This is an archive of past discussions with M.O.X. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I understand. Please keep your Wikipedia account secure, and use the "stay logged in" option with extreme care.- sinneed (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Staff Names for Artix Entertainment
I reverted your edits to the Core Staff section of the AE article... frankly, while a search may bring up these names, there have been no official confirmations of them. Because of that, their names cannot be officially sourced, and thus are only original research (or very, very educated guesses... for example, it's pretty obvious when you look at the staff list in the front of the MQ Artbook that Milton Pool is Miltonius). So... they have no place in the article.
Besides that, as the note at the top of the article says, the AE staff did actually request that the names be removed, except for the few they've officially released. Actually, I corresponded directly with Safiria on the request of Artix (and she was using her official Battleon email address, so I know it was actually her), and confirmed that it was true, and they really did want the names removed. So the AE Wikiproject sort of talked it over and decided that we'd respect their wishes and not reveal any other names in the article, even though there are a couple that we know for fact (Warlic, for example, always used to have JD Adams on his forum profile). Just explaining why I reverted your edits. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your rollback request
Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at WP:PERM/R. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi - I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making this change. The Jimmy Wales account was actually a blocked impersonator (but now redirects to the correct account). However, a number of people (myself included) have a script installed which strikes out users who are blocked and it will look very strange to anyone reading your welcomes to see Jimbo as blocked. Regards, 7 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The IP Block for my school library's LAN is indefinite and the WAN Network block will expire in a few months, There are very few networks in my school that aren't affected by this block and as such I can only make a majority of the edits at home, but due to school work I don't always edit at home. Thanks Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
If you are caught in a range block, you will need to follow the process at WP:IPEXEMPT in order to request an exemption from it - as you're not directly blocked, there's nothing we can do at this moment. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Is there an actual problem here? You seem to be editing just fine now. Is your complaint that you can't edit at school? If so, when you're at school, don't log in and instead you'll see a notice with an IP address. That should help us figure out if we can at least allow you to log-in and edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok after I come back from school holidays I'll do this. Thanks anyway.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fridae'sDoom. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILYHappy 4th of July!!! 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that but I thought past experience would help but I see things are different here, I know I'm capable of doing the job. The problem is you can't go through a trial period as such so I'll probably have to get some more experience. Thanks anyway, Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you still wish to run, despite the fact you will more likely than not be unsuccessful? -FASTILYHappy 4th of July!!! 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't want to run, but I think a trial period to allow candidates to run would let other administrators see if the user has what it takes. Isn't it better to evaluate the user based on what you see them do, not what they've done? After said trial period the new admin will be under close observation and receive help where help is due. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I already submitted one, thanks FASTILY! :D Appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
How would I create userboxes for my page?
l5€for (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go to this page and pick one you like, if you want a sidebox like mine put your userbox in between {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} do this on separate lines so for each new box it is one line and if you want a line separating each userbox, say if I wanted to separate my achievements from my group memberships I'd add {{userboxbreak}} between the userboxes. Hope this helped.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Thanks for the help. l5€for (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested access to the Account Creation Tool, have read and understand the Terms and Conditions, and hold myself resposible for any problems that may arise. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Date on welcome message
I've noticed that the date after your signature on the welcome messages you've been adding to new users' talk pages today is incorrect. See User talk:Ronald Chevalier for an example. --JD554 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I want to make clear though is that the article will need to cite reliable secondary sources. The design notes (a primary) and wiki (not reliable) you linked to are not sufficient. Furthermore, to justify a seperate article you'll need to show how the game is notable - you mention that the mechanics and storyline are worth noting, but who's noted it? If you can construct a "critical reception" section, citing reviews from reliable publications, that would be perfect. If you've not already seen it, WP:VG/RS has a good list of online sources, and of course dead-tree magazines are preferable. My final observation is that the article has an in-depth description of the game's storyline. For the editing of this, I refer you to WP:WAF - again, the amount of space we give to describing the fictional elements should be proportional to the attention given by secondary sources.
Thanks for that Marsmusine, I'll work with some others who want to expand the article. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome template
Hi, just a suggestion that you stick with one of the established templates such as W-graphical when greeting new users. I saw your template when leaving a message at User talk:Josocal. The template seems overly detailed to drop on a newbie and not particularly friendly (I speak of the don't-be-a-dick admonishment). Just sayin'. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True but it's a summary still, it's concise and to the point, besides only one of the users whose talk page I posted it on bothered to ask me or an admin for help in fact around 10 - 20 of them just ignored the welcome message and decided to vandalise articles or create articles which were promptly deleted. Thanks for your concern though. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the message overwhelming (no newbie needs to know about applying for administrator or becoming an account creator) and a bit rude. But if nothing else, at least fix the signature. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the signature when CliffC posted, I thought it'd be a good idea to give them a lowdown of enwiki so that they know procedures and so on, I forgot to subst: that one sorry. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My user page has too many categories and I don't want a lot of them to be listed at the bottom of the user page, is there a way I could remove them???
Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each category your userpage is in is the result of you transcluding a certain template on your userpage. To remove your userpage from a given category, simply the associated userbox from your userpage. For example, you can remove Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians by removing {{user meta}}. Skomorokh 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some templates have support for category suppression so you can use still display the template but not have your user page added to the category. Try adding "|nocat=true" to each template that adds a category to see if it removes the category. For the ones that don't work, try "|categories=no" as an alternative. Not all of the templates you're using support this, but it will help you remove some of the categories without having to remove the templates themselves. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaaotalk 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I set up an archive per the instructions on MiszaBot's page but the threads aren't being archived, I might have set up the archive wrong but could someone please take a look and tell me what's wrong? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter algo = 7d should have been algo = old(7d). I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you. Also, as it is at the moment the bot will archive to User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive. The counter parameter will be ignored. If you were wanting it to use User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive 1 you should change the parameter to archive = User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive %(counter)d. Regards, AJCham 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article George Washington you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Washington for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you retract and apologize for the racist comment and show clear need for the tools, I'd support you. (to just randomly jump in) — raeky(talk | edits) 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to argue do so on your own talk pages please, you may have differences but set them aside and you'll see that Tony's work has helped improve, as many others like him, the quality of Wikipedia's articles, surely one must consider that. EDIT: Many administrators have less GAs, FAs, VPs, DYKs, etc. than Tony and when considering someone you shouldn't judge based on mishaps but on the eagerness and tireless contributions they've made and shown.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you can get an idea of what is going on at FPC, I feel there has been a series of ridiculous decisions at both FPC and VPC influenced in large part by the above editor, who I promised I would pretend not to believe is a racist. Currently, there is an atmosphere where the community first started claiming I was bringing down WP by spamming articles with images. Although, I am not always right, I pointed out that most of the rest of WP feels that adding somewhat tangential images is useful. That pattern has ended and a new one has emerged where they are supporting versions other than the ones I create to be consistent with long-standing preferences. Regardless of whether Raeky (talk·contribs) and I are seeing eye to eye, an RFA is not going to get through at a time when they are going out of their way to vote against or ignore the majority of my work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, yes I concur, I know you would have made a good admin. I'll ask again in a few months. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, well I understand. Surely tiny disputes are no grounds for bias in an RfA.... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience at RFA no votes are cast aside and by the way they are treating me at FPC/VPC, if everybody coordinates there bias, it is not considered a bias. I will wait until the winds change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I respect your decision and keep up the good work. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TUSC token efc1c123d6c9d8b319a616090939be71
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Verified, signed and timestamped for archiving. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I set up indexing for my archive like on other user's talk pages? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those things where it is easier for me to just do it, and show you what I have done, than to try and explain it. So, if you'd like me to simply set it up and then show you how I did it, please just let me know the time you'd like - ie after how many days of no further input would you like sections to be archived? 30 days? 48 hours? etc. I will see your response below; no need for a further {{helpme}}.
Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you'd already set it up. I checked it; the only problem I saw was, there was no initial archive number, so I just changed that to | counter = 1. I also think you'll want some kind of link, so I've added an {{archive box}}. I think it will start working within 24 hours, but I don't see anything older than 7 days right now anyway. Please let me know if you have any problems. Cheers, Chzz ► 12:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, thanks for your help Chzz. I thought I did something wrong just I didn't know what that was. Your help is appreciated. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerking
Hello there. I have passed your request onto the clerks-only mailing list for discussion. Please be aware that we only take on new clerks from time to time, and typically new clerks are taken from the ranks of very experienced users or those with special or unique skills that can be of use in the field of clerking. Nonetheless, I'll mention your name and bring your request to the attention of the other clerks. Please note that because we only take on new clerks intermittently, it may take a while to get back to you. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
J. Woodland Hastings
I am new to this and finding my way with limited time - so excuse me for now if I screw up somehow - especially with the codes and not knowing how to find my way through the maze of pages etc. The request was to "expand it," and for "more citations for verification." It seems to me that the article is already expanded enough [unless there is a different meaning?]. I have inserted many more verification connections to my already extensive citations, added 3 more citations and made a few other minor changes. Hopefully I have done what was requested [?]. What must I do next to move it along in the process? Or do I just wait? Photeros (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, looking at the article now it's almost done, all the work that needs to be done is expanding the information on his career. When that's done the article will be marvelous. :) Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, you might want to add what information you can on his university years, childhood etc. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial GA nominations
Hi, I just reverted your GA nomination ofSecond Sino-Japanese War because I saw that you have been nominating articles that are not close to GA level, ones that you are not involved in. I have reverted this recent nomination because these actions of yours cause others to waste time trying to assess the article. I think it is wrong of you to nominate an article if you have no past involvement and if you have no intention of future involvement. A similar nomination of yours at Kriegsmarine was mercifully cut short by the reviewer, but the one at George Washington took the reviewer quite a long time, and resulted in the article not being listed. Please consider getting involved in some article, getting familiar with its problems before nominating it. Such involvement greatly increases the likelihood of a back-and-forth interaction between the reviewer and the involved editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only way I knew how to get the criteria, I'll refrain from doing this now. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Being involved in the article is the key. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm currently focussing on the Founding Fathers since they had their GA Status revoked :S It's going to be a while before you hear from me lol. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afcconnect, and you are most welcome to join in.
Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read that article before accepting it? It's not even close to neutral. I sincerely hope you planned to copyedit or rewrite that after accepting. —fetch·comms 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am aware of the lack of neutrality. Thanks for prodding me though fetch! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you're right it's horrible... what was I thinking feel free to trout me. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D Thanks I added the Barnstar to my Barnstars page, no worries glad to be of service! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 02:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation
Firstly, welcome to the Wikiproject! A couple of your reviews have popped up on my watchlist, so I'll just give you a little info. You do realize that there is a set of parameters for that template, right? They produce very well-written messages for the submitters. So, my using h|spam there produced a message that was a lot more informative than h|spam/advertising, which you changed it to. If there is more than one reason why the submission is held or declined, use the most important parameter (usually h|v I find), and leave the rest of the information (with links to relevant guidelines!) in an {{afc comment|your comment here}} underneath the template. Also, things like formatting and headings and fixing URLs into {{cite web}} are done by the reviewer, and should not be the main reason for declining or holding something.
All that said, it's great that you're joining us- we desperately do need more reviewers now. Just do keep referring back to the instructions until you're confident of what you're doing. (Also: I made an AFC topicon for myself, you can mod it for your own use if you like.) Cheers, sonia♫♪ 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, will do. I'm still learning the ropes on this WikiProject so please don't be afraid to trout me when necesary. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. If you ever need another pair of eyes to look at a submission, my talk page is always open. Regards, sonia♫♪ 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposterous, you were just putting me on the right path :) Thanks Sonia. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of you just flashed up on Igloo so I thought I'd stick my nose in! There's an excellent script to assist in AfC reviewing (dig it out of my [HJ Mitchell] monobook.js). You can also pinch the template on the top of my talk page that gives yu the status and the number of submissions. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That script doesn't work for me... :( But I made myself a non-admin dashboard which I check back to, and added a little script to my JS that gives me a direct link to my dashboard next to the logout link, and it works well for me :) sonia♫♪ 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have that script, but mine takes me to the admin dashboard to all the joyous backlogs that need mopping up! Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, so it's not just me. (Are you getting tired of the orange bar yet? Here on enwiki I don't tend to, but I'm sure HJ does.) @HJ: This is kinda crazy, but sometimes I wish there were backlogs for me to clear. Over on simple IPs can create articles, and yet no test page lasts more than a minute before it's deleted. Most of the time by the time you hit edit to speedy it, it's already gone. It's a little bit annoying at times, actually, because the admins edit-conflict in deleting pages. Quite unlike here. :P sonia♫♪ 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than an orange bar to annoy me :) Haha sounds fun at Simple Wiki. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... Delirium Tremens (band) wasn't ready to get accepted. It has the submitter's signature at the bottom, and would you look at the references! Some are to myspace or Wikipedia, and that's not acceptable. The external links needs to be cleaned up as well. Please, be careful when accepting submissions- they should be of a suitable standard. sonia♫♪ 09:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.o I didn't see them there... I'm REALLLYYYY sorry Sonia :( I can't believe missed obvious mistakes >.> Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pile it on, but here's another few that you seem to have made errors on:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel – I see that you realised your error in accepting the submission, but you then moved it back to the wrong location. You then missed that it was a clear copyright violation. EarwigBot's report is in the edit history, but even without that (I hadn't noticed it until afterwards) a simple Google search turns up a copy of the original material.
I see that you have really been going to town on the AFC backlog, and I commend your enthusiasm, but please slow down and take a little more care, especially as (by your own acknowledgement) you are still learning the ropes. I've not checked all of your work over the past few hours, but I would highly recommend that you yourself have another look at the articles you've reviewed. If you are unsure if you made a correct decision, reopen the submission or place it on hold and leave a comment for other reviewers. Cheers, AJCham 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got caught being an idiot again >.> Sorry, I didn't know that cvs had to be reported. I did do the other reviews right though at least. My enthusiasm and big mouth will be the death of me... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot to mention the one that most concerned me – Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Early Life. You declined as lacking reliable sources, which fair enough was true, but worse than that the page was a clear BLP violation, something that is taken very seriously; now more than ever.
I'd also be curious to know a couple of things: First, an explanation of the decline reason you gave for Underwater predation as mentioned above. Second, how are you so sure that you reviewed all the others correctly? Your response to me came within 5 minutes – are you saying you double-checked all your contributions from the last several hours in that time? I've only looked over a handful of your reviews and found these 5, so I would reiterate my suggestion that you have another look at them. AJCham 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some of the had lack of reputable sources. For example Brilliant Stars was submitted 18 hours or so ago in the mainspace, I moved it then I realisedthe sources used were the school's own website. Underwater predation, not in proper format, lack of reputable sources... oh wait it didn't even have hold time. You know what if I've made more mistakes please feel free to whale or trout me... Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No seriously, I'm asking for an explanation, not a restatement of the decline reason. Why did you feel that the sources for Underwater predation were unreliable? I genuinely would like to know – I'm not an expert on the subject so maybe you know something I don't.
And just so you know (re: this), it didn't even occur to me that you may be making mistakes on purpose – I had no doubts that your intentions were pure, but I fear over-exuberance may have gotten the better of you. Just try to take things a little more slowly for now, and pick up the pace as and when you get used to things. AJCham 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it just wasn't sourced properly and it was lacking in information, Yeah you're right, hey I was wondering about my request, think you could teach me or help me improve my user page? Indeed, I should read thngs over more carefully, I do take into consideration what you say but most of the time, if it has no proper sources etc. or lacks information then I just decline if it has been on hold. Or if it is really bad no hold period at all. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well goodnight, I'll respond to your queries etc tomorrow. Oh and if you could, do you mind signing my Guestbook thanks, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from reminding you that you're free to copy any elements from my userpage that you'd like to use, I can't really devote any time to helping you with yours. I would also recommend searching the web for CSS tutorials, as that should be a great help – and of course the Help pages here for advanced wiki-syntax. AJCham 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, it is not necessary to notify me every time you reply. Now that we've engaged in ongoing discussion I am watching your talk page so I'm already aware of any responses. AJCham 12:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page. Message added 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
It has no header now, so it would not be reviewed again. Chzz ► 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sonia told me I had made a mistake, when I made it live I removed the afc tag, it's back now. I'll refrain from stupid mistakes for the moment. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided some cleanup here- could you please re-review and let me know whether you think it is ready for the mainspace? J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Alternate. Message added 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your requests for rights at flaggedrevs and liquidthreads
We give out the admin bit pretty liberally at both wikis, but the fact that you've requested 'crat as well gives me pause. Why would you need crat rights on a test wiki? Rights are given out to people who need them, not just because you can have them. I have given you (somewhat tentatively) administrator rights on both wikis. We've had a few people desysopped for just playing around, so do remember that both wikis are for testing of their functions, not for trying out admin buttons (especially not the block button). Cheers, sonia♫♪ 04:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to test out the interface differences between MediaWiki and Wikidot, since MediaWiki in my opinion is superior. But hey if you feel sysop is enough by all means. :D Cheers Sonia, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How will being a crat help you do that? If you have a reason that will help with testing of LQT, by all means I'll flag you. Let me know. sonia♫♪ 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well interface primarily, I'll do what I will as admin, scratch that request. I'll request when I have good reason for it rather than just the interface differences. Anyway cheers again, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your message, just to let you know I replied here. Mlpearcpowwow 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
Hey there. I saw a request for protection of your user pages on WP:RFPP, but it wasn't signed. I tried to see if it was you that requested the protection, but since my laptop is, well, not the best, I couldn't track it down. Let me know if you still would like the semi protection of your user page. Jmlk17 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia
Hi Fridae,
I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope that you continue to maintain your positive and willing attitude in helping improve WP. Regarding your Abuse Reponse project nomination, we have unfortunately had to decline your nomination. This is not because the quality of your contributions are lacking; on the contrary, you are an excellent contributor thus far. Investigating IP address is a very technically intensive task and I would suggest gaining more experience in this area, then re-apply. Thanks again. Thorncrag 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mandy Gonzalez
I've spent loads of time fixing AFC things, so forgive me ranting - I know others have complained above.
Another one just occurred, where a new user entered the help channel asking why Mandy Gonzalez was declined.
It should not have been; it had sources to NY Times, Playbill, Broadway.com and BroadwayWorld.com.
Please check over the other AFCs you may have done.
I appreciate your acceptance of the feedback above, but please - save me more time - and check over them. Thank you. Chzz ► 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't very informative. I didn't screw up all of them, I'm doing better the only problem was that a lot of the bloody articles used blogspot as a source. HOW ON EARTH is Blogspot verifiable and notable? Five articles were copyvios which I checked and I had subsequently reported the userbbs. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing my page. I see there is a hold due to the references section but I am not sure how to correct the problem. How should I correct the problem?
If anyone is reading this and might be able to give me some feedback on my page so that it can be approved I would be very grateful. Not sure where Fridae's Doom is but I noticed it says I have 24 hours to make changes and I am quickly approaching that without a response. It says something about the references section and the page being jumbled but I have so far had no feed back that suggests how I may fix this.. Thanks!!! :)
Your work at AFC has been less than helpful (from viewing the threads on your talk page above related to it). Especially here. No one quite really cares if you've heard of a subject. You might familiarize yourself with the reviewing instructions before you continue your work there. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Your enthusiasm is commendable! But I think it would be appropriate to be a little more conservative with the "decline" button. Many of the articles you've declined look like reasonable article stubs and should probably not be rejected out of hand. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Village Siswala is not very notable, I mean an electrical engineer and a management student do not make it a notable place. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, hold. And remember that this isn't about us, it's about them- new contributors to Wikipedia in many cases. We have the responsibility to give them an acceptable and detailed reason why their article can't be accepted, and to work with them to improve it if it can at all be salvaged. Please remember that and tread carefully. sonia♫♪ 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was only following the article policies :/ perhaps I was being a bit too harsh. Village Siswala however definitely WAS NOT notable. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Siswala may not be notable, but it's not relevant whether you personally have heard of the village or anybody from it. That comment is a source of concern in the context of AfC.
There are other declined articles for "lack of sources" that appear to be well sourced:
Some were changed after I declined them, in fact there were some articles that other reviewers declined that the authors had replaced the Pending AfC Tags on. I admit my mistakes but at least it wasn't as big a screw up as last time. They had sources like blogspot. About 80% of my decisions were correct at the time. So please also check the history log. But yes thanks all for telling me my mistakes. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C Ebner
Hello,
I'm trying to complete this post and have my article accepted, but obviously having problems with doing it correctly. I don't know if I am just inept at this, or if I'm not looking in the right places for help. The person I am submitting about is a well known author and journalist. I'm confused, can you help me with edits? Or is that not something you do? I would really like to get this published on Wikipedia ASAP, as I have been trying to get it done for quite some time.
Thank you
C Ebner (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)C Ebner[reply]
I am new to Wiki - just submitted my first article Megan Rye - which was defined as sub quality. Being new to this process - I thought
I had carefully done a lot of research.
I am hard pressed to find anything that I wrote that wasn't verified in the independent press - on several occasions more than once.
The only thing that might be "contentious" is the sentences talking about future exhibitions. If I remove this - I think everything else
is extremely well sourced.
Please let me know if I am overlooking anything else??
Sorry to keep bugging you, I would just really like to get my article going and since you have put it on hold I have been trying to reach you to see what I can do to remedy the situation.
I also have made revisions and still have not heard anything...
Thanks so much FD :) Only one question, I looked over the rating system and noticed that for C class one of the main issues is unreliable sources, I have cited the Wall Street Journal, several .gov sites with official documents, USA today,a published study straight from the mayo clinic. I thought these were all pretty credible sources. Please let me know your thought on this as I would love to improve this as much as possible.
You might be interested in a tool that I am making - WP:ACH. As of now, I'm still making it, but let me know if you want to test it. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See your DYK nom on Hastings. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Megan Rye article
Hello - I wrote you a few days ago on your talk page. I am not trying to be difficult - rather this is the
first wiki article I have written.
Please specifically let me know which items were not verified by a third party source. I think ALL of my
article has been sourced by reputable media. With the exception of two sentences regarding future
exhibits. I asked you a few days ago - if these sentences regarding future exhibits are removed - will
it then be acceptable?
Hello - I see your comments on my talk page. I am not sure why forumgallery.com isn't a reliable source.
I was following the example of Wiki entry Marc Handelman - another artist, and the top external link for his entry is similarly the NYC gallery that represents his work.
It would be easy to delete Guernicamag as a link.
And in the body of my entry - Marya Hornbacher - has been a wiki entry for a long time - is this considered an internal link?
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You have been trouted because the button was closest by and was most fitting. Your actions here, IMO, were highly objectional. The article looks fine and should have been brought to AFD with your concerns. Formatting is not a criterion in AFC publication. Sincerely, Blurpeace 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've clearly had some trouble with article reviewing at AFC before (just based on the scroll up). Maybe you'd like to join us on IRC? Ping me (Blurpeace) if I'm online when you get on. Blurpeace 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get on IRC, yes but I don't see how Guernica Magazine and Forum Gallery were good sources. I'm being too harsh and too ignorant... often at the same time. IRC is blocked on my laptop by the NSW DET so I can only use it Friday-Sunday. Thank you all for dealing with me so long and for giving me an elongated first chance :) I appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DirectHit
You declined an "Article for creation" for DirectHit because you said it was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" - in fact, it had many excellent sources, such as The Lancet and many other scholarly publications; just because the author has not formatted things quite correctly is not a good decline reason. Please could you check other submissions that you declined; if we can salvage these articles - ie if they are not 'speedy deletion' type material - then it is worth trying to fix them, or at least asking the originator to fix them, rather than declining. Thanks, Chzz ► 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right gotcha, well in most cases the starter of the articles hadn't had activity beyond creation of the articles, in a few instances I had to report one to UAA because they made an article about themselves in AfC which I failed to catch when I put it on hold. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erh.... this isn't the first time I made a mistake like this... I need better glasses, I miss this and that and then this goes missing that gets moved augh I'll refrain from AfCs until I can get this all sorted out. Remember if you need to click the trout at the top. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of DirectHit 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! --Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fridae'sDoom, thanks for improving this article. There are further comments from me and others that need to be addressed, see Did You Know nominations page. On a personal note, such a large and importunate "stop" sign for people editing your talk page might give the impression that you do not want to communicate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fridae'sDoom, I see you have replaced the scientific hocus-pocus with a statement that is easier readable. Unfortunately that's now not a reliable source and will be rejected at DYK -- press releases are generally not well received.
My "Requesting second opinion" has unfortunately been ignored at DYK. Could you maybe put both sources (the gibberish and the press release) to the DYK hook statement and ask at WP:MEDICINE if someone would be willing to check the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A decline reason needs to give the new user feedback, on the problems with their article and either a) how they can fix it, or b) why it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
In this one, for example, you put "Per hold >24 hours" - the new user has only made one edit, and probably has not been back yet, so far; when they get back, that message would be no use to them.
I changed that one to 'web'. Chzz ► 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the hold reason, you put "Same source used three times".
Please, look at any (probably every) featured article, where the same sources are used many, many times. Chzz ► 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DirectHit
I've moved this into a DYK prep queue, but before it goes on the main page you need to properly format those first 5 refs, which are currently bare URLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See response on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent thoughts
Hello Fridae'sDoom, You have been the subject of criticism based upon some of your recent actions. While I agree it is warranted, I preface any comments with the pronouncement that it is offered with the earnest hope that it will allow you to improve your-own efforts on Wikipedia. Much of what I might have said has already been said by others, whereas it is just as valid having been said by them. What is left for me to say is I think your intentions are completely honorable. If anything your zeal, which is otherwise a good attribute, is bordering upon over zealousness. From that perspective, a good intention can produce an unintended result. The first thing you should ensure is that you are accurate in your own counsel. These new users are depending on the information you provide, and when you assume the roll of an adviser, it is incumbent on you to have learned that which you intend to teach. One of the best ways to progress is to ask questions. If you think perhaps a source is unreliable, ask a member of the community for an opinion. By doing this you will become more proficient yourself and be that much less likely to con-volute a policy or guideline. For example you speak of "notable sources". Notability is a criteria the subject of an article must meet. Sources need only be reputable and free from editorial influence by the subject. Some facts are perfectly permissible coming from a primary source as well. So, I imagine we can move forward with that, and I look forward to seeing your future interactions. Happy editing. My76Strat 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, in regards to my over zealousness I've stopped that, I'll give them websites to use but in doing that I shouldn't put articles on hold or decline them if they don't have very reliable, verifiable and notable third-party sources. I check the sources I put the first paragraph into Google search, if it returns as a copyvio (if the text is mostly bolded) I'll blank the article. I'm not doing anything wrong per se, just being too harsh in not giving the new guys some help. Right, not too zealous or harsh... but being overly nice is just flamboyant and pretentious. Right, thanks. If I can I'll join your IRC channel so that I can get help. Thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 25 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DirectHit, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Collateral damage of IP blocks on legitimate users like you and (I am willing to assume) your friend happens. Let's hope it doesn't happen again, at least any time soon!
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
All righty. I inferred from your last message that you're up and running again. If it turns out I've misunderstood, please just give me a ring (or post an unblock request if necessary!). If I hear nothing further, I'll assume all's well. Best of luck! - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiff School of Art & Design
You declined this [1] despite the fact that the user had added reliable sources (as requested) with this edit.
It seems fine as a start-off article, to me, and I accepted it. Chzz ► 13:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fridae'sDoom, I noticed that your signature (eg. here) links to a User:FD, even though you're logged in as User:Fridae'sDoom. While redirects of course work, I think it would be less misleading if you'd change it to point here directly. After all, it's not obvious that the two accounts are the same before one actually clicks on the link. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's to shorten my signature length in case I want to add more markup. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got about 6 tabs open in FF to try to help. My question is. What do you want done on the userpage? What is it that you need help with? I'm gone from 20:00 UTC today to August 15 about the same time. I can help out until about 18:00 today. Mr. R00tTalk 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GAN
I have reviewed Shanghai here; I note you have no proper experience writing the page, and the same with George Washington. While that isn't required for a nomination, it is helpful to have some idea at the content, and for that matter to look at the good article criteria. The article on Shanghai is completely not up to spec, and shouldn't be allowed near DYK let alone GAN. Could you make sure to ensure that a) you can competently fix any problems that come up and b) that the article isn't a bombsite before nominating articles in future? Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, in line with your failure to even respond to my message (let alone actually correct the article you wasted my time on by nominating) I'm going to quickfail it in the next 24 hours. Do let me know if you decide to actually follow up on the responsibilities you voluntarily took over. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately have limited access to the net right now since my dad is switching our landlines so I can only use my brother's net, I apologise if I wasted your time since that was unintentional, I should have requested peer review and so I take full responsibility for stupidity on my part. Apologies again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, 7 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
; see Talk:George Washington for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
(Are you getting tired of the orange bar yet? Here on enwiki I don't tend to, but I'm sure HJ does.) @HJ: This is kinda crazy, but sometimes I wish there were backlogs for me to clear. Over on simple IPs can create articles, and yet no test page lasts more than a minute before it's deleted. Most of the time by the time you hit edit to speedy it, it's already gone. It's a little bit annoying at times, actually, because the admins edit-conflict in deleting pages. Quite unlike here. :P sonia♫♪ 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of DirectHit 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! --Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
