Archives

October 2004 - December 2005 January 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - December 2007 January 2008 - February 24, 2008 Discussions older than a week are archived every Monday. Weekly discussions are archived every month.

Hi, Gary! When you uploaded the image, you should have seen a large warning that looked like the text at {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. However, I've taken a closer look and decided to restore the image since Milton Friedman is deceased. Please write a fair use rationale for the image within the next week. Thanks! east.718 at 01:24, February 25, 2008

Done. Good luck with the article! east.718 at 01:29, February 25, 2008

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Sephiroth BCR as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Sephiroth BCR and explain to him why you want to be an admin.

2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for highly qualified, coached, editors. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary. I would be happy to be your coach for your attempt to become an administrator. Due to the rather late hour here (US Pacific Time), we'll get into the finer points of your contributions and what you should start working on at another time. That said, I'll indulge in a brief review going off your post on my talk page concerning the areas you wish to focus on as an administrator. If you wish to be involved in administrator-related areas such as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and WP:CSD, my biggest recommendation is simply to start participating in them. Genuine interest and experience are what the people at WP:RFA are looking for, and participation is really the only way to achieve both. For vandal reporting, AfD reporting, and speedy deletion tagging, I've found WP:TWINKLE particularly useful, and would highly advise using it for the aforementioned tasks. How you wish to participate is ultimately up to you and how you wish to apply yourself in this regard. Watching a thread for recent edits, watching Special:Newpages for CSD tagging, or going down the lists of AfDs to participate are general ways to begin applying yourself. Firsthand experience instills more lessons than mere lecturing. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and I'll get to some other things I want to cover for your future run later. Do be aware that attempting to become an administrator is a time-intensive process, and it may take months and possibly multiple RfA tries (although the latter is what we're naturally trying to avoid here :p) before you actually become an administrator. Don't worry though, a brief look at your edits gives the appearance you're going in the right direction, but I'll delve a little deeper later. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to sound like a dick but I suggest that before spending time learning the ins and outs of adminship, your priority should be to repair the categorization problems. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Gary King (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to take a look. It may take me a few hours to get on with it but I'll do my best. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. I'm no expert, as I've never had any contact with FL or FLC. It appears to be good, and I've supported based on other lists seen, with some comments that may/may not be helpful. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, it looks good. I've struck my comments and left with support. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Now only if more people would even bother to vote; I'm worried that not enough votes will be casted, period, and if it's only yours, then I don't think that's considered a consensus. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been clearing up after Malaka and am in slight doubt at University of Colombo, List of Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation where, apart from inserting himself, he has also input other names and material. My instinct is that he is so untrustworthy a source that everything he has done should be reverted - if there are good names and material they can be added back later by someone with less COI; but I thought I would like to check with someone else before pressing the zap button. If you agree with my view above, I will happily go and do it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - just the advice I wanted. I'll sort them out. I wonder how soon he'll pop up again? JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could be of assistance. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your AWB session, you are double tagging, and tagging pages that are already categorized.. (some are fine, but I'm seeing a lot of errors) -- Versageek 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I realize that. It was the pattern I was using in AWB; I'm doing a second run to rectify the ones that were edited on first run. Gary King (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Redirect you broke by marking Uncategorized [1], redirects should not be in categories to begin with. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, whoopsie doodle! That one fell under the radar. Won't happen again. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I'm not sure; there doesn't appear to be a WikiProject for maps. I suggest you ask User:Dark512 on the Wikimedia Commons, who made the map for the autonomous countries. PeterSymonds | talk 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps and I've requested for an image there, but I feel that it will just fall through the cracks. I was going to ask Dark512, but the user has not been active since mid-2007. I'll give it a shot, anyways. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy with admin coaching, but I thought I might suggest one other thing. The maps WikiProject has a number of images by users, so it might be an idea to approach them directly (the talk page is, to say the least, backlogged). If you approach, say, 5, at least 1 might be able to do one. Thought I'd throw that into the melting pot as it were, but you may've already considered that. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I will give it a shot. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I promised you a more thorough review, so here you go. I'm primarily going to stick with the three points you set out at my talk page since you've set them as your primary targets, and with all three, you have all you need for an RfA. Anyways, here it is:

• Category Tagging/Assessment

Your efforts here have been rather impressive to say the least. A lot of administrator-related work is clearing backlogs and other thankless jobs, and your ability to show willingness to attend to such widespread problems such as adding/fixing categories and assessing articles shows as such. I don't indulge in either very much, but I can point to the positive benefits of doing so. I can't really say anything than continue doing it. You might need a bit more care while going through a such a pace (adding categories to redirects for instance), but good job regardless.

• Vandal fighting/AfD participation/CSD tagging

Per my above post, the best way to show interest in the above items is to participate in them. When you say at your RfA (required question 1 to be exact) that you want to participate at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and CAT:CSD, you want contributions to back it up. My primary and foremost recommendation here, however, is complete and utter dedication to civility. The easiest way for a RfA to be sunk is civility concerns, and a large majority of the people looking at your RfA will oppose if they feel you do not possess the proper "temperament" to be an administrator. Naturally, the opposite is true. Civility in the face of insults, threats, and otherwise stressful situations is an extremely nice item to have, and past sins, blunders, and whatnot are often forgiven if this is the case. I bring up civility here because it plays into all these activities, and goes along with the principle of assume good faith (another necessary item).

• When vandal fighting (I'll assume you're using WP:TWINKLE), use the "rollback (vandalism)" item (or the rollback function you have) solely when dealing with blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're unsure, use the regular "rollback" function and leave an edit summary explaining the rationale for your revert. Do not ever, ever label a content dispute as "vandalism" unless it is blatant vandalism. Revert once, and if concerns persist, bring it to discussion. If the other editor is going to be an ass about it, then let WP:CONSENSUS sort him/her out. Having the page at the wrong or incorrect version for a short duration of time is not the end of the world by any means. In cases of genuine content disputes though, I would recommend discussion first, but if you do feel that you are correct, use the "rollback (AGF)" option (use it a lot, almost go out of your way to assume good faith). Naturally, this does not mean you have to be "soft" on vandalism by any means. Aggressively reverting vandalism is certainly nice, but taking special care with your edits, especially in cases of content disputes, is the thing you should be implementing. On the subject of edit summaries, try the best you can to keep 100% edit summaries. It's one of the reasons I like TWINKLE, and I do highly recommend keeping 100% edit summaries (you appear to be doing so anyways).
• For AfD, the biggest two things you can show are civility and knowledge of policy. Adverse opinions are frequently present at AfD, and maintaining civility and an open mind are great things to have. For whatever discussion you're involved in, check the relevant notability guideline, its criteria, and make use of them in your opinions. For me, the most frequent guideline I am using due to the articles I commonly edit is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which stipulates that merging should be a venue sought before actual deletion is warranted. For instance, if a character of a work was given their own article while a character list existed for that work, and the character did not warrant an article, merging to the character list would be appropriate. Given your focus on Economics and Computer Science articles, you likely will rarely encounter this guideline in your AfD discussions, but it does illustrate using the nuances of guidelines in your opinion.
• CSD tagging is more or less another way to show your knowledge of policy. Memorizing WP:CSD is largely in your best interests, and knowing how to apply them is necessary. For instance, check which articles you can tag with A7; you can't tag a fictional character, even if it asserts no notability, as it doesn't fall under A7's purview. In cases where it is uncertain whether speedy deletion is warranted, it's probably better to WP:AGF and move on. If you're really worried about the article, keep tabs on it, and prod or AfD it at a later date if you feel it is appropriate. Prodding is generally acceptable for new articles (for instance, that non-notable piece of fiction you couldn't get for A7), but never use an AfD on a very new article, as it is seen as an immediate assumption of bad faith, especially considering that the creator has had hardly enough time to flesh out a page. This applies to speedy tagging as well. You are naturally free to be bold in your tagging, but remember that the articles you're tagging should be fairly clear-cut. If an article asserts an iota of notability, don't tag it with A7. Civility also comes into play when you encounter users that use {{hangon}} and attempt to state a rationale for keeping their article. More often than not, you're dealing with a relatively new editor. Calmly explain why you are tagging the article, and if possible, suggest means of improvement. Administrators will not delete an article with a hangon tag unless it is blatantly in violation of policy (an attack page for instance). I stress that speedy deletion tagging is a double-edged sword much more than vandal fighting or AfD participation. While you can clearly demonstrate policy knowledge and the ability to properly converse with the editors creating the page, it can backfire if your tagging is consistently poor. That said, if you feel you know the criteria well, fire away. Experience gives you a better illustration of what I'm talking about then words. Don't feel discouraged though. This is one of the most difficult tasks for prospective administrators, but take it at the pace you feel you can.

• Article Writing

Ah, something I'm rather experienced in, no? Article writing is what we're all here for, and nothing else shows a more comprehensive knowledge of guidelines or policy than writing decent articles because it's the reason we're all here and most of the aforementioned guidelines and policies are geared towards articles. If you look at my RfA, the biggest thing I was praised for was my article contributions. Even though my speedy tagging was a bit lacking at the time, I still received the support of a prominent editor (User:Pedro) for my article contributions (and answers to the questions, but that's another topic for another time). Again, my interests do not correlate with yours (anime, manga, and video games are my niche), but the general principles are still the same. What you chose to contribute to in terms of articles is up to you, but I can attest than out of all my article contributions, the FLs took the least amount of work, the GAs next, and the FAs were a royal pain. All of this is naturally subject to exceptions (Naruto: Clash of Ninja was rather easy to write and bring to GA for instance, and the difficulty of making an FL increases or decreases dramatically depending on what type of list you're creating. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was far more difficult to produce than say Soma Cruz), but it generally holds true. As you haven't brought a lot of articles through the relevant processes, I'll give a few pointers on each.

• Good Articles - WP:WIAGA is the relevant criteria, and the biggest thing to be aware of is that the comprehensiveness, prose, and degree of referencing are much, much less stringent than the FA criteria, and you can often get away with some problems in the article's structure or prose (especially the latter). That said, my foremost recommendation is simply to get the content on the page, and start working from there. When working on articles, especially when it involves creating them or making major edits to them, I highly advise working on them in your userspace first (for instance, for Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I worked on the article at User:Sephiroth BCR/Aria of Sorrow Draft), where you are free to work on it at your leisure, and the stress level is much lower. Again, get the content on the page and then you can start working with the prose, WP:MOS issues, and other stuff. I will note that making sure that your references are properly formatted (using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} for instance) is a huge plus that will save you problems in the future. The thing about WP:GAN is that the difficulty ranges widely depending on the reviewer, but generally, most reviewers are pretty nice about their review, and if there are problems, they will give a nice list of what you need to address. Work with their suggestions, be nice to them, and they'll go your way.
• Featured Lists - ah, my most numerous set of achievements (I currently rank second amongst all Wikipedians in terms of featured lists produced). The biggest two items with the list you're producing is that it has to be comprehensive (including all items), and the format has to be aesthetically pleasing, easy to navigate, and otherwise accessible to the reader (WP:WIAFL for the relevant criteria). The former item can be resolved through researching your subject and including all relevant information, and the latter often through looking at articles of similar status for how they did it. Most types of lists tend to have relatively consistent formats, and modeling lists after one another is commonplace. The reviewers at WP:FLC are quite knowledgeable about formatting issues, and you'll get them resolved if you follow their instructions. If you're ever confused, simply ask them for clarification or even for their aid. Practically all of them would be happy to oblige - they want to see your list be featured, but at the same time, they want to uphold standards. It's always in your interest to work with them.
• Featured Articles - hell so to speak. WP:WIAFA is the criteria you're looking at, and I would highly recommend bringing the article through GA before FAC simply because you're getting another set of eyes on the article first. Peer review has largely deteriorated into nothing more than an automated bot giving suggestions (which is useful, but you want a live person reviewing your article). The most important criterion you're going to find you have to fulfill is 1a, which stresses that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." Your article can be perfect in every way but the prose (and have only one oppose over the matter) and still be sunk. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is the designated reading for 1a, but more often that not (unless you're a particularly good writer), you'll find yourself looking for a copy-editor to fix up your article. WP:LOCE is the relevant place, but its requests page is horrifically backlogged, and your request will never be reached before your FAC nomination concludes. As such, you should request a copy-edit by going to individual editors. The members list of LOCE are good people to get copy-editing from, or someone else you are familiar with. I stress 1a here more than the other concerns because generally, you have fulfilled all of them before coming to FAC via going through GA first (unless you had a rather easy reviewer), and if there are problems, you likely resolve them with little difficulty. The only one to note is 1b, as occasionally, GA reviewers will pass an article that is not fully comprehensive. Going to the relevant WikiProject or looking at similar articles of FA quality can resolve this. With all this said, my statements concerning WP:FLC are true here as well - your reviewers have a genuine desire to see your article pass. Work with them, act civilly to their objections, and you'll have no problems. Also note that after addressing an objection, leave a note on the talk page of that reviewer to come back and comment whether their concern was addressed. Having your FAC sunk (I've had it happen before) because the person who opposed or commented on some aspect of the text never came back is really annoying. This all said, FAs are more or less the easiest ways to gain prestige here, as they combine practically all elements of being an editor in the production of an article to the highest quality, and being heavily involved in the production of one is major kudos, especially at an RfA.
• Featured Topics - I won't go here, likely because it's a rather lofty goal to produce a featured topic on your own, but if that does become the case, I'll be more than happy to show you through the nuances of the process. Again, I received significant amount of support during my RfA because I happened to have a pair of featured topics (Naruto manga chapters and Seasons of YuYu Hakusho), and it just illustrates how beneficial having significant article contributions is at RfA.

In any case, I'm rather tired at the moment, but I think I've addressed the major three points you want to become involved in. I am a firm believer in having a hands-off policy in terms of coaching and mentorship, and will largely leave you to your own devices in terms of how you wish to conduct yourself. Naturally, I am open to your concerns, questions, and thoughts of any kind, but I will not badger you to do anything, ask why you haven't cranked out an FA yet, or something similar. We're all volunteers here and your time is yours to use as you wish, and mine to respect. Anyhow, if you want clarification on any of the above, I will be more than happy to give it. Cheers and best of luck, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =) A note on giving warnings for vandalism, generally try to start with {{Template:uw-test1}} or {{Template:uw-vandalism1}}, as they are generally "friendly warnings" to stop. If the vandalism is rather clear, then {{Template:uw-vandalism2}} is appropriate. Starting with higher levels generally isn't recommended, as it goes against the spirit of WP:AGF. There are cases where immediately giving {{Template:uw-vandalism4im}} is warranted (massive WP:BLP violation, en mass blanking, etc.) but they tend to be quite rare. Generally, work your way up from the smaller warnings to the larger ones.

As for your question, it depends greatly on the featured list or featured article you're trying to create. I tended to work on practically all my featured lists and featured articles in my userspace, where I could work at my leisure. Lists for me varied a lot. At times, I could crank one out in a day or two, while taking a week or so for others (nomination process is at minimum ten days, but almost always goes on longer). On average, about three to four days. On the other hand, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was a long, time intensive process that spanned practically my entire Wikipedia "career" to produce. Naturally, I wasn't working on it at all times, but I brought it through WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and finally WP:FLC (it was originally classified as an article, and then reclassified as a list at the FAC, hence why I went to FLC). Featured articles take quite a while. Remember that you're near-constantly working on the article even after getting the content on the page (ranges depending on the availability of your sources and content, anywhere from two weeks to a month or even two months is possible) due to copy-editing concerns, near-constant self-evaluation and reading of the article, and calling in others to help you with the article. For Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I finished my draft of the article in about a week (in actuality a month or so, but this was sporadic editing over this time). The draft went onto the article on December 18, I got it to GA on January 9 (varies depending how long it takes to get a reviewer, as WP:GAN tends to be rather backlogged), sent to FAC, which failed on February 1 due to the editors who commented not returning to confirm whether their concerns were addressed), and then passed on February 15 on the second FAC try. The major waiting is thus not in the article production (although this is where most of the effort is involved), but getting through the nomination process, which is time-consuming. If you go directly to FAC and pass, you're looking at best three to four weeks between start of production and your shiny featured star, but two months is more realistic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i haven't time to do that.

Sorry for my poor english, i am spanish.

Dark512 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 2), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 3), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 4), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 1), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I'll create the map of the unrecognized countries, but I will do so if you tell me the countries in the world which arent recognised because I have no idea who are they are :), so please reply back to this message with the list of countries then I'll try to create the map, Thankyou. Moshino31 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick notice, what three colours do you want for your map then?

Moshino31 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry for the notice but I cannot seem to access the Paint software at the moment for some reason so I cannot create the map, may I suggest you to create yourself I'll give you the steps in order to create the map, yes?? Moshino31 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- OK then first go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man. It was a great article. ^Mitch32^contribs 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious but did you block User:Kingjames813 because the user vandalized my User page? Gary King (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he was clearly a vandal only account. And it's not nice to replace peoples' talk pages with insults ;-) - Do you disagree with my block, friend? Take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here 3 years and you've never been vandalised before?! Hehe, if you wanna be a vandal hunter/admin, get used to it :-D Take care, friend! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I did a little copy-editing. My only concern is that the statement concerning Haiti is confusing. Is the Haitian National Police viewed as too big, or the paramilitary forces? More clarification would be nice in the text. Other than that, it looks ready for a FLC nom. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. Nominate it at your leisure. =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look this morning but was away most of the day. It's great! Looks really good on the page as well. I like the references section in the separate column (providing all the information in the row is covered by the same reference). I'd be happy to support at FLC. Well done! PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then first go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint and paste it in, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks

Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding to your note about VeblenBot. I don't mind setting up something for the economics project, but I think you might be satisfied with this table made by the WP 1.0 bot. If that isn't what you're looking for, let me know, and we can figure out how to implement it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the intersection categories you made as link destinations, and created this table: User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS. I don't currently have the option to hide the unassessed row and column when they are empty. I can hide them permanently, however, if you want. Also, unlike Oleg's code, I don't have an option to let users recreate the table on demand - it would get updated once per day. Will this work? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this will work. Please feel free to tweak the formatting and width of the table. Your changes will get overwritten by the bot, but if you let me know how you would like it formatted, I can easily change the format that will be used for the table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia articles and lists, I, PeterSymonds | talk, award Gary King with the Editor's Barnstar

Thank you for your continued efforts in featured list candidates. Featured content is never easy achieve, so I commend your efforts, and hope that you will soon have some featured material to add to your future RfA... Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've never gotten one of these before, so I don't know what to do with it. I guess I'll hang it somewhere on my User page, then? :) Gary King (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page at User:Gary King/List of subnational entities. Good luck on restoring the article! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Malinaccier (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're both changing colours. Will these greens never match? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not the one that can't color between the lines... :p Gary King (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my green square colour to 00ff00 as you were changing your map to some mucky sort of a green. All yours; you get to decide which green you go with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On "localize comments.js", you wrote "Janurary" instead of "January". Thought you might want to fix it. --Kakofonous (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although that script was copied from someone else who was no longer maintaining it, therefore not my error :) How did you know about it, anyways? Finding the script useful? Gary King (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just took a glance at your contribs—wanted to see how the huge total was stacking up :). --Kakofonous (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a lot of it is by tweaking my JavaScript files - but even that only takes up 100 edits at most. It's definitely not a few thousand :) Gary King (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration of deletion:

Notability was in evidence by the following: Significant newsworthy actions noted in many reliable secondary sources for both hospital closures and for schizophrenia research; In addition there was competition at the highest level of amateur sailboat racing as noted in the NY Times. There were 3 people with arguements to keep plus the author The individuals "voting" for deletion gave no valid or specificly detailed explanations as to why there was not notability; they did not dispute the facts in the article which met notability according biography guidelines: For example one said sailing accomplishments were "grasping at straws" yet it was noteworthy according to guidelines; one person voting for deletion indicated there were no seconday sources which was not correct. You noted that the author "voted" three times, which was correct but done by mistake as acknowledged by the author in the disussion. In any case, notability for inclusion is not based on a vote but rather by the "merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" I don't understand the value of referring to votes when the mert of the arguements are what is determinative. The dimissing of notability out of hand, as some did, without clear arguements that either specifically refute the facts/arguements is not very persuasive especially if there is no reference to specific Wikipedia guidelines for deletion. --Waterwindsail (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's deletion was not up to me. It was a consensus vote; plus, I only nominated the article for deletion. If I didn't, then someone else most likely would have. Anyways, why are you so interested in keeping this article alive? It would appear that you have a personal interest in the article. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary, sorry I've taken so long to respond to your request. I made a list of things this morning, and went to type them up when I got back this afternoon, but they'd all been picked on! (As well as the more technical requirements about lists which I don't fully understand). I'll support when you've addressed the concerns; again, congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as all my concerns are addressed I'll squish my comments into a show/hide section. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also got to make sure to use the Show preview & when done, then Save page. Seems you kept saving the page every time a small clean-up was done in a very short period of time! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but how is my edit on gh3 vandilism it was correct u douche bag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron hanlon (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a verified statement; source the statement or do not enter it. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. Aw, that's half my review gone! :P My excuse is that it's early in the morning here (2:52 GMT). Apologies again (and great list) PeterSymonds | talk 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the late response, I've been rather busy lately. Just to note for the type of lists you've been nominating, the primary issues you are going to find are in the table structure and content, both of which I can unfortunately be of little help to you. I can copy-edit, however, and point out things from an observer's point of view if you wish. The other users you are consulting tend to be more knowledgeable on the subject. This aside, great work. At this rate, you'll beat me in number of featured lists written (meaning I better get off my ass and start writing :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only so many lists I make, though! (Although now that I think about it, there's a list for pretty much anything on here, and if not yet, then I'd just create it myself!) Gary King (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of countries seems to have more than enough. And by all means, fire away. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm getting tired of geography-related articles by now. I want to write some that are more related to my fields of interest (although I would consider myself to be interested in pretty much anything Wikipedia has to offer), especially gaming as that is far more entertaining to edit and I haven't done enough of that. I'm curious to know if you have set your sights on any article for a WP:FA yet? Gary King (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might go to featured lists and good articles at the moment, although I'm looking around. The Advance Wars series is one that has my notice, considering that I've played all of them (naturally, it's infinitely easier to write the article when you've played the game), and I've just recently finished Assassin's Creed, so I might look at that too. Aside from that, I'm slightly interested in seeing whether I can improve a pair of good articles I've written, Soma Cruz and Alucard (Castlevania), to featured status, seeing that it would "perfect" (meaning making all elements featured) this topic I have at WP:FTC (it will pass as it is, but it would be nice to improve the remaining two to featured status). Writing featured articles is a really, really tiring process, primarily in formulating the research into content and getting that on the page. The two featured articles I currently have were long endeavors in the making, I assure you. That said, I'll probably decide on one in the near future. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're scaring me just a bit away from building WP:FA :) Oh, and I don't quite get WP:FT. What's the point of them? The groupings don't even appear to be highlighted on the article pages, let alone any page but WP:FT itself. I guess the point is so that if someone is reading one of the articles in the topic and decides to click over to another, related article then it will be of a similar quality? That's what it's trying to promote? Gary King (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better to be forewarned and prepare yourself mentally than have the reality hammer hit (which it did for me while writing Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow). Anyhow, the goal of WP:FT is to show a group of interrelated articles of high quality, with a viewer easily able to access parts of a given topic. It also encourages the improvement of specific topics, which is a good thing. For instance, I created four new articles from List of YuYu Hakusho episodes covering the four seasons partly to have a shot at creating a featured topic. As for visibility, it's accessible from the talk page, see Talk:List of YuYu Hakusho episodes for a link to Seasons of YuYu Hakusho. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please restore this image and I will add a Fair Use Rationale? I was not the original uploader, but I think that the image perfectly illustrates its respective article, and I would like to be given the chance to add a Fair Use Rationale to it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I restored it and updated the tag, don't forget to add a rationale or else someone will delete it again. Melesse (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of companies by employees, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of companies by employees (2006). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through your contributions when I noticed this revert. Remember that the definition of vandalism is very strict here, meaning that essentially any edit that attempts to be constructive should receive a measure of good faith. In such cases, leave an edit summary explaining your revert in this case, or in the case of WP:TWINKLE, use the "rollback" or "rollback (AGF)" options. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Fair use images need at least one article to use them in order to be valid. However, you do need to add a fair use rationale explaining its purpose in the article as well as other tidbits (use {{Non-free fair use rationale}}, also means that you need to have a fair use rationale for every article the image is used in) or the image probably will be tagged for deletion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asking because the image does not have a fair use rationale; although, the image has been around for nearly 3 years, so I would imagine that someone must have come across it by now and would have tagged it if it wasn't allowed. Gary King (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]