User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-39
|
This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on April 21, 2014. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This Month in GLAM: August 2013 edit
| ||||||
Citation help (from Yahoo Answers) edit
Hi, I need help with wikipedia, but I don't have time to learn all the rules. I'm asking you for help because I found you on Yahoo Answers. (Is this how you leave a message for a wikipedia user?) Anyway, I edited an article called "President of the Republic of Texas" today, but it got changed back by a guy called Petrb. He's not even from the U.S.A.! Will you please fix it? I even included a source, but he didn't care. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.233.121 (talk)
- Your change was a bit unhelpful. First of all, it was disrespectful; calling people "fools" isn't good form around here. Second, it put discussion about the article into the article. Instead, you should use the talk page attached to the article to discuss changes that should be made to the article. Finally, while you provided a source, it wasn't specific enough: it would be more helpful if you provided a full citation with author, title, page number, etc. so that less effort is required for another editor or reader to verify your source.
- I'd suggest trying your edit again, but just being a little bit more respectful of the context, and a bit more specific with your reference. While Petrb could have done better by integrating your useful material while removing the rudeness and meta-content, the removal of the latter was justifiable. If you need help formatting your citation, send me another message! You may also want to register an account here; it's very helpful for being able to interact with people more smoothly. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
My article was tagged for deletion while working on it ! edit
Hi, you deleted a page I was writing re: Lee "Bridgett" Harrington.
Oddly, it looks like my account was deleted too ? Is this possible ? I had to start a new page though all it has is my username for now. I was trying to find the page where I tried to argue against deletion but I cannot even find that.
The thing is this - I would like to write this article and do it correctly and I was wondering if you can help me. Lee has written several books and was even awarded the Geoff Mains 2008 non-fiction - is a current lecturer and teacher.
The thing which I find amusing is that Lee is cited on several Wikipedia pages already but does not have his own page. Will you please help me with this - I would like to start it properly in my own page - I do need your permission now, correct ?
Thankyou
Sǝɯɐſ (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)sǝɯɐſ
- You don't need my permission to start over again, and in any event I'd give it. I don't know what happened to your "account", because I don't see any deleted contributions of yours besides the deleted article. The reason I deleted the page was because it seemed to have copied an Amazon blurb, and that's copyright violation, which we're serious about avoiding here at Wikipedia.
- The first thing to do is to find references, because it's important that a Wikipedia article be verifiable and that its subject is established as "notable". Once you've got a few decent third-party references, start a userspace draft: that is, prepare the work at User:Sǝɯɐſ/Lee Harrington (it can be moved to the article namespace once you're done). Subpages of your user page are considered more or less a personal workspace (you'll get greater leeway to work on stuff that's not up to par), though they're as public as the rest of Wikipedia. Ask me more questions as they come up. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you so much for responding so kindly. It was startling to get smacked down AS I was writing it and it is my fault for not having read moar (sorry, I am a Redditor in training as well - 4 years now uhg)but yes, yes i did but I thought that the "blurb" was actually written by the author themselves as opposed to something Amazon wrote - so, i figured it was fair use since it is the same bio that is used on all six books they list. As to notability, if writing six books is not enough at least one won minor award. additionally, as a noted speaker, teacher, lecturer, whom is very active... I have wanted to be a wikipedian for years and I have to admit the person whom flagged me wrote that it was "inappropriate" BUT did not list the exact reasons WHY it was inappropriate which leads me to believe that there was a prejudice at work given how controversial Lee would be to the average church going person - not saying that wikipedians would attend church on Sundays and come here but because they did not elucidate... Further, as a Redditor, I decided to look at the flagger - they were awarded for reviewing pages but most of their reviews were kicked back and if the comments were only fractionally correct, I think you have a broken system - like a karma whore they played the system - reviewing a ton of submissions and sincerely failing - this bothers me as if I just got trolled by someone whom was "offended" by the content - please tell me that this is "high treason" here because it smacks of CENSORSHIP - deserves caps. I should have just gone ahead and done a wiki for KT Tunstall because i would not have started something wlike this which could me in controversy to start but I will not be intimidated.
If the author wrote the bio for amazon, because it is published on amazon does that mean it totally belongs to them and where does fair use begin and end if this is a universal description of the author for all books ?
Just wish I knew what I was doing and that I had a little help doing it. thank you, Sǝɯɐſ (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)sǝɯɐſ
- We don't use fair use for text at all really, with the exception of short quotes since that's virtually unavoidable. One of the nice sides of copyright law is that facts themselves aren't copyrightable, only how they're described. It's fine to re-state the same facts in different words so long as original thought gets credited by reference (no plagiarism).
- On the side of notability, let me emphasize that "notability" on Wikipedia is jargon: it's not about the subjective "importance" of the person but the more objective "do there exist enough third-party sources describing this person to write a decent article". People who are subjectively "important" are generally also "notable", but it's not a one-to-one correspondence.
- As for worrying about how you were flagged: don't. "Flagging" people or content that one "doesn't like" is strongly disallowed, and if there's an ongoing pattern, I can help you resolve that. Right now, there's only one thing you've submitted, and that was deleted for valid reasons, so don't look for censorship where it isn't.
- To get back to the core question of copyright here: Copyright is granted automatically. By writing this comment, I gain copyright on it insofar as it is copyrightable. By posting it on Wikipedia, I've agreed to license it such that anyone can use it (under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, a.k.a. CC-BY-SA, in particular), but I'm still special to it; no one other than me can relicense it, for example. Whoever wrote the blurb on Amazon has a copyright on it, and so we can't use it because Wikipedia's text content has to remain entirely free (all CC-BY-SA) for the system to work properly. To reiterate, facts are not copyrightable. If I write "Many Earth skyscapes are blue with white clouds", that's a fact, and while I might be able to claim copyright on the particular wording, the fact itself can be repeated elsewhere.
- Most of what we write on Wikipedia can be compared to writing a paper for high school or college: don't plagiarize, write the facts in your own words, and credit the source(s) of the material through citation. In the short term, your most important goal for writing an article on this guy is finding decent sources. Try to get at least five good sources: book reviews, interviews, author highlights, other news articles, biographies, whatever. Once you have those, you can focus on bringing them together to start a decent article. It's a bit of a pain, but it'll make the article better (and more resilient to attempts at deletion) in the longer run. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hedwig Anunar edit
You deleted my page about Hedwig Anuar for content reasons but I am still working on. I have included citation information on the page to indicate the notability and credibility of the subject. Mcgowanlianna (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I've restored the page and moved it to User:Mcgowanlianna/Hedwig Anunar. When you're done with it, let me know and I'll move it back to the article namespace, or you can use the requested moves page if I'm too slow. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2013 edit
| ||||||
Bivol.bg edit
Hi there, fella!
Could you please explain why you deleted the bivol.bg page within an hour of its creation? (And within ten minutes of its nomination by your compatriot ConcernedVancouverite...wow!)
The site is a respected investigative journalism news site and has won the Leipzig Media Award – see here. Granted, I forgot to add this point to the article I created, but by being clearly marked as a stub it's pretty obviously incomplete. Out of basic courtesy you could have waited for me to respond to ConcernedVancouverite's nomination and given me the chance to fill it... Please return it and provide some info as to how it can be improved to prevent similar hair-trigger-removals such as your own. Please don't be upset at my strict tone, I'm just replying like-for-like at your brusque action. BigSteve (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it met the speedy deletion criteria. Specifically, it didn't indicate the importance of the website by providing references to third-party sources, as per internet notability guidelines. Since it was so soon, I've gone ahead and userfied it to User:Bigzteve/Bivol.bg for you. Once it's at least ready enough that it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, feel free to move it back to the main namespace. I'm sorry for being so sudden with the deletion; I realize that that can be disconcerting. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again!
- Thanks for the prompt reply, for the userfication, and for the friendly tone :-) I apologize once again for my terseness, and understand that you probably often have to deal with many newly-created and useless stub articles. I will make sure to get it up to par with a couple of more references before re-posting. Have a nice day! BigSteve (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Potential COI edit
At your request, I have further read several pages regarding Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest. I feel very strongly that I have attempted to be as unbiased as possible in order to provide information about a significant business within my industry and region. That being said, I do not want any perceived conflict of interest to tarnish the article. Therefore, I want to recuse myself and will seek another way to get the article created without that perception in a manner that will minimize bias and show the significance of the article. Thank you for your suggestions. At this time, I support article deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandpdad (talk • contribs) 16:04, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
- While conflict of interest is often frowned-on, as long as you're aware of and follow the rules, there're few problems with editing. It's simply something where transparency and good practice is important. You're actually well-qualified to help with the article because of your involvement: you know, or can (presumably) easily find, third-party references that can be used to verify significant details about your organization.
- That being said, I'd understand completely if you're uncomfortable with the potential implication—it's too easy to spin your good-faith desire for Varrow to be documented on Wikipedia into a bad-faith astroturfing incident. If you're sure you want the page as-is to be deleted, you can have it done at any time: put the template {{db-g7}} on the top of the page, and it'll be deleted, since you're the main creator of the article. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this article is significantly different from the former, I've added new information that asserts notability that was not there before. I put in nearly two hours this afternoon cleaning it up and working on it. If you want to PROD or AfD fine but a Speedy is inappropriate in this case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clear up some confusion. I work regularly in AfD to save articles. When the first Delete result happened I meant to DRV it but forgot. Then I saw the new article created today since it was still in my watchlist (looks like by a COI) which was initially no different from the original (even worse). So I took the opportunity to clean it up and assert notability that had not been done before. I believe if the improved article went up for AfD again it would probably pass, it has very strong sourcing in both WP:AUTHOR #3 and WP:GNG, as well as asserted notability ("groundbreaking book" and "innovator") that previously did not exist. I have no connection to Hamm and honestly believe it is a notable topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Deletion review for Kathryn Hamm edit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kathryn Hamm. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Page Confirmation edit
Hi please help me confirm my page for publishing .
Thank you Regards Steve
Get copy of deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcphdr edit
Hi,
I was wondering if you could send me a copy of the deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcphdr to my e-mail jlvargasaguilar
gmail.com. I found this page thanks to this wikipedia article http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcphdr which links to the english version. I tried to translate the article from the tr wikipedia with google translate but it didn't do a good job, so I hope I could get the information from you.
Thanks in advance.
Jorge Vargas.
This Month in GLAM: October 2013 edit
| ||||||
Re-creation request for the deleted page STM Sistem Teleferik edit
Hi! As I tried to create a page about the Turkish ropeway producing company "STM Sistem Teleferik" I noticed your deletion. Recently, I created an article about Keçiören Gondola, which was constructed by the said company. As I realize that this company has constructed many aerial lift lines in Turkey and I intend to create some other articles about aerial lift lines in Turkey, I wanna re-create the artcle about "STM Sistem Teleferik". Please let me know your comment. Thanks. --CeeGee 15:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- That article was deleted via proposed deletion, so I could restore the original if you intend to work on it: just ask. In any event, you don't need my permission to recreate the article. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ghani Family edit
I got a notification that u are deleting the page Ghani Family Ghani123 (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I deleted the page a while back, as is visible in the page's deletion log. I haven't touched the current version. Do you have any particular concerns? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2013 edit
| ||||||
Opiated edit
Uhufpossoolfeothpwlheywd Fewkjtl
- I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying, or for that matter if you're saying anything at all. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon edit
| Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited! | |
|---|---|
| Hi Nihiltres! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Montreal! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join! Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. SarahStierch (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Holiday Cheer edit
|
Holiday Cheer | |
| Victuallers talkback is wishing Nihiltres Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger |
This Month in GLAM: December 2013 edit
| ||||||
Template:Infobox artwork edit
could you tell me what we are tracking at the bottom of the template? I have a feeling that the code has morphed over time. for example {{{height|a}}}{{{height|b}}} is testing height twice, which was probably height_in and height_cm at some point in time in the past. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Essentially,
|height=should never appear in an instance of the template; it should always be|height_metric=or|height_imperial=(or both). By using{{{height|a}}}{{{height|b}}}, it can be tested whether the parameter is present even if it's empty: it'll output "ab" if and only if the parameterheightis not included in the template instance. Using a simple{{#if:{{{height}}}}}statement would not highlight instances where the parameter is present but empty. - I'll soon be removing the
{{{height|}}}parameter entirely from the code; all the dimensional parameters should be using either a_metricor_imperialsuffix, which then takes its unit frommetric_unitorimperial_unitrespectively (defaulting to cm & in). I believe I've eliminated all the non-userspace uses of those parameters, which is why I made the change to the infobox to look for different parameters to fix. - These changes do two important things: firstly, they add flexibility and precision to the templates by making unit choice a core part of the dimensional syntax, which is important for avoiding false precision, which was a significant problem hailing from the time when the template supported only centimetres and inches. Secondly, they make the code more consistent.
- The second is important because I hope to create a separate template, and associated Lua module, to handle dimensional data, which would make it practical to enable an alternate ordering of the data where the imperial values are presented as the primary values (this is impractical without Lua, as it would double the length of the dimensional code). Using fewer and more consistent parameters simplifies that task immensely. Although I prefer metric, featuring imperial measurements as primary where they're the original measures is almost certainly more accurate, and conforms better to our guideline on unit choice. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- my question was why {{#ifeq:{{{height|a}}}{{{height|b}}}|ab| instead of {{#ifeq:{{{height|a}}}|a| Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, forgot about that. Inner programmer. With the former, you can't break the test with
|height=aas you can with the latter. Relevant xkcd comic. It's unlikely that it'd ever be a problem, but it's better to be safe than sorry. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, forgot about that. Inner programmer. With the former, you can't break the test with
- my question was why {{#ifeq:{{{height|a}}}{{{height|b}}}|ab| instead of {{#ifeq:{{{height|a}}}|a| Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
10 edits edit
sir,
how can i make 10 edits because i want to upload something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarodiaa (talk • contribs) 10:56, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Fix typos, formatting, or improve phrasing somewhere. Hit "Random article" a few times. Be creative. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Masaccio edit
Masaccio gained his swag title.... I left it cause its hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.157.41 (talk) 17:38, January 29, 2014 (UTC)
COI stuff edit
Hi Nihiltres. I contribute quite a lot here in areas where I have a conflict of interest in addition to my volunteer work, following COI best practices where I find disinterested editors to collaborate with that make all the final content decisions. I have some new articles I'm working on where I have a COI, and I'm trying to work with as broad a range of editors as possible, so I don't become a burden on any single editor and whatnot. I was wondering if you had an interest, generally speaking, in working with me on such articles - keeping me on the straight and narrow and whatnot. My need for collaboration where I have a COI is quite bottomless and I understand that some editors just don't like working with an editor with a COI, so I just thought I would get a gauge of if you were interested in helping in such cases. CorporateM (Talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I might be interested, but not immediately; I'll review some of your contributions first and make an informed opinion. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- My contribs are filled with volunteer edits, but you can see some recent tid-bit items related to my COI role at:
- Trying to resolve a few different opinions on the Lead at: Talk:Yelp,_Inc.#How_should_Yelp_be_described
- Some first-draft and corrections stuff at: Talk:Diners_Club_International#Origins (could probably be trimmed a little)
- A bit of a hold-up on a GA review where the ongoing discussion at:Talk:Viralheat#Pricing was mentioned as possibly making the article not stable enough
- A GA review is pending on another article I worked on recently at SAS (software)
- My contribs are filled with volunteer edits, but you can see some recent tid-bit items related to my COI role at:
- If you go to my user profile and you hover over the Good Article icons at the top, each one will tell you if it was done with a COI. I haven't done many large COI contributions recently, though I've been just grinding away at History of public relations, but I have a few coming down the pipe.
- CorporateM (Talk) 04:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- By the community's request I've constructed a list of COIs on my userpage, which may make it easier to evaluate my COI work and assess whether you'd like to collaborate on similar pages. I've also just posted something at COIN about improving the Fluor Corp. article if you have an interest in chipping in. CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Trouble with autoblock edit
Hi,
I'm wondering if you would consider removing the autoblock on my IP address. Despite logging in, I repeatedly see errors saying I am autoblocked by IP address and having to try refreshing and retrying the edits 2-3 times to get them to go through. I tried to go to IRC to ask for help but ran across NotASpy/Nick and another of his friends who were uniformly rude and unhelpful on the matter.
DavidPatrick70 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- See the section below; a dispute's come up over my creating your account for you and modifying the IP block. I can't react yet, as changing the block again without discussion would constitute wheel warring (i.e. edit warring with admin tools), which is very strongly disallowed. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Please explain your alteration of my checkuser block edit
Please explain why you altered my checkuser block on 50.162.86.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please also explain why you created the account DavidPatrick70 (talk · contribs), which was for the block target, thereby letting him evade the block. Bear in mind that altering or reversing checkuser blocks is grounds for immediate removal of your administrator rights. Please tell me this was just an oversight on your part. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was admittedly unaware that CheckUser blocks are sacrosanct (it's never been relevant for me); I'll remember to observe the procedural point of CheckUser review in the future. Regardless, I find it aggressive of you to threaten me with desysopping; I'm acting in good faith.
- I believe that DavidPatrick70 is not the target of the block, and his contribution history since I created the account backs this up as far as I'm concerned; I don't see anything obviously disruptive. If the account began to be so, it would be straightforward to block, so I saw little risk in creating it. Modifying the IP block was a necessary extension of that action (given that IP-block exemption isn't given out lightly).
- Since we're now past the "revert" of an administrative bold, revert, discuss cycle, this likely deserves wider discussion, including review by an independent CheckUser. Would you please start the appropriate thread? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not threatening you with desysopping. I was just informing you that that is the way that ArbCom sees this issue. In fact, as you've basically said it was a mistake on your part because you didn't know how checkuser blocks worked, I feel no need to pursue that issue further. That said, please note that things like AGF and BRD do not apply to checkuser blocks; you are simply not allowed to undo or alter checkuser blocks, regardless of how certain you are that the checkuser is incorrect. This is because you do not have all the evidence the checkuser does, and you are not allowed to have that evidence due to the privacy policy. In fact, the only thing you can do is what you did here, namely asking for another checkuser to review the action. I will ask for another checkuser to do so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm frustrated with the way this has turned out, but I don't yet see a good alternative. I can only hope that we don't ultimately prevent a good-faith user from editing, and by extension sour their experience with Wikipedia, because of a sketchy CU result. On the matter of the "threat": please be more careful with your wording in future. Coming across as aggressive or threatening is dangerous; it can spark disputes where there are none. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nihiltres,
Deskana forwarded your request for review to the functionaries list. After looking into it I'm convinced that the DavidPatrick70 account is used by the same person who made the disruptive edits that caused the IP hardblock. This is based on checkuser data, and supported by behavior.
Regarding blocks marked as {{checkuserblock}}, yes, if an account is blocked with that template, the block is based on private data that cannot be disclosed per privacy policy, and consequently it can really only be altered by a checkuser looking into it. The relevant arbcom statement can be found at WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on checkuser blocks (It seems to me that the wording there isn't as strong as in the template, not sure whether there were further clarifications).
I do know that this can be frustrating, but like you I don't see an alternative. If you run into an unblock request where you need a checkuser you can either leave a pointer at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests or use the {{checkuser needed}} template.
In this particular instance, from the additional information I've read from others, I'm quite certain we're only being trolled, and are not turning a good-faithed user away.
Amalthea 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate, but thanks for looking into it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nihiltres. I meant to write something here yesterday, but I got sidetracked. However, seeing DavidPatrick70's recent protestations, I will also confirm that the CU results are unambiguous in this case. Their behavior is a match to what I have seen from this user in the past as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm frustrated; I see too many cases of collateral damage with blocks; I try to fix one case, and I hear it's just trolling. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Nihiltres, I am not a functionary or checkuser, but I have dealt with the user several times over IRC and I too have to say that I'm fairly convinced that he is the intended target of the block. Snowolf How can I help? 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nihiltres. I meant to write something here yesterday, but I got sidetracked. However, seeing DavidPatrick70's recent protestations, I will also confirm that the CU results are unambiguous in this case. Their behavior is a match to what I have seen from this user in the past as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2014 edit
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: February 2014 edit
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: February 2014 edit
| ||||||
Can you please help move a page? edit
Hi Nihiltres,
I read a Yahoo! thread that you might be able to help move a page. I don't have a confirmed account yet.
If you have the time, could you please move the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_W._Rocha
The title should be "Mark Rocha", instead of "Mark W. Rocha". Basically remove the middle initial because it's not usually used and could lead to confusion.
There's also a link from a different page to the above mentioned page, would I be able to make an edit or would the link be updated automatically?
Thank you very much.
John91106 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved the page for you. :) It doesn't look like any further changes are needed. The old title is now a redirect to the new title; this happens automatically when a page is moved. If you need any more help, I'd be glad to offer it. In the meantime, thanks for your contribution! {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your desire to help... but can you move the article back, please? The Google counts suggest that his name with the middle initial is in far more common use than without it. (I'd move it myself, but I don't know how to deal with all of the deletions needed to undo a move.) And be cautious of requests to deal with this page in the future; much of its creation and editing were by accounts that are now blocked. Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the article back. It is abundantly clear that the version of the name with the middle initial is the one normally used, by the person himself, by the college where he works, and by the overwhelming majority of sources. It is really difficult to see how anyone who knows anything whatever about the subject could in good faith say "Basically remove the middle initial because it's not usually used". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. I did a quick check on a random; sample of sources present in the article before the move; my sample gave me about a 50% spread, and my experience has been that the middle initial is usually omitted. Reviewing, my sample was biased; that's what I get for trusting a small sample. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the article back. It is abundantly clear that the version of the name with the middle initial is the one normally used, by the person himself, by the college where he works, and by the overwhelming majority of sources. It is really difficult to see how anyone who knows anything whatever about the subject could in good faith say "Basically remove the middle initial because it's not usually used". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your desire to help... but can you move the article back, please? The Google counts suggest that his name with the middle initial is in far more common use than without it. (I'd move it myself, but I don't know how to deal with all of the deletions needed to undo a move.) And be cautious of requests to deal with this page in the future; much of its creation and editing were by accounts that are now blocked. Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)