article, it's a fascinating subject. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Shearonink, I don't think you're being quite fair to me. Claiming that my having thoroughly familiarized myself with the topic makes it more likely that I would be able to word some things better is hardly the same as claiming "ownership". And even where I have made the majority of contributions to articles as I have here, if, again, you look at the histories, you'll see that I have never challenged edits just because I think I "own" the article. Others have often edited my writing very heavily, and I have been grateful. And there are cases when I have had my own edits reverted by others who knew the topic far better than I, and, though maybe I was a bit taken aback at first, I quickly came to understand that maybe I don't know the subject as well as some others, and I did not complain. Not a case of "ownership" at all, but a matter of who happens to know a particular subject better and so can make a better article in that particular case. --Alan W (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Orchids, My Intersex Adventure

Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Usually, "early life" sections start off with the birthplace. While it's not an absolute, that's how I've seen it in most articles. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a guideline then? It seems to me that in looking at various Biographical Good Articles that what is most commonly-accepted in the Early Life sections is something along the lines of "{Person) was born in (place) on (date) to (parents' names)" or "Born on (date) at (place) (Person did something) or (Person was #X in birth-order)". It seems to me that placing the mystery surrounding Ms. Minaj's birthplace as the first sentence instead of the generally accepted form breaks up the flow of the information. The mystery should be placed further into the paragraph, I think it would work better for the article even if used perhaps as the second sentence but doesn't 'read' as well when it is placed first. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that since people expect the birthplace to be addressed right at the start of the paragraph, we should. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how to assess what readers expect to be addressed at the start of the first sentence in a BLP Early Life section, specifically for this Nicki Minaj article. I think seeking consensus about it would be a good idea and am asking for feedback on the article's discussion-page. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My "helpme" request you answered

Hi,

I'm adding some additional references to the Spiritual healing article to cover the way in which healing works. Based on Wikipedias' secondary / reliable sources requirments WP:RS and WP:MEDRS I'm including these. Please can you let me know if these are sufficient and appropriate to meet these requirements:

Writing in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, James Oschman (ref) cite journal | doi=10.1016/S1360-8592(97)80038-1 | url= [3] (/ref) offers a hypothesis which seeks to define "healing energy" as one or several electromagnetic frequencies which stimulate healing whether generated by a medical device or projected from a person in the role of a healer.

An article written by Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow in Medical & Biological Sciences(ref) Journal of Medical & Biological Sciences Volume 2, Issue 1, 2008, [4] (/ref) describes research conducted on Sea Urchins. The term "bioelectromagnetic energy" is used in the description of the healing protocol. This resulted in a healing rate of 76% on "treatment group" subjects compared to 42% of the control group.

Beverly Rubik has published an article (ref)p714, Beverly Rubik. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. December 2002, 8(6): 703-717. doi:10.1089/10755530260511711. [5](/ref) in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine where the section on biofield therapies on page 714 suggests that the effect of a low-level electromagnetic biofield of a healer on the patient may be involved in the healing process.

Many thanks, Adrian-from-london (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sources seem fine. If you need more/better help identifying reliable sources post your questions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For you :)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is just to let you know, I have listed you as "friendly person" on my friendly userpage :) Sophie (Talk) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

'

She just needs someone to talk to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just a friendly someone (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.

If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Re: Level 3 Warning

I suggest you study the history of the article and the time stamps. --Erik Lönnrot (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Polly Berry, Charlotte Dupuy, et al

Hi, thanks for the invite; am definitely interested in the topic. I've added Edlie Wong's book as a resource on Charlotte Dupuy's page and will review it to see what it can offer on all these women. See Edlie Wong, Neither Fugitive nor Free: Atlantic Slavery, Freedom Suits, and the Legal Culture of Travel, New York University Press, 2009. Also notified the National Trust for Historic Preservation that their online exhibit related to Decatur House, The Half Has Not Been Told, was not showing photos and images correctly.Parkwells (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is great - Charlotte's article is looking better already! Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a great article on the Berry/Wash and Berry/Delaney cases; also will write an article on "freedom suits" based on discoveries of 300 case files in St. Louis. There's an online project about it.Parkwells (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Added the Charlotte Dupuy material back to Henry Clay, as well as creating a sub-category of "Freedom suits in the United States" to add to appropriate pages (sub of "Legal history of the United States"). Am working on an article on Freedom suits in the United States and the St. Louis Circuit Court History Project, as I think more related work will be done on these.Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Novacam Technologies

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Message

: When I editted Batman: Mask of Phantasm, how come my edits got removed? What's wrong with my edits? (67.181.179.204 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

These particular edits appeared to be needlessly detailed and possibly vandalism. A plot summary is intended to be a plot summary not the entire plot. In the future if you need to correspond with another editor, it is not necessary to post a 'Helpme' template on that editor's talk page, all you need to do is post on the (other editor's) talk page. By the way, a 'Helpme' notifies all the volunteers in the IRC Help Channel and, if all you needed to do is talk to me on my talk page, the template really wasn't needed in this case - this template is intended for use on the posting editor's own talk page. If you want to do some edits on an article and another editor disagrees with you about those edits, another way to gather consensus is to post your concerns on that article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Message

You can take my spot on the tour part of Washington,_D.C. as I cannot attend. FireballDWF2 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gary Williams (singer)

Hello! Your submission of Gary Williams (singer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gary Williams (singer)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello from Sonja

Hello! Many thanks for your help yesterday. I did some changes and I have submitted them. Please if you have time can you check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spanos_Industries

Many thanks once more. Have a nice day. Sonja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 07:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know why was TradersStudio page deleted?

I would like to know as to why was TradersStudio page deleted. Please let me know what was the reasons for its deletion? Sincere thanks once more. Ruthiecameryn (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 13:04, 8 February 2011 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted "TradersStudio" ‎ (Multiple reasons: Speedy deletion criteria a7, g11)

I am unable to find any logs or discussion. However, when I saw the reasons as per "a7" & "g11" could you please clarify the above? I am unable to get as to how you say it is as per the following:

a7: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). There are other similar companies like TradeStation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeStation), MetaStock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaStock) Others are also there as mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis_software

g11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was not any promotional article. It did not have a logo like the TradeStation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeStation) as using a company logo without permission would be copyright infringement. Besides, it had more information than the MetaStock page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaStock)

Please help and guide me as to what went wrong so that I can rectify the same. My aim is not to point out other pages but just to inform you as to how I had based the TradersStudio page on. Also, I thought there is a 7 day notice before deletion of any page, please correct me if I am wrong.

Moreover, if it is possible to move it back to my own userspace to make it a better article before going live.. please do so.. Sincere thanks and apologies once more..

Sincere thanks and apologies once more. Ruthiecameryn (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Ruthiecameryn (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks and sincere apologies for everything, Shearonink. Should I remove this section, as you have given me your valuable guidance on the talk page.. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to do that, Ruthiecameryn - thanks; but users mostly 'archive' their own user talks. And it's useful to keep conversation threads, anyway - for example, so I could reply here...

You asked me about this on my own user talk too; I see that Shearonink has answered - so, do you still need any info from me?  Chzz  ►  20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to archive, maybe

Hey Sheraonink,

You've clearly done far too much stuff, so your talkpage is getting a bit long :-)

Would you like me to set it to auto-archive everything older than....whatever you want. 1 month, 2 months? If so, let me know and I'll do it for you. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Following our discussions, I've implemented auto-arch of things over 60 days.

The voodoo to make it work is here; the bot should come along within about a day and kick things off. Note the archive box at the top which, currently, will say "no archives yet (create)" - don't create anything, just let the bot do its thing.

It's set to 60 days (60d), you might want to change that. Note that it won't archive very small threads or things with no sigs in (ie no date) - you can cut those yourself and paste 'em into the archive page if you want.

So - that's about it; no action required, just let the bot do its thing, and - if I've done it correctly - all should be well. If it goes wrong, of course, give me a shout. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:)

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For your work on improving and referencing Richard Crawford (director), an article created via the Articles for Creation project. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 02:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

01:32

Eh?

Talk to me. What happened?

Yours truly, "concerned of England".  Chzz  ►  01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Harlow1937 IPs

SPI DONE rangeblock (until 20 March) Range contribs: Special:Contributions/208.101.233.0/24  Chzz  ►  00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom suits DYK

I had two submitted the same day, and one was posted today 2//21 (Marguerite (woman of color)), so perhaps that's what happened to the Freedom suits DYK - in process (I hope). Thanks for your interest!Parkwells (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scéno Plus article

Dear Shearonik, thank you for all your useful links. I re-posted an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scéno Plus if you want to check it out. I'll keep working on it. Thanks. Charles TD (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom suits DYK

It's going up tomorrow, 2/23. My DYK for Marguerite (woman of color) got 5300 hits, the most of any article I've remembered to do a DYK for. Parkwells (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Freedom suits" article got over 800 hits on its first day, and 1900 the day of the DYK - a good start. I've got some ideas for adding to it, or having a separate article on St. Louis freedom suits, as I've gotten interested in the community of attorneys who defended the slaves - some prominent people and interesting issues.Parkwells (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC chat

Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalpha ^connect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ►  and 123Hedgehog456 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

Thomas Jefferson

You may want to see what is happening in that article. Trying to reflect current scholarship re: Sally Hemings and interracial relationships.Parkwells (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Hey, I was wondering if I add the citations to the section I added under 'Social Media', if it will stay on the Wikipedia page. Thanks. (Cytdot (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

One problem is that Twitter, according to WIkipedia guidelines, is not a reliable source since the screen information is not stable and anyone can contribute...there is no fact-checking, there is not editor-in-charge. Also, the copyright of the interview posted on whateesays is unclear, since it first appeared/was heard on BBC Radio.

Regarding the general tone of that section, Wikipedia does not publish original research, it is an encyclopedia and all assertions must be verified from those reliable sources I mentioned above. Editors should use newspaper articles, magazine articles, transcripts of news/entertainment shows (from the news organization's website), quotes from published books, etc. References that are unacceptable include sources with no editorial oversight like fan-blogs and slander/gossip websites. Shearonink (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving/collapsing old warnings for Talk page of ip 70.79.75.159

Hello, Shearonink. I don't know the exact rules for collapsing and/or archiving old warnings for persistent ip vandals, but I tried to help out in collapsing them. If I made a mistake or did something you were not trying to do, just revert it back. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, OK; I fixed it. I reverted to the version that Shearonink had put, then removed the space that was causing the problem.

Shearonink was trying to put...

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! PUT A HEADING HERE
|-
|
ALL THE STUFF TO COLLAPSE HERE
|}

...however, there was a space between the pipe-symbol (|) and the dash (-) on the 3rd line of that. Fixed with this edit.  Chzz  ►  19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Writtting

Of course an edit summary is the place to characterise the nature of the changes. As for the nature of my comments, typos and the odd error in spelling are normal. All editors make slips. But when a whole sentence is just chock-full of bad spelling and bad grammar it is appropriate to point it out. Editors should display basic competence: WP:competence. Also, note, no single editor was identified in the edit summary. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good eye

I'll keep an eye out for repeat business! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

David Cote

Reported: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#David_Cote  Chzz  ►  18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, that has now been archived, as completed; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#David_Cote.

It might not be clear from that section, but what has happened is;

• The article "M. David Cote" has been deleted, and protected from recreation [6]
• A 'Checkuser' showed that Davecotefilm (talk · contribs) and JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) were 'likely' matches. Both of the accounts were blocked. (The SPI page is currently here, and will later be archived here)
• It is not clear if the Checkuser checked for possible other 'sleeper' accounts, so I have asked that question [7]
• The two IP addresses we mentioned have not been blocked; as IPs are only blocked for short periods, normally - and their contribs were some time ago, there is no point in blocking then for e.g. 24 hours anyway.
• We cannot assume the IPs are the same user. I have, however, put a note on their talk page - not really for their benefit, but just so there is a record on their talkpages connecting to NickSoroka. [8] [9]

I think that is probably all that can be done? If you think of anything else, let me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Small update - no sleepers. I think we're done (for now). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

black Golden Globes

These links were WP:POINT-related spam added to the articles during the AfD for list of black Golden Globe Award nominees and winners by this user who posted right after you. See here and check the history of those bio articles. It's a technique he's used before – treating SA links the same as categories when a category would not be judged as appropriate. Category:Black Golden Globe winners would never make it as a category per WP:OCAT and – to an extent – WP:BLP, so adding a SA link is like the next best thing in that it circumvents WP:EGRS and WP:OCAT requirements. Basically, there are no citations that say any of those actors are recognized as "notable" for being black Golden Globe winners nominees as opposed to just Golden Globe winners nominees (which would have been a requirement for a category) – and doing so is just another instance of covert ethnic over-classification which has long been an issue of debate on Wikipedia. It'd be the equivalent of going to Adam Lambert and adding to his "See Also" section any and every tangentially related gay + artist list. Anyway, I didn't feel it necessary to give too much detail for a change that was added by one user who's done this several times before and that wasn't contested only because it seemed innocent. Truth is, it's pretty improper: See the history of Andre Geim for the most relevant example of this type of backdoor categorization technique in action. Bulldog123 08:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shearonink – I saw on Bulldog's talkpage that you had written to him

  I came across your series of edits removing List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees/List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees from the See Also section for multiple articles. I'm not sure I understand your rationale for doing so, I see the 'what' from your edit summaries but would appreciate a little more of the 'why'.

I had added to your comment:

I've noticed this as well. It's especially disturbing as it follows Bulldog's effort to delete a related list of Black people, and mirrors in some respects a series of his deletions which focused on Jews. A number of editors – both sysops and non-sysops – have made similar observations in the past. I view this series of edits as highly disruptive, and urge Bulldog123 to self-revert.

Both of our comments were deleted. In looking for Bulldog's response to us, I saw that conversation was continued here.

You may find of interest the AfD discussion in which Bull sought in a number of comments to delete the list of Black Golden Globe Award winners here. It is the very same list reflected in the see also's that Bull is now deleting from a number of articles, to which he appears to have followed me (yet again). His effort at the AfD was non-consensus, as you can see, and his arguments (similar to the above) were rejected. The list was deemed a "keep".

Having failed in that effort, Bull has now moved on to delete these related "see also's". Specifically, he removed them from the following 27 Black actors and actresses bios (marking some of his edit summaries "minor", which appears inappropriate). They were all articles that I had edited, and which Bull apparently followed me to:

1. 03:47, March 27, 2011 Beyoncé Knowles ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
2. 03:46, March 27, 2011 Prince (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
3. 03:45, March 27, 2011 m Whoopi Goldberg ‎
4. 03:43, March 27, 2011 Whoopi Goldberg ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
5. 03:42, March 27, 2011 Eddie Murphy ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
6. 03:41, March 27, 2011 Samuel L. Jackson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
7. 03:41, March 27, 2011 m Sidney Poitier ‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
8. 03:40, March 27, 2011 Seal (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
9. 03:40, March 27, 2011 Morgan Freeman ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
10. 03:39, March 27, 2011 Halle Berry ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
11. 03:38, March 27, 2011 Denzel Washington ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
12. 03:38, March 27, 2011 Queen Latifah ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
13. 03:37, March 27, 2011 Will Smith ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
14. 03:37, March 27, 2011 m Cuba Gooding, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
15. 03:36, March 27, 2011 Bill Cosby ‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
16. 03:35, March 27, 2011 Dorothy Dandridge ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
17. 03:35, March 27, 2011 Jennifer Hudson ‎ (rm SA behaving like categories)
18. 03:34, March 27, 2011 Don Cheadle ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
19. 03:33, March 27, 2011 Louis Gossett, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
20. 03:33, March 27, 2011 Forest Whitaker ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
21. 03:32, March 27, 2011 Alfre Woodard ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
22. 03:32, March 27, 2011 Ving Rhames ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
23. 03:31, March 27, 2011 S. Epatha Merkerson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
24. 03:30, March 27, 2011 Tracy Morgan ‎ (rm SA) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
25. 03:30, March 27, 2011 Mo'Nique ‎ (rm)
26. 03:29, March 27, 2011 Chiwetel Ejiofor ‎ (rem See Also spam)
27. 03:29, March 27, 2011 Terrence Howard ‎ (rm See Also)

Bulldog also, having failed in his effort to delete the list, has tag-bombed the list with the tag: "Trivia".

Also of interest is Bulldog's failed effort (first to merge, and then to re-name) the category "African American artists" here. Bulldog used there the same arguments that he uses above as his rationale to delete the see also's. But there, as with the list, his arguments were flatly rejected by a consensus of the editors, and the result of the discussion was "keep as is".

Bulldog also nominated for deletion the category "African American film directors". At that AfD, he failed again, his arguments (similar to the above) were rejected, and the result of the discussion was keep.

Bulldog also nominated for deletion the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees. At that AfD, he failed as well, his arguments (similar to the above) were rejected, and the result of the discussion was Keep.

The issue of what has been viewed by a number of editors as disruptive editing on his part has been noted for some time now, as reflected at this AN/I.

There is more, along the same lines. If I have an opportunity, I will add some more. But as reflected in the above, Bulldog's edits are decidedly non-consensus, and I again urge him to self-revert (as well as to stop following me, and undoing my edits – the core of hounding).--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog123 is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines to delete and arrange his talk page almost exclusively however he sees fit. That being said, I think I have stumbled into and onto a content dispute that ranges across a number of articles. The issues between you two run deep, I doubt that everything can be settled here on my talk page. Shearonink (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes – I only mentioned the deletion and Bulldog's move of the conversation to here to explain why I was posting here, rather than on his page.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore him. It's the only sane thing to do these days. Epeefleche intentionally antagonizes users in an effort to tag them as "disruptive." See the ongoing AN/I case here: Wikipedia:AN/I#Users_Epeeflech_and_Wjemather. He doesn't quite comprehend that the vague waves referenced on various CfDs by a small sect of users (some of whom he canvasses) does not determine wikipedia-wide consensus. No consensus is not "keep everything as it is" consensus. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Epeefleche or anyone else to advertise their ethnic pride. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Bulldog123 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also want to point out that Epeefleche's repeated catch-phrase "his arguments were rejected" is spurious at best. Numerous RfCs opened within the last few weeks have reiterated my "arguments" and were accepted by a 3 to 1 majority. Not enough for consensus but even less for "rejection." Keep misrepresenting the truth, Epee. Bulldog123 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Shearonink, feel free to delete this from your talk page. Trust me, with Epeefleche, "compromise" doesn't exist. He merely deletes any comments I leave on his talk page. Bulldog123 19:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me

I didn't even know I had a user page on Wikipedia. I haven't done any of those edits. This means somebody else must be using my IP ( how on helk?). I haven't edited anything at all on Wikipedia with this internet connection. Any idea of how this is happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.177.76 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. If you would post the talkpage in question, that would help. The only edit from your IP of 117.226.177.76 (as shown here on my talkpage) is your above 'Help me' post. If you registered a Wikipedia account instead of posting from an IP, then you would have a record of your particular contributions without them being mingled in with others also posting from that IP and, your personal identity would be protected as well. Perhaps you are posting from a public terminal, like in a library or an Internet cafe? If you (whoever has posted the above query on my talkpage), are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, please take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account? and then create an account. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

How would I make my article notable? I worked really hard on that article and I just don't want anyone to delete it. What could I write that makes it notable?Thomasbum98 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

The problem is that you cannot "make" an article notable, the subject itself has to be notable. Take a look at the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and then consider the subject of Pepper and Kad itself where Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) would apply. The general guideline for subjects or topics to be included in Wikipedia is

• A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Has this web-based cartoon received any coverage in newspapers? In any magazines? Have the creators/producers/writers/animators been interviewed for a TV show or perhaps had a profile done on them in a well-known online cartooning venue such as Animation Magazine? I'm sorry, I know that you probably have indeed put a lot of work into your article but the independent, verifiable coverage in reliable sources does not seem to exist right now and therefore WP:Notability cannot be established at this time.

If Pepper and Kad is indeed deleted after going through the Articles for deletion process, the deleting administrator could move the deleted content into your userspace if you ask them to do so on their talkpage. There is no guarantee that your 'undeletion' request will be granted though, so you should probably save the content to your own system as soon as you can. Sorry, I know that these are not the answers you wanted to hear. Shearonink (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)