User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Harvester Metro Van, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Streamlined (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| Thank you for helping to peacefully resolve a great many of the challenges that we're seeing in some of our firearms articles. Justanonymous (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tia Texada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maxim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Gun Control Direction
There's been some edit warring that has sprung up at Gun Control. I got an administrator involved after someone broke 3RR. Take a look at the Admin's dispute resolution on the gun control talk page. I think your input would be valuable here on where to take the article-Justanonymous (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Just, thanks for the heads-up. I'll talk a look as soon as I can and weigh in where its seems appropriate. I made some edits there recently, so hopefully those aren't at the center of the dispute. Not the first time something like that has resulted from my efforts, but we'll see. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you much! I'm moving your response here and I'll watch your page so it's easier to follow the discussion. Kafziel an Administrator created a Dispute resolution section on the talk page (the most recent) of Gun control where he's asking the interested parties to put forth a vision for the article. Take a read through the proposals and if you have a vision for what the article should look like add it to the page. No, your edits didn't cause issue. The article is at 72,000+ bytes (60,000 is the usual split point for articles) so it's overly long and very biased and the most recent cleanup led to an edit war so Kafziel stepped in to help provide some direction. Give it a look and let's see where to take this troubled article.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just posted a Comment and hopefully it will open some minds and simplify the issue. I'm prepared to offer an Option 3 or 4 suggestion, but I want to wait and see what other comments are made first.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you much! I'm moving your response here and I'll watch your page so it's easier to follow the discussion. Kafziel an Administrator created a Dispute resolution section on the talk page (the most recent) of Gun control where he's asking the interested parties to put forth a vision for the article. Take a read through the proposals and if you have a vision for what the article should look like add it to the page. No, your edits didn't cause issue. The article is at 72,000+ bytes (60,000 is the usual split point for articles) so it's overly long and very biased and the most recent cleanup led to an edit war so Kafziel stepped in to help provide some direction. Give it a look and let's see where to take this troubled article.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
3RR
Round Church is already linked and I don't think any specific examples should be in see also. You know about 3RR but do you realise you are there? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am? How are you calculating it? According to my User contribution page, I'm at 2.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- You reverted Mangoe, restoring the see alsos. I reverted you, removing them. You replaced them (a 2nd revert). Heironymous Rowe removed them, and you replaced them again. That's 3. Always tricky. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, understandable. I assumed that your reversion of my "See also" edits was in error since you made no reference to it. Heiro was incorrect about the relevance, there was already a photo of the Denmark church long before I made my edits, I simply expanded the idea. But as far as actual revisions, its still officially at 2. The discussion we have going on the Talk page seems to be creating some opportunity for improvement to the article... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to be difficult, just precise - policy says ". A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. " Maybe I should have mentioned the see alsos. . Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was going by the use of the "revert" function versus just basic edits, but I see your point. I actually had to look up the definition of a revert to be sure, Wikipedia:Reverting. Per WP:BRD, we do seem to be identifying some opportunity for improvement in the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to be difficult, just precise - policy says ". A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. " Maybe I should have mentioned the see alsos. . Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, understandable. I assumed that your reversion of my "See also" edits was in error since you made no reference to it. Heiro was incorrect about the relevance, there was already a photo of the Denmark church long before I made my edits, I simply expanded the idea. But as far as actual revisions, its still officially at 2. The discussion we have going on the Talk page seems to be creating some opportunity for improvement to the article... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey DW, through all the iterations my wikilink of "round church" has come undone, would you mind returning it for me? I'm tapped out for today. Thanks, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wild Wild West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources
Are you familiar with WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS, WP:MEDRS or with WP:RSN? Wikipedia policy is that a self-published source may not be used as a source in a Wikipedia article, except in very narrow prescribed circumstances, and never in a WP:BLP There are two sets of narrow exceptions: One exception is in WP:SPS, with a bright-line two-part test:Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The other narrow exception WP:ABOUTSELF permits limited use of a non-expert self-published source writing about themself, under a set of 5 conditions. These requirements, and how they apply to books published by a vanity press, have been frequently and extensively discussed at WP:RSN. If you question any of my edits, feel free to raise the issue there. Fladrif (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot about your inquiry about court decisions. See WP:PRIMARY. Court decisions and orders are primary sources, and any interpretation of them must be supported by reliable secondary sources. They cannot be used at all in a BLP. See WP:BLPPRIMARY Again, this is something that is well settled on WP:RSN. Fladrif (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are applying, just not how. The reference you removed (and related material) were not about the author. Yes the book is self published, but its about other people. Furthermore, an editor with Adult Video News magazine (I'll let you decide how important that publication is or is not to the Adult industry) commented on the author and book. I'm a subscriber and read the review of the book in AVN. Do you just not believe this is credible or applies to the WP policies? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now I think I get it. If the material were published by the person its about, then it might be usable, but given the circumstances and WP policy, its not to be trusted because Jennings work was not previously published, right?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Partly there. If Jennings was just writing about himself, it might be used in an article about Jennings. And, if Jennings is a recognized expert on the subject matter who had been previously published by a reliable third party publisher, then it might be used in a Wikipedia article about the subject matter of his expertise.
- The other consideration/complication is he is writing about another living person. That other person is the subject of the Wikipedia article, so the rules of WP:BLP apply to the article. Under WP:BLPPRIMARY:Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. And, another part of the BLP policy WP:BLPREMOVE says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.
- So, policy required that the source and the information in this article based on it be removed immediately. Hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from on this. Doesn't really have anything to do whether or not the source is "reliable" in the ordinary, outside of Wikipedia, sense of that word. Fladrif (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I get it! Its too bad that AVN doesn't make their stuff more accessible since reference material about the Adult industry that qualifies as an WP:RS is rare, but now I understand the basis of your edits. Thank you for the education and my apologies for the unneeded detour on your part. I'm usually better about digging deeper into cited references. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Glad to be of help and no apologies are necessary. And thanks for the barnstar. Fladrif (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I get it! Its too bad that AVN doesn't make their stuff more accessible since reference material about the Adult industry that qualifies as an WP:RS is rare, but now I understand the basis of your edits. Thank you for the education and my apologies for the unneeded detour on your part. I'm usually better about digging deeper into cited references. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Repost of Janet Mason
A tag has been placed on Janet Mason requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: 
which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- thanks Gene, but this all happened so fast that I never got the chance. I can't even view previous versions. I've asked the Admin who deleted it for help/input. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Red Links
Thank you for the tip, I wasn't aware that they served any real purpose. TheRico152 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup effort
I know what you mean. Sorry I haven't been more active. If you have a list of them, feel free to add them to the "To Do" list on the project's home page under cleanup. If you think there is too many for that, we can come up with something else.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Marc Kupper|talk 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Jeremy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TMZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Gun control
Hi, please see Gun control and Talk:Gun control. I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I restructured and rewrote the article according to some suggestions in the discussion. I snipped a LOT of excess arguing and POV violations, moved the authoritarianism section into history of gun control, and condensed some info into the Arguments section. The arguments section still needs some trimming/balancing. Feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bravo! Nicely done, I think its definitely a good start. Personally, I'd still like to see some kind of section that discusses how "gun control has evolved" with the technological evolution of firearms. My point being that "gun control" has always been present or an influence co-existing with firearms. It's not an attempt at pushing a POV, its just acknowledging a phenomenon. What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Clifford Essex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Victorian
- Kanika Batra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Angelina
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iwao Takamoto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Jefferson High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
godwin
Confused by your application of godwin's law in Gun Control. Godwin is about comparing people to Nazis. The section was actually ABOUT Nazis? Your new wording is fine, and possibly less inflammatory, but it certainly wasn't a Godwin failure. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Gaijin, my reference to Godwin was purely regard to the use of the word "Nazi". Granted, it may not have been the best application, its use just seemed a bit inflammatory. These days unfortunately, it seems that the only was to resolve an issue or debate on WP is to make it a "non-issue". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kanika Batra
Just wanted to let you know that an article that you have edited Kanika Batra is up for deletion, in case you want to edit the article or vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, it was just one that came up via the Page Curation tool. I have no personal stake in the article, I was just trying to give it a decent chance of survival.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bruce Lee
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your recent (fantastic) articles on things as varied as architects, popular culture and the banjo, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work! :). Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Autopatrolled means your articles no longer have to be reviewed by other users checking for problems through Special:NewPagesFeed, essentially :). Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I like that! I have several articles in development in my Sandbox. When I find time to shore up their citations and such, I'll push them live. But not having the extra scrutiny when I do is a comforting thing. Thank you! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources revision
Thanks for your note. Let me address the matter in two parts.
First is the product itself. If it's being fact-checked by a professional staff, their performance is poor. One example is the early entry for Zero Hour that I cited here (I mis-identified ABC as CBS). Another is the character "Franco" on NBC's Grimm; from the time of his first appearance, officer Franco was identified as Sgt Franco. He was finally promoted in his last appearance. Actors and characters who do not appear in credits often appear in IMDB based on, I don't know, visual "recognition?" The terms of use for IMDB provide that the owner may take user input, publish it, share it, repackage it, etc. But they don't guarantee to vet it for correctness. Amazon benefits from the site by selling a lot of advertising. That's fine, btw, the Internet ain't free. IMDB does well with movies (the "M" in IMDB). It does far less well with TV series because, I think, too much of its input can be traced to unreliable spoiler sites or to the entertainment reporting sites. If these guys aren't the definition of circular reporting, I don't know what is. Last November, the web was afire with the "fact" that Hugh Laurie was in talks to portray Blackbeard on the NBC's forthcoming Crossbones. Well, maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but the "fact" that he would be portraying Blackbeard was reported on IMDB without qualification. The part's been given to Malkovich, btw.
Second was your approach. If you want the perception of IMDB in Wikipedia changed you need to start with the page about IMDB and work inside one of the projects. People there will probably work with you. Get the IMDB page to the point, which means convincing others, where it reads, "IMDB is the pre-eminent source of information..." Then you can work on changing the entry at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
It's not for the faint-of-heart. I've fought and lost two battles trying to get what I thought were biographical pages on non-notables deleted. A number of us on the military project are trying to inject sense into a page about rapes by U.S. troops in France during WW II started by someone who read an article about a book about the incidents.
I work on a lot of series wikis on Wikia, often as a manager. You can guess some of them by looking at the content above. I cringe when an editor adds some factoid and says his/her source is the "official" IMDB.
I hope I haven't bored you to tears.
Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Jim, Thank you. I appreciate your comments and insights. I realize that IMDB is far from perfect, but its does not deserve the ongoing bashing that it takes from WP. I'll take to heart what you have recommended and when I have time see what I can do. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone can really dispute that IMDB IS the preeminent source of information. The problem is that the information can be inaccurate. Really, this is the same way the world views wikipedia itself. IMO imdb is valid for information that nobody contests, but if it is contested even by an anonymous IP, then better sourcing needs to be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent observation and I would agree, so how do we begin a conversation about an "IMDb usage policy" so that others can benefit and/or not misuse the site? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I dont think there is a way to word a policy that would not be abused (in both directions) that expresses that sentiment, and even if there was, I do not think we would be able to get consensus for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh... So we make due, WP as usual... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I dont think there is a way to word a policy that would not be abused (in both directions) that expresses that sentiment, and even if there was, I do not think we would be able to get consensus for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent observation and I would agree, so how do we begin a conversation about an "IMDb usage policy" so that others can benefit and/or not misuse the site? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone can really dispute that IMDB IS the preeminent source of information. The problem is that the information can be inaccurate. Really, this is the same way the world views wikipedia itself. IMO imdb is valid for information that nobody contests, but if it is contested even by an anonymous IP, then better sourcing needs to be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Done
Sandy Hook
I found a few more redirects for victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting like you tagged at Allison Wyatt. Also there is one in Benjamin Wheeler (disambiguation). Are you going through the whole list of victims?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm holding off until it's decided whether or not that the Category will be deleted. Assuming that the Category is deleted, the redirects will still have to be addressed individually. The Category and the redirects all seem to violate (or subvert at the very least) WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Any suggestions? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would just mention it to an admin like User:GiantSnowman . He may decide to just go through and delete them. If anyone objects to his actions they can take them all to articles for un-deletion. I don't think he likes me much but he would be a good person to decide on them all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swinging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Done
Speedy deletion declined: Category:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Hello Scalhotrod. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's only part of the criteria. Almost the entire contents of the category are Redirect pages. According to the G8 criteria "redirects to invalid targets" is a valid reason for deletion. If you check each of the redirects, they all direct back to the Sandy Hook Shooting article. What's the point of having the category or the redirects? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
User:Scalhotrod/Christina Angel
Done GiantSnowman 08:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Call me what you wish! Doc, Doctor, Dr. Fleischman, Fleischman, Joel, they all work. :) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brew City Shooter Supply, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done
Here there. I thought you might be interested in writing about this, if you have the free time. (I don't.) If not then pass it on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting event, if I can find a few more resources for citations it looks like an article could be generated fairly easily... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Here are some sources you might like, in addition to the NY Times article:
- secondary: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
- primary: [6], [7], [8], [9]
- and a public domain image, already uploaded: [10] (score!)
Cheers! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Whoo Hoo! Thank you Doc! I'm about to head out for a couple of days, but I will get on this as soon as I can. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
gun control DR
There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun politics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democrats and Republicans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Done
Please comment on Talk:John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Done
Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FNC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Done
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cowboy Action Shooting 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:
- comes to the line, the shooter will place ("stage") his guns as required by the stage description (for instance, he may put his rifle on a hay bale to the left of the start position and his shotgun
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Two things:
- Never "move" a page by manually cutting its content from one title and pasting it into another; that breaks the article's edit history, and forces other people to do extra work to repair it. Rather, pages are moved to new titles via the use of the "move" function so that the edit history moves with the content.
- I've also been advised that you didn't actually have any consensus from Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms to implement the move, so even after fixing the edit history I've had to move the article back to Federal Assault Weapons Ban again. If a thing's proper name changes, or if there's a spelling error in the title, then certainly you can just move a page — but in a case where there's a subjective decision to be made between more than one equally valid title, you should always seek a consensus of interested users rather than just moving the page arbitrarily.
Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting sport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Done
RFC at Federal Assault Weapons Ban
There is a RFC discussion at an article you have recently edited that you may be interested in. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please sign your vote there. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| I just want to say you are doing a great job of taking the workload of working on the lede in the Second Amendment article. Im making quibbles to make improvements that I see, but I do not want you to interpret that as anything other than collaboration - you are doing the tough job of proposing text, and getting shot down by everyone else :). I think the various revisions are noticeably better from revision to revision, and we are narrowing in on something that everyone can agree to. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Academic titles and postnomials
Hi there. About this edit (and the preceding ones), I'm pretty certain that WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:POSTNOM also apply to infoboxes. Most of the articles I've seen with infoboxes don't include that sort of information in the 'name' field. It is not a case of finding the 'right' place to put it, it seems that 'Dr' and 'PhD' are not explicitly stated - it is sufficient to say that the doctorate was obtained, and this is what most of the scientist articles I have read on Wikipedia say - they don't explicitly say 'Dr' or use the postnomial letters PhD. What would get included is something like FRS or similar postnomials. But as far as I know, normal academic degrees are not included in this way. But I may be wrong. Do you know of any articles where these titles are included? Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was unaware of WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:POSTNOM, so thank you for that. Putting it in the Infobox is an easy compromise, I could not find a prohibition on its use there. In fact I have seen it used in similar ways. Please be very careful about interpolation of WP policy, especially defending it when there is not solid basis for it.
- I was just happy to find a Scientist Infobox template and I've been trying in earnest to populate its entries. Unfortunately all of the references are in other languages making expansion of this article more of a challenge. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think putting 'Dr' and 'PhD' in the infobox is "an easy compromise". The more I think about it, I think it is just wrong. The point about academic credentials are that practically every research scientist in existence will have a PhD. It is just not accepted practice in Wikipedia articles to put 'Dr' and 'PhD' in the articles as an academic title and postnomial. It comes across as highlighting what doesn't need to be highlighted. I will go and look now, but if you have examples of articles using 'Dr' and 'PhD' in this fashion, would you be able to link to them? Those that I have read don't do this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I can't think of any off the top of my head and its probably not worth the time to investigate it especially given your stance. I can appreciate being adamant about something, but as you are likely all to aware of here on WP it requires substantiation and sometimes consensus. I defer to your stance in the matter. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've just looked and this search has thrown up lots of examples. I'm not sure those articles should have that style either, but will start a discussion in the right place and come back and leave a link here. Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for being so insistent above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I look forward to seeing what the discussion turns up. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion (if anyone else turns up) is here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I look forward to seeing what the discussion turns up. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've just looked and this search has thrown up lots of examples. I'm not sure those articles should have that style either, but will start a discussion in the right place and come back and leave a link here. Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for being so insistent above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I can't think of any off the top of my head and its probably not worth the time to investigate it especially given your stance. I can appreciate being adamant about something, but as you are likely all to aware of here on WP it requires substantiation and sometimes consensus. I defer to your stance in the matter. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think putting 'Dr' and 'PhD' in the infobox is "an easy compromise". The more I think about it, I think it is just wrong. The point about academic credentials are that practically every research scientist in existence will have a PhD. It is just not accepted practice in Wikipedia articles to put 'Dr' and 'PhD' in the articles as an academic title and postnomial. It comes across as highlighting what doesn't need to be highlighted. I will go and look now, but if you have examples of articles using 'Dr' and 'PhD' in this fashion, would you be able to link to them? Those that I have read don't do this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Remington Arms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to L.L.C.
- Remington Model 1858 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Rimfire
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Army_51952_Reflexive_fire_training_at_the_Best_Warrior_Competition.jpg){kind=link}
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)