User talk:RossPatterson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Template talk:Cite book

Hi. In the above you mentioned on 1 Dec updating the documentation to reflect the overhaul made in the last month or so. Do you still intend to do this? Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The entire set of {{cite whatever}} templates has become such a moving target since the conversion to {{Citation/core}} began that I can't keep up with it any more. RossPatterson (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Design Pattern

I see you edit the Design Pattern Page and I have added the following link

http://www.go4expert.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5127

I guess its one of the best Design pattern rated article

Also it was added by some one in the list which some how manage to see someone replaced it with other link and so thought of adding it back.

Let me know your thought as well on the article.

Thanks Shabbir —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabbirbhimani (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking at your writing, I'm afraid I don't agree. It's got some nice UML diagrams, but there's almost no expository text and no examples. The existing Wikipedia articles about the same patterns are much clearer and go into much more detail. For example, compare your and Wikipedia's versions of Abstract Factory. Sorry. RossPatterson (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that its not as detailed as Wiki each article but then there is no use to write same thing and so I have gone much into using the examples and not on theory and text and thats why its that way. Arguing is of no use and if you prefer add it or forget it. Again I am not sure what you prefer to have http://www.developerfusion.com/article/7609/why-patterns/ Article which is nothing but just same thing what is there in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabbirbhimani (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right about developerfusion - thanks for pointing it out. I've removed that one as well. RossPatterson (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you may not understand why these links are being deleted (by me and others). Wikipedia actually prefers not to have any external links as such (cited references are a different, and are quite welcome). As the Wikipedia:External Links guidline says:

“ Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

”

So it's not that we like some other link better than yours, or that what you've written isn't good or appropriate for the forum where you published it. It's that we strive to make these articles stand on their own, rather than be augmented by external links. RossPatterson (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that wiki's approach towards External Links and I have never added my own links or else it would not take one+ month to realize that they have been removed. They were removed in Mid December and so its fine if removed or even added because I am not concerned about being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabbirbhimani (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cat Stevens Matthew and Son.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Cat Stevens Matthew and Son.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

#tag magic

Your comment on IBM 3270: "No need for #tag: magic, this isn't a nested reference". Is there a downside to using #tag: in that way? --ClickRick (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, only that almost nobody knows what it's for and what it does. Occam's Razor and all that. RossPatterson (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I got told about it because I wanted to get a {{subst:today}} into a footnote, and that fails if you use it inside a <ref>, so I altered the fragment I copy & paste to use {{tag:ref... instead, and that worked so I kept on doing it that way.

--ClickRick (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NICE interface modification: We need more users!

Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the survey. You have been added to the full feature set. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

iPhone source code

Here's the wiki page for it: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_iPhone_app --ragesoss (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! RossPatterson (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FreeOpenSourceSoftware.org

Hi Ross, just noticed you removed the link to Wiki FreeOpenSourceSoftware.org from Open Source Software on 1 June as link spam. I think perhaps you had not visited the site. I've added it back. Could you please not remove it again without checking it out, and if you have issues, contacting me? Thanks, 10:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(Btw, for some reason only the date and not my user id is showing up under preview, and so here I am: user:Reliablesources)

No more NICE

Thanks for using NICE! I appreciate you sparing the time and energy. Could you describe why you felt NICE was too intrusive? Is there a simple modification that would rectify the problem? I don't mean to attack you with questions for leaving the study. I am just worried that other editors could feel the same way. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. I never found a circumstance where I wanted to or felt I should leave a note on the user's page explaining why their obvious vandalism ("penis!!!", "i had sex", etc.) wasn't nice, so I always found myself switching to the "Normal" tab. In an average sitting I revert a dozen or so such changes, plus checking the offending user's Special:Contributions for other instances, and I just got fed up with it. It didn't help that it also popped a JavaScript alert box (saying "false"), but I assumed that's because I use Opera and nobody tests their JS code with it, so I didn't hold it against NICE. RossPatterson (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop you a reply to let you know that, per your criticisms, I have removed the alert box bug you experienced and have made NICE remember which tab you were using during your last undo. I'm sure these modifications will make NICE easier for everyone else to use. Thanks again! --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

citation

Hi- since DOE has been changing the system of G&T, I wanted to update the most recent information (2008-2009)since information was out of date. However, I don't know how to insert citation (which was from DOE page and the G&T handbook for test info distributed in Nov 2008 by DOE.). Can you help?Pianistnao (talk) pianistnao, Sep 11 —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Sure. I fixed the one I could find support for, that should give you a guide. Don't worry about the exact format or use of templates (the {{cite ...}} stuff), just stick it inside a <ref></ref> section in place of the {{Citation needed ...}}. Someone (maybe me) will neaten it up later. RossPatterson (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and help. About the criteria(for citywide and district G&T): DOE updates(changes) the page of "Eligibility/Applications" section under G&T program periodically, and when it published "score report" explanation in May 2009(score was issued in early May 2009), the previous page included the link of "New York City Gifted & Talented Program Test Information 2008-2009" hand book disappeared.(overwrote) This "New York City Gifted & Talented Program Test Information 2008-2009" hand book was also printed out and distributed from Oct 29, 2008. The criteria was clearly stated there. I also found the description of the criteria discussed on "Oct 31, 2008" written by insideschools.org's columnist, Helen, on "http://insideschools.org/blog/tag/gifted-and-talented/". I will try to find out the description other than the copy (issued by DOE)I still have with me. Pianistnao (talk)pianitnao Sep 13, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

That's good work! There isn't any rule that references have to be available online, only that they have to be published somehow and someplace and be reliable. Editors generally prefer online references because they can be more-easily verified, but it's perfectly fine to cite a paper-only document that you've read yourself. The more information you can provide that identifies it, the better the quality of the citation. So, for example, you might write <ref>"New York City Gifted & Talented Program Test Information 2008-2009"; New York City Department of Education; 2008; pages 26-33</ref>, indicating that the information you're basing your statements on comes from pages 26 through 33 of the 2008 edition of that document. That's enough information for someone located in New York to track the document down if they desire to verify the reference. And Wikipedia's all about verifiable references. RossPatterson (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed & kind reply. FYI-The copy I have is "For students born in 2003 & 2004" (which means for K&1 placement in the 2009-2010 school year)while I saw the another copy existed probably "For students born in 2002 & 2001" at the same time(which means for 2&3 placement in the 2009-2010 school year).As DOE HP says (http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/GiftedandTalented/default.htm) in the 2nd paragraph,

Gifted and talented programs are district-based and begin in either kindergarten or first grade, depending on the district or borough. Generally, district gifted and talented programs in Manhattan and Brooklyn begin in kindergarten and programs in the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island begin in the first grade. There are also three citywide gifted and talented schools, which accept students from all five boroughs.

So, for G&T program test information 2008-2009, the version I have for "For students born in 2003 & 2004" (which means for K&1 placement) is the sufficient and major source, I think.

The reference is as follows, "New York City Gifted & Talented Program Test Information 2008-2009";For students born in 2003&2004; New York City Department of Education; 2008; pages i(Overview) and page vi(Eligibility and placement)"

Also one question for you: On Aug 3, 2009 NY times published "New York State Test Scores". (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/nyregion/04scores.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=school%20scores&st=cse&scp=1) When you click the link, you see the article and then scroll down, and click at the left hand "Grading Your School". You see this school is #1 among 3468 public schools in New York State. (when you click Top ranked schools in New York State's #1, you will see 3468 is the actual total number of Public schools in NY state). I thought this is an accomaplished notable fact representing this school well for now. Anderson which is also one of the three citywide G&T programs was ranked #2 among 3468 schools. What would you think? Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianistnao (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ross, DOE now has a page of the test handbooks for admission in 2010. http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/GiftedandTalented/EligibilityApplications/GT+Handbooks+09-10AY.htm Please open the book and see page 1 and page 6 in each booklet. The criteria for eligibility is same as last year's which I wrote. Please refer to these booklet. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.160.41 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Kim harrison08.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Kim harrison08.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.68.185 (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Template moves

You've proposed an entire set of almost 50 items to be moved. Since they're clearly all going to fall the same way, it would probably be better to put the discussion in one place. There should be instructions at WP:RM for how to propose a move that affects multiple pages. I might or might not have something to say, but I'm not up for pasting it in 50 places, and more than likely neither is anyone else. :-) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. See WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves for the correct syntax. Ucucha 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll pass. It was hard enough to do the first time. Thanks for the advice, I'll know what to do next time. RossPatterson (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll politely ask that you withdraw them, as it really isn't fair on anyone that might want to participate. I see one brave individual has started to wade down the list, I'll wager that not many others will follow. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. Either withdraw the requests or reconfigure to create a single discussion place. The current situation will discourage participation and jeopardize your cause. — AjaxSmack 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, although it had to be in three groups of up to 20 each. RossPatterson (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Hey! I saw you had done some work on the list of nobel laureates. I am currently working on the Nobel Prize article. Since it is a top importance article and not even GA class I am trying to make it a GA article and perhaps further after that. However, I'm in a state now where I could use some help. I need a new pair (several pairs in fact) of eyes to look at the article and the talk page for improving prose, debation of different things and some sourcing. Do you got any possibility to help out?

Cheers --Esuzu 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User agent introduction clarity

You removed some of my content from the User Agent page can you please justify it properly on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore me, its settled. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

April Fools' Day RFC

Hi Ross, Thanks for tidying up the article - it is much better for it. Jll (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite-require-one-or-none

Template:Cite-require-one-or-none has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication

As I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script, I'd like to ask you some questions over the phone about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. This chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour. If you are interested or need more details, please let me know. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gracias! RossPatterson (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

White's ferry

hey how can you change the number to white's ferry the number is suppose to be 301-349-5200 the number that is on the page as of right now is wrong and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92firebird (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? It had the same number before and after your change (301-349-5200). I just restored the reference that you deleted (http://canal.mcmullans.org/whites_ferry.htm). RossPatterson (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pipjarg1.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Pipjarg1.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lists of people

Hi. For lists of people, it is not sufficient that the listed people exist. They must be notable, per wp standards. We need either a wp article on the person or appropriate refs, per wp:LISTPEOPLE, to reflect notability of the person (not just the band). If an article is written, or such refs (not just a school paper article on the band w/passing mention of the person) are supplied, then it would be proper to add the name to the list. I hope that helps. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how a duo can be notable enough to have an article without the individuals also being notable. Perhaps Das Racist needs to go to WP:AFD if they're not notable? The school paper is perhaps not a WP:RS, but it was already in use in the article as the reference for the two individuals' connections to the school - I just checked it and pulled it over. Obviously if the article gets deleted as not notable, the two members aren't either, and need to be removed from the list. RossPatterson (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

One of wp's many non-intuitive rules. It is automatic that a musician is notable if they have been a member of two or more notable bands. But not one. See WP:MUSICBIO. As the guideline also states, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." It is therefore possible for a band to be notable, but the individual members not. If an article is written on this band member (and not AFD'd), then that would certainly be sufficient. Or .. if we have other refs, that are RS, and indicate notability of the band member (at AfD discussions, passing mention of band members is usually not sufficient). Feel free to ask me any more questions. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RossPatterson. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#What_is_the_correct_way_to_make_copyrighted_images_available_to_WP.3F.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FAR

I have nominated Stuyvesant High School for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are still a few unsourced statements, and a lot of short paragraphs that I think should be combined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll take a pass across the whole article in the next few days. RossPatterson (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Haven't seen any progress yet. Are you still working on this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've been distracted by work etc. I'll get on it. RossPatterson (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Parature 2012-08 logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Parature 2012-08 logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it. If I could have figured out how to do so myself, I would have. RossPatterson (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting vandal edits

Hi. I see that you have done good work in reverting vandal edits by this IP. When you revert the vandalism, please leave a warning on the vandal's talk page or at WP:AIV so that an administrator can block the vandal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RossPatterson. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stuyvesant High School/archive2.
Message added 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I still see several unsourced sections and at least one [citation needed]. The intro's also a little short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Easterns Automotive Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Easterns Automotive Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easterns Automotive Group (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boogerpatrol (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Catperson 12

The issue with city/town and catperson has been at ANI. If you are not comfortable taking it back there, let me know and I will. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be subtle with User:Catperson12, I'm actually interested in what they're trying to do. It's such a narrowly focused disruption that I can't call it vandalism, and I have to believe they have a point they're trying to push. So while I think you were justified in asking for a block, and while past experience says they won't respond, I had to ask. RossPatterson (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Parature-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Parature-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey RossPatterson. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "TNT_MAIN"/> based on [[William Shakespeare]]'s ''[[King Lear]]''<ref name="ERG"/> and directed by [[Uli Edel].<ref name="WHA"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

US Marshals

Hi, what was "not right" about this edit? Do you think it broke anything, or did you mean it was not legitimate for me to enable protocol-relative URLs? --bender235 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Look at that diff. All you did was remove the "http:" from the start of the archiveurl parameter. That's what's "not right". RossPatterson (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the http: to make the URL protocol-relative. The Internet Archive recently enabled HTTPS support. --bender235 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)