Archives

October 2004–December 2005 January 2006–December 2006 January 2007–December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 Discussions older than a week are archived every Monday.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your incredible volume of work towards improving articles, especially the featured lists and good articles you have worked on, as well as your work elsewhere. Keep it up. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Also note that if you're creating new articles, you might be interested in WP:DYK. If you manage to crank out a few DYKs, then you might start looking at User:Durova's triple crown awards, which are nice accolades to shoot for. Best regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Facebook user growth.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the downloads section? This is the best part of this article now that the game is widespread across the world. We like to know when the last updates were and any news on downloadable maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's difficult to define a FT in such a manner. If you were to define the topical scope as "lists of billionaires," then the point is going to be raised as to where are the previous lists. Since Forbes has decades of lists, the topic won't be comprehensive. However, if you had 40-50 FLs, the topic would be too big. You need to narrow the topical scope to something manageable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That leads to a cherry picking problem of only selecting a few articles in order to get a topic. You also have a problem in that List of billionaires isn't a good main article to define such a topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cherry picking problem still exists. Take it this way, can lists be created going back a couple decades? If so, the topic is cherry picking. Still, I could be wrong about this, but inquire with User:Arctic.gnome, who is the unofficial "featured topic director" of sorts. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do. Gary King (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Betty Rizzo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Image:PHP Hello World screenshot.png is a copyrighted image. It is well established that rendered fonts are not copyrightable (it's the generator that is) and basic coloring can't be copyrighted either. So a screenshot of just text can't be copyrighted.

That said, I don't understand why raw <source>...</source> isn't sufficient. Cburnett (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Call of Duty 4 - Al-Asad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:061116.friedman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is 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. Sherool (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. You might want to bring it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to get a wider audience on the matter though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if all you're doing is search and replace, you might be interested in getting WP:AWB. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can do "What links here." It also has a nifty search and replace function. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a topic called "Lists of billionaires", I think that to pass the requirement of covering the topic completely, you would have to have lists for every year that there have been billionaires. To limit it to recent years, you would have to have a lead article that explained why those years' lists formed a complete topic of study by themselves. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would defeat the point. Place holder is used to replace people who don't want to be named in the list, without changing the numbering for people who do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 26 March 2008 (GMT).

Great job on your clean-up of that article. --Danny Rathjens (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary, just a quick word to ask if you'd noticed that the documentation on {{dts22}} still refers to {{dts2}}. It's very confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - couldn't help noticing you've been changing dts to dts2 on various pages on my watchlist, including some in my userspace. Was there any discussion about this change that I missed before the template was "deprecated"? Did you realise that you've been changing people's comments on talk pages (e.g. where there was an old discussion about dts, which you changed to be a discussion about dts2)? Changing other people's comments in old discussions is generally not a good idea. What was the point of the change from dts to dts2 anyway, and why did it need a new template? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - the Talk pages were changed at the same time as the articles. They've been reverted. As for why, it was done in order to follow the ISO 8601 standard that is used across other Wikipedia templates. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the prior discussion about this was where...? And it needed a whole new template because...? Bencherlite^Talk 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the template was changed from dts to dts2 on one of my sand box pages. Can you please explain what all of this means? I have no idea. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

{{dts}} was changed to {{dts2}} because the date format for {{dts}} was changed in order to comply with ISO 8601, the date format used on Wikipedia. If you want, I can revert the change that I made - I made it because if it was not changed then it would be broken after the template changed. Gary King (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand a word of that. I am not a computer techie or a programmer. I have no idea what you just said (above). Can you please explain what this is all about in terms understandable to me ... or direct me to someone who can do so? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The way that you use the template has changed. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very skilled at explaining things. Thanks. Now, it's all cleared up for me. Thank you. Please take note of sarcasm. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Mindful of the couple of country lists you recently got to FA, I don't suppose you'd care to enter into the task of sorting out List of countries by formation dates, bearing in mind the current discussions comments at Talk:List of countries by formation dates#This page needs to be radically reformed, and our ability to answer questions such as Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#oldest. Thought (hoped) you might be interested; will understand if it does not appeal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting on it being ugly enough to irritate you into doing something ;) But only if it grabs you; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#oldest discussion, which brought the list page to my attention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see this link in your browser? Whenever I tried this link, my browser displays no connection found. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is some problem in the link. The link is about a research paper on a bridge. I found you by recent change patrolling. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask one more editor to be sure if the problem is with our browsers or in the link. The reference is very much important to me. However I think the is PDF link has some problems, but I can view it as HTML. Thanks for your help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you point me towards where it says the {{dts}} template is deprecated? There doesn't seem to be anything on the documentation or on the talk page. thank you, Struway2 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. Do you not think it's confusing if the bit that says it's deprecated only appears on the documentation for a matter of hours before disappearing again? Struway2 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am willing to help get Nintendo 64 up to FA status. I mostly do WikiGnoming, but I hope it helps. Useight (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - If you want to help out, I'm also trying to get Pikachu to FA. Useight (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're really ambitious aren't you? I think it's a bit hard to justify Nintendo as the main article; creating a List of Nintendo video game consoles article might be plausible. Work the rest up to GA/FA status first though before inquiring. As for the supplementary items, I think just the ones at Nintendo#Consoles are sufficient; although I'm unsure whether you would have to bring just Game Boy line to GA/FA status or every single individual item (that's another FT by the way if you're interested) in that line. I think the former is fine. Just to note, you will highly impress and make a lot of people happy at WP:VG if you can pull this off. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take that back. You probably would have to do every individual item since I can't see you justifying just Nintendo DS and not Nintendo DS Lite. You can exclude Game Boy line if you have all the individual items though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Eh...I suppose you could create such a topic, and have a legitimate scope, but having a new article solely on the non-portable consoles would be difficult, simply because there's not enough of them. I don't think you have any recourse other than to get the portable consoles, since you can't justify a List of Nintendo video game consoles article that doesn't include the portable consoles. Nintendo also becomes completely unsuitable as an article for this scope since the other half of Nintendo#Consoles is the portable consoles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I need more sleep (wrote List of Naruto video game consoles instead of List of Nintendo video game consoles, see my sandbox for why). Anyway, yes, there is a distinction, and that is a topic of legitimate scope, but your difficulty is having a main article on it. Having a list with seven or so items isn't really justifiable, especially since that list has to pass WP:FLC. I think expanding the scope for portable consoles is really the only way to go unfortunately. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not as big of a fan of the Gamecube as the Nintendo 64, so I will be helping out more getting the 64's article up to FA status. Again, if you want to help improve Pikachu to FA status, that'd be great, too. Useight (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on making it a GA. Next stop, FA! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those topics could pass a FTC together. Your biggest challenge will be writing a good introduction for your new lead article. It would have to give an overview of Nintendo consoles as a whole before going into the system-by-system list. Example things to talk about in the intro to your list include: What do all of these systems have in common (target audience and in-game characters maybe)? How do they all differ from other lines of system? What general trends have there been in the progression of systems in addition to improved graphics? How long does Nintendo usualy wait before making a new system? Have there been any abandoned ideas for systems? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas, I'll keep them in mind. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is a TOC that breaks it down into four fields of study, but it is a bit tedious to scroll through the big Ft boxes. I'll try to test a few ways of listing all of the FT titles in the header of the list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I look forward to that. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say nice job on the Star Wars cleanup. I has needed if for a long time! Vertigo315 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Feel free to help out - I need all the help I can get with such a popular topic. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that if you kick Star Wars to GA/FA, you can revive the Star Wars films featured topic (see Wikipedia:Former featured topics) that was delisted due to not having a proper main article (Star Wars would act as the main). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, that's some improvement. Great work. FYI, you'll make quite a few people happy if you manage to pull this off. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for the support. --Efe (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King--Thank you very much for the offer, I am more into Star Wars: Battlefront and therefore know more about it then actual Star Wars. I will try to do my best to help make it a featured article though, you will notice however that my status on Wikipedia is "iffy" and I am not on that much. So I guess I am in, thanks Cheers! Stealth (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a longer time user than I am so it feels weird to remind you of this, but the Star Wars GA will be quickfailed unless you remove the cleanup templates from the article and fill in the citation needed tags in the article. Good luck though, this is key to getting the Star Wars featured topic back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Oh ok cool. Good luck! You should take it to FA when your done, it looks really good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King-- Would you like it if I made a sub page of the SW talk page to talk about this? Stealth (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think we should do this as an archive so it is easier to keep track of things. I have started a sub page Talk:Star Wars/FA FA relating to Featured Article. Hope thats ok Stealth (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did some promotions earlier today, so I'll get around to it tomorrow and then I can promote more than one. In the mean time, there is a large backlog right now, so if you could review some FLCs, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't come to your talk page here before, so I missed the message at the top. Anyway, I responded here. Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, enjoy yourself. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me how your doing this stuff to your user page? I finally got a userbox from yours but I have never been able to do well with other stuff..... WOuld you mind if I took some things from your user page for myself? (mainly the Star Wars project) Thanks. Stealth (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Gary King (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, we're all editors, and very few administrators on the project involve themselves solely in project-specific tasks. A popular response to this case is that an administrator, even if he or she has only used her tools once (and correctly), has benefited the project. For me, I hardly ever use my administrative tools outside of WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, and I can still say that I am better off with the tools than without them. This attitude is reflected at WP:RFA to a degree, as article building is ultimately what this encyclopedia is about, and is a quality that many reviewers strive to see in prospective administrators, as it ensures long-term dedication to the project. Better to have an administrator that is going to stick around for a year or longer building articles and occasionally helping out in administrator-specific tasks than one who focuses solely on clearing backlogs and nothing else (that said, any such efforts to help clear backlogs are obviously greatly appreciated). A good illustration is these two RfAs: mine and this user's. I came to RfA with two featured topics, over twenty featured lists, a featured article, a handful of good articles, and some decent experience in speedy deletion, AIV, AfD, and the help desk. The latter use came with an impressive portfolio of anti-vandalism work and other administrator tasks, but little to no article writing. There's half-a-dozen opposes on his RfA over his lack of article contributions, and more than half of the supports on my RfA are from users who appreciated my article contributions. In any case, don't fret about adminship, it's "not a big deal" (the cliché commonly applied to it) and it's not a full-time position. Heck, I had a user on my RfA actually comment that he hoped my article contributions would stay consistent after I got the tools. You're in a pretty good situation for acquiring adminship as is. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to answer the last part of your post. I would say about a month and a half to two months more of contributions and you should be ready for RfA. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I had no consensus the first time I RFA'd, but made it on my 2nd try with nearly unanimous support. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I'm trying to avoid here is having to do multiple RfAs by nailing it with the first one, as typically, 2-3 months are required between RfAs to demonstrate adequate improvement, and opposes tend to pile up if there isn't a significant gap between RfAs. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd rather not fail on the first RFA. One thing I notice, though, is that if there's one opposition to an RFA that is substantial, then people who would either have voted Support or not voted at all would instead join in to Oppose and say 'per above', pointing to the first major opposition example. Those are usually the crushing blows to failed RFAs. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Bibliomaniac15#Recent_speedy_deletion to see why Image:Incline.gif was not deleted (or was actually deleted in error and immediately undeleted). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gotcha. Gary King (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that rollback on Bill Gates; only read the diff as far as some (accidental?) gibberish-looking stuff at the start. If you were bothered by it you'd probably leave me a note, but all the same, my apologies. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Stephanie Eisenberg, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being so slow with the review, my internet connection has been failing on me all week long because of snow, wind, etc. Zelda is almost there, see talk page.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that story on piper was true! cause my mother was da one she slept wid! that was way too harsh im just tryin to make my mark on this world! u think i was jokin? u think i was jokin?! u think i was jokin?!! u think i was jokin?!!! u think i was jokin?!!!! ok i was sos lol dnt ban me if i do it gain safe blud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moyakh (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]