User talk:Spinach Monster/Archive 1

Edit Counter Thing

{{helpme|my edit counter thing is not working}}

What edit counter thing? //roux   20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The one at the bottom of the contribs page. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Working fine for me: you, me. //roux   20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Before it was stuck at the same number, even though I had made edits. Trying again now, it's going pretty slow. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, still stuck. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot/program may be pulling from a cached version of the Wikipedia database. The servers have been laggy the past few days. Either way it's really no big deal what your editcount is. //roux   20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. For me it's been a kind of security blanket. I wish I could change my editing style to write more in depth, featured stuff, is there a way to change editing habits towards that end? Spinach Monster (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Find an article about something you're interested in, bring it to GA status. Then work on getting it to FA. //roux   21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying

Ok, how do I do that? I tried with Jedi, but got overwhelmed and put it on hold. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just keep plugging away. It took me about a month to write my first GA. Just keep going, take breaks when you feel like it. There is no time limit to Wikipedia. //roux   21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any advice on strategies on how to get to GA status, other than taking breaks and plugging away? I suppose i'm looking for a blueprint. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Just read the GA criteria, and write a decent article that is well-sourced and free of POV. Everyone does it differently. //roux   22:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A blueprint

Hi Spinach Monster! Just read through this and thought I'd give you a few pointers.

• First: Pick your article. Think of what interests you. What do are you knowledgeable about? What have you studied and enjoyed? (This may be informally or formally). You seem to be interested in improving Jedi, an article that that still needs work, so that seems good.
• Second: Research. Unless you're familiar with all the published literature and discussion, you'll have a lot of work cut out. One way to begin is to see if there are any comprehensive and informed books on the matter that could help you write a good article. However, searching the internet is another way to start. First of all, you'll need to make sure you read only quality, reliable sources. As a general rule: No blogs, fan sites, wikis or speculative, user-generated comments. Good sources include nationally published newspapers/journals, content from well-known national or international organisations, reputable news outlets, official websites of the article's topic, and other highly regarded websites on the topic. DVD commentaries or liner notes may prove useful.

If you wish to improve Jedi this may be difficult, as writing encyclopaedic articles on fiction often is, but perhaps including some more historical information from the offical page might help. Be sure to write in an "out of universe" style. The lead (intro) section of Obi-Wan Kenobi actually gives you a good idea of how to write in this way, despite what all the banners are saying.

• Third: Writing. Be sure to focus on the most important information and to give a good overview of the topic. State the reference you are using to back up your point. Make sure you organise the article into sections which help the reader understand the different aspects of the topic.

Avoid the trivial and stay on topic: That Jedi were created by George Lucas, first appeared in the 1977 film Star Wars, and use lightsabers is important. That Obi Wan occasionally visits bars is not really important or pertinent to understanding what "Jedi" is.

Personally I know jack all about Star Wars so can't really help you. Giving a quick look of the article though I can recommend that you try to find out why Lucas made Jedis the way he did. What were his influences? What genres did he draw from? What led to their creation? Also, perhaps a brief explanation of Jedi dress could be useful.

Hope this is some help to you. Remember, article writing is not everyone's thing and there are plenty of other tasks to do on wikipedia, like reverting vandalism (see: WP:Vandal, special:RecentChanges and WP:Huggle), stub sorting, or suggesting improvements for other's articles (see WP:Peer Review).

Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve but I'm sure you'll be fine as long as you're polite. If someone does something and you can't understand why: ask them. Most times, people are happy to explain why they edited something in a certain way and you can learn much about improving articles this way. Why not take a look at Wikipedia:Article development too? Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Spinach Monster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Aramgar (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}}

How do I get something off Wikimedia Commons in another language?Spinach Monster (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be a language selection somewhere. If not, en=English, au=Australian, sp=Spain, etc...Need anther language tell me.--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stub templates

Go at the end, after categories but before interwikis. see - Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub. Rich Farmbrough, 17:19 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Feel free. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29 22 January 2009 (UTC).

this sort of thing Rich Farmbrough, 17:47 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Your Questions

There's a map I want here. How can I upload that map? Spinach Monster (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:IMAGES--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit Dwight Eisenhower? Spinach Monster (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it say anything when you edit?--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats easy! Its because many people have been vandalizing it, and they only want trusted users that wikipedia knows will not vandalize the article to edit it.--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

lol nope, you just have to bee here awhile, as you see on my talk, I am not even a trusted user yet!--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only a few days to move to "non-new". This is really just to reduce vandalism, and is automatic. If you look on your preferences page it might tell you that you are "auto-confirmed" [Wikipedia:Established_users#Autoconfirmed_users] this is what we are talking about here. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Looks OK to me. Rich Farmbrough, 16:24 23 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry

This is your last warning. If you do not ask accdude92 more questions nothing will happen.--Accdude92 (Happy January!) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Zip Code Prefixes and the UK Postal Codes

No problem. If you want to produce a list of things which is currently absent from Wikipedia, then go ahead and be bold. I think the current US Zip Code list is not very well presented and would benefit from a simple bulleted list. Bazza (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Counter

{{help me|When will the edit counter on the contribs page be fixed? I know it doesn't matter, but I have to admit that it's annoying me.Spinach Monster (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Ask Sql, who runs it. In addition, it generally makes more sense to put new sections at the bottom of the page. The helpme template will show up just fine, and we'll look for it. //roux   01:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That person does not seem to exist.Spinach Monster (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. SQL. //roux   04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Epcot Timeline

Read WP:HEAD. If you're going to do something, whether folks will agree with it or not, I strongly urge you to do it correctly and per WP policies. Otherwise, any effort you put forth in making your edits will be wasted and people will become annoyed cleaning up after you. SpikeJones (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked Do you have a problem with the links in the subject titles for the decade subsections in the timeline, or the decade subsections themselves. I directed you to the specific MOS policy that I refered to in my edit summary. Have you read it? Or did you have a specific question about that policy that was unclear? SpikeJones (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked is your revert due to #1 or #2 or both. My edit summary, in response to your request for a more meaningful one, was links in headings is against WP:MOS. I apologize in advance for sounding gruff, but this is a tiresome conversation for a minor edit when you were provided all the information you need. We don't handhold here. Please see my first paragraph above again, as you don't want to become annoying to people who take the time to point you in the proper direction to find the answers you need.SpikeJones (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question as to why your edit was reverted - please see WP:HEAD. There are eight bullet points under that section -- which of those do you suppose is the reason your edit was reverted? I have answered your questions and pointed you to further reading so you can educate yourself to be a better editor; having done such, there is no need to participate further in this discussion. Happy editing. SpikeJones (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Table Border Colors For Individual Cells

{{help me|Is there a way to put color templates into the parameters of individual cells in a table?}} Spinach Monster (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I wanted to make a table for Senate votes, I got the idea from the Tim Geithner article last week. And I figured I could use {{American politics/party colours/Democratic}}, along with the Republican and Independent ones as the borders to show which parties the Senators are in, and then something else for how they voted.

I guess those two criterion (party and vote) could be done by the text itself and the background rather than the border, or I could bold the border for the votes and the background can have the template.

I thought the text of the Senators' names should be standard since it might look awkward with certain combinations of text and backgrounds. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. If all you want is the color and not the bgcolor thing, then you can use {{Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color}} (etc.). That just has the HTML color code without anything else. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Let me try that and fool around with different combinations. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

cell 1	cell 2
cell 3	cell 4

That's how you do individual cells - as for templates, what exactly are you looking to do? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. If all you want is the color and not the bgcolor thing, then you can use {{Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color}} (etc.). That just has the HTML color code without anything else. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Edits

{{helpme|what's the best way to get alot of edits? I'm fixated on quantity, and i'm wondering if I can get that out of the way I can focus on quality. I've got bad writer's block.}}

Hi Spinach monster. Performing spelling corrections is a high quantity editing activity. A couple of notes on this:

At Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings you can do a search for a particular common spelling error. Say nothern (northern). A list will be generated of all articles in which "nothern" appears. Note that lists sometimes take some time to propagate depending on the prevalence of the error.

However, Google is actually a much better and faster search engine than Wikipedia's internal one, especially for words that either may be included in others (e.g. layed (laid) if searched on Wikipedia will find 50,000 articles with the word played in them, whereas Google will not make this error of inclusion) and for words that are spelled differently when pluralized (e.g., knive (knife). When doing a google search use this search parameter, placing the word sought before it: -inurl:wiki-User -intitle:Talk -inurl:wiki-Wikipedia -inurl:wiki-WP -redirected-from site:en.wikipedia.org. So the list of common mispellings is a great place to find what errors to search, but use Google for the search.

If you're going to do this, you should spend some time vetting the error to avoid changing it where it is proper. Is there a famous person whose last name is correctly spelled nothern in multiple articles? Is it a technical term in some arcane discipline? Is it correctly misspelled as the name of some work? Also note that the list of common spelling error article contains the misspelling and will often be found during the search. Also, sometimes an article specifically about the word at issue (under the correct spelling) may refer to the fact that that word is "sometimes misspelled ____". If you're actually going to do this, I once wrote an instruction page on a fast method of making the changes. If you want that, just drop me a message. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not possible. We edit manually or sometimes script assisted, and doing either, the most a human being is capable of is about six edits a second or so, which actually requires far more time than that because of time spent setting up those edits, i.e., having 20 browser tabs open, all already with the intended change made and edit summary provided, and then clicking save for each open tab. Only bots have the ability to make the number of edits you are talking about and for sustained periods of time, and we do not even allow bots to make the number of edits they are capable of because performing numerous edits per second is a drain on the servers. Note that you must get approval to operate a bot, obtain a bot flag, and must have a separate account for operation of the bot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is a description I wrote two and a half years ago, when I only used Internet Explorer. I am omitting the instructions for finding articles throuh Google as I already postd that above:

Right click on the first article containing the error, hit edit this page, hit full screen and minimize (If you don't have a full screen icon on your tool bar, right click on it, choose "customize," and select it from the list). Move on to the next. Do this for say 25 articles (don't open too many, over 30 and your computer [or at least mine] will run sluggishly). Each article is now minimized on your screen's taskbar. The number of windows that can be seen as minimized in the taskbar are always the same, on my computer nine; on another computer I use its fifteen (it depends on the screen size but I will use nine for purposes of this description). Now, starting from the rightmost window, maximize all the article sitting in your taskbar but for the first one (which is the list of common misspellings) by running your pointer along them on the taskbar, left clicking, and you should have eight windows open, each one stacked behind the other (each one will now automatically appear in a series as you minimize or close the one in front of it).

In the first article, type into the edit summary box what you are doing, I always use the format: incorrect spelling--->correct spelling (for our example, nothern--->northern). Highlight that and click copy (control + c) so it is in your notepad (another words, every time you paste, that same edit summary text will appear (always paste using control + v, which is blindingly faster than right clicking and choosing paste if you are used to it).

Now click edit from your internet explorer menu--->click find (on This Page) (you can also access this by clicking control + f) and type in the incorrect word (nothern), in the search box that appears (after the first search the word is automatically in the find (on This Page) for all future iterations. All this set up takes about 20 seconds (not inclusive of opening up the 25 windows). As soon as the word is found, which is immediately, click cancel on find (on This Page), click in the located error at the right spot, (between the "o" and "t" in nothern) hit "r" to make the spelling correction in our example, put your cursor in the edit summary, hit control + v (to paste nothen--->northern), click on "watch this page" (to remove the default checkmark there, if you have it turned on in preferences; you don't want to have every page you have made a minor correction to on your watchlist) click in This is a minor edit box and click Save page and immediately minimize (these steps are causing me to spill much ink, but actually take a matter of seconds once they become rote).

As soon as you minimize, the next article, ready for the same process, will be open on your screen. Repeat and rinse till all pages in your task bar are corrected and minimized.

As soon as you see the list of common misspellings, you know that you've gotten to the end of the series. Now just click on the pages that are minimized and have finished saving, by running along them on the taskbar, left clicking (they will now all be open again on your screen); put your cursor over the close window "x" button, and click eight times to close all eight now corrected and saved pages. As soon as you have done this, there are eight more unedited pages in your task bar. Open up the next eight and repeat.

The reason that you minimize each page after clicking save, rather than just shutting is that there is a significant lag time while the save is occurring; if you wait for each page to save and then move on to next, the process is almost half as slow. It also allows you to order the process correctly; if you close some page that have saved quickly, but have minimized others that did not, you will not able to close all the corrected pages in a series, because as you close, unedited article will move from hidden to your taskbar, and minimized corrected pages will become hidden. Then, when you try to maximize all the pages you have corrected and are ready to be closed, intead of finding all of them, you'll find some corrected and some uncorrected; it makes the whole process disordered and inefficient.

As you become used to it you'll become faster and faster as your hand anticipates where the cursor should go and the steps have been internalized. I actually find it relaxing. Once I have a series of articles opened and in edit mode, I can save many in seconds if they're all set up to just click save and move on the the next, and I can make about 4-6 edits per minute total.

Some notes on Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings: When you search the shortest entry on a word that has multiple endings making it longer, and you find many, it's easiest to search for longer entries first so you don't have to pick and choose your way through the propagated list of errors containing all of the variations. For example muder (murder) also ropes in: muders, mudered, muderous and mudering. So do a search of mudering first, correct all of those, then move on to murderous, and so on.

The list is very useful but there are many, many errors that do not appear on it and many listed errors have already been fixed. A useful way of finding errors not listed is looking at the listed words and thinking of ways they might be prone to be misspelled that are not on the list. For instance, I just looked at: muncipality (municipality) and municipalities (municipalities) on the list. The first thing to note is that there is no listing for muncipal, that is a likely candidate if the longer versions contain the error of leaving off the first i and...yup, there's nine articles containing this error. Then it occurred to me that many words ending with the same pronunciation as municipal end in "le." Yup, four of those. Finally, if some people have made the mistake of leaving off the first i, what about the second? 24 errors found for municpal.

Finally, note that the list will contain articles that at one time contained the sought after error (though not all that ever contained the error; I believe this a function of a lag time before the search engine purges its cache or something similar). Only those articles where the error appears in red in the excerpt of text below the article name will contain the error.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Click here to see it in operation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here Spinach Monster but I think you're getting a little too fixated on quantity here. The only thing that is important about your edits are their quality, not the quantity which you have made. Trying to achieve something with the utmost speed may actually have a detrimental effect upon the quality of your work, and thus a detrimental effect upon Wikipedia. Therefore, I would advise against testing the limits of human capability. Indeed, trying this may even harm your health: You don't want to repeat this story.

Relax, there is no deadline.

To focus on your writer's block; may I advise breaking routine to give you a new perspective? Try something new; it doesn't have to be jet skiing or elephant riding! Why not go for a swim at your local pool? Or play a game of pool at a bar near you? Read a book on a topic you don't know much about. Try your hand at cooking something you've never cooked before. It may sound mundane but activities like this are sure to give you new impetus (and knowledge!) that you never had before. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Just want to thank you for keeping up with the Super Bowl XLIII current events. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow i never expected it to be this exciting keep it up theres a lot to write. Kyle1278 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Minnesota Hotel

A tag has been placed on Minnesota Hotel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for notability for albums is at WP:NALBUMS. For this album to be notable, the artist itself would have to be notable or they would have to have significant media coverage, which I don't think either of these things are true. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of 'how many', in my opinion. The criteria for bands is at WP:BAND. Remember, just being mentioned isn't enough. They have to be the subject of significant coverage.

Something like this would be significant.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You only need to meet one of the criteria, so as long as they've been the subject of significant coverage, that's enough. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 05:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LA Times is a pretty notable news source in my opinion, so I wouldn't nominate it for deletion. I don't think you'll have any trouble.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Jumble

{{helpme}}

No, not a this time.There is no current way to avoid seeing the coding for references. You can try using WP:WIKIED though. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is There A Quicker Way To Revert Vandalism?

{{helpme}} I thought I saw some program, but not sure. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are using at the moment, but some good tools are WP:TW, WP:HUG, WP:NPW, WP:LUPIN. — neuro^(talk) 01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — neuro^(talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're doing some good work, it is hard to beat people using automated tools with just your bare hands. Good job! :) — neuro^(talk) 01:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Pinehurst Kids

A tag has been placed on The Pinehurst Kids requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. §FreeRangeFrog 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the message you left on my page re: The Pinehurst Kids, it has already been deleted by an administrator per WP:CSD. I marked it for speedy deletion because you did not include references that helped establish notability as outlined on WP:MUSIC. If you feel this was an error and can establish that the band is notable under those guidelines, please let me know and I will personally request the article to be rescued (the text is not lost at this point). Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 07:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spinach Monster - I contacted the admin that deleted the article and requested it be recovered. Once that's done, we'll work to establish notability, and definitely keep the article if that's the case. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spinach Monster. You have new messages at Gb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk Page Refactoring

{{helpme|Hi, an anon at 78.16.200.130 is refactoring my comments questioning the notability of February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall and also refactoring my requests to assume good faith. Please assist.Spinach Monster (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Comments were removed due to their antagonizing nature and per other guidelines on WP:TALK.78.16.200.130 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines exactly on WP:TALK are you implying that were broken? Per the template message, you should assume good faith since the low level of snowfall may not be notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IP: Leave them be. The comments are not removable, please assume good faith.  GARDEN  21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem.  GARDEN  21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: While I'm Here

It's a good looking article. I think however the images should be reduced in size to avoid "squeezing" the text in the middle. Also, the table might be better used with a smaller font (it's pretty dominant, I'm sure you'll agree). You needn't use so many headings as well - think of the contents table!  :) - you could bold, or better still, use prose. Hope these help you!  GARDEN  10:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Clinton confirmation vote template

No problem! Glad to have been of help. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

I can't get the "{{Obama confirmations}}" template to center. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the align="center" wasn't working, but adding <div align="center"> before the table did make it center. Hope that helps. Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't get it either. Thanks for the help! Spinach Monster (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support in the Karl Brommann AFD Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1864

{{helpme|having problems with the info box there and the "copperhead" meta template}} Spinach Monster (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed --Closedmouth (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] :) --Closedmouth (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:ER

I noticed that you edit at WP:ER, and I ask if you could give your input in this discussion to revamp the process of ER. Thanks.--TRUCO 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

{{help}} The main template Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet can currently only be left or right aligned. I suggest asking at that template's talk page to have center alignment supported.--Rockfang (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#Proposal: A return to the old standards

--William Saturn (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

LaMagna FEC Disclosure

--William Saturn (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Shaundonovan.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Shaundonovan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a free image used in the Shaun Donovan infobox. If you're talking about an image of the confirmation, then I'm not sure we really need one. And I don't think you'd be able to claim fair use on a case like this. Sorry I'm not much help! --Mosmof (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I don't know how much your view jives with WP:NFCC. --Mosmof (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for a free image, I'm not sure where I'd look - the one in the Shaun Donovan is the only free one that I could find. Also, I've never done an FA drive, so I don't know how much help I can be, but I really don't think not having an image for each confirmation is a problem, especially when those images are really decorative than encyclopedic. --Mosmof (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA is on

I've transcluded the RfA; you can state your view now. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have answered your question. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute was backed up by reverts of sporadically added unreferenced material and the history can be found here. The corresponding discussion on Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) can be found by searching for my signature (I have never changed it), as I have made little edits to that talk page outside the dispute. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was here because most of the edits to the article were editors adding unreferenced names to the list of real-world and non-D&D people who belong to various alignments and other editors reverting them. Some editors had even put up an all-caps notice to fend off unreferenced additions, so I looked through the D&D book mentioned in the article and re-wrote the list to conform the book. I later left the discussion because I didn't know how to back up my view if any new points would arise, because I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Dungeons and Dragons, so I believed that any more replies on my part would just mess up the dispute and unintentionally introduce a false view where an expert's view may be necessary. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my first RfA and you're my first voter, don't I have a right to be creepy? (Just kidding, I'll leave you alone :-) Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ottava

I apologise if my comment came across as overtly-defensive, and somewhat provocative - it wasn't intended to come across that way. My main reason for being so defensive is that I held the same sort of opinion on Ottava as you have demonstrated back when I first met them - the first time we ever met was when they left me a rather hard worded comment on my editing, and I took a lot of offense to it, and we got in a bit of an argument about it on IRC. We are reasonably good friends now, but if not for working out our differences it would be entirely possible that bitter feelings might still be present. Ottava is a really great person, and knowing first-hand how it felt when I received that message, I am left particularly wanting to help out others that may be in a comparable position. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good start, but most people will expect at least six months actively editing and 2,000 edits or so before considering supporting a candidate. Not that those people are me, but that's a de facto standard. — neuro^(talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey SM, I saw your question at Neuro's talk page, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. Like Neuro said, in addition to having the right temperament, a lot of people expect you to be able to demonstrate that you have put a lot of work into the encyclopedia (both in article building and in more policy/background areas) and understand how Wikipedia works; some people won't vote for anyone who hasn't written a Featured article yet, some people won't vote for anyone who's never participated in deletion discussions, etc. So the main thing to do is just continue being involved in the encyclopedia for a few months; no matter how much you think you know, you learn a lot more with every new day you spend editing, especially once you start branching out to unfamiliar areas.

In addition, a major thing people consider is why you want to become an admin. People generally want to see that you are seeking admin tools because you want to build the encyclopedia, not because you see adminship as a status symbol or a personal goal. Some people will automatically !vote against anyone who nominates themselves for this very reason (with the rationale that self-nominating demonstrates "power hunger"...which is not always the case, but sometimes is). For this reason, a lot of people frown on relatively new users being eager to ask around about becoming an admin—it makes it seem as if they are just in a hurry to gain as much status as possible, whereas users who have been around a while are expected to know better how the encyclopedia works and what they should use their adminship for. A good analogy is in (I believe) Utopia, where anyone who wants to become president is automatically banned from ever being president. It's important to understand that adminship is not just a badge of honor, but is mostly a lot of responsibility...personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it, because I'm overworked enough without having the added responsibility of dealing with other people's problems (closing AfDs, blocking vandals, monitoring CSD, etc.). I've been here about 6 months, have nearly 20,000 edits, and have gotten some offers to be nominated for adminship, but have declined because so far because I feel like it would just be self-torture to shoulder all that responsibility; likewise, there are many editors who are hugely influential and respected around here but have never expressed an interest in becoming admins (for example, SandyGeorgia is sort of the second-in-command of the Featured Article project and has a major role in determining what goes on the front page, and as far as I know she has never run for adminship). So anyway, just some stuff to think about.

I see you've been doing a lot of good work lately and I hope you will keep it up. If you ever have questions, don't hesitate to drop me a message! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in.

With regards to the featured article, I'm getting there with Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet, i've put in 200 edits there alone. I brought it up to C-Class from scratch in just a few weeks, If I really focused I could probably get it to B-class or even GA-class in a week or two.

As for why i'm interested in the mop, I'd like adminship is mainly just maintenance at afd and helping warn off vandals on the Recent Changes(I frequent there with welcoming), but you're right, I will need to tighten up my wording before any nominations. I figured i'd be ready by April, so it was disheartening to hear Neuro say that the average time is 6 months, but that's ok, because you're right. More experience cannot hurt. At this rate by my six month mark i'll have had 10-12k edits, so i'm sure I will seasoned, but i'm eager to get any advice you're willing to give before then. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)